Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-12 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaBOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OFFICIAL NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING A meeting of the Board of Public Works will be held on Monday, April 23, 2012, at 4:45 p.m. in Common Council Chambers — Third Floor, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York. A enda 1. Additions or Deletions to Agenda (Items 1 -5: 15 min.) 2. Mayor's Communications 3. Communications and Hearings from Persons Before the Board 4. Response to the Public 5. Reports Parks Commission Special Committees of the Board Council Liaison Board Liaisons Superintendent and Staff Other Department Heads 6. Approval of Minutes 6.1 February 13, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes 6.2 February 27, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes 6.3 April 2, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes 7. Administration and Communications T1 Traffic Signal Upgrade - Phase 2 Project - Presentation 8. VOTING ITEMS 8.1 Buildings, Properties. Refuse and Transit 8.2 Highways. Streets and Sidewalks A. Ithaca Road Sidewalk and Uphill Bike Lane - Resolutions i. Environmental Review ii. Lead Agency Declaration iii. New Sidewalk Construction 8.3 Parking and Traffic 8.4 Creeks. Bridges and Parks 8.5 Water and Sewer 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS 9.1 Cornell and Hancock Streets and the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement Policy 9.2 Recommendation to Approve Solar Liberty Lease Program 9.3 Parks Commission Requests A. Relocation of Mobile Pagoda in Thompson Park B. Remove of Ghost Bike in Washington Park Page i C. Installation of an Informational Plaque on the Adams Street/Cad Sagan Bridge 9.4 Update Street Permit Fees 9.5 Downtown Traffic Circulation Study, July 2001 10. New Business 11. Adiournment 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 first, second and fourth Mondays 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. Page 2 Notes for BPW Agenda. April 23. 2012 7.1 Traffic Signal Upgrade — Phase 2 Project — Presentation 14 p.m. — 5 p.m.) An open house -type meeting will be held prior to the Board meeting on Monday for anyone interested in attending to get information on the traffic signal upgrade project. Then a short presentation will be provided to the Board by the consultants during the meeting. 8.2A Ithaca Road Sidewalk and Uphill Bike Lane — Resolutions This is a continuation of the new sidewalk project, as discussed by the Board on April 2 and 9, 2012. 9.1 Cornell and Hancock Streets and the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement Policy A continuation of this project, as discussed by the Board on March 23 and April 2, 2012, with more information for the Board to consider. 9.2 Recommendation to Approve Solar Liberty Lease Program This is a new program received from Dennis Belmaker, Energy Sustainability Project Manager, for the City to consider implementing in city facilities. 9.3 Parks Commission Requests The Parks Commission has made three recommendations to the Board of Public Works, including a recommendation about the request to put a plaque on the Cad Sagan Bridge that the Board discussed on March 26, 2012. 9.4 Update Street Permit Fees The Engineering Office is recommending that the fees being charged for street permits be updated and increased to cover a higher percentage of staff costs. To do this, the City Code will need to be modified. 9.5 Downtown Traffic Circulation Study, July 2001 Provided for the Board's information, this is the traffic study conducted in 2001 to determine the impact of changing Cayuga and Aurora Streets to two -way traffic. WLLLLQmj. grnuH, P.E. 5uperLHteh.dewt of P"bLiz vvor'2s Kathy GlehrL,e, Exec. ASSt. April i8, 2012 Page 3 7.1 Traffic Signal Upgrade - Phase 2 Proiect - Presentation Ithaca: A great place to create, dream, live, learn, work, and play! For additional information contact: Tin Logue, City Transportation Engineer 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 274 -6535 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 6, 2012 Public Meeting to be held for Traffic Signal Upgrade - Phase 2 project On Monday, April 23, 2012, the City Engineering office will hold an open house style public meeting for the Traffic Signal Upgrade — Phase 2 project. The meeting will be held from 4pm to Spm in the second floor conference room of City Hall, 108 East Green Street This federal -aid project proposes to replace five traffic signals in the downtown area, including the signals at the intersections of: • Court and North Cayuga Street • East Court and North Tioga Street • East Court and North Aurora Street • Martin Luther King Jr Street (State Street) and Cayuga Street • East Martin Luther King Jr. Street (East State Street) and Aurora Street The project proposes to replace traffic signal equipment that is well past its useful life and does not meet current standards for traffic signals. The