Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2008-09-10BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. September 10, 2008 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Commissioners (5) - Jenkins, Chapman, Schlather, Tripp, Wykstra OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Hoffman Deputy City Controller - Andrew Superintendent of Public Works - Gray Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Ferrel Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney Common Council Liaison – Coles GIAC Director - Fort Acting Planning & Development Director - Cornish Alderperson Clairborne Alderperson Rosario Information Management Specialist - Myers Executive Assistant – Gehring EXCUSED: DAC Liaison – Roberts PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of the Minutes of the May 2, 2007, August 6, 2008, August 13, 2008, and August 20, 2008 Board of Public Works Meeting- Resolution RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the May 2, 2007, August 6, 2008, August 13, 2008, and August 20, 2008 Board of Public Works meeting be approved with noted corrections. Commissioner Schlather requested that the Board grant itself Power to Act on these minutes in order to give Board members further time for review of them. Power to Act – Approval of the Minutes of the May 2, 2007, August 6, 2008, August 13, 2008, and August 20, 2008 Board of Public Works Meeting – Resolution By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Wykstra RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on the approval of the Minutes of the May 2, 2007, August 6, 2008, August 13, 2008, and August 20, 2008 Board of Public Works Meeting at the September 17, 2008 Committee of the Whole Meeting. Carried Unanimously ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: Superintendent Gray requested the addition of a substitute resolution for Item 10.1 Creeks, Bridges, and Parks entitled “Basketball Court Installation at Conway Park Proposed Resolution”. No Board member objected. Superintendent Gray requested the addition of Item 10.2 Creeks, Bridges, Parks entitled “Vehicles on Grass in Stewart Park – Resolution”. No Board member objected. City Attorney Hoffman requested that the Board grant itself Power to Act on a Request for an Encroachment Agreement at 232 S. Albany Street at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on September 17, 2008. Board of Public Works – September 10, 2008- Page 2 No Board member objected. MAYOR'S COMMUNICATIONS: Mayor Peterson explained that the Board of Public Works is down one member and asked the Board to provide recommendations of people who might be interested in serving on the Board to her office for review and consideration COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD: The following people addressed the Board in support of the Proposed Basketball Court Installation at Conway Park Audrey Cooper, City of Ithaca, on behalf of Barry Darfler Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield Julia Dietrich, City of Ithaca Patrice Lockert Anthony, City of Ithaca Linda St. Chante The following people addressed the Board in opposition to the Proposed Basketball Court Installation at Conway Park: Gary Kohlenberg, City of Ithaca Atif Chaudhry, City of Ithaca Robert Boothroyd, City of Ithaca Angelo DiGiacomo, City of Ithaca Sara Komaromi, City of Ithaca Eric Rosario, City of Ithaca, Alderperson 2nd Ward, addressed the Board on behalf of a constituent from last night’s community meeting who could not attend today’s meeting to ask the question: “Why isn’t Washington Park being considered as a proposed site for the basketball court?” He further stated that he has considered things from both sides of this issue and has arrived at the following suggested resolution. He explained that NYSEG wants to restore the Markles block after the remediation work has been completed and rebuild the basketball court in its current location; the green space at Conway park would be restored at that time and that this proposal is a temporary solution to a temporary problem. NYSEG has also suggested that they would try to re-use things from the temporary court when the permanent court is re-built as well. He suggested the creation of a Community Advisory Group to work on this issue. RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC Alderperson Coles explained that she has tried to listen to the arguments for and against the proposed re-location of the basketball court with an open mind. She stated that she is disturbed by the fact that she has not heard a willingness to try to find a solution to the problems that exist now and that are envisioned for the future. She stated that Conway Park would provide access to a court for people in that neighborhood without them having to drive anywhere. Commissioner Chapman responded to Alderperson Coles comments and stated that people from the neighborhood have not responded in a way that looks to other options because no other options have been presented for this proposal. The proposal was presented as “the court would be re-located at Conway Park”. He stated that it is a flawed process and he takes full responsibility along with the Board. He questioned why other options were not presented. He further stated that even though it is proposed to be a temporary court, it is still anticipated to be located in the neighborhood for two to three years. He explained that Conway Park is a small neighborhood park, in a neighborhood with small houses, small or no yards, and that it is important for what little green space they have to be maintained for the residents of that neighborhood. Commissioner Schlather stated that he appreciates all the interest expressed from neighbors and non-neighbors to Conway Park. He further stated that he is not offended by the clear speaking and candor expressed by both sides as that is what the whole process is about, and he is pleased that this conversation is taking place. Board of Public Works – September 10, 2008- Page 3 CREEKS, BRIDGES, AND PARKS: Basketball Court Installation at Conway Park Proposed Resolution By Commissioner : Seconded by Commissioner WHEREAS, GIAC has indicated a desire to locate their interim basketball court at Conway Park during the period of the NYSEG coal tar remediation, and WHEREAS, GIAC made this recommendation based on their knowledge of the north side community, conversations