Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2007-04-26 April 26, 2007 Special Town Board Meeting Approved May 7, 2007 Special Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Thursday , April 26 , 2007 at 7 : 00 p . m . 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca , NY 14850 THOSE PRESENT : Councilman Burbank , Councilwoman Gittelman , Councilman Engman , Councilman Stein , Councilwoman Leary STAFF PRESENT : Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk ; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Fred Noteboom , Highway Superintendent EXCUSED : Supervisor Valentino , Councilman Cowie OTHERS PRESENT : Guy Krogh , Attorney for the Town CALL TO ORDER Councilman Burbank called the meeting to order at 5 : 300 p . m . and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance . Councilman Burbank told those present that the meeting was called to address one issue that needed to be dealt with in a timely manner . He told those present that the meeting was not a public hearing , but if there was someone wanting to informally address the Board Mr. Burbank invited them to do so . There was no one wanting to address the Board . Consider Authorization to enter into a contract with an Engineering Consultant for the Northeast Ithaca Stormwater Management and Drainage Studv Councilman Burbank began stating the issue under consideration is hiring a consultant relative to stormwater management . There is a recommendation from the committee , which Mr . Burbank invited Mr. Engman to present . Councilman Engman reported that the Town is looking to hire a consultant in order to get some more information on the potential effects of the development , Briarwood 11 , on downstream neighbors and to double check a lot of the data and calculations that were done by the developer in proposing the project . The committee did meet . They had two excellent submissions . Three other firms decided not to submit because of time constraints ; they figured they would not be able to do the job in the rather fast timeline the Town has given them . The timeline is about six weeks after the contracts are signed . Mr. Engma. n stated he thought he could speak for the committee in reporting they thought both firms who did submit would be able to do the job . One , however, they thought would be able to do the job better because they do have some more experienced staff on board ; they seem to have had more experience in dealing with stormwater discharge and modeling ; and they also carne in about $ 1 , 000 cheaper. In the materials distributed to the Board there was an estimate from the preferred firm of $ 17 , 500 . The proposal before the Board tonight is to create a budget line of $ 18 , 000 to fund the project . The committee is recommending Malone and MacBroom from Cheshire , Connecticut be hired to conduct the project . Mr. Engman invited other members of the committee to speak . 1 April 26, 2007 Special Town Board Meeting Approved May 7, 2007 Mr. Stein stated he agreed with Mr. Engman . It seemed clear to Mr. Stein that there is more to water than detention ponds . He thought that carefully reading the backgrounds of the people from MacBroom and Malone , as well as the experience of the firm , makes him believe that is the better choice . Councilman Engman moved the resolution prepared for consideration . Councilman Stein seconded the motion . Mr. Burbank recognized a member of the audience wanting to address the Board . Stephen Wagner came forward and addressed the Board as follows : I merely wanted to inquire whether a letter that we had sent this afternoon to the committee members had reached them in time. Board members responded that they had not yet received the letter and asked that he give the essence of his concern . Essentially these are some of our concerns that we 've outline with regard to the scope of the work and the way some aspects of the study could be addressed. It may have no bearing on your decision tonight, but I was wondering if it was something that you might be able to consider when the actual contract with the consultant is drawn up. Mr. Wagner then read the following letter, addressed to the 3 members of the Northeast Stormwater Study Committee , into the record : We very much appreciate the efforts of the Ithaca Town Board to address concerns regarding the impact of Briarwood I and proposed Briarwood 11 developments on downslope drainage issues. Both bidders have indicated they are aware that many residents of the neighborhood have claimed they're experiencing problems with drainage. Nevertheless, they do not clearly tell us how they will document and assess those claims. We fee it is important to allocate more time to collecting and assessing information from residents. Though clearly the drainage issues are of concern and are explicitly addressed by the bidders, the drainage issues are also very much connected to the development's impact on the wetlands. At the Ithaca Town Board meeting on March 12, 2007, professor Todd Walter spoke as an independent expert witness on drainage issues. Professor Walter, an internationally recognized hydrologist who is conducting hydrological research n the area, concluded that the area around Sapsucker Woods is hydrologically sensitive because it is so flat and does not drain vertically very well, thus it will naturally accumulate soil and ground water, often to the point of saturating to the surface and generating runoff. Additional development will compound these natural runoff problems and the persistence of a shallow groundwater table will probably make detention basins ineffective. Aggressive drainage may facilitate engineered solutions to the runoff problems, but will likely alter the areas hydrology in the process which may have detrimental impacts on the natural wetlands. He states early in his written report that, ` I speculate the prolonged drainage of the groundwater by the current development may be making the proposed development site appear less prone to saturation and flooding than it is Given his expertise, we feel it is important that the bidders meet with professor Walter very early in the assessment process to discuss and understand his perspective. As professor Walter points out in his presentation to the town, thought he 2 April 26, 2007 Special Town Board Meeting Approved May 7, 2007 considered the stormwater system well designed by traditional engineering standards, in a similar area he has been studying it was completely overwhelmed by 1/10 of design flow. We strongly recommend that bidders be asked to address professor Walter's concerns in their plans and report. Finally, we suggest that members of the committee and concerned residents of the area attend a preliminary meeting with the contractor. This will insure that everyone be heard and the contractor begins with a broad understanding of the problems and concerns. Thank you again for considering our concerns and for the continued attention to these problems. Mr . Burbank thanked Mr. Wagner. Mr. Burbank stated that he did not see community meetings as part of the resolution in front of the Board . Mr. Engman stated there is a community meeting indicated , but it is later in the process . He suggested the Board may consider is a mechanism in the contract for getting community input early . Mr. Engman reported that Dan Walker has said he will provide the consultant with all of the materials the Town has . Mr. Engman stated his assumption is , if the Town has a copy of Mr. Walker' s report , that could be included in the materials . Councilman Stein stated that they had made a file of all of the complaints they have seen about water in the area . He intended to make those available to make those available to the consultant . He thought the notion that they talk to the hydrologist is a good one and he did not see any problem with it . Ms . Leary felt a good place for mention of a community meeting within the contract would be under the scope of services on the project kick-off meeting . The meeting would not just be with staff but with Board members and residents . Mr . Burbank asked for other comments . There were none . The Board voted on the resolution before them . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2007 -073 — Authorization to Enter into Contract with An Engineering Consultant for the Northeast Ithaca Stormwater Management and Drainage Study. Whereas , Many residents of the Northeast Ithaca area have complained of existing drainage problems , which they believe have been exacerbated by past development , including but not limited to : • Increased basement flooding • Increase in soil saturation caused by higher water table • Yard flooding • Increased flows and flow duration in road ditches • Damaged and washed out driveway culverts • Dead trees presumably caused by soil saturation • Increased flows in streams through their property 3 April 26, 2007 Special Town Board Meeting Approved May 7, 2007 Whereas . The Town Board wishes to retain the services of an engineering consultant to (a ) explore potential water resources related impacts related to the proposed development in addition to peak flows of stormwater (such as possible changes in water table levels and natural drainage courses utilizing existing information ) , ( b ) to evaluate the claims by residents living in the vicinity of the Briarwood II development that past development in the Northeast area has caused drainage problems , and their concerns that the proposed Briarwood II development will exacerbate those problems , and (c) to evaluate the efficacy of the Stormwater Management Plan submitted by the Developer and its likely impact on downstream properties and to make recommendations for improvement . Whereas , The Town board issued a Request for Proposals , which included the following elements : 1 . The proposal from the consultant must include : o Statement of qualification and experience in similar projects that include drainage and water table issues in addition to stormwater management analysis and planning . Identification of individuals to be assigned to the project and statement of qualifications of individuals and resources assigned to the project . Statement of general and technical approach , including a description of the recommended process and considerations for completing the assessment . a A preliminary estimate of cost and Time required to complete the report . 2 . The scope of work for the Evaluation will include : a Review of current watershed and water resources related information O Review of soils and geology of the area including available water table information Review of water problem comments received from residents and an assessment of whether or not proximate development has contributed to these problems a Evaluation of the Proposed Briarwood Stormwater Management Plan o Assessment of overall site design and Stormwater Management Concepts o Evaluation of compliance with State stormwater management criteria o Detailed analysis of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations o Evaluation of the efficacy of proposed detention ponds given water tables in the area Evaluation of impacts of the proposed subdivision on the geohydrology of the area and on drainage problems for upstream and downstream residents Whereas , Milone and MacBroom , Cheshire , CT , have submitted a responsive proposal that includes the elements of the RFP with a proposed fee of $ 16 , 500 plus direct expenses estimated at $ 1 , 000 , for a total estimated cost of $ 17 , 500 , and Whereas , the consultant selection committee has reviewed the proposal and qualifications of Milone and MacBroom and has determined that they are a qualified and acceptable firm , now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute a contract with Milone & MacBroom , Inc . , in an amount not to exceed $ 18 , 000 , for the Northeast Ithaca Stormwater Management and Drainage Study , said contract being subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town , and be it further 4 April 26 , 2007 Special Town Board Meeting Approved May 7, 2007 RESOLVED , The funds for this project be transferred from the A Fund , Stormwater Management Contractual Expenses Line , and that the Budget Officer is directed to modify the budget to create a budget line A8540 . 485 with $ 18 , 000 to be transferred from the existing budget line A8540 . 400 , reducing that budget line from $42 , 700 to $24 , 700 . MOVED : Councilman Engman SECONDED : Councilman Stein VOTE : Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilwoman Gittelman , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilwoman Leary , aye . Motion carried ABSENT : Supervisor Valentino , Councilman Cowie Benefit Districts — General Discussion Guy Krogh was present at the meeting and Mr . Burbank asked for his comments on benefit districts , specifically those related to drainage . Mr. Krogh told the Board that drainage districts are permitted under both Article 12 and Article 12A in terms of benefit creation ; not under Article 12C . Article 12 does not work well for drainage districts because usually they are created at the time that the subdivision or other development is created so there ' s not much sense in having a single owner petition . Usually you proceed on your own initiative under Article 12A . There is a detailed step-by-step process that' s spelled out in the law . Basically it starts with doing a feasibility study to determine if the area is appropriate for a drainage district ; what would be the benfitted properties and where do you draw the boundaries . Very frequently , the subdivision itself is the boundaries . The next step is to formally request , usually through an engineer or Town Engineer , the map planning report . There are some very detailed requirements relative to maps , plans , and reports concerning what the infrastructure will be , what the cost per e . d . u . or per road frontage or per acre , however you decide to calculate the benefit . Usually they are reasonably detailed documents , but that is subject to a referendum because it is an expenditure of public funds and if for some reason the district is not formed then arguably you have an expenditure of public funds for a private entity . Mr. Burbank asked if it needed to be a townwide referendum . Mr. Krogh told him , yes . Mr, Krogh stated he had never heard of it happening , whether they were lighting or water or whatever, there ' s never been a referendum on the map , plan , and report , so you have a 30 day waiting period . After the 30 days a town almost simultaneously starts with the formal district formation process which requires the creation and publication of an order and there are specific findings that are set out in Town Law identifying what the cost of the infrastructure is , what the estimated first year' s costs , etc . tend to be . You have very rigid publication and other requirements to put people on notice , especially those that are benefited . There ' s some open questions about how you put them on notice and whether publication in enough . The order also has to schedule a public hearing and the notice must be published not less than 10 nor more than 20 days before that public hearing . Then you have a public hearing and take whatever input you want and you issue , depending upon what the Comptroller' s thresholds are , and you don 't generally hit any with drainage districts 5 April 26, 2007 Special Town Board Meeting Approved May 7, 2007 because they have a very low first year cost because the cost of the installation of the facilities for stormwater is usually a developer expense pursuant to a developer agreement and drainage districts don 't generally have any maintenance in their first few years . It' s when you get siltation or 100-year storm events that there is work that needs to be done . After the public hearing , you can then , on a conditional basis , create the district . Again you have to jump through a lot of hoops , make some specific findings as to what property is benefited , whether all benefited properties have been included in the district . That triggers another permissive referendum period . You can make it a mandatory referendum but usually you don 't because you have a single owner at that time and that' s the developer and usually the creation of a district is a condition of the plat . At that point the district is formed subject to notice and filing with the County Clerk and the State Comptroller who , if you don 't exceed thresholds , has not jurisdictional authority but they are allowed to request whatever documents they want . Usually they do so in response to any type of public objections or if your procedure was just obviously bad . That' s sort of the process . The resolutions will be very long . The underlying question that is really of a legislative nature is , how do you manage a stormwater facility . Mr . Engman asked Mr. Krogh to verify that the reason you would create a district is because the cost of the drainage is more expensive than it normally would be for the Town and therefore the residents should bear some of the cost. Mr . Krogh told him there were , in theory two reasons to create a district . One is to comply with stormwater regulations . The stormwater phase II regulations require that you have some way to insure that the permanent practices are put into effect and that the district is properly maintained . If you had a developer that signed a developer agreement and sold his last lot ten years ago , Mr . Krogh was not sure how a town would get that developer to come back and do whatever improvements or maintenance is necessary . So there is a stormwater compliance question hiding in there . The second reason is that there are prohibitions against the use of public money for purely private benefits . While Section 130 of the Town Law does consider flood control a general public benefit you get to a really fine line as to whether or not you ' re expending public funds to benefit one group of houses , therefore district allows you to make improvements on drainage an other things and to charge that to the actual properties that are benefited . Mr. Stein stated that was something he didn 't understand . The Town periodically responds to complaints to residents by changing open ditches into pipes and that cost is borne by the whole Town . Mr. Stein asked when do you charge it to the people in the immediate area and when do you just bear all the expense Townwide . Mr. Krogh told him . that was the legislative question he referenced earlier. Town Law is very clear that the maintenance of ditches , prevention of flooding , and other things that the Town does not only protects the subsurface infrastructure , water lines , sewer lines , etc . , but protects the surface structures such as roads , signage , etc . Whether or not you live in that area it' s still considered a general public benefit to have safe infrastructure and safe roads and to prevent flooding generally within the Town . Preventing flooding and managing roadside ditches both under Town Law and Highway Law is a general public purpose . So you can expend public funds for that purpose . When you get into some of the nuances of stormwater management you ' re talking about specific facilities hiding within subdivisions , some arguably have no relation to protecting any infrastructure other than the stormwater facility and the immediate neighbors . Mr. Krogh stated he thought you could go either way on the issues , but felt there was a legislative question hiding in there for the Board to discern . 6 April 26, 2007 Special Town Board Meeting Approved May 7, 2007 Ms . Leary asked the Board if they were not talking about an area larger than the Briarwood subdivision . Mr . Burbank responded , potentially and continued stating that part of where the idea emerge is the fact that the Town has an existing development that was built many , many years ago that is having drainage problems . The Town is wondering whether the corrective costs are within the ability of the general Town to pay or whether some portion of it might conceivably be born by the people that will bear the direct benefit . Mr . Krogh told him that generally that determination is made in the map , plan , and report phase . You determine what will be the benefited properties . If, at a public hearing , it is determined that there are fewer or more benefited properties then you actually rewind , amend you map , plan and report , and schedule another public hearing . There is a process whereby people can be included or excluded . The only general requirement is that all benefited properties must be in the district and non -benefited properties can not be in the district . Mr . Noeboom asked if a good example would be behind Maplewood there ' s been talk about a ditch there and the Town decides they need to go in , it' s not necessarily a townwide benefit , but those residents are getting a benefit . Mr . Krogh told him a lot of what is being done with drainage districts is to not only deal with the potential increased runoff from the creation of non-permeable surfaces , but it is also to manage flood water. Mr. Krogh reported that in another municipality where he does some where work two or three groups were charged with figuring out whether or not the municipality should use drainage districts . Both the Attorney General and the DEC are strongly in favor of them for stormwater, but . they have no jurisdiction to mandate it and a lot of people suspect that is what Phase III is going to be is permanent districts for permanent stormwater maintenance . Flood control and stormwater are two sides of the same coin and if you get districts , district one , district two , district three , eventually once you get a whole piece of land covered in theory what you should do is consolidate into a single district within each drainage basin . There were no further questions for Mr. Krogh . Mr. Stein moved to adjourn . Councilwoman Gittelman seconded the motion . The meeting was adjourned at 5 : 58 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk 7