project also proposes to upgrade the pedestrian signal equipment at the five intersections to include countdown timers and ADA compliant push buttons; curb ramps will also be replaced as needed to meet ADA guidelines. The proposed design for the signals is very similar tolthe traffic signals that were replaced in Phase I, which included the black fluted poles along West State Street and Buffalo Street. Portions of the project are in the DeWitt Park Historic District. The signals along Court Street are proposed to have mast arm style signals instead of the current span wire style signals. After the public meeting, the project will be on the Board of Public Works agenda for presentation and discussion. The BPW meeting starts at 4:45pm in the Common Council chambers of City Hall. -End- Page 4 8.2A Ithaca Road Sidewalk and Uphill Bike lane — Resolutions os CITY OF ITHACA ' 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 -6590 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER c �o Telephone: 607 /274-6530 Fax: 607/2746587 c9paacrto. To: Board of Public Works From: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer Date: April 17, 2012 Re: Ithaca Road - new sidewalk and uphill bicycle lane Based on our conversation about this project on April 9w and the plans included in that meeting agenda packet, please find enclosed the following documents: • Resolution to Declare Lead Agency • City of Ithaca CEQR Short Environmental Review Form (SEAF) • NYSSEQRSEAF • Resolution to determine no significant environmental impact • Resolution to approve the new sidewalk construction along Bryant Park and to make the changes to on -street parking that are required in order to make space for the uphill bicycle lane. The vast majority of the project would qualify as a Type II project because it involves rehabilitating the asphalt pavement, replacing infrastructure in -kind or is a traffic control (crosswalks, parking regulations, and the uphill bike lane). However, new sidewalk construction is an unlisted action, so a negative declaration must be made for that work to move forward. Page 5 A Proposed Resolution to Declare Lead Agency Status for the Environmental Review of New Sidewalk Construction on Ithaca Road along Bryant Park WHEREAS, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEAR) and the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQR), Section 176 of the City Code, require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, SEQR and CEQR both provide for an uncoordinated review for "Unlisted" projects that involve more than one agency, and WHEREAS, the proposed construction of new sidewalk along Ithaca Road in front of Bryant Park is a "Unlisted" action under SEQR and is an "Unlisted" action under CEQR; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed construction of new sidewalk along the Bryant Park block on Ithaca Road. Page 6 CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor. Date: Argo• k t-1.Zotz- I. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: -DPW — E1\1&7 I uftca FMA S'I �.Jk 3. Project Location: to IZA - a aNi' wk 4. Is Proposed Action: o New Ex anion o Modification/Alteration 5. Describe project briefly: Co b.6&} vttw stA.+ '-& oll "^1 +1�. ✓k - Rd spa 6. Precise Location (Road Intersections, Prominent Landmarks, etc. or provide map) Wea silt di (+L1kC& J?a 6JWtu r3AJtwA- 41c a 'A ' 41,� a i :e . a level 5AI.»+ p.Ac 7. Amount of Land Aflected: Initial) 3,5'00 A s o Ultimate) 86"D Ac or t. 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land me restrictions? ff Yes o No If No, describe briefly: 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project )6 Residential o Industrial o Agricultural )c Parkland/Open Space o Commercial o Other Describe: I j.. QoaJ t5 0. resrdta irn.Q �n'ber wrnsv 0.4�4.Q 4Nt' w✓L' 4 CI k. 10. Does action involve a pemdt/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from governmental agency (Federal, State or Local): o Yes 1(No If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type: 11. Does my aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? o Yes yNo If Yes, List Agency Name and Pemut/Approval Type: 12. As a result of proposed action will existing pemtiUapproval require modification? o Yes ly No I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: I "I• DATE: AlafilZ PREPARER'S TITLE: ...wy t/i.aty REPRESENTING: acai - oxm j: \foms\city leaf form.dm SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Part lI To Be Completed By Staff In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), the preparer is to use currentiv available information concemine the n pied and the likely hnnacte of the aeti.n, If any question has been answered YES, a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) is necessary. // PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: 6 �+u5?Ifh�• DATE: N Il I2 PREPARER'S TITLE: J ktaw 1 . REPRESENTING: C,I, �'F1.y.�<., j:\eovironmental review\seafpart ii.doc Yes No 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter ❑ more than one acre of land? 2. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site or to any ❑ �. site designated a unique natural area or critical environmental area by a local or state agency? 3. Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? ❑ R 4. Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? ❑ 14 5. Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? ❑ a 6. Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? ❑ 29 7. Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality! ❑ K 8. Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views ❑ or vistas known to be important to the community: 9. Will the project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pre - historic, or ❑ paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark district? 10. Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? ❑ 9 11. Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing ❑ H transportation systems? 12. Will the project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical ❑ disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after completion? 13. Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? ❑ 6 14. Will the project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in ❑ a permanent populations of more than 5 percent over a one -year period OR have a negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? ❑ a If any question has been answered YES, a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) is necessary. // PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: 6 �+u5?Ifh�• DATE: N Il I2 PREPARER'S TITLE: J ktaw 1 . REPRESENTING: C,I, �'F1.y.�<., j:\eovironmental review\seafpart ii.doc 617.20 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION Fro he comoletM by Annlirarvt ne Pn.iect 1. APPLCANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME I V /Ch I Qt VYw �l:� j W SIW —V-1k :+tv 1� 3. PROJECT LOCAT HJ4,,,t c1 y)P t t Municipality County �- 4. PRECISE LOCATION (S1tmet address and mad i-Meen:- ecbons. prominent landmarks, ate, a' provide map) kACSi SIC{ - J.-T`� RC �o „j '/� `f .�u✓IC 5. PROPOSED ACTION IS: [] New Expansion Motli6catlon /elleretbn 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: (.,SfI,Wj vu,.� St elk 0&aK a%et} +leas 1 An6.w) pb .++KhS �t✓..s 1 ekwlr5� IN w�1c , T AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Inimily LO R acres Ultimately • O 2 acres 8. HALL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? FE Yes ❑ No H No des rlbe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT' © ResiEential ❑ Industrial Commensal ❑ Agriculture © PmksFmesVOgmn Space Other DesPibe: r.1 1'�t0. Cw � ly V[yl�w.�w.�1 ) ✓et'jyn L5.11N0✓ Q✓�iVIN.P. 1K- y. �IM.I{�wJG r5 a Pa�L. 10, DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? Elyse n-, NO If Yes, list agency(s) name and pann8lapprovals: 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL' ElYes Co No If Yes, list agency(s) name and pertnNapprovals: 12 ASARESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT /APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Yes No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicantsimnsor name C •4 wrw Dale: IZ \�}(q Signature: N• If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 PART 11 - IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To he rmmnlafarl by 1 find Anannvl A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR. PART 617.47 If yes, coordinate the review process am use the FULL EAF. ❑ Yes ® No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may has superseded by another involved agency, E]Yes ® No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, If legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwaterqualily or quantity, noise levels, existing tm is pxtiem, wild waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: No . C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological. historic, or other natural or cultural resources: or community or neighborhood characte0 Explain briefly: No, C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellllsh or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: �O. C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change m use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: moo. C6. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. Np . C6. Long term, shaft tens, cumulative, mother effects not identified in Cl -C6? Explain briefly: �0• C?. Other impacts (including changes in use ofeilher quantify or type of energy)? Explainboafly: No- D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTALAREA (CEA)? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, explain briefly: E IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO M. CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ❑ Yes © No H Yes, explain briefly: PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial. large, important orothenvise significant Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary , add attachments or reference supporting materials Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail W show that all relevant adverse Impacts have been Identifietl and adequately addressed dquestion D of Part 11 was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the Potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of Me CFA. Check this box dyou have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverseimpactswhlch MAY occur. Then proceeds irectlylo the FU EAF antlror prepare a positive declaration. ❑ Checkthis box dyou have determined based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation. thatthe proposed actoutIML NOT nesua in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, an affachroents as necessary. [be reasons supporting this Mensuration a6q o f Y v -bliT, WA-% TRarre ea dray O ate not or Type Nam of Responsible Officer In ea ency The o esponsl a Officer �Mc�FG,�a . LD�- Signature o Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Si shire a Pre (II tl emnt m responsible officer) Environmental Review for an Action to Direct New Sidewalk Construction alone the Bryant Park block of Ithaca Road — Resolution WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has declared itself to be the lead agency for the environmental review for a project ("the Project") to construct new sidewalk along the Bryant Park block of Ithaca Road in accordance with Section 176 of the Ithaca City Code (CEQR) and in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (SEAR), and WHEREAS, while most of the project includes a rehabilitation of the pavement of Ithaca Road and traffic control and parking changes, the Project also involves constructing approximately 270 linear feet of 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk in the City right -of -way for Ithaca Road along Bryant Park, which is owned by the City of Ithaca, and WHERAS, the Project is an Unlisted action according to CEQR and an Unlisted Action according to SEQR due to the new sidewalk construction only; the other components of the project are Type II actions, and WHERAS, a Short Environmental Assessment form was prepared by staff for CEQR and for SEQR, and WHERAS, on April 23, 2012, the Board of Public Works declared itself lead agency for an uncoordinated environmental review for CEQR/SEQR, and WHEREAS, the Conservation Advisory Council has received a copy of the CEQR/SEQR short forms and a set of plans for the sidewalk component of the project, and WHERAS, the Board of Public Works, acting as lead agency, has, on April 23, 2012, reviewed and accepted as complete Short Environmental Assessment Forms Part I and Part II prepared by staff, and Project plans prepared by staff, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works determines that the project to construct new sidewalk along the Bryant Park block of Ithaca Road will result in no significant negative environmental impact and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Section 176 of the City Code be filed in accordance with the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. Page 7 A Proposed Resolution to Approve New Sidewalk and an Uphill Bicycle Lane on Ithaca Road WHEREAS, Engineering staff have prepared plans for a pavement rehabilitation project on Ithaca Road, which also includes new sidewalk along the Bryant Park block and an uphill bicycle lane, and WHEREAS, Engineering staff have done outreach to the neighborhood through direct mailings and neighborhood email lists, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works discussed the project on April 9, 2012, and WHEREAS, in order to make space for the uphill bicycle lane, parking needs to be removed from street, and WHEREAS, the Board of public Works is authorized by Section 346-4 of the City Code to adopt and to amend a system of Schedules in order to administer the Vehicle and Traffic Law, WHEREAS, the BPW has conducted environmental review for the project and is in agreement with the project, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works approves the plans for Ithaca Road, including the proposed new sidewalk along Bryant Park and the uphill bicycle lane, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby amends" 1. Schedule XII, Parking Prohibited at All Times, to include both sides of Ithaca Road from Dryden Road to Mitchell Street, and 2. Schedule XVIII, Time Limited Parking, to remove the entries for Ithaca Road, and 3. Schedule XV, Parking Prohibited Certain Hours, to remove the entry for Ithaca Road. Page 8 9.1 Comell and Hancock Streets and the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement Policy of tma %` _ 0 PoAareo CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 -6590 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Telephone: 607 /2746530 Fax: 607/274 -6587 To Board of Public Works Bill Gray, Superintendent of Public Works Ari Lavine, City Attorney From: Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer Date: April 16, 2012 Re: Cornell and Hancock Streets and the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement policy On April 2^ , the Board of Public Works held a public hearing in accordance