HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2009-05-27COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Special Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 27, 2009
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Alderpersons (9) Coles, Dotson, Rosario, Clairborne, Tomlan, Zumoff, Schuler,
Myrick, Cogan
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney – Hoffman
City Controller – Thayer
Planning & Development Director – Cornish
Deputy Director of Economic Development – DeSarno
Superintendent of Public Works – Gray
EXCUSED:
Alderperson Korherr
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
2.1 Water Plant Options – Cost Comparisons
Rick Gell, O’Brien & Gere Engineers, distributed handouts that detailed a summary of
retail customer rate impacts, estimated direct costs of water production, estimated
construction costs of the re-build option, estimated costs of the purchase option, and the
total production costs of both options.
Mayor Peterson presented the questions that were formulated by Common Council
members at the May 11, 2009 meeting:
1.) How are the “embedded” costs handled in the cost projections (i.e. plumbing
inspections, maintenance of pipes, billing, etc.)?
Mr. Gell reviewed Table 1 – comprehensive Water Supply Evaluation/Summary of
Retail Customer Rate Impacts. He explained that the embedded costs were figured into
the difference between the current water rate and the production costs. He further
noted that those expenses could be found in a line item in the Water & Sewer Division
budget that returns funds to the General Fund.
He explained that Bolton Point owns the transmission line and storage tanks to deliver
water to the municipality. The municipality is responsible for maintaining their own
water infrastructure.
Paul Tunison, General Manager of Bolton Point and Jim Gilmore, Mayor of the Village
of Cayuga Heights joined the discussion.
Mr. Gell explained that the same services would be paid for with either option; however,
the City would pay twice with the purchase option. The City would still have to provide
billing, plumbing inspections and pipe maintenance in addition to all of the Bolton Point
costs that are shared equally among the participating municipalities.
Further discussion followed regarding what the water rate might be if the City asked
Bolton Point to assume the embedded costs.
2.) What are the cost differences of operating a 37 year old plant with upgrades
vs. a new plant with state of the art technology?
Mr. Gell responded that there would be approximately $2.6 million cost differences in
the Capital Improvement Program in addition to routine maintenance costs. He further
explained that the Bolton Point facility uses a membrane technology in water processing
which requires an enhanced set of operator skills which have not been reflected in the
financial tables to date. If the re-build option were selected, the City’s facility would use
May 27, 2009
2
particle filtering technology in water processing that does not require the enhanced skill
level.
Alderperson Coles asked if there was a greater risk in emerging contaminants in the
lake as opposed to Six Mile Creek and if there was new equipment that would be better
able to detect them. Mr. Gell responded that it was difficult to assess the risk level and
which water system would be more capable in detecting contaminants.
3.) What are the cost savings in using the City’s infrastructure to pump water to
the West end of the Town of Ithaca?
Mr. Gell explained that using the City’s infrastructure could result in eliminating two (2)
of the four (4) existing “dead ends”. He noted that 8,000 feet of pipeline would be
needed but there would be energy benefits for Bolton Point (approximately $.10 - .20
per thousand gallons or less.)
4.) What would be the costs of laying pipe to the City line and the potential costs
of legal challenges involving easements?
Mr. Gell explained that if the land for the easements was secured by eminent domain,
then the costs would be the full appraised value of the land. City Attorney Hoffman
noted that property owners could sue for additional money and if they were successful
they could also receive reimbursement of attorney fees and appraisal costs. Five
temporary, 20 foot easements are needed on Rt. 34 and $50,000 has been set aside for
this purpose. Easements are not usually funded at the full market value of the property.
5.) If the proposed Southwest Development were built, would the “dead ends” be
resolved?
Mr. Gell noted that 2 of the 4 “dead-ends” would be eliminated and that it would cut the
amount of “looping” in half. It could be possible for all 4 “dead-ends” to be eliminated by
partnering with Bolton Point to resolve the issue.
6.) If the Purchase Option was selected, what would be the costs for maintaining
the watershed?
Mr. Gell noted that there would be no additional costs to maintain the watershed, only
the ones that currently exist (i.e. Gorge Ranger, maintenance, etc.) Superintendent of
Public Works Gray noted that there are more costs involved and Mayor Peterson has
agreed to work with Asst. Superintendent for Water & Sewer Erik Whitney to document
them.
7.) Are there costs that the Town of Ithaca would be willing to share?
Possibly the transmission line on Route 34.
2.2 Request to Fund Water Distribution System Infrastructure Rehabilitation,
Replacement, and Improvements for the 300 Block E. State Street - Resolution
Superintendent of Public Works Gray explained that the City received two bids for
Capital Project 730, the rehabilitation of the 300 block of East State Street/Martin Luther
King Jr. Street. Both bids were over $500,000 which required them to participate in a
New York State Department of Labor certified apprenticeship program pursuant to a
Resolution adopted by Common Council in 2005.
One of the bidders did not participate in an apprenticeship program and the other
provided documentation that verified that they had an apprenticeship program for 2 of
the 9 trades that would be working on the project.
The Board of Public Works discussed this issue and determined that neither contractor
met the Common Council requirements and made award to low bidder G. DeVincentis &
Son with the condition that the project is funded by Common Council. Project funding
has been secured for the street and sewer work; however, funding is still needed for the
water main construction.
Local labor representatives Alex Parillo, Dave Marsh, Scott Stringer, and Dave
Richardson addressed Council on behalf of Wenzel Contractors. They explained the
apprenticeship programs currently in place and asked Common Council to reconsider
and allow Wenzel Contractors a chance to re-submit their paperwork.
May 27, 2009
3
Advice of Counsel Session:
Common Council recessed for an Advice of Counsel session.
Reconvene:
Common Council reconvened into Regular session.
Resolution
By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario
WHEREAS, funding for the project to rebuild the street and restore the brick surface on
the 300 Block of Martin Luther King Jr. Street, also known as East State Street is
concurrently under consideration and practically contingent on funding to provide for
water distribution system infrastructure rehabilitation, replacement, and improvements
on the same block. This part of the project is necessary to ensure the good and proper
function of the water distribution infrastructure and protect both water system below and
the new street surface above, and
WHEREAS, the existing 100-year old 16-inch diameter water main on the 300 block is
in excellent condition excepting the seals at the pipe joints. Bell joint retainer clamps
and gaskets are needed on these seals at each of the 30-joints along the water main on
the 300-block in order to ensure both the water main and the new street work above it
from joint seal failure and wash out from subsequent leaks, and
WHEREAS, the existing water services, fire hydrant, and fire hydrant service line under
the street are also vintage and in need of replacement to ensure against failure,
leakage, and wash outs, and
WHEREAS, three new water services are proposed to supply water for irrigation
purposes on two planter islands at the east end of the block and one on the west end of
the block. Water services to these planter islands will eliminate the safety hazards
encountered in laying supply hoses or carrying water across the busy street. It is most
cost effective to install these three water services during this project while the street is
closed for construction, and
WHEREAS, results from the low bid received on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 were
incorporated in the budget for the CP #730 - 300 Block of Martin Luther King Jr. Street,
also known as East State Street from a tabulation of the project budget prepared by the
City Engineers Office the portion of the total work attributable to the water distribution
system is 21.45% of the total project, or $140,000.00, and
WHEREAS, both the Superintendent of Public Works and the Assistant Superintendent
of Public Works Water & Sewer Division concur with the assessed cost of $140,000.00
for the water portion work; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby recommends the creation of Capital Project
#516 Water Distribution Improvements, Martin Luther King Jr. Street/East State Street
in the amount not to exceed $140,000 for the purposes of water distribution system
infrastructure rehabilitation, replacement, and improvements on the 300 Block of Martin
Luther King Jr. Street also known as East State Street; and be it further
RESOLVED, That funds necessary for said project shall be derived from the issuance
of serial bonds.
Alderperson Cogan noted that he supports the recommendation of the Board of Public
Works. He stated that the 2005 Common Council resolution does not cover all
situations and should be reconsidered. He noted that the construction schedule on this
project is very tight and a timely decision is needed.
City Attorney Hoffman explained that the Board of Public Works had two bids before it
for consideration. New York State law and City rules dictate that the City must accept
the lowest bid. In 2001 the State gave the City the ability to impose a requirement that
bidders have a certified apprenticeship program in place. The Common Council
resolution adopted in 2005 intended the apprenticeship program to include each trade
or occupation involved in the project. The Department of Public Works asked both
contractors to supply evidence that it participated in an apprenticeship program.
May 27, 2009
4
Wenzel Contractors provided two letters for two trades but there are at least nine
occupations represented in this project. No other documentation was received. He
further explained that the Board of Public Works was constrained by the legislation and
the evidence provided, so they made the decision to waive the requirement and chose
the lower bidder.
Alderperson Dotson stated that she disagrees that a decision has to be made
immediately and noted that the project is over budget and she is not comfortable adding
funding to it at this point.
Alderperson Clairborne noted that he agrees with Alderperson Dotson as it sounds like
making this decision is in conflict with the intention of the policy. He believes that new
information was offered to Council tonight regarding the apprenticeship program that the
Board of Public Works did not have. He suggested that the project be deferred for a
year as he supports the use of local labor resources.
Alderperson Zumoff stated that he was at the Board of Public Works meeting and noted
that the City offered Wenzel Contractors many opportunities to provide the information
and encouraged them to do so. Wenzel did not provide the required information, so he
does not have a problem with awarding the project to the lowest bidder.
Alderperson Rosario stated that he supports the 2005 Resolution and would like to see
it revised so that it is usable; however, he cannot support delaying the project as
increased construction costs are likely to be incurred.
Alderperson Tomlan stated that she concurs with Alderpersons Cogan, Zumoff, and
Rosario. She noted that she appreciated hearing from the labor representatives and
she supports the 2005 Resolution.
Alderperson Schuler questioned whether the condition of the road was related to life
safety. Superintendent Gray responded that the road will continue to deteriorate similar
to Stewart Avenue and may require the City to temporarily fill in potholes with asphalt
which doesn’t bond well with brick.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) Coles, Rosario, Zumoff, Tomlan, Myrick, Cogan
Nays (3) Dotson, Schuler, Clairborne
Abstentions (0)
Carried (6-3)
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
______________________________ _______________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Carolyn K. Peterson,
City Clerk Mayor