Loading...
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