with the City Charter's Uniform Sidewalk Improvement policy to consider directing installation of new sidewalk on Cornell Street and Hancock Street. For the Cornell Street sidewalk specifically, there seemed to be nearly unanimous agreement, including those who spoke at the hearing, that the sidewalk would be a good thing and provide a significant benefit to pedestrians in the area, including families walking to and from the Belle Sherman Elementary School. However, there was a concern expressed by a number of people that the Charter's requirement that abutting property owners bear the cost of the new sidewalk was unfair. After some discussion, I told the Board that I would prepare a memo to sketch out three options for the Board to consider. This is that memo. The three options that I see for the Board include: Option 1: Direct sidewalk installation under the existing Uniform Sidewalk Improvement policy. The Uniform Sidewalk Improvement policy is written in Charter sections 73 and 89. Section 73D specifically speaks to new sidewalk and gives the power to the Board of Public Works to direct new sidewalk installation after holding a public hearing. The BPW must also decide who should build the sidewalk: City crews, the City's contractor, or by delegation to the property owner. Section 73E then says that the cost, apportionment and assessment should be in accordance with section 89, "except that the entire cost thereof shall be deemed to benefit the adjoining owners." If the BPW is prepared to follow this option, the first decision would be to direct the sidewalk construction by resolution; it should include environmental review. The second decision is to Page 9 determine who must do the work. The Board may direct the Department of Public Works to build the sidewalk, may choose to hire a contractor to do the work or may direct the property owners to build the sidewalk. In any of these cases, it will make sense to ask Common Council to establish a capital project to account for all the costs and to cover them in the first instance. Also, there will be some costs that are not assessable according to the Charter, for example, the cost of curbing and drainage improvements. The Board may choose to give the property owners a certain amount of time to get quotes for the work and then compare those quotes with cost estimates prepared by the City. Otherwise, based on conversations with the Street Supervisor, Cliff Murphy, DPW would be prepared to install curbing and drainage this fall. The sidewalk might be installed this fall, but if not, it could be built in the spring of 2013. The question of what cost gets assessed to the property owners is a question that is then determined after the work is complete. There may be some small discretion for the Board, but the basic premise is that the property owners pay the costs to place and finish the sidewalk. The City covers the costs of "preparing the way," so to speak, insofar as the City pays the cost of curbing, drainage, replacing a traffic signal loop, relocating traffic signs, etc. The property owner pays for the labor, equipment and materials for the sidewalk regardless of who does the work. If the City does the work, staff would prepare a statement of costs for the BPW, who would hold a public hearing and affirm the statement before filing it with Common Council, who would then approve it. It does seem that there is some latitude for Common Council to work out payment plans in accordance with Charter section 89(F). Option 2• Do not direct sidewalk installation under the existing policy. If the Board does not think that the benefits outweigh the costs, or, for any other reason, it may choose to not order the sidewalk construction. This seems to be a fairly straightforward option, so no further discussion is included. The BPW could instruct staff to pursue a grant, but presumably this could only be used to defray the City's costs, not to relieve property owners from their responsibility. Option 3. Table discussion on the two blocks under consideration and work toward changing the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement policy. If the Board wants to direct the sidewalk construction, but does not feel that the Uniform Sidewalk Improvement policy is fair, another option would be to put aside the specific considerations of new sidewalk on Cornell and Hancock Streets and instead to pursue a change to the Charter to explicitly give the City the ability to apportion costs in other ways. In discussion with the City Attorney, it seems that this change would not require a public referendum, but could be accomplished by Common Council. If the Board is interested in this option, staff can prepare a more detailed process for a Charter amendment. One point I would like to make is that it would likely be very important to differentiate between the policies related to existine sidewalk maintenance and those related to new sidewalk construction. In some ways they are similar, but in many ways they are different. Assessing costs for sidewalk repairs and new sidewalk construction need not following the Page 10 same methodology. I believe there are a number of good reasons to treat them separately and perhaps differently. One question the Board may want to consider is what should be the proposed apportionment of assessment. Should the City pay 100% of all new sidewalk construction? Should it differentiate between residential and commercial properties? For example, the cost of new curbing is split 50/50 with adjoining property owners in all but R -1 and R -2 zoning districts. Though the BPW has duetted new sidewalk in two commercial areas somewhat recently, there has been almost no new sidewalk ordered in residential areas in the past 20 years based on my review of BPW minutes. Should property owners continue to pay some portion of the new sidewalk costs, but with a not to exceed amount? There are a number of variations that can be considered in order to reduce the burden on adjoining property owners. If the Board wants to pursue this option, staff would appreciate some direction, but can also put together a recommendation if requested. We can then work with you on a specific recommendation to Common Council for a charter change. There may be a concern that if new sidewalk was "free' to the adjoining owners, that the City would then face an onslaught of requests for new sidewalk or that the general fund would have to pick up expenses that non - taxable properties could have been assessed. There may be some advantage to retaining some responsibility of cost for the adjoining owner so that this responsibility helps balance the desire for new sidewalk. Also, keeping new sidewalk construction separate from responsibilities for sidewalk once built would help with this balance. Either way, even if the City was to pay for new sidewalk in the first instance, it would still be decision of the BPW to direct the sidewalk contingent on Common Council approving the funding; petitions from neighbors would not obligate the City to construct and pay for new sidewalks. Page 11 pFl7 CITY OF ITHACA °R 108 East Green Street -3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �Clypti.. -•• -° Telephone: Planning & Development- 607-274-6550 Community Development4URA - 607-274-6559 AFE Email: planing @cityofithaca.org Email: iuma@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607 - 274 -6558 1ax: 607 - 274 -6558 TO: William Gray, Superintendent of Public Works Board of Public Works FROM: City of Ithaca Parks Commission DATE: April 16, 2012 RE: April 2012 Parks Commission Resolutions The City of Ithaca Parks Commission adopted the two attached resolutions at its meeting on April 10, 2012. The first resolution expresses the Commission's support for the installation of an informational plaque on the Adams Street/Carl Sagan Bridge. The second resolution requests the removal of the ghost bike memorial from Washington Park. The Parks Commission is transmitting both resolutions to the Board of Public Works for their consideration at upcoming meetings. In addition, the Parks Commission passed a resolution (also attached) in December 2011 requesting the relocation of the pavilion in Thompson Park. The relocation of the pavilion has yet to be discussed by the Board, and the Commission is again requesting that this item be placed on an upcoming agenda. If you have any questions, please contact Megan, Wilson at mwilson(d,)citvofithaca.org or 274- 6560. CITY OF ITHACA PARKS COMMISSION RESOLUTION — April 10 2012 Recommendation of Removal of Ghost Bike Memorial in Washington Park WHEREAS, following the death of a local bicyclist in a traffic accident in 2007, a ghost bike memorial was installed by unknown persons in Washington Park near the corner of Washington Street and West Court Street, and WHEREAS, the ghost bike has been in place for several years and has received little maintenance since its original installation, and WHEREAS, the condition of the ghost bike has deteriorated, and several complaints about the bike have been directed to the Parks Commission, and WHEREAS, in order to learn more information about the history of the ghost bike and its maintenance as well as neighborhood comment, the Parks Commission reached out to the Washington Park neighborhood and the international ghost bike organization (ghostbikes.org), and WHEREAS, there was a mixed response from residents of the Washington Park neighborhood; some residents would like the ghost bike removed while others appreciate the memorial and provide minor upkeep, and WHEREAS, while some minor clean -up is provided by neighborhood residents, there is no individual or organization that is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the ghost bike, and WHEREAS, the ghost bike was installed without a recommendation from the Parks Commission or approval by the Board of Public Works, and WHEREAS, other proposals for memorials have sought approval for installation in City parks and have been denied for both logistical reasons and to prevent parks from being overpopulated