HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2007-01-17BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Special Meeting/
Committee of the Whole Meeting 4:45 p.m. January 17, 2007
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (6) - Jenkins, Dotson, Chapman, Schlather, Tripp, Wykstra
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Hoffman
Deputy City Controller - Andrew
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Coles
Deputy Director of Planning and Development - Cornish
Executive Assistant - Grunder
EXCUSED:
DAC Liaison – Roberts
Request for Encroachment Agreement at 405 Turner Place
By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
WHEREAS, Attorney Jonathan Albanese, representing the owners of 405 Turner Place,
has requested an encroachment agreement for a concrete retaining wall which extends
approximately one (1) foot into the City street right-of-way, as show on the survey map
prepared by Raymond H. Brashear, PLS, dated May 19, 2000, and
WHEREAS, it appears that the wall in question has been in existence in its current
location for decades, and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the request and does not anticipate any conflicts due to
the existing encroachment in the near future, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby authorizes the Mayor to sign an
encroachment agreement containing the usual terms and conditions, plus a requirement
that the private property owner be solely responsible for maintaining, repairing and
replacing the wall, as deemed necessary by the City and at the private property owner’s
cost, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the encroachment agreement shall not be subject to a fee at this
time, per the City’s custom with regard to such agreements for existing, minor
encroachments associated with residential properties, but that the agreement shall
specify that at any time in the future it may become subject to new license/use fees or
other requirements established by the Board as the result of its review of
encroachments and license agreements, which review is anticipated to be conducted in
2007.
Commissioner Jenkins noted that she would abstain from the vote on this resolution, as
she was not present for the discussion.
A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (5) Wykstra, Tripp, Chapman, Dotson, Peterson
Nays (0)
Abstentions (1) Jenkins
Carried Unanimously (5-0)
(Commissioner Schlather absent from vote)
2
January 17, 2007
Sidewalk Assessments – 2005
By Commissioner Chapman: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp
WHEREAS, staff has supplied a copy of the assessment to homeowners as a result of
sidewalk work undertaken in 2005 to improve the safety of the sidewalk system, and
WHEREAS, the City’s Charter [C-73, D. (2)] requires the Board to review the
assessments and if found correct, shall certify the assessments to the Superintendent
prior to their being mailed out to the property owners, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works certifies the 2005 Sidewalk Assessment
roll and directs the Superintendent to mail the appropriate notices to the homeowners
listed on the roll.
Carried Unanimously (6-0)
(Commissioner Schlather absent from vote)
Establish the Board of Public Works as the Lead Agency for the Environmental
Review of a Proposal to Upgrade or Replace the City’s Current Water Supply
By Commissioner Dotson: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp
WHEREAS, the current water source for the City’s water distribution system relies upon
the Six Mile Creek watershed, and the water supply system includes approximately 700
acres of City-owned land in the watershed, the silt basin and dam upstream of Burns
Road (built in 1926), the current raw-water supply reservoir and 60-foot (Potters Falls)
dam (built in 1912), the lower reservoir and 30-foot dam (built in 1903, abandoned as a
water source in 1912), the water filtration plan on Water Street (built in 1903 and
expanded or modified several times since), and the settling lagoons off Giles Street
(built in the 1980’s), and
WHEREAS, due to the age of the filtration plant and a number of impending changes in
water quality rules, which require significant upgrades to the plant in the near future, it
has been determined that either a major system upgrade or a switch to another, existing
water supply is advisable, and
WHEREAS, the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (SCLIWC)
operates a facility on East Shore Drive (built in 1976) which provides drinking water to
all or part of five municipalities, using Cayuga Lake as its water source, and
WHEREAS, the SCLIWC and the City of Ithaca have executed a Memorandum of
Understanding, dates January 4, 2007, which indicates the willingness of the SCLIWC
to expand its facility and to provide a sufficient water supply to the City, pending
environmental review of such a project, and which assigns responsibility, between the
parties, for conducting such environmental review, and
WHEREAS, preliminary analysis of options available to the City has narrowed the
choice to two viable options, consisting of: (1) upgrading the existing water-supply
