Public gives input on Bethany's streetscape plan

The plan has had many incarnations, numerous public hearings and many discussions at town meetings, but Bethany Beach’s Streetscape project to beautify its downtown area has yet to see significant progress.

An upcoming vote could kick off the lead-in to real work, though, as the town council hosted a March 1 special council meeting to gather public input on a scaled-back first-stage plan ahead of a workshop discussion planned for March 15 and possible March 19 vote.

The initial proposal calls for removal of the existing utility poles from all three blocks of Garfield Parkway east of Route 1, relocating the utility lines to alleys and underground.

Drawings of the project and a listing of the projected costs, showing how the project would be funded, have been made available on the town’s Web site.

The overall Streetscape concept includes a number of elements. Sidewalks would be redesigned and made Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant. Parking meters would be removed and replaced with pay stations. Pavers and other aesthetic enhancements would be used in an effort to make the downtown area more attractive.

The total cost: about $3.8 million, according to engineering consultants, some of which is expected to be eligible for state and other grant funding.

But the single most dramatic element of Streetscape – the first objective of all the dialog and planning centered on Streetscape – is now the removal of the utility poles on Garfield Parkway between Route 1 and the bandstand, at an estimated $950,000 that would have to come directly from town coffers.

The utility relocation is itself considered a mandatory precursor to the larger Streetscape project being taken seriously as a contender for any grant funding.

The town recently received quotes from the utility companies that would be affected by the relocation of the poles, and Monday’s meeting was a step toward a Town Council vote on whether to proceed with the utility relocation project, that vote expected to come at the council’s March 19 regular meeting.

The project would remove all utility poles from the street, replacing lights that are currently on wooden utility poles with actual streetlights similar to the lights on the Bethany Beach boardwalk and on the sidewalks of Rehoboth Beach, according to Town Manager Cliff Graviet.

The new lighting scheme includes 22 fixtures – 20 new pedestrian-focused lights measuring about 15 feet tall, plus two new double-hung 32-foot-tall lighting fixtures in the medians at the two intersections in the project area. There will be no other lighting in the median area of Garfield Parkway, owing to drainage systems located there.

All utilities would then be provided to the businesses on Garfield Parkway from the rear of buildings. The council would aim to have the project ready to move on Oct. 1, giving those businesses time to prepare for any needed utility relocation between March and September. The project itself is expected to take about four months.

The total estimated cost for the relocation of utilities and new lighting is $950,000, which will come from town coffers, as no state or other grant funding is believed to be available, despite the town’s pursuit of such funding over the years. The total cost is about $50,000 less than an earlier estimate from the various utility companies, but Graviet said Monday that he now expects those amounts to come in 10 to 15 percent higher under revised bids.

The funds to complete this project have been included in the 2011-fiscal-year budget for Town Council consideration. A vote on the budget and an approval vote on relocating the utilities is anticipated for the March 19 meeting of the Bethany Beach Town Council.

Graviet emphasized on March 1 that the project is considered a first step for any larger Streetscape project, but even if there was no additional work done on the project, he said it would have the effect of opening up the town’s existing – and, during the summer, frequently crowded – sidewalks.

Among the highlights Graviet mentioned on Monday:

• Safety improvements, as sidewalk “bump-outs” are brought up to modern (ADA-compliant) standards;

• Aesthetic improvements – “The spider web of wires you seen from Route 1 will be gone.”

• Pedestrian flow improvements, with the existing utility pole guy wires removed, less obtrusive poles (for the lighting only, as opposed to the existing large utility poles), and poles largely moved off sidewalks, “so they won’t impede traffic as much as they do now.”

Graviet said the funding currently set aside for the project in the 2011 draft budget was accumulated in various town funds and is “not property taxes, as such.” He promised the town would not be coming back to its taxpayers to ask them for tax money for the project.

Vice Mayor Carol Olmstead at the council’s workshop on Feb. 16 deemed the proposal “welcome progress.”

Residents focused on flooding problems

Reaction to the proposal from the public has been mixed, with some favoring the aesthetic and pedestrian improvements as long-needed, while others have questioned the need to spend nearly $1 million in town funds during a difficult economic period or in lieu of other possible projects.

And business and property owners impacted by the removal of the utilities to their rear alleys this week also raised concerns about the costs to them, as well as the timetable for doing so, on the heels of the summer season, with an initial deadline of Sept. 1 already mentioned.

Resident David Sax said on Monday that his concern was that the money had come from taxes at some point, but Graviet clarified that $223,000 of the funding comes from real estate transfer taxes through the State of Delaware (frequently set aside for capital improvement and roadway projects), while other portions of the funding has come from excess above budgeted revenues for building permits and parking revenues.

“There is some contribution from the community on the project, yes,” Graviet admitted of some of the funding, but he emphasized that the use of parking revenues and transfer taxes was spreading the cost among new property owners and visitors, as well as the town’s longtime property owners and residents.

Sax later said, “I feel a lot better than when I walked into the room,” having learned that other revenue than property taxes were being proposed to be used for the project.

“Garfield Parkway isn’t pretty,” he noted. “I’m not sure Streetscape is going to complete that job,” he added. “Some of the businesses aren’t very pretty, either.”

Dan Lyons was among residents on Monday who expressed a desire to use any available town funding to tackle longstanding drainage problems in the North Pennsylvania Avenue area around the Loop Canal.

Graviet countered that the town is already looking at spending $100,000 for a cost-benefit analysis on those flooding problems, which could clear the way for aid from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

He emphasized that the flooding problem there has been deemed to involve areas running from the Indian River Inlet to the south and will likely require a solution that extends beyond Bethany Beach’s town limits.

“The Corps will not allocate money for nuisance flooding,” he warned, saying that only significant property damage or flooding that endangers lives is likely to receive federal attention.

At that point in the discussion, though other members of the public did later say their preference was to fund work to improve flooding problems, Mayor Tony McClenny said he would like them to keep their comments restricted to the Streetscape proposal only, as that was what the council would be considering.

Resident Larry Snyder said he felt flooding problems in Bethany West continued to need the town’s attention, and he recommended a special taxing district be considered in which downtown Bethany’s businesses would bear the cost of the Streetscape project.

“The people who benefit the most should pay for it,” he said, suggesting the town’s funds be used instead “to do small projects.”

Maryann Calhoun, another resident, agreed.

“The business owners should be held more accountable than the residents,” she said, adding the she felt the flooding problems were a public safety issue, even if the Corps might not agree. “The money would be better spent if it was put aside for that issue.”

Resident Terry Gilbert declared Streetscape “a laudable goal,” but said with revenue not being “a bottomless bucket,” the town should look at other things that need to be done, such as paving projects after the ravaging of recent winter storms.

Lynn Evans, another resident, likewise said she supported the concept – “It’s a great idea. I’d love to have the town look better,” she said. But she allowed that she didn’t feel the project was “the right way to go” with the town’s money, favoring instead addressing flooding or saving up a reserve for future projects and saying proceeding with Streetscape would mean “money not well spent.”

Business owners express mixed feelings

Business owner and commercial landlord Lee Burbage on Monday said he, too, liked the idea but had concerns about its impact on the area’s businesses.

“It’s a great idea for the town. It is a major asset for the town,” he said. “But if the town wants it done, if money has been allocated, why were the [utility] relocation costs [for businesses] not included?”

Graviet said the estimated cost for relocating the electrical supply lines to the rear of businesses was about $2,000 to $3,000, less for cable television and telephone connections.

Additionally, he said, “About 80 percent of the property owners have already born the expense of relocating utilities to the rear. It didn’t seem fair,” he said, for the town to pick up the cost for the estimated six businesses that need all three utilities moved and dozen total that need just one or two moved.

Burbage said he also took issue with the Sept. 1 deadline for those relocations, noting it will come at a time when businesses in the area are still very busy. Graviet said that deadline was something the town could discuss with the business owners if the project is approved.

Graviet also set to rest another longstanding concern for business owners since the first mention of a Streetscape project – that parking might be lost to the project. While some versions of the project did change parking layouts and even reduced the number of available spaces, Graviet emphasized that there are no parking spaces lost to the current incarnation of Streetscape.

Business and commercial property owner Diane Turnahan was among some business owners who expressed outright opposition to the project on March 1.

“People have always complained about the way Garfield Parkway looks. They have since Day 1,” she said, adding her opposition to the costs business owners and the town would pay and saying she felt the town’s focus should be on flooding, roads, safety, lifeguards and beaches.

“Are people going to leave because we have two trashcans and some wires?” she asked rhetorically, adding her concerns that beginning the work in September would disrupt a significant portion of the April-October business season. “This is not the time to do the roads. You’re making it harder and harder” for businesses to stay, she said.

McClenny said the council would consider the public input, including a number of letters and e-mails received prior to the meeting, as well as other information, ahead of its planned March 15 workshop, with a possible vote on this initial phase of Streetscape on its March 19 agenda.