by memorials, and WHEREAS, the Parks Commission will be preparing a proposed memorials policy that will provide guidelines for the future acceptance and installation of memorials in City parks; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Parks Commission recommends that the Board of Public Works authorize and direct the removal of the ghost bike memorial from Washington Park. Moved by R. Moudry 2ntl by D. Klein In Favor: L. Fabbroni Jr., M. Hobbie, D. Klein, D. Krall, R. Moudry, S. VanDeMark Against: 0 CITY OF ITHACA PARKS COMMISSION RESOLUTION — April 10 2012 Resolution of Support for an Informational Plaque on the Adams St/Carl Sagan Bridge WHEREAS, local architect Emily Sullivan is proposing to install an informational plaque on the Adams StreeUCarls Sagan Bridge, and WHEREAS, the plaque would provide information about the bridge's construction, which was a joint effort between the Department of Public Works and Cornell Unviersity students, and WHEREAS, the bridge is located adjacent to Conley Park, and WHEREAS, the proposal was presented to the Board of Public Works, and the Board referred the proposal back to the Parks Commission due to the Commission's ongoing discussion of memorials in City parks, and WHEREAS, the proposed language on the plaque will not include the words "in memory" and will be strictly informational; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Parks Commission supports the installation of an informational plaque on the Adams Street/Carl Sagan Bridge. Moved by D. Klein 2n' by L. Fabbroni Jr. In Favor: L. Fabbroni Jr., M. Hobbie, D. Klein, D. Krall, S. VanDeMark Against: 0 CITY OF ITHACA PARKS COMMISSION RESOLUTION — December 13 2011 Recommendation to Relocate the Thompson Park Pavilion WHEREAS, the pavilion which was placed in Thompson Park this summer was put there on a temporary basis as per the Parks Commission resolution of July 12, 2011, and WHEREAS, where it was placed did not have a pad prepared for it, and WHEREAS, a pad has been prepared by the Department of Public Works 100 feet away in Thompson Park, and WHEREAS, the pavilion is currently located in a corner of the park already crowded with a bench, two sidewalks, a Sagan Planet Walk monument, and the bell monument, and WHEREAS, there is not sufficient room in its current location for an ADA- approved ramp, and WHEREAS, the location with the prepared pad allows for many more people to sit on the grass to enjoy performances from the pavilion; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Parks Commission recommends that the pavilion be moved 100 feet to the north to the area where a pad has already been prepared in Thompson Park. Moved by D. Klein 2nd by S. VanDeMark In Favor: L. Fabbroni Jr., M. Hobble, D. Klein, D. Krall, R. Moudry, S. VanDeMark Against: 0 ,�04 LT.#a t °� I D TO: FROM: RE: RII r -Y -unINK `V S lS We�'In u rp.l r� CITY OF ITHACA F ) T, 108 Fast Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690 OFFICE OF THE CrIY ENGINEER Telephone: 6071274-6530 1u: 607/2744587 Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer Update Street Permit fees March 1, 2012 Purpose: The Engineering Office issues around 70 -90 Street Permits annually. Approximately 50- 65% of those permits solely involve sidewalk repair. The Engineering Office has the practice of charging $30 for Street Permits except for work involving solely sidewalk repair, which are charged $5. in an effort to move toward imposing a higher percentage of staff labor costs onto "users" rather than general taxpayers, a permit fee increase is being proposed. Even though the proposed fees are higher, it is very unlikely that the new revenue will cover the staff costs, but it will reduce the burden on the general taxpayer. Recommended fee change: It is recommended that the general Street Permit fee be increased to $50 and the sidewalk permit fee be increased to $25. These higher fees should not pose a particular hardship as they are still quite low. (Note: After a period of time, yet higher fees should probably be considered so as to better recoup the actual costs bome by the City to issue Street Permits — it probably costs the City about $6,000 - $10,000 /yr, in labor costs to review and issue Street Permits). Expected revenue increase: Current annual Street Permit fees total around $1,000. If the fees are increased as proposed above, it is estimated that annual revenue will total around $2,600. Recommended City Code revisions shown below: §342 -8 Permit application and fee [Amended 5A -2005 by Ord. No. 2005 -081 A. Forms. Any property owner or utility corporation desiring a permit as prescribed in § 342 -7 shall make application therefor to the Superintendent upon forms provided for that purpose. B. Contents. Said application shall contain ... in connection with said permit. C. Fee. No permit shall be issued until the applicant therefor shall have first paid in cash or by check payable to the City a fee of $40 50, except for sidewalk permits pertaining solely to sidewalk re air, which shall be $5-L25.