HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-12 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, November 26, 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. Mayor's 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 November 5, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes
7. Administration and Communications
8. VOTING ITEMS
8.1 Buildings Properties Refuse and Transit
8.2 Highways Streets and Sidewalks
A. Call of Public Hearing for Installation and Assessment of New Sidewalks
and Curbing during the Old Elmira Road "Complete Street" Project -
Resolution
B. Award of Contract for Professional Services for East State /Martin Luther
King Jr. Street and Mitchell Street Traffic Signal - Resolution
8.3 Parking and Traffic
A. Resolution to Grant Hardship for Ithaca Road Residents to Enter the
Residential Parking Permit System
8.4 Creeks Bridges and Parks
A. Request for Reimbursement of Pavilion Fee from Ithaca Motion Picture
Project and Friends of Stewart Park - Resolution
B. Request to Increase Pavilion Rental Fees from Ithaca Youth Bureau -
Resolution
8.5 Water and Sewer
A. Request to Move Water Service from City to Bolton Point for Beta Theta Pi
Fraternity - Resolution
B. Appeal of Water Bill by New York State Dept. of Transportation Third
Street Office - Resolution
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS
9.1 Newman Golf Course
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 Pudic 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 Agenda, November 26, 2012
8.2A Call of Public Hearina for Installation and Assessment of New Sidewalks and
Curbing durina the Old Elmira Road "Complete Street" Project— Resolution
The Board is required to hold a public hearing for any sidewalk or curb improvements that the
Board is considering, which will result in bills to adjacent property owners. Our history is
limited and checkered when calling on commercial properties to undertake these types of
improvements. The last area of similar properties where the city sought to undertake uniform
sidewalk improvements was Elmira Road itself. In that case the property owners were against
the installation of sidewalks for a number of reasons. Among those given were: cost of
installation, cost of snow removal, cost of continuing maintenance, and damage to their
property (especially cars on display) by individuals passing their property on foot. It took
several years before the Board decided it would actually undertake the installation over the
objections of the property owners. In this case the work billed back to property owners will
include both sidewalk and half of the curb installation. Another topic of concern and
controversy will be the driveway curb cuts the city will allow in the new layout. The businesses
Will be going from substantial or continuous driveway openings to limited driveway openings
that they will consider bad for business. We had a foreshadowing of their reaction in the early
1990s when we installed some planters along the edge of Old Elmira Road to try and improve
the appearance, improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, and reduce the vast stretches of
asphalt in the area.
8.2B Award of Contract for Professional Services for East State/Martin Luther Kina Jr.
Street and Mitchell Street Tratfic Signal — Resolution
We would like to get the design work started in order to get the project out to bid this winter for
next year's construction period, and to coordinate the intersection layout of poles and lighting
with the plaza design for major pedestrian entrance to Collegetown Terrace adjacent to the
intersection of State and Mitchell. Please see Tim's memo.
Page 2
8.3A Resolution to Grant Hardship for Ithaca Road Residents to Enter the Residential
Parking Permit System
This resolution is in response to the request of residents along Ithaca Road who felt that the
loss of street parking would significantly impact them by limiting visitors or service people who
would come to their property. They requested permission to participate in the parking system
which regulates parking in the adjacent neighborhoods. The parking regulations were adopted
in 2004 by Common Council in an effort to control commuter parking associated with Cornell
University, with the understanding that the Board of Public Works would create a set of
regulations and then operate the parking system. Please see Tim's memo.
8AA Request for Reimbursement of Pavilion Fee from Ithaca Motion Picture Project
and Friends of Stewart Park — Resolution
guess I put it all in the Resolution. I understand that "not for profits" or individuals on a quest
think that any money they save puts them closer to their goal or allows them to accomplish
more of their chosen task. I believe the thing they forget is that when they are talking to
another not - for -profit agency (the city), the fees or charges may also be needed to accomplish
that party's assigned tasks. I also believe that our rental fee is nominal and serves, like
parking meter fees, to distribute a limited resource among those who want to use it. You get to
choose the level of use; a choice you would not make if it was free.
8.413 Request to Increase Pavilion Rental Fees from Ithaca Youth Bureau —Resolution
Please see the resolution and background information in the November 5, 2012, agenda. The
fee structure has not changed in almost twenty years. It doesn't begin to reflect the cost of the
facilities, let alone the value of the facilities and the parks to the community. Council has
already budgeted the estimated increase in income, so...
8.5A Approval to Move Water Service from City to Bolton Point for Beta Theta Pi
rracennav — MVOVIYr1V11
Again the resolution is fairly complete. Erik or I would be glad to answer any questions.
8.513 Appeal of Water Bill by New York State Dept. of Transportation Third Street Office
— Resolution
The NYSDOT water bill is just a clean -up of an old item which we should have resolved years
ago. Sorry for the delay. It is hard on the Chamberlain's office when they have to keep track
of outstanding bills like this one, and it is almost unforgivable to ask them to if they are so easy
to resolve when you slow down to actually look at the facts.
9.1 Newman Golf Course
This is a continuation of our current conversation about management and operation of the golf
course, with the goal of closing the gap between revenues and expenditures. This reviews the
option of private operation of the course.
Willie J. C P.E.
Superi.wtewdewt
of PuWa Works
Novew ber 21, 2022
Page 3
8.2A Call of Public Hearing for Installation and Assessment of New Sidewalks and
Curbing during the Old Elmira Road "Complete Street' Project— Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has been awarded $682,500 in Community Revitalization
Program funding for improvements to the 100 -200 blocks of Old Elmira Road that will include
the construction of new sidewalk, driveways, and curbing along the majority of Old Elmira
Road, in addition to numerous other improvements, and
WHEREAS, Common Council passed a resolution on July 2, 2012, in support of this project,
including assessing adjacent property owners for applicable sidewalk and curb work, an
assessment estimated at $192,000, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby calls a public hearing for the installation
of sidewalks, driveways, and curbing in the 100 -200 Blocks of Old Elmira Road for their
meeting on December 10, 2012, and be it further
RESOLVED, That staff be directed to publicize this meeting as set forth in the City Code
Page 4
8.28 Award of Contract for Professional Services for East State /Martin Luther King Jr
Street and Mitchell Street Traffic Signal — Resolution
WHEREAS, a Capital Project for a new traffic signal and road widening at the intersection of
East State /Martin Luther King Jr. Street was included in the City of Ithaca 2012 Budget as
Capital Project #775 in the amount of $450,000, and
WHEREAS, the Engineering Office received five proposals for design, with an option to add
construction inspection services, and following review of the proposals recommended
Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP as the consultant, and
WHEREAS, the scope of work for the study is acceptable to the City of Ithaca and Creighton
Manning Engineering, LLP a cost not to exceed $29,870 for the study and design, with an
option for construction inspection services at an additional estimated cost of $22,550 and
WHEREAS, funds for the study are available from Capital Project 775, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Board of Public Works authorizes the Superintendent of Public Works to
enter into contract with Creighton Manning, LLC for professional services related to the design
and reconstruction of the traffic signal in Collegetown at a total project cost not to exceed
$55,000.
Page 5
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
OFFICE OF THE Cr Y ENGINEER
11,lephone: 607/274 -6530 Fax: 607274 -6587
To:
Board of Public Works
From:
Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer
Date:
November 8, 2012
Re:
EastState /MLK Jr. Street and Mitchell Street
Award of Contract for Professional Services
Capital Project #775
Please find enclosed a resolution to award a contract to Creighton Manning
Engineering, LLP to design a new traffic signal for the intersection of East
State /Martin Luther King Jr. Street and Mitchell Street. A capital project was
created for design and construction in the 2012 city budget. A Request for
Proposals was issued to seven consultants on September 28 'h. Five consultants
responded: Creighton Manning, Barton & Loguidice, Erdman Anthony, C&S
Engineers, and Fisher Associates. Bergmann Associates and SRF & Associates
declined to propose.
Proposals were evaluated by two staff members and Creighton Manning was
chosen based on their understanding of the project, experience, past work with
the City, and moderate price. Also, they have some very interesting experience in
the Capital District with signal pre - emption and queue jumpers for transit.
As part of the project, we will evaluate an option to remove the island and install
new curbing on the north side of the intersection to provide better pedestrian
and signal pole space. Though we considered additional geometric alternatives
to evaluate, we have not included them in this scope of work in the interest of
keeping a schedule for construction in 2013 and to maintain coordination with
the adjacent Collegetown Terrace project. There will be two traffic signal
alternatives evaluated, including options for signal pole layout and options for
bicycle and pedestrian phasing. I have include construction inspection services in
the not to exceed authorization, though it is likely that we will add this scope of
work as an addendum to contract later in the design process. I have included the
scope of work in case you are interested.