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; or (2) decommissioning the existing system, and purchasing
finished water from the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission, which
arrangement would require expansion of the SCLIWC facility on East Shore Drive and
construction of a new water transmission main (pipeline) between the SCLIWC facility
and the existing City distribution system, and
WHEREAS, State and City environmental review laws require that an involved agency
(i.e. one that is responsible for undertaking, approving or funding a proposed action)
must be designated as lead agency for the environmental review of that action, and
WHEREAS, the selection, funding and implementation of either of the above-referenced
options appears to be a Type I action, for the purposes of environmental review, now
therefore be it
3
January 17, 2007
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby declares its intention to act as lead
agency for the environmental review of the upgrade or replacement of the City’s current
water supply, pursuant to one of the options described above, and be it further
RESOLVED, That it is the intention of the Board that such environmental review
address each of the afore-mentioned options, in comparable detail, and include review
of the proposed transmission main that would need to be constructed between the
SCLIWC facility and the existing City distribution system, in order to accommodate the
City as a customer, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board direct the Superintendent, or his designee, to provide the
required notice of the Board’s intention in the matter, to all other involved agencies.
Mayor Peterson asked Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish and Rick
Gell from O’Brien and Gere to participate in the discussion of this item.
City Attorney Hoffman explained that this resolution was written in light of the discussion
at the joint Board of Public Works/Common Council meeting where it appeared that
there was substantial support for reviewing both options in the environmental review in
a comparable way. The Bolton Point option includes expansion of the existing Bolton
Point facility on East Shore Drive and the construction of a new water main from the
facility down Route 34 to connect with the City’s water system. According to the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which has now been signed by the Mayor on
behalf of the City and by the Chair of the Bolton Point Commission, the Bolton Point
system will expand its plant to accommodate the City as a customer if the City decides
to proceed in that direction.
In the MOU the City would conduct and pay for the environmental review of the new
transmission main. Bolton Point would conduct and pay for the environmental review
for the expansion of the plant if the City becomes a customer of Bolton Point.
Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish described the work that has
been done since the joint meeting of the Board and Common Council on January 11,
2007. She explained that Supt. Gray, Rick Gell, and herself reviewed and used the
City’s Environmental Assessment Part II form as a checklist to indicate what items
would require further study.
Supt. Gray explained that a lot of the detail that the City was asking O’Brien and Gere to
provide as part of an environmental review is part of preliminary design work. There are
items that are being pulled forward in the scope of the project.
Rick Gell explained the supporting investigations for the rebuild option and reservoir
sediment characterization. One of the options that has been discussed is doing more
than a maintenance dredging to try to restore capacity in the reservoir. This would result
in about 10 core samples being taken throughout the area of the reservoir with a full
characterization of the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of the sediment.
This would be accomplished through a variety of tests and there would be direct costs
associated with collecting those samples. The other option would be to scale back and
do the field investigations in the area anticipated to be dredged in the near term.
Commissioner Tripp asked what is included in the environmental review for the rebuild
option. Supt. Gray explained that in discussions with O’Brien and Gere ten years ago,
the City tried to develop a life cycle approach. The reservoir is part of the cost. If it is
left out of consideration now, there won’t be a project that compares with the Bolton
Point option. If there are worries about the impacts on the watershed, there might be
ways to phase the work over a multi-year period. An additional dam was built in 1927 to
try to capture the heavier materials upstream.
4
January 17, 2007
City Attorney Hoffman stated that inclusiveness is always a more legally defensible
stance than choosing to leave some things out of the environmental review.
Alderperson Coles asked why Option A, supportive investigation is not also included in
the purchase option. It is her understanding that the reservoirs will have to be dredged
either way.
Rick Gell stated that there is dredging involved at the outlet of the re-build option so
there should be an allowance in the report for that.
Supt. Gray stated that dredging is a consideration and should be part of the economic
decision. Trying to make sure that the Board has the information they need to make the
two options comparable is challenging.
Rick Gell explained that the intent of the visual simulations of the proposed facilities is to
have a characterization of each facility as it is viewed from the public way. They will
attempt to develop the design enough so that whatever is represented as the structure
or the facility is reasonably close to what would finally be constructed. In the re-build
option there are multiple views of the residual handling facilities, multiple views of the
water treatment plant, and at least one view of the reservoir improvements from a
perspective that you could see it if you were in the reservoir area. It was anticipated
that there would be views of a representative maintenance activity of the raw water
transmission main and that there would be representative views of the access road into
the reservoir. The view of the reservoir was intended to produce a perspective that
would illustrate the antennae, the utility building, and the superstructure of the residual
handling facility at a minimum. In the case of the purchase option, a visual simulation
would be developed of the easement through the private property and the trees. There
would also be visual simulations of the water treatment plant and the settling lagoons.
The landscape restoration assessment will fundamentally be a narrative to go along
with the visual assessments of the easements and the maintenance activity of the raw
water transmission main so people could understand the concept behind how the
restoration would be accomplished.
The cultural investigation will be limited in scope because most of the areas have prior
disturbance. The known exceptions to that are the easements through private properties
between the Bolton Point water treatment plant and Route 34. Biological assessments
will include the characterization of flora and fauna in the subject area by experts.
Wetland delineation is desirable in order to get a general characterization of wetland
activities even though some of the activities might not be coming right away. The radio
path survey on the re-build option is desired to establish a communication system
between the reservoir and the rest of the City’s water department operations.
Engineering design/development is the supporting information needed to prepare these
studies to develop the project design sufficiently. In the purchase option it is anticipated
that a substantial amount of rock removal will be required for the pipeline between
Bolton Point water treatment plant and the City. The intent is to actually characterize
that rock and evaluate alternative construction techniques. Traffic control during
construction is going to be significant and the intent of that study is to characterize what
the short-term impacts will be during construction. The impingement and entrainment
study will involve an amended water supply permit and provides an opportunity to look
at the biological impacts of taking more water out of the lake at that location. The
impingement would typically be juvenile and adult fish that would be trapped against the
screen and couldn’t get off. The entrainment would be something like an egg or smelt
species that gets drawn into the intake and removed from the environment. There is
plenty of data on the lake, but not necessarily at the depth and location of the Bolton
Point’s intake. It would be appropriate to include an allowance for at least some level of
investigation there. Landscape restoration for the purchase option covers the easement
between Bolton Point and Route 34.
5
January 17, 2007
Commissioner Dotson asked how the City is going to review an action that a different
agency is taking.
City Attorney Hoffman explained that an agreement would be needed on what the size
of the expansion of the plant would be. No matter whose property it was happening on,
it could be analyzed because you would know what the factual parameters were.
Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish explained the scoping process
and noted that it is not unusual to have different entities taking the lead for their portion
of a project. In this case, there has to be overlap because what one agency does
impacts the other agency and thus results in an environmental review of that action.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding potential costs for studying both
options.
Commissioner Schlather arrived at the meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Commissioner Schlather asked if it was permissible for the Board to declare itself lead
agency for both options because there is a 30-day period within which other agencies
can contest. City Attorney Hoffman responded that the Board could do it as long as the
action is clearly defined, and that all of the involved agencies are notified.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the two options are both clearly defined in the
document that the Board received from O’Brien and Gere dated September 22, 2006.
He further stated that if the Board were to declare lead agency status for the entire
project (both options), it could resolve all of the other issues during the 30-day period.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that if the Board is presenting notice to other involved
agencies, not only should the action be clearly defined but the review should be also.
