HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2016-01-25BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS MEETING PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. January 25, 2016
Present:
Mayor Myrick
Commissioners (4) Greene, Darling, Goldsmith, Warden
Others Present:
Supt. of Public Works – Thorne
Director of Engineering – Logue
Asst. Supt. S & F – Benjamin
Asst. Supt. W & S – Whitney
CC Liaison (for today’s meeting) – Brock
Information Management Specialist – Myers
Bridge Systems Engineer – Gebre
Alderperson McGonigal
Excused:
Commissioner Jenkins
Call to Order - Additions to or Deletions From the Agenda:
Supt. Thorne requested the addition of the following items to the agenda:
Call to Order /Agenda Review:
Supt. Thorne requested the addition of an item under #12 - Water & Sewer - entitled: “701-705
North Aurora Street Water & Sewer Services -Proposed Resolution”
No Board Member Objected
Commissioner Warden reported that he was just at Southside Community Center, which is not
currently part of the City of Ithaca. However, they are interested in becoming a city department.
Could the Board of Public Works discuss this at some point in the future?
Mayor Myrick responded that the City of Ithaca owns and maintains the building, but Southside
Community Center is not a city department. The City has been discussing the request by the
Southside Community Center board to become a city department. He stated that this
discussion will be a many months long process, led by members of the board of the Greater
Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC) as well as members of the board of Southside Community
Center. When the City and both boards are ready with information, a presentation will be made
to the Board of Public Works.
Communications and Hearings from Persons Before the Board:
Nathan Laman, City of Ithaca, reported that he attend today’s sub-committee meeting regarding
food truck vending. There was no opportunity for the public to participate, nor mention of the
many complaints that have been made to the City from the brick and mortar restaurants. It also
did not reflect the rezoning of Collegetown concerning active uses on the first floor. In addition,
last Fall a request was filed with the City to remove a food truck location at Eddy Street and
Dryden Road; there was no mention of that at today’s meeting either. He reported, that based
upon figures shared during the meeting, the revenue received by the City from food truck
vendors does not begin to cover the City’s cost for administration and oversight of the program.
He had additional comments, but reached his 3 minute time limit. He will e-mail the rest of his
comments to Board members for their information.
David Nutter, City of Ithaca and speaking as a member and representative of the Bicycle
Pedestrian Advisory Council (BPAC), noted that it would be good to have a liaison to BPAC
from BPW so that information can be shared back and forth. He encouraged the Mayor and the
Board to consider that much needed liaison appointment. He has reviewed the work plan
related to the City of Ithaca bike plan for 2016 and it looks good. He would encourage the City to
make sure that maintenance of bike lanes is included in the work plan as well. He reported that
last year none of the bike lanes ever got repainted nor did any of the cross walks so they are
almost invisible. He would also encourage the City to use high visibility paint which would make
the lanes visible for a longer period of time.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes January 25, 2016
2
Response to the Public:
Mayor Myrick responded that having a BPW Liaison to BPAC is a good idea; he will seek a
volunteer from one of the members of the Board of Public Works; although the Board is
currently down one member.
Commissioner Goldsmith suggested informal representation by either a BPW member or BPAC
member attending the others meeting any time possible as a way, in the meantime, to keep the
lines of communication open between both boards.
Mayor Myrick stated that that the City Administration Committee is currently looking for a way to
stream-line liaison appointments and the make-up of the City’s current boards and committees.
For now, he supports the idea of a BPW member and a member of BPAC attending each
other’s meetings, if they are able and willing to.
CC Liaison Brock noted that the Board of Public Works also needs a liaison from the Disability
Advisory Council, which actually has a voting seat on the Board of Public Works. Would it be
possible for another board or committee to have a voting seat on the Board or at least be able to
have time set aside at a particular meeting to make a presentation as a way of improving
communication to the Board of Public Works? She, also, attended today’s sub-committee
meeting regarding food trucks. She thought it was a good and productive meeting; although
there was some frustration among audience members about not being able to participate during
it. She would encourage the City to do some outreach to the public prior to the next sub-
committee meeting, particularly to the brick and mortar restaurants, as she feels it probably
would be well received.