'M Equal Oppo=nity Employer anU a com tmcnu m workforce djwa &Wio,i'
0
CJ
VVMi Creighton
Manning
This section describes the approach to the project. Refer to the Management Plan and the
Staff Hour table in the Fee Proposal for the team organization, who will perform each task,
and the amount of time expected on each task.
PHASE I— SLOPING and PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE
This phase will be completed in eight (g) weeks or less.
Task 1.1— Meeting and Base Mapping
Creighton Manning will conduct a project kickoff meeting with the City of Ithaca to review the
study approach and available information. It is assumed that the City will provide, or facilitate
providing past studies. Creighton Manning has teamed with TG Miller and will bring existing
base mapping and existing concepts to the kick-off meeting. A field visit will be conducted on
the same day as the kick -off meeting. The mapping will be marked -up for additional survey
needs required for the signal and geometric design, and to identify issues that may affect the
design.
Additional field survey and mapping will be conducted by TG Miller to supplement existing
mapping. The survey and mapping will include the following items necessary for signal design,
and potential channelization and removal of the raised divisional island, as necessary to
supplement the available data:
• Existing conditions survey for limits of proposed turn lane (Along East State Street
approximately 300 feet east and west of Mitchell Street), and approximately 300 feet
along Mitchell Street
• Spot elevations at the corners and at the center of the intersection
• Edge of pavement and edge of curb
• Property lines and R.O.W. lines
• Pavement type and existing pavement markings
• Underground utility tone out, and visible features, overhead utilities, and structures
(i.e., overhead wire heights, catch basins, fire hydrants, manholes, valves, etc.)
• Streetscape elements such as trees, sidewalks, signs, drainage ditches, fences, etc.
• Location of nearest power source for signal
Base mapping will be provided in AutoCad at 1" = 20'scale (1" =40' half size).
The Creighton Manning team will build from previous work and develop two preliminary
design alternatives for the turn lane — one maintaining the raised divisional island, and one
involving channelization and elimination of the island. Responsibilities for the construction of
the widening will be confirmed as part of the MOU between the City and the developer and it
is assumed that City forces will complete the roadway construction. Creighton Manning will
obtain the MOU, and will coordinate with the City to confirm the Intersection layout.
Page 1 of 5
Task 1.2 — Traffic Counts and Analysis
Creighton Manning will install two automatic traffic recorders for signal warrants analysis, and
will conduct AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement counts for operational
analysis. The intersection counts will be conducted on a typical weekday. During the data
collection period, all pedestrians and bicyclists at the intersection will be recorded.
The traffic count data and proposed development information will be analyzed to determine
peak hour volumes, and the data will also be compared to the signal warrants contained in the
Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the NYS Supplement. The
Highway Capacity Software (HCS) will be utilized to determine levels of service and traffic
signal timing and phasing plan that optimizes operations. The need for bicycles, bicycle
detection, emergency and transit pre - emption, and pedestrian crossing times will be
considered.
Two concepts and preliminary cost estimates will be developed for the traffic signal which
could include alternate signal layouts and /or operations. We will coordinate with the City and
hold a conference call to discuss the general design concepts and to get concurrence on the
proposed alternatives, pole locations, and operations.
Task 1.3— Public meeting, Public Works meeting, and Preferred Alternative
Two meetings will be held. A public meeting will be held to introduce the concepts and obtain
community input. The meeting will consist of an open -house format and a short presentation.
It is assumed that the City will take care of the meeting announcement and will provide the
space for the meeting. The consultant will prepare all material and facilitate the meeting.
Following the public meeting, the consultant will summarize pubic comments and concerns
and present the concept to the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works. As a result of the
meetings, the preferred alternative will be confirmed and documented in a short design
report. Detailed design will then begin.
Phase 1 Deliverables: Survey base map, traffic count data, signal warrants analysis, two
geometric concepts, two signal concepts, operational analysis, preliminary cost estimates,
public meeting, Public Works meeting, recommended alternative in the form of a technical
memorandum (short design report).
PHASE II— CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE
The design phase, ending with advertisement, can be completed in six weeks.
Task 2.1— Advance Detail Plans (ADPS 90% submittal)
General Plans will be prepared for the turn lane widening which will include basic geometric
information such as curb radii and lane widths. Detail would be similar to the level of design
prepared previously by TG Miller.
Page 2 of 5
Traffic signal design plans at 1" = 2U scale (1 "=40' half scale) will be prepared for the East
State Street /Mitchell Street/ MLK Jr Street intersections in accordance with applicable City of
Ithaca and NYSDOTstandards and will Include the following as appropriate:
• Location and size of traffic signal poles
• Location and type of traffic signal heads
• Table of Operations to illustrate the sequence of the required signal phases
• Table of Clearances
• Location and type of any signs to be attached to the traffic signal
• Location and type of vehicle detectors to be Installed
• Location of conduit runs and pull boxes necessary for the installation
• Wiring diagram to illustrate the wiring required outside the controller assembly,
including wiring to a power source
• Location and type of controller
• Offsetfrom existing structures to newstructures forease of site layout
• City of Ithaca typicals and equipment diagrams
• NYSDOT typicals and equipment diagrams (as applicable)
• Estimate of quantities including the appropriate NYSDOT item numbers
• Technical specifications for non - standard NYSDOT items
• All City of Ithaca General and Special project notes
• All NYSDOT standard and special notes (as applicable)
The signal design work shall comply with the NYS Standard Sheets and Specifications, the
MUTCD and NYS Supplement, and City of Ithaca Traffic Signal Specifications and Standards
unless otherwise stipulated in writing by the City during project meetings.
The consultant will coordinate with the City to prepare the contract documents for sending
the project out to bid. It is assumed that the City will provide their contract document
template and City specific notes and requirements, and that the consultant will prepare the
document for City review.
Creighton Manning will submit two sets of the Advance Detail Plans (ADPS) at the 90%
complete stage to the City for review and comment. The engineer's estimate of probable
construction cost will also be submitted. Upon receipt of review comments, we will
coordinate with the City to reach concurrence on the resolution of the comments on the
Design and Contract Documents before proceeding with the development of the Final Signal
Design.
Task 2.2— Final Signal Design (100% submittal)
Based on comments received from the City, we will develop Final Signal Design plans for the
intersection. The documents will consist of Traffic Signal Plan and will include associated
tables, diagrams, and specifications. Bid documents will also be finalized. Creighton Manning
will coordinate with the City regarding the bid and will discuss the plans with the City before
plan set production.
Page 3 of 5
The Consultant will coordinate with the City to advertise and Let the project. This will include a
pre -bid meeting with the Owner and prospective bidders, phone calls and the preparation of
addenda or other documents during the bidding process. The consultant will also complete
the bid analysis and make a recommendation for awarding the project.
Task 2 Deliverables: One full size set of Mylar plans (24 "x36" plot); Three (3) sets of half scale
plans (11 "x17 ") and one CD with electronic copies of the signal design files to the City; Up to
eight (8) copies of the Contract Documents for bidding. The signal plans will be signed and
sealed by a licensed New York State professional engineer. Engineers workup, such as signal
pole calculations and other supporting design paperwork, will be provided to the City for
future use.
PHASE III — CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND MANAGEMENT (OPTIONAL)
Task 3.1— Construction Administration and Inspection
Creighton Manning will provide a qualified engineer and construction inspector to perform
the following construction administration/ inspection related services:
• Assist the Owner and attend the pre -construction meeting.
• Review and recommend Contractors Change Order requests.
• Review submittals, shop drawings and field changes.
• Coordinate and review any needed test results.
• Answer field construction oriented questions by the Contractor.
• Coordinate all construction activities with the Client, and all other involved
agencies.
• Inspection to ensure Contractors compliance with the contract plans and
specifications.
• Prepare and maintain daily written reports and project records.
• Coordinate and work with the city Electrical Shop Supervisor.
• Coordinate with utility companies and emergency service providers.
• Witness and document any and all testing.
• Prepare as -built drawings, in accordance with NYSDOT requirements, upon
completion of construction.
Reporting
Progress meetings will be held with the Contractor and the Client. These meetings will
provide an opportunity to discuss the project progress to -date, as well as raise issues that
require attention by the Client. In our past assignments, these meetings have, at times, been
used as a working session where plans or sketches of a specific problem may be reviewed and
resolved in an expeditious manner. If there were an identified task that was delayed, this
would be the time to discuss the reason for the delay and the corrective action needed to
bring the task back on schedule.
Page 4 of 5
The scope of work, schedule and proposed fee are based on the following Technical
Assumptions:
1. T.G. Miller will update the base mapping
2. ROW can be readily obtained from existing files. No deed research is assumed.
3. General Plans for roadway widening are included, consistent with the level of design
prepared previously by TG Miller. This does not include preparation of final
bid /construction drawings, details or specifications for the roadway work. It is assumed
that the roadway widening on the south side is set per the site plan. The general plan
will include the possibility of removing the raised divisional island and curb and sidewalk
relocation in the area of the island to channelize the intersection. Assume no curb
widening is planned along Mitchell Street.
4. The Project will be built with local funds. No State or Federal funds or environmental
approval is assumed.
5. The team will contact utility companies in the vicinity of the intersection sites for
available mapping and locate visible utilities in the field.
6. The signal design shall be included in one set of Construction Documents.
7. The general plan for the roadway work will be a separate document.
8. Survey limits extend approximately 300 feet on each approach to the intersection and
within the ROW.
9. Preparation of acquisition maps is excluded from this Proposal.
10. The team will contact Dig Safely NV for underground utility tone out.
11. The team will survey the wire heights at the intersection.
12. Fee does not Include clearing of snow and ice for survey purposes.
Page 5 of 5
8.3A Resolution to Grant Hardship for Ithaca Road Residents to Enter the Residential
Parking Permit System
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works (BPW) has promulgated regulations, adopted June 9,
2004, for implementation of the Residential Parking Permit System (RPPS), which was
established by Common Council on May 6, 1998 after an act of the New York State
Legislature, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 260-4 of the City Code and in accordance with the
BPW regulations, the BPW may grant hardship requests, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works, on April 23, 2012, approved the removal of on- street
parking along the 100 to 300 blocks of Ithaca Rd. to facilitate the installation of an uphill bike
lane, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has determined that this change may result in a
hardship to some Ithaca Road residents who previously utilized the on- street parking spaces in
these locations, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby grants residents of the 100, 200 and 300
blocks of Ithaca Road the ability to apply for and purchase permits for the Residential Parking
Permit Systems, in accordance with the above - mentioned regulations.
Page 6
04 tT!ta CITY OF ITHACA
a.� .....fir
u% a 108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
i !
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
C�.��`• /�QP Telephone: 607274-6530 1.; 607274 -6587
'91RCfE0
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tim Logue, Transportation Engineer TNL-
Date: November 5, 2012
Re: Ithaca Road - parking and the bike lane
I understand from the Superintendent that you have continued to discuss the
Ithaca Road bike lane and the associated parking prohibition. It seems that a few
things have been on the table for discussion, including: the public process by
which the bike lane was approved and the parking removed, allowing Ithaca
Road residents the ability to purchase permits for the Residential Parking Permit
System (APPS), adding a couple parking spaces (perhaps reserved for people
with disabilities) on Ithaca Road, designating 2 hour parking on Elmwood and
Dryden Roads, traffic calming, the meaning of the regulations for "No Parking
Any Time' and the bike lane, and the possibility of adding additional parking
around Bryant Park.
I didn t hear any further questions or request for information about the process
for approving the bike lane and for prohibiting parking on the street. Though I
certainly don't claim that our public outreach was perfect or conveyed
everything to everyone, I do feel that we both solicited public input on the street
project and that we were able to accommodate some requests, though not all.
I think allowing residents of Ithaca Road to purchase permits for the RPPS will
have no significant impact on side streets, but will allow a degree of flexibility for
residents on Ithaca Road. This permission would allow residents to purchase up
to two permits per year, as well as visitors' permits; this should provide a degree
of flexibility for visitors and contractors, as well as allowing residents to park on
side streets and open up their driveway for guests or workers. To this end, please
find enclosed a resolution for your consideration that would allow for this.
I don't think adding parking spaces to the top or bottom of Ithaca Road is a good
idea. Itwould mean shortening the bike lane to allow for the on street parking
and it would also mean a break in the continuity of the uphill bike lane and fairly
important locations (near intersections). I think allowing residents to purchase
the RPPS permit will address much of the demand for on -street parking. Also,
Page 1 of 2
"M Equal OppoMitity Employer with a cotmmtment to woflubnx diversification." CO
last week, you saw a request from an Ithaca Road resident for an on -street
reserved parking space for people with disabilities, but not for Ithaca Road,
rather the request was for around the comer of Dryden Road. It seems that this
will go a long way to meet their needs.
If the BPW wants to create two hour parking on Elmwood Avenue or Dryden
Road, to replace the two hour parking that was in the 300 block of Ithaca Road, I
do not have any problem with that Typically, we do ask for a petition from the
blocks that would be affected by the change so that we are not surprised by
someone asking for it to be changed back afterwards.
As far as traffic calming, we are planning to conduct some traffic counts in the
spring that would include volume, speed and vehicle classification (cars, trucks,
motorcycles, etc.). In the meantime, we can notify the Police Department that
there have been some concerns about speeding.
According to the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, "No Parking" means
that "no person shall park a vehicle, whether occupied or not but may stop or
stand temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or
unloading merchandise or passengers." The bike lane is for preferential use by
bicyclists, but not exclusive. Motorists cannot obstruct traffic by leaving an
unattended vehicle blocking a travel lane. However, within these rules, it seems
allowable that someone can temporarily stop or stand along the curb to load or
unload people or things. It might be wise to do so on the uphill side of the street
(blocking the bike lane temporarily), instead of the downhill side of the street,
because the uphill side of the street is wider with respect to the double yellow
centerline. If someone is blocking the bike lane with a parked vehicle, that would
be illegal.
We have not really explored the idea of adding parking to Bryant Avenue, along
the park. Currently, parking is allowed across the street (the northside of the
street), but prohibited along the park. Bryant Avenue is approximately 26 feet
wide. This means parking on one side of the local street would be acceptable, but
allowing parking on both sides of the street would make it a very narrow
"courtesy" street, there would be essentially one travel lane down the middle of
the street and motorists would have to use breaks in the row of parked cars to
yield and pass by each other. For comparison, the first few blocks of Linn Street,
north of the University Avenue intersection, are almost 30 feet wide. One
difference from Linn Street, is that this block of Bryant Ave only has one
driveway, so if parking demand is significant, there may not be courtesy gaps. If
the BPW is interested, we can explore this more, but my first look does not seem
promising.
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF ITHACA
RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT SYSTEM REGULATIONS:
Adopted by the Board of Public Works on June 9, 2004
Petitioning for the Permit System.
A. Residents within the residential parking permit zone established by Common Council
on May 6, 1998, are required to petition the City Clerk's office for the establishment of a
Residential Parking Permit Area.
B. A Residential Parking Permit Area within the Residential Parking Permit Zone shall
be one permit block. Each permit block shall be established according to the block
numbers, such as the 100 or 200 block of a street.
C. Only R1 and R2 zones, as established in the City Zoning Ordinance Section 325 -4 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca are eligible to participate in the Residential
Parking Permit System.
D. A permit block is one city street and its abutting block faces, which differs from a city
block. A city block does not include the street.
E. The permit block for a corner property shall be determined by the property's
assessment address.
Petition Eligibility.
A. The petition may be requested from the City Clerk's Office, and when returned must
be signed by at least 51% of the eligible residents in the proposed permit block in order
to qualify for inclusion in the permit system.
B. In an R1 zone, not more than one resident per tax parcel shall be permitted to sign
the petition for the establishment of the permit system.
C. In an R2 zone, not more than one resident per dwelling unit or two residents per tax
parcel, whichever is fewer, shall be permitted to sign the petition for the establishment
of the permit system.
D. All eligible residents signing the petition must be at least 18 years of age.
E. A block petitioning for the permit system must hereby meet certain minimum
requirements with respect to parking occupancy. The City Traffic Engineer will conduct
a parking survey over two separate days during average weekly peak hours to
determine that at least 75% of the legally available parking spaces are being utilized.
Permit System Renewal.
Once a block is included in the permit system, it is included unless and until it is formally
repealed.
Permit System Repeal.
A. If 51% of the eligible residents wish to have the permit system regulations rescinded,
they may petition for removal from the Residential Parking Permit System.
B. Action to rescind may not begin until a waiting period of six months from the
enactment date for that block has passed.
RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT SYSTEM REGULATIONS:
Page Two
C. The Board of Public Works reserves the right to rescind the Residential Parking
Permit System Regulations for a block if the City Traffic Engineer determines that the
parking permit system is being underutilized by the eligible residents of the block. The
determination may be made based on the fact that less than 25% of the eligible permits
for the block have been sold in the past two (2) consecutive years,
Permit Allocation.
A. Only residents of properties zoned R1 and R2 located in the Residential Parking
Permit Zone shall be eligible to purchase parking permits.
B. The City zoning category in which the property is located shall determine the
maximum number of permits allowed per dwelling unit.
C. Properties in an R1 zone are hereby allowed access to two permits, and no more.
D. Properties in an R2 zone are hereby allowed access to two permits per dwelling unit
with a maximum of four permits and no more per property. Based on City zoning laws
the greatest legal number of dwelling units allowed in a structure in an R2 zone is two.
E. Permits shall be issued to vehicles registered to, or under the control of, residents in
the permit area, and are non - transferable.
F. Permits shall be available for sale on August 1" and shall expire on July 31" of the
following year.
G. Residents in blocks participating in the Residential Parking Permit System may
purchase up to 4 Visitor Passes per year with a limit of 8 passes per property in an R1
zone and 16 passes per property in an R2 zone. Visitor Passes shall be valid for a
period of two.consecutive weeks, and will be issued to a specific vehicle.
H. It shall be a violation of Chapter 260 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled
"Residential Parking Permit System" for residents to purchase permits for people who
do not reside in the permit area.
Permit Allocation for Non - Conforming Uses
A. Properties not conforming to the traditional R1 and R2 zone uses (such as
grandfathered properties) shall not receive any grandfathered rights regarding parking
permit system.
B. Grandfathered properties in an Rt zone shall hereby be considered a single - family
house.
C. Grandfathered properties in an R2 zone shall hereby be treated as a duplex.
D. The zone in which the property is located, not the number of apartments or the
number of occupants, determines how many permits may be purchased.
Permit Issuance.
A. The permits shall be issued to individual residents of a permit area and assigned to
a unique vehicle license plate number.
B. A resident is defined as any person, homeowner or renter, living in a dwelling unit in
a permit area.
C. The issuance of permits through landlords is hereby prohibited.
RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT SYSTEM REGULATIONS:
Page Three
D. Homeowners and renters must provide the vehicle registration or copy thereof, of the
vehicle in question.
E. Homeowners and renters may prove residency by producing a deed, current lease,
drivers license with valid address, telephone or utility bill, or other similar
documentation.
F. The fee for a residential parking permit shall be $45 per year.
G. Permits may be purchased any time during the year for the said annual fee.
H. Partial year permits shall not be issued.
I. Permits shall be valid from date of issue through July 31.
J. The fee for a visitor pass is $10.
K. This is a voluntary program. Residents living in a block included in the permit system
are not required to purchase permits, however compliance with city parking regulations
is required.
L. Permits may be renewed through the mail with proper documentation and a $45 fee.
Permits will be issued by the City Clerk's Office on a "first come — first served" basis.
M. If a permit holder wishes to transfer a permit to a different vehicle, or there is a
change of license plates on a vehicle with a permit, the new license plate number and
vehicle identification number must be reported to the City Clerk. A new permit will be
issued without charge, only if physical remnants of the old permit are returned. If the
physical remnants of the old permit are not returned, the new permit will only be issued
if there is an eligible permit available for the property, at a cost of $45.
Hours in Effect
A. Permit requirements established pursuant to this section shall be in effect during all
or a portion of the following times: From Monday to Friday between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., excluding holidays.
B. Permit holders will be exempt from the 9am -fpm and 1 -5pm "no parking" regulations
in resident parking permit areas.
C. Street signage will display the restricted hours.
D. Permit holders and non - permit holders must abide by all other City parking
restrictions set forth in the Vehicle and Traffic Chapter of the City of Ithaca Municipal
Code including the oddleven overnight restriction, 24 -hour parking limits, loading zones,
handicap parking, etc.
E. Placement of the "no parking" time restrictions will be staggered in order to provide
some short-term visitor parking on a block at all times. In the case of blocks with legal
on- street parking only on one side, the time restrictions will be split along the legal side
of the street.
Permit System Alternative.
Residents may petition the City Traffic Engineer to install appropriate weekday time
restriction signage (such as "No Parking 9 am —1 pm ") on their streets. This offers an
alternative option for blocks that elect not to participate in the permit system but want
the benefits of time restricted parking for their street.
RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT SYSTEM REGULATIONS:
Page Four
Appeal Process
Residents may file written appeals with the Board of Public Works for either hardship
consideration or the denial of permits by the City Clerk's Office.
06/04
An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 260 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Entitled
"Residential Parking Permit System"
Ordinance 04 -09
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as
follows:
Section 1. Sections 260 -2, 260 -3, 260-4 and 260 -5 Chapter 260 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code entitled "Residential Parking Permit System' are hereby amended to
read as follows:
§ 260 -2. Definition of terms.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions of terms shall be controlling:
COMMUTER -- A person who does not live in the residential parking permit area, but
parks in the area and whose destination is outside the area.
RESIDENT -- A homeowner or tenant residing in a dwelling unit in the residential
parking permit area in the R -1 a, R -1 b, R -2a, or R -2b zones of the City of Ithaca as
established in § 325-4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca.
RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT ZONE:
A. The area bounded by the following roadways and corporate boundaries: (1)
East State Street from Cornell Street to Giles Street;
(2) Giles Street to Water Street;
(3) Water Street to East State Street;
(4) East State Street from Water Street to Seneca Way;
(5) Seneca Way from East State Street to East Seneca Street;
(6) East Seneca Street from Seneca Way to Parker Street;
(7) Parker Street to Terrace Place;
(6) Terrace Place to Linn Street;
(9) Linn Street from East Court Street to University Avenue;
(10) University Avenue from Linn Street to Willard Way;
(11) Willard Way from University Avenue to Stewart Avenue;
(12) Stewart Avenue from Willard Way to the corporate boundary between the City of
Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights;
(13) Following the corporate boundary between the City of Ithaca and the Village of
Cayuga Heights east to the corporate boundary between the City of Ithaca and
the Town of Ithaca;
(14) Following the corporate boundary between the City of Ithaca and the Town of
Ithaca south to East State Street; and
(15) East State Street from the corporate boundary to Giles Street; and
B. Consisting of the following roadways:
(1) Treva Avenue west of Water Street;
(2) Valentine Place south of East State Street;
(3) Quarry Street south of East State Street;
(4) Ferris Place south of East State Street;
(5) Linn Street north of Terrace Place to Farm Street;
(6) Lake Street north of University Avenue to the north property line of Tax Map
Parcel 28 -4 -7; and
(7) Willard Way and Willard Way Loop north of University Avenue.
C. The Residential Parking Permit Zone shall include properties that face both sides
of the above -named roadways.
D. The Residential Parking Permit Zone Map is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT AREA — A sub -area of the residential parking
permit zone. Only the portions of the area which are zoned as R -1 and R -2 districts (as
established by Article II of Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca) will
be included in the area.
§ 260 -3. Designation of permit parking areas; rules and regulations.
A. The Board of Public Works of the City of Ithaca may designate residential parking
permit areas in accordance with this chapter. Such areas shall be designated only
within the residential parking permit zone, and shall exclude any streets located within
the boundaries of the Cornell University campus.
B. The Board of Public Works shall establish rules and regulations for the
designation of residential parking permit areas and the issuance and use of residential
parking permits.
C. Permit requirements established pursuant to this section shall be in effect during
all or a portion of the following times: from Monday to Friday between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m.
D. No less than 20% of the parking spaces within the resident parking permit zone
shall be available to nonresidents.
E. Short-term parking of no less than 120 minutes in duration shall be available in
the residential parking permit zone.
F. The fee for a residential parking permit shall be $45 per year. All such fees shall
be credited to the general fund of the city.
§ 260-4. Exemptions.
A. Motor vehicles registered pursuant to § 404 -a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law shall
be exempt from any permit requirement establish pursuant to this chapter.
B. A resident may apply to the Board of Public Works for a permit not otherwise
available pursuant to the aforementioned rules and regulations in the following
circumstances:
(1) Where a home health care provider provides home health care to a resident and
regularly drives to the resident's home.
(2) Where a resident has a short -term health emergency.
(3) Where residents living on a street within the Residential Parking Permit Zone
without on- street parking wish to purchase a permit for on- street parking on a street
where permits are required.
(4) Such other instances of hardship (excluding self- created hardship) as the Board
of Public Works in their discretion determines sufficient for issuance of additional
residential parking permits.
§ 260 -5. Penalties for offenses.
A. No person shall park a vehicle nor allow a vehicle to be parked in an area which
has been designated a residential parking permit area by the Board of Public Works,
and at times when parking is prohibited in such residential parking permit area pursuant
to regulations established by the Board of Public Works, unless the vehicle shall have
affixed to the bottom rear comer of the passenger window on the driver's side of the
vehicle a valid residential parking permit, or unless said vehicle is registered in
accordance with § 404 -a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and the vehicle is being used for
the transportation of a person with disabilities. Violation of this section shall be
punishable by a fine of $15.
B. No resident of a residential parking permit area designated by the Board of
Public Works shall permit a nonresident to use a residential parking permit issued to a
resident, or aid a nonresident in any way in obtaining a resident parking permit.
Violation of the terms of this section shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $250
and /or suspension of residential parking permit privileges for a period not to exceed 12
months.
Section 2. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately in accordance with law upon publication of
a notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Publish Date: June 12, 2004
Ithaca
Back to Web Site
Ithaca
a great place to ...
Page 1 of I
City of Ithaca Parking Regulations
Parking Policies
Please note that from November 1 through April 1, the City of Ithaca has an odd -even
parking regulation to facilitate snow removal and street cleaning:
According to Section 246 -26 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code:
Effective November 1 through April 1 of each year no person shall park a vehicle between 2'.00 a.m. and
6:00 a.m. on the odd- numbered side of all City streets on the odd - numbered days of the calendar month,
and on the even - numbered side of all City streets on the even - numbered days of the calendar month.
To explain this policy in simple.terms: when you park your car for the evening, park on the side of the
street were the house numbers are even (102, 104, etc -) on even numbered days (November 101h); and
on the side of the street with odd house numbers on odd days of the week (November 11 th). Your
compliance with this policy helps to keep the city's streets free from accumulated snow. and free from
debris.
24 -Hour Parking Policy
On September 8, 1999, the Board of Public Works passed a Resolution that imposed a city -wide 24
hour parking restriction effective Monday thru Friday.
This means that you must move your vehicle every 24 hours during the week. This policy ensures that
the city's streets are not used for vehicle storage, and that parking spaces are available to residents and
visitors. Vehicles left unattended, and that have not moved on city streets for more than 72 hours could
be considered abandoned, and become subject to towing
If you have questions regarding these policies, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (607) 274 -6570
Contact webre ster @atye50aca on, with any Questions. City Hall is located at 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850.
`0
ti, - Jr. 1 CD`k1,fs — ,I(LrAtali
htfn- JAtkkAv ritenfithnca. ore'index.acn°Tvne =R EV& SEC= 136F5C077 -C105- 4305 - 8533 -... ,31,2004
instructions for putting your residential parking
permit on your vehicle
please place your permit here
if you have tinted windows
please place your permit here
PLEASE PLACE YOUR PERMIT HERE
IF YOU HAVE TINTED WINDOWS PLEASE
PLACE YOUR PERMIT HERE
i�"rl LO�LtC
NA e n #3
Sub-Zones
City of Ithaca Zoning Map
Resident Parking Permit Zone
8.4A Request for Reimbursement of Pavilion Fee from Ithaca Motion Picture Project
and Friends of Stewart Park — Resolution
WHEREAS, The Ithaca Motion Picture Project and the Friends of Stewart Park held an event
in the park on October 13, 2012, to celebrate Silent Movie Month, rented the Large Pavilion
from the Youth Bureau for the Event, and subsequently have requested that the cost of the
rental be returned because the event was a celebration of the park held in collaboration with
the City, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has a long standing pattern of turning down requests to
waive or return fees for non -profits or similar private well - intended or socially motivated events
because: the Board has no basis on which to judge the relative value of an event to the
community; the Board has set rental fees which in no way reflects the cost of owning,
operating, and maintaining the facilities in the park; the Board regards the modest fee structure
as a method of distributing the availability of the facilities by allowing individuals or entities to
make a decision about their need when renting the facility for their use; and finally that the
system in place is fair, equitable, and simple but would break down if the Board started
returning some of the rental fees based on a judgment of value to the community; now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works denies the request to expunge the fee charged to
the Ithaca Motion Picture Project for the rental of the Large Pavilion in Stewart Park for their
event on October 13, 2012.
Page 7
8.413 Request to Increase Pavilion Rental Fees from Ithaca Youth Bureau - Resolution
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau was requested to review the pavilion rental fee structure
in both Stewart and Cass Parks as part of their budget process because they handle the
rentals and are most familiar with the current use or demand for the facilities in both parks, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau has developed a new proposed fee structure which
largely reflects a twenty percent (20 %) rate increase in the current fees (which appear to date
back to January 27, 1993), and this structure was indirectly adopted as part of the 2013 budget
because the projected increase in revenues, estimated at $4,000 per year, was adopted as
part of the budget, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works adopts the following rate structure for use at both
Cass and Stewart Park:
Current Fees (set in 1993) Proposed New Fees
Cass Park
.
Up to 24 people
$30.00
$36.00
.
25 - 74 people
$60.00
$72.00
.
75 + people or Exclusive Use
$75.00
$90.00
Stewart Park Small Pavilion
.
Up to 24 people
$30.00
$36.00
.
25 - 74 people
$60.00
$72.00
.
75 + people or Exclusive Use
$100.00
$120.00
Stewart Park Large Pavilion
.
Up to 24 people
$30.00
$36.00
.
25 - 74 people
$60.00
$72.00
.
75 - 99 people
$100.00
$120.00
.
100 - 149 people
$125.00
$150.00
.
150 + people or Exclusive Use
$150.00
$180.00
Page 8
8.5A Approval to Move Water Service from City to Bolton Point for Beta Theta Pi
Fraternity — Resolution
WHEREAS, the Water and Sewer Division has received a request from Beta Theta Pi
fraternity, located at 100 Ridgewood Road, to move their water service from the city's water
system to the Bolton Point System adjacent to their property in the Village of Cayuga Heights,
and
WHEREAS, their request is the result of a Cornell University program requiring the Greek
houses to improve residential safety by providing a sprinkler system in their buildings, and the
initial engineering investigation for designing the sprinklers finds that both the water pressure
and the available flow in the city's system are too low to allow the sprinkler system to function,
which has been confirmed by staff, and
WHEREAS, the city and the Town of Ithaca have areas or individual addresses which have
been operated on whichever water distribution system can provide the best or most
appropriate water supply at that location and then makes water adjustments at year's end to
balance the water swaps, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That water service for Beta Theta Pi at 100 Ridgewood Road may be switched
from the city's system to the Bolton Point System under the usual terms and conditions, with
the understanding that the water service at this address will be restored to the city system
when it is capable of supporting a sprinkler system at that address.
8.5B Appeal of Water Bill by New York State Dept. of Transportation Third Street Office
— Resolution
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has a sub - residency
in the City of Ithaca on the Third Street Extension which has a long history of minimum water
and sewer bills for that address, and
WHEREAS, the water meter at that location was replaced as part of a city -wide change out of
water meters on August 10, 2007, and there appears to have been a misreading of the old
meter at that time resulting in the water and sewer bills for that address jumping from
approximately $325 each per quarter to a one time billing of about $5,500 each for the next
quarter, immediately follow by several quarters of minimum bills, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works grants the NYSDOT's (Cortland Office) request
to expunge the outstanding bill for October 2007 as well as any outstanding late penalties
which may have accrued, and replace it with a minimum bill appropriate for the date on which it
should have been sent.
Page 9
(11/19/2012) Kathrin Gehring - Newman Report to BPW Page 1
From: Tom Hanna <tph3 @comell.edu>
To: rayb @cityofithaca.org" <rayb @cityofithaca.org >,
"billg@cityofithaca.org...
CC: mkhsb @aol.com Babbage" <mkhsb @acl.com >,
"kgehring @cityofithaca.org" <kg...
Date: 11/19/2012 12:46 PM
Subject: Newman Report to BPW
Attachments: DraftNewmanLeasingOptionV2.docx
Hi, Ray and Bill,
As you know Friends of Newman promised BPW to provide a report for the agenda of
December 3. The topic: "Is Private Management a Viable Option for Newman Golf
Course ?"
Our answer is "Not now, but ask us again in three years."
In fact, we recommend BPW support us in pursuing the emerging management plan
seen in the 2013 budget and in this report and the Master Plan. This report includes a
2013 -2015 Pro Forma showing a rationale for how the Newman Parkland can soon
sustain itself without taxpayer support.
Enclosed is a Draft for your review. If you have comments now we are listening. We
will also check in with BPW members who worked with us on this.
You can guess that serious effort went into this report. We intend to use it as part of
our roadmap going forward. More that 15 individuals here and around the country have
had a hand in its development. Four members of BPW -- Bill Goldsmith, Govind
Acharya, Mark Darling and Jeanne Lacesse -- helped inspire and guide its creation.
Municipal golf course budgets in other cities -- Elmira and Madison, W1 — were studied.
We interviewed golf course managers familiar with the private management option. I
hope you find something of value here. Thanks!
Tom Hanna
607 - 275 -9360 (w)
607 - 227 -4524 (c)
Newman Municipal Golf Course
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Is Private Management a Viable Option?
A Preliminary Assessment
DRAFT REPORT 19 NOVEMBER 2012
Prepared at the request of the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works by
Friends of Newman, Tom Hanna, Secretary
Page I of 14
Executive Summary
• Methodology: Private management was assessed through in -pers terviews,
online searches, and telephone interviews. This included private inf6lWts, study
ofwebsites, exploration of budget documents from municipalities that h vegolf
course, examination of online information from large private golf course
management companies, and reading of newspaper articles on the topic of changes
in management of municipal golf course. Informants included officials from a large
corporate golf management firm and small private firms in the northeast
• The Primary Finding is that private management of all golf course activities is not
a good option for Newman at this time but should be re- evaluated in three years.
• The Second Key Finding is that the emerging management plan for the golf course,
under the approved budget for 2013, follows the "lessons learned" from private
management methods, and should be implemented by the city.
• The first draft was reviewed with some members of the Ithaca Board of Public
Works, and a decision was made to focus more attention on the potential of
increasing revenues from the food and beverage concession and the boat slips on
the shoreline of the Newman Parkland. This report reflects that review.
• The Basic Recommendations for 2013 are to
• Hire a new golf course manager as soon as possible — January 15 if possible.
• Secure a multi -year concession for the food and beverage service by January
15 latest.
• Re -frame the Newman program budget to include all recreational activities
and revenues attached to the Newman Parkland.
• Support energetic marketing and promotion of the golf course to maximize
revenues in 2013 and following years.
Page 2 o 14
Newman Golf Course: Is Private Management a Viable Option? A
Preliminary Assessment
GENERAL SUMMARY
If the goal is to have the golf course cost the taxpayer nothing or actually have golf course
revenues exceed costs, private management of Newman Golf Course always remains an
option, but it seems an unlikely alternative in the short run. The key question we should
ask about private management is "if this is the most profitable approach, why not do it
ourselves ?" In reality, the current situation at Newman Golf Course limits its attractiveness
to a for -profit entrepreneur. Some major limiting factors are general management costs, a
mostly depreciated equipment pool, the high cost of potable water irrigation in dry seasons
and the risk of course Flooding in wet seasons. Private corporate management is not
recommended in the current climate.
On the other hand, the emerging management model, reflected in the approved 2013
budget, with a new staffing plan and a multifaceted plan for increasing revenue, seems on
track to help the golf course break even and show positive cash flow in three years.
Key Recommendations under the Emerging Management Model
1. Increase memberships and other golfing revenues th rough marketing and
promotions.
2. Focus on increasing revenue from the food and beverage concession both short
term in the current Club House and long term with the proposed Multi -use
Recreational Center onthe Flood Control Channel.
3. Re -frame the program budget as the Newman Parkland to include use of Newman's
waterfront for boating and docking. Extend the dock slips and supporting
infrastructure.
4. Continue to pursue implementation of the Newman Master Plan
SUMMARY FINDINGS
Private management Two built -in cost factors inhibit a private concession at this time.
The first is that DPW would need as much as $48,000 in yearly concession income to have
the golf course break even. The second is that the course's grounds equipment is nearly
fully depreciated, and the city has not set aside any capital acquisition funds for its
replacement This would leave an outside management firm with the responsibility and
cost of maintaining a risky asset. Hence, a significant amount of any concession fee (up to
$14,000 per year) would have to be set aside for equipment replacement. Together, these
two cost factors - general management costs and equipment replacement - exceed any
reasonable revenue that could be expected from a concessionaire.
In addition, Newman's "under- resourced" circumstances could deter private entities from
seeking a concession at a fee attractive to the city.
Newman lacks an irrigation system and relies on using potable water. The water is
costly, and so is the labor for hauling and moving hoses, and for repairing
unreachable dry areas that then have to be re- seeded. This makes management in
dry seasons expensive.
Page 3 of 14
• Newman is susceptible to flooding and water damage. This results in revenue losses
from course closures. It is also costly to do all the pumping with surface hoses and is
expensive in labor.
The emerging management model: With a new staffing arrangement and a multifaceted
plan for increasing revenue, the Newman property seems on track to show positive cash
Bow in three years. Up to $14,000 yearly is anticipated once the golf range opens in 2014.
Work is underway to enhance food and beverage revenues from $800 average to at least
$2,000 in the coming years. Also, as a result of the BPW request for this report, we
discovered that the revenue capacity of the Newman Parkland turns out to be more than
previously calculated. For instance, patrons of the Golf Course's food and beverage
concession include boaters who use the docks concessioned out by the city at $10,000 per
year. In other words, the taxpayer cost of Newman Parkland is being overstated. The
potential of increasing revenue by increasing the waterfront boat slips adjacent to the golf
course is being explored. It is proposed that such revenue be made a part of a revised
Newman Parkland program budget (See 2013 -2015 Pro Forma in Appendix A)
BY THE NUMBERS
Private management: There are significant cost - drivers inhibiting an outside
management approach at this time:
• $48,000 in 2013 for continuation of mechanic /working supervisor position
• $18,000 annually for anew capital equipment replacement fund
• $75,000 loss potential in Rood years
• $10,000 overages inutility and materials costs in wet and dry years
2011 -2012 experience: The recent past provides a point of comparison and an object
lesson:
• $314,000 total budget in 2011
• Floods and rain at the opening of the season reduced memberships by 35% (from
150 to 94)
• 25% less rounds played in 2011 (9,227 in 2011 vs 12,249 in 2012)
• $114,000 gap between revenue and expenses in the 2011 flood year
• Anticipated $253,000 Expenses on $307,000 Budget for 2012
• Anticipated $207,000 Revenues in 2012
• Anticipated $46,000 gap between revenue and expenses in 2012
• Budgeted $50,000 gap between revenue and expenses in 2013
The emerging management model: The 2013 approved budget and plans for the out
years:
• Reduce total budget from $307,000 to $280,000
• Anticipate revenues at $230,000; additionally, steps are being taken to
• Increase the current food and beverage concession revenue from an annual average
of $800 to at least $2,000 per year
• Target $14,000 in new annual revenue in 2014 from the approved Practice Range
• Incorporate at least $10,000 revenue from waterfront uses in overall program
budget for a newly - defined Newman Parkland.
Page 4 of 14
SUMMARY OF OTHER OPTIONS
The exploration of the viability of the private management model led to examination of
other models. The City Golf Pro model, which operated at Newman from 1935 until the
early 1990s, provided a part -time city Pro along with other city-paid personnel, equipment
and operating costs. It licensed to the Pro a concession to
• Sell golf products
• Provide golf lessons
• Operate the food and beverage service
Newman had close to 400 members a year under this model. In 2012 there were 118
members.
Private management. The largest and most successful golf course management
corporations, Troon Golf, Touchstone Golf and American Golf, are not normally willing to
manage a 9 -hole course that is open only 7 months a year. One successful area course
management company that does manage a 9 -hole course would not likely pay a concession
charge that would be sufficient to cover the $56,000 costs that would remain on the city
budget Current circumstances do not make Newman a likely candidate for profitable
private sector management However, much can be learned from the private sector
approach togalf course management And any municipality ought to continuously
monitor the private sector option, and track the industry for future opportunities.
While municipalities are differentfrom for- profit corporations, good management
principles used in the private sector have real applicability to municipal management
of Newman Golf Course and possibly management of other fee -driven services.
Some valuable lessons can be learned from the old "Golf Pro" model that was used from
Newman's opening in 1935 until the early 1990s. It is recommended that an analysis be
done of the cost of golf as a recreational resource from 1935 to 2010. This might serve as a
pilot for analyzing other recreational resources of the city.
In the course of preparing this report, another management option emerged, which is to
take the principles of for - profit management and execute them through a 501.c -3 non -
profft management model.
Finally, the emerging management model glimpsed in the approved 2013 Budget,
Newman's own Master Plan, and other development potentials should be pursued before
any "outside management" option is moved to the front burner.
Page of 14
BACKGROUND
More than 25 million people play golf in the United States. Based on data from the Sports
and Fitness Industry Association (http: / /www.sfla.org /), golf is ranked 15w among all
sports and recreational activities, and 7th among those that generally take place in the
great outdoors. Here are the "top 25" activities as listed recently by Metro Competitor Flag
Football Union ( htt p:// www. mcffu. com /Wheredoesflagfootballrank.htm):
Bowling - 53.5 million
Treadmill Exercise - 48.0 million
Stretching - 42.3 million
Freshwater Fishing - 42.1 million
Tent Camping - 38.6 million
Horseback Riding - 38.0 million
Running /Jogging - 37.8 million
Overnight Hiking - 36.6 million
Fitness Walking - 36.3 million
Billiards /Pool - 35.2 million
Basketball - 32.0 million
Hand Weights - 31.4 million
Weight/Resistance Machines - 29.0 million
Dumbells - 28.4 million
Golf - 25.7 million
Calisthenics - 24.9 million
Barbells - 23.0 million
Darts - 18.8 million
Tennis - 18.3 million
RV Camping - 18.2 million
Hunting (Shotgun /Rifle) - 18.0 million
Elliptical Motion Trainer - 16.7 million
Abdominal Machine/ Exercise -16.5 million
Inline Skating - 16.5 million
Outdoor Soccer -15.8 million
The history of municipally owned golf courses is a long and storied one. The oldest
municipal golf course in the United States is the Van Cortlandt Park Golf Course in New
York City (hnp�/ /www gycgovoarks orp,/about /history /eoI , founded in 1895. Our own
Newman Municipal Golf Course opened in 1935, its 73 -acre site sold to the city at a nominal
cost by Jared T. Newman, who had been the city's mayor in 1907 -08. Mayor Newman's gift
united the land with Stewart Park, named after Mayor Edwin C. Stewart, who saw to its
acquisition by the city in 1921. The golf course, like many across the country, was built
under the federal Works Progress Administration (WPA) as part of the nation's effort to
work its way out of the Great Depression.
As Newman has evolved, it has been a magnet for young and old, providing recreation to
thousands of people from every walk of life, and from across the country and around the
world. Predominantly played by moderate and middle- income men and women, Newman
golf also attracts some more affluent players, and has had a long tradition of drawing public
Page 6 o 14
officials and prominent professional golfers because of the quality of the course and the
social environment Newman provides. Over 12,000 rounds of golf have been played this
season. Using a rubric suggested by one golf course management company professional,
those rounds generated average revenue of more than $17 per round.
The city's golf course was stewarded for almost all of its history by just two golf
professionals, Lou Adesso (until 1980) and Steve Torrant (who retired in 2010). Both
qualified as PGA professionals, Adesso's distinguishing role was as a club professional
while Torrant had extraordinary skill as golf course superintendent and greens keeper.
Both were real golfers and golf teachers. As of today, Newman Golf Course, due to
Torrant's career here, has the finest greens in the area.
OPERATION OF THE COURSE
From its opening until the 1990s, Newman was managed by the city in a way that was
common for some public courses, which we will describe here as the Golf Pro Model. The
City provided the physical facilities, clubhouse and staff and grounds equipment for the
parkland care and maintenance. The Golf Professional was paid a modest parttime salary
for management and oversight To supplement personal income, the professionals ran the
food, cart and retail concessions and provided private golf lessons. This model is not so
different from the way private golf clubs operate. The Ithaca Country Club is an example. In
the 1990s, the City moved to a City- Operated Model that separated the food service facility
off into a private concession, and hired the professional as a fulltime salaried city employee,
while taking over the golf cart rentals and golf products sales as part of the city's operation
of the course.
A third way that municipal golf courses are operated is as a Private Sector Model in which all
aspects of the operation are contracted out to a for -profit company or corporation. Under the
private sector model, the municipality retains ownership of the public park and the grounds
equipment. The private entity supplies all personnel and takes full financial responsibility for all
other aspects of the business.
THE 2011 -2012 OPERATION OF NEWMAN GOLF COURSE
In 2011 and 2012, the fulltime salary line for Golf Course Manager remained vacant A
fulltime wage line, currently costing the City approximately $116K in wages and fringe
benefits, covered responsibility for equipment repair and maintenance and contributed
effort to all aspects of grounds keeping, including irrigation and drainage. Seasonal
workers ran the golf course. A seasonal temp managed the pro -shop and all revenues, and
supervised up to four parttime seasonal workers who served the customers. Another
seasonal temp served as golf course superintendent That person is a licensed pesticide
applicator, and supervised up to three parttime seasonal members of the grounds crew,
while providing overall supervision of the course. The total seasonal wage cost is currently
approximately $65,000 per year. The city budget also includes a multi -year contract for golf
carts, and a line for purchasing golfers' supplies such as golf balls, tees and hats for sale to
customers. There are mowers and other equipment, along with parts and supplies for their
maintenance also acquired by the city. The machines are almost completely depreciated at
this stage. There is a maintenance building on the property and a clubhouse of
approximately 2,000 sq. R, most of which is used for a food and beverage service,
restrooms, and locker rooms. The pro -shop is on the south end of the structure. The rest
Page 7 of 14
of the clubhouse was operated under a concession to the Fall Creek House from April
through October.
Altogether, the 2012 budget for expenses was $307,000, with $78,000 for administrative
and program costs, and $229,000 in personnel and fringe costs. By comparison, the
approved budget for 2013 is $280,000, with $79,000 in administrative and program, and
$201,000 in personnel and fringe costs. In both years, revenues to offset these expenses
are estimated currently to leave the cost to the taxpayers at approximately $50,000.
The 2011 -2012 operation sets the stage for a discussion of what a Private Sector Model
might look like and how the emerging management model will perform.
THE POTENTIAL FOR A PRIVATE SECTOR MODEL
The city's natural stake in having the golf course operated by a private sector entity would
be to generate revenue for the general fund and lower or eliminate all costs of the golf
course to the City. The underlying assumption is that the private sector is able to operate
the golf course at such a significant gross profit that the city could expect not only to avoid
having the golf course cost the taxpayers anything, it would actually result in positive cash
Flow to the city from the benefit of this recreational resource.
To explore the private sector model, interviews were done with individuals who have first
hand knowledge of such arrangements and a search was conducted to obtain a sense of
how such operations function. How other publically owned golf courses operate was also
explored, looking at corporate leasing and golf course management companies such as
American Golf, Troon Golf and Touchstone Golf.
In general, private operation of 9 -hole municipal public courses like Newman is quite rare.
The manager of one such operation gave an off -the -cuff estimate that his company might
consider a concession at a price of $20,000. This would involve using the city's equipment
and having rental of all physical facilities. In this concession all food and beverage as well
as all golf course revenues (including cart fees, membership payments and greens fees)
would go to the holder of the concession.
This business is fairly simple based on current operating revenues and expenses
Page of 14
SIMPLIFIED PRIVATE SECTOR MODEL:
Year One
$250,000 Anticipated Revenues
$200,000 Anticipated Expenses
$100,000 -- Total Personnel and Benefits
$70,000 -- Total Non - personal Costs
$10,000 - Capital Fund for Equipment Replacement
$20,000 - Concession Fee to City
$50,000 Net Estimated Profit
.zi
Under this simplified illustration, a private investor could plan to:
• Grow revenues year -to -year with only modest increases in rates and fees
• Be able eventually to replace all city-owned equipment with new equipment
• Maintain the course at or above its current condition
Long -term, the private investor would want to replace the current clubhouse with anew
one that would serve as a revenue generator year -round and have an appropriate business
arrangement with the city to pay rent for the land needed for its construction
On the city side, it should be noted, the current half -time permanent wage employee, whose
position costs the city approximately $46,800 on the 2013 golf course budget, would not be
employed on the golf course and would have to be re- assigned within the city. Hence a
$20,000 concession fee does not offset the $46,800 cost that would stay on the city budget.
Many details are left out of this quick sketch, but the basic picture fits with the reality of the
situation. On the bottom line, the concession fee that would erase the taxpayer's subsidy of
this recreational resource would be financially c�y unappealing to a private management firm.
THE OAKLAND- TOUCHSTONE MODEL
Source: Bill Burney, Golf Course General Manager
Lake Chabot Golf Course (http: / /www.lakechabotgolfcom)
In a very large market. Lake Chabot is fully operated by Touchstone Golf.
(htm: / /www.touchstonegolf coml. They have an 18 -hole golf course, a 9 -hole executive
course, a full driving range, and dining /drinking facilities able to handle weddings and
gatherings up to 200 people. The course is well maintained but not luxurious, and is able to
offer play to the general public at under $SO a round with cart in an upscale market (The
Newman rate for 2013 is under $30.)
Conversion from municipal management to corporate management was not without
disruptions. When Touchstone came in the course was in poor condition and suffering
from virtual abandonment While conforming to all City hiring and employment practices,
Touchstone Golf hired all employees. The resulting payroll cost is far below what public
employee costs were before transfer of management Cost control is achieved by carefully
management, close attention to cost - revenue analysis, and the large -scale corporation's
buying power. California -based Lake Shabot offers year -round play.
Page 9
In a review of the three major golf management corporations it became evident that
Newman, a 9 -hole course with a 7 -month season, is not an attractive candidate for
corporate management
Three other private sector management arrangements were reviewed. The first involves
an area 9 -hole course owned and operated by a golfing professional. This individual had
left a municipal course that was moved to private sector management The second involves
an area college course managed until recently by a private professional. The individual left
the college course to manage a state park course. Attempts to contact this individual were
unsuccessful since the State Park course's phone was disconnected at the end of the season.
The third example is Madison, Wisconsin's four municipal golf courses. On November 14,
that city's common council passed a budget that moved the golf courses from a Golf Pro
model of management to a City managed operation. The Wisconsin State Journal reported
"The council had a spirited debate an golf course operations. Parks Superintendent Kevin Biiski said the change is needed
to let the city gel control of revenues from cart rentals. fond and beverages and driving ranges."
Read more: http: /Most madison com/news/local/govt- and - politics /city- "iuncil- approves- million-
operating- budget- for /article 2564daba- 2eb5 -lle2- 8049- 00la4bct887ahtml #ixzz2Ce6tx9s6
LESSONS LEARNED
Private sector professionals with a natural interest in exploring the option of taking over
management of Newman Golf Course provided good insight into what it takes to qualify
under their corporate model of management.
