HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2016-02-22Board of Public Works Meeting Proceedings
Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. February 22, 2016
Present:
Vice Chair – Jenkins
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 – Fleming
Information Management Specialist – Myers
Director of Parking – Nagy
City Forester – Grace
Historic Preservation Planner - McCracken
Excused:
Mayor Myrick
1. Call to Order - Additions to or Deletions From the Agenda:
Supt. Thorne requested the addition of the following items to the agenda:
Item 12.1 Under “Water & Sewer” entitled “Award of Bids for 2016 W & S Division Pipe
and Materials Bid”
Item 11.1 Under “Creeks, Bridges and Parks” entitled “Lighting at DeWitt Park” with City
Forester Jeanne Grace
Item 11.2 Under “Creeks, Bridges and Parks” entitled “Update on Emerald Ash Borer”
with City Forester Jeanne Grace
No Board Member Objected.
2. Communications and Hearings from Persons Before the Board:
Joe McMahan, City of Ithaca, addressed the Board to express his support for the
resolution on the Board’s agenda entitled “Six Mile Creek Watershed Protection
Project”. He is also Chair of the Natural Areas Commission and they are very much in
support of the proposal to secure the safety and quality of the water in the City’s
Water Shed. He encouraged the Board to support anything that can be done to secure
properties along Six Mile Creek that could be used to protect the City’s water supply.
He also voiced concern about the overflow from a city sanitary sewer pipe on the South
Hill Recreational Way; it has been occurring since 2003. The overflow is on a walkway
that is used by 100’s of people on a daily basis, and it is also near South Hill Elementary
School. The overflow goes into a storm drain that then empties into Six Mile Creek so
every effort should be made by the City to make the necessary repairs so as to protect
this important water resource.
Holly Hollingsworth, Chair of Dewitt Park Oversight Committee, addressed the Board to
express his support for the DeWitt Park lighting proposal on the Board’s agenda. He
would also, on behalf of the committee members and citizens that use DeWitt Park, to
publicly commend the great cooperation they have had with Asst. Supt. Benjamin and
City Forester Grace and all the staff of the Streets & Facilities Department for their work
in DeWitt Park.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
2
3. Response to the Public:
City Attorney Lavine clarified, because he felt that there appears to have been some
confusion as to what is on the Board’s agenda regarding the Six Mile Creek Watershed
Protection Project Resolution. He explained that it is a conservation easement. He
explained that in 2015 Common Council approved a resolution that created the funding
and the policy for applying for funding. What’s on the agenda is a resolution that if the
Board of Public Works chooses would support applying some of that funding for part of
a project upstream of the 60’ dam.
4. Administration and Communications:
Approval of the January 25, 2016 Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes -
Resolution
By Alderperson Goldsmith: Seconded by Alderperson Darling
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the January 25, 2016 Board of Public Works meeting
be approved as published.
Carried Unanimously
5. Reports:
Common Council Liaison Fleming reported on a couple constituent issues. The first
one related to parking and the use of pay stations; Director of Parking Nagy was very
responsive and helpful in addressing them. The second was a report of some sort of
flooding on Eastwood Avenue near the Town/City property line; she would like to speak
with someone to get more information.
Supt. Thorne introduced Michael Raftis, Manager of Fiscal Operations for the
Department of Public Works. He is assisting the Department of Public Works in
consolidating its various budget related activities in an effort to streamline the process
by working with each division of the department to review current processes, and
implement consistent work plans related to the budget into one place.
Mr. Raftis introduced himself, and explained that right now his goal is to get an idea of
the needs of the Supt. of Public Works, Asst. Supt. Whitney and Asst. Supt. Benjamin.
He will also be working with the financial staff at each of the various offices in an effort
to standardize some procedures in accounting areas. That will make those tasks more
consistent from office to office which will hopefully simplify and make it easier for
training of new staff. He will also be researching various grant opportunities and
assisting in financial analysis of anticipated future Capital Projects for the department.
One such project would be the potential purchase of street lights from NYSEG and the
use of more energy efficient bulbs in an effort to save the City money.
Director of Engineering Logue reported that bids were opened for the Cass Park Rink
Roof Replacement Project that resulted in a good showing from bidders and prices. He
should have a resolution for consideration at the Board’s next meeting. After some
delays with New York State, the work on the Lake Street Bridge over Fall Creek should
begin soon. The City received four or five proposals for design services for the
University Avenue Bridge. The City will also be undertaking a project this year aimed at
evaluating the condition of all bridges in the City that the State does not conduct
evaluations on (i.e. pedestrian bridges). The City has hired a professional to assist with
analysis of a database that was created last year by an intern to show the location and
condition of all the retaining walls in the City of Ithaca. It also provides ownership
information (whether they are city-owned or privately owned walls). The analysis will
assist the City in determining how to establish budgets and priorities for repair of the
walls in the future.
Asst. Supt. Benjamin reported that it’s been an unusual winter. It was so cold a week
ago that fuel pumps had to be thawed out, so staff were called in twice to do that and it
happened over a holiday weekend. This past Tuesday, it rained all day causing
flooding in a pipe in a culvert just outside city limits at Eastwood Avenue. The culvert is
on an access road owned by Cornell University; there are a couple properties nearby
where the flooding occurred. The City wasn’t notified until they received a call informing
them that water was overflowing onto those properties, flowing down East State Street
near Water Street, and then down to Valentine Place. In addition, the water jumped the
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
3
curb and went into window wells resulting in flooded basements. The City brought
sandbags to affected property owners that helped to redirect the water. On
Saturday the City received another call that water was overflowing again so staff went
out and put down more sandbags. Currently, the creeks are being watched because of
ice and high water flows; they’re good now and clear. The ice stayed down within
concrete walls with enough water to flush all the way through without jamming up.
Asst. Supt. Whitney responded to the comment made about the South Hill sanitary
sewer overflow. He explained that there are two pipes causing the overflow, one to the
South Hill Recreational Way, and the other at West King Road. Because of the heavy
rain last week, 65 residences and one business (Therm) were affected by flooding. One
pipe is 8” and the other is 12” and both come into the manhole at Hudson Street. During
any large rainfall event, that section of pipe, which is almost flat, overflows. Staff were
notified by e-mail on Wednesday about the flooding; however, they were all in Dryden at
a training for storm water management. They didn’t check e-mail until Thursday
morning so as soon as they were made aware of the overflow they replaced the pipe at
that manhole, and then applied disinfectant to kill any pathogens on the ground. He
explained that the whole section of pipe needs to be replaced at some point. In order to
do that they would need to use the center line of the South Hill Recreational Trail to
install and build it. They are working on obtaining a professional evaluation of the
elevations and what the project might cost. They should have that information available
for the Board in another 2-3 weeks. Tomorrow, staff will be taking the water and sewer
services out of the old P & C on Hancock Street as the building is being demolished to
make room for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services new project at that location.
Crews have also been very busy responding to lots of requests for new services and
demolitions.
Director of Parking Nagy distributed information to the Board on parking
revenue/transactions for the month of January and thus far in February. For January
there was a 41% increase over 2015, and so far in February there has been a 13%
increase over 2015. The Commons Second Shift now has two employees with the
second one beginning work tonight. There will be a third new hire to start soon to assist
with the parking lot attendant duties. The Parking Committee has set up two new sub-
committees; one is focused on the placement of the new pay stations that are on order
and should be in by the end of March. They toured three streets as a group and are
done with more streets to go; it is a painstaking process to review street by street. The
second focuses on promotion and education about the use of the pay stations. Three
videos are being made on how to use them. He attended the Advisory Board Meeting of
the Tompkins County Office for the Aging today to get their input on parking and the pay
stations. There is a need to provide answers to the public as to why the City put in the
pay stations, which was not done before. He will also be working with Lifelong, Way 2
Go of Tompkins County, and the Office for the Aging on developing training on the use
of the pay stations for different age groups. There will be an Aging Expo at the Ramada
Inn; he has been encouraged to attend and to set up a booth with information on
parking in downtown Ithaca (i.e. use of pay stations, on-street parking, parking in the
garages, etc.). The education and marketing sub-committee has been looking at
possible slogans to use on the advertising medium; one suggestion so far has been
“Parking Made Better”; he encouraged Board members to send him their thoughts and
ideas on possible slogans. One other option that was requested by the Disability
Advisory Council for which he has been looking at a system currently in use in Portland,
Oregon is a scratch-off type cards to use to pay for parking. Two of the three Parking
Advisory Committees like that idea and expressed support for it. He will provide
information in the near future on the proposal as an agenda item for the Board to
review, discuss and vote on.
Vice Chair Jenkins asked how the pay machines operate in the very cold weather.
Director Parking Nagy responded fine; however when it’s raining or sleeting not so well.
With the most recent heavy rain they had 10 machines go down due to wet coin and wet
dollar bills because the moisture on the bills causes jams. Last Tuesday, all the
Community Service Officers spent their day concentrating on repairing the machines
and stopped looking to issue tickets. They had the same issue in the parking garages
due to the moisture or the coins freeze before they get to their container.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
4
Commissioner Warden questioned the surcharge for the use of credit cards and
whether it goes to the credit card company and Park Mobile and when you add time
whether there is an additional surcharge. Director of Parking Nagy responded that
there is a surcharge each time the credit card is used. He explained that it would be
less expensive to just pay for whole day and then you can park all around downtown
(although cars do need to move every 2 hours) for the rest of the day as long as there is
time left; that way there is only one surcharge.
Supt. Thorne reported that the Sidewalk Program Manager, Eric Hathaway, has been
promoted to the position of Transportation Engineer. The department will be advertising
for a new Sidewalk Program Manage. Mr. Hathaway has done a great job with the
City’s new sidewalk program and has overseen the number of construction and/or repair
of sidewalks rise way above and beyond anything done in the past and has been a
great person for the position. Until a new Sidewalk Program Manager is hired, Mr.
Hathaway will be wearing two hats during this transition time.
6. Buildings, Properties, Refuse & Transit:
A. Six Mile Creek Watershed Protection Project - Resolution
By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Greene
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has received an application from the Finger Lakes Land
Trust to support the acquisition of approximately 125 acres of land within the Six Mile
Creek Watershed located at 471 Midline Road in the Town of Dryden (known as the
Petkov Property); and
WHEREAS, the application meets the four criteria established in the Common Council
Resolution “City Watershed Conservation Easements Processes” passed on March 4,
2015; and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Public Works and Assistant Superintendent of Public
Works—Water and Sewer have reviewed the application and believe that the property is
of high value for protection of the watershed; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works supports a grant of $40,000 toward
acquisition of the Petkov Property by the Finger Lakes Land Trust; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works directs the Superintendent of Public
Works to place the application on the upcoming agenda of the Planning and Economic
Development Committee.
Commissioner Goldsmith questioned the proposed amounts to be used for the
acquisition; the amounts are $40,000, $50,000 and $15,000.
City Attorney Lavine explained that the March 2015 authorizing resolution for this
program ends by setting out a procedure for considering “fee-title purchases (rather
than easements)”. While the resolution could have been clearer, he believes it was
authorizing the sort of fee-title purchase now before the Board: a fee-title purchase by
an entity (here, the Land Trust) that will preserve the parcel of land in perpetuity, just as
the City wouldn’t take title to conservation easements purchased under this program
either, but would also entrust those to titling in the Land Trust’s name. As far as the
City’s authorization of $25,000 for this transaction rather than $40,000, there really isn’t
a right and a wrong answer. He did note that to the extent that the City’s motivation in
picking a smaller number is to preserve funds for future watershed protection
transactions, it’s worth keeping in mind that (so far) Council has funded this program at
$20,000 per year out of the water fund. Thus, it’s a decent bet that some funding will be
available for future transactions—which are, in any event, not available to the City at
this time—even if it devotes the full $40,000 to this project now. There is also good
reason to anticipate that Common Council will continue to fund the program at a rate of
$20,000 per year. Either way, these sums of money are a true drop in the proverbial
bucket of $30+ million that is being spent on the City’s new water plant, which will do
little good without high quality water for many decades to come.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
5
Supt. Thorne stated that both he and Asst. Supt. Whitney feel this is a really good
property, so they would support using all the funds for it.
A Vote on the Resolution Resulted as Follows:
Carried Unanimously
7. Highways, Streets & Sidewalks:
A. Approval to Rename a Portion of Sisson Place to Northcross Road -
Resolution
By Vice Chair Jenkins: Seconded by Commissioner Warden
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Code, Section 342-2, “No person shall assign
any name to any new street without first submitting the proposed name to the Board of
Public Works for its approval”; and
WHEREAS, Cornell University has requested to rename a portion of Sisson Place
within the City, as shown on the attached map, to Northcross Road; and
WHEREAS, this renaming would make the extent of the existing north/south portion of
Sisson Place south of Jessup Place congruent with the extension of said road north of
Jessup Road; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works approves the request of Cornell University
to rename the abovementioned portion of Sisson Place to Northcross Road; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That this segment of Northcross Road shall be considered the 100 block
of Northcross Road; the Village of Cayuga Heights has designated the segment north of
Jessup Road as the 200 block of Northcross Road.
Carried Unanimously
8. Creeks, Bridges & Parks:
A. DeWitt Park Lighting - Discussion
City Forester Jeanne Grace joined the Board for discussion of this topic.
She explained that this project is in response to concerns from City staff (herself and
her crew) as well as Parks Commission members about activities that are happening in
Dewitt Park, specifically the increase in discarded needles.
After meeting with several interested parties (Ithaca Police Department, the Downtown
Community outreach worker, City Court officer, and herself) a few suggestions were
made for discouraging unwanted behavior in the park. Changes in landscaping was
discussed as well as installing additional lighting to the East side of the park. She
provided a map (which will be attached to the minutes that shows the current location of
the light posts (purple) and the proposed location of two new light posts (orange).
The light posts being considered for purchase are ones that were used surplus from
Cornell University. A picture of one will be attached to the minutes as well as a picture
of the existing light posts in Dewitt Park (the new light posts are very similar but not
exactly the same). Dewitt Park is in a historic district and the additional lighting and
landscaping changes in the park were discussed at the City of Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission meeting; they were approved and the project will be handled
administratively by Historic Planner McCracken. The Parks Commission is also in
support of the additional lighting for the park. She explained that she would be asking
for about $2,000 from contingency funding for materials and the labor will be done by
city staff.
She stated that it really makes sense to have this additional lighting and one would
wonder why they weren’t put there initially since they will really help light up the park.
The lighting will be provided from used light posts from Cornell University that look very
similar to the current ones, which the City can purchase at a low cost. The money to
pay for the new light posts has been offered by Holly Hollingsworth’s veteran group at
no cost to the City. She spoke with the City Electricians about the two new locations for
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
6
the light posts and they indicated that it wouldn’t be a problem to do the wiring, and
provided her with cost estimates. She spoke with Cliff Murphy from Streets & Facilities
and he can supply a crew to build the cement bases for the light posts. That way the
project can by completely done by City staff. In addition, the City does have a DeWitt
Park Rehab fund that contains $3,000 which could be used for the project, including the
landscaping to improve visibility within the park. She is looking for the Board of Public
Works to support the proposal so the funds can be released for it.
She further reported that she and her crew cleaned up and trimmed some of the bushes
and vegetation by the Boardman House which has helped to open up that side of the
park and provides fewer dark and obstructed views. She would also propose to remove
some of the vegetation and replace it with something more appropriate using a stepped
approach.
Commissioner Darling voiced his support for the complete removal of the hedge that
obstructs views of the park and has caused the public to be concerned about their
safety within the park. Commissioner Greene wondered whether the hedge could be
trimmed back.
City Forester Grace responded that this type of hedge is slow growing; meant to stay
low but never was maintained as a low hedge. Staff could cut it back to knee height; it
would take two growing seasons before it would fill out which means it will be
unattractive for a couple years, and then begin to improve in its appearance. The Parks
Crew would then provide regular trimming to maintain the hedge at the lower height; to
her, that’s the best option right now. She noted that some members of the Parks
Commission would prefer to not have the hedge trimmed because they feel it creates a
tranquil area with the park.
Board members expressed their disagreement with keeping the hedge and requested
that City Forester Grace ask the Parks Commission to revisit the request since it is a
public safety issue.
Commissioner Darling wondered whether the hedge might be taken out and completely
replaced with some other landscaping. City Forester Grace responded that her
preference would be to keep the hedge because it would be the lowest effort option for
her staff. If they had to pull it out, repurpose the soil, buy new shrubs, prepare soil,
replant, and then maintain new landscaping would require much more work for her staff,
as well as add to the cost. She would like to keep the hedge, but cut it way down, and
stick with something that is already established and will work but just needs regular
trimming.
Vice Chair Jenkins asked if Cornell University would consider donating the light posts to
the City of Ithaca. City Forester Grace responded that Cornell University no longer
owns them; they were put up for auction, and are now the property of the owner of
Ithaca Plastics who is willing to sell them to the City for what they cost him. Vice Chair
Jenkins further questioned whether the new lighting might shine in anyone’s apartment
nearby. City Forester Grace responded that the new light posts are going to be
installed opposite from where the apartments are located so that should not be an
issue.
Commissioner Goldsmith expressed his support for the proposal and questioned why
the Board of Public Works would need to approve it as it seems to be a regular
maintenance issue for the Department of Public Works.
Supt. Thorne explained that it would be good to have a resolution that supports the
accessing of the funding by staff for the project; he will prepare one for the Board’s
March 14th meeting.
8.B Emerald Ash Borer - Update:
City Forester Grace provided information to the Board of the City of Ithaca Emerald Ash
Borer (EAB) Management Plan Update for 2016 (the information will be attached to the
minutes).
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
7
She explained that the spread of the EAB to Ithaca is inevitable; it is coming from the
mid-west, will come to Ithaca and kill all the ash trees. The EAB is already present in
some locations in New York State. There is no confirmed infestation in the City of
Ithaca yet; city staff are still in the planning stages for responding to the infestation.
Once infected the tree dies within 1-2 years; the EAB lay 1,000’s eggs resulting in the
killing of many trees. There is no way to save a tree once it has been infested; they just
need to be cut down before they can cause any damage or injury. There 350 ash trees
in the City of Ithaca. Previously, the count was 400 so the population of Ash trees has
been whittled down. This number does not include natural areas, only street and park
trees. The greatest cost to the City of Ithaca would be to do nothing.
She stated that her preference would be a planned approach for the removal of infested
trees, replanting, and, where they can, to treat the trees prophylactically. If the approach
is done slowly over time, the cost can be contained in the department’s operating
budget; if not, specific money would have to be requested. In addition, certain
requirements must be met in order to treat. There are a lot of ash trees in Stewart Park,
where she says that there are different treatment options available. Triage is the best
approach where the treatment is injected directly into the trunk of the tree so as not to
get into the ground and ground water. This treatment protects the tree for three years,
and retreatment may be done on a regular basis depending on the overall infestation
level of the population.
She reported that right now 150 ash trees would meet the threshold for treatment which
is roughly about 60% of the ash trees. At Stewart Park in the playground area the ash
trees are all large; she did get a grant previously so some trees were removed and new
trees planted but they are still small. Similarly, at the golf course 15% of the trees are
ash so she is working with the Golf Course Manager to determine which trees are a
really important and working on a treatment plan.
She stated that no ash trees have been planted since 2003. The Tree Crew has been
trained on the signs and symptoms of EAB infestation which will result in early detection
and treatment. This winter they will continue to remove ash trees, removing trees that
are under utility lines or trees that have been extensively trimmed and have become
unattractive; they will be replaced with a shorter variety of tree. If the City were to wait
and cut the ash trees down all at once it would be very expensive and could result in
possible injury and property damage. The City of Ithaca is in good shape because it
has been planning, preparing and taking action to keep the infestation to a minimum; so
when there is an actual infestation there will only be a small number of trees to remove
and replace.
Commissioner Greene thanked Ms. Grace for the presentation, and asked what the
county and town are doing in preparation of the EAB infestation.
City Forester Grace responded that there is a county task force, but it has not met in a
while. The task force was geared towards private property owners taking responsibility
for their ash trees. She further explained that New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation has no plan to eradicate the EAB. However, there is a plan
to evaluate, remove affected trees and be proactive. Another important fact is that it
needs to be made widely known what to do with the ash trees that are cut down, so as
not to spread the infestation further. Once an infestation is confirmed, a quarantine is
put in place so wood is not removed or transported to other areas; it will probably need
to be burned right away and not stored. Ash trees are great for fire wood, and that is
probably one of the reasons that there is this issue; they are cut down and then
transported to camp for future use or given to someone for fire wood so the infestation
of the EAB spreads very easily.
A question arose about ash trees located on private property. City Forester Grace
stated that the Shade Tree Advisory Committee (STAC) sent letters to all property
owners in Fall Creek (where there is a predominance of ash trees in the City) offering
volunteers from the STAC who would come to their property to evaluate the trees.
There was not a great response back to that though. She noted that there are some
huge ash trees that tower over houses, sometimes more than one, on some of the
properties in Fall Creek. She stated that if treatment were recommended for those trees,
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
8
it would need to be contracted out; however, in order to treat one must be certified. So,
on private property she is not sure how all the logistics for treatment might be
coordinated.
City Forester Grace stated that not every tree would meet the criteria for treatment
either. Property owners should at least have a plan for the future when the ash tree
needs to be taken down - especially where there isn’t room for equipment. In those
cases, they will need to be trimmed in small portions at a time. Once the tree is dead no
one is going to want to climb it to trim it. As a result, removal in some cases will require
the use of cranes. She stated that she brought this topic to the Board of Public Works
for their information so when the next round of tree removal signs go up Board
members can be informed; any questions can be referred to her. She also plans to bring
this presentation to Common Council at their March meeting.
A brief discussion followed on the floor regarding the need to make sure all property
owners be informed of the EAB so that if they have ash trees on their property they can
plan accordingly for removal. City Forester Grace stated that she would see if this
information could be made available on the City’s website.
9. Water & Sewer:
A. Award of Bids for “Water & Sewer Division Pipe and Materials Bids” -
Resolution
By Commissioner Darling: Seconded by Commissioner Goldsmith
WHEREAS, bids were received on February 11, 2016 for pipe and materials to be used
during the 2016 construction and maintenance season; and
WHEREAS, the bid package consisted of 8 separate bid items, each to be awarded
separately; and
WHEREAS, a tie for Bid 8 between Blair Supply Corp and HD Supply Waterworks was
resolved by coin toss in favor of HD Supply Waterworks; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the 6 bids received and made recommendations for
award; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards Bid 1 for water main pipe
to HD Supply Waterworks of Binghamton, NY, for a total contract of $27,576.00; and, be
it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards Bid 2 for water main
fittings to HD Supply Waterworks of Binghamton, NY, for a total contract of $9,479.60;
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards Bid 3 for hydrants to TI
Sales of Sudbury, MA, for a total contract of $12,552.30; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards Bid 4 for valve boxes to
Martisco Corp. of Syracuse, NY, for a total contract of $1,882.50; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards Bid 5 for valves to Blair
Supply Corp. of Rochester, NY, for a total contract of $20,023.65; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards Bid 6 for flexible couplings
to HD Supply Waterworks of Binghamton, NY, for a total contract of $249.60; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards Bid 7 for water service
components to Martisco Corp. of Syracuse, NY, for a total contract of $2,750.50; and,
be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards Bid 8 for sanitary sewer
pipe to HD Supply Waterworks of Binghamton, NY, for a total contract of $1,375.00.
Carried Unanimously
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
9
10. Discussion Items:
A. Approval of City of Ithaca Commons Maintenance Guidelines - Resolution
By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Darling
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Commons was reconstructed in 2013-15 using specialized
materials and pavers with a substantial investment of $15 million; and
WHEREAS, City Code Chapter 157 was rewritten to state that a document containing
maintenance and snow removal guidelines be created by the Department of Public
Works to ensure the Commons is kept clean and free from damage and updated as
best practices change; and
WHEREAS, City code requires the Board of Public Works to approve the guidelines and
the document is made available to business and property owners through the
Superintendent’s office; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has reviewed the list of Maintenance and Snow
Removal Guidelines; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby approves the Maintenance and
Snow Removal Guidelines dated February 22, 2016, and directs staff to make the
guidelines available to all appropriate business and property owners and other
interested parties.
The following treatments should be used to keep the Ithaca Commons Pedestrian Mall clean:
Stains Treatments
1. Oil and grease Soak up excess oil with rags AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Then cover
with an oil absorbent material, like kitty litter. Leave on stain for 24-
48 hours, and then sweep dry. Another option would be to apply a
100% pure citrus degreaser or Dawn dish soap directly to stain, and
then blot up with a rag and hose area down. Call Maintenance
ASAP.
2. Chewing Gum Apply small amount of dry ice and then scrape off with a putty knife
or apply 100% pure citrus degreaser, apply directly to gum marks
and scrape off.
3. Paint Use rags to remove excess paint by blotting, do not wipe, it will
spread the paint around. If the paint is a latex, water based, soak
with hot water and scrub by using detergent with a stiff bristled
brush. Rinse periodically, repeat as necessary. Oil, paint and sealer
remover is a specialized cleaner that can be applied after oil-based
paint has dried. Follow manufactures instructions.
4. Leaf and Wood Rot Apply household bleach and scrub with a stiff bristled brush.
5. Mortar Try to remove immediately with a garden hose. If that is not
possible, let it harden and remove with a scraper or putty knife.
6. Tobacco Apply household bleach and scrub with a stiff bristled brush.
7. Rust Stains Directly apply Rust Stain remover to the effected spots to lift these
types of stains. Contact Hanover® for specific material.
8. Stains from foods, drinks,
ketchup, mustard, etc…
Flush with water AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Scrub with a stiff
bristled brush, rinse. Repeat as necessary. Call Maintenance.
9. Clay Soils Scrap off the dry built-up material with putty knife, scrub and rinse
off with hot water. A detergent may be necessary to release the
stain.
10. Tar Apply 100% pure citrus degreaser. Apply directly to stain, blot up
with a rag and then hose area down.
11. Tree Sap Apply 100% pure citrus degreaser. Apply directly to stain, blot up
with a rag and then hose area down.
12. Concrete dust from cutting Rinse immediately with water and/or use a cleaner designed for
cleaning concrete pavers
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
10
Please Note: If the stains are severe and cannot be removed, pavers can be replaced with new
materials. Unlike other paving materials, concrete pavers will not have the extreme unsightly
patch marks.
13. Snow Removal Sweep snow with a broom/brush first. For removal of snow only
rubber or plastic tipped shovels or snow blowers may be used. NO
STEAL EDGED SHOVELS MAY BE USED. Snow blowers should
not contain chains on the tires, as they could damage the face of
the pavers
14. De-Icing Rock salt should never be used on the Commons Surfaces!
For ice melting, Magnesium Chloride may be used, but should be
swept off of the surface once the ice is melted
Approved by the Board of Public Works: February 22, 2016
Carried Unanimously
10.B Cascadilla Creekway Project Follow-Up:
Director of Engineering Logue reported that the last Board of Public Works meeting
ended with a discussion of a couple options for this project either give the money back
or find way to proceed. Mayor Myrick found an excellent source of funding outside of
the City of Ithaca, $250,000 which could bring the project within budget and require no
action from the Board. He is also comfortable moving forward with the proposed railing
modification. He would propose sending the project out to bid for Design Alternative #2
to keep it moving and not over budget. He will prepare formal resolution for the Board to
vote on at its next meeting.
Supt. Thorne requested that staff prepare a memo describing what has changed with
the project, and if funding is obtained what the project would involve prior to the Board
voting on a resolution.
Director of Engineering Logue responded that he would provide the explanation memo
as well as a draft resolution, so that if the Board is agreeable at the next meeting to vote
it could be done at the same meeting. Board members expressed their support for that
option.
10.C Tioga Street and the Bicycle Boulevard Plan Follow-Up:
Director of Engineering Logue explained that this year, the 300 and 400 block of North
Tioga Street are on the work plan for repaving, and staff are currently in the process of
determining the scope of the work. One significant question has come up that staff
needs direction from the Board of Public Works is whether they should include the
elements of the Bicycle Boulevard Plan, which was adopted in September 2012 and
revised in November 2014. The plan is attached, and the related elements are
highlighted, including the map on page 6. The plan is also posted in the City's webpage
at:
http:// www.cityofithaca.org/222/ Bicycle-Boulevards
There are some design alternatives that the Board of Public Works could pursue as a
part of this project. One of these alternatives, indeed the preferred alternative that was
included in the Bike Boulevard Plan, includes removing on-street parking from one side
of the street in the blocks between Court Street and the Commons, to allow for the
inclusion of bicycle lanes. Since the City of Ithaca recently went through something very
similar to this last year with the North Cayuga Street project, and since there were some
lessons learned from that process, staff would propose the following public input and
decision making process to evaluate the design alternatives and to determine what
should be included in the construction project later this year.
With the Board of Public Works direction, staff will do the following:
• Issue a press release calling for written public comment due 30 days later and
calling for a public hearing at the Board of Public Works meeting on March 14th
• Directly mail property owners along the 200, 300 and 400 blocks of North Tioga
Street requesting written comment and notifying them about the March 14th public
hearing
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
11
• Directly email Common Council members, the Downtown Ithaca Alliance and the
Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council, asking for written public comment and notifying
them about the public hearing on March 14th
• In conjunction with the Parking Division, staff will collect data about the potential
on-street parking impacts. This would include determining the number of on- street
parking spaces impacted, collecting occupancy data for the directly impacted blocks
and the adjacent side street blocks.
With this information and input, staff would expect to have more detailed conversations
with Board members at their March 28th meeting, and hope for a decision from the
Board of Public Works by their April 11th meeting. This would allow staff enough time to
generate questions and answers, evaluate the alternatives and data, hear the public
input, and make a decision.
In addition to the public hearing at the March 14th Board of Public Works Meeting,
Director of Engineering Logue reported that he agreed to attend the Downtown Ithaca
Alliance’s monthly meeting this evening at 6:30 p.m. to explain the proposal.
Commissioner Goldsmith noted that he understands the proposed plan; however, does
one option leave 15 minute parking on North Tioga Street around the Post Office and
Town of Ithaca Office building.
Director of Engineering Logue responded that parking would still be needed on one side
of the street due to the high demand for parking by Town Hall, the Post Office, and
Tompkins County Courthouse. He feels that there is an alternative to look at if the City
is willing to remove some parking on different blocks around this area.
Commissioner Warden noted that one of the entrances to the Seneca Street parking
garage is located on North Tioga Street which provides off-street parking so not all the
parking is being removed in this area.
Director of Engineering Logue responded that he could check with Director of Parking
Nagy for occupancy rates for the garage. Director of Parking Nagy stated that this
street is one of the top 10 for occupancy in the City of Ithaca. Director of Engineering
Logue stated that there might be a way to make the connection without impacting on
street parking by increasing traffic calming.
Commissioner Warden requested that input from the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory
Council be provided to the Board for its information as they review and make a
determination on the proposal.
Common Council Liaison Fleming voiced her opposition to the loss of on-street parking
so near to the Post Office, Town Hall and the County Courthouse Building. The City
should make efforts to encourage the use of the Post Office downtown and discourage
the public from driving to the Post Office in Lansing.
10.D Request for an Encroachment Agreement from Ruloff’s in Collegetown at
411 College Avenue:
Supt. Thorne explained that the last time the Board discussed this request, some Board
members supported it while others didn’t. Therefore, he asked Director of Planning and
Development, JoAnn Cornish, to weigh in on the request. She didn’t have any
objections to the bench being in this location as long as the pedestrian walkway stays
unobstructed and the bench remains in good repair. She liked the idea that it is a
gathering place and adds to the vibrancy of the street. She does, however, feel that the
owners should be held to the same standards as others and secure the proper
permission for using the City’s right-of-way.
Commissioner Greene stated that while he likes the idea of using recycled materials for
alternative uses, including furniture, he does worry this “design” implementation (if one
could call it that) seems rather haphazard (see picture of proposed design attached to
the minutes). He noted that the value of implementing a design standard for something
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
12
like this is that the City can have a high level of confidence that it is safe for the public.
He would encourage the City to develop design guidelines for Collegetown prior to
approving this request; otherwise he feels that anyone who wants any type of design
would use the City’s right-of-way, and that should be avoided if possible.
Supt. Thorne expressed his agreement with that thought as well, because if the Board
were to approve this request, as proposed, it would then open it up for everyone to put
anything on the street. He further noted that if the Board approves this request from
Ruloff’s, every similar request would then have to come before them for review and
approval so his inclination is not to approve it. A question arose as to whether Ruloff’s
staff had been informed that they cannot have advertising signs on the bench? Supt.
Thorne stated that he would speak with the Building Division who enforces the City’s
sign ordinance to address that with them.
Common Council Liaison Fleming stated that the Commons has some really elaborate
design guidelines, so she finds it odd that there are no design guidelines for other areas
of the City.
Historic Planner, Bryan McCracken, joined the Board briefly to provide a point of
information regarding this request. He stated that the Planning Department is working
on design guidelines for Collegetown so a request like this would fall under those
guidelines in the future. He offered to have staff working on them to reach out to the
Board of Public Works regarding them, and noted that there are design guidelines for
historic districts so it would be helpful to have them for other areas of the City as well.
Supt. Thorne stated that if this decision were up to him, he would say remove the bench
so as to prevent others from wanting the same thing or type of design outside their
business in Collegetown.
Board members supported that suggestion. Commissioner Darling stated that he does
not support the request. In the absence of guidelines for Collegetown, the Board of
Public Works would need to review each and every request of this type; he does not
want the Board to have to do that. He stated that the design guidelines should be
established and then followed in the future.
Alderperson and Fourth Ward (Collegetown) Representative Graham Kerslick
encouraged the Board not to support the request by way of the following written
statement to the Board:
“Members of the Board of Public Works,
I am writing with comments related to an item on your agenda for Monday February
22nd:
• Request for an Encroachment Agreement from Ruloff’s in Collegetown at 411
College Avenue. A request has been submitted for Ruloff’s manager to install two
benches on the sidewalk outside of the restaurant.
I urge the Board not to agree to this proposed encroachment agreement based on the
following considerations:
• Improving sidewalks and pedestrian safety is a high priority across the City. Such
improvements are especially needed in Collegetown. Encroachment agreements should
be granted only where there is clear public benefit and where there is sufficient
remaining sidewalk to ensure pedestrian safety.
• Encroachment agreements for seasonal outdoor dining are reasonable, when
consistent with public safety and the immediate surroundings. The proposed benches
are semi-permanent, unsightly and poorly maintained. They are inconsistent with public
safety and the architectural surroundings.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
13
• The bump-outs in Collegetown are vital for reducing overcrowding on the area's
narrow sidewalks, particularly in the 400 block of College Avenue. The proposed
location is particularly unsuitable in this respect.
Thank you for your attention to this issue.”
Commissioner Goldsmith noted that it seems that this request does not have the
support of the Board and wondered whether they would need to vote on a resolution
that would state that?
Supt. Thorne asked whether the Board felt they needed a resolution to deny the
request. Commissioner Darling said it would be helpful to have a resolution and it
should list the reasons why, as discussed at today’s meeting, the request was denied.
Supt. Thorne responded that he would prepare a resolution for the Board’s next meeting
which will include language that the bench there now needs to be removed.
10.E Ithaca City Cemetery Wall:
Historic Planner Bryan McCracken joined the Board for discussion of this topic. He
explained that when repairs were made to the wall, as a result of an accident, they were
required to be “in-kind” so very specific materials were to be used and the finish was to
look like the rest of the wall. He stated that the repairs do not look like in-kind repairs,
and he has received complaints from community members, members of the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) and the Common Council Liaison to the
ILPC. He explained that the community and visitors view the City Cemetery as a
historic place, and over the years, the ILPC has been asked for input into any work
taking place in it, even though it’s not designated as a historic landmark. The ILPC
would request that the Board of Public Works approve a resolution that would direct the
contractor to redo the wall repair, and the ILPC would like an opportunity to view the
proposal prior to final approval being given by the City. He stated that some of the
vaults in the City Cemetery are going to need repair in the near future. These repairs
will also need to be done “in-kind” and so the ILPC would like to be involved in the
review of that proposal as well as to view the proposed materials to be used and the
repair methods prior to being applied prior to commencement of the repair work.
Supt. Thorne noted that Cornell University actually stains stone when they are making
similar repairs to make it look “historic”, and wondered why that is allowed? Historic
Planner McCracken responded that type of staining is a “fake old”, and it creates a false
sense of history. The ILPC believes that once stones are tooled to match the original
stones that they will age appropriately so that in the future they will look like the rest of
cemetery wall. The ILPC, with comments from the public, drafted a resolution that would
direct the contractor prepare a sample block with brush hammering for their review. It
would be an opportunity to visually inspect the product to ensure it matches the rest of
the wall. The ILPC would then propose, and with the support of the Board of Public
Works requiring that the contractor redo the work.