New Project Presentation:
A. Brindley Street Bridge Replacement Project:
Director of Engineering Logue and Bridge Systems Engineer Gebre explained, briefly, the
project. They have been working for the past two years on it, the scoping was done last year,
and now it is time for the design phase. They wanted the Board of Public Works to have a
presentation of the proposed options for design so that decisions can be made as to how to
proceed with the project.
Joseph J. Mieczkowski, PE and David L. Kennicutt, PE, from Delta Engineers, joined the Board
to present the project. They explained that currently this is a single lane bridge with a weight
limit of 20 tons. It is in poor condition and needs complete replacement. During the scoping
phase of the project, objectives for bridge replacement were developed. The objectives were to
replace the bridge with one that meets current standards, contains two lanes for vehicles,
shoulders for bike lanes, and sidewalks for pedestrians. The project would result in a bridge
with a life span of 75 years and be built using cost effective design techniques to build and
maintain it. The other objective of the project was to improve the safety at the intersection of
Brindley and West State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street. That aspect of the project will result in a
more expensive project. The main purpose of the project will be focused on the bridge
replacement. However, they still want to provide safety at the intersection (a 6 sided
intersection) which has a history of many accidents and creates a challenge to pedestrians to
cross.
The focus for the project is now focused on two proposed alternative designs. The first is to
replace the bridge on its existing alignment; the other is to replace the bridge and re-align
Brindley Street to meet Taughannock Boulevard/West State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street to
improve the safety at those intersections. The second alternative is a vast improvement over
what’s there now and still retains the non-standard curvature of the road; alternative one is not
nearly as a good solution as the second.
Alternative #2, environmentally, will have more of an impact on the adjacent forested area. They
are in the process of coordinating with New York State Department of Transportation and New
York State Historic Preservation as to whether there would be any archeological impacts with
the project.
Right away, with alternative #2, there is an opportunity to re-locate the driveway for one
business by taking a little of the right-of-way. With alternative #1 there would need to be some
strip takings to make room to build the new bridge and to realign Brindley Street to create a
better pattern for pedestrians to cross; also a little of the parking lot (city owned) at Trombley
Tire would be taken or made inactive so there is a potential for some loss of parking there. It
would still pose some safety issues for pedestrians and traffic negotiation at the still difficult
intersection.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes January 25, 2016
3
Alternative #2 solves a lot of that by redirecting traffic to a signalized intersection, and the bridge
would be completely closed to vehicle traffic with provision to allow bikes and pedestrians to
use. The safety improvements of Alternative #2 have a better opportunity to correct the conflicts
and accidents at the intersection that occur now.
The cost for Alternative #2 is a little less than $2.4 million; Alternative #1 costs $2.6 million.
The cost increase is due to the structure being widened, excavation protection services are
costly, and traffic would need to be detoured.
Mayor Myrick asked whether the cost estimate includes the decommissioning of the one lane
bridge for Alternative #2. The response was that it does.
The current bridge would be retrofitted to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles; there are no
details for that part of the project established currently, but they did provide a contingency to
upgrade the bollard for it.
A brief discussion followed on the floor regarding whether the cost of the re-design of the
intersection might be included with projects currently funded through Transportation
Improvement Funds to help bring the cost down, and if so that should be considered. It was
pointed out that under Alternative #1 there is no provision to do anything to the intersection and
traffic from the other intersections would not be directed onto Brindley Street. So it would make
more sense to put that funding towards where traffic will be so that whatever improvements
could be done are made with that funding and/or project.
Commissioner Goldsmith noted that it is very obvious to him what alternative should be chosen.
The second option is far and away better; it is cheaper in another way in that everything doesn’t
have to be disrupted while the bridge is closed. The cheapest good solution is Alternative #2.
Mayor Myrick questioned whether any estimates have been done for what the difference in
traffic flow is between the two alternatives. The representative from Delta Engineers responded
that at peak hours there will still be grid lock; that won’t change with Alternative #1, with
Alternative #2 it becomes somewhat manageable. Mayor Myrick wondered if the gridlock would
just be shifted further south; people will want to go to Wegmans so they will go to Taber Street
and then to Cecil Malone Drive where traffic is deadlock on South Meadow Street, isn’t that just
shifting the problem elsewhere? Mayor Myrick noted that right now Brindley Street turns right
onto Taber Street, if Alternative #2 were chosen, would it make sense to build a bridge that
continues on to Cecil Malone Drive – is that something to think about?
