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