HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2007-03-28BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Special Meeting 4:45 p.m. March 28, 2007
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (6) - Jenkins, Dotson, Chapman, Schlather, Tripp, Wykstra
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Hoffman
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Coles
Environmental Engineer - Gibson
Deputy Director of Planning and Development - Cornish
Executive Assistant – Grunder
EXCUSED:
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel
DAC Liaison – Roberts
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CITY’S WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS:
The Board reviewed and discussed the full Environmental Assessment forms developed
by staff for the two water supply options being considered as follows:
Mayor Peterson suggested that each part of the form for each option be reviewed and
discussed at the same time because there is some cross correlation between the two
environmental review forms.
No Board member objected.
Supt. Gray reviewed the City’s Site Plan Review code requirements as they relate to the
environmental assessment review since a decision needs to be made about what level
of environmental review is needed for the two options.
Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish reminded the Board that any
changes that they’d like to see in the environmental review process should be
discussed and made during today’s review of both documents.
Mayor Peterson began the review with Part I for both the re-build and purchase options
and stated that there is a lot more information on the re-build option as compared to the
purchase option.
Discussion followed on whether dredging should be included for these two options.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that from meetings he had attended was that dredging of
the upper reservoir was necessary in order to maintain that as a long-term water
source. He further stated that dredging had been deferred for decades and that the
reservoir was filling up and if the City wanted to rely on that reservoir on its long-term
water source during periods of drought and other periods that the dredging of that
reservoir was required. He stated that he did not hear any requirement for dredging the
lower reservoir in connection with the water source. He also stated that he remembers
O’Brien and Gere stating that because of the design of the two dams is different, that
the design of the 60’ dam that dredging was not required to protect that dam and the
more efficient way to deal with that dam was to repair or strengthen the dam rather than
to dig out all the mud behind it.
Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that another consideration from the dam safety part is that
the City is required to maintain the drain at the base of the dam in case there is an
emergency failure developing the City could relieve the pressure draining the dam. In
order to maintain the drain, which is at the foot of the 60’ or 30’ dam the City, would
need to have material cleared around the drain periodically. He further stated that while
Board of Public Works – March 28, 2007- Page 2
they don’t need the dams dredged for them to be stable, they would need to be dredged
to open that emergency drain if there is a fracture starting from pressure behind the
dam because that is a requirement of New York State.
Commissioner Dotson stated that it appears that dredging needs to be included in the
environmental review for either option. She further stated that in de-commissioning, in
looking at the purchase option, the existing plant facilities there is demolition involved
and that is important to note here. She stated that is different from building the main
from Bolton Point. She also asked how the City would address the address because
connecting with Bolton Point, there are two sites here in the purchase option, building a
main and de-commissioning the old plant and doing associated dredging. She asked
how that would be addressed.
Supt. Gray explained that the document before the Board today is to really allow the
Board to make a decision whether it needs to look a whole lot more closely or whether it
doesn’t for this project. Since the discussion is long for many of these items, the Board
is probably making the decision that it wants to look at some of these items much more
closely. He stated that this document was never meant to have the full detail, it’s meant
to tell the Board what kinds of things it needs to look at. Since the topic of dredging
appears to need a closer look, the Board could supplement the long form or go with a
full environmental impact statement.
Commissioner Chapman stated that he was curious as to how the water from the main
on the purchase option gets uphill. He asked if that was all with the pumping station at
Giles Street or other facilities being built to pump the water to serve all our hills.
Supt. Gray stated that Bolton Point’s clear wells are twenty feet higher than our clear
wells at out treatment plant. He further stated that the mains that are in place are large
enough that if the right size main were installed from there up, then once it’s been
treated it can flow by gravity out of their clear wells into our distribution system and refill
our clear wells. From there the City would pump as it does today.