Director of Engineering Logue responded that proposal has been thought about in past;
however not in connection with the current project.
Supt. Thorne noted that he likes Alternative #2; right now, Brindley Street is low traffic because
it is one lane, and if it is re-opened it will just put more traffic into a bad intersection.
CC Liaison Brock voiced her opinion that she doesn’t see the proposed re-alignment of the
intersection doing much to change or improve rush hour traffic – especially for those vehicles
traveling on Route 79. Those vehicles will continue on the same route except for those that will
skirt to the right. Those traveling south on Taughannock Boulevard and turning left onto Buffalo
Street will continue as they have as well. Alternative #2 will increase traffic south in efforts to
avoid Fulton and Meadow Street traffic congestion; the new intersection will just shift congestion
from one location to another, and traffic will continue to back-up on West State/Martin Luther
King, Jr. Street and Hector Streets so the new intersection won’t make a difference. She agrees,
though, that the intersection is treacherous and something has to be done to improve the safety
of it. One of the things she was trying to get an answer to is that as one can see from the
survey of the area that a significant portion of city land is being used as a parking lot for a
private business. Is that area something that could be re-aligned and then sold to the business,
which has been using if free of charge for a long time? She likes the idea of a pedestrian only
bridge and the amenities in Alternative #2 would provide-them. She also wants to make sure
access for large trucks is maintained to Ithaca Feed and Grain.
Alderperson McGonigal noted that last year, when the project was reviewed initially, the
proposal was to keep the same alignment and put in a two lane bridge; where right now, there is
a one lane bridge. It was a lot cheaper at an estimated cost of $1 million or less. He is
wondering how that project changed into the proposed Alternative #2. The initial proposal
included a pedestrian bump-out on West State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street and Brindley
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes January 25, 2016
4
Street. He noted that option would prove difficult for trucks making the turn there, and was a lot
cheaper - how did that change? He does think that Alternative #2 looks attractive for a number
of reasons. He also wonders about the traffic backing up in Alternative #2, the block is so short
between West Seneca Street and West State/Martin Luther, Jr. Street and West Buffalo Street
and West State/Martin Luther King, Jr. Street - will that be problematic because it is now, will it
be worse?
The representative from Delta Engineers responded that the cost differential is a result of the
scoping not adequately accounting for the fact that sheet piling will be needed around the
project. In addition, the contractor will have to maintain traffic for the duration of the
construction and those things combined added up, so they took another look during this design
phase to see exactly what the cost would be. They noted that none of the alternatives are cast
in stone, the turning radius for trucks could be adjusted, and a pedestrian island could be
installed at the Brindley Street intersection since it is a wide expanse of roadway to cross - the
island would be a safe refuge while pedestrians travel to the other side. In addition, since the
population is aging, not able to walk as fast as some, the island would assist them as well.
They did take a look at traffic in all the intersections, they will need to review that information to
analyze the potential for traffic back-ups, and then proceed from there with the findings.
Director of Engineering Logue noted that he thought that part of Alderperson McGonigal’s
question about the proposed re-alignment of the intersection was whether it might attract more
traffic than currently. To get the answer to that question, he will need to ask the Tompkins
County Transportation Council to evaluate the proposal. His sense is that people are using the
Brindley Street Bridge as a shortcut to get to the Wegman’s shopping area and not to get to the
southwest area of the city. He is not sure about how much new traffic it might attract, so the
best way to answer that questions is as he noted above.
Commissioner Warden noted that he thinks the re-alignment of the intersections will alleviate
some of the traffic back-up problem. However, Brindley Street is a fast way to get around when
traffic is backed up. Would running the Brindley Street Bridge behind Triangle Steel help to
alleviate the zig zag of the road as it is now? He doesn’t think the traffic problem is going to be
shifted necessarily as people will always try to find the shortest way to their destination.
Commissioner Greene expressed his support for Commissioner Warden’s comment. He noted
that if there is a way to plan for that eventuality in the future - to extend the bridge alignment
would be smart. It would be good to study what impact that would have on the area; although
someone may not choose to go straight across with the bridge, or they may choose to go
straight across based upon getting the green light.
Supt. Thorne noted that in looking towards the future, it’s not a matter of if but when the road
gets extended down to Cecil Malone Drive and further, he doesn’t want the City to look back
and say we just increased traffic here, why are we doing it. In the future, there will be more
traffic and the City needs to get vehicles to the right intersection because otherwise it’s just
money wasted.
Alderperson McGonigal noted that in the bicycle/pedestrian community there is a lot of
excitement about turning the current bridge into bike lane for bicyclists and having a sidewalk for
pedestrians. In looking at the stretch behind Wallace Steel, would it be good to extend that
amenity, as opposed to a street (where the jungle used to be)? Another question is that in
reviewing the proposal it appears that with Alternative #2 the new bridge would need to be
longer, has the soil been studied there? The representative from Delta Engineers responded
that the soil in the area is poor so it creates a challenge. They would use micro piles to support
the floodway accommodations, utilize light weight structures and materials to reduce the load on
the sub-structures. It is not an insurmountable problem, and will require a geo-technical report to
address how the construction should be done there as there will be some bank settlement. They
will most likely need to use blocks or lightweight fill to mitigate or build up the embankment, let it
settle for a few months and then go from there.
Commissioner Warden asked about what utilities currently run under the existing Brindley Street
Bridge? The representative from Delta Engineers responded that with Alternative #2 they would
not be touched; however, with Alternative #1 they would need to come out and be re-built, which
unfortunately, was just done a few years ago. With Alternative #1 vehicles could only go one-
way, and it would become impossible for trucks to make the turn so that is why Alternative #2
was presented as is.
Bridge Systems Engineer Gebre reported that construction would take place in 2018; the design
phase is fully funded by city, and the cost of the construction would be paid for using
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes January 25, 2016
5
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) money, and the city would need to pay 20% of the
cost.
Mayor Myrick stated that it seems, from today’s discussion, like there is support for Alternative
#2. He asked staff what the next steps would be if the Board formally supports Alternative #2.
Director of Engineering Logue responded that the next step would be for the Board of Public
Works to declare its intent to become the lead agency for the project, and then forward that
information to the Planning and Development Board, and then to Common Council to support
the recommendation. Staff will then circulate environmental review information to appropriate
parties, wait 45 days, and then come back and designate the Board of Public Works as lead
agency
He will bring a resolution for the Board’s meeting on February 8, 2016 declaring their intent to
become the leady agency for the project. Instead of doing a full environmental review on both
proposed alternatives and spending money for both, staff would like to do it on the preferred
choice of the Board. The resolution to declare the Board’s intent to become lead agency could
specify that it is the intent to conduct the environmental review for Alternative #2. Common
Council can ultimately decide if it wants the environmental review done on both alternatives; he
is not sure if environmental impacts will be significant for the project.
Board members expressed support for staff’s recommendation, noted above.
CC Liaison Brock had a question about process; she noted that when the City was looking at
the street redesign for Old Elmira Road, a lot of outreach was done to affected property owners
- has that been done for this project.
Director of Engineering Logue responded that there has been a public meeting looking at both
proposed alternatives with input from affected business owners. There will be opportunities for
the public to also provide input during the site plan review process. He stated that staff will not
ask the City to make a formal recommendation until the environmental review is completed. The
environmental review won’t commit the City one way or the other, and the preliminary design
should be finalized in August.
Commissioner Goldsmith questioned how fast the project is moving before affected parties
know it’s moving, and how will the public be notified?
Bridge Systems Engineer Gebre responded that there was one public information meeting as
part of the scoping phase last year, another public information meeting has been scheduled,
and during site plan review there will be public meetings.
Director of Engineering Logue stated that staff will send a press release for the public about the
project. They would also ask Alderpersons Brock and McGonigal to reach out and contact their
constituents about the project for any input they might have. Staff will also reach out to the
members of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council for their input.
The Mayor and Board members expressed their thanks to staff and the consultants for the
presentation.
Stewart Avenue Bridge Painting Project:
Bridge Systems Engineer Gebre explained that the Re-Painting of the Stewart Avenue Bridge
project is being funded under the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Before
proceeding to the final design the City wants input from public. They held a public meeting this
afternoon at City Hall about the project with representatives from LaBella Associates.
Wayne A. Frye, from LaBella, explained to the Board that this is a pretty straightforward project
to restore the paint on the existing steel bridge. They will pressure wash to remove paint, rust
will be removed with hand tools, an overcoat of paint will be put on the existing structure, and
then the paint. For work zone safety, the bridge will be closed to vehicular traffic; detours will be
in place for both vehicles and pedestrians. They also recognize that Cascadilla Creek is a
Class C fresh water creek, and precautions will be put in place to protect ground water. In
2001, the bridge was completely re-built, the existing paint is not lead so no containment will be
necessary. There will be containment of any debris from waterway.
Commissioner Warden asked how long the detour would be in place and would the bridge be
re-opened at the end of each day?
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes January 25, 2016
6
Mr. Frye responded that a detour would be in place for 3 months, and the bridge will be closed
completely 24/7.
Commissioner Greene asked if there would be a way to maintain pedestrian access during the
project.
Mr. Frye responded that it might be possible, but that it will be hard to do the work and have
people traverse the bridge at the same time. There might be a possibility to maintain the
sidewalk for pedestrians.
Board members expressed their support for that possibility.
Mr. Frye stated that the site is situated in such a way, with it being 60’ to the lowest point into
the gorge that there no easy way to accomplish the project and maintain access.
Commissioner Goldsmith questioned whether the project might be completed in less time and if
that would result in a higher cost.
Mr. Frye responded that part of the issue is that they have set time frames in which to complete
the project. They will begin after CU graduation and need to have the project completed before
students return. Right now, they need to get approval for the design, not environmental review.
They want to bid out for the construction this Fall, and then will be ready to begin work in 2017.
They can set anything the City wants, in terms of time frame, since the bidding is being done
earlier than normal.
CC Liaison Brock questioned whether the Common Council representatives for the Third and
Fourth Wards had been contacted about the project so they are personally aware of it – should
they begin to get questions from their constituents.
Asst. Supt. Benjamin asked whether Cornell University would need to close the trail under
bridge.
Mr. Frye responded no, but it would be recommended that they put some signage up with
information that the walkway will be protected during the project. He cautioned, though, that
there is always the possibility of something falling through the nets underneath the bridge; the
means restriction nets will remain in place and not be removed during the project. He has been
in touch with Cornell University for access and concerning the difference in cost in working
around the means restriction nets. His initial conversation with contractors is that it should not
add significant costs to the project.
The Mayor and Board Members expressed their thanks to Bridge Systems Engineer Gebre and
Mr. Frye for the presentation.
Reports:
Commissioner Darling stated that there were some comments made by the public earlier in the
meeting about certain items not being discussed at the meeting regarding food trucks today.
The reason staff did not go into detail about those types of complaints from restaurants was
because they are already aware of them.
Commissioner Greene noted that both he and Commissioner Darling were at the food truck
meeting, and an opportunity for input from the restaurant owners will be provided at the next
meeting.
Director of Engineering Logue reported that bids were sent out for the Cass Park Rink roof
project, and they are due back by February 11, 2016. The project is estimated to cost $1.3
million. The City also received quotes for the asbestos floor tile remediation project at City Hall,
the cost is estimated at $14,000-$15,000 and most likely the work will be done evenings or
more likely over weekends.
Asst. Supt. Benjamin reported that since there has been no snow, the crews have been doing
miscellaneous work and pothole repair.
Asst. Supt. Whitney reported that they will begin installation of two new membranes at the
Water Plant and during that installation, Bolton Point will supply additional water to the City
during the process. Once that is completed and they have permission from the Health
Department they plan to begin distributing water out to the grid soon from the new Water Plant.
Their operators are excited and are hoping all goes well; they will wait a week before demolition
of the old filtering system. In addition, there have been five water main breaks.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes January 25, 2016
7
Supt. Thorne reported that the Department of Public Works Manager of Financial Operations
started work today. Staff is working to find office space for him, he was provided with a copy of
the department’s budget information, and given a tour of all the Department of Public Works
facilities. More orientation will continue tomorrow. This Friday they have interviews for the
Transportation Engineer position. Staff has also been meeting with NYSEG regarding utilities
and the new development occurring in Collegetown.
CC Liaison Brock wondered whether the engineering analysis of the Green Street Parking
garage was available for review yet.
Director of Engineering Logue responded that the contractor, Stantec, should be sending the
report later this month.
CC Liaison Brock reported that at a recent Parking Committee meeting, information seemed to
indicate that if all went as expected with development downtown that the parking garages are
very close to meeting their capacity. Has there any thought or discussions about the possibility
of adding more floors to the middle third of the Green Street Parking garage assuming Harold’s
Square and the Treblock building development occurs. There have been some concerns from
residents and businesses that there might not be enough parking downtown.
Director of Engineering Logue responded that staff first need to determine the costs from east to
west and then go from there as far as does the City want to repair or look at rebuilding the
parking garage. When Tompkins Trust Company’s new building is complete and their offices
are moved from the old Rothchild’s building, the City would have an opportunity when that area
under the garage is empty to either add levels to or rebuild the Green Street Parking garage.
The garage is located in a zone that allows heights up to 140’, and the garage is using only 40’
so there is quite a bit of area to add to. It is also not an easy structure to repair anymore.
Water & Sewer:
Approval of 701-705 North Aurora Street - Water and Sewer Services Work – Resolution
By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Greene
WHEREAS, the Owner of both the 701 and 705 North Aurora Street properties has reconfigured
the property boundaries by subdivision and the separate back lot apartment on 705 North
Aurora Street has been added to the property at 701 North Aurora and removed from the
property at 705 North Aurora Street; and
WHEREAS, the back lot apartment has existing water and sanitary sewer service pipes through
the property at 705 North Aurora; and
WHEREAS, the property owner has requested that he be allowed to continue use of the existing
water and sewer services because reconnecting with new service lines to the water and sewer
mains on East Yates Street would entail very expensive restoration to landscaping at 701 North
Aurora Street; and
WHEREAS, the property owner, at the request of the Board of Public Works, has submitted the
required easement and maintenance agreements to ensure in a practicable way the long term
operation and maintenance of the water and sewer services for both 705 North Aurora Street
and the back lot apartment on 701 North Aurora Street; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the properties shall also install a separate water meter in the back lot
apartment for 701 North Aurora, and provide for the plumbing modifications necessary to ensure
it is not in series with the water meter for 705 North Aurora; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the properties shall disconnect the sump pump connection to the
sanitary sewer service at 705 North Aurora Street and install the pipe required to reconnect it to
the storm sewer line on the property frontage in coordination with and meeting the requirements
of the Streets & Facilities Division of the City of Ithaca DPW; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works allow the existing water and sanitary sewer
service lines to be used provided that the water service plumbing modifications are completed
and inspected, the water meter installed, and the sump pump connection to sanitary sewer
service is permanently removed; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the proposed easement and maintenance agreements meet or are revised to
meet the approval of the City Attorney’s Office and are filed at the Office of the Tompkins
County Clerk with stamped copy of the original filed instrument provided to the Water & Sewer
Division of the City DPW.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes January 25, 2016
8
Commissioner Warden noted that he is uncomfortable having a sewer line go through
someone’s house into another parcel; although if Supt. Thorne and Asst. Supt. Whitney are
okay with it, then he is comfortable. He wondered if the last whereas clause should spell out
how the City wants to connect it. For example, if, in the future, someone who is unrelated
occupies the basement there should be as much separation as possible or if the parcels should
be split, have that clearly outlined in the resolution.
Commissioner Goldsmith wondered if the restrictions are going to be written into the deed.
Asst. Supt. Whitney responded that the restrictions will be outlined in a quit claim deed of the
property (see attached).
Property owner, Joseph Steuer, joined the Board for discussion of this topic. He stated that he
is the owner of both parcels. He has built into the maintenance agreement all the conditions that
the Board recommended. He understands the future ownership question, and when he goes to
sell the house and the new buyer does not want to have it this way, it will be his responsibility to
correct it if he wants to sell it.
Mayor Myrick noted that this is a complicated request; he also understands Commissioner
Warden’s concerns; however, he trusts the owner’s actions and the recommendation of Asst.
Supt. Whitney. He asked how the rest of the Board members felt.
Board members expressed their support for the resolution as long as the conditions are
documented and included in the deed.
Commissioner Warden asked whether the property owner would owner consider doing what he
suggested now, instead, to alleviate some of his concerns.
Mr. Steuer responded that he understands Commissioner Warden’s concern; he has monetary
and some other concerns. He feels like the maintenance agreement accomplishes the
concerns that were raised. If the future buyer of the property does not want the property as is, it
will be his responsibility to either not sell the property or take care of the issues so the property
can then be sold.
Mayor Myrick stated that this resolution would come back to the Board’s next meeting for a vote.
Commissioner Greene expressed his support for the resolution, and noted that this item had
been discussed at a previous meeting. He would support voting on the resolution at today’s
meeting. Mayor Myrick expressed his support for that suggestion as well as did the other Board
members.
A Vote on the Resolution Resulted As Follows:
Ayes (4) Myrick, Darling, Greene, Goldsmith
Nays (1) Warden
Abstentions (0)
Carried
Adjournment:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Sarah L. Myers, Svante L. Myrick,
Information Mgt. Specialist Mayor
QUIT CLAIM DEED
THIS INDENTURE made this _ day of .-_zutt.
Between: BERGEN STREET MEDIA CORP., a New York Corporation with
olfices at 701 North Aurora Street, Ithaca, Ner.r,York 14850,
pafiy of the first pafi
and JOSEPH STEUER, JR. and ERIN L. FITZGERALD, husband
and wife of701 Nofih Aurora Street, Ithaca, Neu, York 14850. as
tenants by the entirety,
parties of the second part,
WITNESSETH, that the parry of the first part, in consideration of One and 00/100 Dollar
($ 1.00), laufr-rl money ofthe United States, and other good and valuable consideration, paid by the
parties ofthe second part, does hereby rernise, release and quit-claim forever unto the parties ofthe
second part, their survivor, distributEes, heirs and assigns,
ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins,
State of New York, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows:
SEE ATTACHED "Schedule A"
TOGETHER with the appu enances and all the estate and rights of the parties ofthe first
part in and to said premises.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the parties of the second part,
their heirs, executors, distributees, successors and assigns forever.
AND said pa*ies ofthe first part covenant that, in Compliance with Section 13 ofthe Lien
Law, the grantor will receive the consjderation for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive
such consideration as a hust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the
improvement and will apply the same first to the payment ofthe cost of the improvernent before
using any part ofthe total of the same for any other purpose,
IN WfINESS WHEREOI, the parties of the first part have hereun(r set their hands and seals
the dav and year first above written.
lN Pltt:SENCE t)F:
BERGEN STREE,'I' MEDIA COI{P
Il\': ,l oseph Stcuer,.lr.
l'reritlerrt and solr sharehokler
S'I ATE OF NI]W YORK)
COI II]TY OI TOMPKINS)SS
On this __ day ol December'. 201 5, before me the subsclibcr personally appeared
JOSEPH STEUER, JR., personally known to mc or proved to me on the basis of satislactory
evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hrsiher/their capaciry(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalfofwhich the
individuaJ(s1 dctcd. executed the instrument.
Notary Public
2
SCI{DDULE A
ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situale in City of lthaca, County of Tompkrns,
State oiNew York, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows:
BegirLning at a point located the following courses and distances from the intersection ofthe
easterly line of North Aurora Street with the northerly line ofEast Yates Street:
(a) North 47.80 feet to a pin found; thence
(b) North 89 degrees 31 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 75.69 feel to a calculated
point, being the TRUE point or place of beginning;
Thence running North a distance of32.81 feet to a calculated poinl;
Thence running North 57 degrees 5l minutes 03 seconds East a distance of I 1.65 feet to a
calculated point;
Thence running South 89 degrees 57 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 18.44 feet to a
point marked by a pin found;
Thence running South 38.76 feet to a calculated point;
Thence running South 89 degrees 31 minutes 52 seconds Wesl a distance of28.31 feet to the
point or place of beginning, containing 1,070 square feet, more or less.
