HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2009-09-30COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Special Meeting 5:30 p.m. September 30, 2009
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Alderpersons (9) Coles, Dotson, Rosario, Clairborne, Tomlan, Zumoff, Schuler,
Myrick, Cogan
*Alderperson Robin Korherr’s resignation became effective September 30, 2009.
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney – Hoffman
Superintendent of Public Works – Gray
Asst. Supt. of Water & Sewer – Whitney
Board of Public Works Commissioners: Schlather, Brock
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Town of Ithaca Supervisor Herb Engman joined the discussion to address impressions
that may have been left with Council members regarding discussions held during recent
meetings of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (Bolton
Point). He explained that Bolton Point voted to welcome the City of Ithaca as a member
of the Commission; however, the terms and conditions of membership are a matter of
negotiation. Supervisor Engman clarified that the terms “member” and “partner” have
the same meaning. He further noted that the potential cost savings associated with the
purchase option would ensure positive negotiations, and suggested that a time frame be
set to conduct those discussions. Supervisor Engman reaffirmed that the existing
positive relationship that both water suppliers currently enjoy would continue no matter
what decision is made by the City.
Discussion followed on the floor with Council members asking for clarification of
comments made by particular members of the Water Commission. Alderperson
Clairborne requested a clarification of the cost savings mentioned. Supervisor Engman
responded that each party would realize approximately $500,000 in savings if the City
chose the Purchase Option.
Alderperson Myrick arrived at the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
2.1 Discussion of Resolution Language for Adoption of Findings Statement
Regarding Water Supply
Alderperson Tomlan distributed the following resolution for discussion:
Water Supply – Involved Lead Agency Findings – Resolution
Regarding Acceptance of Lead Agency Findings for the Evaluation of the City of
Ithaca Drinking Water Upgrade Options Including: Purchase Option from the
Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission or Replacement of the
City’s Existing Water Treatment Plant
WHEREAS, the current water source for the City of Ithaca’s water distribution system
relies upon the Six Mile Creek watershed and the filtration plant, built in 1903, located
on Water Street in the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, due to the age of the filtration plant and impending changes in water quality
standards, significant upgrades to the plant will be required in the near future, including
replacement of the filtration plant, dredging of the upper reservoir and modifications to
the intake system, settling lagoons and access routes to the raw water reservoir and
pipeline, and
WHEREAS, the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (SCLIWC)
operates a facility on East Shore Drive which provides drinking water to all or part of five
municipalities, using Cayuga Lake as its water source and the SCLIWC and the City of
Ithaca have executed a Memorandum of Understanding that indicates the willingness of
September 30, 2009
2
the SCLIWC to expand its facility to provide water to the City, which includes
decommissioning the existing system, purchasing finished water from the SCLIWC,
which arrangement would require expansion of the SCLIWC facility and construction of
a new water transmission main (pipeline) between the SCLIWC facility and the existing
City distribution system, and
WHEREAS, the choice between these two options involves broad policy concerns with
far reaching implications involving drinking water quality, financial, planning,
environmental, land use, energy use, intermunicipal cooperation, and neighborhood
quality issues, as well as issues of governance related to pricing, treatment and supply
of potable water, and is likely to determine a course of action for the next 50 to 100
years or more, and
WHEREAS, both options are Type I Actions subject to environmental review under the
provisions of the City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQRA) Chapter 176 of the
City of Ithaca Code as determined in §176-4 B. (1)(h) Any unlisted action (with the
exception of minor subdivisions) occurring wholly or partially within 100 feet of any of
the following: [2] …Six Mile Creek (including its associated gorge and rim area between
the southern boundary of the City and Aurora Street)…and [3] Unique natural areas as
adopted by Common Council; and §176-4 B.(2), Clear-cutting or removal of vegetation
from more than ½ acre; and §176-4 B.(5) Any project or action which exceeds 25% of
any threshold in this section, occurring wholly or partially within or substantially
contiguous to any publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation area or designated
open space …and both options are Type I Actions under the NYSDEC Regulations Part
617, State Environmental Quality Review, (SEQRA) §617.4 (b)(11) any Unlisted action
that exceeds a Type I threshold established by an involved agency pursuant to section
617.14 of this part, and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works declared its
intent to undertake the environmental review of actions resulting from the upgrade or
replacement of the City’s current water supply and to act as lead agent for that review,
and
WHEREAS, as provided for under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO), the City of
Ithaca Board of Public Works as Lead Agency undertook the environmental review of
two options under consideration by the City of Ithaca to address its future water supply
needs, being the Rebuild (or Replacement) Option and the Purchase Option, and
WHEREAS, said environmental review proceeded as recounted in the Board of Public
Works resolution “Water Supply – Lead Agency Findings, “carried unanimously at that
board’s July 8, 2009 meeting (with Mayor Carolyn Peterson absent from the vote), and
WHEREAS, in the above-cited resolution the Board accepted the Findings Statement,
dated July 8, 2009, for the Evaluation of the City of Ithaca Drinking Water Upgrade