1. An analysis of past financial performance needs to be done
2. A pro forma set of financial statements needs to be developed to show how the
operation will perform in the future,
3. An explanation needs to be made for any discrepancies between past performance
and planned future performance
The property needs to have built -in opportunities for increasing revenues going forward.
1. The most desirable of these are
a. a driving range,
b. a full -scale food and beverage service with seating capacity for special events,
c. capacity to increase the number of rounds played annually,
d. a good tournament schedule,
e. room for growth in leagues, and
E room to increase revenues from memberships and greens and cart fees.
2. Cost analysis needs to show that personnel, materials, utilities, equipment and
marketing costs are not going to overwhelm increases in revenues.
3. Cost planning should include a capital budget allocation of at least 5% of total
operating cost every year (currently $14,000), to take care of any emergency capital
cost needs and to build a fund for meeting future and planned needs.
They also shared how such management works once the commitment is made to take on a
golf course that has been run by a municipality.
Page 10 of 14
1. Constant attention is paid to managing cost while delivering a quality recreational
service
2. All employees are committed to making and keeping the golf course an excellent
facility
3. Customer service is a by -word and customer satisfaction is an unending mission
4. Every effort is made to form strong ties in the community to make golf accessible to
all audiences: from the Youth Bureau to the LifeLong, the Independence Center,
RSVP and Office of the Aging.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The option of having a golf course management corporation take over operations at
Newman should continue to be evaluated over time even though Ithaca s golf course is an
unlikely prospect for the likes of Troon Golf, American Golf and Touchstone Golf.
Smaller and more local management companies may be "out there" but preliminary
indications are that the way the city has managed the golf course until now has not made it
an attractive property for those seeking a profit from its management
The basic principles that drive a private sector investor to add a public course to its
portfolio are very logical and only seem common sense. If the city were to follow those
principles in its own management of the course, the financial benefits would flow to the
city.
Unexplored so far are two alternate options:
1. Return to the original management model
2. Consider inviting a private non -profit management approach
The first of these alternate options would make the job of Golf Professional attractive
because of the possibility of personal financial gain from successful management of the golf
course.
The not - for - profit option provides a vehicle for turning success into continuous
reinvestment into the future of the golf course, something that has been missing in the
current public - management model.
Both options would be attractive for hiring a qualified professional — either at entry level or
perhaps a recently retired professional who would see this as a creative opportunity to
head the new management.
Finally, maintaining the current management model should be kept in place.
1. Friends of Newman have worked with current staff and administration to see if the
golf course can become a revenue - neutral or revenue - positive program of the city.
2. A Master Plan is in place that forms a convincing framework for the golf course's
future. Initial Pro Forma financial statements indicate that a revenue - positive
course can be achieved in three years.
3. The BPW is already committed to development of a full driving range and practice
area. New revenue is expected to flow from this in 2015.
Page 11 of 14
4. Feasibility for using wastewater effluent to irrigate the course has been established;
once funding is found, the cost of irrigating the course with potable water will
disappear. This system will also result in more rounds of play and less cost of
maintenance.
S. The Cascadilla Landing residential and retail development proposal adjacent to the
Golf Course opens the possibility that the Newman's Master Plan concept to build a
new multi -use Recreational Center with a 200 - attendee dining facility will soon
become more fesible.
All these points suggest that anything being sought among all the management options
discussed in this report might well be arrived at on the path we are already traveling.
We found this mission statement attached to the budget planning documents Madison's
common council studied:
The mission of the Golf Course Enterprise is to provide the Madison area golfing public with the
finest possible golfing conditions at reasonable prices and for all levels of play. Turf, tee and greens
maintenance is a top priori ty to enhance the golfing experience; qualified Golf Professionals are
available for instruction and pro shop needs. Reservations, league play, annual season passes,
concessions and rentals are all available
Perhaps a similar mission statement for Newman Golf Course can be adopted by DPW and
by BPW and forwarded to the mayor and common council.
Finally, Friends of Newman would like to thank the Board of Public Works for giving us the
opportunity to undertake this formal examination of the viability of private management of
Newman Golf Course. Our primary learning is that we are on the right track with our
emerging management plan under city management and that private management
should be evaluated in three years if the golf course does not achieve self - sufficiency over
the next three budget cycles.
Acknowledgements: Special thanks go to the golfers, citizens and public officials who contributed so much
to the work that led to this report You know who you are.
Page 12 of 14
PRO FORMA: WORKING TOWARD SELF - SUFFICIENCY
Narrative: The key components of the Newman budget and business plan are all focused
on managing expenses, staffing for effectiveness, maintaining course excellence and
maximizing revenues. In the analysis of current golf course revenues it became evident
that while there is very substantial use of the golf course by the public (over 12,000 rounds
of golf played lastyear, more than half of all play is by non- members who pay greens fees)
the course still has significant capacity to accommodate more play.
These projections are anchored in the approved 2013 budget for both revenues and
expenses. The 2013 Projected Budget includes nearly $10,000 more revenue than the
approved budget For the first time, the city has included an advertising line in this year's
budget. Friends of Newman has committed to boosting revenue by this amount through the
judicious use of the advertising line and additional spending from its own funds.
Revenues are targeted to increase in 2014 and 2015. At base, the goals are
• To increase memberships from their nearly historic lows (112 members in 2012) to
their traditional 200- member level
• To increase the food and beverage annual concession revenue to $2,000
• To maintain pro shop sales of golf balls, hats, gloves and tees at the $8,000 level
• To increase the number of greens fees from the current level of 6,550 rounds to
7,512 in 2015.
• To add boat slip concession revenue ($10,000 per year) to the calculation of the
Newman Parkland budget starting in 2014.
A2415 - Golf Cart Rentals are expected to track upward as the number of greens fees and
memberships increase.
A2014 - Pro Shops sales are projected to grow as the number of rounds played grows.
Newman Municipal Golf Course 6 Parkland
Operating Projections 2013 -2015
REVENUES:
A2415 GOLF CART RENTAL
A2014 PRO SHOP
A2013 CONCESSIONS
A2013 CONCESSIONS BOATSUPS
OPERATING REVENUES
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES:
110 -STAFF
115- HOURLY F/r
120 - HOURLY P/T
125- OVERTIME
Revised: Approved
2013
$48,500
$8,000
$1,363
$172,000
$229,863
$42,000
Projected Budge6
$26,000
2013
2014
2015
$48,500
$51,000
$55,000
$8,000
$8,700
$9,400
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$10,000
$10,000
$181,321
$200,596
$217,339
$239,821
$272,296
$293,739
$42,000
$42,000
$26,000
$26,000
$55,000
$55,000
$900
$900
$123,900
$123,900
Page 13 of 14
$43,260
$26,780
$60,000
$500
$44,558
$27,583
$61,000
$1,000
225 -OTHER EQUIP
$5,000
$5,000
$2,000
$2,000
$5,000
$5,000
405- TELEPHONE
$1,200
$1,200
$1,300
$1,300
410 - UTILITIES
$11,000
$11,000
$10,000
$10,000
415 - CLOTHING
$600
$600
$300
$300
420 -GAS & OIL
$4,750
$4,750
$5,000
$5,000
425- OFFICE EXPENSE
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
430 -FEES
$0
437 - MERCHANT SVC CHG
$4,250
$4,250
$4,500
$4,500
450 - ADVERTISING
$1,000
$1,000
$2,000
$2,000
455- INSURANCE
$500
$500
$500
$500
465- CONCESSION
$9,000
$9,000
$9,000
$9,000
475 -PROP MAINT
$4,000
$4,000
$3,000
$3,000
476 -EQUIP MAINT
$600
$600
$600
$600
477 -EQUIP PARTS
$8,000
$8,000
$8,000
$8,000
480-BLDG SUPPLIES
$600
$600
$500
$500
481- SMALLTOOLS
$200
$200
$100
$100
482 -SIGNS & BLANKS
$0
483 - CONTT SUPPLIES
$17,000
$17,000
$19,000
$19,000
485 -TREES
$0
SUB -TOTAL
$78,700
$78,70D
$212,340
$215,941
FRINGE (est as 56% of total owl
$73,102
$75,119
STATE RETIREMENT
$28,823
$28,823
SOCIALSECURITY
$9,478
$9,478
WORKERS COMP
$2,833
$2,833
HEALTH INS
$26,801
$26,801
DENTAL
SIA23
$1,423
TOTAL.
$69,358
$69,358
$73,102
$75,119
TOTAL O& M
,
$285,442
2 1
CAPITAL COSTS
INTEREST
$2,720
$2,720
BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES
$92
$92
EQUIPMENT(DEPREC)
$5,000
$5,000
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
g&12
11m
750
750
Total Revenues
$229,863
$239,821
$272,296
$293,739
GRAND TOTAL
$may
$279,770
$286,192
291810
NET TOTAL
49,907
39,949
13,896
1929
Page 14 of 14