Commissioner Schlather stated that to move things along in this discussion that he
would agree that the words “at both the 30 and 60 foot dams” should be added after the
word “dredging” at the bottom of description of action for the rebuild option and
otherwise leave everything the same on that page 3 of 3 and page 2 of 21 the purchase
option the re-build option. He further stated that he would add the address on the
purchase option is 1492 East Shore Drive and 202 Water Street/Giles Street, and water
shed area along Six Mile Creek.
Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that the one other key component would be getting
permission from the Ithaca City School District to drop that connecting main to where
the City has the connection that will be made and he is not sure if that has been
explored recently.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that the question of segmentation was raised that is when
an action is proposed and the environmental review is divided into parts. He further
stated that segmentation is allowed if the parts can stand on their own and not
dependent upon each other. He stated that he would urge the Board to be consistent, if
the idea is to include in the environmental review everything that is being thought of
right now, then that can be done and that adds more time and cost, but he would urge
the Board not to pick and choose. In other words, if the new line from Water Street to
downtown is part of the project, then it should be included. If it’s something that could be
done, and if the dredging of the reservoir is something that could be done, then you
don’t have add them, in his opinion, to avoid any improper segmentation charge. He
stated that again that he would urge the Board to be consistent, either put everything in
or put the essential things in.
Environmental Engineer Gibson stated that on the sixth bullet on the descriptive action
on the rebuild option, the statement says its use of land within a restricted access area,
the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. He noted it is restricted because it is a water supply,
the way it reads it looks like it’s restricted because it’s in the Natural Area. He stated
that he would suggest language such as “use of land within areas restricted for water
supply, within the Six Mile Creek Natural area.....”.
Board of Public Works – March 28, 2007- Page 3
No Board member objected.
Site Description on either option was discussed next by the Board.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he would recommend on the purchase option in
item #1 where is says present land use, after the words “an existing Bolton Point water
treatment plant” he would make that a comma, and then say “plus existing water plant
and water shed (see companion FEAF for “rebuild option” to the extent the same
applies to this purchase option). He further stated that he thinks that makes it very clear
that the area affected is the existing water plant and watershed and it references
everyone to the FEAF for that option.
Commissioner Dotson asked if the dredging that occurs to stabilize the dam, which she
believes is part of this project regardless of which option is chosen and the dredging
that is included in the re-build option, is that similar enough that it could be combined
into one environmental review, or is the City going to run into the same problem if they
try to have purchase and re-build and pull up the dredging.
Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish responded that it is
segmentation, it is a part of the project that has to be included and dealt with in these
documents.
Commissioner Dotson stated that everything that is referred to in the re-build option
doesn’t apply to the purchase, some it does but not enough.
Mayor Peterson stated that she believes it needs to be clarified, the demolition of facility
and whatever has to happen in the watershed. She further stated that as the Board
reviews other items that are included in both options maybe there is some sort of cover
letter or narrative that could go with the re-build that can explain that part. She asked
the Board to make some progress at looking at specific questions in the document and
then come back to the over arching piece due to time constraints today?
Environmental Engineer Gibson began the discussion on item 13 on the purchase
option, and stated that if the City is planning to place this in the document, the Board
needs to add Unique Natural Area 156 to the purchase option as well.
No Board member objected.
Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that item 64 should be removed because that is north of
where the City will be.
Mayor Peterson asked about question number eight under the re-build option, if the City
could note that fishing is only below the 60’ dam or just leave it fishing.
City Attorney Hoffman asked the Board if on every single item is there going to be the
same debate about whether and to what extent dredging is involved. He stated that the
Mayor was trying to get away from that.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the City can’t have it both ways, it either needs to
be included to avoid segmentation or it’s not include it and then run the risk of
segmentation. If we do include it and the City is not willing to cross-reference it as he
was suggesting then the Board needs to address each of these as if that is part of the
project area. He stated that he likes the idea of having some sort of descriptor such as
the Mayor described, but as the questions are answered they have to assume that that
is part of the project area and answer the questions accordingly.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she is responding to the fact that the address was
added, and added UNA 156 so therefore we should add these.
Supt. Gray stated that if the Board were willing to do a cross-reference or a cover letter
and then the Board would let the connection to Bolton Point describe Bolton Point and
let the other document so far as it applies then the Board doesn’t have to get into this.
Commissioner Dotson stated that they would with the re-build option because then
notes have to be made about what applies to just the dredging and what applies to the
Board of Public Works – March 28, 2007- Page 4
full re-build option. So, the Board has a choice and one of them is going to be really
complicated.
Commissioner Schlather stated for item #8 on the purchase option, he would just simply
add the words “fishing, and” before the word “possibly” hunting. He stated that is how he
would deal with #8, the Board has already discussed #13, he would answer #11 yes,
#14 he would add Six Mile Creek to that one and mark #10 yes as well. He stated that
as the Board gets into the next round where these items are clarified then that is when
the Board describes what they’re talking about.
Mayor Peterson asked Environmental Engineer what the price estimates were in the
purchase option for dredging in the 30’ and 60’ dams?
Environmental Engineer Gibson responded that the 30’ dam was not included. He
stated that the City looked at the 60’ and what that meant to this project and then later
on there were discussion about maintenance dredging the 30’ to re-establish some of
valves and appurtences.
Mayor Peterson asked how consistent the Board wanted to be with the O’Brien and
Gere’s letter of September 22, 2006, the final letter because when they describe the
second alternative they don’t have the dredging of the dams in it.
Commissioner Schlather stated that in appendix B at the bottom, excluded from both
alternatives is any work associated with dam safety upgrades in either the 30’ or 60’
dams since these upgrades are common to both alternatives and can be addressed as
part of flood mitigation or non-point pollution mitigation program.
City Attorney Hoffman responded that the City could do the purchase from Bolton Point
without dredging the reservoirs and it’s not segmentation because they can be
considered in different environmental reviews.
Commissioner Sclather stated that the document states that it’s common to both.
City Attorney Hoffman responded that the document states the cost is considered to be
common. He stated that the dams couldn’t be de-commissioned without assessing the
impacts of flood mitigation.
Commissioner Schlather stated that it reads “any work associated with dam safety
upgrades at either the 60’ or 30’ dams since these upgrades are common to both.”
He stated that he is looking at the document that was attached to the October 27, 2006
document, appendix B.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that since they have excluded the work from the
alternatives and saying that they can be addressed in a different program.
Commissioner Schlather stated that the following language is included “excluded” no
question there and now the Board is talking about including them, the issue at hand
were they talking about the 30’ and the 60’ or were they just talking about the 60’ dam.
They said excluded from both alternatives is any work associated with dam safety
upgrades at either the 60’ or the 30’ dams since these upgrades are common to both
alternatives and can be addressed as part of flood mitigation or non-pollutant mitigation
program”. That refers to both dams if there are going to be any safety upgrades or any
work at both dams, it will have to be done at both and whatever work will be done is
common to both of these options.
City Attorney Hoffman responded that could be addressed as part of a different
program.
Commissioner Schlather stated that was a separate issue, the Board has agreed that
they could be addressed separately, but for the Board’s purposes, it has already said
that they don’t wish to address them separately, they want to address them as part of
their comprehensive environmental review so as to avoid any claim of segmentation
and because they believe that it is part of this project.
Board of Public Works – March 28, 2007- Page 5
Mayor Peterson stated that the Board is looking at these completed forms and there is
this huge change that the Board is suggesting right now, so she is wondering what the
thinking was when these forms were filled out and thought was put into them because
the form for purchase is now being changed significantly adding almost everything from
the re-build option into the purchase option form, but clearly that wasn’t done with
original thinking in the first place. She further stated that she is curious what the
reaction is to this and why the forms were filled out the way they were because this is a
huge shift from the material that was already thought out and worked on very well by
people already.
Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish stated that she reviewed the
information that she had in hand, she was not part of any of the meetings in the past
and she filled them out as she would any other forms with this type of project.
Supt. Gray stated that he didn’t participate in the completion of these documents.
Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish explained that Environmental
Engineer Gibson, Asst. Supt. Whitney, City Attorney Hoffman reviewed Part I with her
and they made some changes.
Environmental Engineer Gibson stated that they looked at these as incidental potential
environmental impacts and nothing more. He further stated that this was a collaborative
effort, but they saw these items as incidental to the project, certainly for the re-build
option and for Bolton Point as well just because of the dam safety issues.
Mayor Peterson stated that the material from the re-build option was not put into the
purchase option. She further stated that what is trying to be done now is all the
answers for the re-build are now being added to the purchase option, but the thinking
when completing the form wasn’t done that way.
Environmental Engineer Gibson responded no.
Supt. Gray stated that O’Brien and Gere are saying that the City could leave this out,
but for the purposes of decision-making it’s going to occur. It’s not a difference and so
for decision-making they may say these things can be left out, it doesn’t have to be
considered now, it will come along by itself. He further stated that if he understands
Commissioner Schlather what he is saying is that it will come along and the City has do
an environmental review, you can do it later, but you might as well do it now because if
you’re going to do it and while it’s common to both projects and doesn’t have to enter
into the decision making and it has to enter into the costing and it does have to enter
into the environmental review.
Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish as if the Board wanted to put the
same verbiage in the purchase option for #11?
Some of the Board members agreed to that.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that when he was reviewing the form that Deputy Director
of Planning and Development filled out, they both agreed that one complicating factor is
that the project site has not be defined for either option. He further stated that it is
difficult to complete these questions without knowing just what the project site is. They
know that it’s not the entire Six Mile Creek natural area and they know it would be
different in that area depending on which option is being discussed; notwithstanding the
argument here, clearly they are not talking about affecting the same areas, but in
general there is not a map with lines that shows the potential affected area and that
complicates this task.
Supt. Gray stated that one page five of the purchase option, there is an allowance that
says 50’ x 17,000’ as an affected area; there is a similar calculation for the water shed
for work along the water line, fortunately, if working within the water shed that line is not
being installed so 50’ x 17,000 is not needed, but the project may need to go into three
different points and there might be 5,000 to 10,000’. He stated that the object is to give
a reasonable estimate that the public can come in and look at and say they may not
agree with you but they understand how the decision was made. He stated that he
won’t know until they actually get into the design process, the City won’t know specifics
Board of Public Works – March 28, 2007- Page 6
for site area and the money shouldn’t be spent to design that in order to make that
decision. The Board and public need to know that a reasonable representation of the
work was provided.
Commissioner Tripp stated that she had a proposal for the purpose of clarity for the
eventual product as well as this discussion. She stated that she would like people to
reconsider her earlier suggestion that the Board remove the dredging of the dams from
both of these options. She agrees that dredging is important and that it needs to be
done, she doesn’t see it as a necessary part of this project and she thinks that if it is put
into this document it completely confuses not only ourselves, but every one else who
are making decisions about these two projects. She stated that it does need to be
indicated that the City will do that work eventually maybe even soon, but she sees the
dam dredging as something separate from either option.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he would respectfully disagree because he thinks
that the amount of dredging that will be required with the re-build option is going to be
more extensive than the amount of dredging that will be required with respect to the
purchase option. He further stated that is a distinction that will be made as the Board
goes through the environmental review process and as he understands it the re-build
option anticipates having if not a permanent or a quasi-permanent dredging operation at
the site. He further stated that those who make the final decision might decide that is
just too much of a burden on the environment to warrant that; whereas with the dam
safety issues there are some concerns and there is some dredging to be done and in
his judgment probably not as extensive. He stated that at some point in this process
there will be some distinction made between the types of dredging for each project, but
clearly dredging is part of the water supply issue that is a part of this whole project. He
stated that the Board is doing everyone a favor by including it so that everyone can look
at this as part of the entire environmental picture.
Environmental Engineer Gibson stated when talking about the re-build option and the
decision is made not to dredge for the sake of volume, it will need to be dredged around
the gate house, where the planned pre-sedimentation settling area will be, and where
the intake would be constructed or extended to that settling area, so there would be
some minor dredging involved and how much will need to be determined, would it be
necessary to pipe that up to the silt pond for some kind of long term temporary
maintenance, maybe not, maybe that could be settled down on site somewhere and
then hauled off, yes, there would need to be some kind of minor dredging involved for
the re-build option.
Mayor Peterson stated not for the 60’ dam, the dam could be strengthened without the
dredging in a different manner according to our consultants.
Commissioner Dotson stated that she supports Commissioner Schlather’s comments
even though she was trying to pull it out, partly because if it’s pulled out, then the
environmental review for the purchase option ignores or seems to ignore any impact on
the current site like the de-commissioning and that is part of the project. At the very
least the City has to de-commission and demolish things that are up there and that’s a
part of the project that would be too easy to keep those out of there and that’s not fair to
the public and the City being honest and complete in this.
Mayor Peterson stated that she still thinks pulling it out or having some over arching
explanation would be better. She asked the review could move on to Part B, project
description?
Commissioner Schlather requested that rather than the Board doing all the calculations
because he thinks that Deputy Director of Planning & Development and Environmental
Engineer Gibson now understand what the Board’s view is in terms of incorporating that
into this. He further stated that there are several areas in the project description on the
purchase option that would have to be modified because of that particular conceptual
change and rather than the Board going through each one of those would take too long.
Mayor Peterson stated that she is not happy about this at all, that there might be some
kind of asterisk system or something that says for de-commissioning and dredging
portion only and otherwise it’s very confusing to blend them like this. She doesn’t know
if some other way could be developed or some other notation that doesn’t blend it so
Board of Public Works – March 28, 2007- Page 7
wholly because it’s only about certain parts, it’s about de-commissioning some buildings
and for 60’ dam maintenance. If there is some other way to indicate that it’s about those
pieces to just make it clear.
Commissioner Schlather stated that substantively he thinks these should be included,
but he is just saying that the calculations of the area and what have you, he doesn’t
mind if asterisks are placed in the document to make it clearer.
Mayor Peterson stated that she had a question under B on the re-build option where it
says total contiguous area owned by sponsor – 700 acres, project acreage to remain
undeveloped 47, so she thinks that the limitations of the project had been talked about,
for example, is a narrow band really on one side of the creek, she is just pointing that
out if that could be answered differently.
Commissioner Schlather responded that it should be 682 acres.
Mayor Peterson stated that under the re-build option where it says number of off-street
parking spaces existing and proposed, is that only for Water Street, that’s the only
anticipated place for parking, not with the new road into either area to 60’ dam off Route
79 or 60’ dam off of Burns Road that will not have parking there.
Asst. Supt. Whitney responded that they had just looked at the Water Plant area.
Commissioner Schlather asked that if the City went with the purchase option, would
there be any kind of an access road that would be maintained to the 30’ or 60’ dams or
dam safety or maintenance purposes.
Supt. Gray responded yes, and that he would suspect police and fire would require the
City to maintain one even if it wasn’t needed to get to the structures.
Commissioner Schlather asked if it would be different from what’s already there or
would there be an upgrade to that road.
Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that it would have to be stabilized, the current ones are
eroding away at quite a rapid rate and if we need to maintain the dam and bring in
bigger trucks, a similar access road might be needed for that area even thought it
wasn’t being used as a water shed area.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he thinks that is an important issue that needs to be
addressed in this environmental review that it isn’t as if the re-build is going to be a new
road and with the purchase there will be no road, we need to somehow include
reference to the fact that there will be some kind of a road with either option.
Mayor Peterson stated possibly significantly different.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he is not trying to project this one way or the other,
he is trying to address this honestly and accurately with respect to all data.
Mayor Peterson stated that she trained the gorge rangers for the Six Mile Creek area so
she just knows a lot about it, it’s been a dirt road for a very long time and there could be
a difference, that’s all. She further stated that she had a question on #6 for the re-build
where it says single phase project, if multi-phased, earlier on in the re-build option the
narrative refers to stages and sequences in building, she just wants to make it clear
those weren’t really phases were they. For example, under bullet #1 in the description
of action it says demolition of the old plant will take place in stages as the new plant is
constructed in sequence, so she is just wondering how the words stages, sequences,
and phases are used in that area in that question.
Environmental Engineer Gibson responded that it’s normally interpreted that
construction is started, you stop for a period time, and then you resume, those were
phases. He went on to item #19 which will come up later under the re-build option in
Part II as well, but this one has the excedence of ambience noise levels after
construction, he respectfully disagrees and he is not quite sure why that would be,
mechanical equipment in the drying pond would really not differ any from what the City
already does. Currently, heavy equipment frequents the sludge lagoons, he just doesn’t
Board of Public Works – March 28, 2007- Page 8
see how that is going to exceed ambient noise levels after construction has ceased,
same with the airburst system which would be a compressor located in a fiber glass
utility shed that can certainly be insulated if there is fear of it being a little bit noisy. He
further stated that he would say no to this answer and actually in O’Brien and Gere’s
Part III they actually do say no.
City Attorney Hoffman asked if after the re-build there would still be removal of the dry
material from the lagoon by heavy equipment because it already exceeds the limit.
Environmental Engineer Gibson responded yes.
City Attorney Hoffman asked if the Board wanted to include that’s going to have to be
maintained over a 50-year period?
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the current maintenance road and how that
will be maintained should the City choose the purchase option as it will still be city land
that will need to be maintained and to provide access for emergency vehicles when
needed.
Mayor Peterson left the meeting.
Commissioner Schlather asked City Attorney Hoffman if he could tell that Board what is
meant by ambient noise?
City Attorney Hoffman responded that he understands that to mean the existing
background noise without the project input.
Commissioner Schlather stated if there was already a situation where someone is
running a lawn mower twenty-four seven and now they are going to put in two lawn
mowers, that would obviously mean yes, because you’ve double the noise. What if you
were simply replacing the lawn mower with an equally noisy beast?
City Attorney Hoffman responded that normally he would say that is good way to think
of it, but the difference here is that you have two presumably equal options on the table,
one of which would not involve project noise for that particular component, one of which
would. That would be the reason for considering that impact.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he would simply ask that if the Board is going to
leave it as a yes then he would simply put mechanical equipment used will remain at the
same level as currently used. He further asked if the City of Ithaca Planning Board
have jurisdiction over site plan on city owned lands outside of the city? In other words,
the Six Mile Creek watershed, does the planning board have jurisdiction to do a site
plan review for that?
City Attorney Hoffman responded that he wasn’t sure, but that they would for the
demolition and rebuild of the plant and on Water Street. He stated the Town of Ithaca
planning board might have jurisdiction for the site plan in the part of the watershed
located in the Town of Ithaca.
Commissioner Schlather asked if the municipal work of the City subject to another
municipality’s site plan if it’s on the City’s own land in an area that is zone P1?
City Attorney Hoffman stated that his feeling is that the Town probably would be able to
assert site plan authority, certainly the City could say no, but he would have to do some
research.
Commissioner Schlather stated that this is a legitimate question because he doesn’t
think the Town can tell the City what it can or cannot do on its own land. The zoning
classification has something to do with it because zoning P means that it’s public and
implies that another municipality owns it as opposed to a private entity.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the aesthetic impacts of the re-build option.
ADJOURNMENT
Board of Public Works – March 28, 2007- Page 9
On a motion the meeting adjourned.
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor