HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-12 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, August 27, 2012, at 4:45 p.m.
in Common Council Chambers — Third Floor, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New
York.
Agenda
1. Additions or Deletions to Agenda (Items 1 -5:15 min.)
2. Mavoes Communications
3. Communications and Hearings from Persons Before the Board
4. Response to the Public
5. Reports
Special Committees of the Board
Council Liaison
Board Liaisons
Superintendent and Staff
Other Department Heads
6. Approval of Minutes
6.1 August 6, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes
7. Administration and Communications
8. VOTING ITEMS
ill Buildings. Properties, Refuse and Transit
A. Request for Encroachment License for 305 Esty Street
8.2 Highways, Streets and Sidewalks
8.3 Parking and Traffic
8.4 Creeks. Bridges and Parks
8.5 Water and Sewer
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS
9.1 BPAC Request for Complete Sidewalk Between City and Ithaca College
9.2 Court Street Parking Lot
9.3 Wood Street and South Street Diverter Removal — Update
9.4 2013 Budget
10. New Business
11. Adioumment
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.
Notes for BPW Aaenda. August 27. 2012
8.1A Request for Encroachment License for 305 Esty Street
This represents the common resolution authorizing a standard agreement to allow a long
standing encroachment to continue to exist, as long as everyone agrees that the City had the
right to revoke the agreement if it needs the land (or air space) for a public purpose. We
usually get this kind of a request when the property is changing ownership. In this case, I
expect they can't get a building permit to put a roof on the porch because the porch is not
entirely on their property.
9.1 BPAC Request for Complete Sidewalk Between City and Ithaca College
Sidewalk access to Ithaca College is becoming more of a problem as Ithaca College becomes
more successful (and grows in size), the student population has more interaction with the
downtown areas, and the off - campus housing results in more trips to and from campus. We
are certainly interested in a growing diversity of transportation choices that leave a car at
home. Kathy located some college enrollment figures which are attached, showing a steady
growth with the attendant impacts.
Because Ithaca College and the NYSDOT have never attempted to make pedestrian
improvements along Route 96B, and because of the off - campus housing (in the city) is
concentrated along Coddington Road and Hudson Street, most of the improvements we see
demand for are in that area. Ithaca College has recently put trail improvements in place that
come out at the Hudson / Coddington intersection. I know that staff has actually participated in
discussions with the College and the NYSDOT about Route 96B. My understanding of that
conversation was that the State thought the local MPO should spend its (or other local) dollars
to study the issue and make recommendations. The State did not have money to look at the
issue.
Mark Darling asked that we start Board level discussion of the issue and possible approaches.
9.2 Court Street Parking Lot
Tom Seaney has approached me requesting some access or use of the parking lot at the
comer of Court and Fulton Streets. Mr. Seaney was the former owner of these lands and
wants the use of the parking to serve the businesses in the remaining land he owns adjacent
to the lot. We changed the use of these parking spaces dramatically when we converted the
lot from free public parking to a paid lot (monthly permits and hourly meters). Since the
conversion of the lot to a paid lot, and some loosening of on- street parking restrictions nearby,
we are not selling any monthly permits, and collecting very little from the meters. The
businesses in his buildings get customers who get tickets parking in the lot, either because
they did not see the paid parking requirements as they entered the lot or because the last time
they visited the same lot it was not a paid lot and they were not looking for a change. For all
Page 2
practical purposes the lot looked like it belonged to the nearby businesses, and when they get
a ticket they are not happy.
In recent budget years the City has taken the approach that city -owned off - street parking
should participate in the cost of operating the lot. When we applied that approach here, we
discovered that there is no demand for paid parking. Based on this, I have recommended that
we abandon this lot and turn the land over to a higher use. Under the City's agreement with
the State the land reverts to New York State, and they will dispose of the land. I have
indicated to Mr. Seaney that he should approach the State and find out if he has any special
status as the former land owner from whom the State took the land in the mid 1990's. I
suggested that the City would probably seek to abandon the lot and turn it over to the State
within the next year. In the interim he would like to rent the land from us. The monthly rental
price was higher than the market would bear. I thought Mr. Seaney's original offer was too
low. At the moment we are at a price of $1,600 a year and he takes over the maintenance of
the lot. He will talk with the State real estate people and we will prepare to turn the land back
to the State.
If the Board is comfortable with this arrangement, I will seek to get a contract written, reviewed,
and executed. Mr. Seaney would like to start right away.
9.3 Wood Street and South Street Diverter Removal — Update
Attached is a follow up memo to our action removing diverters at Wood Street and South
Street, outlining the impacts. This is provided for your review and comments. We are not
recommending any action at this time.
9.4 2013 Budaet
A copy of the department budget submittal is available for your review. We have all written
cover letters or introductions. We would be glad to review these budget documents with you at
any level you consider desirable, including setting special supplemental meetings. Historically,
those meetings were set to follow the normal Board meetings, running from 7pm to 9pm.
Because the last several budgets have all been negative budgets, the only changes were in
the form of items deleted from the budget. This year the call was for a 10% reduction in
personnel lines so, once more, the only changes to the budget are all concentrated in
personnel lines.
I think it is important to understand that this budget is not sustainable in any long term view. In
most municipal departments, the budgets can be whatever the community decides because
they are deciding a level of service they want in the future. A major portion of the public works
budget is maintaining past decisions: the things the city owns (parks, roads, city buildings,
pools, golf courses, ice rinks, etc.), or providing services that are largely determined by outside
mandates (water supply quality, wastewater quality). The only things that I consider directly in
our control as quality of life issues are how often we plow snow and the hours of operation of
the golf course or packs. We can allow the quality of ride on city streets to deteriorate, but not
to become unsafe, unless we close them. We can allow bridges to deteriorate, and can
eventually close them if we choose not to maintain them. We could even abandon buildings by
failing to maintain them until they become unsafe or uninhabitable. These failures to make
decisions become decisions in themselves.
Page 3
To make this budget sustainable we would have to make the decisions to eliminate enough
future expenses that the current budget matched future expected expenses of ownership and
operation. That is not the case with this, or recent budgets. It is both a blessing and a curse
that Public Works generally have a long life and are resilient enough to withstand long periods
of delayed maintenance. If I need to reduce my current spending and decide to never change
the oil in my car again, I will still be able to drive the car tens of thousands of miles before it
grinds to a halt. I can reduce expenses and get ten of thousand of more miles from the vehicle
if I decide simply to extend the period between my oil changes, and not change the fires.
However, it is possible that I need to move into the city and decide to eliminate the car in order
to get to a sustainable budget.
For Your Information
I have attached a copy of a letter from the Carlson family on Aurora Street. We have been
dealing with the Carlson's for an extended period (15 years of their 30 year residency ?) with
most of the issues surrounding a very large and very old maple tree in front of their house.
The first issue I remember was their desire to have it removed because it was invading their
sewer and damaging the sidewalk. We pointed out that trees search for water, and that if their
sewer was watertight it would not be a source of water. Sidewalks are easier to move than
old trees. Then I believe that it was shading their roof and causing the shingles to deteriorate.
We pointed out that shingles have a life expectancy that is much shorter than that of a tree.
Most recently the problem is the slow decline of an old tree which requires more vigilance, but
is worth the effort to maintain the tree in reasonable condition while retaining its great value to
the community. You might want to glance at the tree. Jeanne Grace is our lead agent now.
waapwj. gvauH, P.E.
.supevinten.dewt of Public wovRS
Aug�t R, 2012
Page 4
8.1A Request for Encroachment License for 305 Esty Street
WHEREAS, Wendy Fillmore, the self - represented owner of the property at 305 Esty Street
(Tax Map Parcel No. 51 -5 -3), in the City of Ithaca, has requested an encroachment
agreement/license from the City for one existing encroachment and one proposed
encroachment onto adjacent City-owned real property abutting the sidewalk along Esty Street;
and
WHEREAS, the encroachments consist of the following:
1. An existing staircase at the northern face of the building at 305 Esty Street, which
encroaches by a distance of approximately 1.5 feet for a span of approximately 10 feet,
and the corresponding airspace above, which is shown on a survey map prepared by T,
G. Miller, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, dated September 15, 1988; and
2. A roof to be built over the staircase, which will also encroach into the public airspace
by a distance of approximately 1.5 feet for a span of approximately 10 feet; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the building in question has been in existence in its current location
for many years, and that the encroaching steps have been in their current location for at least
ten years, and that the steps are inside the current location of the existing public sidewalk (i.e.,
they do not interfere with the sidewalk as currently constituted); and
WHEREAS, the encroachment, which does not exceed 40 square feet, is a minor
encroachment as defined in Chapter 170 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent does not anticipate any conflicts in the near future with public
works uses or needs, due to the existing encroachment or additional proposed encroachment
at this location; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby authorizes the Mayor, upon consultation
with the Superintendent and the City Attorney, to sign a revocable encroachment
agreement/license for the existing steps and roof addition, containing the usual terms and
conditions (with the license for the steps and roof addition to be revocable upon six months'
notice); and be it further
RESOLVED, That the encroachment agreement shall not be subject to a fee at this time, per
Chapter 170 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, which provides that the annual use fee shall
be waived for a minor encroachment.
Page 5
It-evn CIA
CITY SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Project Information: To be completed by applicant or project sponsor.
1. Applicant/Sponsor:
2. Project Name:
Ulevtd.� � llurwrc,
POrcln, �'
3. Project Location:
3OS Sri,
4. Is Proposed Action;
o New Axpansion
q.
-e(Modification/AlteIation
5. Describe project briefly:
irl vka ¢-odd o wv-
- avr.�
1v W5-}'L j { MM p
vteed
6. Precise Location (Road Intersecuons, Prominent Landmarks, etc. or provide
RY�C. Clk;cSN�vtr�i*M
map) 30S L'S)M ��2ju\lttnn Gl�n�
Sm" df. O�S'Jre t��J
(M 51
7. Amount of Land Affected: `-p Wo a '
Initially Acres or S . Ft. Ultimately Acres or S . Ft.
8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use
restrictions?
o Yes Ao If No, describe briefly:
9. What is present land use in vicinity of project:
wl6idential o Industrial o Agricultural o Parkland/Open Space
o Commercial o Other
Describe:
lo. Does action involve apern- Wapproval, or funding, now or ultimately, from
No
governmental agency (Federal, State or Local): o/Yes o
If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type:
Pe k
av: dm �u; d o I
11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval?
0_ics oNo
If Yes, List Agency Name and Permit/Approval Type:
12. As a result of proposed action will existing pemdt /approval require modification?
o Yes oTlo
I certify that the information provided above is truf to the best of my knowledge.
DATE:
PREPARERS SIGNATURE: —W-2212-
PREPARERS TITLE:
REPRESENTING:
ro ects � � cb�01Ty's��'doc
j: P j
�JUL 2 0 2012.d
WCNDY L Se4Clry -:��r IIC �"+ - rTr.nry • •�.. - �cce.�.�... .,v.,.. .....�._
4A!!U OFA. For.
CERTIFICATION 4q aDE "ram ;NSu..su.s <aaen
1 hereby certify to ... .. ...... ..:.. ..... ..
that I am a licensed land s u veyo,, Nei Yam'! ice,
No. dictate" . and that this map tarred ly del, . i••s an .iclual '
survey on the ground made by no or under my di ape, vt ,,on:
that it was prepared in accordance vitli the eJ ode a
practice for land title surveys adopted by Hi^ irk SL +te
Association of Professional Land Surveyors: all t I found no
&I""
visible encroachments either nay across trope, ' �nas o>ceut .
as shown he�rreeeoon.f�� �� -
SIGNED' ipllc DATED: _141 ¢z, zxb
E 5 T Y 5 -T e E ET
CO.5 FACE,
H005E
of
305 Y
a
y I w h 3 s Ci
n of V
L id IIV IJ
O Z
tl� a
a _
o - a,
Z JEFFREY o. Reswisirs.
° pease, eopR Lyz p4 4
n
i a
J TA% MAP DP¢CPL JD e1-5-3
6¢E >=OOS GG¢ei y�
N 3
e•D
W CECF
iww 5' 5 SRS 5(.'W 35.0 ALONG FF"CE
Fm4•£ ` ` E4MUL14kMrl�= FCUfc M1wu py{1
• T
M16REL ppT uue uW1 �
CZ i
O)
4�9sp6 -o
y,- 4NENDEC 5 4x/°G F -qy- mlNelS .•waD
SURVEY MAP
�.,,:d•,e i.,r
Ho. 305 ESTY 5T REET
In
n.4 „.— ..•,N.,n., CITY OF ITHA CA,TOMD. Co.,
N SEVI'EMEER i5, t4E6 SCPLE I " =ICi
7 G MILLER kse0C. p. G..E 116INEER44 SURVEYORS. IfiHACq,NN
5' y(IDe COµC¢ETE WPLK � '
'.
`I.• a Y
i.4 `
Y FuuO
° �
� N
N B9° 5
56r 9
93. D
D.e'sN•
N
ai'. S
ST d
H005E
of
305 Y
a
y I w h 3 s Ci
n of V
L id IIV IJ
O Z
tl� a
a _
o - a,
Z JEFFREY o. Reswisirs.
° pease, eopR Lyz p4 4
n
i a
J TA% MAP DP¢CPL JD e1-5-3
6¢E >=OOS GG¢ei y�
N 3
e•D
W CECF
iww 5' 5 SRS 5(.'W 35.0 ALONG FF"CE
Fm4•£ ` ` E4MUL14kMrl�= FCUfc M1wu py{1
• T
M16REL ppT uue uW1 �
CZ i
O)
4�9sp6 -o
y,- 4NENDEC 5 4x/°G F -qy- mlNelS .•waD
SURVEY MAP
�.,,:d•,e i.,r
Ho. 305 ESTY 5T REET
In
n.4 „.— ..•,N.,n., CITY OF ITHA CA,TOMD. Co.,
N SEVI'EMEER i5, t4E6 SCPLE I " =ICi
7 G MILLER kse0C. p. G..E 116INEER44 SURVEYORS. IfiHACq,NN
7 G MILLER kse0C. p. G..E 116INEER44 SURVEYORS. IfiHACq,NN
Page 1 of 2
I-hern 9.1
Bill Gray - Re: IBPACI request for complete sidewalk between IC & Ithaca on 96B
From: Mark Darling <mdarling59 @gmail.com>
To: Govind Acharya <govind73 @gmail.com>
Date: 7/13/2012 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [BPAC] request for complete sidewalk between IC & Ithaca on 96B
CC: BPW <bpw @cityofithaca.org >, Kent Johnson <kjohnson @cityofithaca.org>
1 am in favor of having this discussed at a BPW Meeting
In the process of investigation I wonder if a link between Hudson PI. and Grandview Place to
Grandview Ave. is possible. I don't know about Rights -of -Way but, there is a very convenient and well -
used short-cut. This is where most people make their descent but, I am pretty sure it is private property.
There has been talk about what College resources would be necessary to make a pedestrian link to City
sidewalks. Given that the Facilities area Govind mentions sees heavy truck, car and equipment traffic
during business hours, the College has not been encouraging it as a walking route. The sidewalk ends at
the edge of the puking lot, not unusual on the campus.
A trail was added during construction of the Athletics and Events Center from the East end of campus
that connects with Hudson at Coddington at the City line. There isn't a sidewalk in front of the last house
on the East side of Hudson at the entrance to the South Hill Rec Way, otherwise this would be a
connection to City sidewalks. I feel that improving this intersection should be investigated as well. This
is the route the College apparently prefers pedestrians and bicyclists use.
I look forward to continuing this discussion
MD
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Govind Acharya < og vind73@a gmail.00m> wrote:
Anyone opposed to looking into sidewalks on South Hill? Specifically Coddington and Hudson Place
to connect with Hudson SO
-- - - - - -- Forwarded message - - - - - --
From: Kent Johnson <kjohnson ,citvofithaca.ore>
Date: Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [BPAC] request for complete sidewalk between IC & Ithaca on 96B
To: Govind Acharya <govind73@gmail.co m>
Cc: Rob Morache <ro bmoracheCil�gmail.com>
OK .. happy to do it. Can you please get a sense from the BPW on the scope of work you are interested in.
Also, for this level of staff effort, I think I need direction from the BPW to spend time on this - not just from
one member. This is going to take a considerable amount of staff time.
