HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2007-05-16BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Committee of the Whole Meeting 4:45 p.m. May 16, 2007
PRESENT:
Acting Mayor Cogan
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 Water and Sewer – Whitney
City Clerk - Holcomb
Deputy Director of Planning & Development – Cornish
O’Brien & Gere Consultants – Eckler and Gell
Transportation Engineer – Logue
Asst. Civil Engineer - West
Executive Assistant – Grunder
EXCUSED:
Mayor Peterson
Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel
Common Council Liaison – Coles
DAC Liaison – Roberts
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Draft Scoping Document for City of Ithaca Water Supply:
City Attorney Hoffman distributed a five-page document with a number of suggested
changes to the Draft Scoping Document.
Commissioner Schlather suggested that since the Board just received this five-page
document, that it grant itself Power to Act on the Draft Scoping Document at their next
meeting on Wednesday, May 23, 2007.
Vice Chair Dotson suggested that the Board consider Commissioner Schlather’s
request later in the meeting.
No Board member objected.
100 BLOCK OF NORTH AURORA STREET – WIDENING OF SIDEWALKS –
DISCUSSION:
Transportation Engineer Logue distributed a memo regarding a proposal to widen the
sidewalks on the 100 Block of North Aurora Street. He explained that a petition was
signed by a number of the restaurateurs on the 100 block of North Aurora Street in
support of this request. He noted that the street is currently under construction by the
Water & Sewer Division and the South Aurora Street bridge is also under construction.
Recently, the City received information from restaurant owners along the street who
indicated that they are interested in losing some on street parking in order to widen the
sidewalks. This request was made because of the City’s recent enforcement of the
outdoor dining rules regarding how far tables can be set out. The City has started
marking the boundaries of outdoor dining areas, resulting in less space for the
restaurants. City staff is interested in reviewing the street design and possibly widening
sidewalks and re-aligning the curbs.
Discussion followed on the floor with the Board asking questions of staff about their
recommendations for design and construction and what time frame was involved in
making this decision. Some of the concerns raised by Board members included: if any
re-designing effort on this block could be configured so that it would include a bike route
north that connects to the current bikeway from South Hill, traffic flow especially in
regard to truck traffic, inclusion and consideration of accessible paths, sidewalks, etc.
2
May 16, 2007
for people with disabilities, and the need for a public hearing on this request in order to
hear from everyone in the affected area about this proposal, costs, and the tight time
frame. Staff explained that if the Board is interested in pursuing this request, they would
like to have a couple Board members volunteer to participate in some additional
meetings to develop a proposal that could be brought back for further consideration at
the Board’s first meeting in June.
Commissioners Tripp, Wykstra, and Chapman volunteered to work with staff to further
develop the proposal.
Stormwater Management Program Annual Report – City of Ithaca – Resolution
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is a permitted small Municipal Separate Stormwater
Sewer System (MS4) under Clean Water Act Phase II regulations for stormwater
discharges, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca received State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES) permit coverage through the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) on March 10, 2003, and
WHEREAS, the permit requires the City to incrementally develop a stormwater
management program (SWMP) no later than January 8, 2008 by meeting measurable
goals including public education and outreach, public involvement and participation,
illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction and post construction
management, and management of municipal operations, and
WHEREAS, the City is required to file its fourth annual progress report to the NYSDEC
by June 1, 2007, and
WHEREAS, the City has addressed all public comments received therein; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby approves the City of Ithaca
Stormwater Management Program Annual Report which represents the status of the
City’s SWMP for the 2006-2007 reporting period, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Division of Water & Sewer is authorized to submit
said report to the NYSDEC by June 1, 2007
Commissioner Schlather stated, for the record, that there was no one from the public in
attendance at this meeting to comment on the report. He further asked Environmental
Engineer Gibson if anyone from the public obtained a copy of the report.
Environmental Engineer Gibson responded that no one from the public had obtained a
copy of the report. He reported that, for the first four years of this program, two people
called during the first year; one was a consultant who requested a copy of the report
and the other was a member from the public. Otherwise, there has been no comment
from the public.
A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Award of Bid for Fenton Reactor Project:
By Commissioner Wykstra: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp
WHEREAS, bids were received on April 17, 2007 for construction of a full-scale pilot
study of a Fenton Reactor designed to improve sludge digestion in order to increase
energy recovery and reduce solids handling, and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the only bid received and recommended it for award, as
has the Special Joint Committee at their meeting on May 9, 2007, now therefore be it
3
May 16, 2007
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby awards the bid of the Fenton
Reactor Project to U.S. Peroxide, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, which includes both Parts A
and B, for a total contract of $176,141.00.
Carried Unanimously
Relief from Unusual High Water & Sewer Bill at 1021 Hector Street
By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has received and reviewed a request from Marta
Weiner, 1021 Hector Street, concerning her current water ($2,504.16) and sewer
($3,010.32) bill totaling over $5,500 and her explanation that the large water usage
resulted from a broken pipe to the swimming pool which froze, followed by her request
for relief from the unusually high bill, and
WHEREAS, the Board spoke with Ms. Weiner and reviewed her request in light of their
past practice of reducing similar bills to reflect that portion of the sewer bill which the
Board believes was not processed by the wastewater treatment facility, and
WHEREAS, a review of the billing history would lead the Board to conclude that the
sewer bill for February 2007 should be reduced by 888 - 17 = 871 units of 100 cubic feet
of water or $2,952.69, leaving a current balance of $2,561.6 ($5,514.48 - $2,952.69)
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works agrees to expunge the amount of
$2,952.69 from the bill issued April 1, 2007, for 1021 Hector Street and waives any
penalties on this bill to date due to timely action by the property owner and directs the
Superintendent to work with the City Chamberlain to develop a repayment plan with the
property owner.
Discussion followed on the floor about how the City bills the Town of Ithaca users of the
sewer system and what the costs are based upon.
A Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Draft Scoping Document:
Vice Chair Dotson explained that procedurally she thinks the Board should consider
Commissioner Schlather’s concern about receiving the memo from the City Attorney
today containing suggested changes to the draft scoping document and wanting to wait
until next week to vote on this item in order to give Board members time to review it.
Commissioner Schlather explained that he needs to leave the meeting early today. He
stated that he appreciates O’Brien & Gere Consultants Rick Gell and Steve Eckler for
being at the meeting today for this discussion, but he is concerned that the changes
proposed by the City Attorney are going to take some time for him to review. He would
like to request the Board continue its Power to Act until next Wednesday and to the
extent that the Board needs a special meeting to convene next Wednesday.
City Attorney Hoffman apologized that the document was not available earlier. He
explained that he did not see the revised draft-scoping document until Monday, and he
was out of the office on Tuesday.
Superintendent Gray explained that this scoping document is a legal document. He
noted that some of the information that the Board wants included in this legal document
might not necessarily need to be part of it. He stated that after the last meeting, the
consultants noted that there were things being talked about by the Board that are not
part of this project and normally would not be included in the document. For example,
the water main might need replacement at some point, but the City is not proposing that
and it is not part of the project that is being considered. He has been advised that
something like that really should not be in this document. It should be reflected as an
impact on the water shed, if the water treatment plant was to be retained. At some point
there could be major construction in the area so it would be part of that decision making
process, as it has an environmental impact at that point, but that is not part of the
4
May 16, 2007
project that is under environmental review right now. He stated that the Board may
choose to look at it differently, but it will make the document more complicated, and will
give more ways for it to be challenged in court.
Commissioner Schlather left the meeting.
Deputy Director of Planning & Development Cornish explained that along with this
CEQR process, a parallel track of other meetings will be scheduled to discuss some of
the issues which were noted above by Superintendent Gray. A different group of
representatives from Common Council, the Board of Public Works, and staff will discuss
the following topics: governance, control, the cost, the reliability of water quality, and the
implementability of either option. Superintendent Gray has already mentioned that the
replacement of the existing raw water main is not a part of this project but it would be
discussed at the meetings noted above. She stated that if the existing water main
should fail, the City would have to conduct an assessment of that, but whether the
Board wants to include it in this document since it is not part of this project is a question
that will need to be answered. She noted that another question includes the change in
land use in the watershed area because right now that is not an issue for CEQR
because the City is not proposing any changes in the watershed area. If the Board
wants the consultants to study and evaluate those changes, there is a time element and
price tag attached to it. Another question is the 30’ dam which is not involved in this
project at all physically. There will be no disturbance at the 30’ dam as part of this
upgrade so the Board will have to decide whether it wants to include that and everything
that it entails under CEQR in this document as well.
O’Brien & Gere Consultant Steve Eckler stated that there are always cost issues
associated with additional studies. The other issues relating to the replacement of the
existing raw water main and the change in the use of the watershed are being talked
about in association with the re-build option; however, these are really stand-alone
projects. He noted that the scoping document acknowledges that there might be breaks
in the water line on the re-build option or the purchase option and that they were
included in the section entitled “reasonable catastrophic impacts” which is a CEQR
term. He stated that to address the replacement of the line at this point is probably too
speculative to warrant an evaluation in the impact statement.
Superintendent Gray explained if the Board wants to speculate on changes in land use
and zoning in the watershed area as a possible impact and it incorporates that into an
environmental review and into an impact statement, the City could be sued for its
inability to speculate accurately. That is another complication to consider if the Board
includes it in this document.
O’Brien & Gere Consultant Eckler explained that once the Board puts items into an
environmental impact statement, and it is identified as a potential future area of concern
but is not equally evaluated to the other impacts that may come up, it could be argued
that the City is segmenting the project and not giving it a hard look for all the issues
associated with the project. The City could be challenged on that choice.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that there are legal risks with either course. He noted that
on the other hand, if something is left out or is chosen to be left out of the environmental
review, there is a risk that you could be accused of leaving something out that was
significant or important. There is no risk free choice. He stated that courts have ruled
that speculative consequences of actions do not necessarily have to be part of the
environmental review. So, again, it is a subjective question of what is speculative and
what is reasonably foreseeable. He encouraged the Board to be as consistent as it can
be with these issues and not treat them differently, unless they warrant different
treatment.
Vice Chair Dotson noted that O’Brien & Gere identified these kinds of issues in the
Table of Contents as future “reasonable foreseeable catastrophic impacts.”
O’Brien & Gere Consultant Eckler explained the reason it was placed in the Table of
Contents section was to introduce the project.
5
May 16, 2007
Commissioner Tripp stated that she is struggling because Commissioner Schlather has
been arguing about what information should be in this document and he is not here to
participate in the discussion. She further stated that if the City will not be using Six Mile
Creek as a water source, there would be a change in the use of the watershed area and
to ignore that would be at our peril. She further noted if pipeline failures were going to
be reviewed, dam failures and possible source contamination should be included as
some other reasonably foreseeable catastrophic impacts.
Acting Mayor Cogan stated that he is in favor of taking the advice of the consultants and
withholding these items from the document. The point the consultants are making is that
the Board or Common Council has other options for considering this information in its
decision making process. He further stated that it is easy to see the EIS process as a
chance to get information on all these other issues and that the Board needs to restrain
itself from doing that because these are both very complicated projects. The items that
have to be studied are quite expensive and trying to add in other things that are not
needed for the study is probably not advisable.
O’Brien & Gere Consultant Rick Gell explained that the DEIS will look at how this
project impacts the environment versus how the environment impacts this project. He
noted that how the environment affects this project is more of a decision making
process.
Deputy Director of Planning & Development Director Cornish explained that there would
be a separate study for the contamination issue by either error or deliberate means. She
stated that the Board cannot anticipate and study everything in one document, those
are items that will be studied under another venue.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the need for joint informational meetings
between the Board and Common Council as well as the need for public input meetings.
Further discussion followed on the floor regarding whether or not the three areas of
concern as noted above should be included in the final scoping document. City
Attorney Hoffman stated that there is no risk free course and that this is a policy
decision. The question is whether it is more speculative or reasonably foreseeable.
Commissioners Tripp and Wykstra supported removing the items from the document.
O’Brien & Gere Consultant Rick Gell stated that the public will have a difficult time
distinguishing between decisions and CEQR related issues. He encouraged the Board
to complete as much of the decision making as possible before the document goes out
for public review and comment. That way what goes to the public is a very clear and
defined message of what the City’s intentions are and why that information will be kept
out of the CEQR document.
Commissioner Chapman stated that he feels that adding more risk, and going through
more work for greater cost is not necessarily the way to go right now. Perhaps the
Board should just withhold the items at this point and include them later if the public
deems necessary.
Vice Chair Dotson voiced her concern that if these issues are not included in the CEQR
process, that they get clearly and thoroughly addressed in the City’s decision making
process so that when the public sees the scoping document they are not wondering
where those items are.
Deputy Director of Planning & Development Cornish stated that in the event that the
City goes with the purchase option and the water shed is rezoned, or there is a different
Council and they are interested in development of that area, that action alone would
require CEQR review as well as an Environmental Impact Statement.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that he understands that the consultant’s recommendation
is to leave these items off the list of future considerations, but he wondered if they were
also suggesting not including pipeline failure as a reasonably foreseeable catastrophic
impact as well.
6
May 16, 2007
O’Brien & Gere Consultant Steve Eckler explained that dam failure and contamination
are two new issues on the table. In his opinion, they are related and very similar to
eventual pipeline failure, so it seems reasonable if there could be a pipeline failure that
you would put in those other two issues as well. They can include engineering
information in the document that would explain how to reduce the risk of dam failure and
the same is true with the potential contamination of the source without getting into the
details of the plan that the City may have in effect to protect their water supply. The
document can reflect there is a plan, post 9/11/01, and that there are measures in effect
to protect the watershed area.
Acting Mayor Cogan questioned why dam failure would be included as a potential
impact as the dams exist today, they are not part of either option, and under either
option, they will remain in place. He also questioned why the contamination issue would
be included in the EIS.
Commissioner Tripp proposed that the Board direct that the following three items be
deleted from the scoping document: the 30’ dam, the possible replacement of the water
main in the future, and the change in land use in the watershed area. She further
proposed that the Board consider Superintendent Gray’s proposal for meeting
schedules, public scoping, and addressing items two and three from O’Brien & Gere
Consultant Eckler’s memo.
Amending Resolution:
By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
WHEREAS, the inclusion of the 30’ dam, the change in use of the watershed area, and
the possible replacement of a water main in the future in the scoping document is
advised to be inappropriate by our consultants and present staff, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works does not wish for these three particular
items to be included in the draft-scoping document and directs the consultant to remove
them from the current draft.
Ayes (4) Chapman, Jenkins, Tripp, Wykstra
Nays (1) Dotson
Abstentions (0)
Carried
City Attorney Hoffman reviewed his suggested changes/comments to the draft-scoping
document. Extensive discussion followed with the consultants, staff, and Board
members asking clarifying questions and responding to those suggestions. Some of the
items of discussion included maintenance access and modification to the 60’ reservoir,
the need for consistent wording for both options, the use of the word “proposed” for
some items, clarification of what the purpose of dredging is for both options,
inappropriate use of the term “re-routing” to describe the old access route as the route is
no longer accessible as it is under water, removing the reference to maintaining
reservoirs in order to reduce the transfer of sediments downstream, the elimination of
repetitive/duplicate items, the need to specify which elements the City wants the
consultants to focus on for both options, considering the removal of the language that
implies the settling lagoons would remain and need to be maintained if the City chooses
the Purchase Option, making mention that the Giles Street residual handling facilities
site could be allowed to revert under the Purchase Option, the possible use of directed
drilling to reduce the impact on woods or the surface of the land, the need to list
additional potential visual impact sites, whether is it necessary to bring in a dredging
machine on a new road from Burns Road or could there be other methods of
accomplishing that which would be less impacting, the need to consult with the Board of
Public Works, Planning Department, and Natural Areas Commission to ascertain type
and magnitude of impacts and possible mitigation measures, explanation of what, if any,
noise would be associated with either option, the need to include the language “may
include these” when referring to impacts on public health and safety and examples of
typical elements that might be evaluated, and the need to examine and explain any
redundant elements for either option, consideration of whether those are environmental
7
May 16, 2007
issues and which document they should be in, and explanation of the term “relying on
existing readily available information.”
Extensive discussion followed with the consultants and staff answering and responding
to the City Attorney’s questions and concerns to clarify and explain in more detail why
the draft-scoping document was written in this way and agreeing to incorporate some of
the suggestions.
Draft Scoping Document Power to Act – Resolution
By Commissioner Tripp: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra
RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on the Draft Scoping Document at
the May 23, 2007 Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Carried Unanimously
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting was adjourned
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor