HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-12 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaMWEN', US`
09611IT91191112OIN
1: l
7. Administration and Communications
7. 1A Stewart Avenue Reconstruction Project Presentation
.» Award of Contract for Construction Materials Testing Services ,:the City of
Ithaca 's 2012 Construction Program — Various City Projects — Resolution
VOTING ITEMS
81 Buildings, Properties, Refuse and Transit
8.3 Parking and Traffic
8.4 Creeks, Bridges and Parks
8.5 Water and Sewer
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS
If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully
participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 607- 274 -6570 at least 48 hours before the
meeting.
The Board of Public Works meets on the second, third and fourth Wednesdays of the months at 4:45 p.m. All meetings are voting
meetings, opening with a public comment period. Meeting agendas are created from prior public input, Department operating, planning
issues, and requests made to the Superintendent. The Board reserves the right to limit verbal comments to three minutes and to request
written comments on lengthy or complex issues. This information may then be used to create committee agendas, with the speaker or
author invited to attend.
7.1A Stewart Avenue Reconstruction Project
See notes o Feb '12. No action is required if the Board is satisfied with the current
progress ant direction being taken by the project i public s ' • input
occur t R
WWI r .,.�.
s :.. . iii r ! i . f ' � f . • � ',. f • �` � s f .:.., f ` • • '..,
Page 2
8.21D Call of Public Hearing for Installation of New — Resolution
Attached is a resolution calling for a public hearing as the Board considers directing prope
owners to install new sidewalk along city streets to improve the sidewalk system. Staff is
recommending the next section • missing sidewalk so this resolution may be modified to
incorporate additional sidewalk areas for the public hearing. See 9.1 and 9.2 below. I
9.3 Sidewalk Sub-Committee Update
In keeping with the current theme of sidewalks, Rob Morache indicated that he thought he
would be ready to provide a verbal update on the sub-committee's work.
W i, w2 I/Kj; G r1,2 L� ` P - F
9f PLCbLC, Works
WHEREAS, bids were received on February 24, 2012 for Construction Materials Testing
Services for The City of Ithaca's 2012 Construction Program and,
WHEREAS, the 2012 Budget included project funding and capital funds for construction
various City projects including but not limited to:
WHEREAS, y Services, INC., 6e>2® Street, Cortland, New York. 13045, submitted a
proposal 4°2,«« :«on Materials Testing Services not to exceed $29,6 3.00, now therefore
be it
RESOLVED, That the contract for Construction Materials Testing Services for the City of
Ithaca's 2012 Construction Program is hereby awarded to SJB Services, INC., 60 Miller Street,
Cortland, New York 13045 for their submitted low proposal of $29,613.00, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Superintendent of Public Works is hereby authorized to enter into and
administer t
LO
0
Z
!�
Z
00
z
o
z
0
V5
55
z
w
LO m
z
LU
U 0)
x
F-
x
LLI
w
U)
0
0
a) m
z
E —0 o
0
z
z
z
0
0
Z Z
0
0
0,
Z
LU
40,
W
z
I.-
c
(3)
X
W
x
w
0
>
0
C� Z C'J
CD 00
1�0
O :3
o E u y
u 0 co
cm
, M ,
cu - - Ln
LL �:-
-,.,e m r,
M
U)
0
—
kn m
0 = 0
0) Q0
u
Ln m
rn
(D LU a.
U) —'zzt m
a.
Z
0
Z
Z
z
0
Z Z
0 <
0
LqT
0
z
0
0
w
la
—
��i
L.
cq
x
w
0 " I
x
LLI
>- co
C�)
I
(D
0
Lo
o om
(D
cn um
U-
0
LL
0
i-
it
W
ui
U)
CD
0
1,
z
0
E
0
LL
z
0
CD
w
U)
2
(n
ui
CL
>
a
N
M
L)
>
w
~
O
w
w
r
�o
co
O
2
'5
U)
0
2
t
m
uj
0
Q
uj
0
U
cn
Cj
Cj
.2
C.
