HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-30-03 Budget & Administration Committee Meeting Agenda BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
I APRIL 30, 2003
7 :00 P.M.
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
Statements from the Public
Amendments to Tonight' s Agenda
A. Common Council
1 . Request to Amend the 2003 Budget for Funds for the Citizen
Pruner Program - Resolution (10 min. )
2 . Guidelines for Community Service Agency Funding -
Discussion (15 min. )
B. Youth Bureau
1 . Request to Amend 2003 Authorized Budget - Resolution (5
min. )
2 . Discussion of Possible Closing of Cass Park Rink and/or
Pool (15 min. )
3 . Recreation Facilities Negotiations - Report (15 min. )
C. City Chamberlain
1 . IBM Case for Change (Business Process Software) - Report
(30 min. )
D. Attorney
1 . Telecommunications : Franchise Application Fee - Resolution
(15 min. )
E. Fire Department - Reports (30 min. total)
1 . Tompkins County Communications System and the Ithaca Fire
Department/City of Ithaca - Status Report
2 . IFD Hazardous Materials Unit & Tompkins County Hazardous
Materials Team - Status Report
3 . Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant - Status Report, Future
Action Required
BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE APRIL 30, 2003
PAGE 2
Fire Department (continued)
4 . Exercise 2003 - Status Report, Budget Implications
F. DPW
1 . Request to Amend Authorization for Capital Project #425
Traffic Signal Upgrade Phase I - Resolution
2 . Request to Amend Authorization for Capital Project #460
Stewart Avenue Bridge over Fall Creek - Resolution
3 . Water/Sewer - Approval of Amendment to Tertiary Phosphorus
Removal Upgrade Project at IAWWTP - Resolution
4 . Water/Sewer - Request to Standardize on Prestressed
Concrete Water Tank within the City of Ithaca - Resolution
5 . Water/Sewer - Authorization to Sign Contracts for Grants
with the New York State Department of State and the U. S .
Forestry Services - Resolution
G. Mayor
1 . FOIL Requests for Electronic Records - Discussion (10 min. )
H. Reports
1 . Mayor' s Report
2 . Budget Process Subcommittee Report
3 . Ethics Subcommittee Report
4 . Council Members' Announcements
5 . Next Month' s Meeting: May 28, 2003
Please note that the deadline for submission of items for
this meeting will be 12 :00 Noon on Monday, May 19, 2003 .
Common Council - Request to Amend the 2003 Budget for Funds for
Citizen Pruner Program
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Citizen Pruner program is a model program in
New York State for volunteer assistance with municipal plant
care and is entering its 12th year of operation, and
WHEREAS, the Citizen Pruner program trains and supervises
volunteers to prune trees and shrubs, plant flowers, weed and
clean up plant debris on public land in the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, fifteen to twenty volunteers are trained each year and
contribute six to eight hours each week between May and
September on said activities, and
WHEREAS, given the approved federal volunteer rate of twelve
dollars per hour, Citizen Pruners contribute to the City of
Ithaca, on average, approximately twenty-three thousand dollars
every year in volunteer service, and
WHEREAS, in the past, the City has provided between four
thousand five hundred and five thousand dollars for this
program, and
WHEREAS, Citizen Pruners are the most cost effective approach to
maintaining a pleasant and attractive natural environment in
Ithaca and, in particular, on the Commons; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2003 Budget in
the amount of $3 , 000 to be transferred from account A1990
Unrestricted Contingency to account A1012-5435 Community Service
Agency Funding for the purpose of funding the Citizen Pruner
Program.
n^�,nel, Tompkins County Education Center
Co
k ll + 615 Willow Avenue
_\! Cooperative Ithaca,NY 14850-3555
=� 607-272-2292
Extension FAX 607-272-7088
CITIZEN PRUNER PROGRAM r�
This program is a unique partnership between 1 I
G
the City of Ithaca, Cornell Cooperative
Extension of Tompkins County and the '' t"
Urban Horticulture Institute of Cornell University.
n
Funding is provided by the City of Ithaca.
Volunteer recruitment,training, organization a s
and support is provided by Cooperative Extension;
the City Forester identifies volunteer projects and �y
supervises the work of volunteers.
VOLUNTEER JOB DESCRIPTION LJ N
Purpose: Citizen Pruners are volunteers who have completed a training course sponsored by Cornell
Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca that certifies them to work on
public trees, shrubs and other beautification projects undertaken by the City. The program extends and
augments the work of the Department of Public Works and hopes to encourage all citizens to
appreciate and enjoy the contribution that trees and other plantings make to the City environment.
All work is carried out under the supervision of and with direction from the City Forester.
Specific Tasks:
a. Trees(working from ground only):
-removal of suckers at base of trees
-weeding,mulching around base of trees
-pruning damaged,dead, diseased limbs within reach of the ground
-limbing up, removal of low branches on young trees
-pruning to shape young trees to ensure proper canopy structure
-monitor and report tree problems and suggest sites for new trees
-planting of bare root trees
b. Shrubs(in parks and other City-owned locations):
-maintenance pruning
-rejuvenation as necessary
-planting of shrubs
C. General Beautification (as time permits)
- assist in identification of beautification projects,their development and implementation
-work with the city crews to plant flowers on the Commons and in other areas
d. Attend volunteer meetings with the City Forester and Cooperative Extension staff to review
tasks, receive instruction, and participate in training as necessary.
e. Act as ambassadors for the City of Ithaca Street Tree Program-be familiar with tree species,
the Street Tree Ordinance and other aspects of the program.
Helping You Put Knowledge to Work
Cornell Cooperative Extension in Tompkins County provides equal program and employment opportunities.
f. Assist in educating the public about trees through workshops, classes or other duties and
help promote the Citizen Pruner Program at educational and community events.
Working Relationships
Volunteer training and educational support will be coordinated by Cornell Cooperative
Extension of Tompkins County staff. The Cornell Urban Horticulture Institute faculty and
students assist with instruction. The City Forester will provide technical guidance on pruning
and maintenance tasks, assign and oversee tasks of pruners. Citizen Pruners will work with
City Street Tree Crew in performance of tasks.
Training Program:
Basic introductory course: 4 evening sessions on trees in the urban environment, planting,
training and pruning. Volunteers should be present for all training sessions, if possible.
On-going training: based on needs and interests of volunteers(provided on the job and
through workshops, meetings,tours).
Volunteer Commitment:
After completion of the Training Classes, each volunteer is expected to contribute
approximately 6-8 hours per month during the season as a Citizen Pruner.
Volunteer Schedule:
Volunteers work weekly from May-October. Each work session lasts approximately 11/2-2
hours. Generally at least one morning and late afternoon work session is held per week.
Volunteers are expected to be active in the program for a minimum of one season, two seasons
preferable.
Qualifications:
- be able to fulfill the training and volunteer commitment
- have an interest in or knowledge of trees, shrubs, and other areas of gardening
- enthusiasm for acquiring new horticulture skills
- ability to communicate with public
- a concern for plants in the urban environment
- interest in community beautification
Note: Volunteers should have the ability to get to work sites,work outdoors and have sufficient
abilities to carry out pruning tasks with standard pruning tools. Some work could be carried out from
a wheelchair.
Application Process:
Complete the Citizen Pruner Volunteer application and return it to Cooperative Extension,
615 Willow Avenue, Ithaca,NY 14850.
To learn more about the program, call Monika Roth at 272-2292.
2003
CITIZEN PRUNER PROGRAM
BEING PRUNED???
Program History:
• Conceived by the Shade Tree Advisory Committee
• Volunteers working on behalf of the City since 1991
• The program is a partnership between the City of Ithaca, Cornell Cooperative
Extension of Tompkins County and the Cornell Urban Horticulture Program
Program Accomplishments:
• Seen as a model program by cities around the country
• Over 140 volunteers trained since the program's inception
• Each season from May to October 3 crews of 6-8 volunteers work during 3
weekly 1.5 hour work sessions to prune street trees, park plantings and to
weed/clean up overgrown areas
• Each year volunteer prune over 1000 trees or shrubs
• Each year volunteers contribute over 1500 hours of in-kind labor for a value of
about $22,500
Funds Leveraged:
• Over the past 11 years, volunteer labor has accumulated to over 8500 hours
valued at $15/hour that is a contribution of$127,500 of volunteer time to the
City
• In kind support provided by Cooperative Extension Staff above and beyond City
funding is estimated at $2000/year
• Cost effective program
Benefits to the City:
• Extends the life of the City's investment in trees (annually over 200 trees are
planted at a direct cost of approx. $12,000 to the City)--Citizen Pruners extend
the life of this investment by providing corrective pruning and training of young
trees that shapes their future form and has implications for tree safety
• Volunteers work on detailed pruning that the City Parks &Forestry crew do not
have time to accomplish given the limited program staff
• Instills pride in community as volunteers feel they are contributing in a positive
way to the City's beautification
• Educates the residents about the value of trees and informs them of their role in
protecting trees
• Improves public safety in the following ways: branches are cut back so traffic
signs are visible and residents have clearer view out of driveways; reduces
overgrowth in which vagrants have been found sleeping or hiding
• Improves the overall appearance of City plantings which is enjoyed by residents
and visitors alike
• Improves the appearance of the central business district which impacts the
overall sense of community economic well being and vitality
Tompkins County Tel: 607 272-2292
Education Center Fax: 607 272-7088
615 Willow Avenue E-mail:tompkins @comell.edu
Ithaca,NY 14850-3555 www.cce.cornell.edu/tompkins
Cooperative Extension
December 2, 2002
To: Members of City of Ithaca Common Council and Mayor Alan Cohen
4t v,;-kpt `e-o4- -
From: Citizen Pruner Volunteers
Monika Roth, Extension Educator–Citizen Pruner Program Coordinator
RE: Citizen Pruner Program Funding for 2003
Do you know who...
-pruned the Yews surrounding Dewitt Park and on the Commons this summer?
-weeded the overgrown planter and pruned the shrubs in the Bus Station planter in
the west end?
-weeded and pruned areas of Eddy Street so cars could park along the road?
-pruned back overgrown Viburnums by Greenstar and Habitat?
-completely weeded and pruned the shrub bed in Neptune Park, Bryant Park, and
in front of the Collegetown Parking Garage?
-helped plant, prune shrubs and pull weeds in Commons planters?
-pruned shrubs at the entrance to Stewart Park?
-advised residents on why trees are important and how they can avoid damaging
them with lawn mowers or string trimmers?
Citizen Pruners do this and more each year—for the City of Ithaca!
Citizen Pruner volunteers met on November 18 to review their accomplishments this past
season and to discuss the future of the program in 2003 given the zero funding situation.
As a group of volunteers, we are disappointed that the City cut funding to many valuable
Community Service Organizations that are the heart and soul of the City.
Citizen Pruners perform a valuable service in this community including the following:
-On average volunteers contribute over 1000 hours of time to prune City trees and
shrubs
-Volunteer time valued at $12/hour is a $12,000 in-kind contribution to the City
-Volunteers prune over 1000 trees and shrubs each year throughout City
neighborhoods
-Interact with citizens in the community who see the direct benefits of their tax
dollars and who greatly appreciate the volunteers' work
-Improved safety by clearing overgrown shrubs in parks and by trimming limbs
blocking intersections, and long-term, by removing weak branches that might be
subject to failure in future years
Building Strong and Vibrant New York Communities
Cornell Cooperative Extension provides equal program and employment opportunities.NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,WS College of Human Ecolod;and
NYS College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University,Cooperative Extension associations,county governing bodies,and U.S.Department of Agriculture,cooperating.
-The volunteers do work that is not being done by any City staff members and
which would otherwise be left undone. Examples include—shaping young, newly
planted trees for future form; pruning of overgrown shrubs that would otherwise
look unsightly and deteriorate; weeding areas like the Bus station planter, Stewart
Park, the Commons or Collegetown where visitors pass through daily...and more.
-Indirect benefits include improve appearance of City plantings which reduces
vandalism, increases the economic vitality of business districts, enhances tourism
and quality of life for all residents.
In spite of the recommended cuts, the volunteers remain committed to working on behalf
of the City to prune trees and shrubs to increase their beauty and longevity.
However we have the following concerns and ask your help in clarifying them:
1. The cut in funding signals a lack of City support for this program so our question is–
does the City of Ithaca support the continuation of the Citizen Pruner volunteer program?
2. If so, the Citizen Pruner volunteer program needs to be officially recognized and
sanctioned as a program of the City so that we can continue to receive insurance coverage
through the City.
3. The contract between the City and Cooperative Extension is necessary because as a
county-funded organization, work done by CCETC in the City is above and beyond
Extension's service; therefore, a cut in funding means that staff support provided via
Cooperative Extension to support this program is at risk. CCETC training and
coordination is critical to the success of this program. While volunteers are motivated to
prune trees and shrubs, we are not capable of operating without the bi-weekly notices of
work locations and on-site instruction. Funding is needed to continue this important
coordination function.
The City of Ithaca Citizen Pruner volunteer program is an award winning, nationally
recognized model program engaging volunteers in community service to improve the
health and longevity of trees. We hope that members of Council value this program as
much as the residents of this community and, if a 2002 budget surplus is designated to
partially fund community service agencies, the Citizen Pruners receive a share of this
funding to continue our program in 2003.
Thank you for considering this request during this challenging time for our City programs.
Enclosed is a copy of our 2002 Annual report for your information and review.
If you have any questions about the Citizen Pruner Program, please call Monika Roth,
Program Coordinator, at 272-2292 or email mr55 @cornell.edu
Tompkins County Tel: 607 272-2292
Education Center^ Fax: 607 272-7088
615 Willow Avenue E-mail:tompkins@comell.edu
Ithaca,NY 14850-3555 www.cce.comell.edu/tompkins
Cooperative Extension
We, the undersigned Citizen Pruners, appreciate having received funding from the City of Ithaca
in past years. We ask the City for your continued support of this valuable program.
14,
J `
1 r
tif�
5 �
-Jt�Jln.,
We hope that you find a way to restore funding so we can continue to contribute to making Ithaca
a beautiful place.
Building Strong and Vibrant New York Communities
Cornell Cooperative Extension provides equal program and employment opportunities.NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,NYS College of Human Ecology,and
NYS College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University,Cooperative Extension associations,county governing bodies,and U.S.Department of Agriculture,cooperating.
12/15/02
To: Pat Vaughan
From: Jane Marcham, re agency funding
Dear Pat:
While listening to Casey's show on Friday, I was glad to hear you
say some end-of-year discretionary funds (up to $20, 000) may be
available, and I hope the Citizen Pruners are still on your list.
I 've been a pruner for three years, ever since retiring from
Council. At our wrap-up meeting this fall, the announced proposal
to suspend city funding was a bitter blow to the morale of these
volunteers. Many live outside the city and have little sympathy
for our budget crisis; we need to encourage them to stay aboard.
The pruning program has thrived under joint sponsorship of Common
Council, Cooperative Extension, and the city forester and tree
crews' foreman. We began exploring other funding possibilities at
our wrap-up session, but the DPW budget does not look like the
answer: Their priorities don't correspond with trees, citizen
training programs or volunteered labor. The current framework of
support has been successful and hugely beneficial to the city,
though other alternatives might be worth discussing next year.
With regard to the discretionary funds, you have other programs
to consider, of course, and I think all are close to the heart
and soul of the city -- and all are doubtless worried about
surviving 2003 . I hope all will receive a proportion of the
available funds, along with some word about future prospects.
Many thanks for all your hard work this year,
and best wishes for a happier 2003 . . . .
2002 Annual Report
Citizen Pruner Volunteer Program and Community Beautification Efforts coordinated by
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County for the City of Ithaca
Citizen Pruner Volunteer Program
A total of 7 new volunteers were trained,in addition 18 trained volunteers were active in this summers
program—that's a total of 25 volunteers who contributed time to the City to prune trees and shrubs.
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County arranged the training sessions,recruited volunteers,
and provided weekly notice of work locations and work support.
Following is a list of training dates and work locations.
Februray-March–recruited volunteers via press releases and arranged training program
April 8–Selecting Trees for the Urban Environment with Nina Bassuk- 15 attendees
April 15–Pruning Shrubs with Monika Roth–30 attendees
April 22–Tree Pruning Basics with Andy Hillman and Eric Woodward -24 attendees
May 6–Hands-on pruning workshop at Stewart Park–28 attendees
(Note: classes are open to the public as well as new and returning volunteers)
May 6-Organizational Meeting for volunteers–18 new and returning volunteers attended
May 30–Citizen Pruner volunteers participated in the Ithaca Festival Parade
Nov. 189–Season-end Wrap Up meeting
Hours recruiting and training volunteers: CCETC staff–60 hrs, City DPW staff–6 hours
Work sessions were held three times a week on Mondays and Wednesdays from 5:30-7:00 PM and
Thursday mornings from 9-10:30 or 11 am. Sessions started May 13 and ended on Oct. 17.
Sessions were held at the following locations:
May 13, 15, 16,20,22&23 -Stewart Park and Ithaca Youth Bureau-tree&shrub pruning
June 3, 5 &6–Ithaca Commons–shrub and tree pruning and planter clean-up
June 10, 12& 13–Dewitt Park–pruned trees and shrubs,weeded
June 17, 19&20-Bus station planter between State and Seneca Streets on Route 13 south–major
weeding and pruned shrubs
June 24,26&27–Continued work at west end from bus station to Taughannock Blvd. –small trees and
shrubs/weed removal
Week of July 4---Vacation for all!
July 15, 17& 18–Neptune Park, Sciencenter,Mutual Housing area–pruned small trees and shrub
groupings
July 22, 24&25–Linn&E. Court Streets–pruned young trees
July 29, 31 &Aug. 1–Eddy&Seneca Streets–pruned trees,overgrown shrubs&removed weeds in
sidewalk cracks
Aug. 5,7&9–Collegetown Parking garage–pruned,weeded,removed trash from planter in front of
parking garage–area was showing signs of extreme drought stress;also worked on Dryden Road up hill
to College Ave.
Aug. 12, 14& 15–Ithaca Commons–pruned all yews in the Commons planters
Aug. 21 &22–North Meadow from Agway to Buffalo Street–pruned crabapples&overgrown
Vibrunum along sidewalk
Aug. 28&29–Belle Sherman area–Bryant Park on Ithaca Road–pruned shrubs and weeded park beds
Sept. 4&5–Reconstruction Home neighborhood–Clinton&Albany streets–pruned trees and shrubs in
area
Sept. 9, 11 & 12–Washington Park at Buffalo,Washington&Park Streets–pruned shrubs for visibility
and safety
Sept. 16& 19–Washington Park -finished pruning in Park
Sept. 23–Conway Park at Cascadilla and First Street–pruned overgrown yew shrubs–residents
commented that they appreciated having the pruning done as it was hard to see around the corner
Sept. 25–West end from Purity to Ithaca Bakery and surrounding blocks–continued work on small trees
with suckers
Sept. 26–Purity point Rt. 13 –pruned shrubs and roses
Sept. 30&Oct. 1 –behind TC Library&City Hall–pruned shrubs at City Hall and small trees near
Library,weeded around the bus stop at the Library on Green St.
Oct. 7–Ithaca Road&Mitchell Street–trimmed trees near intersection–improved visibility
Oct. 9–Court Street and Route 13–more work on small trees
Oct. 10–Buffalo Street and Route 13 to Greenstar–pruned small trees
Oct. 15–Dewitt Park–pruned overgrow yews
Oct. 16–Rained out---we were to have met the Society of Municipal Arborists during their walk from
Stewart Park,but hard rains forced us to cancel this session
Oct. 17–LAST DAY–Greenstar and Buffalo Street–pruned overgrown Viburnums
Total number of work sessions: 55 (in 2001 we held 67 work sessions,due to fewer holiday breaks and
because staff support was not available from the City DPW).
Due to a shortage of DPW Staff,Eric Woodward, Senior Tree Trimmer,was not available to provide work
support to Citizen Pruner volunteers during work sessions. Monika Roth,Extension Educator,provided
all volunteer support.Monika was present at all but 3 of the work sessions when volunteers worked on
their own.
Total new volunteers participating this season during work sessions: 5
Total returning volunteers participating at work sessions this season: 18
Total hours contributed by volunteers: 880 hours
Total trees and shrubs pruned: over 1000
CCETC staff hours supervising volunteers during work sessions: 106 hrs
City hours supervising volunteers: 6 hrs
Note: DPW Parks and Forestry staff picked up brush piles left by volunteers and this amounted to
approximately 160 hrs of labor throughout the pruning season.
Total CCETC staff time: 240 hrs(includes 40 hrs of secretarial support to mail work location notices and
other updates to volunteers)
Actual cost of CCETC staff time: $4400-professional staff, $480-secretarial support=$4880
Value of volunteer labor @$12/hr: $10,560
Direct cost of program to City:
$4500 program support(paid to CCETC for staff and volunteer support including training
notebooks/handouts,t-shirts,tools,office supplies,postage, refreshments)
$2000 staff time to pick-up brush and to assist with work sessions and training
Total in-kind volunteer and CCETC staff time contributed to City in 2002=$10940.00
Additional indirect benefits include: longer tree/shrub life, improved appearance of trees and shrubs,
weeding of neglected areas,clean-up-trash removal of neglected areas,improved appearance of City to
residents and visitors,less vandalism,greater safety resulting from pruning for visibility and from
correcting structural defects,volunteer interaction with community members—citizens see the benefit of
tax dollars and appreciate the work of volunteers and volunteers educate residents about trees and other
public plantings and act as ambassadors for the City.
Youth Bureau - Request to Amend 2003 Budget
WHEREAS, the Youth Bureau will be receiving additional revenue
from the Recreation Partnership in the amount of $3, 346 . 00 for
lacrosse equipment in order to comply with National Operating
Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment standards; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2003 Youth
Bureau budget as follows :
Increase Revenue :
Account A7310-2350-1537 Lacrosse $3 , 346 . 00
Increase Appropriation:
Account A7310-5460-1537 Program supplies $3 , 346 . 00
CITY OF ITHACA
1 James L. Gibbs Drive Ithaca, New York 14850
9
A ��� ® a o
YOUTH BUREAU
�PoRA?EO Telephone: 607/273-8364 Fax: 607/273/2817
To: Budget and Administration Committee
From: Allen Green Acting Director
Liz Vance Recreation Coordinator
Re: Recreation Budget Amendment
Date: April 2, 2003
We have been advised by the Recreation Partnership Board that we will be receiving
additional revenue for lacrosse helmets and goggles so that we can comply with
NOCSAE(National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment)
standards.
We would like to amend the 2003 Recreation budget as follows:
Increase anticipated revenue:
Recreation Partnership
Account#A 7310-2350-1537 Lacrosse $3346.00
Increase expenses: Lacrosse
Account#A 7310-5460-1537 Program Supplies $3346.00
Thank you.
An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ���
To: Budget and Administration Committee
From: David Whitmore, Alderperson, Second Ward
Date: 4/23/03
Re: Recreation Facilities Negotiations Update
Joni Spielholz and I are the representatives from the City in both the Recreation Facilities
Negotiations between the City, the Town and the County and the Recreation Partnership.
Recently the County has advised the negotiations group that they should be considered the "last
option" for filling the financial gap to equalize payments by municipalities in Tompkins County
for the waterfront parks(Cass and Stewart). The internal City group, including IYB staff, have
been meeting over the last few weeks to develop a response to this situation.
Please find attached the Recreation Facilities Negotiations Flow Chart and supporting fiscal
information about the operating costs of Cass and Stewart Parks. Joni and I will update the
committee on the details of the recent negotiations and seek feedback about the approach the
internal City group has developed.
Recreation Facilities Negotiations
Flow Chart
The Bottom Line
for Cass and Stewart Parks
$150,000
Recreation Partnership Proposal
$50,000
Program Specific Costs of RP Programs at Cass and Stewart
(not currently paid by RP)
Potential for Recreation Facilities Pro- Recreation Facilities Pro-
significant pro- posal posal
gram cuts in $1009000 $1509000
RP Facilities costs divided in Facilities costs divided in
some fashion among the some fashion among the
City of Ithaca considers funding County, the Town, and/or County, the Town, and/or
programs cut by RP for City resi- the other municipalities in the other municipalities in
dents (e.g. Cass Park Day Camp) Tompkins County. Tompkins County.
