Committee reviews 90‑day Comstock Ave road closure request for Syracuse University residence halls

The Public Works and Infrastructure Committee on Tuesday heard city staff and Syracuse University project representatives describe a request to authorize a 90‑day administrative closure of Comstock Avenue to allow staging for two new university residence halls and to buy time for staff to finalize fee calculations and public‑safety plans.

City staff representative Eric told the committee the city’s permit and fee schedule was written without anticipating a full, curb‑to‑curb closure of a block for what could be “upwards of 2 years,” and that the DPW commissioner can approve a 90‑day administrative closure but “anything longer than that 90 days does require common council approval.” He said the 90‑day window is intended to give staff time to complete a methodology review and produce a final fee calculation and scope documentation.

Jeremy Thurston, president of Hainer Hoyt Corporation, the general contractor on the two Comstock‑area projects, said crews have begun foundation work and described operational reasons for a full closure: the two high‑rise buildings are being built to the property lines on both sides of the street, deliveries include “dozens of tractor trailers of materials on a daily basis and swinging tower cranes over the top of the street,” and contractor operations create safety risks for pedestrians in an active campus area.

City engineering staff described the fee methodology the permit office uses for right‑of‑way staging: unit pricing based on linear feet or square footage, with staging periods that renew every 14 days and the refundable portion of fees reconciled after inspection. Marzal Malkovich of the engineering department summarized the project area as about 30,000 square feet from property line to property line for the block at issue and said, “when we estimated… with the road, we estimated $2,600,000,” reflecting how the 14‑day compounding can produce large cumulative totals for multi‑year closures.

Committee members pressed staff to explain which permits are in place and which are outstanding. Project representatives said they hold foundation and site permits allowing construction to start; the building permit has been submitted and is under review. Staff confirmed the road‑cut permit — the permit where the final staging and fee calculation are settled — had not yet been issued and that initial refundable and nonrefundable payments (including parking‑meter relocation/removal costs and an initial liability payment) had been made.

A committee member asked for a breakdown of specific fee items discussed in the meeting. Staff identified a liability waiver fee and a temporary parking‑meter removal charge discussed in the meeting (transcript references in this session stated a $75 fee and an amount referenced as $1,500 per meter), and said the city will provide per‑project permit and fee details so councilors can review exact calculations.

Safety measures for the closure were described in detail: sidewalks and the street would be fenced and closed in the project area, flaggers would manage entrances and exits and be present whenever construction vehicles leave the site, and traffic would be detoured to nearby streets. Staff pointed to recent measures implemented on Ostrom (two new four‑way stop signs) that came from Syracuse Police recommendations and said those are examples of site‑specific mitigations meant to improve safety.

Syracuse University representatives told the committee the university will replace sidewalks, curb lines, and perform milling and repaving in the project area as part of the completed work; project teams and the city will reconcile final scope and costs through inspections and the refund process for the refundable fee portion.

Several councilors voiced concern that changing fee applications for this project could set a precedent for future developments and urged caution in altering a fee schedule that the city only recently adopted. City staff acknowledged the concern and said they are assessing whether the current 14‑day renewal methodology creates unintended economic disincentives for multi‑phase projects and that they are conducting a broader review of fee schedules.

Next steps: city staff said they will compile the permit and fee breakdowns, including the methodology and the calculations used to arrive at the numbers discussed, and share them with councilors in the coming days. No formal council vote to extend a closure beyond the 90‑day administrative period occurred at the meeting; any extension beyond 90 days would require separate council authorization.