Supt. Thorne responded that the contractor is never going to find old stones that would
be a match for the rest of the wall, nor will the City have the budget with which to pay for
specialty stones. He does understand why the public is concerned about the
appearance of the repair with the rest of the wall, but the repair was made to match as
close as possible within the budget for the project.
Historic Planner McCracken stated that in historic districts, the ILPC requires that new
materials must match old material and be repaired in kind, so in this case the stones
would need to be brush hammered.
Commissioner Warden asked whether the difference in the new stones was due to the
fact that they were machine cut; and it was. He stated the type of stone work being
proposed by the ILPC, which is done by hand is very expensive. The project was to be
as close to the original as possible, and the City had a budget it needed to stay within;
this is the end result.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
14
Historic Planner McCracken responded that he asked City staff about that. Staff was
informed about the end result of the project after they received initial complaints about
its appearance. Staff has been trying to resolve the problem; the contractor was
contacted and they verbally agreed to do the brush hammering to make the repair look
more in-kind with the rest of the wall.
Commissioner Goldsmith stated that he walks this area as well; he is the BPW liaison to
the Parks Commission, and the new chair is very active in the City Cemetery
Association and has been very involved with the discussions about this repair. He was
very surprised by the end product because the whole discussion at the Parks
Commission meeting was that the project would not result in the appearance of new
stone looking so dramatically different. They are not sure where the miscommunication
occurred that resulted in the final product.
Historic Planner McCracken noted that he thought the repair would be made with in-kind
materials and that its appearance when complete would match the rest of the wall. That
information was obtained during his initial discussion with the staff involved with the
project. He is not sure why or where the miscommunication happened in the bidding
process or whether there was a formal bid package for the project. In addition, no
specifications were created for this project; just a discussion to make the repair in kind
which they interpreted one way, he another, and the Parks Commission as a result and
everyone’s understanding and perception of what the project involved and what the
desired end result would look like were obviously all different.
Asst. Supt. Benjamin explained that the accident with the cemetery wall happened two
years prior to the repair project beginning. The City obtained a copy of the police report,
it had to get estimate for repair of the wall, and the contractor who did the work was one
of very few stone mason's in Ithaca; it is also very hard to get like materials for this type
of stone work. The City used same contractor for the repair to a stairway with a similar
requirement and the repair looks just like the rest of the stairway. He is not sure what
happened here, and agreed that the repair sticks out like a sore thumb. It will age after a
while, but the work was not done as people had hoped.
Commissioner Darling suggested the City obtain an estimate for what it would cost to
make the necessary repairs, and then add this project to the City’s work order list to be
done as funds are available. The repair to the repair will mean more money being spent
on top of what was already spent. That way it will eventually work its way through the
process - unless funding can be obtained from elsewhere.
Asst. Supt. Benjamin stated that the insurance company for the driver who damaged the
wall wanted to devalue the estimate because of the age of the wall; however, the City
Attorney took care of that, but it took a long time between that cost settlement and when
the work was ready to be bid and completed.
Historic Planner McCracken noted that funding for the repair came from three different
sources – the driver’s insurance, a $5,000 community donation, and additional money
allocated by Common Council. The individual that gifted the $5,000 is very upset and
feels they did not get what they paid for. In addition, the Common Council Liaison to the
ILPC was very upset and feels the City didn’t get what it paid for. He can understand
Commissioner Darling’s suggestion, but doesn’t know if that’s the best course of action
at this point. It is generating a great source of frustration for a lot of people right now.
Commissioner Darling stated that the money for this work will have to come from
somewhere, if Common Council wants to allocate money and move it up as a priority
project it can.
Commissioner Goldsmith agreed that it makes sense for the City to get a cost estimate
in two parts – one for the repair to be made in-kind and to look just like the rest of the
wall, and what the City is willing to spend additional funds on.
Board of Public Works Meeting Minutes February 22, 2016
15
Commissioner Warden noted that there are differences between municipal projects and
private projects and who supervises the actual work. In this case it sounds like that
supervision didn’t happen.
Historic Planner McCracken agreed and noted that with no specs it would be difficult to
say whether or not the contractor followed the instructions they were given or not.
Commissioner Greene questioned why the Board of Public Works didn’t review the
specifications for the work. Commissioner Darling responded that the City was just
happy to get the funds for the project because the wall would never have gotten
repaired if the City had to pay for it.
Commissioner Goldsmith noted that red flags were raised by the Parks Commission
about the project and the work being done which didn’t get translated to the right
person. The final appearance of the repair to the wall does not look anything like what
everyone had understood it would look like.
Historic Planner McCracken reported that the ILPC understands that the wall can’t be
rebuilt, it’s already been done once although with a few tweaks it could be re-done. The
ILPC would like to establish a stronger working relationship with projects involving the
City Cemetery whereby he and/or the ILPC can sign off with their approval. When that
is done, there would be that information in the future to defend why something was
done in a certain way. He will ask the ILPC to provide a recommendation for going
forward on how to handle these types of projects.
11. Adjournment:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
____________________________________ ______________________________
Claudia Jenkins, Vice Chair BPW Sarah L. Myers, Information Mgt. Spec.
SacL'Up {" A
TO
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street - 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMf,NT OF PLAIIIIING, BUILDING, ZONING & ECONOMIC DEYELOPMENT
JoAnn Cornisb, Director ofPlanning and Development
Phone; 607-274-6550 F <: 60'l-274-6559 Email; dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Common Council, Board of Public Works
JoAnn Cornish. Director of Planning and Development
February 18, 2016
Request to Contribute to the Purchase of 125-Acre Parcel in the Town of Dryden as
paft of the City's Six Mile Creek Watershed Protection Funding Commitment
DATE:
The City has received a request from Andrew Zepp, Dlrector of the Finger Lakes Land Trust (FLLT), to contribute
the existing balance ofthe City's watershed protection funding, in the amount of $40,000, to help in the purchase
of a 125-acre parcel in the Town of Dryden as part of the City's Six Mile Creek watershed protection funding
commitment. The FLLT is proposing to purchase the property and to manage the site in perpetulty as a nature
preserve and plans to launch a $300,000 fundraising campaign for the project. They are also pursuing a grant
of $40,000 from the County's capital reserve fund in addition to seeking $220,000 in private funding.
The 125-acre parcel borders existing protected land and encompasses more than 900 feet of frontage on Six
Mile Creek, more than two miles of frontage on tributaries to the creek, 12 acres of wetland, a county-designated
Unique Natural Area, and more than 100 acres of mature forest. It is adjacent to the Roy H. Park Nature
Preserve - Baldwin Tract, acquired by the Finger Lakes Land Trust, that together span 138 acres with more than
4,000 feet of frontage on Six-Mile Creek (separated from the 125-acres by only one parcel). In addition, the
125-acre parcel is adjacent to approximately 400 acres of a Cornell Natural Area.
Since the late 1980's, the City has provided funding for purchasing specific parcels and/or easements along Six
Mile Creek that were chosen to complement the land already owned by the City. Parcels were identified primarily
to protect the City's water supply and as an added bonus, for their proximity to the South Hill Recreation
Way. Several of the desired parcels have frontage on major roads, (Route 79 and Coddington Road). The
thought was for the City to purchase parcels between these two roads (as they became available), subdivide
the parcels, sell the frontage piece, and maintain the rear parcels as part of the watershed acquisitions. (Thus
getting the biggest "bang for our buckJ. The proceeds from the sale of the frontages would cover some of the
costs the City had incurred when it purchased the property or was to be put in reserve to pay for other properties
as they became available.
The 125-acre property proposed for purchase is nearly 8 miles from the City's holdings in Six Mile Creek. While
it is paft of the Six Mile Creek watershed, it is not a parcel we have identified for acquisition. In addition, it is
neither a fee title purchase nor a conseryation easement, but a contribution to property that will not be owned
by the City but by the FLLT.
Additionally, since the land is a key tract bordering Six Mile Creek that has been identified by the County Planning
Department as one of the highest priority parcels for protection, and is adjacent to over 500 acres of FLLT and
Cornell Natural Areas lands, the likelihood of funding by outside sources seems promising while the likelihood of
development on the parcel does not.
FROM:
RE:
l lPage
In the adopted resolution, the sixth Resolved states: "that the Board of Public Works deliberate upon, and
thereafter approve or deny, each application for funding of transaction costs of a conseruation easement, and
if approved speciry the dollar amount not to exceed $15,000 per application, authorized for use on the
appllcation-specific project to be drawn from the Council-budgeted funds available to this program at that
time, abiding the following minimum criteria, all of which must be satisfied in support of any approved
application:
l. The property owner(s) of the property impacted by the pending application is/are
willing participant(s) in the project.
The Land Trust has negotiated an agreement to purchase 125 acres from the Petkov
fanily for $25Q000, leaving them with 15 acres along with their single family home.
This is less than the proposed acquisitionb appraised value of $288,000.
2. An outside funding match to City's contribution to the application-specific project is
preferred, but not required.
While it is anticipated that the majow of the funds for the project will come from
private individualg the Land Trust is also seeking granB from the Oty of lthaca
($44000 and fron Tompkins CountyS Capital Reserue Fund for Natural, Scenic and
Recreational Resource Protection $4q 000).
3. Another party will be responsible for property management and stewardship of any
conservation easement created under thls program.
This is not a conseruation easement nor a fee tide purchase, but a donation to the FLLT
who will own and retain the properv as a nature preserue - to be managed in
conjundion with iB nearby Roy H. Pa* Preserue.
4. The project is located in the City watershed and the conservation of the project is
deemed by the Board of Public Works, on the advice of relevant City staff, to be
beneficial to long-term water quality for the City's water supply.
The property is located in the Six Mile Creek Watenhed and will be beneficial to long-
term water quality for the Cityb water supply.
After evaluation of this request, and in accordance with the criteria specified above, it is my recommendation
that the City match the contribution of the County, recently approved, in the amount of $25,000 to contribute
to the sale price of the subject property. This will leave some funds in reserve should we have an opportunity
to purchase one of the parcels identified by the City as a priority acquisition.
2lPage
A fi0q000 fundraising campaign has been launched by the FLLT to cover the
purchase price, associated transaction cosb, and a contribution to the organization?
Stewardship Fund to provide for long term management and monitoring.
SIx MILE CRf,EK CORruDOR PROTECTION PROJECT
FINGER LAKES LAND TRUST
The Finger Lakes Land Trust seeks an allocation of$40,000 fiom the City of lthaca's Six Mile Creek
Watershed Protection Fund to support the acquisition ofapproximately 125 acres of environmentally
sensitive watershed lands located on Midline Road in the Tom of Dryden.
The proposed acquisition features more tha:r 900 fe€t of frontage on Six Mile Creek and more than two
miles of frontage on perennial tributaries to the creek. The tract also features l2 acres ofwetlands that
filter mnoff as well as several springs that contribute clean water to the creek. Due to these attributes, this
property plays an important role in helping to maintain the quality of Ithaca's drinking water supply.
The proposed acquisition is also located within a growing network ofconserved lands that includes the
Land Trust's Roy H. Park Preserve, Comell University's Old 600 Natural Area, Hammond Hill State
Forest, and Yellow Bam State Forest.
The site encompasses the entirety of county Unique Natural Area #118 - the Dryden-Slaterville Fir Tree
Swamp as well as a portion of county Unique Natural Area #l 17 - the Slaterville Wildflower Preserve. It
is also located within a'Natural Resource Focus Area" identified in Tompkins County's comprehensive
plan.
The Land Trust has negotiated an agreement to purchase 125 acres from the Petkov family for $250,000 -
leaving them with I 5 acres along with their single family home. This is less than the proposed
acquisition's appraised value of $288,000.
The Land Trust intends to retain the property as a nature preserve - to be managed in conjunction with its
nearby Roy H. Park Preserve. A S300,000 fundraising campaign has been launched to cover the purchase
price, associated transaction costs, and a contribution to the organization's Stewardship Fund to provide
for long term management and monitoring.
While it is anticipated that the majority of funds for the project will come from private individuals, the
Land Trust is also seeking grants from the City oflthaca and from Tompkins County's Capital Reserve
Fund for Natural, Scenic and Recreational Resource Protection.
Acquisition ofthis land will and its management as a nature preserve will provide the highest degree of
protection for Six Mile Creek and the City of lthaca's drinking water supply. Completion ofthis project
will ensure that this pristine property will continue to provide clean water while filtering runoff and
retaining storm water during times ofhigh runoff.
The Finger lakes Land Trust is a non-profit conservation organization that works cooperatively with
landowners and local communities to conserve thos€ lands that are vital to the integrity ofthe region.
Since it was established in 1989, the Land Trust has protected more than I 8,000 acres of significant open
space, including more than 1,000 acres within the Six Mile Creek Watershed. The organization today
owns and manages 36 conservation areas that are open to the public and holds more than 100
conservation easements on land that r€mains in private ownership. Additional information may be found
at www.fllt.org.
The purchase contract calls for a closing in mid-April. At this time, the Land Tnrst will need to provide
halfofthe total purchase price. The second halfwill be due il December 2016.
s'l{'l
:
'l
I
t,l
:
It,
-fl
[-'
'i i:=
-i'*.
l\'? -
a
4
l\i,
rt -\
Property of Marilyn and Theodore Petkov
Portion of parcel #76.-'l-24.114, 126 acres
471 Midline Rd
Town of Dryden, Tompkins County, NY
April 2012 natural color aerial orthoimagery
(\
oN
.E
o
Eo
0 o Map prepared by Karen Edelstein,
Finger Lakes Land Trust
'15 December 2015
Petkov, potential acquisition
Petkov property, excluded
Streams
Cornell NaluralArea
FLLT preserves
500 1,000 Feel
lt
Lr
l}
.ta
A
'!
t:
Property of Marilyn and Theodore Petkov
Conservation context
471 Midline Rd
Town of Dryden, Tompkins County, NY p
t
N
o*l
.s
a,
Eo
0 o
13
--edrq
E t,.
i.-
,l I
I
,III ,t,
,I
I
I il I I
I
,
4iI/
I
ffi
mff
I
I
I t
79
Petkov, potential acquisition
Cornell Natural Area
FLLT preserves
FLLT CEs
State land
Six Mile Creek watershed
\
I
tI
I&ffi I
,..|,1:
ffirr
IJN
I
I
j
IIII
I
2 Miles
&
I Map prepared by Karen Edelstein,
Finger Lakes Land Trusl
'15 December 2015
t
@
I t
{
'.1
Petkov property
ll t-Lr r
F'l
I
,-l
J/
\<Yr
(
I )2
/
t-
I
Z
I
fuil-ut> zA
I coaneul BurLDtNGs
... MUNICIPAL BOUNDAR|ES
C C.alulPlarbt oi5.. du'y !016
,r
----r
c .00 2.o :D ro
NORTH
BPW approved the renaming of a portion of
Sisson Place to Northcross Road on 02-22-16
\
I
I
?
i
I
n
$e A,W *..*lolr,irkriGa el.d. c.ii.
(*
l*!r
I
L
I
{
I3
i
I
ti
-
\\
a
!
1
I
E
-a
-1fitnr'atJrr l
I t *-- a::
I
a
4 ;J
F
I :-;.
I j.I
)
I
"r.
-l
*-/?t
-
NIt
CAMPUS MAP i
i
c==
-'it-.-.-/l
t
\
c
CITY
\
i-F--:--I ..,
L
I
I
)
!
!
I
!
!
I
z_-i\(r*',\.-/City of lthaca, NY 2015
Di->ki btud at @tEo/6
SPKJ tuy
_!,,
31r
305
100
sT roH '5Ept
I HURI.H
Midblocks
- Planned Constuclion Projects 201
o Parking Lots and Garages
Buildings
- Railroad
Curb Line
Parcel
fi aoroer
Waterway
b)or\
€
oo!0
'''*rdi?*o
12Lf rFsr P(ffi:YrrnrAt{
r ctrRTH ou 5[
32t
ruRS (O
flR*Bq
( HUF
Pfl ST
(H
t
OMA
ql28 r
Ir 9(
11131201A
DTWITT
MA'I,
161 .0't Feet
vfRtzoN
2r2
DeWitt Park Lights
miBq1mmtrl N\Egduritr'ffi '.'.lir I----&lr-;-._-\
lll
l
a
Qt4a
Dg
ilE
t
n
ffi t ,
GtL
I
L
o
tl
Ii.tII?r
:aF
-
a-
\
rf
,,/
tI
---
a
\.
!r
Etr
,]*_ffi cEfifiHrlfl{$s R G--'----i
f-L . .Jd
\
1 1,104
!
,, i^.
L-*
a
I
I
)
*,\
t,
7J --rll,!
I
I:)li,i rl rllr
Iq
Iori
i1!
I
j
I
i
b*r,buka atb'z aAe/G Hd'df,-
iv
E
Ff
_.-\_
...t
t7
I
iFI
,'?,
.J
i
\
ffi rft.
rI
il*'-,
b
Wr
d,rcLUP 88l-
City of Ithaca
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Management Plan
Management update 2016
Background: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is a small (0.5" long, size of a gain of rice)
metallic green insect that is killing ash trees in the United States. This insect is originally
from Asia and ash trees native to North America have no natural resistance to EAB,
which causes 100% mortality of ash trees in areas where the insect is present. The insects
can fly quite well to infest new areas but the primary mode ofnew infestations if thought
to be fiom human action, ie transporting infested firewood. There are several pesticide
treatment options that can be used to effectively treat and protect ash trees.
EAB has been detected in many Mid Atlantic and Midwestem States and has caused
widespread mortality in all species of Ash trees. It has recently been detected in
Pennsylvania and parts of New York State (Western NY, Hudson Valley, Syracuse,
Rochester and Bath). Programs to slow the spread of the insect are in place in New York
State but complete eradication of the insect is not considered a viable reality. The spread
of the insect to lthaca is inevitable. If no action is taken to manage the Ash trees in the
City of Ithaca the insect will kill every ash tree and we will be responsible for the
rernoval and replacement of all the ash trees in the city right-of-way and parks.
Below is a map showing the locations of confirmed EAB infestations in NYS. There have
been no confirmed infestations in Tompkins County but there are infested areas
surroundi
In newly infested areas, the insects target the weak and stressed ash trees. The individual
insects are small and can take several years to kill a healthy vigorous tree when the insect
the
RESPONSE
PLAN
I
-/' I
L
J
v
&
E
:q
N
A
1
N.w Vorr St.te EAA Rill U.tric
I o tr Me,o- ud.,stvlk{ k,,('
I 5-!aM&sr:hcde,ulcrn,sr,
I ,!0, -rm,cG(slcN .a!r FLix,
population is low. As the EAB population in an infested area builds the insects attack all
ash trees and the rate of tree mortality increases. As you can see from the chart below the
rate oftree death drastically increases as the infestation "ages". During this time the rate
of tree death far exceeds a community's ability to remove dead trees. This is where the
infestation gets expensive. We are now in a good place strategically. We have no
infestation (or a very low, undetectable level) so we have a// management options in front
of us. We have time to plan and start managing our Ash tree population now.
Scope: The City of Ithaca tree inventory lists approx 350 ash trees in city right of way,
which constitutes approx 4Vo of the public tree population. There is no inventory
information for city natural areas but ash species comprise approximately 10-15%o of
wooded land in NYS.
The cost of doing nothing and waiting for the death of ash trees in Ithaca is the most
expensive course of action. Once there is a sigrrificant population of EAB in the area
there will be a rapid death of the ash tree population. Once dead, ash is a species that fails
(breaks apart, dropping limbs or falling of entire trees) in a relatively short time (within a
few years) so dead trees can not be left to stand for too long. If we manage an infestation
reactively and rernove dead trees as they appear, the rate of tree death would eventually
exceed the rate of removal that City of Ithaca tree crew could manage. In addition, there
would be a cost ofdisposal of this large volume ofwood in a short period of time. There
would also be a measurable decrease in environmental services with the relatively rapid
loss of such a large number of trees from the urban canopy.
Action Plan:
In 2013 a basic management plan was developed to treat and protect select trees and
remove and replant others. The management plan utilizes a matrix to determine which
trees will be good candidates for treatments. A planned removal and replacement oftrees
not meeting the treatment criteria will reduce the number of trees we will have to deal
with when the infestation reaches Ithaca.
EAB-lnduced Ash Mortality in the Upper Huron River
Watershed, SE Michigan
Exponential lncrease in Ash Mortality (> 4 inch dbh)
r00
Sold [ne drrecl measurements
80
=(0
o
Dotied l:ne rnrened lrom dendrochronology
data contirming EAB induced ash moftal[y
from 1994 ' 2004
s
60
40 r-
zol /
/
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Dan Herms, Ohio State University, 2012.
Treatment criteria:
Tree size - Only trees greater than 8" in diameter will be considered for treatment. Trees
of this size or smaller are easily rernoved and replaced, making this a more cost effective
choice than treating the tree for the foreseeable future.
Tree health - Only trees determined to be in good health and free of significant structural
defects will be given priority for treatment. Trees in poor health or very large trees that
have compromised vascular systems will also not be considered for treatment. They will
not distribute the chernical well throughout the canopy. These trees could be treated but
would likely not be fully protected and would show signs of damage from the beetle.
l-ocation conflicts - Only trees not under utility line easements and trees in tree lawns
greater than 5 ft width will be considered for treatment. Ash trees in conflict with utility
lines (planted under high voltage utility lines requiring routine clearance pruning) will not
be considered for treatrnent. Ash trees planted in tree lawns with less than 5ft width will
not be considered for treatment. These trees will likely cause sidewalk damage (if they
have not already) and limited soil volume will likely limit future tree growth.
Landscape simificance - Trees that fall outside the above criteria ma y be considered for
treatrnent if they provide a significant historical or aesthetic value to a location (ie Ash
trees at Stewart Park).
Treatment options:
It is generally recommended that treatrnent of trees should begin when there is a
confirmed infestation within 10-15miles. Therefore we do not need to start treatment
now.
For the trees that are selected to be treated there are several treatrnent options. I think one
of the best options is a product called Tree-age (active ingredient ememectin benzoate).
The chernical is injected directly into the tree which confines the uptake of the chemical
to the target tree. It has the longest active time of the available chernicals and would need
to be re-applied only every 3 years (could be stretched longer is pest pressure is low).
Other available chemicals have shorter active rates and/or are applied through soil
application or trunk spray (active ingrediarts imidiacloprid and dinotefuran), which
increases the risk ofpesticide drift and impact on non target organisms.
All these chemical treatments mainly target the larval stage of the insect while it is
feeding under the bark of the tree. Eating the leaves of treated trees will kill the adults as
well. Adult female EAB insects need to feed on leaves for a short time before laying
eggs. Since the foliar feeding is not a significant cause of damage to the trees this adult
mortality doesn't save individual trees however, it can help to slow the population growth
of the insects. Adult females feeding on leaves of treated trees will be killed prior to
laying eggs on untreated trees, thus slowing the rate ofpopulation growth.
Treatment recommendation and estimated cost
Street trees: Currently about 4o/o of street trees are Ash. Currently about 150 streets trees
would meet the criteria for protective treatment (total trunk diameter 2,225). This is
approx 6070 of the Ash trees on the city streets (1.5% oftotal street trees). The treatrnent
method I recommend is trunk injection ofTree-age. The cost oftreating these trees would
be approximately $15,000 (approximately $7 per diameter inch of trunk) every 3 years.
This treatment method would be done by a certified contractor.
Stewart Park: Currently 53 ash hees rernain. I recommend treating nearly all rernaining
ash trees in Stewart Park at time of infestation. Ash makes a high proportion of trees at
Stewart Park (approximately 14oh). The trees at this site are very important to the
character of the park, for example all the large trees around the small pavilion and
playground area are ash. The sudden loss ofthese trees would severely negatively impact
the quality of the location. These old trees may not distribute the chernical effectively and
some treated trees may need to be removed, but at this site it seems worthwhile to save as
many large old trees as possible. To treat about 1000 diameter inches of tree (40 trees)
will cost approximately $6000 every 3 years. This treatment method would be done by a
certified contractor.
Golf Course: Ash make up 15% of trees on golf course. Planning for these trees is vital.
Many of the ash are large trees at this site. Removing trees from this site will likely be
expensive due to the difficulty of access. The golf course manager will be determining
which trees are vital to play of the course. I anticipate the cost to be comparable to
Stewart Park, approximately $6000 every 3 years. This treatment method would be done
by a certified contractor.
Actions already taken and needed action:
City has not planted Ash trees since 2003 in anticipation that EAB would eventually
reach Ithaca. There has been no confirmed EAB infestation in Tompkins County or
within l0 miles of the City of Ithaca (the suggested distance to begin protective
treatments). All hee crew members are knowledgeable of EAB infestation signs and
symptoms and continue to monitor city trees. Numerous suspicious trees have been
reported but none have been confirmed to be infested.
Ash trees in poor condition have been removed and replaced. Several large ash trees in
Stewart Park have been removed and 20 new trees were planted. Funding for the new
trees was through a DEC Community & Urban Forestry Grant.
This winter we will continue removing ash trees in poor condition and will be starting to
remove trees that have experienced utility pruning, starting with the most severely
pruned.
Outreach has been done to city residents to inform them on the issues surrounding EAB.
Volunteers fiom the Shade Tree Advisory Committee have offered to identifu ash trees
on residents' property in Fall Creek, but did not get much response. While private trees
are not the city's responsibility, private trees that die and fall into the public streels will
be a problem as well as neighbor disputes regarding tree responsibilities and possible
property damage. This is an area we should think about getting more involved in.
I
Where management plans were not proactively implernented, some communities have
needed to treat trees that will eventually be rernoved just to stay ahead of tree mortality.
In lthaca, if we implement this plan we may be able to treat only trees we plan on
preserving long-term, having ranoved and replaced most of the ones we do not have
interest in reating before the insect arrives.
The exact time when an infestation will be confirmed is unknown. New infestations are
usually confirmed during the adult flight season (June) but could be any time of year.
Treatment must begin in the spring after infestation is confirmed to be most effective.
This may not conform to a budget request timeline. It would be wise to have reserve
funding so action can be taken quickly after an infestation is detected.
SatL 11P to 'L
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
CITY OF ITIIACA
IOE Ea$ Gr€en Strect tthara, New York l4E 0 5690
OFr1CE OF'NNi CITT ENCINEER
T.lcphonc: @7/ 65}0 Fa., 6fi7n746587
Tim Irgue, City Tra$porlation Er.gineer
Kent Johnsoq Junior Transponation Engineer
Description of design alternates for N. Tioga St. project
lanuxy 29,2016
Overryiew
The 300 & ,lO0 blocks ofN. Tioga St. have bccn tcntatively approved for a repaving pmject in
2016. As is typical practice, such projects are considered for additional upgrades while the opportunity
exists to be performing worl in the vicinity. In this particular case, these blocks, plus the 200 block, are
planned for inclusion ia the Birycle Boulward network as outli:rcd in the Bicycle Boulevard Plan which
was initially adoptcd by the BPIV in 2012 ad revised in 2014. A majority of the Bicycle Boulevard
network was built in 2015 as part of the City's Safe Routes to School project (CP #78O; portions not
conaectrng neigtborhoods to schools were not within the project scope. A key objective of the remainiag
N. Tioga St. portion of the Bike Blvd. networt involves its connection to the Ithaca Commons. As
discussod in the plan, the final rwo blocks (200-300 blocks) of N. Tioga St. ar€ rccommend€d to be
tr€ated as bike lanes rath€r thm a shared, bike boulevard desigU due to the higher traffic conflicts and
morc urban context in those blocks. The tbree bclow design alternates could be considered. Major design
diffeErc€s arc in Dold typc.
Desigtr rltenrrtes
Altemate # 1:
Implernent the strcet design indicated in the adopled Bicycle Boulevard Plan. This design would include:
- Extension ofthe existing Bike Blvd. ftom Farm St. to Cout Str€et.
Signs and pavement markings would be installed. On-street
parking would not be impacted.
- Removal of 13 paid parking spaces on the east side of the street
between Court St. and Buffalo St. plus the removal of 5 un-paid
10-miaute limit spac€s between Buffalo St. and Se,oeca St.
- Installation of standard bike lancs in both dircctions between Court
St. and Seneca St.
- Instrlhtion of r curbed bump-out on the north side of the
Tioga/Court inlersecdon to prevent motorists from driving
northbound on the Bike Boulevrrd. Bicyclists could continue
northwrrd. (See design examples on right). Note, this bump
out could he t6ted for one year as a temporsry inrtallation to
gruge the prblic'i acceptrnc€ and to modtor trrfEc imprcts.
- l-owcr the speed limit to 25 MPH in the 200400 blocks (which is
the spreed limit for $e rest of the Bike Blvd. network).
Altemate #2:
Implcmcnt a st€et design similar lo the oae shown ia the adopded Bicycle Boulevard Plan. This design
would include:
- Extension of the existing Bike Blvd. from Farm St. to Court Steet. Signs and pavemmt markings
would be installed. On-str€et parking would not be impacted
the 200
Removal of l3 paid parking spaces on the east side ofthe street between Court Sl. and Buffalo St.
plus the rcmoval of5 un-paid l0-minute limit spaces between Buffalo St. and Seneca St.
lnstallation ofstandard bike lanes in both directions between Court St. and Seneca St.
lnst€rd of I curbed bump-out on the north sid€ of the Tioga/Court interseclion, install a
spced hump Eidwry between Court St. rnd Cescedilla Ave.
Lower the speed limit to 25 MPH in the 200400 blocks (which is the speed limit tbr the rest of
the Bike Blvd. network).
.\l #3:
Install buffered or protected bike lanes between Court St. and Seneca Str€et by rEmoving all parking in
& 300 blocks. This design would include:
Extension of the existing Bike Blvd. from Farm St. to Courl Street.
Signs and pavement markings would be installed. On-street
parking would not be impacted.
Removal of 13 paid parking spaces on the east side of the sreet
Court St. and Buflalo St. plus the removal of 5 un-paid l0-minute
limit spaces between Buffalo St. and Seneca St.
Removrl of l8 paid parking spaces on thc west side of the
street between Court St. and Senece Sl.
Instdlrtion of buffered or protected bike lanes in bot[
directions b€tweetr Court St, rtrd Senecr Strect.'fhes€ bik€
bnes cotrld. be bulfered fron motor vehlcle lenes with r printed
buffer, or they could be protected by using flexi-posts. (See
design exemples on right). Concrete birriers would nol be
fersiblc due to the prevdence of drivewrys.
Install either a curbed bump-oul on the north side of the
Tioga/Court intersection or a sp€ed hump midway between Court
St. and Cascadilla Ave.
Lower the speed limit to 25 MPH in the 200-400 blocks (which is the speed limit for the rest of
the Bike Blvd. network).
Discussion of design rlternrtes
Design Altcrnale #l would implement the Bicycle Boulevard Plan as adopted. The prirnary goal
of the Bicycle Boulevard Plan is to rcduce barriers to bicycle use by incrcasing bicycling saf€ty and
convenience. Safety can be increased by installing traffic-calming measures to reduce motor vehicle
speeds and/or tralfic volumes. In Alternate #1, the curb bump-out traffic-calming device would reduce
nonhbound traffic volumes along N.'l'ioga Street, thus rcducing bicycle/motor vehicle passing conflicts
along this route. It is anticipate{ however, that there will be some level of opposition (perlups severe
opposition) to this trafficdiverting element by residents and businesses thal no not want to see motor
vehicle traffic reduced on N. Tioga St., and by those concemed that traffic volumes might increase on
adjacent streets. These are real and legitimate cooc€rns. Though the traflic impacts will be estimated
ahcad ol time, it's really not possible to determine exactly what the final impact will be ... or to what
degree the public will suppon the changes after they are made. lf there is significant public concem, the
curb bump-out could be installed temporarily so that the impacts could be studied over a perid of time.
and the public could have time to observe the impacts as well.
Design Altemat€ #2 exchanges the trafficdiverting device for a speed hump dcsigned to reduce
speeds but not volumes. Though this approach will not address the Bicycle Boulevard Plan objectives as
well as Altemate #1, it is more likely to be supponed by a broader cross-section ofthe public who will
appreciate the traffic-calming benefits along the street.
Both Altemate #l & #2 involve on-street parking reduction in the 200 & 300 blocks ofN. -fioga
St. to allow the installation of standard bike lanes. It is understood that this approach will not be
universally suPponed. A pa*ing study will be fonhcoming detailing the availability and utilization ofthe
existing on-street parking in the area, and will estimate the impacts ofthe proposed parking changes. The
study will include the two affectcd blocks ofN. Tioga St. plus one block in all directions.
Alternate #3 would diffcr from #l & #2 in that all of the on-strcet parking in the 200 & 300
blocks would be eliminated so that buffercd bike lanes could be established. This type of trcatment was
I I
L-<L__.D,/
highly supported by bicycle users last fall when the Cayuga Street bike
lanes were discussed. The recommended design would be a single bicycle
Iane along each side of the strcet, separated from the adjacent motor
vehicle tmvel lane with a 2' to 3' wide painted buffer as shown above. (A
single, two-way desiga (like in the example on the right) would rcquirc
significant intersection and traffic signal modifications and is not being
recommended.) The impact to on-street parking would be twice lhe impact
of Altemate #l or #2. The above-mentioned parking study will include lhis
scenario as well.
Summrry
The three design alternales discussed above each provide suitable accommodations for bicycle
users and involve impacts to traffic and parking. It is undersrood that none of the alternates provides a
perfect scenario that fully accommodates everyone's needs and prcfercnccs. Feedback from the public is
the key to determining which design altemative best balanccs the needs and preferences of those
traveling, parking, living, and working along N. Tioga Strcet.
I
b\
**
City of Ithaca Bicycle Boulevard Plan
A plan for a network of low-traffic & traftc-calmed bicycling routes
f' fb "
tilgrn':
Ea[rin,.
@
E
<5{q->
I
Or, aA
L.I'I
rfFc
Thc rbave plbtograph, wdc tslGl in l\rsor! Sar his Obispo, PonhnA Mrdisor\ Prlo ColurDb4 ad B€ltdey
Prepared by:
City of Ithaca Engineering Office
September 12,2012
1 . Adopted by the City of lthaca Board of Public Yorks on September 24, 2012
2. Revised by BPW on Nov. 24, 2014 - route modified to include entirety of Plain Street
-t
ItI
Fa
-i
tl
*€b .6
l,1'
-
t'*ttt
r--1
a
.r
,ltLvS)
Introducdon
In recent years, the City of lthaca has made a concertod effort to improve
conditions for bicycle users; new bike lanes have been paintod, new multi-use trails have
becn built atrd ma[y new bike racks have been installed. Howwer, little progress has
been made in creating a City-wide network of on-street bioycling facilities suitable for
new riders, families, children, and others who prefer routes with lower motor vehicle
traffc volumes/speeds that conveniently connect to key Ithaca destinations. To provide
for these users, the Engineering Office, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation
Council, and volunteers have been researching the feasibility of creating a "Bicycle
Boulevard" network in lthaca. Cities such as Portland, OR, Berkeley, CA, Tucson, AZ,
Minneapolis, MN, and Madison, WI have successfully created such networks.
Bike Boulevards arc nt blke lanes, rather, they are low-taffic and/or traffic-
calmed routes where bicyclists and motorists share the tsavel laaes and where bicycle
travel is generally prioritized and encouraged over motor vehicle tavel. In most cases,
the routes do not impact on-street parking.
Network desigus differ from city to city but
they all share similar attributes such as:
- Traffic calming
- Signs and pavernent markings
- Convenient routes
- Prioritize bicycle use
FiSure 1; Iosg6 of I bicple boulevard in Sar
what tlls plen is, end isntt Luis obispo' cA
This plan has been dweloped at the request of the City of Ithaca Board of Public
Works (BPW) to facilitate their review of the concq,t, route selection, and infrastructure
ioproverrents being recommended by the Engineering Office. This plan outlines the
recommended physical desip of the proposed Bike Blvd. network including an litial
route selection, and a description of signs, pavernent markings and traffic calming
devices. This plan also includes a planning-level cost estimate. These are the key iterns
necessary for the BPW's review, and subsoquent approval.
2
I :\
<f€->
In an effort to keep this plan as clear and to-the-point as possible, it does not
discuss possible fuhue expansions of the initial Bike Blvd. network and it does not
discuss in detail how other existing and plarmed bicycling improvernents tie into the Bike
Blvd. network. The proposed Bike Blvd. network is just one componeflt in the larger
effort of improving bicycling conditions tlroughout the City of lthaca. Other efforts
include the irstallation of bike lanes and bike racks, and continued progress on the
Cayuga Waterfront Trail. Also, there are certain routes that were initially plaaned to be
part of the Bike Blvd. network (like an east/wcst connection b€twea The Commons and
the West End) that were removed because standard bike lanes were deemed more
apprcpriate due to the higher traffic volumes, or were removed because they are planned
to be part of a separate effort (like a Titus Ave. spur, which will be part of an upcoming
effort to form a route up to South Hill).
Goals
The primary goal ofthis initiative is to increase the level ofbicvcle use within the
City of Ithaca, particularly in "The Flats" area. Though some people currently do travel
via bicycle in Ithaca, birycles are not utilized to the lwel they could be. Improving
bicycling facilities will encourage existing bicyclists to ride more oten and will
€,ncourage those hesitant of bicycling to give it a try. To achiwe the goal of increasing
bicycle use, two factors are addressed:
l. Safety - First and foremost, a reasonably safe bicycling environment is
necessary. Bicycle users face two key hazards: Colliding with a fixed object or
falling (most cornmon types of crashes, but generally result in little injury), and
collisiorx with motor vehicles (which seldo,m occur, but can result in more
severe injuries). Even if certain streets pos€ little risk to inexperienced cyclists
or youog riders, increasing the perception of safety or further reducing the
possibility of negative interactions would be important to increase ridership. To
maximize safety (and the perception of safety), routes with lower motor vehicle
speeds and volumes have been selectd and, where speeds and./or volumes may
be too hig[ traffic calming measures cou]d be used.
3
2. Convenience Bi cyclists (like motorists and pedeskians) benefit from easy-to-
follow, direct routes that make good connections to popular destinations. Clear
and inforrnative way-finding signage will guide bicycle users to and along the
Bike Blvd. routes, and will connect them to key destinations as well as to other
bicyeling facilities, such as nearby bike lanes and the Cayuga Waterfront Trail.
Convenience will also be improved by fonually allowing two-way bicycle
travel on a 3-block section along Cascadilla Creek that curreft]y only allows for
one-way traffic, and by re-orienting four stop signs to decrease delays for
bicyclists.
A secondary, related goal is to install traffic calming devices to reduce the
negative impacts of motor vehicles on residents and pedeskians, as well as bicyclists.
These taffic calming measures will coordinate with, and increase the effectiveness of,
existing traffic calming dwices throughout the City. Over the past decade various traffic
calming dwices have been installed in the City, and numerous citizen requesb have been
made for taffic calming in additional locations. Traffic calming adds to the overall
quality of life in neighborhoods and makes the streets more livable and more bicycle and
pedestrian friendly.
Overview of Plan
The recommended Bike Blvd. network is composed of two primary north/south
routes (Tioga St. & Plain St.) and a few low-traffic/traffic-calmed connecton in the
Northside Neighborhood area and in the South-of-the-Creek Neighborhood area- The
network is located in "The Flats" area of lthaca; the hilly areas were not de€xned suitable
for Bike Blvd. treatnetrts (due in part to the steep grades and in part because of the traffic
characteristics of the streets). The map on page 6 illushates the locations of the
recommended routes. (Note: additional Bike Blvd. segments may be added in the future.)
This implementation plan can be broken down into two basic components:
physical infrastructure elements, atd non-infrastrucbte actions. See pages 7 to 12 for
more detailed descriptions of individual measures.
4
Infrastructure elements:
l. Way-finding signs and pavement markings
2. Speed limit lowered to 25mph
3. Traffic calming measures (primarily speed hurnps/tables)
4. Revised stop sign orieotations
5. Conversion ofthe 100 block of lake Av. and the 100 block ofS. Cascadilla Av.
to allow two-way bicycle travel
Non-infrastruchre actions:
The Engineering Office intends to:
1. Collaborate with the general public, emerg€ncy service providers, and other
stakeholders to ensure appmpriate initial Bike Blvd. designs.
2. Wor* witlt City decision-makers to secure policy support and a fimding
mechanism for initial construction and ongoing maintenance of the Bike Blvd.
systern.
3. Provide limited initial and ongoing general infonnation to the public about Bike
Blvds. and how to behave as bicyclists and motorists on them,
4. Make connections with orgaoizations (such as Bike Walk Tompkins, Way2Go
and RIBs), ev€nts (such as bike rodeos), and City entities (such as the
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Cowrcil and IPD) to faoilitate oduoation and
encouragement activities that relate to bicycle usg particularly aloog the Bike
Blvd. networt.
5
Bicycle Boulevard Map
'./br
.:/
BrcYcLC B!tr,,
poa.t I orr5
BrrlLa rN ZOtt
??n?o9Eo
eraet '(5 oF
$. troctl 5f.
i"e .{
l
, 'r>r:-}"-
,IL
'"--"' ??o{Eoa
I
-L
aI
-. i.t!r. ?'$&{ n,r.'"
6
1i
r
'l
|..
I
,7
.
I
I
I l:
I
., 1.
.1 (..
Description of Measures - 1zy'as tr cture elements
1. Wav-findins sians and Davernent markines -Though 'The
Flats' area of Ithaca is relatively small, the madway network
can be confising for bicyclists to navigatg particularly for
those new to lthaca, because of the diversions caused by one-
way stroets, the diagonal block layout in the Northside
Neighborhood, and the dense tree canopy that can hinder
one's sense of direotion. Additionally, those familiar with
using motor vehicles may not be aware of the lower-taffic
routes that are quite suitable for bicycle use. Way-finding
sips are intended to serve two purposes: to identi$ the
locations of the Bike Blvd. routes and to identifu key
destinations proximate to the routes.
The design of the way-finding signs should be
consistent with the ones detailed in the Manual on Unifomt
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), such as the desip used
in Portland, OR (see Figure 2); howwer, some communities
use other sign designs (see Figue 3). Small Bike Blvd. tags
are proposed for installation on street sicr:s along the routes
(similar to the arrangement shown in Figure 4).
Most communities that have Bike Blvd. networks
install painted bicycle and/or text markings onto the roadways
to highlight the preseoc€ ofthe ioute (the desigr shown to the
right (Figure 5) is used in San Luis Obispo, CA). To keep
costs dowr\ it is recommended that pavc,ment mrkings be
limited (at lesst initially) to a small number (^{0) of high-
priority locations and rely mostly on the way-finding signs to
identifu the routes. If this appmach is found to be insufficient
in practice, then the City can pursue an expanded installation
of pavernent markings ixi nec€ssary. The design of the symbol
is recornmeirded to be a bicycle icon with the text "BLVD"
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
7
cfR)
Figur€ 5
{I
+
E
f6LVD
Fo5o
+
lte,gtroorrroortr
tf
usttrAYfuu
placed above, similar to the one shown in Figure 5 (see appendix A). Altemately, or in
addition to the painted markings, concet€ icons/markers could be placed in the st€ets
along the Bike Blvd. routes (sirmilar to the red @ncrete dot in the Albany/Court St.
intersection). Though more expensive initially, long-lasting concrete may be less
expensive overall than regularly re-painting symbols.
2. Soeed limit lowered to 25mph - Though municipalities in New York cannot have
area-wide speed limits less than 3OmplL municipalities can post sp€€d limits as low as
25mph along designated sMsr. It is recommended that the speed limits along each of
the routes be lowered to 25mph for the following reasons:
- To improve safety for bicyclists and pedetrians - Statistically, ifa pemon is hit
by a vehicle travelling 40mph, death will result in about 80% of cases, &t 30mph
there is about a 40% likelihood that the person will be killed, and at 2OmptL
pedestrians will die in about 5% of collisions2. Therefore,
"ro1
666rrgh a Smph
change se€rrs small, in this range (30mph to 25mph) the safety improvernent
could be quite substantial. The reduced speed will also decrease stopping
distauces necessary for motor vehicles (about 150' rather than about 200'3), which
will reduce the likelihood of collisions in the first plac€.
- To improve comfort for bicyclists - The speed of the motor vehicles would be 5-
10mph greater than bicycling speeds rather than l0-15mph over bicycling speeds
which will encourage motorists to pass bicyclists at a more comfortable speed.
- To increase awareress ofBike Blvd. routes - the 25mph signs (in addition to the
way-finding signs aad psvement ma*ings) will alert road users to the fact that
special conditions exist along these routes.
t $ 1643 ofthe NYS Vehicle & Traffic Law stat€s that,'... No such speed limit 4plicable throughout stch
city or village or within designated arcas . .. chall be established al less thsn thirty miles per hour. No zuch
speed limit applicablc on or along dcsignatcd high*,ays within such city or villagc shall bc cstabtished at
less than twenty Ev€ milcs pcr hour .. . "
2 Natiooal Highway Tratrc Ssfety Administratio& 1999. Lit€raturs Review on Vehiclc Travel Speeds and
Pedeskian Injurics. Availablc ar htF://www.nhtsagov/peopldiqiury/rescarcb/pubhsE090l2.html
' A Policy on Geodetri. Desip of Highwoys and Streza. waslhillgtoq DC: Amcricatr Associatiou of State
Highway atrd Transpoiation Officials (AASIrTO), 20O4.
8
3. Traffic calmins meBsures -A)otg most of the recommended Bike Blvd. network the
motor vehicle speeds and volumes are currently low enough to be considered conduoive
to a safe and comfortable bicycling environmant for the targeted demographic of children
1 1 years old and up, families bicycling with children eges 8 and up, and for those new to
birycling in haffic. ln other locations, higher traffic speeds and/or volumes demand some
level of taffic calming to pull the speeds and./or volumes back to lwels that are more
supportive of bicycling. The types of situations that arc most applicable for traffic
calming include intersections with busier streets (such as where Plain St. crosses Clinton
St.) and locations along aBike Blvd. route (such as the 500 and 800 blocks of Tioga St.).
In regard to the extent of the haffic calming measures being considered, it is
recommended that minimal mea.sures be installed initiatly (primarily to keep costs
manageable but also to avoid changing traffic patterns too much, which might concern
some residents) and ttren observe conditions to see if additional interventioos are
nec€ssary after the Bike Blvd. network is complet€d and people have had some time to
adjust to the new conditiom. Below are listed the recommended initial measures.
- Inst8ll a seri6 of speed humps/tables along the Bike Blvd. routes. Higher priority
locations for these devices are:
o 500 & 800 blocks Tioga St.
o 200 block Madison St.
o 400 block Willow Av.
Other locations may be considered as well based on faffic speeds, vohmtes, md
citizen requests.
- Install a small island or curb bumpout on the north side of the Tioga/Court
int€rsection to prevent northbound motor vehicle traffic, but not bicycling traffic,
and upon which to install Bike B1vd. signs (similar to the one shown in Figure 6).
The traffic vohrre in this section of Tioga St. is around 2,500 vehicles per day,
which is near the upper threshold of what can be considered appropriate for a
Bike Blvd.
- Install curb bump-outs or an in-street median on Clinton St. at the Plain St.
intersection so that pedestrians and bicyclists can more safely cross Clinton SEest.
Clinton St. can be time-consruning to cross at this location bocause it can often
9
take some time to find a suitable gap in
traffic in which to cross both lanes at the
same time. (Note: a more detailed analysis
is required at this intersection to determine
whether a traffic signal or all-way stop is
warranted; which may be more appropriate Hgure 6: Thc above imagc shows ar
than traffic calming measures.) example of a trafficdivcning island,ibump-
out and signage used to prevent motorists Out
lnstall a large center median at the end of oot bicyclisb) Aom entering the strccL
Wood St. at the Mesdorf, St. iDtersection. This median would slow motorists
making a tum from Meadow St. onto Wood St. and would be a convenient
location for Bike Blvd. sigrrage.
Install a small center median at the end of Plain St. at the Eknira Rd. intenection.
This median would slow tuming motorists and would be a convenient locatioD for
Bike Blvd. signage.
4. Revised stoo sipn orientations Bike Blvd. networks ganerally re-orient stop signs to
reduce bicycling delays where feasible and appropriate. In lthaca there are four zuch
intersections that make serse to re-orient the stop sips: Lewis/Aubum/Adams,
Lewis/Utica (4-way stop to 2-way stop), Madison/Firs! and Madisor/Second. It is not
anticipated that these changes would increase motor vehicle volumes or speeds.
5. Conversion of the 100 bl of [.ake Av. and the 100
block of S. Cascadilla Av. to allow two-wa bicvcle
travel These blocks are currently desigrated as one-
way, presumably for the purpose of limiting cut-thru
motor vehicle traffic. However, these steets carry very
low levels of Eaffic and would make a good two-way
bicycling route. In fact, observations by staff indicate Figure 7: This imagc sbows the
that bicyclists are qrrcntly traveling in both directions itr#ffi-",ffi:fl,ts ono_way
along these segments and no sigrrificant problems have travel for motor vehicles and two-
wav ravcl for bicyclists.
arisen from zuch use. Therefore, it is recommended that
10
s
,{
J
I
rl
Description of Measures - Non-in/rastructure elerne ts
The Engineering Office plans to engage in the following typos of non-
infrastructure activities:
I . Collaborate with the genual public, €,m€rgeocy service goviders, and other
stakeholders to ensure optimal initial Bike Blvd. desips.
2. Work with City decision-makers to secure policy support and a fimding
mechanism for initial construction and for ongoing maintenance ofthe Bike Blvd.
systEm.
3. Provide limited initial and ongoing geaeral information to the public about Bike
Blvds,, and how to behave as bicyclists and motorists whe,n traveling along than.
4. Make connections with organizations (such as Bike Walk Tompkins, Way2Go
and RIBs), events (such as bike rodeos), and City entities (such as the
Bicycley'Pedestrian Advisory Cormcil and IPD) to facilitate education and
€ncouragqlerit activities that relate to bicycle us€, particularly along the Bike
Blvd. networ*.
Other, relrted itemr
It is recomme,nded that standard bike lanes be installed in the 200 & 300 blocks of
N. Tioga St. to connect the Bike Blvd. network to The Commons. Due to the more
significant kaffic volumes in this locatioq it has been deemed not suitable for Bike
Blvd.-type teatnents. The installation of these bike lanes will necessitate the rernoval of
approximately 13 on-street parking spsc€s. Two bike lane designs are feasible; one
ll
these streets continue to be sigred to prohibit motor vehicle access in the southeast
direction, but new signs be added to allow legal bicycle access (see Figure 7). The
recornmerded way to achiwe this condition is to make the steet segmealts two-way, but
to prohibit entry by motorists at thc intersections of Lakey'Monroe, Cascadilla/Cayuga"
and Cascadilla/Sears. It is recommended that the north side of Cascadilla Ave. rernain
one-way for all taffic. Along the south side of the street it is recommended that a l0mph
advisory speed limit be established (such an advisory speod is already posted along the
north side ofthe stroet).
design would r€rnove on-str@t parking ftom the east side of the steet a second desigr
would 'chicane' the travel lanes so that some on-street parking could be retained on each
side of the street. With the chioane design, on-street parking could rernain in front of the
County Court House and in ftont of Towtr HalyPost Office.
Additionally, it is recommanded that standard bike lanes be installed along Third
St. to cormect the Bike Blvd. network to the Farmers Market (which will impact on-steet
parking and will require changing the DMV's driver test parking location). As with the
Tioga St. location mentioned above, this segrr.ent carries too great a volume of vehicles
to be apptopriate for a Bike Blvd. teatment.
Along both of the street segments mentioned above, it is recornmended that the
speed limit be roduced to 25mph and that way-finding signage is included.
Cost EstiErtes - initial and ongoing costs
It is estimated that the construction of the entire initial Bike Blvd. networt will
likely cost around $90,000 to $100,000 if constructed enttely by City crews, ifthe siens
and pavernent markings are modest, and if the traffic calming measures are simple in
design. Howwer, the cost might total up to arormd $200,000 or more if larger, higher
quality traffic calming measures are built, if any unanticipated oomplications arisg and/or
if a portion of the work will be perforrred by private contractorc. A planningJwel cost
estimate is pmvided below. Once a funding source is ide,ntified (such as a City Capital
Project, or a state or fed€ral glan0, a more detailed cost estimate can be developed.
In addition to the initial costs, therre will be ongoing maintenanc€ costs -
pnmarily, repainting wom pavement The ongoing costs will depend in large
part on what tlpes of measures are initially instdld. It is estimated that annual average
costs will be in the mid-hundreds of dollars to a few thousand dollars.
t2
PlanningJevel coot ostlmate
Project implement8tion opdons
A variety of implementation options catr be considered; below are the three most
promising options:
1. Establish a Citv Capital Proi€cl. Pros: The Bike Blvd. network could be built over
a short period oftime (1-3 years). Cons: Need to use 100% City funding.
2. Seek state or federal crant fundine. Pros: The City would only need to pay a small
portion (-20%) of the total proj€ct costs, and, because outside funding would be
used, higherquality tsaffic calming measures, signs, and pavernent markings
could be used. Cons: Low chance that the City would be awarded the funding.
3. lncrc,flrentallv bui]d nawork durinq other street work projects, Pros: Lower costs
if Bike Blvd. measures are irctalled in conjunction with other street work. Cons:
Very slow implementation rate, and discontinuous Bike Blvd. parts would not
fimction as a systfir until most of the work was completed. This option is not
recornmended ou its owrl but could be used to supplernent option 1 or 2; for
example, N. Tioga St. will be undergoing major rehabilitation work in the next
few years and Bike Blvd. elements (e.g. traffic calming) conld be added to the
project for a lower cost than if the elements were added later.
Item Quantity Unit Tota l
Bike Blvd. pavement markings 62 $200 each $12,400
Route signs 85 $200 each $17,000
Traflic calming devices o $4,000 each $s6,000
lnstall 25 mph siqns 25 $200 each $s,oo0
lnstall bike lanes 4400 $2 linear ft.$8,800
Misc. sign adiustm€nts $4,000
$83,200
$12,480
Sub total
Contingenry (15olo)
Ovorall proi6ct total $95,680-
l3
Est. cost
Appen.ll* A - Recommended Bicycle Boulward pavoment marking design (not drawn
to scale). The marking design to be either 4' wide and 17'tall on narrower streets and 6'
wide and 26' tall on standard yridth streets.
72" or 108"
64" or 96'
72' or 108"
44"
I
or
72
I
---+
t4
bqLb W) t7D
>lritsP4
^+
NMlb Nw
Recent photographs of the two benches in front of Ruloffs
{r t.l t?
-.d{
_ rjq
II Il;
@
J:
I t;*-r/ti
.i
i
I
r{
x
li
_..1
I
d
It
--
I
;T
Y
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590
Graham Kerslick, Fourth ward Telephone: 60'l -27 3-4620
Fax 60'7-274-6432kerslickfithaca
February 5, 2016
Members of the Board of Public Works,
I am writing with commenls related to an item on your agenda for Monday February 8th:
I urge the Board not to agree to this proposed encroachment agreement based on the following
considerations.
lmproving sidewalks and pedestrian safety is a high priority across the City. Such
improvements are especially needed in Collegetown. Encroachment agreements should be
granted only where there is clear public benefit and where there is sufficient remaining
sidewalk to ensure pedestrian safety.
Encroachment agreements for seasonal outdoor dining are reasonable, when consistent
with public safety and the immediate surroundings. The proposed benches are semi-
permanent, unsightly and poorly maintained (see photos on next page). They are
inconsistent with public safety and the architectural surroundings.
The bump-outs in Collegetown are vital for reducing overcrowding on the area's narrow
sidewalks, particularly in the 400 block of College Ave. The proposed location is particularly
unsuitable in this respect.
Thank you for your attention to this issue
Sincerely,
;,A,vl
"An Equal Opportunjty Employer with a commitment lo workforce diversification '
Request for an Encroachment Agreement from Rulloffls in Collegetown at 41'l College
Avenue. A request has been submitted for Rullofi's manager to install two benches on the
sidewalk outside of the restaurant-
I
bdLL up rc,e
CITY OF ITHACA
lOE East Green Street - 3rd Floor lthaca, New York 14850-5690
MEMO
Date: 2ll7116
To: Board of Public Works
From: Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Re.: Ithaca City Cemetery Wall
The purpose of this memo is to outline the events that occurred prior to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission's (ILPC) approval ofthe attached resolution on January 26,2016.
While not officially designated under Section 2284 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca City Cemetery is
viewed by the community and visitors as a significant historic resource.
In the spring of 2015, planning staff was approached by Lynn Yost, PE, Assistant Civil Engineer, about
the repair of a portion of the Ithaca City Cemetery wall and the three piers that flank the cemetery's
entrance from University Ave. At that time, City staff discussed replacing in-kind a section of wall and
one ofthe piers that were damaged by a vehicular accident, and repairing in-kind the other two piers.
Once work began, community members contacted individual ILPC members, the Common Council
Liaison to the ILPC, and the Historic Preservation Planner to discuss the newly installed stones. Of
concem was the apparent difference in size, color, and texture of the new stones as compared to the
original historic materials. The stark contrast between the new and old made the repaired/replaced
elements standoul as new construction and significantly altered the historic aesthetic quality of the
historic resource. Based on the ILPC's strict definition, the repairs/replacements made to the wall and
piers were not in-kind.
Please contact me with any comments or concems about the resolution
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development - 607-274-6550 Community De velopment4[IRA - 607-2'74-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
The attached resolution is based on research conducted by ILPC members and staff, written statements
received from community members, and comments made during the ILPC's regularly scheduled meetings
on December 8'h, 2015 and January 26r',2016. The resolution suggests one approach to mitigating the
visual impact of the repaired wall and piers, and proposes a stronger working relationship between the
BPW and ILPC for future projects at the Ithaca City Cemetery.
ILPC Meeting - 01/?6/20L6
Resolution - RE
RESOLUTION: Moved by IC Olson, seconded by S. Stein.
as set forth in Secaon 228-28 of the Municipal Code, one of the putposes of the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservadon Commission is to safeguard the city's historic,
aesthetic and cultual heritage as teflected in buildings, structues, landscape features,
atcheological sites, and districts, and
!7HEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
!yHE.RE,AS,
'i7HE,RE,AS,
WHEREAS,
TTHEREAS,
WHERE.A.S,
RESOL\'ED,
RESOLVED,
RESOLVED,
the City owned Ithaca City Cemetery is not a locally or nationally designated historic
resource, however, it is loczted adjacent to the locally-designated University H I
Histotic District and grven its age and cultuml, histotic, and aesthetrc significance, is
eligible for listing on the National Register of Histotic Places and is an important
local histotic tesource, and
the walls and three stone piers that form the enffance to the cemetery from
Univemity Avenue are esdmated to have been constructed c. 1865 and are important
chatactet de6ning features of this historic tesoutce, and
one ofthe piers and a section of curved wall were damaged in a vehicular accident in
2072, md,
Ithaca Stone Setting was hired by the City to repair the damaged piet and section of
wall with the understanding tl-rat the work would be in-kind, and
in-kind, accotding to The CiA 0f Itham Hirtlic Disticl a l-.andnark Duign G delines,
.is defined as the replacement of an existing element with a new element of the same
material, color, texture, and dimensions, and
dudng construction it 'J/as observed that the new stone blocks that comptise the
repaired piet and section of wall did not have the same visual properties as the
histodc fabric, and
the odginal stones were hand-dressed with what appea$ to be an orthogonally bush-
hammered 6eld and chiseled margin, and the new stones ate machine cut with a
thermal fiaish.
that, the ILPC recommends that the new stone be dressed to replicate the
appearance of the original when it was installed in c. 1865, and be it furthet
that the ILPC tecommends the Board Public \?orks instn:ct the contractor to
prepare a sample block with an orthogonally bush-hammered field and a 1" thermal-
finished matgin, which will approximate the appearance of the original stone, and be
it further
that the ILPC fequests to review and approve the sample priot to the application of
this technique to the newly repaired piers and section of wall, excluding the caps
coped portions of the piers, and be it further
ILPC Meeting - 01/26/2076
Resolution - RE
RESOL\,aED, that, the new stone should not be otherwise atiEcially distressed or stained to make
it appear old, and be it furher
RESOLVED, the ILPC requests that all future projects, excluding routine maintenance, at the
Ithaca City Cemetery, regardless of size, scale or r[gency, be developed with
guidance from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and rnput
ftom the Crty's Historic Preservation Plannet and,/or the ILPC.
RECORD OFVOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor K. Olson, S. Stein, S. Gibian, E. Finegan, D. Kramet, M. McGandy,J. Minner
Against 0
Abstain: 0
Absent 0
Vacancies: 0