HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2007-01-11COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Committee of the Whole 6:00 p.m. January 11, 2007
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Alderpersons (8) Seger, Berry, Clairborne, Tomlan, Zumoff, Gelinas,
Townsend, Cogan
Board of Public Works Commissioners (6) Dotson, Tripp, Chapman, Jenkins,
Wykstra, Schlather
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney – Hoffman
Deputy Planning & Development Director – Cornish
Superintendent of Public Works – Gray
Asst. Superintendent of Water & Sewer – Whitney
Environmental Engineer – Gibson
Fire Lieutenant - Burbank
Human Resources Director – Michell-Nunn
EXCUSED:
Alderpersons Coles, Korherr
MOTION TO ENTER INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Motion to Enter into Committee of the Whole
By Alderperson Zumoff: Seconded by Alderperson Seger
RESOLVED, That Common Council enter into a Committee of the Whole meeting.
Carried Unanimously
INTRODUCTIONS OF COUNCIL AND BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMBERS
Common Council and Board of Public Works members introduced themselves. In
addition, Superintendent of Public Works Gray introduced members of the Water Plant
staff and O’Brien & Gere representatives Rick Gell and Steve Eckler.
Discussion:
Lieutenant David Burbank, Ithaca Fire Department, read a statement from Fire Chief
Brian Wilbur which stated that the Ithaca Fire Department supports the option to rebuild
the Water Plant at its current site. They support this option because the City currently
has a gravity fed system that can provide water to the core of the City in the case of a
long-term power outage. They also believe that the current redundant water system is a
benefit to the community. The Fire Chief further noted in his statement how much the
Department relies on the regular maintenance of the water shed infrastructure including
the access roads and trails when they perform technical rescue operations in the
gorges.
Superintendent of Public Works Gray explained the history of the Water Treatment
Plant. He stated that a typhoid epidemic in 1903 resulted in the City taking over private
water supplies and building a water filtration plant. That original plant remains the heart
of the current facility although it has been upgraded and expanded over the years.
He further explained that the Federal government has passed the Safe Water Act that
requires upgrades to water systems by 2008. If the City is unable to meet these
requirements, Superintendent Gray will have to work with the Health Department and
the Department of Environmental Conservation to discuss plans and timelines that will
have to be met to bring the City into compliance with the law.
BPW Commissioner Schlather arrived at the meeting at 6:30 pm.
January 11, 2007
2
Key Decisions:
Who will select the final Water Treatment Plant option, Common Council or the Board of
Public Works?
City Attorney Hoffman referred Common Council and BPW members to a legal opinion
he issued on this topic, and thanked the City Clerk’s Office for their research on the
history of the Board of Public Works.
City Attorney Hoffman explained that the Constitution of the State of New York
authorizes local governments to create boards to make various levels of decisions. The
Board of Public Works was created in 1908 and was given “exclusive control” over
several departments such as Water.
In the 1970’s Common Council debated over the authority of the Board of Public Works
and they passed legislation that removed the wording “exclusive control” and added the
language “subject to direction and review of Common Council”. This legislation was
never sent to public referendum as was required because the change in language
altered the power of the Mayor as Chair of the Board of Public Works. In 1996 City
Attorney Marriette Geldenhuys noticed that several items in the Charter were not
properly adopted and sent those items to public referendum. This law was approved by
the City’s electorate in November, 1996.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that Common Council has the right to make the decision
or could delegate the decision to the Board of Public Works. He further noted that
Common Council makes all of the financial decisions for the City.
BPW Commissioner Schlather voiced a dissenting view. He stated that the Board of
Public Works was established to keep politics out of the day-to-day operations of the
City. He noted that the Board of Public Works has made many decisions about water
and sewer operations, and the Mayor as Chair of the Board, has the right to vote as a
member. He explained that if Common Council makes the decision, the Mayor cannot
vote unless there is a tie. He stated that the Board of Public Works understands that
the implications of this decision are larger than the Board’s responsibility. However, the
Board feels that it has a role in the decision-making process.
Alderperson Berry questioned whether the City would be a customer or a partner if it
contracted with Bolton Point. Mayor Peterson responded that the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) indicates that there is an option to contract with Bolton Point as a
customer.
Alderperson Cogan distributed copies of the Memorandum of Understanding with Bolton
Point dated January 4, 2007. He stated that the MOU is not a binding document, but is
meant to be a synopsis of the discussions that have been conducted. He further stated
that there is no agreement that the City would become a partner, but there is an
agreement to continue discussions with Bolton Point on that topic. Bolton Point consists
of five municipalities that each have (2) representatives on the Board. Even if the City
were a partner, it would only constitute 1/6th of the body. The Board uses the
consensus method of decision making and the municipalities share the common goals
of providing safe, reliable, drinking water at reasonable prices.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the proposed terms of the MOU, and which
body should make the decision regarding the future of the City’s water system.
Mayor Peterson voiced her concern about the timeline. She stated that if the Board
makes a decision that Common Council doesn’t agree with, it could delay the process.
BPW Commissioner Tripp reported that the Board is unanimous in thinking that this
issue is a Board of Public Works decision. Mayor Peterson stated that she is a member
of the Board and she does not agree that the BPW should make the decision because
of the policy implications and the timeliness of the issue. However, she believes that the
Board should be involved in a collaborative process. Alderperson Cogan stated for the
record that he prefers that Common Council make the decision and would like them to
state that intention up front to avoid hard feelings with the Board. He further explained
January 11, 2007
3
that a subcommittee has been meeting with the consultants and Bolton Point for several
years. The subcommittee consists of the Mayor, four members of Common Council,
and a Board of Public Works Commissioner.
Further discussion followed regarding the environmental review process including who
is eligible to be Lead Agency, which of the preferred alternatives should be studied,
what additional studies would be required, how much time would be required, and what
the costs would be. Rick Gell and Steve Eckler from O’Brien & Gere, and Deputy
Planning Director Cornish offered their experience in various strategies for the
environmental review process. They stated that the proposal submitted in October,
2005 addressed six major elements of the options: environmental, system governance,
source quality, reliability, cost, and sustainability.
Straw Polls:
Do Common Council and Board of Public Works members think that an Environmental
Impact Statement is the path that should be followed for the environmental review
process?
Yes (Unanimous vote by Common Council and Board of Public Works members)
How many options should be studied?
The answer to this question was reserved pending further information including
the projected costs of the review process. (Agreed upon by Common Council and
Board of Public Works members)
Who should make the decision of which option is selected?
Board of Public Works (5)
Common Council (2)
Common Council Direction and Review (1)
(Vote taken by Common Council members only)
Who should be the Lead Agency for environmental review?
Board of Public Works (Unanimous vote by Common Council and Board of
Public Works members)
Who will consider the projected costs of the environmental review?
Deputy Planning Director Cornish, Superintendent of Public Works Gray and
City Attorney Hoffman will review the information and forward it to the Board of
Public Works for consideration. The Mayor will call a Special meeting of the
Board of Public Works to consider Lead Agency status. Resolutions will be
forwarded to the January, 2007 City Administration Committee meeting and to
Common Council in February.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
______________________________ _______________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Carolyn K. Peterson,
City Clerk Mayor