with Ithaca Housing Authority, and consideration of their program needs, and WHEREAS, the recommendation was followed by a GIAC organized public input meeting (August 12, 2008), hosted by the Ithaca Housing Authority, and a similar public meeting (September 9, 2008) with the Ithaca Police Department to discuss issues raised in the first meeting, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works has considered input from GIAC, the Parks Commission, verbal and written input from the public, as well as Common Council and staff and directs Department of Public Works Staff to work with NYSEG to install the basketball court at Conway Park, with the understanding that it will remain there until such time as it is no longer perceived to be an asset by the Board. City Attorney Hoffman explained that the Board has been discussing this item for three months and that a proposal with specifics that explains exactly where the court, fencing, lighting, etc. would be located. He has reviewed the environmental laws and it is his opinion that an environmental review is required for this proposal to place a court where there isn’t one currently. Conducting an environmental assessment, determination of environmental significance, and designation of lead agency; with the lead agency in a position to approve the project could satisfy this requirement. The Board of Public Works has authority over city parks so this Board would approve significant changes to the park through site plan review although the Planning and Development Board would need to be involved. He further stated that a decision needs to be made as to which body would be Lead Agency – the Board of Public Works or the Planning & Development Board. He stated that he has prepared a possible time schedule with one important component being the asphalt work, which if not done now would have to be delayed until warmer weather. He further stated the schedule he has prepared includes environmental review and relies on the Planning & Development Board acting on the Site Plan review at their next meeting. He suggested that the first step would be to finalize the specific plan or proposal for the court that would explain to the lead agency where everything would be located physically as well as hours of play and security plans. The specific plan should be prepared so that if the Board of Public Works acts to approve the proposal it could move on to Site Plan approval and environmental review next week. It would return to the Board’s agenda as a Power to Act item at their October 1, 2008 meeting assuming the environmental review and site plan review are completed. This is the most compressed timetable he could manage that will comply with the requirements of the environmental review law. He further explained that no agency could approve the project before the environmental review is completed. Commissioner Schlather asked whether an environmental review would be required if the Board pursued Alderperson Rosario’s scenario of this being a temporary placement of the court at Conway Park. City Attorney Hoffman explained that Conway Park is a designated park and the State gives more protection to parks. The proposed structure of the court would occupy a significant portion of the park. Commissioner Schlather asked whether there had been discussions between GIAC staff, Planning Department staff, and the Mayor regarding the environmental review aspect and timing of this project. He asked if the Planning & Development Board could process this request in an expedited manner as the Board and staff have just received this new information regarding the environmental review and site plan review requirements. Board of Public Works – September 10, 2008- Page 4 Mayor Peterson stated that she had been under the impression that a more formal design of the project would be submitted other than the initial drawing from the Parks Commission which has already been presented to the public and been part of discussions for the past two months. GIAC Director Fort asked what was lacking from the plan that the Parks Commission developed as it shows the location of the courts, the location of lighting, landscaping, access, and seating. She questioned what additional information was needed to make the plan complete and formally acceptable for this proposal. Discussion followed on the floor regarding how the plan was developed, what additional information is needed, and the feasibility of implementing a temporary court. GIAC Director Fort explained that NYSEG is not interested in paying for and constructing a temporary court because it could cost $30,000 to $35,000. She stated that NYSEG viewed this as an opportunity to support GIAC as a city department who was losing a program, and to improve the neighborhood as a result of the coal tar removal project. She further stated that the last time she attended a Board meeting, she was not asked for a final plan. The first time she heard about the need for an environmental review was yesterday evening at the public meeting. She voiced her concerns about the tight time frame for the project and questioned whether it could be completed. Acting Director of Planning & Development Cornish stated that this item could go to the Planning & Development Board’s next meeting although it is a very tight schedule. She further stated that Part I of the environmental assessment form was prepared today and a decision needs to be made regarding lead agency. The Planning & Development Board could declare its intent to be the lead agency for the environmental review and site plan review at their meeting on September 23, 2008. Commissioner Schlather noted that NYSEG has stated its intent to rebuild the court at the existing site once all of the remediation work is complete. He asked whether NYSEG has a choice in whether or not to build a temporary court while that remediation work takes place. City Attorney Hoffman stated that there was a written agreement with NYSEG and he thought they agreed to pay for a temporary court located in the city with no other restraints. He further stated that the agreement would need to be reviewed for clarification. GIAC Director Fort stated that NYSEG agreed to ensure payment for a court while GIAC’s is not available, which also includes payment for the use of an existing court at a different location. Commissioner Schlather stated that the Board gave an assurance to the staff at GIAC that there would be an uninterrupted basketball program in 2009.In order to do that, the Board of Public Works needs to make a decision by October 1, 2008. He feels that this is an unalterable commitment that must be fulfilled. While he appreciates that the Planning & Development Board may be better equipped to do the environmental and site plan review, he believes that the Board has the motivation to get the job done in a timely manner and he is reluctant to give up the Board’s designation of lead agency. He stated that if the Board is leaning towards a temporary court, the City Attorney can negotiation with NYSEG regarding the payment of it. Mayor Peterson reminded the Board that the Planning & Development Board would still need to conduct site plan review. Commissioner Tripp stated that she supports basketball, courts, and for the fact that NYSEG is paying for the courts; however she feels that the City can find another site. She noted that she is going to vote against this proposal and it should not be construed as a racist act as she is loathe to have the neighborhood characterized the way it has been. Commissioner Chapman suggested looking at the court adjacent to the Skate Park. He stated that the same concerns were raised for the proposed skate park, which concerns Board of Public Works – September 10, 2008- Page 5 never came to fruition. The advantages of locating the temporary court there is that there is an existing court already in place, the lighting would not affect neighbors, and there is plenty of parking. He stated this would be a great place for the leagues to grow and be seen, the new court will eventually be re-built next to GIAC once the remediation work is complete. He stated that he would also vote against the proposal for Conway Park. Commissioner Wykstra stated that he appreciates both of his colleague’s comments and noted that he is also hearing the concerns from the neighbors. He further stated that he wished there was more time to consider alternative proposals. He feels that Conway Park would be a great location for a basketball court and a great addition to the neighborhood. Commissioner Jenkins stated that she supports the proposal; however, the skate board park is too far away for the current users of the court. Washington Park is closer but utilized more and Conway Park seems very under-utilized at any time. She further stated that if this location is just for the temporary re-location of the court, it’s a small price to pay. She explained that the court needs to be kept close to GIAC especially to keep the younger children safe. Discussion followed on already established courts such as at area schools that could be used temporarily to meet GIAC’s programming needs. Alderperson Clairborne stated that the process from here needs to include someone acting as a liaison between the Board/City and the neighborhood. This is important to keep up-to-date with new information and requirements so when meetings take place, everyone will have the necessary information needed for discussions and decision-making purposes. Commissioner Schlather stated that he supports the temporary re-location of the court to Conway Park and that he hopes the City Attorney can prevail upon NYSEG to earmark money to restore the park in two to three years. He further stated that he appreciates GIAC Director Fort’s statements and NYSEG’s statements. He explained that he would defer to the Planning & Development Board as lead agency and to get that part done as expeditiously as possible. He would like the Board of Public Works to make a decision by October 1, 2008. Mayor Peterson stated that Acting Director of Planning and Development Cornish would work to complete the environmental assessment form and obtain clarification of the initial design for the Board’s meeting next week. She further stated that there is a contaminated site in the middle of the community and the solution to remedy the problem involves some give and take to mitigate some of the problems and concerns expressed by residents of the neighborhood. She stated that the resolution to be provided to the Board should reflect that information as well. GIAC Director Fort expressed concern that the need for a final design would require an architect, which would require additional time. She wondered whether it was realistic to plan to have the court installed with asphalt this season. Commissioner Schlather stated that a licensed architect drew the initial plan for the Parks Commission and he feels comfortable with Asst. Superintendent Ferrel’s assurances that this project can be completed this season. He stated that he would like to see the City Attorney contact NYSEG to work out the details that have been discussed today. Commissioner Tripp stated that she had a problem with the Board only being given one option from the beginning for the temporary re-location of the basketball court. She further stated that the Board was told initially that there would be little opposition and that there was nowhere else to place the court. She takes exception that the Board is being held responsible for holding this project up and questions why there weren’t other locations chosen or provided as options for the Board’s consideration. She stated that there was only ever one option presented and that it was unfortunate this park was targeted as the only place for the court despite neighborhood objection. Commissioner Chapman stated that he supported Commissioner Tripp’s statements and felt that all other options should have been considered. Board of Public Works – September 10, 2008- Page 6 Power to Act – Submission of a Proposal for New Basketball Court at Conway Park and All Related Proposals Including Referring to Planning & Development Board for Site Plan Review and Proposals for Lead Agency Status – Resolution By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on the Submission of a Proposal for New Basketball Court at Conway Park and All Related Proposals Including Referring to Planning & Development Board for Site Plan Review and Proposals for Lead Agency Status at their Committee of the Whole meeting scheduled for September 17, 2008. Carried Unanimously BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, REFUSE, AND TRANSIT: Verizon Cell Tower @ Streets & Facilities – Discussion Superintendent Gray explained that Verizon has approached the City