TOGETHER WITH a permanent easement and right-of-way, fifteen feet in width, as shown
on the survey map referenced belou,, for purposes ofconstructing, retaining, and maintaining water,
sewerr gas, electric and other utility connections from the parcel described above to the dwelling
known as 705 North Aurora Street. Grantee shall be solely responsible for aU maintenance and
repair costs associated with the utility connections located within this easement area, and shall have
the right to enter upon the portion ofthe Grantor's remaining premises for purposes ofso maintaining
or repairing the utility connections. To the extent possible, Grantee shall return Grantor's propefly
to its pre-maintenance condition upon completion ofany maintenance or repair, at Grantee's sole
expense. Grantee sholl hold harmless Grantor fron any and all liability on account ofpersonal injury
and property damage resulting from or in connection with exercise of the rights related to this
easement and right ofway, including any damage by any persons not under the direct supervision
and control of Grantee.
3
TOGETHER WITH a permanent easement and right of way for purposes of sharing, retair.ring
and maintaining shared lvater, sewer, gas, electric and other utility connections currently servicing
the dwelling known as 705 North Aurora Street and the above described parcel, from the center line
of North Aurora Streetto the fif1een foot right ofrvay refeleuced above, where said connections are
currently exist. Neither parry will take any action, or fail to take any action, which is reasonab)y
Iikeiy to causc any damage to the utility connectiolrs or diminisil or impair the ability of the other
party to use the utility connections. The parties iointly rvill determine the necessity for and exter.rt
ofany maintenancc or repair to the shared utility conncctiotrs. In the event that any maintenance or
repair is performed, each pany will pay fifly (507o) percenl ofthe cost of same. Notwithstanding
lhe foregoing allocation of costs, in the event that any repair or maintenance is required as a result
of damage caused by any action of eilher part). rather than as a result oforclinary wear and tcar. such
maintenance or repair wili be paid for by thc parry that has caused such damage. Each parly will
indemni$ the other for. and hold the other harmless flom and against. any loss, cost, expense.
damage or liability incurred by the indemnified partv as a result of the indemnifying party's use of
the sliared utilitv connections or exercise of the indemnifuing party's rights undel this Agreement.
l'he above desoribcd premises are shown a suwey map entitled "l,ot Line Adjustment Map No. 701
& 705 Norlir Aurola Street, City ofIthaca, Tompkins County, Neu,York" dated June i8, 2015 and
tedated November I I , 201 5, by TG Miller PC. a copl, of rvhich map is filed in the Tonpkirs Countv
(llerk's Offi ce concurrentll, hereu,ith.
Being pan of thc same premises conveyed to Grantor by deed recorded .luly 9th,2015 in the
Tompkins County Clerk's Office as Instrument #2015-7991.
,l
o-F r
-a
LJs t
=i 3
=c ii:e
zN I
3E F ;
aI
\EA
H]
-!tr
fir!
:.:t
:i t!
Isii
;!li
E:t:
r:iE
I;FE!r!:
rE!l
i; !;
8!ef
1;Ei
l;h sr
::liiiiij
ll:::14
Eliriiii'l
qfiiliii
EHE
rElti I! E
Er" X.t:l;l
r+: t:
9 dll ci
S i:t lt
j'
E
fr
Fq,
i :p{E
; 8B*:t.iii
EiEII
:T
E
c
NOR?E A URORA S?REET
t\
g
!
!
3
lr
:i
er
:1
*l.':l
;
i ra:76
E
I
9r I
(F-
E:ilil
EiEEii
fiE*
r tr
!:ie
;;" i
nF!-:r6!.;!:rir:
r:tB
iFiE:I:i
IlllrlliEi{aa ia
\.-:o.
:lir
h-s.rE
il r,
/.$
I
!
q
l.r
TH
t;
63
IE
Iit
r:r
L
t
I
ri:
;:P
T
.B
i
IiI
I
E.E
t
.- ir!!
l r.l
EsE :; t
" 1Pr:5 r !i qrE: E&r' ++eB cq i
I.
'.'.
\lr]
laq
L!
(.'
!.1
\h:{
+=.-lrl
I --
L'I
I
'Bl
al-l
i
I
W
(
Ii
l
\
rP.lir)
(Ei!9
I