- Kent
>>> Govind Acharya <govind73 @gmai�> 7/13/2012 11:37 AM >>>
file: / /CADocuments and Settings \billg \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise\5000173Ecoimain... 7/16/2012
Page 2 of 2
Yes, I think it should be in the pipeline. That apartment complex should have had one installed during site
plan review but obviously wasn't done. Coddington might need it more. It's very suburban up there...
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Kent Johnson <ktohnson @cltyofithaca.org> wrote:
Hi Govind -
Agreed - Hudson PI. is on our list of needed sidewalks. Due to the lower traffic volumes (1,000
vehicles /day), this sidewalk was not included in the City's current push to get new sidewalks built. (we are
currently focusing on Connell St., Hancock St., State St., Hudson St., and Ithaca Rd.). I'd be happy to
prepare materials for the BPW to direct new sidewalks to be built along Hudson Pl. - for sidewalks along
both sides of the street, the estimated cost is around $200,000. Coddington is also in need of new
sidewalks and has higher traffic volumes (6,000 vpd) - for sidewalks along both sides of the street, the
estimated cost is around $800,000.
Also, as you note, this is a good route up to IC through their "facilities" area. I think this route could be
improved if IC would post some type of way - finding signs to help direct pedestrians & bicyclists through
this odd part of IC's campus.
Please let me know if you would like me to begin preparing materials for the BPW's consideration on any
of this - given my current workload, it is unlikely that I could begin working on this until this winter .. but I
could get it in the pipeline.
- Kent
>>> Govind Acharya <govind73 @gmail.com> 7/13/2012 10:33 AM >>>
There is one area that needs a sidewalk -- Hudson Place. There is a large apartment complex on the north
side of Hudson Place and it would be great if we can see a sidewalk on that side of the street. There are a
lot of pedestrians that walk along the road. I know this because this is my bike commuting route to IC.
This can connect to the sidewalk on Hudson St and allow safer access to the "facilities" entrance to IC.
best,
Govind
Mark J. Darling
607 Cliff Streeet
Ithaca NY 14850
607 - 342 -8665
"We could have saved the earth but we were too damned cheap." Vonnegut
file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \billg\Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise \5000173Ecoimain... 7/16/2012
sr 11
side `-
fil4
PmenIon
Power
nnSMISSI
Corp.
Fff
In
ft
\ WBNI� S� o
3aNM1 NIN CPfG VIaN �Fa f
StlwN r� AA .GPEw Tp �
1M1 • � 11� GLL6 �_ � 99(F
mui[w wwiwl°iel.N( si vB
l
4YF
T
Therm � \ 3
J -. Inc.
ith- H i \ \ SB MNW 1
n Natu I
���C1Df AuL - � jIBB ' r°m \V qF � �'� ":
�N�•1 G.ce+�HC /cL. _
� coW'fW`ct3..1/
IBif2e 6CESS (966�fia.
p NNm aNB
n3
Iii fB. 1L
6■• 10.
WO 12 '
13 y
�3d IIU i Af2 �T
999��'4ryj6.
µ .7.