Options Including: Purchase Option from the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal
Water commission or Replacement of the city’s Existing Water Treatment Plant, with
respect to its scope, content and adequacy, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council, as the body responsible for funding a
capital project to address such needs, is an Involved agency with regard to this
environmental review, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works directed the Superintendent of
Public Works, or his designee, to provide the required notice of the Board’s intention to
act as lead agency to all other involved agencies, including the City of Ithaca Common
Council, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, the Tompkins County
Department of Health, the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission,
the New York State Bureau of Water Supply Protection, the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of Transportation, the
Town of Ithaca, and the Village of Lansing, and
WHEREAS, the involved agencies consented or did not reply within the designated 30-
day time frame as specified under the City of Ithaca Code §176-6 C. (1) Coordinated
September 30, 2009
3
review, that the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works be designated lead agency for the
environmental review for the project to upgrade or replace the city’s water supply
system, including Common Council’s specific consent by resolution dated February 7,
2007, and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2007, the Board of Public Works, in a vote of 6 in favor, 0
against, declared itself to act as lead agency for the environmental review of actions
resulting from the upgrade or replacement of the City of Ithaca’s current water supply,
and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2007 the Board of Public Works held a special meeting to
review the Full Environmental Assessment Forms Parts I, II, and III, developed by staff,
for the two water supply options being considered, and this was the sole item discussed
at the regular meeting of the Board of Public Works on April 4, 2007, and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, as lead agency,
made a positive Declaration of Environmental Significance directing the consulting firm
of O’Brien and Gere, to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) to
evaluate potential impacts of the proposed upgrade or replacement of the City’s current
water supply, and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works held both an
Agency Scoping Session and a Public Scoping Session to identify issues to be
analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement and,
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works adopted a
final scoping document, and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2008, O’Brien and Gere submitted a dEIS to the City of Ithaca
Board of Public Works, which has examined possible environmental impacts, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, as Lead Agency for the purpose
of environmental review, reviewed the dEIS for completeness and adequacy for the
purpose of public review and comment, and has with the assistance of City Staff and
the City’s consultants, O’Brien and Gere, found the dEIS to be satisfactory with respect
to its scope, content, and adequacy, and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2008, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, as Lead
Agency for the purpose of environmental review, approved the filing of a Notice of
Completion/Notice of Hearing for the dEIS, after finding that the dEIS for the Evaluation
of the City of Ithaca Drinking Water Upgrade Options Including: Purchase Option from
the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission or Replacement of the
City’s Existing Water Treatment Plant was satisfactory with respect to its scope,
content, and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review, and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Completion/Notice of Hearing was filed in accordance with 6
NYCRR 617.12 and the dEIS made available at public repositories including City Hall,
several libraries, municipal offices within the project area, and on the City’s website, and
WHEREAS, public and agency comments on the dEIS were accepted by the Board of
Public Works between September 17, 2008 and December 5, 2008, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works advertised and held two public hearing sessions
on October 22, 2008 and November 19, 2008 to record oral public and agency
comments on the dEIS, and
WHEREAS, prior to and including May 20, 2009, O’Brien and Gere submitted a
proposed fEIS to the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, which incorporated the dEIS
by reference and included responses to substantive oral and written agency and public
comments (Responsiveness Summary) received during the comment period, and that
together these documents comprise the fEIS, and
WHEREAS, City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, as Lead Agency for the purpose of
environmental review, reviewed the fEIS for completeness and adequacy for the
September 30, 2009
4
purpose of public review and comment, and has with the assistance of City Staff and
the City’s consultants, O’Brien and Gere, found the fEIS to be satisfactory with respect
to its scope, content, and adequacy, and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2009, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, as Lead
Agency for the purpose of environmental review, approved the filing of a Notice of
Completion for the fEIS, after finding that the fEIS for the Evaluation of the City of Ithaca
Drinking Water Upgrade Options Including: Purchase Option from the Southern Cayuga
Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission or Replacement of the City’s Existing Water
Treatment Plant was satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for
the purpose of commencing public review, and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Completion of the fEIS was filed and distributed in
accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.12 and the fEIS made available at public repositories
including City Hall, several libraries, municipal offices within the project area, and on the
City’s website, and
WHEREAS, public notices identifying the City of Ithaca Board of Public Work’s
acceptance of the fEIS and availability of the fEIS for review were published in the
Environmental Notice Bulletin and Ithaca Journal on June 17, 2009, and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2009, O’Brien and Gere prepared and submitted a draft
Findings Statement in accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.11 for review by the Board of
Public Works, as Lead Agency, prior to its decision on a recommendation regarding the
water source choice (which decision may not occur less than 10 days following the filing
of the afore-mentioned Notice of Completion), and
WHEREAS, the Findings Statement is required to consider the relevant environmental
impacts, facts and conclusions disclosed in the fEIS; weigh and balance relevant
environmental impacts with socio-economic and other considerations; provide a
rationale for the Lead Agency’s findings; certify that the requirements of
SEQRA/CEQRO have been met; and certify that consistent with socio-economic and
other considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the actions
avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable,
and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum
extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the findings those mitigative
measures that were identified as practicable, and
WHEREAS, between June 17, 2009 and July 8, 2009, the City of Ithaca Board of Public
Works reviewed and revised the draft Findings Statement with respect to its scope,
content, and adequacy, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council, as an Involved Agency, has reviewed
said Findings Statement, and in addition to its general concurrence, strongly urges that
the Board of Public Works and other agencies involved with implementing a decision, to
take all possible actions as if the identified “Recommendations” in the Findings
Statement had been identified as Mitigation measures, and
WHEREAS, 10 days have passed since the filing of the fEIS Notice of Completion, fEIS,
and legal notices, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council Board of Public Works, as an
Involved Lead Agency, hereby accepts the Findings Statement, dated July 8, 2009, for
the Evaluation of the City of Ithaca Drinking Water Upgrade Options Including:
Purchase Option from the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission or
Replacement of the City’s Existing Water Treatment Plant, with respect to its scope,
content, and adequacy, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council Board of Public Works hereby
concurs with the Board of Public Works’ requests that the Mayor direct City staff and/or
consultants to take those steps, including filing and distributing the Lead Agency’s
Findings Statement as required under 6 NYCRR Part 617.12 as may be necessary or
appropriate to complete the environmental review process.
September 30, 2009
5
Extensive discussion followed regarding the Involved Agency Findings for the proposed
water supply. Mayor Peterson noted that as an Involved Agency, Common Council
needs to adopt a Findings Statement. City Attorney Hoffman clarified that as Common
Council is the entity that is making the water supply decision, they should define the
action that they are approving. SEQR requires that any negative environmental impacts
be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable with conditions that are attached to the
proposed action, so Common Council needs to be clear on what the conditions are.
Note: the Statement of Findings adopted by the Board of Public Works included
recommendations made in italics with the explanation that “Recommended mitigation
measures (italicized) may require approval by a body other than the City of Ithaca Board
of Public Works. Recommendations are not considered mitigation to be implemented
until they are authorized by permit and/or approval by the reviewing agency with the
authority to approve implementation.”
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the options of either removing the italics from
the recommendations listed in the Findings Statement thereby making them all
mitigation measures, or reviewing each recommendation individually and making a
decision on their disposition.
Alderperson Schuler voiced concern regarding turning the recommendations into
mitigation measures before Council understands all of the details of the project. She
further stated that she felt the Board of Public Works did “due diligence” in the
development of the Findings Statement and that Common Council should move on to
the actual water source decision.
Alderperson Zumoff noted that he is happy with making the water source decision but
leaving the details of the project to the Board of Public Works. Alderperson Coles noted
that she agrees that the Findings Statement adopted by the Board of Public Works is
sufficient and that it is time to move forward with the water source decision.
Alderperson Tomlan suggested that the language in the 13th Whereas clause be
amended to read as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council, as an Involved Agency, has reviewed
said Findings Statement, and in addition to its general concurrence, strongly urges that
the Board of Public Works and other agencies involved with implementing a decision,
inform their respective actions consistent with the recommendations as well as the
mitigations in the Findings Statement”
Alderpersons Rosario and Clairborne questioned what would happen if the italicized
recommendations became mitigation measures, but some of the items were too
expensive to complete as part of the water plant construction project. Mayor Peterson
noted that sometimes projects are stopped until corrective actions can take place. She
further noted that many of the recommendations are very general and do not specify
exact actions to be taken. Furthermore, many of these recommendations comply with
policies that are already in effect within the City. City Attorney Hoffman responded that
the City needs to act in good faith and with a rational basis at all times. If Common
Council can say in good faith that they intend to implement these mitigative measures
and find out at a later date that the costs of implementing these measures are
prohibitive and/or funding is not available to implement them, Common Council would
have a rational basis on which to base another decision or to change the project.
Alderperson Rosario stated that he would support removing the italics from the
recommendations and going forward with the strongest Findings Statement possible.
Alderpersons Dotson, Cogan and Myrick also voiced their support for removing the
italics from the recommendations.
Board of Public Works Commissioner Schlather stated that if Common Council changed
the italicized recommendations into mitigation measures, they become binding. He
voiced his concern that Common Council could be creating constraints that cannot be
imagined at this stage of the project, and noted that the City may not be able to defend
actions taken if Common Council chose to change the mitigation measures at a later
date.
September 30, 2009
6
2.2 Discussion of Resolution Language for the Water Source Decision (including
aspects such as System Governance, Economics, System Reliability, Water
Quality, Implementability
Alderperson Dotson distributed the following resolution for discussion and noted that
other Council members assisted her with it:
Water Supply – Adoption of the Rebuild Option to Address the City of Ithaca’s
Future Water Supply Needs – Resolution
WHEREAS, the current water source for the City of Ithaca's water treatment and
distribution system relies upon the Six Mile Creek watershed and the filtration plant built
in 1903, located on Water Street in the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, due to the age of the filtration plant and impending changes in water quality
standards, significant upgrades to the system are required, and
WHEREAS, City staff and consultants retained by the City to study this issue have
proposed an upgraded system capable of meeting new water quality standards, the
components of which system (including replacement of the filtration plant, dredging of
the upper reservoir, and modifications to the intake system, settling lagoons and access
routes to the raw water reservoir and pipeline) are described in the Environmental
Impact Statement for this action and which system is identified as the “rebuild option,
and
WHEREAS, an alternative to such upgrades is the purchase of finished water from the
Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (SCLIWC) that has been
drawn from Cayuga Lake at Bolton Point in the Town of Lansing, which arrangement
would require the decommissioning of the existing City system, expansion of the
SCLIWC's treatment facility and construction of a new water transmission main
(pipeline) between the SCLIWC facility and the existing city distribution system
(identified as the "purchase option"), and
WHEREAS, in a series of joint meetings of the Common Council and the Board of
Public Works during Summer 2007, in meetings of the Community and Organizational
Issues Committee during 2008, and in various special meetings (including as a
Committee of the Whole) during 2009, the Common Council gathered information and
carefully analyzed both the rebuild option and the purchase option in terms of the needs
of the City, including the impact on the environment, the relevant issues of control and
governance, the capital and operational costs, the quality and sufficiency of its water
supply, the safety of its citizenry, and other factors, and
WHEREAS, in terms of the impacts on the environment, certain mitigation measures
and other related recommendations for both options were identified in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared in connection with this decision and
were set forth in the findings adopted by the Board of Public Works as lead agency, and
WHEREAS, in its findings, Common Council determined that all of these mitigation
measures and other recommendations, if made into conditions of the rebuild option
would minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent
practicable, and
WHEREAS, largely because of the opportunity for gravity flow of raw water, the rebuild
option is more energy efficient than the purchase option, and even taking into account
the larger environmental impacts of chemical use and dredging for capacity under the
rebuild option vs. The purchase option, the overall analysis in the EIS indicates that the
carbon footprint of the rebuild option is smaller than that of the purchase option, and
WHEREAS, the design and construction of a new water plant provides the City with a
unique opportunity to incorporate hydropower facilities into its operations, thereby
helping to reduce the City’s carbon footprint, and
WHEREAS, in terms of control and governance, the rebuild option provides the City of
Ithaca with a greater ability to determine operating policies and future capital
improvements, possibly incorporating innovations in technology and design, than does
September 30, 2009
7
the purchase option, while not precluding opportunities for cooperation with other
local/regional producers of finished water, and
WHEREAS, in terms of costs, bother options appear to be cost effective, with the
rebuild option projected to require a similar water rate as the purchase option; further,
the costs for the operation and maintenance of the Six Mile Creek reservoir area,
including the dams and other infrastructure, will continue to be paid by water system
consumers under the rebuild option, but would likely have to be funded through other
means under the purchase option, and
WHEREAS, in terms of public safety, the rebuild option – together with the SCLIWC
water system and the Cornell University water system – provides a level of redundancy
community-wide that already has proven mutually beneficial; further, the rebuild option’s
gravity-fed supply of water could ensure that there is water available for fire protection,
even in the face of a large scale regional loss of electricity, and accordingly is supported
by the Ithaca City Fire Department; finally, the water system facilities located within the
watershed reservoir area, including access roads and trails, provide emergency access
for rescue operations and related activities, again as noted and endorsed by the Ithaca
City Fire Department, and
WHEREAS, in terms of water quality the rebuild option will produce finished water that
meets existing water quality requirements and can meet future anticipated water quality
requirements and regulations; further, the raw water is drawn from a source that is
located high in the watershed and is protected from nearby residential, agricultural,
commercial and recreational uses and development, thereby reducing its vulnerability to
potential contamination from such sources, including emerging contaminants;
WHEREAS, in the interest of water quality, the City has, since the construction of the
present water treatment plant and its supporting/concomitant infrastructure (dams,
reservoirs and raw water main), invested effort and resources to protect the Six Mile
Creek Watershed, from the planting of tens of thousands of trees during the 1920s and
in 1930, to the purchase of land, including land outside its municipal/corporation
boundaries, [when], and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Caroline has, by resolution passed
unanimously at a meeting held February 12, 2008, expressed its support for the City’s
continued use of Six Mile Creek as its water source, while noting the measures that the
Town has taken and is planning to take to control erosion along the creek through the
Barrile stream restoration project, hence decreasing the amount of sediment flowing
downstream toward the City of Ithaca’s reservoir, and
WHEREAS, the City benefits from the stream monitoring efforts of various individuals
and groups, including volunteers under the aegis of the Community Science Institute,
and
WHEREAS, in terms of implementability both options present comparable challenges,
however the proposed water main necessary for the purchase option requires
easements or rights-of-way yet to be secured through private property, while the rebuild
option would be built completely on city-owned land, and
WHEREAS, in terms of implementability, the rebuild option requires no additional real
property purchases or easements, in contrast with the purchase option, which requires
such on six private properties with the construction of the West Shore transmission
main, and
WHEREAS, ….[ related to implementability, including willingness of Bolton Point
and Cornell to provide water as their systems allow, during construction of a
rebuilt City water treatment plant….to be added by MT], and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article V of the Ithaca City Charter, the Board of Public Works
has responsibility for the improvement of the City's water system, and related actions
incidental thereto (Sections C-65 and C-79), and the establishment of water rates and
other charges to pay for the same (Sections C-66 and C-79), has control of the Water
Department, its property and of the appropriations made therefore, subject to the
“direction and review” of the Common Council (Section C-61), and
September 30, 2009
8
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works expressed their unanimous view (exclusive of
the Chair, Mayor Peterson, who was absent from the vote) that the rebuild option, when
implemented with the mitigations outlined in their Findings, effectively minimizes or
avoids adverse environmental effects to the extent practicable, and adopted the rebuild
option as their choice in this matter, and
WHEREAS, the City’s Planning and Development Board, in a resolution approved
unanimously on September 10, 2009, recommended the rebuild option, and “join[ed]
with the Board of Public Works in urging Common Council to appropriate funds for the
design and implementation of rebuilding the water supply plant located on Water Street
in the City of Ithaca,” and
WHEREAS, the Local Action Plan adopted by the Common Council in 2006 calls for a
20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2001 levels by 2016, and the Local
Action Plan committee (LAPC) has noted that either choice will produce significantly
more greenhouse gas emissions than current operations, which works against the City’s
goals stated in the Local Action Plan, and noted that the rebuild option (depending on
how dredging activities are included) is expected to create fewer greenhouse gas
emissions, and further has recommended certain mitigations to bring to emissions
down, including purchase of renewable electricity, design choices to minimize electricity
needs and other emitting activities, and offset of increased emissions by lowered
emissions from other City operations or by purchase of external offsets, and
WHEREAS, the Natural Areas Commission has noted impacts of this choice,
particularly in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area, [document citation]; now, therefore be
it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby adopts the rebuild option
to replace the City’s water filtration plant on Water Street and to improve its water
system, including related improvements to the Six Mile Creek water source and intake
system, conditioned on the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the
Common Council’s findings statement, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council directs the Board of Public Works, chaired by
the Mayor of the City of Ithaca, to take actions necessary to implement this decision,
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council directs the implementation of this decision to
include exploration and consideration of the potential for the establishment of an energy
efficient hydropower facility to reduce the City’s carbon footprint through the production
of renewable electricity to offset the City’s electricity use.
Alderperson Dotson noted that some of the language included in the Resolution has not
been completely vetted by Common Council and she asked Council members to
contact her with their opinions on these issues.
Due to the lack of time for further consideration, the findings statement and decision
resolutions will be submitted for the October 7, 2009 Common Council meeting agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________ _______________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Carolyn K. Peterson,
City Clerk Mayor