Amending Resolution:
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Dotson
RESOLVED, That the Fourth Whereas Clause be amended to read as follows:
“WHEREAS, the SCLIWC and the City of Ithaca have executed a Memorandum of
Understanding, dated January 4, 2007, which indicates the willingness of the SCLIWC
to expand its facility and to provide a sufficient water supply to the City, pending
environmental review of such a project, and”
Carried Unanimously (7-0)
Main Motion As Amended:
A Vote on the Main Motion As Amended resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) Schlather, Dotson, Wykstra, Chapman, Jenkins, Tripp
Nays (1) Mayor Peterson
Abstentions (0)
Carried
Mayor Peterson adjourned the Special Meeting of the Board of Public Works and
convened the Board of Public Works Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Corner Store (Plain and Court Streets) – Request for Expanded Loading Zone
Lester Wells, owner of the Corner Store at Plain and Court Streets, wrote a letter
explaining that two 15-minute loading zone signs in front of the Corner Store and one
loading zone sign next to the driveway in front of 406 W. Court Street were taken down
during NYSEG’s work on Court Street during 2004 and 2005. Two of the signs have
since been replaced however he is asking to have the other one replaced as well.
The Corner Store is in an R-2 residential zone and exists as a “grandfathered” use. City
staff agreed to provide loading zones on both sides of this commercial property but not
in front of residences, even though the Wells family owns 406 W. Court Street. The
curbside parking in front of 406 W. Court Street is a neighborhood resource belonging
to the City, therefore staff does not recommend expanding the loading zone.
6
January 17, 2007
Mr. Wells addressed the Board to explain that the loading zone sign had been in place
for ten years before it was removed during the recent coal tar removal project on Court
Street. He stated that as a result of that work, they lost a tremendous amount of
business because no one could get in to park near the store. They have been in
litigation with NYSEG to recover some of the lost income. He explained that
parking/loading areas are needed for their refrigerated truck (used for their catering
business), their snow plow, and tractor trailers making deliveries to the market/flower
store. In addition, parents picking up children at the nearby school take up parking. He
further explained that they try to use their driveway as much as possible, but there are
times when they need to have on-street parking. He noted that this is the last “Mom
and Pop” store in Ithaca and provides a livelihood for several different families.
Mayor Peterson asked if the Board voted in favor of those signs in the first place.
Superintendent Gray responded that the decision was made administratively through
his department and did not go through the Board for approval. He further stated that the
City wouldn’t typically extend the zone beyond the property lines for this kind of
“grandfathered” use. In this instance, the owner of the store also happens to be the
owner of 406 West Court Street. The owner has indicated that beyond 6:00 p.m. the
store is closed and it becomes free parking for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Dotson asked if the other side of the street was available for parking.
Superintendent Gray responded that there is parking on both sides of the street.
Mr. Wells stated that this would happen again when NYSEG works on the Markles Flat
building. They will be coming in with the heavy equipment and they will block the street
and the loading zone. He will not have anywhere to park when that work is done.
Superintendent Gray stated that he is comfortable dealing with the construction impacts
on a temporary basis by working with the property owner. If Mr. Wells is not satisfied
with whatever adjustment the City would make for the construction, then he could
appeal to the Board.
Commissioner Dotson stated that the parking pressure in that area seems to be low
enough that extending the loading zone would not be a significant hardship on the
neighborhood, especially if the signs stated “Fifteen Minute loading zone 9 a.m. to 6
p.m.”
Mayor Peterson reminded the Board that this is not a voting meeting but the consensus
of the Board seems to be to ask staff to work with Mr. Wells to restore the pre-existing
parking. The Board agreed.
Commissioner Schlather questioned what would happen when 406 West Court Street
was transferred to someone other than the Wells family. Mr. Wells responded that both
properties would be sold.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she is uncomfortable with the idea of tying the parking
in the public right of way to a specific property owner because there is a lot of space to
park on that block.
Mayor Peterson stated that the prior arrangement had been in place for at least ten
years. She stated that she supports the sign replacements.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor