Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2007-04-09BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Committee of the Whole Meeting 5:00 p.m. April 9, 2007 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Commissioners (6) - Jenkins, Dotson, Chapman, Schlather, Tripp, Wykstra OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Hoffman Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney Common Council Liaison – Coles Environmental Engineer – Gibson Deputy Director of Planning & Development - Cornish Executive Assistant – Grunder EXCUSED: Superintendent of Public Works - Gray Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel DAC Liaison – Roberts ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE CITY’S WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS: Page One, Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form – discussion: Mayor Peterson explained that on the first page under project description there are two small changes that need to be made, one is on the second line right before the words “filtration plant” and one is the last word in the first paragraph where it states that “it has been determined that either a major system upgrade or switch to another water supply is advisable”. The change would be to replace the word “advisable” with the word “necessary”. She further stated that in the second paragraph where it says “preliminary analysis of options where it talks about the SLIC/WC facility on East Shore Drive” that she would like to distinguish between the Town of Ithaca or Lansing because it doesn’t say where East Shore Drive is located specifically. Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that parts of East Shore Drive are located in the Town and Village of Lansing and that staff are working to determine which it is. City Attorney Hoffman stated that in his notes the demolition of the existing plant is not specifically listed. He further stated that it is listed under the purchase option, but it’s not similarly referenced in the purchase option. He explained that if demolition were going to be part of the process it would be worth mentioning. He further stated that he was trying to put the term demolition in a comparable place in both options. Environmental Engineer Gibson stated that the capacity for the existing facility is seven million gallons per day and the replacement option is lower because the City used to feed most of the region, especially the south by pass for the Town of Ithaca and that capacity is not necessary in the purchase option. Commissioner Jenkins asked what would happen by going down to six million gallons per day and the City exploded with growth, would there still be enough? Environmental Engineer Gibson stated that as he understands it, the six million gallon per day figure would account for everything that is in the City proper including a full build out, that would anticipate the City providing water outside the City proper which is under Bolton Point’s jurisdiction at this point for water purveyance. Six million gallons does account for future supply, usually fifty years out. Mayor Peterson stated at the top of the page where it says “would continue to flow from the reservoir to the new water treatment plant by gravity”, does it need to say via a two mile long pipeline to the new water treatment plant because that item also comes up later in the assessment. 2 April 9, 2007 Discussion followed regarding the utility building in the watershed area. Commissioner Dotson stated that she and Environmental Engineer Gibson had discussed the options for that and for the project in general and how to mitigate impact, the size of that building, what needs to go in it, and the possibility that it might be able to be put at the current gate house site, or in a similar structure that was re-built. Environmental Engineer Gibson explained it would mean the removal of the octagonal cement block structure and there have been discussions about maybe fitting something similar in size that might be able to house the air system. He stated that it was waived along the way in lieu of a larger structure just because of future expandability with regard to chemical storage and things like that, which might be necessary for the pre- sedimentation area. What they were discussing was that they might want to mention in this paragraph as something that could be looked at. He further stated that it could be difficult because there are valve operators in the gatehouse now and if other equipment were placed there, it could impede the use of the other equipment. He thinks that is why they went to the garage type structure and that it is something that should be mentioned in this review as something that they could focus on. City Attorney Hoffman stated that he thinks that is a good point and that it occurs to him that there might be other examples of where a particular course of action is written here but there might be different ways to accomplish the same thing that would have different impacts, maybe lesser impacts. He knows that it is going to come up as the Board talks about others. He further stated that in a couple of places he has suggested instead of presuming what the solution is it might be better to state the problem, so in other words the issue here is the need for space for a facility to house the air burst system, it could be a separate building or it could be a replacement of an existing structure. Discussion followed regarding the access road. Asst. Supt. Whitney stated in the sixth bullet, last sentence it states that modifications to existing gravel access drive are necessary to the steep slope, he explained that area is absolutely flat and that whole last sentence should be taken out. City Attorney Hoffman stated that the issue he has with the sixth bullet here is with the characterization of what’s going on there now. He further stated that he raised a concern because he has looked at that area and he can’t find a road or even the remnants of a road much beyond the existing gate. He explained that about ten to fifteen feet beyond the gate is the swamp. He is concerned about the characterization of it as a previously established access road and calling for improvements or modifications. He stated that he has suggested going out there on a field trip with the consultants if that’s necessary, if the Board wants to rely on his first hand experience because to imply that there is a road there that anybody could find or traverse is misleading. He stated that the word “construction” of an access road here would be more accurate. Environmental Engineer Gibson stated that in that area there are portions of that road are completely obliterated. City Attorney Hoffman stated that a person would not be able to travel into that area because it is wetland now. Discussion followed on the floor on how to refer to the necessary access road in the Environmental Assessment forms. Asst. Supt. Whitney explained that there was an access road there twenty years ago but that it’s really over grown. He stated that in thirty-year-old photos it shows trucks on the road, after that it hasn’t even been mowed because it’s so sunken. He further stated that it was once a road but that you couldn’t use it as a road now without clearing it and putting more gravel down. Mayor Peterson suggested stating “re-establishment of an access road”, because that does imply something was once there instead of “construction of an access road”. 3 April 9, 2007 Environmental Engineer Gibson stated that the City wants to establish the fact that there was some kind of a thoroughfare there for something. City Attorney Hoffman stated that from the point of view of environmental review he thinks that you have to start with what is there now and what is there now doesn’t look anything like a road. Commissioner Schlather suggested using something like “re-establishment of a previously existing access road (referring to Burns Road access” so it has re- establishment and it notes that at one time an access road existed. City Attorney Hoffman stated that he thinks that is referring to the other access road. It’s not clear, when it goes on to talk about steepness, Asst. Supt. Whitney is right that the route from Burns Road is not steep through the wetlands, but the road from Route 79 is steep. Discussion followed on the floor regarding how to reference the access road from Route 79 and the former obliterated access road from Burns Road in the Environmental Assessment forms. City Attorney Hoffman stated, again, if the Board were to focus on the problem rather than the solution, the problem is the need to get a large dredge from Burns Road to the upper reservoir and the need for a pathway that would support that kind of equipment movement. The Environmental Impact Statement is going to tell you what it’s going to mean to have to provide that access from Burns Road into an area of the reservoir where this barge could be floated. Commissioner Schlather asked if the following could be done in this bullet: “re- establishment of a previously existing access road off Burns Road”. He further asked if the next sentence could also read “this is anticipated to include installing a gate, removing overgrown trees and vegetation, and re-routing and/or stabilizing the soft areas with gravel” and “access road improvements are proposed by installing approximately one thousand feet of gravel roadway”. City Attorney Hoffman stated that he would suggest double-checking with O’Brien & Gere to make sure that the thousand feet here was intended to apply to the connection with Burns Road. He is still not convinced that they didn’t mix two roads in the assessment. You’re going to need to get the barge to a place where you can float it and currently at the upper end of the reservoir it’s very shallow because it’s been filled in with a lot of silt. He stated that he doesn’t know what it takes to get the barge to the point where it floats and thinks that the City should confirm that this measurement was intended to apply to this road. City Attorney Hoffman stated that the Mayor asked him to draw the Board’s attention to the previous bullet that starts with “Use of land within a restricted area”. He stated that the question is if the dredging were conducted to increase the capacity of the reservoir and to keep it from continuing to fill up with silt, is it accurate to say that the same land that is currently being used for de-watering the silt dam materials is going to be adequate, or is it going to take more land than what is being used now for the stuff pulled out of the silt dam? Environmental Engineer Gibson responded that it is not expected to take more land at all because this would be an ongoing operation that would occur in good weather, dry weather preferably during summer and would be pumped to the settling bay in the silt pond and then worked just like any other dredge material so this would be a continuous operation which has been the premise and the proposed design since its conception; there has never been a proposal to take more property up there for this purpose. He further stated that the silt dam is actually under another project currently being considered for dredging at the moment and the City’s historical records show that that silts in about every eight years. They anticipate that they would have a full volume bay to work with at that time and so work on the silt dam shouldn’t have to be done at the same time. 4 April 9, 2007 City Attorney Hoffman stated that his question is similar to the Burns Road situation, if you walk the existing raw water main, in most places it is not along the route that could now be traversed by vehicles or from the looks of things that it was ever traversed by something equivalent to a pick up truck, but there is a narrow path that follows most of the course except where it goes to the hillside, but that path is probably three feet wide right now at maximum and at places it’s even more narrow than that and in some places it’s on the side of a cliff, so when he first read this it sounded like there were existing maintenance routes and they just need to be cleared, but again, he doesn’t see how you would get to twenty-four of those release valves using any existing maintenance access roads. Extensive discussion followed on the floor on how the twenty-four air release valves in the watershed area are accessed and plans for future access because this is an area of concern since it is located in a natural area. Commissioner Schlather stated that the question is, because the Board had this argument/discussion before, is what should it be doing with respect to both the re-build option and the purchase option as it pertains to the 30’ dam on the theory that whatever option is chosen maintenance of some access road or some dam safety work would continue and therefore how is that reflected in this particular document? He stated that no matter which option is chosen you don’t have a pass with respect to the dam safety issues pertaining to both the 30’ and 60’ dams, they still have to be dealt with and he thought it was the sense of the Board that they wanted to include both issues in both options. Mayor Peterson stated that the changes being made in Part III are similar to the changes that were made in Parts I & II and they will all have to have the same language. City Attorney Hoffman stated that the Board is somewhat hampered by the fact that the consultants aren’t here. He further stated that as he read the O’Brien and Gere report from last fall, and he knows that the Board disagrees with it already, he didn’t see a clear directive to include the 30’ dam in this project. He further stated that if it is going to include the 30’ dam and safety in this project then the Environmental Impact Statement is going to have to get into a whole different area of how you address safety issues at that dam. He explained that you’re not going to use the dredge road from Burns Road to get to the lower reservoir and if repairs are needed on the dam there is going to have to be a strategy for getting whatever it takes to do to get to that site, which is a completely different site. Commissioner Schlather stated that his concern is, and he doesn’t want to go back and argue this, appendix B says “excluded from both alternatives is any work associated with dam safety upgrades at either the 60’ or 30’ dams since these upgrades are common to both alternatives and can be addressed as part of flood mitigation or non- point pollution mitigation program”. He stated that he was under the impression that what the Board discussed was since dam safety is going to be an issue regardless of whether we purchase or re-build since it is so clearly related to this whole broader discussion that we were going to as part of this environmental review include the dam safety issues. He asked Supt. Gray what it would cost to address that dam safety component for both dams and he said it would be $15,000. He further explained that in essence the City would get an environmental review that includes dam safety so that whether it’s funded as part of this project now or funded down the road, at least the environmental review will be done that then can be used as the basis for those particular projects. He, for one, thought the Board was going to include both the 30’ and 60’ in both options and he thought everyone had agreed on that. Commissioner Schlather stated in Deputy Director of Planning Cornish’s version of the forms being reviewed by the Board today, she said this work to include maintenance, dredging at both the 30’ and 60’ dams, reduce sediment loads that compromise the stability of the dams or stabilizing the dams or a combination of both and he would add “together with improvement of access to both sites”. 5 April 9, 2007 Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish stated that language was agreed upon at the very first meeting by the Board. City Attorney Hoffman asked if the Board shouldn’t also include whatever access impacts are involved with that option. No Board member objected. Commissioner Schlather suggested that another bullet be added after what Environmental Engineer Gibson has as the last bullet because that clearly is just the 60’ dam and that’s parallel in the purchase option as well. He suggested adding another bullet that could be inserted, perhaps in more specific language which reflects what Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish said and then put that language as an extra bullet in both documents. Mayor Peterson stated that she agrees with the City Attorney that it needs additional language because if the 30’ dam is now going to be included in all these documents, she recommends a stand alone separate discussion and not try to incorporate because it is a completely different eco-system and in trying to get a road down into towards that dam and so she thinks that the Board needs to acknowledge something about analysis of the possibility of having to get down to that dam and what that road would look like. Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that there really shouldn’t be too much dredging in the 30’ dam because it’s all intercepted at the 60’ and the 60’ eventually piles up. He explained that the way they used to do some of the clearing in lower drains on both those according to the real old timers is they used to open them up and let them roar to keep them clear. He further stated that other than a pump or something at the 30’ dam to pump the silt up he doesn’t think you could get anything to dredge down in there with what’s down there now, unless it was lowered in by helicopter. Commissioner Schlather stated that the Board needs to be clear about if there has to be some dam safety work down there, how it is accessed and what needs to be done. He further stated that whatever those problems are they may be common to both but at least we ought to know what they are regardless of which option is chosen and if a helicopter is the only way to bring equipment in to dredge then that needs to be arranged. City Attorney Hoffman stated that he recalls a statement that was made that a more effective way was to work on the structure of the dam rather than to try to remove all the stuff behind it. If, and he doesn’t know if staff know the answer to this, but if that were the approach taken, would you need access to the top of the dam or the bottom of the dam? Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that discussion took place early on where he said that the dam could be reinforced to accept the silt load, but later he realized that the safety aspect of keeping the bottom drain clear made that point moot because it would never get built up at the bottom. He further stated that he thinks it was mandatory for dam safety that the bottom drain be clear and they hadn’t really thought of that before in that first discussion because the dam could be secured to retain the silt weight behind it. He explained that was why they modified appendix B in their report and focused just on the lower dam and the maintenance dredging for that rather than mention any of the reinforcement. Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish stated that she can confirm that her last conversation with Rick Gell, from O’Brien & Gere, that he said the drain can be stabilized, but the elevation of the outlet has to be maintained in accordance with dam safety standards. No Board member objected. Mayor Peterson questioned why the 30’ dam is a concern and not VanAtta’s dam 6 April 9, 2007 Environmental Engineer Gibson stated that VanAtta’s is considered a class A dam which is low threat to health and safety and the 30’ and 60’ dams are considered class C which are immediate threats. Environmental Engineer Gibson stated that he would amend Parts I and II to reflect that this work would include maintenance and dredging at both the 30’ and 60’ dams to reduce sediment loads that compromise the operation of the dam in the event of a safety issue. City Attorney Hoffman stated that the involved and affected unique natural areas should be mentioned under the re-build option to make it comparable to the purchase option. Discussion followed on the floor regarding de-commissioning of the City’s existing water treatment plan. City Attorney Hoffman asked the Board if they really wanted to open the door for another purpose for the raw water main at this time? He stated that his preference would be to omit it, but if you’re not going to omit it then he would add the words “as yet undetermined.” Commissioner Jenkins asked what it would be used for after it’s de-commissioned? Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that it has been suggested that it be used to generate electricity to fire the pump stations for the Mitchell Street and Cornell Street systems. He further stated that it’s an idea that’s been tossed around by every Engineer to get the VanAtta’s pump station re-done or the piping in place to put it there. Deputy Director of Planning and Development Cornish stated that she thinks it’s important to say that it would be abandoned in place because if that is not said it could mean that you’re going to go in and take out the pipe. Mayor Peterson asked if de-commissioning were accomplished through selective demolition if that would be the same as sequenced demolition? Asst. Supt. Whitney stated that it would mean that the pump stations would be left there because part of the plant is the pump stations which would be there even if all the water filtration systems are removed. City Attorney Hoffman stated that if Six Mile Creek is not going to remain as a water source, the City would be committed to dredging or something like that in order to reduce the transfer of sediment downstream. The Board requested staff to update Parts I and II of the Environmental Assessment forms to reflect the changes the Board had made at today’s meeting on Part III for their review at the next meeting. Discussion followed regarding how to best review and consider input from other organizations such as Ithaca City School District, Ithaca Fire Department, and TC Local to name a few. ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned. Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson Information Management Specialist Mayor