Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2009-08-13COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Special Meeting 5:00 p.m. August 13, 2009 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Alderpersons (10) Coles, Dotson, Rosario, Clairborne, Tomlan, Zumoff, Schuler, Myrick, Cogan, Korherr OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney – Hoffman Superintendent of Public Works – Gray Information Management Specialist – Myers BPW Commissioner – Wykstra BPW Commissioner - Brock PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Governance and Initial Discussion About Findings Statement Mayor Peterson opened the meeting by asking Common Council members what topics they wanted to discuss. She explained that she, staff, and Alderperson Cogan met with officials from Bolton Point on August 10, 2009. She stated that the purpose of that meeting was to understand where the Bolton Point Commission is as far as looking at the City of Ithaca becoming a partner or customer. She stated that they reviewed the current memorandum of understanding, which acknowledges the customer/partner methodology. She further stated that one of the commission members, Don Hartill, from the Village of Cayuga Heights, is writing a process that could be followed for the City of Ithaca going from being a customer to a partner at Bolton Point, and what benefits the City would bring to Bolton Point. She explained that the big question is that to create a customer to partner relationship with Bolton Point would require a lot of work on both sides. She wanted to have this meeting to determine if there is any interest by Common Council members in becoming a customer or not. Alderperson Cogan explained that most of the Bolton Point Commission members are not as supportive towards the City becoming a partner as Don Hartill, from the Village of Cayuga Heights. He further stated that the commission understands that the City being a customer is a non-starter as far as the City entering into negotiations with them. He further stated that they feel their offer of letting the City become a customer is very generous. The members of the commission also feel that one way the City could show its commitment to Bolton Point would be by making a capital investment in their water plant, in addition to the water main that needs to be built to connect the City to Bolton Point’s water system. He explained what the City’s role would grow into if it were to join as a customer and eventually become a voting member of the commission. He stated that the commission is not sure the elimination of the City’s water supply is wise and considers redundancy another factor in their decision. He explained that officials at the meeting Monday requested that the City check with Common Council members for a straw poll of whether they would want to join Bolton Point, as a customer to start and possibly a partner in the future. He stated that it would require a tremendous amount of work if that is the way Common Council members would like to proceed. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the proposal offered by Bolton Point. Mayor Peterson asked Common Council members what their thoughts were on the current offer on the table from Bolton Point. Alderperson Coles stated that she does not support the current offer on the table from Bolton Point. Alderperson Rosario stated that he would not consider anything less than partnership from the start with Bolton Point. 2 August 13, 2009 Alderperson Dotson stated that she supports Alderperson Rosario’s comments and appreciates the time put forth so far in negotiations, but it seems like the City would have no power with the current offer from Bolton Point. Alderperson Schuler stated that she does not support the current offer on the table from Bolton Point. Alderperson Tomlan stated that she is interested in inter-municipal cooperation, but she would not support going forward with the current offer from Bolton Point. Alderperson Myrick stated that the option to rebuild the water plant is appealing. Alderperson Korherr arrived at 5:30. City Attorney Hoffman stated that it appears that the current partners at Bolton Point have worked together for many years and taking on a new partner would be a big commitment and decision. He further stated that future operations of the plant may change because of the customer base going from more rural to urban which may be another factor in the Commission’s current offer because of the uncertainty of what that change may bring to their operations. Alderperson Myrick left the meeting at 5:35 p.m. Alderperson Cogan stated that he is pretty disappointed by the current offer from Bolton Point. He thought that by this time the benefits of the City joining would be clear to Bolton Point Commissioners and the City. He can see the concerns on both sides. He stated that from a technical viewpoint Bolton Point is the best option, but it is not a technical decision, it is a political decision. He would like to take the long view which shows the benefits of going with the Bolton Point option, but he cannot support the current offer on the table. He noted that it is clear from the Environmental Impact Statement that either option is about equal in its impacts. He knows that people will be happy with two water sources, so he is happy to support the rebuild option. He further stated that the Board of Public Works did a good job with the Findings Statement and he hopes that Common Council can do the same with its findings and move forward. Alderperson Clairborne stated that he agrees with Alderperson Rosario and would not support anything but a full partnership with Bolton Point. He further stated that if the City chooses the re-build option he wants to make sure the Six Mile Creek Natural Area is protected and perhaps make improvements in the current protective measures that are in place. Alderperson Korherr stated that if Bolton Point really wanted the City as a full partner it would have been negotiated by now. She further stated that this has been discussed for a long time, and she supports the re-build option. Mayor Peterson stated that her recap of Common Council’s statements today would be that if full partnership isn’t offered from the beginning, and she doesn’t think it will be, Common Council does not wish to consider that relationship. City Attorney Hoffman stated that CEQR rules say that decisions must be informed by environmental considerations, so he would caution City decision makers about doing anything that looks like a decision that is based on political issues rather than environmental considerations. Mayor Peterson restated, for clarification, that Common Council’s response back to the Bolton Point Commission would be that they would like to see on the table an offer that starts with partnership immediately. Common Council concurred, but Alderperson Clairborne wanted to make sure that did not mean automatic agreement and Common Council members supported that clarification statement. 3 August 13, 2009 Alderperson Coles stated that the only thing she would add is that Common Council members have all reviewed the Environmental Impact Study that was done by the Board of Public Works. She further stated that many Common Council members have waded through that process along with Board of Public Works members, so it is not without that information that many of us are saying the things that we are saying, even though we have not had the formal process which might have taken that into account. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the findings statement in regards to protection of the City’s watershed in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. City Attorney Hoffman explained Common Council’s duty before it approves or funds an action according to the Findings Statement as an involved agency. He stated that the environmental review has been carried out by the lead agency, which is the Board of Public Works, and the lead agency has produced a set of findings. He noted that Common Council could use those findings, modify them, or work on a set of findings that is entirely their own, it would be up to them to decide how to proceed. Common Council does need to show, in its findings and before making a decision, that they have considered the relevant environmental impacts, facts, and conclusions that are disclosed in the environmental impact statement, and that they have weighed and balanced relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations, and provided a rationale for their decision. Common Council must certify that the requirements of CEQR have been met and then they also must certify that consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized by the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable. He explained that last requirement is particularly important, given the complexity of the potential impacts that are all identified in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the amount and variety of mitigating measures that are indentified in the EIS. His advice is for Common Council members is to go through the helpful chart of mitigating measures, as the ultimate decision maker, to decide which of those mitigating measures it wants to be carried out in conjunction with whatever action is chosen. Some of the mitigating measures apply to both options, but many of them only apply to one. For efficiency sake the focus can be on the ones that apply to one. But, you should be looking at them and determining which ones. He noted that the Board of Public Works made a distinction among the items listed and some of the items listed are italicized. The Board has characterized those as “perhaps requiring approval by a body other than the Board of Public Works”. So that his understanding is that the Board felt uncomfortable saying these have to be done, even though they are on the list, because they didn’t feel like they had the authority to mandate that those be done. BPW Commissioner Wykstra stated that it was not that the Board did not feel comfortable mandating or otherwise deciding whether these mitigations be done, but it was also a matter of retaining some sort of flexibility. His understanding was that there were certain things that the Board may have termed “recommendations” because they may or may not have been comfortable listing them as “mitigations”. But he does know in many instances it was a matter of “we don’t know exactly what shape this project is going to take” so to mandate so far ahead that these mitigations will be done or will be done in a certain fashion didn’t seem proper. City Attorney Hoffman stated that he just wanted Common Council to know that he considers the approach that the Board finally settled on in having these two different types of mitigating measures to be “unusual” and he was not completely comfortable with it as a CEQR approach, and he would not recommend it to Common Council. In making the required CEQR statement that the chosen action will be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable, in his opinion, the authorizing agency, which is Common Council, needs to say what are the mitigating measures going to be. There shouldn’t be equivocation. Something should either be there or not be there, that’s his opinion and his experience with CEQR determinations. 4 August 13, 2009 Alderperson Zumoff stated that he was going to somewhat take issue with what the City Attorney said in favor of what Commissioner Wykstra said, in the context of the complexity of the project, and Council members not being engineers. He stated that he doesn’t know that Common Council is able to make those decisions at this point. He further stated that Commissioner Wykstra is right; there are so many things that will depend on how the project goes. Alderperson Zumoff further stated that he had made a statement at the Board of Public Works that he thought what Common Council was intending was that they would make the decision, but not manage the project; that would be the responsibility of the Board of Public Works. Mayor Peterson stated that she will take issue with that because her understanding with CEQR with the many issues that she has dealt with is that it is Common Council’s duty to make those decisions. She noted that there are not that many, only the ones that are in italics. She stated that the footnotes indicate that recommendations are not considered mitigations to be implemented until they are authorized by permit and/or approval by the reviewing agency, but that Common Council doesn’t necessarily have to follow that methodology. For example she has spoken to a few Common Council members, similar to what Alderperson Clairborne was saying about the natural areas, that the Six Mile Creek water source/water shed area is our water source. It can be looked at in a technical way, but she also equally, if not more so, strongly looks at it as a natural area benefit to this community, where this urban community can readily get out into the woods, along a beautiful water course, and enjoy some beautiful flora and fauna that are really special to that area. For her, looking at this for Common Council, she takes those mitigations seriously. She is protecting this kind of dual nature of our particular water source and natural area for our community. So, for her, post Board of Public Works, she is in this unique situation of only voting in a tie, but being a voting member of the Board of Public Works. For her what was very, very important was not to have something in italics that we have been working on for years, such as the ecological informed guidelines for work in the city in the natural areas, left open ended. It is very important as the City likely continues in that area as a water supply that those guidelines be adopted as soon as possible. She stated that will be what she will be looking at as Common Council’s responsibility in reviewing the findings statement. Alderperson Dotson stated that she agrees with Mayor Peterson that Common Council needs to be clear about the mitigating factors and she is pleased that the NAC guidelines are moving forward because she thought that they were a really important step. Discussion followed on the floor regarding Common Council members’ commitment to maintain, preserve and perhaps enhance current regulations/protections in place in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area/Water Shed Area. Regardless of which option is chosen, Common Council members want to ensure that the natural area is protected and there is no one that does not support that intention. Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the proposed Natural Areas Guidelines for work in the natural areas in the City and how close to approval they were. Discussion also followed on the floor regarding recent work in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area on the access road to the 30’ dam and how the guidelines worked with that process. It was a good exercise and as a result amendments are being made regarding erosion control measures. Additional discussion followed on the floor regarding information from a past meeting with Attorney Ruswick and the protection of the natural area in Six Mile Creek and the need for future inter-municipal cooperation in efforts there. Mayor Peterson stated that the Town of Caroline should be included in those discussions as well and Common Council members agreed. Supt. Gray wanted to point out that the length of the communication path between the Natural Areas Commission (NAC) and Board of Public Works may have been long at one point, but it has gotten substantially shorter. He stated that there are a set of guidelines that were last reviewed by the NAC, who made a couple of minor suggestions, but he doesn’t think that anyone is looking at the guidelines right now and thinking this will be the last draft. He noted that whatever decision is made about the 5 August 13, 2009 City’s water supply we still have a natural area to protect and an investment in the water shed that needs protection. Alderperson Dotson stated that what she is looking for in the findings statement is some sense about what issues people are finding that need further attention, or if Common Council members want to take the BPW’s findings and modify them to some extent so that they can be ours in order to move forward as quickly as possible. Mayor Peterson responded that Common Council members should come prepared for the next meeting which would be dedicated to the findings statement, to answer those kinds of questions. City Attorney Hoffman stated that he wanted to make one point about the mitigating measures and the distinction that is being discussed. He noted that in the chart on page 12 of 22, there are a whole set of mitigation measures having to do with the visual impact of new structures that would be associated with the re-build. They are all italicized and his understanding is the reason that the BPW italicized them is that they felt they were site plan decisions. He doesn’t agree that the mitigating measures need to be qualified for that reason. It is true that new construction will have to go through the site plan review process; however, he doesn’t see anything that would preclude Common Council or the BPW for that matter from setting standards. The Planning Board can always set the bar a little higher, but standards such as saying that building colors and materials will be chosen that are appropriate to the setting should be established. He can’t imagine the Planning Board overturning that, so again, he believes that Common Council can set appropriate standards that are consistent with these recommended mitigating measures and then another involved agency could go a little further if it wants to, there is nothing to stop that. Alderperson Zumoff stated that whichever decision is made, Common Council will still have to protect the natural area because it is our responsibility. So the question he has is, does Common Council have to decide that as part of the decision making process. For example, Common Council doesn’t have to decide on exactly or how much we’re going to take care of the dams or how we’re going to get the silt out because that has to be done either way and he doesn’t see that as part of the decision making process. Mayor Peterson responded that she would say that you have to put a road in there anyway to get to examine the dam but there are ways that you could or could not do that or should or should not do that and she thinks that is part of our responsibility. Common Council should determine those guidelines now. Alderperson Cogan stated that, if Common Council is going to vote to move forward with an option that requires doing a lot of work in the water shed area, he would want Common Council to say how it wants that work to be done, in order to minimize any impacts; that is why we have to make the decision now. As he was reading through the mitigation recommendations and the ones that were italicized, he agrees that there is no reason to necessarily completely defer to the Planning Board because these were site plan issues, but one question he had is how can Common Council say that something has to be done, charge the Planning Board to do it, and determine whether it has been done. In other words, how can Common Council say that it has to be done, but then not become the agency that implements it. City Attorney Hoffman responded that he agreed with Alderperson Cogan that Common Council doesn’t want everything to come back to them. That is why it should set standards about materials and colors being appropriate to the context. He assumes that this project is going to be largely, if not entirely, designed by outside consultants. Someone will get a contract to design the various components. If Common Council chooses the rebuild option, there are various components that have to be designed, but Common Council can say that the design needs to include these components. Common Council has the Mayor as someone who Chairs the BPW or the Superintendent of Public Works who is overseeing contracts for design, so presumably Common Council sets a clear directive, and the Mayor and Superintendent would see that it is carried 6 August 13, 2009 through in the design, then the design goes to the Planning Board, and they do their site review work on it. Supt. Gray stated that from where he is sitting Common Council’s decision could be as simple as funding the Board of Public Works request because they made a decision, or Common Council’s decision can be as complex as going into a great deal of detail and setting design parameters, which frankly he couldn’t set right at the moment if we decided to rebuild. He can imagine that at this turning point of a new century that there may be a group of things that Common Council would want to state about green building technology, or levels of design considerations, etc. He is assuming that Common Council is not going to get into details such as whether the color picked for a structure is appropriate and so forth because if we do rebuild the plant rather than going to Bolton Point, there is going to be a lot of input because it will go to the public for comments and input, there will be presentations to Common Council and the Board of Public Works on it, and there will be a lot of people who are going to have opinions about how the project should look. He doesn’t think the Common Council wants to get into that level of detail. He thinks there are a lot of things Common Council can help with because of certain standards that you want met such as if the City wants to go to LEED’s platinum, day lighting, different types of structures, etc. and what is important to Common Council. He stated that is the kind of input that he thinks would be extremely valuable for the Board of Public Works to work with. Alderperson Tomlan stated that City Attorney Hoffman had noted about receiving comments from the NAC, and she wondered at what point in the process would comments be received from the Planning Board. City Attorney Hoffman responded that the NAC is an interested agency. He doesn’t know if the Planning Board ever indicated that they wanted to be one as well. But, arguably the Planning Board is an involved agency because the construction components will go, if the rebuild option were chosen, to the Planning Board. He also noted that most of the impacts that the EIS identifies are in the natural area, but there are also impacts on the neighborhood. BPW Commissioner Wykstra stated that he wanted to make sure that something was clear. The BPW findings statement stated neither that the two options have equal impact environmentally, nor that they have unequal impact. The Board side stepped that. The Board’s findings statement says that both can be mitigated and that is all. As far as whether they are equal or unequal in impact, the Board reserved that for their resolution of determination which he assumes Common Council members have all read. Mayor Peterson confirmed that the statement BPW Commissioner Wykstra just made was correct. Discussion followed on the floor regarding future meeting dates for this topic and Common Council members’ availability. ADJOURNMENTOn a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. ______________________________ _______________________________ Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson, Information Management Specialist Mayor