0 w
2
0
w
0
U
uj
CN
0
M
m
L)
E
z
D_ L
0
U
m CN
z
—0
O
u
< O
w
a)
(n
LL C
CD
En
70
M
ID
C) LL
(n w
<
re w 0 LL
0
z 0- >:
z
m C) Z CU
•
LU L) < 0 P
Oz
W < 0
Z 0- .. — -
uj LL
00-
Z Lau �
0 L)
o
U LL
o LL Z,
< U)
z
-0
LU CD
0,
M U- 0 L)
0
CO LL OW 0 B
0 Q�
cl
2
< (L
a. 0 cm
`yL w
LU
< CL
0 a)
LLJ
I-T
x
0 O. C'j ...
m u w
CL C', LLJ
WHEREAS, Chris & Johara Malcolm filed an appeal via email on 7/28/10 asking to removes
the 25% surcharge and another written appeal on 4/1 /11 asking for the full assessment to
waived or the sidewalk to be completely replaced, and I
WHEREAS, staff visited the site and determined that premature surface deterioration had
#ccurred, likely due to defective concrete, now therefore be it
1 9
sir AESOLVED, That each protest reason was considered as shown in the Sidewalk Assessmej
Protest Summary for this address, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board hereby expunges the sidewalk assessment due to the defective
concrete and reminds the owners that they carry liability for sidewalk and need to monitor
sidewalk condition and renlace it whpn necessary q.q rtn-m jirpri hv thin (itv (r)rlp-
trnt
'R
N LO r, MTN t RM. MR M - Iralf-gownsimterm
WHEREAS, John W. & Victoria Folsom received sidewalk defect notices in 2008 and 2009,
and
WHEREAS, John W. & Victoria Folsom filed an appeal 9/19/11 asking for the full assessment
to be waived or the sidewalk to be completely replaced, and
WHEREAS, staff visited the site and determined that premature surface deterioration had
occurred, likely due to defective concrete, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That each protest reason was considered as shown in the Sidewalk Assessment
Protest Summary for this address, and be it further
61 U4 rZATAN H 14 U-411 M 1 [0011 W I A R
IM
Request to Amend Capital Projects #725 (Replacement of the East Clinton Street Bridge
ip 11111M III lir I I III I III I I I III III I I I joillilli 11
• IF :11 IMMITIMINNIII It 11 1 1 1 131
WHEREAS, a Project for Prospect Street Reconstruction and Replacement of the East Clinton Street
Bridge Project P.I.N. 375457 ("the Project") is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended,
that calls for the apportionment of the costs to be borne at the ratio of 80% Federal funds and 20% non-
federal funds; and
WHEREAS, that the Common Council authorized the City of Ithaca to pay in the first instance 100% of
the federal and non-federal share of the cost of Scoping, Preliminary Design, Detailed Design, and Right of
Way Incidentals work for the Project or portions thereof, and
WHEREAS, that the sum of $494,000 has been appropriated (Capital Project # 725,$280,000 and Capital
Project # 726,$214,000) and were available to cover the cost of participation in the above phase of the
Project; and
WHEREAS, bids were received for Prospect Street Reconstruction and Replacement of the East
Clinton Street Bridge Project on February 13, 2012; and
WHEREAS, FANS Construction Group submitted the low bid for Prospect Street Reconstruction
and Replacement of the East Clinton Street Bridge Project in the amount of$3,512,333.00 );and
WHEREAS, the amended project budget is projected to be $5,280,000 comprised of
* Preliminary Engineering and Detail Design Cost .......................... $646,000
® ROW Incidental Cost . ...................................... I ... I I .......... $28,000
® ROW Acquisition Cost ...................................................... $140,000
* Construction Inspection and Construction Support Cost ................ $480,000
* Construction Cost ............................................................. $35807,000
® Contingency and Short Tenn Borrowing ............................ $179,000
Total Project Cost ................................. $5,280,00*
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works recommends that the Common Council
increase the total project budget authorizations for Prospect Street Reconstruction and
Replacement of the East Clinton Street Bridge Project in the amount of $4,419,000, and
WHEREAS, the cost differences are outlines as follows:
now, therefore, be it
Water
Sewer
Tota
CP# 518
CP# 618
(Water
(Sewer Fund)
Fund)
1=
10
$861,000
HVINIT I
MM81
"I'll, 6 EJ
,W#T# MW
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council amends the Capital Project budget
authorizations for the Prospect Street Reconstruction and Replacement of the East Clinton Street
Bridge Project by the sum of $4,419,000 for a total project cost not to exceed $5,280,000, with the
20% local share, currently estimated at $1,060,000, to be shared as closely to a 15% 15% State/City
split as is funded by New York State under their Marchiselli Program, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Superintendent of Public Works be and hereby is authorized to execute and
administer the contract, once the necessary funding is in place, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the funds necessary for the $4,419,000 amendment will be advanced from the
General Fund with later repayment from the issuance of Bonds.
W-31MWA 15001no
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is considering having sidewalks installed in the 70#
Block of Hancock Street as part of the city-wide program to install missing sections of
sidewalk; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby calls a public hearing for the installation
of sidewalks in the 700 Block of Hancock Street and the first block of Cornell Street North of
East State Street/Martin Luther King Jr. Street for their meeting on April 2, 2012, and be it
further
I III I III ,
ii MINOR IF I I 1 1119 1 IN III Zkulms���
g.•- -
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274-6530 Fax: 607/274-6587
To:
Board of Public Works
From:
Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer
Date:
February 29, 2012
Re:
New sidewalk in the first block of Cornell Street, north of East
State/MLK Jr. Street
* 1120 East State Street (tax parcel 111.-1 - 6),118 If ± of sidewalk
* A privately owned alley (tax parcel 111-8-17),26 If ± of sidewalk
* 10 Cornell St. (tax parcel 111.-2-3), approx. 135 If ± of sidewalk.
In order to construct these sidewalks, the City needs to follow the Uniform
Sidewalk Improvement process, which is spelled out in Sections 73 and 89 of the
Ciiy Charter, which were recently circulated with a request for new sidewalk on
Hancock Street.
Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
p CID
m
\ APPftOXIWTE
LDGTIDN
TO TAX PARCEL
2' WIDE -CRETE
OR GRASS BUFFER
PAYED WM
X 31'
-- � v
UR CDRB TO
BE REMOVED
PROPOSED LOCATION
OF NEW CURB
)l
10 CORNELL
TAX -Cm tit. -2 -3
TREED
X WIDE
. ET
RB
OR G-
BUFFER
PAYED WM
X 31'
-- � v
UR CDRB TO
BE REMOVED
PROPOSED LOCATION
OF NEW CURB
)l
[ t
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274 -6530 Fax: 607/274 -6587
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer <tJ
Date: November 10, 2009
Re: New Sidewalk Construction Priorities
Over the past year or more, a subcommittee of the Board of Public Works has
met roughly every month to discuss how to get new sidewalk segments
constructed in the City of Ithaca. The subcommittee included Ron Chapman, Jill
Tripp, Cynthia Brock, Maria Coles, Mary Tomlan, Lynne Yost, Kent Johnson, and
me. Our basic methodology was to first create a list of missing sidewalk
segments, based mostly on a city -wide survey of sidewalks conducted in 2000,
unu 4h en w --;4-4__ aorat €zc them on a cost- benefit UdS7S. Vince sidewalk segments Were
prioritized, we could then work with greater confidence on implementation
strategies. This effort in part came out of a grant application process wherein the
question was posed as to why pursue the occasional grant opportunity on one
desired new sidewalk instead of another one. Whereas we might prefer to have
sidewalks on both sides of every street, we agreed that it was important to have a
set of priorities to guide future efforts.
We discussed many different ways to measure the benefits of new sidewalks.
The factors that we considered including in our analysis included: traffic
volumes, number of households within a certain distance, links to destinations,
whether the segment would fill a gap, whether a footpath already existed,
whether it was within a certain distance of a school, whether it was in an
underserved or low- income neighborhood, neighborhood support or petitions,
proximity to a bus stop, lack of a road shoulder, number of driveways in the
segment, whether it was on a school bus route, and whether it wad in a Census
block with strong pedestrian journey to work rates. We understood that not
every factor could be included in analyzing the benefits of a new sidewalk
segment and that we had somewhat limited resources of staff time'to devote to
this, so we decided to use the following factors to assess the benefits of a new
sidewalk segment: annual average daily traffic (AADT), whether a sidewalk
exists on the opposite side of the street, and the population density of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Page 1 of 3
An Equal Opportunity Employer -with a commitment to -workforce diversification."
®m
Annual average daily traffic numbers where either readily available from recent
traffic counts or fairly easy to estimate. If there was no sidewalk on either side,
then the benefit of building a sidewalk on one side would be double the benefit
compared to building a sidewalk where one already existed on the opposite side
of the street. For population density, we used U.S. Census data and made 5
categories, ranging from low density (a multiplier of 1) to high density (a
multiplier of 2).
For cost, we used a low, medium and high cost judgment. Low cost sidewalks
assumed simple construction and were assigned a $100/ lu ear foot or
$20 /square foot cost. High cost was based on recent cost estimates for
complicated new sidewalk construction wherein work items might include
enclosing drainage systems, building retaining walls, relocating utilities or
significant earthwork. A high cost sidewalk was assigned a $450 /linear foot cost.
Medium cost sidewalks were given an average cost of $275/ linear foot.
T he benefit /cost ratio thus equals the AADT multiplied by the density factor
multiplied by 2 if there is no sidewalk, all divided by the estimated cost. This
ratio is shown in the "B /C" column on the attached spreadsheet.
B/C = AADT * Density Factor (1, 1.25,1.5,1.75, or 2 ) * 2 (if no sidewalk
Construction Cost Estimate
After ranking the sidewalk segments, we reviewed the prioritized list (including
looking at only the benefits (the "Just'B'" column), that is, regardless of cost) to
see if any segments seemed out of order for any reason. We did reprioritize a few
segments that didn't rank based on the benefit / cost ratio; reasons for such a
reprioritization were based on factors such as ease of implementation, or a
known popular pedestrian way that didn't have high traffic or high surrounding
density. We also decided to breakup the sidewalk segments into five
geographical areas: Downtown (the flats), West Hill, South Hill, and two areas
on East Hill. Our recommended priorities by district are shown on the
spreadsheet as highlighted rows in gray.
We are now forwarding that list on to you for your information, feedback, and
direction. I am also sending you a map showing areas of no sidewalk (based on
data from 2000, with a few circles showing sidewalk that has been constructed
since). An initially list of possible sidewalk funding sources is shown below.
What I would like is direction from the Board as to the top three priorities for
each district in the City. The Board may want to forward this information to
other groups in the City for further input, for example, Common Council, the
Planning & Development Board, the Disability Advisory Council, and the
Page 2 of 3
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Advisory Council. Once the Board has either concurred with
our work or reprioritized it, I would like to reconstitute our subcommittee and
work on implementation strategies for the top 15 sidewalk segments in the City
(three in each district). I think the intent of this priority list should be to give staff
direction as to which sidewalk segments should be pursued by the Department
of Public Works, but it should not be to preclude other sidewalk segments from
being built as opportunities arise or as the Board may otherwise direct as per the
City Code and City Charter.
Please feel free to contact me at 274-6535 or.tirrdo@cityofithaca.o,-g if you have
any questions or if you would like the spreadsheet electronically or reformatted.
I know it is a bit difficult to read, but I was trying to get it all on one page and
keep all the information on the sheet.
-D
I ossible Funding Sources for New Sidewalks
City's Capital Fund
City's .Operating Fund
Proper
by Owner Assessments
Transportation Enhancement Program (Federal-Aid)
Transportation Improvement Program (Federal-Aid)
Cornell/ Community Transportation Investment Fund
NYS Multi-Modal Funding
Benefit Assessment District
Environmental Protection Fund (NYS)
Development/ Site Plan Review
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Safe Routes to School (Federal-Aid)
Expanded City Street Paving project - e.g., Brandon Place in 2008
Pao-0 e 3 of 3
O
M
AjO
CJ
0
75
O
Z
o — 21
z a
1 11 M — 11 . N D . . N I I I m M — . m , - N ,
r 16 16 16 U< li cV N 1� 1� 1� � � 6 6 6 6 6 6
zzrrZzzzrzz>.rZ>-ZzzrZzzz
o
- - - - - - - - - -
999 99 9 99
I A
2 3: - 5 S
a:, g
O 8 1 �8
>
< <
R Q Q
6 La ,rr3
ui r 16 N L6
5
z z z
N
ear reo 7 R �2 7t
5Z
cli
z z Z Z >. z z z , z . . . 2: z z Z
z z z
2' P;
- - - -- --- -- - - - - - - - ---- - - - - --
s
Z Z >. Z Z Z
A p
----------- ------
O
g,r� 'g
1136 c6
O
ll� 16 .6
O
�R t2 �2 6 6,6 6 M N
U
8 a 8 a�8 8
z z z z z r z z z r r r z z z
g a
- - - - - - - -
- -
Z8 K it�
O
g,r� 'g
1136 c6
O
ay
O
U
8 a 8 a�8 8
U
O
CL
8 a 8 a�8 8
2
<
-,:
C4
U
<
V u u U� u u cl
2:
< < <
sn
f 3i
:9 81
< <
<<<
c
-4 < 2E
i2
> o
t:
u
<
U
O
CL
�f v
l
HE