ni
eaEm4ln IMWm9M miBMO m Ile Ilq�mnY nov., nanWe Fnmsd� ueurmnlnin wav ELTpW. mTeIAV mxanmlleu i4 smnlx-
w�w�w'nwN W�Ne�mo'i`�a�moo�' o�i ui :���`�i�'�wii�mm�e�be�.NetineBwi iw uimwmom nn
W
`�I T
\5
ITHACA COLLEGE
Total All College Fall Enrollment Headcounts
Year
Headcount
Year
Headcount
1960
1,442
1986
5,768
1961
1,916
1987
5,799
1962
1,730
1988
6,105
1963
1,910
1989
6,389
1964
2,330
1990
6,432
1965
2,715
1991
6,443
1966
3,086
1992
6,259
1967
3,396
1993
5,964
1968
3,535
1994
5,688
1969
3,695
1995
5,798
1970
3,831
1996
5,800
1971
4,189
1997
5,897
1972
4,302
1998
5,895
1973
4,409
1999
5,960
1974
4,592
2000
6,170
1975
4,606
2001
6,483
1976
4,681
2002
6,431
1977
4,720
2003
6,496
1978
4,867
2004
6,337
1979
4,829
2005
6,412
1980
4,975
2006
6,409
1981
5,052
2007
6,660
1982
5,102
2008
6,448
1983
5,252
2009
6,894
1984
5,493
2010
6,949
1985
5,532
2011
6,760
Source:
Registrar Fall Opening Enrollment Reports & IR Fall Opening Enrollment Files
IR 912011 insrelenrlVactbooklTotal Enrollment Headcount All College Fall 1960 - 2011.x sx
Page 1 of 3
I4-,,,, 9.2
Bill Gray - Re: Parking lot proposal, Court at Fulton
From:
Bill Gray
To:
Seaney, Tom
Date:
8/22/2012 12:12 PM
Subject:
Re: Parking lot proposal, Court at Fulton
CC:
Benjamin, Ray; Gehring, Kathrin; Parsons, Debra
Tom, Hi,
If we have an agreement on the money, I don't expect the property maintenance issues in a proposed license
agreement covering one year (snow plowing, litter pick up, sweep the dirt, don't kill the plantings, etc.) should
be a problem, other than it will take time to circulate proposed agreements and get them to signature. I will
request permission to start the lease based on our exchange of correspondence, with the written agreement to
follow. I make the attorneys very nervous when I try and do this for construction, but since the property is not
changing hands, no bulldozers or backhoes are involved, there is little to be damaged, and money would
actually come to the city ... it seems like I have a chance. The one thing I expect we would need to start early is
proof of insurance, with the city named as additionally insured. I will put it on next Monday's agenda.
AIL
>>> Tom Seaney <tseaney @gmail.mm> 8/22/2012 11:08 AM >>>
Hi Bill -
Would it be possible to suspend parking enforcement down here at the lot as a result of our agreement? The
stove store is getting busier and their customers, unaware of the parking regulations, are starting to get tickets.
I would be happy to start paying for the lot at that time.
Tom
On Aug 13, 2012, at 3:58 PM, "Bill Gray" <billg @cityofithaca org> wrote
Tom, I did get a general agreement (at the staff level) that I should go ahead and try and get an
agreement that is based on your compromise and present it for approval and signature. By copy of
this I will ask Kathy to find a copy of our agreement for the Buffalo Street Parking lot which I will
modify and send to you for your review.
Bill
>>> Tom Seaney <tseaney@gmail.co m> 8/13/2012 10:53 AM >>>
Hi Bill -
Hopefully you are back after a relaxing time off. Any thoughts on my last proposal?
Tom
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Tom Seaney <tseaney@amail.com> wrote:
No problem, Bill -
I can wait till then. That's a beautiful area - have fun up there.
file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \billg\Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise\5034CCC5coimai... 8/22/2012
Page 2 of 3
Tom
On Jul 27, 2012, at 10:29 AM, "Bill Gray" <billg @cityofithaca.orc> wrote
> Tom, Good Morning,
>
> I will see if I can get an answer for you on your compromise offer. Can this wait until after
next week? I am headed to the St. Lawrence tonight. If you have not heard from me by August
8th or 9th please crowd me.
>
> Bill
> >>> Tom Seaney <tseaney@gmail com> 7/26/2012 4:15 PM >>>
> Hi BIII -
> Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. With reference to your counteroffer, I wasn't really
planning on taking over the whole lot but I can see the advantages it might present. Could we
meet somewhere in the middle between my $1200 and your $2000 - say $16007
> Tom
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 12:04 PM, "Bill Gray" <blllg(a)cityofitham.ory> wrote:
> > Tom, Hi,
> > To my knowledge, all our parking spaces are on our property. If I remember the property
maps you only have a driveway width along the face of the building and so any parking spaces
marked out beside your driveway probably wander over the property line, thus the conflict
between your parking spaces and ours spaces.
> > I am glad you spoke to Bill Guyder. I will be interested in how that plays out. I was hoping
that it was a well established principle that if they marketed land they had taken by eminent
domain the original owner would have a right of First refusal, and that he would have answered
your question directly.
> > Your offer on the lot is interesting, if a little less than it costs us annually for the lot. It
would cause us some administration issues to have a "free" commercial lot mixed with a
regulated monthly lot with a few hourly meters. As a counter offer: Would you consider taking
the whole lot for a year and a payment of $2000. You can sign the lot for customer parking. We
don't have to try and draw lines, put some kind of separation, or write tickets to someone who
thought they were in a business parking lot.
> > I think I can sell the idea here. Our relatively new rules tell us how we are supposed to
determine the cost of the land, but we are not getting that income following that approach. If I
can sell a one year contract as the change out period where we are going to turn over the land
to the state and we are entering into a fixed price agreement to close out that period...I think
they will bite on it. You have the incentive to work with the DOT, and we get rid of a parking lot
that has more value to someone else.
»
> > Bill
> > >>> Kathrin Gehring 7/25/2012 4:39 PM >>>
> > >>> Tom Seaney <%eaney gma_ il.com> 7/25/2012 4:19 PM >>>
» Hi BIII -
fileWCADocuments and Settings \billg \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise\5034CCC5coimai... 8/22/2012
Page 3 of 3
> > Thanks for your time the other day. I was able to get a hold of Bill Guyder and talk to him
about the parking lot. I have to put all the information in a letter and he'll advise me on how the
state will proceed if the city gives it up.
> > In the meantime I'd like to work on a proposal for leasing a portion of the parking lot. We
would be interested in the 14 spaces that are now in the center strip of the lot. However seven
of those spaces are within B feet of my own spaces along the side of my building, making it
impossible to use my spaces if there are cars parked in the city spaces. So rather than restriping
the city lot to allow me to use my parking lot properly, I propose we keep the parking lot as it is
and I just accept the fact I can't use my parking spaces. In consideration of that fact I would
offer $100 a month for the use of the center strip and I would keep the snow cleared from my
area and keep the lawn mowed out at the curb strip as I have always done.
> > Let me know how you think this sounds and what I could do differently if you think
something needs to be changed.
> > Thanks -
> > Tom Seaney
file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \billg \Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\5034CCC5wimai... 822 /2012
I4-em q. -3
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850.5690
OFFICE OF THE Cn Y ENGINEER
Telephone: 6072746530 Fax: 60727"587
To: Board of Public Works
From:
Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer
Date:
August 1, 2012
Re:
Wood Street and South Street Diverter Removal
We have concluded our before and after review of the removal of the semi -
diverters from the intersections of Wood Street /Fair Street and South
Titus /South Street /Fair Street. Attached is a memo from Kent Johnson
comparing traffic data collected before the diverters were removed and data
collected after they were removed. The data shows that traffic volumes have
increased slightly, but are still well within the range for local, residential streets.
Average and 85 %ile speeds are essentially unchanged from before and also very
similar to what we see on other local streets. The percentage of vehicles traveling
over the posted 30mph speed limit is also essentially unchanged, with most of
the block seeing less than 1 % of traffic speeding. It is true that with about 1,000
vehicles in a day, that would mean neighbors would see a small number of cars
speeding down the street every day.
We have also reviewed the collision history of the intersections and we have not
had any collisions at those locations since the diverters were removed. We did
not have any in approximately two years before they were removed either.
Based on this information, I would recommend that Public Works take no action
at this time.
One note to add is that we are looking to include Wood Street, from Plain Street
to Meadow Street, in the Bicycle Boulevard plan to connect to Wood Street Park
and the southwest area business district. As part of that plan, we are proposing
to reduce the speed limit to 25mph and to install a traffic calming measure, a
center - island narrowing near the intersection with Meadow Street. We would
also add bicycle pavement markings and directional signage.
An Equal Opportunity Employer wiN a rotmNtment to worldotce &i fflmoon.
io
4r �rtrt
i -2
@3
"�AA7E�
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 6072746530 Fax 607274-6587
Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer
Kent Johnson, Junior Transportation Engineer
May 23, 2012
Removal of Wood and South Street Traffic "Diverters" - update
In the summer of 2011, the "diverters" at the South/Titus /Fair St, intersection and at the
Wood/ Fair St. intersection were removed. Traffic speed and volume data was collected
prior to the removal and now has been collected a year later to determine how traffic
conditions have changed.
Along South/Titus St between Meadow St. and Plain St., traffic volumes have increased
20% to around 1,400 ADT and speeds have remained the same. Along Wood St between
Meadow St. and Plain St., traffic volumes have increased a negligible 3-8% and speeds
have remained the same. The current speeds and traffic volumes we not inappropriate
for these streets and, therefore, no reinstatement of traffic canning measures is
recommended at this time.
Below is a comparison of the 2011 and 2012 data.
Wood Street 300 block (between Plain Street and Far Street)
Count taken April 26-May 5, 2011 (Week and weekend)
o Avenge Daily Traffic = 728 vehicles
o Average Speed =18mph
0 85 %ile speed = 24mph
0 0.9% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit
Count taken May 17-23,2012 (Week and weekend)
o Average Daily Traffic = 785 vehicles (8% increase)
o Average Speed =19mph (negligible decrease)
0 85 %ile speed = 24mph (unchanged)
0 0.9% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit
(unchanged)
Wood Street 400 block (between Fair Street and Meadow Street)
Count taken April 26-May 5, 2011 (Week and weekend)
o Average Daily Traffic = 954 vehicles
o Average Speed =18mph
0 85 %ile speed= 23mph
0 0.3% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit
• Count taken May 17-23,2012 (Week and weekend)
o Average Daily Traffic = 982 vehicles (3% increase)
o Average Speed =18mph (unchanged)
0 85 %ile speed= 23mph(=changed)
0 0.2% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit
(negligible decrease)
S. Titus Ave. 400 block (between Plain Street and Fair Street)
• Count taken May 6-13,2011 (Week and weekend)
o Average Daily Traffic = 1,291 vehicles
o Average Speed =19 mph
0 85 %ile speed = 24 mph
0 0.3% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit
• Count taken May 10-17, 2012 (Week and weekend)
o Average Daily Traffic = 1,538 vehicles (20% increase)
o Average Speed = 18 mph (negligible decrease)
0 85 %ile speed = 23 mph (negligible decrease)
0 0.4% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit
(negligible increase)
South Street 100 block (between Fair Street and Meadow Street)
• Count taken May 6-13,2011 (Week and weekend)
o Average Daily Traffic =1,089 vehicles
o Average Speed =18 mph
0 85 %ile speed = 25 mph
0 1.4% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit
0
• Count taken May 10-17,2012 (Week and weekend)
o Average Daily Traffic = 1,317 vehicles (20% increase)
o Average Speed = 20 mph (11 % increase)
0 85 %Ile speed = 25 mph (unchanged)
0 1.0% of the vehicles were traveling faster than the 30 mph speed limit
(negligible decrease)
F YE
RECEIVED
P.M. CARLSON JUL 2 5 2012
407 NORTH AURORA STREET, ETHACA NY 14850 orRO Or tna
July 20,2012 Supt, and
Jeanne Chace, Forestry Technician
City of Ithaca
245 Pier Road
Ithaca, NY 14550
Dear Jeanne Grace,
It was good to talk to you last week.
RE: Maple in front of 407 N. Aurora St.
We were glad to hear that the large sugar (black) maple in front of 407 North Aurora St. has been
Placed it on the list of trees to prune this year in order to remove the branches that overhang our
historic house and porch, to check the health of the tree canopy, and to remove deadwood.
Attached is a copy of our cover letter to the Board of Public Works dated February 17, 2009,
summarizing the various failures to act on the part of the City of Ithaca that so far have cost us
over $4000 for drain repair from root damage plus $5000 for city assessments for sidewalk
repairs. We had requested permission to do these repairs for years and were PREVENTED By
THE CITY from doing them at an earlier, cheaper stage. The complete file with photos, copies
of bills, etc. should be in your files.
We hope that under your leadership the preservation of Ithca's wonderful urban trees will be
better balanced with the legitimate wncems of property owners and pedestrians.
Our understanding is that you will see to pruning the tree this fall, and will continue to monitor
the tree's health.
Thank you,
Pat Carlson
Enclosure.
cc: Mayor Svante Myrick, Jennifer Dotson, %oard of Public Works, Anna Holmberg Esq.