NO
Deny Access to Facilities Multi-Tier Fee System
City of Ithaca Parks
for Residents of Non- Member Municipalities: Parking Permits
Member Municipalities Tier One Multi-tier fee system
Non-Member Munici- l I for permit parkers for
palities: Tier Two residents of member
and non-member mu-
nicipalities
1
i
Facilities Closings
Close pool, skating rink
Nlini1num maintenance of fields which WOUld not encourage use by organized
sports leagues.
Recreation Facilities Summary - 2004 Projected Costs
Total Rec. Partnership Other
Share
Net Operating Costs
Cass Program Totals $168,817 $16,882 $151,935
Cass Fringe Totals $72,115 $7,212 $64,904
Cass Portion-IYB Administration $38,021 $3,802 $34,219
Cass Portion-Indirect/City Hall $75,750 $7,575 $68,175
Cass Portion-DPW $31,629 $3,163 $28,466
Total - Net Operating Costs $386,332 $38,633 $347,699
Cass-Existing Average Capital Costs $48,188 $4,819 $43,369
Cass - Total $434,520 43,452 $391,068
Stewart Park Day Camp (Facilities Portion) $7,000 $7,000 \�
Rec. Partnership Portion-IYB Building O&M $17,196 $17,196
Rec. Partnership Portion-Rent/Existing Debt YB Bldg. $16,198 $16,198
G
Grand Total $474,914 $83,846 $391,068
Notes: Rec. Partnership Share of Cass Costs pro rated @ 10%
Fringe for Rostered Staff calculated @ 30%
Fringe for Part-Time Seasonal Staff calculated @ 10%
Cass Portion-IYB Administration pro rated @ 19%
Cass Portion-IYB Building Costs have not been included
Rec. Partnership Portion-IYB Building Costs pro rated @ 23%
Future Capital Improvement Costs have not been included
A o0
i
CITY OF ITHACA
V$ �t 108 East Green Street Ithaca,
f� OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Norma W. Schwab, City Attorney
�1DgpO Patricia Dunn,Assistant City Atto
Khandikile M. Sokoni,Associate A + a
MEMO °
a � E4.
v
To: Patricia Vaughan, Chair, Budget&Administration Committee
From: Patricia Dunn,Assistant City 46 e
Date: April 17, 2003
Subject: Fee for review of telecommunications franchise applications
Common Council adopted a Telecommunications Ordinance in November 2002. The
Ordinance provides, in section 152-33.D(1)that"for any applications for any telecommunications
Franchise, the City shall prepare an application form...."It goes without saying that the purpose of
requiring an application form before granting a franchise is for the City to obtain enough information
about the applicant be able to ascertain that the applicant has the legal, financial, and technical
ability to provide telecommunications services. I have recently received inquiries from two (2)
telecommunications providers who may be required to obtain a telecommunications franchise. I am
in the process of developing a telecommunications franchise application form. Any
telecommunications franchise application will have to be reviewed and evaluated for sufficiency.
Such a review and evaluation will take some time and, therefore, as the City does in other areas of
review-such as site plan review or applications for building permits-the applicant should pay a
reasonable fee to offset the cost of review. Indeed,the Telecommunications Ordinance provides for
payment of an application fee in section 152-33.D(l) which describes the contents of a franchise
application. Subsection (b) thereunder, requires "[a] statement indicating the amount of the
application fee(if any)to be submitted with the application, and the manner in which such fee is to
be submitted."
K:\DUNN\Telecommunications\TelecomFranchiseFee.merrLdoc
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ��
Memo to Patricia Vaughan
April 17, 2003
Page 2
At this time, it is unknown how much time the application review and evaluation process
may take. Telecommunications services are a relatively new technology, as are telecommunications
franchises. To my knowledge, no municipality in New York State currently requires a written
application before granting a telecommunications franchise so I was unable to determine, from my
counterparts in other municipalities, how much time a review might consume. It is quite possible
that a telecommunications services provider who will have large project in the City may have a
simple application and just as possible that a small provider may have a more complex application.
Also, whether the applicant is a large or small provider, the City may need to obtain more
information to determine whether the applicant is financially and technically capable of providing
telecommunications services; or whether the applicant has a legal impediment that would exempt
it from franchise requirements or require a different franchise, such as a cable television franchise.
Thus, basing an application fee on the size of the project, as is done for site plan review and for
building permits, does not appear feasible.
It appears that the most feasible application fee should be based on the time it takes to
review and evaluate the application.If the application includes all the information necessary to make
a determination, without further investigation, the review time may be rather short. If, however,
review requires several discussions with the applicant in order to obtain more information, or if
information has to be verified independently,review could take many hours and may extend over
the course of weeks. In my opinion, City staff most capable of initial review and evaluation of a
telecommunications franchise application are myself(I have become reasonably knowledgeable in
telecommunications law over the past few years) and the Director of Information Technology,
Duane Twardokus. Duane is competent to decipher technical terminology and, within reason,
determine if the proposed technical aspects are sufficient. However, it is always possible that for
some technical, legal,or financial aspects,outside expertise will have to be consulted;neither Duane
nor I hold ourselves out as telecommunications experts.
There is some precedent in the City for application fees based on an hourly rate. For
example, the building department charges $35 hour for review and consultation for proposed
projects and/or projects in which a building permit is not ready to be applied for (Section 146-
7.C.(2)(a)[4], amended January 29, 2003). Since a franchise application can be analogized to a
"proposed project," an hourly fee seems appropriate. I asked the Building Commissioner how she
2
Memo to Patricia Vaughan
April 17, 2003
Page 3
determined the fee of$35. She informed me that she used the hourly salary of the inspector who
would be doing the review and/or consultation. She also said that she used her hourly salary,
combined with the size of the project, in determining the application fee for Certificates of
Compliance for purposes of selling a house and for Lot Line Adjustments. Taking into consideration
my hourly salary, and Duane's hourly salary, I recommend that an application fee of fifty ($50)
dollars per hour as an appropriate fee, with provision for reimbursement to the City for outside
expertise, if required.
Further precedent is contained in section 325-29.10 (G) of the Code, relating to fees for
applications to construct cell towers,which states"The City shall have the right to properly plan for
and evaluate applications for PWSF's and to charge reasonable fees for such services to the
applicant. The City may retain future independent consultants and experts to assist City staff with
proper planning for PWSF's. The fee for applications shall include,but shall not be limited to, the
prorated share for each applicant of such costs for the independent consultants and experts. The fee
shall be prorated among all applications on an equal basis. The City also has the right to charge fees
for reviews and evaluations done by City staff. Such fees shall include,but shall not be limited to,
the following:
(1) Site plan applications.
(2) Variance or special permit applications.
(3) Building permit applications.
(4) Other review fees. The City shall have the right to retain independent technical
consultants and experts that it deems necessary to properly evaluate applications for PWSF's. This
fee will be assigned to the applicant and shall not exceed$10,000."
The "cell tower" Ordinance provides for a reasonable limit to the application fee while
taking into consideration the fact that City staff may not have the necessary expertise to review and
evaluate cell tower applications. In many ways, the Telecommunications Ordinance application
process is similar. The law does not permit a municipality to require a telecommunications(or cable
television) provider to pay consultant's fees for assistance in negotiating a franchise so the City
cannot charge an application fee that would include such consultant's fees. However, it would be
appropriate, if expertise does not exist within the City departments,to seek outside expertise for, for
example, an accountant to review complex financial data that is beyond City staff expertise; an
3
Memo to Patricia Vaughan
April 17, 2003
Page 4
engineer to review technical data beyond Duane's expertise; or an attorney specializing in
telecommunications law to review legal aspects beyond my telecommunications expertise. An
application fee limit of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars, the same as the "cell tower" Ordinance,
would provide a sense of security to an applicant who will thus be assured that review and evaluation
costs will be capped while, at the same time, be well within the expected costs of review and
evaluation which, I believe,should be significantly less than that for cell towers.
I would also recommend that applicant's be required to pay for the first three (3) hours of
review and evaluation at the time of application. They could then be billed for any remaining fees
before final approval of the application is made. Requiring a fee at the time of application tend to
eliminate those who may not be seriously interested in pursuing a telecommunications franchise.
As time goes on and several telecommunications franchise applications have been reviewed,
both in Ithaca and in other municipalities, City staff may find that a$50 per hour application fee is
too low, or too high, for the time involved. If so, a resolution amending the application fee would
be appropriate. I have attached a proposed resolution for the consideration of the Committee and am
available to answer any questions the Committee may have. Also, I plan to attend the B&A
Committee meeting on April 30, 2003.
PC: Alan J. Cohen,Mayor
Norma W. Schwab, City Attorney
Steven Thayer, Controller
Duane Twardokus,Director,IT
4
RESOLUTION 2003-
A resolution to set an application fee for the review of telecommunications franchise
applications.
WHEREAS, Common Council adopted a Telecommunications Ordinance in November,
2002 (Chapter 152, Article H, of the Code of the City of Ithaca), and
WHEREAS, Section 152-33 of the Telecommunications Ordinance requires that
telecommunications service providers desirous of providing telecommunications services in the City
apply for a franchise, and
WHEREAS, Section 152-33.D(1) of the Telecommunications Ordinance states "for any
applications for any telecommunications Franchise, the City shall prepare an application form....",
and
WHEREAS, Section 152-33.D(1)of the Telecommunications Ordinance also provides for
an application fee to be submitted with the application, and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney's Office is now in the process of preparing a
telecommunications franchise application form, and
WHEREAS, review and evaluation of telecommunications franchise applications will
require time on the part of City staff, and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the time City staff utilizes in the review and evaluation
of said applications be reimbursed to the City by the applicant,
WHEREAS,it is also appropriate that if expertise beyond that of City staff is required for
the review of all, or any part, of a telecommunications franchise application, the cost of said
expertise be reimbursed to the City by the applicant, and
WHEREAS, it is prudent to set a reasonable maximum on a franchise application fee,
NOW,THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby determines that
the application fee for a telecommunications franchise application be fifty($50.00)dollars per hour
for in-house review and evaluation of the application, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the first three (3) hours of review and evaluation
($150)be paid at the time of application, and
K:\DUNK\Telecommunications\TelecomFeeResolution.doc
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that all costs beyond that of the in-house review be borne
by the applicant, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum franchise fee application shall not
exceed ten thousand($10,000) dollars, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Attorney's Office is authorized to include
a fee of fifty($50.00) dollars per hour for review and evaluation of the application, with an initial
payment of one hundred fifty($150) dollars for the first three(3)hours, in the application form as
well as a requirement that all costs beyond the in-house review fee be borne by the applicant,up to
a maximum of ten thousand($10,000) dollars.
K:\DUNN\Telecommunications\TelecomFeeResolution.doc
Six Mile Creek
Riparian Corridor Restoration Program
o d ° a
W '—�. — _ p
0 17
CL
eb
a o
R ° a : 3 O a o
o
zr
' High
River
Stage
Low River
Stage
floodplain Natural Main
Bluff I lake I Levee Slough l'island I Channel I Backwater Lake I Bluff
Floodplain Fioodplain
Program:Forest Stewardship(Watershed and aeon Water Action) Title of project:Six Mile Creek Riparian Buffers
USDA Project:Six Mile Creek Riparian Restoration Project Restoration Program
CFDA:10.664
Grant No.:01-DG-11244225-020 Agreement Humber.0006223
Riparian Corridor Restoration Benefits
❖ Sediment load reduction
❖ Reduction in THMs and other DBPs precursors
1
Budget Summary
Grant Amount Matching Required Funds
NY Dept of State $153,000 $98K Federal,$55K Land acq. $55,000
US Forest Service $98,000 $83K land acq.&$315K in kind $83,000
Totals $251,000 Land acquisition total= $138;000
Silt loss potential
6 0 6 Miles
i
N
A
Sedmntl s whp
-Group 1:Severe kcal Impact,severe lake Impact
Group 2:Severe local impact,moderate lake Impact -
Grp 3:Moderate local impact,moderate lake impact
Q Group 4:Moderate local Impact,low lake impact
NA
2
Six Mile Leek
12500 6000 ?
10000
7500
5000 5000
2500
t
500 4000
-a • Flow[CU ft/month)
400 3000
4 300
t9 2000
200
100 1000
0 0
811/96 1211196 4/1/97 811/97 12/1197 4/1198 811198
Date
Six Mile Creek Critical Areas
j 200 R Buffer
I ��� �ICI I I�I��" '•
s
Legend
WabaM1mJ Ba:nlav .T"'
1Yahx d
amo._a�am.+arv+co -
Roada ap
-sammrr�
lN
C 025 0.5 1 1 1.5
Model
Erosion Risk=Soil Erosion Risk+Slope Risk+Land Use Risk
3
fad r
r�
t
� r
.4
t -
I
cnwuxo wxoncasmu ..x.amwxFar s�s...o.rw ..x.omroxsr 'i..os ..v.we
raesr mxn
a�a h.ao ma wow i�
nw�cea e.,znm mm.m . �
,,,,,e,�e sew�utt�w... �v�a�ore*.x.ww•�
Riparian Buffer Width Benefits
human land use
stream
I I I I I I I
100' 150' 200' 250' 300'
bank stabilization
fisheries habitat
nutrient removal
sediment control
flood control
wildlife habitat ;,
4
J
SIX MILE CREEK PROJECTS TIMEFRAME
_ .............. - _
a i
iwirwwawnaoapi I
wrtiw. i
r � r�r�a errr i
I
i1 nw�4Y�
a varcaVapwwmDDS I
i_i �ar�sra
moarrau..•a..,
.� SWtlta�mnl�aa•aasj
16.� fr�eiawlYO�w '
id'' m.wmsom..�tahi
�u+.ren..wn I
m.a.or.u..�cm
o.rm.o.e..rw�
mi�c..nw.c
a'3 �rom.s,mil
rc�
or.rn��
Stakeholders
s
4• Six Mile Creek Partnership
City of Ithaca(Planning,Natural Areas Commission,IWP)
Town of Ithaca and Dryden(Conservation Advisory Councils),
Caroline(Caroline Watersheds Commission),
Finger Lakes Land Trust,and the Departments of
Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering of Cornell University
•'r US Fish and Wildlife Service
NY DEC Forestry
:•Arnot Forest
Tompkins County Planning Department
5
r
�,,,•
,r "
RESOLUTION 2003-
Iv
A resolution to set an application fee for the review of telecommunications franchise
applications.
WHEREAS, Common Council adopted a Telecommunications Ordinance in November,
2002 (Chapter 152, Article H, of the Code of the City of Ithaca), and
WHEREAS, Section 152-33 of the Telecommunications Ordinance requires that
telecommunications service providers desirous of providing telecommunications services in the City
apply for a franchise, and
WHEREAS, Section 152-33.D(1) of the Telecommunications Ordinance states "for any
applications for any telecommunications Franchise,the City shall prepare an application form....",
and
WHEREAS, Section 152-33.D(1)of the Telecommunications Ordinance also provides for
an application fee to be submitted with the application, and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney's Office is now in the process of preparing a
telecommunications franchise application form, and
WHEREAS, review and evaluation of telecommunications franchise applications will
require time on the part of City staff, and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the time City staff utilizes in the review and evaluation
of said applications be reimbursed to the City by the applicant,
WHEREAS,it is also appropriate that if expertise beyond that of City staff is required for
the review of all, or any part, of a telecommunications franchise application, the cost of said
expertise be reimbursed to the City by the applicant, and
WHEREAS, it is prudent to set a reasonable maximum on a franchise application fee,
NOW,THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED,that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereb determines that
the application fee for a telecommunications franchise application be fi ) Lars per hour
for in-house review and evaluation of the application, and �, P-JR 4� C)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the first three (3) hours of review and evaluation
($150)be paid at the time of application, and � &�-*.
DUNN\Telecommunications\TelecomFeeResolution.doc
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that all costs beyond that of the in-house review be borne
by the applicant, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum franchise fee application shall not
exceed ten thousand($10,000) dollars, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Attorney's Office is authorized to include
a fee of fifty($50.00) dollars per hour for review and evaluation of the application, with an initial
payment of one hundred fifty($150)dollars for the first three(3)hours,in the application form as
well as a requirement that all costs beyond the in-house review fee be borne by the applicant,up to
a maximum of ten thousand($10,000)dollars.
K:\DUNN\Telecommunications\TelecomFeeResolution.doc
i
I�
Youth Bureau - Request to Amend 2003 Budget
WHEREAS, the Youth Bureau will be receiving additional revenue
from the Recreation Partnership in the amount of $3 , 346 . 00 for
lacrosse equipment in order to comply with National Operating
Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment standards; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2003 Youth
Bureau budget as follows :
Increase Revenue :
Account A7310-2350-1537 Lacrosse $3 , 346 . 00
Increase Appropriation:
Account A7310-5460-1537 Program supplies $3 , 346 . 00
i
(0
DPW - Request to Amend Authorization for Capital Project #425
Traffic Signal Upgrade, Phase I
WHEREAS, a Project for Traffic Signal Upgrade ("the Project" ) ,
is eligible for funding under Title 23 U. S. Code as administered
by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA" ) , as amended, that
calls for the apportionment of the costs of such program to be
borne at the ration of 80% Federal funds and 20% non-federal
funds, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca desires to advance the Project by
making a commitment of 100% of the non-federal share of the
costs of Scoping, Design (Phases I-VI) , Construction, and
Construction Inspection; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends Capital Project 425
"Traffic Signal Upgrade - Phase I" by an amount of $582, 000 for
said project, and be it further
a
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby requests the City of Ithaca
to pay in the first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal
share of the cost of Scoping, Design (Phases I-VI) ,
r Construction, and Construction Inspection for the Project or
portions thereof, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby recommends that the sum of
$582, 000 be appropriated from the issuance of Bonds (or
appropriate in-kind services) and made available to cover the
l cost of participation in the above phase of the Project, and be
it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby recommends in the event the
full federal and non-federal share costs of the project exceeds
the amount appropriated above, Common Council of the City of
Ithaca shall convene as soon as possible to appropriate said
excess amount immediately upon the notification by the NYSDOT
thereof, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby recommends that the Mayor
of the City of Ithaca of the County of Tompkins be and is hereby
authorized to sign all necessary Agreements with NYSDOT to
secure Federal Aid and Marchiselli Aid on behalf of the City of
Ithaca and the Superintendent of Public Works be authorized to
1N ems, ftf CG'77 C ,-6 tv di-, MAI& ► ° J .c moo,
1�0e cwd C Q �9at Cf �/•+ T 171J, t fi t r �rzt.du 1 y �C
�Uof? ff� X13°�°��UQk
sign all necessary construction documents, contracts,
certifications and reimbursement requests, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this project be undertaken with the understanding
that the final cost of the City of Ithaca will be roughly five
percent (5%) of the final approved project cost, currently
estimated at $35, 600 of the $712, 000 authorized for Phase I of
this project, in monies and in-kind services, as managed by the
Superintendent of Public Works and monitored by the City of
Ithaca Controller, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the
Superintendent of Public Works to administer the above project,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution shall take effect immediately,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That said funds be derived from the issuance of Serial
Bonds with later reimbursement from Federal/State Aid.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Public Works
FROM: D Cole,Traffic Systems Engineer
RE: Request to Amend Capital Project 425
DATE: April 4,2003
Construction estimates have been received from the consultant Sear-Brown for the
Traffic Signal upgrade. The Phase I construction costs are estimated at$484,000
resulting in a total capital project of$712,000. Of these funds,the city will be
responsible for$35,600.
The updated cost estimate is as follows:
Design $130,000
Construction $484,000 1300
V�
Construction Inspection $98,000 kb p 0
TOTAL $712,000
The federal government will pay 80%,the state 15%, and the City of Ithaca will be
responsible for 5%of the total as shown below:
Federal 80% $569,000
State 15% $106,800
City of Ithaca 5% $ 35,600
Therefore,I request that Capital Project#425 be amended to the amount of$712,000.
Region 3 PPM Group 315-428-4417 p• 1
Post-it"Fax Note 7671 Date ��.�$-p� Pages
To '�� �� From
Co./Dept. c� �-ti:acq Co. N CSC
S EAR• B R O W N Phones ( CA_'Z-I Lt.c053 S Phone* 315.`kz er
Faxs (0 71-1.�SY'� Fax 'JiJ .'\2'�r: `E`t\�
Memo
TO: William J. Gray, P.E., City Engineer
FROM: Carl W. Ast,P.E.
DATE: 9/23/2002
SUBJECT: DESIGN APPROVAL REQUEST MEMO
P.I.N. 3752.58
TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE PROJECT
CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY
Location and Cost
This project proposes to upgrade twenty-three traffic signals and interconnect twenty-one traffic signals
in the downtown area of the City of Ithaca. The Traffic signals are on local roads, urban collectors and
urban arterials. The urban arterials and collectors are on the federal-aid National Highway System.
Maintenance of the traffic signal system will continue to be the responsibility of the City of Ithaca. There
are 10 traffic signals on State Route 79 and 96B that are maintained by the City of Ithaca under agreement
with NYSDOT. The total project is estimated to be $1.929 M for the traffic signal system. The design
approval request is for this total project. The approved current work program cost is $0.500 M for
construction and$0.020 M for right-of-way.
The project will be divided into three phases as outlined in Tables 13, 14, and 15 of the attached Scope
Summary Memorandum /Final Design Report (SSM/FDR). The first phase will be constructed in the
2002/2003 construction season and includes the traffic signal equipment upgrade at three intersections
on Buffalo Street (Intersections # 7, 9, and 10) and one intersection on Clinton Street(#26). Also, new
poles, heads, and detection at four intersections on State Street(# 15, 16, 17 & 18), and a controller and
cabinet replacement at one intersection on Clinton Street (#27). The phase one cost is estimated at
$0.507 M for construction with no right-of-way acquisition. This phase will be funded with a
combination of federal (STP-Small Urban), state, and local funds.
Alternate Description
The preferred alternative is the Decentralized or Closed-Loop System that includes upgrade of the
obsolete traffic signal equipment including poles, heads, pullboxes, conduit, and controller replacement;
installation of fiber optic communication system; and the Closed-Loop System master controller,
computer and software. The projcct will be constructed in three phases. The preferred alternative is
described in detail in the attached SSM/FDR, dated June 7, 2002.
Standards & Design Exceptions
The design is consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the City of Ithaca
Traffic Signal standards that includes the replacement of span pole design with mast arms. The project
area is characterized as small urban. There is a 30 mph posted, regulatory speed limit on all City streets.
Traffic Control Plans
Traffic will be maintained during construction throughout the project area. Generally, the existing
traffic signal will be maintained while the replacement signal is installed or the existing signal is
modified. In some cases, in order to keep the work within the right-of-way,traffic signal equipment will
need to be removed and replaced in the same location. In this case, the City will opt to provide a
I Region 3 PPM Group 315-428-4417 p, l
f
Post-it"Fax Note 7671 Date pages
i To —7 Cc��� From
ICo./Dept. ��:c,cq Co. tv'(S�CT�
S EAR TR WN Phone k tzc� 11'1 X53 phone N 7:3
Fax# Z Y FaxN
I Memo
ITO: William J, Gray, P.E., City Engineer
FROM: Carl W. Ast, P.E.
DATE: 9/23/2002
SUBJECT: DESIGN APPROVAL REQUEST MEMO
P.I.N. 3752.58
TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE PROJECT
CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY
Location and Cost
This project proposes to upgrade twenty-three traffic signals and interconnect twenty-one traffic signals
in the downtown area of the City of Ithaca. The Traffic signals are on local roads, urban collectors and
urban arterials. The urban arterials and collectors are on the federal-aid National Highway System.
Maintenance of the traffic signal system will continue to be the responsibility of the City of Ithaca. There
are 10 traffic signals on State Route 79 and 96B that are maintained by the City of Ithaca under agreement
with NYSDOT. The total project is estimated to be $1.929 M for the traffic signal system. The design
approval request is for this total project. The approved current work program cost is $0.500 M for
construction and $0-020 M for right-of-way.
The project will be divided into three phases as outlined in Tables 13, 14, and 15 of the attached Scope
Summary Memorandum /Final Design Report (SSM/FDR). The first phase will be constructed in the
2002/2003 construction season and includes the traffic signal equipment upgrade at three intersections
on Buffalo Street (Intersections # 7, 9, and 10) and one intersection on Clinton Street(#26). Also, new
poles, heads, and detection at four intersections on State Street (# 15, 16, 17 & 18), and a controller and
cabinet replacement at one intersection on Clinton Street (#27). The phase one cost is estimated at
$0.507 M for construction with no right-of-way acquisition. This phase will be funded with a
combination of federal (STP-Small Urban), state, and local funds.
Alternate Description
The preferred alternative is the Decentralized or Closed-Loop System that includes upgrade of the
obsolete traffic signal equipment including poles, heads, pullboxes, conduit, and controller replacement;
installation of fiber optic communication system; and the Closed-Loop System master controller,
computer and software. The project will be constructed in three phases. The preferred alternative is
described in detail in the attached SSM/FDR, dated June 7, 2002.
Standards & Design Exceptions
The design is consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the City of Ithaca
Traffic Signal standards that includes the replacement of span pole design with mast arms. The project
area is characterized as small urban. There is a 30 mph posted, regulatory speed limit on all City streets.
Traffic Control Plans
Traffic will be maintained during construction throughout the project area. Generally, the existing
traffic signal will be maintained while the replacement signal is installed or the existing signal is
modified. In some cases, in order to keep the work within the right-of-way, traffic signal equipment will
need to be removed and replaced in the same location. In this case, the City will opt to provide a
1
i
m9l SEAR-BROWN
TRANS_ E
SCOPE SUMMARY MEMORANDUM / FINAL DESIGN REPORT
City Of Ithaca Traffic Signal Upgrade Project
I Twenty-Seven Intersections in the Downtown Area
P.I.N. 3752.58
City Of Ithaca, Tompkins County
June 6, 2002
f
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the project scope and request design approval.
INTRODUCTION
Project Identification
The City of Ithaca operates and maintains some fifty-eight traffic signals within the City limits on both
State and City streets. The focus of this study is the evaluation and upgrade of twenty-seven traffic
signals in the Downtown area bounded by Corn Street to the west, Court Street to the north, Clinton
Street to the south and Aurora Street to the east plus the East State Street/Seneca Way intersection.
The twenty-seven intersections are shown in Figure 1 and include:
1. W. Court Street/N. Plain Street 15. W. State Street/ Corn Street
2. W. Court Street/N. Cayuga Street 16. W. State Street/N. Plain Street
3. E. Court Street/N. Tioga Street 17. W. State Street/N. Albany Street
4. E. Court Street/N Aurora Street 18. W. State Street/N. Geneva Street
5. W. Buffalo Street/N. Plain Street 19. W. State Street/N. Cayuga Street
6. W. Buffalo Street/N. Albany Street 20. E. State Street/N. Aurora Street
7. W. Buffalo Street/N. Geneva Street 21. E. State Street/Seneca Way
8. W. Buffalo Street/N. Cayuga Street 22. W. Green Street/S. Plain Street
9. E. Buffalo Street/N. Tioga Street 23. W. Green Street/S. Albany Street
10. E. Buffalo Street/N. Aurora Street 24. W. Green Street/S. Cayuga Street
11. W. Seneca Street/N. Albany Street 25. E. Green Street/Municipal Parking Lot
12. W. Seneca Street/N. Cayuga Street 26. W. Clinton Street/S. Albany Street
13. W. Seneca Street/N. Tioga Street 27. W. Clinton Street/S. Cayuga Street
14. E. Seneca Street/N. Aurora Street
These twenty-seven traffic signals have many obsolete or operationally deficient components and the
City of Ithaca have been granted funds to upgrade these traffic signals. City officials are concerned
about traffic flow through the City and the ability to provide an environment safe for motorists, as
well as, pedestrian and bicycle safety. Due to the close proximity of these signalized intersections,
coordination between the traffic signals is imperative to meet the project objective..
Scope Summary Memorandum/Final Design Report Page 1
PIN 3752.58
m
ONE
ANN
loot V.
Elm
Sm
9 ME
m
FIN
Unit Cost Unit Qty ital Qty Total Qty Total Qty
I. Intersection Upgrades
Upgrade Controllers/Cabinets $15,000 Ea 1 $15,000 1 $15,000 0 $0 0 $0
Upgrade to Mast Arm Poles(1) $6,000 Ea Mast 40 $240,000 16 $96,000 24 $144,000 0 $0
Install Mast arms on existing foundation $4,500 Ea Mast 16 $72,000 16 $72,000 0 $0 0 $0
Upgrade Vehicle Signals(2) $1,900 Ea Hd 120 $228,000 64 $121,600 56 $106,400 0 $0
Upgrade Ped Poles $2,000 Ea 6 $12,000 1 $2,000 5 $10,000 0 $0
Upgrade Ped Signals&Ped Buttons $900 Ea Pole 125 $112,500 65 $58,500 60 $54,000 0 $0
Upgrade Power $500 Ea 15 $7,500 9 $4,500 6 $3,000 0 $0
Upgrade/Install Detectors $750 Ea Loop 51 $38,250 19 $14,250 32 $24,000 0 $0
Upgrade/Install Conduit $75 LF 1,650 $123,750 600 $45,000 1,050 $78,750 0 $0
Upgrade/Install Pullboxes $750 Ea 44 $33,000 16 $12,000 28 $21,000 0 $0
$882,000 $440,850 $441,150 $0
11. Interconnect Upgrade(Comm Alt 2-A)
Install Interconnect conduit $35 LF 3460 $121,100 0 $0 0 $0 3460 $121,100
Install Interduct conduit $1.40 LF 16171 $22,639 0 $0 0 $0 16171 $22,639
Install Pullboxes for interconnect $840 Ea 6 $5,040 0 $0 0 $0 6 $5,040
Cleanout existing conduit $1.00 LF 7350 $7,350 0 $0 0 $0 7350 $7,350
Install Fiber Optic Cable(24 fiber) $3.00 LF 10810 $32,430 0 $0 0 $0 10810 $32,430
Remove and Replace IFD alarm cable $3.00 LF 7818 $23,454 0 $0 0 $0 7818 $23,454
Fiber Optic Splice $800 Ea 7 $5,600 0 $0 0 $0 7 $5,600
Transceiver for Fiber Optic $850 Ea 22 $18,700 0 $0 0 $0 22 $18,700
$236,313 $0 $0 $236,313
Ill. System Upgrades
Replace Controllers $10,000 Ea 9 $90,000 0 $0 0 $0 9 $90,000
Replace Cabinets&Controllers $15,000 Ea 12 $180,000 0 $0 0 $0 12 $180,000
Master Controller $15,000 Ea 1 $15,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $15,000
Install System Loop Detectors $750 Ea 12 $9,000 0 $0 0 $0 12 $9,000
Modems $500 Ea 2 $1,000 0 $0 0 $0 2 $1,000
PC and office peripherals $5,000 Ea 1 $5,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $5,000
Additional Fiber Optic Cable $3.00 LF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Closed-Loop Software $10,000 Ea 1 $10,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $10,000
Central Computer Hardware and Software $50,000 Ea 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
$310,000 $0 $0, $310,000
SUBTOTALS(I-111) $1,428,313 $440,850 $441,150 $546,313
Contingency 10•/ $142,831 $44,085 $44,115 $54,631
Mobilization/Traffic Maintenance 5% $71,416 $22,043 $22,058 $27,316
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $1,642,560 $506,978 1 $507,323 $628,260
Timing Plan Development [3] $2,000 Ea Loc 21 $42,000 0 $0 0 $0 21 $42,000
Design Engineering 10% $142,831 $44,085 $44,115 $54,631-"
System Testing/Engineering $20,000 LS 1 $20,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $20,000
Training $5,000 LS 2 $10,000 0 $0 0.5 $2,504 1.5 $7,500
Construction Observation 5% $71,416 $22,043 I $22,058 $27,316
TOTAL ENGINEERING $286,247 $66,128 $68,673 $151,447
PROJECT TOTALS $1,928,807 $573,105 $575,995 $779,707
Assumptions SAY $1,929,000 $574,000 $576,000 $780,000
(1) Includes the concrete foundation
(2) Includes cable,signs,and hardware.
(3) Includes 3 time periods and 75°/.of turning movement counts supplied.
Table 15 Phased Implementation Probable Cost
DPW - Request to Amend Authorization for Capital Project 460
Stewart Avenue Bridge over Fall Creek
WHEREAS, a Project rehabilitation of Stewart Avenue Bridge over
Fall Creek ("the Project" ) , is eligible for funding under Title
23 U. S . Code as administered by the Federal Highway
Administration (" FHWA" ) , as amended that calls for the
apportionment of the costs of such program to be borne at the
ratio of 80% Federal funds and approximately 14% of non-federal
funds, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca desires to advance the Project by
making a commitment of 100% of the non-federal share of the
costs of Scoping, Design (Phases I-VI) , Construction, and
Construction Inspection; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends Capital Project 460
" Stewart Avenue Bridge over Fall Creek, Construction Phase" by
{ the amount of $1, 930, 000, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby requests the City of Ithaca
to pay in the first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal
share of the cost of Scoping, Design (Phases I-VI) ,
Construction, and Construction Inspection for the Project or
portions thereof, and be it further
r
7
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby recommends that the sum of
$1, 930, 000 be appropriated from the issuance of Bonds (or
appropriate in-kind services) and made available to cover the
cost of participation in the above phase of the Project, and be
it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby recommends in the event the
full federal and non-federal share costs of the project exceeds
the amount appropriated above, Common Council of the City of
Ithaca shall convene as soon as possible to appropriate said
excess amount immediately upon the notification by the NYSDOT
thereof, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council recommends that the Mayor of the
City of Ithaca of the County of Tompkins be and is hereby
authorized to sign all necessary Agreements with NYSDOT to
secure Federal Aid and Marchiselli Aid on behalf of the City of
JUN
Ithaca and the Superintendent of Public Works be authorized to
sign all necessary construction documents, contracts,
certifications and reimbursement requests, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this project be undertaken with the understanding
that the final cost of the City of Ithaca will be roughly 6 .48%
of the final approved project cost, currently estimated at
$138, 700 of the $2, 141, 000 authorized for this project, in
monies and in-kind services, as managed by the Superintendent of
Public Works and monitored by the City of Ithaca Controller, and
be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council authorizes the Superintendent of
Public Works to administer the above project, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution shall take effect immediately,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That said funds be derived from the issuance of Serial
Bonds with later reimbursement from Federal/State Aid.
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Public Works
Common Council
Budget and Administration Committee
i
From: Hernando Gil,Bridge Systems Engineer
Ref: Stewart Ave. Bridge over Fall Creek Rehabilitation Project, Cost Updated
Date: April 4,2003
On June 5, 2002,the City of Ithaca Common Council authorized the Capital
Project 460 in the amount of$ 211,00.00 for the design phase of the rehabilitation of the
Stewart Ave. Bridge over Fall Creek
On March 28, 2003,the Department of Public Works received the construction
cost estimate in the amount of$ 1,830,000
The up dated cost estimated is:
000 O
Design $ 211,000
Construction $ 1,830,000 1 -Ln
Construction Inspection $ 100,000 >'
TOTAL $ 2,141.000
The federal government will pay 80%,the state government 13.52% and the City of
Ithaca 6.48%. _
Federal 80% $ 1,712,800
State 13.52% $ 289,500
City of Ithaca 6.48% $ 138,700
I request the capital project 460 be re-authorized in the amount of $2,141,000
DPW/Water & Sewer - Approval of Amendment to Tertiary Phosphorus
Removal Upgrade Project at IAWWTP
WHEREAS, as part of City and Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment
Plant (IAWWTP) 2002 authorized Budget, Common Council approved a
$3, 000, 000 Capital Project for Phosphorus Removal at the IAWWTP,
and
WHEREAS, the design and environmental review of the Tertiary
Phosphorus Removal Upgrade at the wastewater treatment plant are
now complete, and
WHEREAS, the municipal owners collectively wish to move forward
in a favorable bidding climate to construction to enable the
wastewater plant to further enhance its treatment capability by
increased removal of phosphorus from a current performance limit
of 0 . 75mg/l to a future 0 .2mg/l twelve-month rolling average,
and
WHEREAS, to date $2 , 771, 000 of a projected $4, 115, 000 project
cost has been committed by the New York State DEC from 1996 Bond
Act funds; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby recommends the amendment to
Capital Project 409J Tertiary Phosphorus Removal Upgrade at the
IAWWTP in the amount of $1, 115, 000 for a total project
authorization of $4 , 115, 000, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council authorizes this project contingent
upon action by all the wastewater plant partners committing
their fair percentage reimbursement shares of the net cost to
the Joint Activity in the following amounts :
Municipality % Projected Projected Net After
Total Bond Act Reimburse-
Ment
City of Ithaca 57 . 15% $2 , 351, 722 . 50 $768, 096
Town of Ithaca 40 . 87% $1, 681, 800 . 50 $549, 292 .80
Town of Dryden 1 . 98% $ 81, 477 $ 26, 611 .20
and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby recommends financing this
project through local temporary BANS and permanent bonding under
the NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation or in any such
other manner as the City Controller, in partnership with the
wastewater plant owners, may recommend within the Joint Activity
portion of the City financing, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby recommends acceptance of
the proposed engineering services agreement Amendment No. 1 for
advertising and construction services related to this project in
the amount of a cost-not-to-exceed $235, 000 once the Capital
Project has been approved, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the award of the construction contract is
contingent upon approval from the State on an approved work
plan.
Stearns & Wheler, LLC
Environmental Engineers and Scientists AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF ITHACA,TOWN OF ITHACA, TOWN OF DRYDEN, NEW YORK
AND
STEARNS & WHELER,LLC
WHEREAS, Stearns & Wheler, LLC (ENGINEER) and the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, and Town of
Dryden, New York (OWNERS) entered into an Agreement dated January 29, 2002, to perform
professional engineering services required in connection with the selection and final design of treatment
facilities for advanced phosphorus removal (effluent limit of 0.2 mg/L) at the Ithaca Area Wastewater
Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS, ENGINEER has prepared final design documents consisting of Contract Documents
(Specifications) and Contract Drawings dated September 2002, for construction of said treatment
facilities for advanced phosphorus removal in accordance with said Agreement; and
WHEREAS, OWNERS desire to proceed with bidding and construction of the proposed tertiary
phosphorus removal upgrade project as described in the Contract Documents and Contract Drawings
prepared by ENGINEER.
NOW, THEREFORE, ENGINEER and OWNERA agree to amend the Agreement to include Bidding
Phase and Construction Phase Services.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Bidding Phase
1. Advertisement for Bids. Assist OWNERS in advertising for and obtaining bids for construction.
Based on the bidding of three (3) construction contracts, ENGINEER shall provide up to fifty (50)
sets of Contract Documents with fifty(50) sets of reduced-size Contract Drawings and ten(10) sets
of full-size Contract Drawings for use by OWNERS during bidding. In addition, ENGINEER shall
receive and process deposits for Bid Documents, maintain a record of prospective bidders to whom
Bid Documents have been issued, and attend a prebid conference with prospective bidders.
2. Issue Addenda. Issue addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify, or expand the Bidding
Documents.
3. Tabulation and Review of Bids. Attend the bid opening, tabulate bids received, and assist
OWNERS in evaluating bids and in assembling and awarding contracts.
W:\WordprocU ib\Agrecmcnts\Amendments\H-M\City-Town Ithaca,Dryden Amend#I 10284.doc
Stearns&Wheler
AMENDMENT NO. 1
306 CITY OF ITHACA,TOWN OF ITHACA,TOWN OF DRYDEN,NEW YORK
(PAGE 2)
Construction Phase
1. General Administration of Construction Contracts. ENGINEER shall consult with and advise
OWNERS and act as OWNERS' representative as provided in the Standard General Conditions of
the Construction Contract. The extent and limitations of the duties, responsibilities and authority of
ENGINEER as assigned in said Standard General Conditions shall not be modified except as
ENGINEER may otherwise agree in writing. All of OWNERS' instructions to Contractor(s) will be
issued through ENGINEER who will have authority to act on behalf of OWNER to the extent
provided in said Standard General Conditions.
2. Site Visits and Observation of Construction. ENGINEER shall make visits to the site at
appropriate intervals as ENGINEER deems necessary in order to observe as an experienced and
qualified design professional the progress and quality of the various aspects of Contractor(s)'work.
In addition, ENGINEER shall provide the services of a Resident Project Representative at the
project site to assist ENGINEER and provide more continuous observation of such work. The
services of the Resident Project Representative are based on a level of effort of 520 labor hours
over a 15-month construction duration.
The Resident Project Representative will be ENGINEER's agent or employee and under
ENGINEER's supervision. The duties and responsibilities of the Resident Project Representative
are set forth in Exhibit A, "Duties, Responsibilities and Limitation of Authority of Resident Project
Representative" which will be made a part of the Construction Contract Documents.
The purpose of ENGINEER's visits to and representation by the Resident Project Representative at
the site will be to enable ENGINEER to better carry out the duties and responsibilities assigned to
ENGINEER during the Construction Phase, and, in addition, by exercise of ENGINEER's efforts
as an experienced and qualified design professional, to provide for OWNERS a greater degree of
confidence that the completed work of Contractor(s) will conform generally to the Contract
Documents and that the integrity of the design concept has been implemented and preserved by
Contractor(s). ENGINEER shall not, during such visits or as a result of such observations of
Contractor(s)' work in progress, supervise, direct or have control over Contractor(s)'work nor shall
ENGINEER have authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences or
procedures of construction selected by Contractor(s), for safety precautions and programs incident
to the work of Contractor(s) or for any failure of Contractor(s) to comply with laws, rules,
regulations, ordinances, codes or orders applicable to Contractor(s) furnishing and performing their
work. Accordingly, ENGINEER can neither guarantee the performance of the construction
contracts by Contractor(s) nor assume responsibility for Contractor(s)' failure to furnish and
perform their work in accordance with the Contract Documents.
3. Defective Work. ENGINEER may notify OWNER to reject Contractor(s)' work while it is in
progress if ENGINEER believes that such work will not produce a completed Project that
conforms generally to the Contract Documents or that it will prejudice the integrity of the design
concept of the Project as reflected in the Contract Documents.
W:\WordprocUlb\Agreco nts\A endments\H-M\City-Town Ithaca,Dryden Amend NI 10284.doc L�
Stearns&Wheler
AMENDMENT NO. 1
/ CITY OF ITHACA,TOWN OF ITHACA,TOWN OF DRYDEN,NEW YORK
(PAGE 3)
4. Clarifications, Interpretations, and Field Orders. ENGINEER shall issue necessary
clarifications and interpretations of the Contract Documents as appropriate to the orderly
completion of the work. Such clarifications and interpretations shall be consistent with the intent
of, and reasonably inferable from, the Contract Documents.
5. Change Orders and Work Change Directives. ENGINEER shall recommend Change Orders and
Work Change Directives to OWNERS as appropriate and shall prepare Change Orders and Work
Change Directives as required.
6. Shop Drawings and Other Submittals. ENGINEER shall review and approve (or take other
appropriate action) Shop Drawings, samples and other data which Contractor(s) are required to
submit, but only for conformance with the design concept of the project and compliance with the
information given in the Contract Documents. Such reviews and approvals or other action shall not
extend to means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction or to safety
precautions and programs incident thereto.
7. Substitutes. ENGINEER shall evaluate and determine the acceptability of substitute and "or
equal" materials and equipment proposed by contractors in accordance with the provisions of the
Contract Documents.
8. Concrete and Soil Testing. ENGINEER shall provide concrete and soil testing services, including
appropriate professional interpretations of test results, to aid ENGINEER in evaluating whether
work performed by Contractor(s) conforms to the Contract Documents.
9. Claims. ENGINEER shall act as initial interpreter of the requirements of the Contract Documents
and judge of the acceptability of the work thereunder and make decisions on all claims of
OWNERS and Contractor(s) relating to the acceptability of the work or the interpretation of the
requirements of the Contract Documents. ENGINEER shall not be liable for the results of any such
interpretations or decisions rendered in good faith.
10. Applications for Payment. ENGINEER shall determine the amounts owing to Contractor(s) and
recommend payments. Such recommendations will constitute a representation to OWNERS that
the work has progressed to the point indicated, and that, to the best of ENGINEER's knowledge,
information and belief, the quality of such work is generally in accordance with the Contract
Documents. By recommending payment, ENGINEER will not represent that exhaustive,
continuous or detailed reviews or examinations have been made by ENGINEER to check the
quality or quantity of Contractor(s) work. ENGINEER's review of Contractor(s)' work for the
purposes of recommending payments will not impose responsibility on ENGINEER to make any
examination to ascertain how or for what purposes any Contractor has used the moneys paid on
account of the Contract Price, or to determine that title to any of the work, materials or equipment
has passed to OWNERS free and clear of any lien, claims, security interests or encumbrances.
W:\WordprocUlb\Agreem nts\Anxndm is\H-M\City-Town Ithaca,Dryd=Attmd 41 10284.doc &
Stearns&Wheler
AMENDMENT NO. I
/ CITY OF ITHACA,TOWN OF ITHACA,TOWN OF DRYDEN,NEW YORK
(PAGE 4)
11. Operations and Maintenance Manual. ENGINEER shall prepare an4 Operations &Maintenance
Manual for the new tertiary phosphorus removal system. ENGINEER shall prepare and submit four
(4) copies of the Operations & Maintenance Manual in draft form for review and approval by
OWNERS. ENGINEER shall revise the draft Operation & Maintenance Manual, as necessary, to
address written review comments provided by OWNERS. ENGINEER shall submit five (5) copies
of the final Operations & Maintenance Manual for use by OWNERS. The draft Operations &
Maintenance Manual shall be submitted prior to the date of Substantial Completion.
12. Substantial Completion and Final Inspection. ENGINEER shall conduct an inspection to
determine if the work is substantially complete and a final inspection to determine if the completed
work is acceptable so that ENGINEER may recommend final payment to Contractor.
13. Limitations of Responsibilities. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of
any Contractor, or of any subcontractor or supplier, or any of the Contractor(s)' or subcontractor's
or supplier's agents or employees or any other persons (except ENGINEER's own employees and
agents) at the site or otherwise furnishing or performing any of the Contractor(s)' work.
PAYMENTS TO ENGINEER
For the Basic Services outlined in the above Scope of Services, or Additional Services, OWNERS shall
pay ENGINEER an hourly rate equal to ENGINEER's Salary Cost times a factor of 2.37 for all services
rendered by principals and employees engaged directly on the Project, plus reimbursable expenses at
cost.
The total cost for the Basic Services described above shall not exceed $235,000 without prior written
authorization of OWNERS. Written authorization to be in the form of a document signed by a
representative of the City of Ithaca and a joint representative of the Town of Ithaca and Town of Dryden.
ESTIMATED
TASK
COST
Bidding $24,800
Construction Administration $63,900
Shop Drawing Review $35,100
Resident Representative $55,700
Concrete and Soils Testing $10,600
Change Orders $7,900
Record Drawings $6,000
Operations &Maintenance Manual $16,700
Plant Startup $5,900
Guarantee Period Services $5,500
Project Closeout $2,900
Total Cost Not To Exceed $2359000
W:\WordprocVlblAgrmn=ts\Amendments\H-M\Cdy-Town Ithaca,Dryden Amend#1 10284A0c
Stearns&Wheler
AMENDMENT NO.1
/ CITY OF ITHACA,TOWN OF ITHACA,TOWN OF DRYDEN,NEW YORK
(PAGE 5)
PERIOD OF SERVICE
The Bidding Phase will commence upon acceptance by OWERS of ENGINEER's drawings,
specifications, and other Final Design Phase 'documentations, including the most recent opinion of
probable construction cost, and upon written authorization to proceed by OWNERS. The Bidding Phase
will terminate and the services to be performed for furnished thereunder will be considered complete
upon commencement of the Construction Phase, or upon cessation of negotiations with prospective
Contractor(s).
The Construction Phase will commence with the execution of construction contracts for the project, or
any part thereof, and will terminate upon written recommendation by ENGINEER of final payment,
ENGINEER's level of effort for performing the Basic Services described for the Construction Phase is
scoped for a fifteen-month (15) duration for all construction contracts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the
last date entered below.
ENGINEER: OWNER:
STEARNS & WHELER, LLC CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
By: C2,-aC C ' -- By:
Gerald C. Hook,P.E. Alan J. Cohen
Title: President/CEO Title: Mayor
Date: ` °3 Date:
TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK TOWN OF DRYDEN,NEW YORK
By: By:
Catherine Valentino Mark Varvayanis
Title: Supervisor Title: Supervisor
Date: Date:
GCHINGH/jlb
W.\WordprmVlblAgrecm nts\Amendments\H-WCity-Town Ithaca,Dryden Amend NI 10284.dcc
Stearns&Wheler
46 AMENDMENT NO.1
CITY OF ITHACA,TOWN OF ITHACA,TOWN OF DRYDEN,NEW YORK
(PAGE 6)
STATE OF NEW YORK )
SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
On this day of , 2003, before me, the subscriber, personally appeared Alan
J. Cohen, to me known and known to me to be the Mayor of the City of Ithaca, New York one of the
OWNERS described herein, and who executed the same on behalf of the OWNERS following formal
resolution of the dated , a copy of which is attached hereto.
Notary Public
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
On this day of 2003, before me, the subscriber, personally appeared
Catherine Valentino, to me known and known to me to be the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca, New
York one of the OWNERS described herein, and who executed the same on behalf of the OWNERS
following formal resolution of the dated , a copy of which is attached
hereto.
Notary Public
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
On this day of , 2003, before me, the subscriber, personally appeared Mark, to me
known and known to me to be the Supervisor of the Town of Dryden, New York one of the OWNERS
described herein, and who executed the same on behalf of the OWNER following formal resolution of
the dated , a copy of which is attached hereto.
Notary Public
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) SS:
COUNTY OF MADISON )
On this P't day of ' , 2003, before me, the subscriber, personally appeared Gerald C.
Hook, P.E., to me known and known to me to be the President/CEO of the firm of Stearns & Wheler,
LLC, the ENGINEER described herein, and who executed the same for the act and deed of said firm.
12x-
��L.���
140TARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK Notary Public
N0.01-BA6062052
QUALIFIED IN MADISON COUNTY
v'Y COMMISSION EXPIr'2ES 07 W20 05
W:\WordprocUlb'Agreen a ts�4, endn nts\H-M\City-Town Ithaca,Dryden Amend#I 10284.doc
Stearns&Wheler
EXHIBIT A
DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIMITATIONS
OF AUTHORITY OF RESIDENT PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE
Paragraph 1.01 C of the Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the
parties.
D6.02 RESIDENT PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE
A. ENGINEER shall furnish a part-time Resident Project Representative("RPR')to assist ENGINEER in
observing progress and quality of the work.
B. Through such additional observations of Contractor(s)'work in progress and field checks of materials
and equipment by the RPR and assistants,ENGINEER shall endeavor to provide further protection for
OWNERS against defects and deficiencies in the work. However,ENGINEER shall not,during such
visits or as a result of such observations of Contractor(s)' work in progress, supervise,direct,or have
control over the Contractor(s)' work nor shall ENGINEER have authority over or responsibility for the
means,methods,techniques,sequences,or procedures selected by Contractor(s),for safety precautions
and programs incident to the Contractor(s)' work in progress, for any failure of Contractor(s) to
comply with laws and regulations applicable to Contractor(s)'performing and furnishing the work,or
responsibility of construction for Contractor(s)' failure to furnish and perform the work in accordance
with the Contract Documents. In addition, the specific limitations set forth in Section A.I.05 of
Exhibit A of the Agreement are applicable.
C. The duties and responsibilities of the RPR are limited to those of ENGINEER in the Agreement with
OWNERS and in the Contract Documents, and are further limited and described as follows/
1. General.RPR is ENGINEER's agent at the site,will act as directed by and under the supervision
of ENGINEER, and will confer with ENGINEER regarding RPR's actions. RPR's dealings in
matters pertaining to the Contractor(s)' work in progress shall in general be with ENGINEER
and Contractor(s), keeping OWNERS advised on a periodic basis. RPR's dealings with
subcontractor(s)shall only be through or with the full knowledge and approval of Contractor(s).
RPR shall generally communicate with OWNERS with the knowledge of and under the direction
of ENGINEER.
2. Schedules.Review the progress schedule,schedule of Shop Drawing and sample submittals,and
schedule of values prepared by Contractor(s) and consult with ENGINEER concerning
acceptability.
3. Conferences and Meetings. Attend meetings with Contractor(s), such as preconstruction
conferences,progress meetings,job conferences and other project-related meetings,and prepare
and circulate copies of minutes thereof.
Page 1 of 4 Pages
W:\WordprocUl b\AgreerncntsWmendments\H-M\Exhibit A City-Town Ithaca,Dryden Arnend#1 10284.doc/jlb Stearns&Wheler
Companies
4. Liaison.
a. Serve as ENGINEER's liaison with Contractor(s), working principally through
Contractor(s)' superintendent and assist in understanding the intent of the Contract
Documents.
b. Assist ENGINEER in serving as OWNERS' liaison with Contractor(s)when Contractor(s)'
operations affect OWNERS' on-site operations.
c. Assist in obtaining from OWNERS additional details or information, when required for
proper execution of the work.
5. Interpretation of Contract Documents. Report to ENGINEER when clarifications and
interpretations of the Contract Documents are needed and transmit to Contractor(s)clarifications
and interpretations as issued by ENGINEER.
6. Shop Drawings and Samples.
a. Record date of receipt of samples and approved Shop Drawings.
b. Receive samples that are furnished at the site by Contractor(s), and notify ENGINEER of
availability of samples for examination.
C. Advise ENGINEER and Contractor(s) of the commencement of any portion of the work
requiring a Shop Drawing ors submittal for which RPR believes that ENGINEER has not
approved the submittal.
7. Modifications.Consider and evaluate Contractor(s)' suggestions for modifications in Drawings
or Specifications and report with RPR's recommendations to ENGINEER. Transmit to
Contractor(s) in writing decisions as issued by ENGINEER.
8. Review of Work and Rejection of Defective Work.
a. Conduct on-site observations of Contractor(s)' work in progress to assist ENGINEER in
determining if the work is in general proceeding in accordance with the Contract
Documents.
b. Report to ENGINEER whenever RPR believes that any part of Contractor(s)' work in
progress will not produce a completed Project that conforms generally to the Contract
Documents or will prejudice the integrity of the design concept of the completed project as
a functioning whole as indicated in the Contract Documents,or has been damaged,or does
not meet the requirements of any inspection, test or approval required to be made; and
advise ENGINEER of that part of work in progress that RPR believes should be corrected
or rejected or should be uncovered for observation,or requires special testing,inspection or
approval.
Page 2 of 4 Pages
W:\Wordproc\Jlb\Agreements\A. ndmcnts\H-M\Exhibit A City-Town Ithaca,Dryden Amend#110284.dodjlb Stearns&Wheler
Commies
9. Inspections, Tests and System Startups.
a. Consult with ENGINEER in advance of scheduled major inspections, tests, and systems
startups of important phases of the work.
b. Verify that tests,equipment,and systems startups and operating and maintenance training
are conducted in the presence of appropriate OWNERS'personnel,and that Contractor(s)
maintains adequate records thereof.
C. Observe, record, and report to ENGINEER appropriate details relative to the test
procedures and systems startups.
10. Reports.
a. Furnish to ENGINEER periodic reports as required of progress of the work.
b. Furnish to ENGINEER and OWNERS copies of all inspection, test, and system startup
reports.
d. Report immediately to ENGINEER the occurrence of any site accidents, any hazardous
environmental conditions,emergencies,or acts of God endangering the work,and property
damaged by fire or other causes while present on-site.
12. Payment Requests.Review Applications for Payment with Contractor(s)for compliance with
the established procedure for their submission and forward with recommendations to
ENGINEER, noting particularly the relationship of the payment requested to the schedule of
values,work completed,and materials and equipment delivered at the site but not incorporated in
the work.
13. Certificates,Operation and Maintenance Manuals.During the course of the work,verify that
materials and equipment certificates,operation and maintenance manuals and other data required
by the Specifications to be assembled and furnished by Contractor(s)are applicable to the items
actually installed and in accordance with the Contract Documents, and have these documents
delivered to ENGINEER for review and forwarding to OWNERS prior to payment for that part
of the work.
14. Completion.
a. Before ENGINEER issues a Certificate of Substantial Completion,submit to Contractor(s)
a list of observed items requiring completion or correction.
b. Participate in a final inspection in the company of ENGINEER, OWNERS, and
Contractor(s) and prepare a final list of items to be completed or corrected.
C. Observe whether all items on final list have been completed or corrected and make
recommendations to ENGINEER concerning acceptance and issuance of the Notice of
Acceptability of the Work.
Page 3 of 4 Pages A
W:\1VordprocUlb\Agreements\P.mcndr is\H-WExhbit A City-Town Ithaca,Dryden Amend#1 10284.doc/jlb Stearns&Wheler
Companies
D. Resident Project Representative Shall Not.
1. Authorize any deviation from the Contract Documents or substitution of materials or equipment
(including"or-equal" items).
2. Exceed limitations of ENGINEER's authority as set forth in the Agreement or the Contract
Documents.
3. Undertake any of the responsibilities of Contractor(s), subcontractor(s), supplier(s), or
Contractor(s)' superintendent.
4. Advise on,issue directions relative to,or assume control over any aspect of the means,methods,
techniques, sequences or procedures of Contractor(s)' work unless such advice or directions are
specifically required by the Contract Documents.
5. Advise on,issue directions regarding,or assume control over safety precautions and programs in
connection with the activities or operations of OWNERS or Contractor(s).
6. Participate in specialized field or laboratory tests or inspections conducted off-site by others
except as specifically authorized by ENGINEER.
7. Accept Shop Drawing or sample submittals from anyone other than Contractor(s).
8. Authorize OWNERS to occupy the project in whole or in part.
Page 4 of 4 Pages
W:\WordprocUlblAgrecm ntslArnendm nuVi-MNExhibit A City-Town Ithaca,Dryden Amend K 1102S4.dodjlb Stearns&W heler
Companies
r, q
V DPW/Water & Sewer - Request to Standardize on Prestressed
Concrete Water Tanks
WHEREAS, the Budget and Administration Committee of Common
Council has been requested by the Board Of Public Works to
standardize on Natgun Corporation prestressed concrete storage
tanks to be utilized within the City of Ithaca water
distribution system for mass storage, and to authorize the
Superintendent of Public Works to purchase such approved tanks
from the manufacturer, or a representative thereof, and
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the City for
reasons of economics, durability, and historical compatibility
to approve such standardization, as more fully spelled out in
the following items:
1 . The City of Ithaca presently has all Natgun Corporation
prestressed concrete water storage tanks;
2 . The least maintenance tanks are prestressed concrete water
storage tanks;
3 . This action will simplify any maintenance action that is
contracted for the concrete tanks;
4 . Based on recent estimating the cost savings of this
manufacturer of prestressed water storage tanks is over 25% in
the marketplace;
5 . Recent service requirements have demonstrated Natgun
Corporation committed service to products delivered over 39
years ago;
6 . Standardization provides the ability to have only one service
organization for a one-of-a-kind design and item, whereas third
party intermediaries would merely transfer the information from
the manufacturer; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That pursuant to Section 103, Subdivision 5 of the
General Municipal Law of the State of New York this Budget and
Administration Committee of Common Council authorizes the
standardization of Natgun Corporation prestressed concrete water
storage tanks to be used and purchased by the City of Ithaca
Department of Public Works during 2003 and 2004 .
Water & Sewer - Authorization to Sign Contracts for Grants with
the New York State Department of State and the U.S. Forestry
Service
WHEREAS, over the past five years staff has successfully
networked with multiple Federal, State, County, multi-municipal
and local municipal agencies to study the Six Mile Creek
Watershed toward the objective of reducing conditions that cause
extreme erosion, and
WHEREAS, the Six Mile Creek Watershed is the sole source for the
City water supply, which currently provides potable water to
more than 50% of the urbanized area including a resident service
population of 35, 000 and the commercial and governmental centers
of the County, and
WHEREAS, the largest source impairment to the lake and the
largest cost of maintaining the reservoir system and balancing
the ecology is the transport, deposition, and removal of
materials eroded from the Six Mile Creek watershed, and
WHEREAS, through the ongoing mitigating local commitments of on-
staff Water & Sewer Division scientific efforts of Jose Lozano,
Roxie Johnston, and Chuck Baker and the City land purchases in
the watershed associated with the Park Alienation process, the
City is in a position to partner with willing communities in the
watershed and leverage substantial grants from State and Federal
Sources, and
WHEREAS, two of the approved grant work plans with the New York
State Department of State and the U. S . Forestry Service have
been combined to further leverage the outside funding and
minimize local match to zero dollar additional budgeted funds
directed toward a complete inventory of erosion problems and
selected improvements to stabilize some of the worst third of
the watershed needs found within the 200 foot buffer zone to
either side of the stream in the length of the watershed; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the sources of funding are as follows : $153 , 000
from a State grant; $98, 000 from a Federal grant; and $55, 000
from the Local Share; and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to
sign contracts with both the New York State Department of State
and the U. S . Forestry Service including the professional
services contract with Ecologic to implement same, with the
understanding that the local share is covered by already
budgeted watershed activities and prior watershed land
purchases .
d
of Ithaca DPW .z W and S Division IWP and IAWWTF
�i
DOS Six Mile Creek Riparian buffers Restoration Program
Design., Construction Sub Totals
Salaries&Wages
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Supplies& Materials
Planting materials
and supplies $46,500.00 $46,500.00
Equipment
Computer $3,500.00 $3,500.00
Digital Clinometer $4,000.00 $4,000.00
Contractual
Site preparation $61,252.00 $61,252.00
EcoLogic $50,000.00 $58,748.00 $108,748.00
Outreach& Edu. $25,000.00 $25,000.00
GPS beacon signal $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Sub Totals $78,500.00 $172,500.00 $251,000.00
Other
Land acquisition $35,000.00
US FS $98,000.00
Monitoring $20,000.00
Local Share $55,000.00
Federal Funds $98,000.00
State Funds $153 OOW00.
TOTAL PROJECT COST= $306,000.00
Page 2 CIEL
1 ,
I
Environmental Laboratories s
525 Third St, Ithaca,NY 14850, (607)273-8381,Fax(607)273-8433,e-mail:JLL13 cornell.edu
Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Plant-Ithaca Water Plant
NELAP 10869,EPA NY00981,USGS certified
April 30, 2003
Six Mile Creek Projects Summary
The endorsement and approval of the B&A Committee and of Common Council is requested for
the project "Restoration of the Six Mile Creek Riparian Corridor". The funding for this project
comes from two grants, one from the US Forest Service, the second from the NY Department of
State, for a combined total of$251,000.00. The matching funds for these grants have been
provided by the City of Ithaca Planning Department through the Land Acquisition Fund, and from
in-kind services by City staff. No additional funding is required.
Background Information
Significant contributions have been made to the Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal
Organization, 10, by the City staff working at the laboratories. The reports"Preliminary Cayuga
Lake Watershed Characterization" and the"Cayuga Lake Watershed Restoration and Protection
Plan"were published in 2000 and 2001 respectively. These publications form part of the criteria
for state and federal funding allocation to the Cayuga Lake Watershed, and therefore are of direct
benefit to the City's programs such as the Intermunicipal Sewer Agreement, or the riparian
buffers and stream restoration projects in the South end of Cayuga Lake(Six Mile Creek and
Cayuga Inlet).
The Laboratories Director is a member of the Tompkins County Water Resources Council, as well
as the Board of Directors and of the Executive Committee of the Cayuga Lake Watershed
Network. This organization plays a key role in watershed education and stewardship. The
publication Issues in the Cayuga Lake Watreshed was produced during 2000. Numerous
workshops and conferences have been organized to promote public awareness, involvement,
and watershed education,which constitute a significant component of the City's Stormwater
Regulations Phase II compliance program. The Network Newsletter received a first place award
of excellence form the New York Sate Federation of Lake Associations, www.NYSFOLA.org, for
overall design, innovation, and relevance of contents. An electronic version of the Network's
newsletter is available at www.cayugalake.org
The Grants
Several successful grant proposals have been obtained to accomplish the objectives of the Ithaca
Water Plant as well as those of the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility.Among these
are:
❖ US Forest Service Six Mile Creek Riparian Buffers Restoration Program, and
❖ NYS Bond Act grant Six Mile Creek Streambanks Restoration Program
A required component of these the projects is the participation and involvement of stakeholders.
As mentioned above, the 10, Network, and the WRC involvement fulfills this requirement. The
participation of local governments and other citizen-participation groups in the Six Mile Creek
restoration and protection projects has been accomplished through the Six Mile Creek
Partnership.
The Six Mile Creek Watershed Partnership was established in 1999, with the objective to develop
and implement the Six Mile Creek management plan. Among the stakeholders participating in this
partnership are: Tompkins County(Planning Department), the City of Ithaca (Planning
Department, the Natural Areas Commission, the Ithaca Water Plant and the Ithaca Area Waste
Water Treatment Facility), the Town of Ithaca and Dryden (Conservation Advisory Councils),
Caroline(Caroline Watersheds Commission), the Finger Lakes Land Trust, and the Departments
of Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering of Cornell University.
Six Mile Creek Riparian Corridor Restoration Program
The two grants mentioned above have been allocated to this program: The US Forest Service
($98,000.00) and the NY Department of State($153,000).
The contract with the USFS has been approved by the USFS, and the funds are available
through the City Controller Office. The Controller has to sign the account agreement with the
USFS. The contract with the NY DOS has been approved by the NY DOS. The final contract was
sent by NY DOS to City Hall in February 19, 2003.
The base line monitoring, design, documentation, outreach, and construction will be developed by
Ecologic(Liz Moran). Ecologic will be subcontracted for this project. The participation of the
City's W&S Division on this project will consist of preparing and reviewing the site designs
diagrams. The Cayuga Lake Watershed Network(The Network)will work in coordination with
EcoLogic in the public education and volunteer coordination for this project.
The Network(Sharon Anderson)will organize workshops and coordinate the meetings of the Six
Mile Creek Partnership, produce educational materials and site signage, as required by the NY
DOS.
The Six Mile Creek riparian corridor restoration progam will be used to fullfil part of the
requirements of the City's Stormwater Regulations Phase II.
The Budget
The following table contains the overall budget and associated costs for the City. Federal funds
can be used as matching funds for the New York Department of State grant.
Grant Amount Matching Required Funds
NY Dept of State $153,000 $98K Federal, $55K land acq. $55,000
US Forest Service $98,000 $83K land acq., $31.5K in kind $83,000
Totals $251,000 Land acquisition total= $138,000
The required funds will be matched with the City of Ithaca Planning Department Land Acquisition
Fund, already allocated to Six Mile Creek.
2
Additional funds are provided by in-kind matching, as indicated below. The City staff time
allocation to the project will be an average of four hours per week, by Jose Lozano, for the
duration of the project, an total of 40 hr by Scott Gibson. Additional matching include:
❖ 150' riparian buffer on GIS—Tompkins County Planning (20 hr in 2000)
❖ GIS road and streambank erosion assessment—10 (80 hr in 2001)
❖ Six Mile Creek critical areas analysis, GIS modeling (640 hr in 2002, four full time
graduate students for two weeks, Dr. Ann Marie Asnard, and J. Lozano)
❖ Site design and monitoring, Barrile site(S&W CD1 staff 40hr in 2002)
❖ Phosphorous source assessment, GIS modeling (DeGloria&Lozano, 160 hr in 2003),
❖ Site design and construction—S&W CD staff: 40hr, Caroline Watersheds Group: three
volunteers, four weeks, full time equivalent: 480 hr, and two Cornell University Humphrey
Fellows, four weeks, full time: 320 hr(total 840 hr during 2003-2005).
❖ Outreach and Education—watershed education program on CD (DigitalFlash $5,000.00
in 2003).
Task Rate$/hr 2000 2001 2002 2003 total
GIS &modeling 80 20 80 640 160 $72,000
Site Design 45 40 $1,800
Construction 10 840 $8,400
Outreach & Edu. $5,000
Total= $87,200
Timeframe
The US Forest Service project was granted in 2001. The work for the NY Department of State
(NY DOS)was started during the Fall 2002. The baseline characterization as well as the site
selection of target and reference sites was needed in order to define the project plan, that was
approved by NY DOS in February 2003.
The project schedule is presented in the diagram bellow. The left column indicates the different
activities for this program. The program is described in detailed in the document Six Mile Work
Program 2003.
1 S&W CD=Soil and Water Conservation District, Ithaca office.
3
SIX MILE CREEK PROJECTS TIMEFRAME
81 Name
F ID 2004
i M
Cictt v– 20 r May Jun I Oct Noy Dee -�am—n N�T I Ap, M� -,1�4 Dec LJan Mor
_jF.b
initial Pr*W-1 meeing
I 2 Soled Conoullard
-3 RFP site assessment&Design
4 RFP Review
5 Prepare Consultant sub-contract
Assessment&Design
7 Site recomalsence
Prepare Designs
MonkorkV&Maintenance Schedule
16— Penrils&Approvals to DOS
11 Select Sub-contractors
Bid dots&select sub-contractors
13 Select Construction Sub-Contractot
14 V Construction A
Pre-construction Meeting(A)
is Construction&Documentation(At:
17 Restore Disturbed Areas(Al)
Construction&Documentation(AT
Restore Disturbed Areas(A2)
Construction B
21 Pre-construction Meeting(8)
Construction&Documentation(01)
Restore Disturbed Areas(81)
24 Construction&Documentation(E32)
25 Restore Disturbed Areas(B2)
26- G Contruction C
Mow
27 Pre-construction Meeting C
Construction&Documentation
(Cl)
Restore Disturbed Areas(Cl)
j 30 1 Construction&Documentation(C2)
31 – Restore Disturbed Areas(C2)
F-3-2174 summary Report
Final Report
NINE=
Cooperators
In addition to the active involvement of the funding agencies, i.e. US FS and NY DoS, invaluable
contributions have been made by:
US Fish and Wildlife Service(habitat assessment, site design)
NY DEC Forest Service(contributing state lands access and staff)
Arnot Forest(access to demonstration sites and management practices information)
Tompkins County Planning Department(Six Mile Creek pilot study for watershed assessment)
Six Mile Creek Partnership(oversight and participation)
Conclusions
The Six Mile Creek riparian corridor restoration project has a several year history in developing
stakeholders involvement for the protection and restoration of the Six Mile Creek watershed.
The overall objective is the development of a sustainable watershed management plan to
enhance the quality of the drinking water suppy at the source. The targets for remediation include
the reduction of siltation, and the reduction of Trihalomethanes(THMs)and other Dissinfection
Byproducts (DBPs) precursors.
The reservoir has an area of 12 acres and a total capacity of 360,000,000 gallons. Due to siltation
only 180,000,000 gallons of capacity remains.
Measures to avoid or to reduce the concentrations of THM and other DBPs are not only limited to
water treatment in the waterworks; the quality of raw water is decisive to quite the same extent
(Hoyer 19982). Net autochthonous production of precursors in the epilimnion, driven by primary
productivity, can be a major source of precursors in a reservoir(Stepczuk et al. 19983). Algae in a
reservoir can produce a substantial fraction of the THM's formed during chlorination (Graham
19974).
Reductions in THMs and TOC concentrations in treated water can be achieved by reducing
inputs of nutrients, and the consequent reduction of the population density of algae(Daldorph
19775, Martin 19956).
The Board of Public Works has approved of the Six Mile Creek riparian corridor restoration
project, and the the endorsement and approval of Common Council and the B&A will allow to
accomplish the objectives of the grants described here to contribute to the protection and
enhancement of the Six Mile Creek watershed.
Jose Lozano, Director
April 30, 2003
2 Hoyer,O 1998 Water-Supply vol. 16,no.3-4,p. 143
3 Stepczuk C at al. 1998 Lake-and-Reservoir-Management vol. 14,no.2-3,pp.367-378
4 Graham N 1997 The significance of algae as trihalomethane precursors.In:Reservoir Management and Water Supply.
Delojs P et al.(ads.)Elsevier Science Ltd.,Pergamon Press.
5 Daldorph P 1977 Management and treatment of algae in lowland reservoirs in eastern England. In:Reservoir
Management and Water Supply.Delojs P et aL(eds.)Elsevier Science Ltd.,Pergamon Press.
6 Martin B at al. 1995 Lake and Reservoir Management.Vol. 11,no.2,p. 165