because they wished to augment cell phone services in the northern part of the City. Verizon would prefer to negotiate a site on City land if possible and are currently talking to the City about locating a tower at Streets & Facilities site on Willow Avenue. They would like to lease a plot approximately 100’X100’. The City has recently learned that Verizon may also be talking to NYSDOT about their Third Street site. Superintendent Gray stated that research conducted by the City Attorney shows that there are Federal restrictions that limit the powers of municipalities to restrict cell towers. This action will also require environmental review. City Attorney Hoffman explained that this is a complex area of the law. He stated that if the City did not approve the lease of city land, the company could then apply for a tower on private property. That process would still require city approval. WATER AND SEWER: PROPOSED RESOLUTION - CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS Regarding Completeness and Adequacy for Public Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Evaluation of the City of Ithaca Drinking Water Upgrade Options Including: Purchase Option from the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission or Replacement of the City’s Existing Water Treatment Plant By Commissioner : Seconded by Commissioner WHEREAS, the current water source for the City of Ithaca’s water distribution system relies upon the Six Mile Creek watershed and the filtration plant, built in 1903, located on Water Street in the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, due to the age of the filtration plant and impending changes in water quality standards, significant upgrades to the plant will be required in the near future, including replacement of the filtration plant, dredging of the upper reservoir and modifications to the intake system, settling lagoons and access routes to the raw water reservoir and pipeline, and WHEREAS, the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (SCLIWC) operates a facility on East Shore Drive which provides drinking water to all or part of five municipalities, using Cayuga Lake as its water source and the SCLIWC and the City of Ithaca have executed a Memorandum of Understanding that indicates the willingness of the SCLIWC to expand its facility to provide water to the City, which includes decommissioning the existing system, purchasing finished water from the SCLIWC, which arrangement would require expansion of the SCLIWC facility and construction of a new water transmission main (pipeline) between the SCLIWC facility and the existing City distribution system, and Board of Public Works – September 10, 2008- Page 7 WHEREAS, the choice between these two options involves broad policy concerns with far reaching implications involving drinking water quality, financial, planning, environmental, land use, energy use, intermunicipal cooperation, and neighborhood quality issues, as well as issues of governance related to pricing, treatment and supply of potable water, and is likely to determine a course of action for the next 50 to 100 years or more, and WHEREAS, both options are Type I Actions subject to environmental review under the provisions of the City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQRA) Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code as determined in §176-4 B. (1)(h) Any unlisted action (with the exception of minor subdivisions) occurring wholly or partially within 100 feet of any of the following: [2] …Six Mile Creek (including its associated gorge and rim area between the southern boundary of the City and Aurora Street)…and [3] Unique natural areas as adopted by Common Council; and §176-4 B.(2), Clear-cutting or removal of vegetation from more than ½ acre; and §176-4 B.(5) Any project or action which exceeds 25% of any threshold in this section, occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation area or designated open space …and both options are Type I Actions under the NYSDEC Regulations Part 617, State Environmental Quality Review, (SEQRA) §617.4 (b)(11) any Unlisted action that exceeds a Type I threshold established by an involved agency pursuant to section 617.14 of this part, and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works declared its intent to undertake the environmental review of actions resulting from the upgrade or replacement of the City’s current water supply and to act as lead agent for that review, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works directed the Superintendent of Public Works, or his designee, to provide the required notice of the Board’s intention to act as lead agency to all other involved agencies, including the City of Ithaca Common Council, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission, the New York State Bureau of Water Supply Protection, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of Transportation, the Town of Ithaca, and the Village of Lansing, and WHEREAS, the involved agencies consented or did not reply within the designated 30- day time frame as specified under the City of Ithaca Code §176-6 C. (1) Coordinated review, that the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works be designated lead agency for the environmental review for the project to upgrade or replace the city’s water supply system, and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2007, the Board of Public Works, in a vote of 6 in favor, 0 against, declared itself to act as lead agency for the environmental review of actions resulting from the upgrade or replacement of the City of Ithaca’s current water supply, WHEREAS, on March 28, 2007 the Board of Public Works held a special meeting to review the Full Environmental Assessment Forms Parts I, II, and III, developed by staff, for the two water supply options being considered, and this was the sole item discussed at the regular meeting of the Board of Public Works on April 4, 2007, and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, as lead agency, made a positive Declaration of Environmental Significance directing the consulting firm of O’Brien and Gere, to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed upgrade or replacement of the City’s current water supply, and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works held both an Agency Scoping Session and a Public Scoping Session to identify issues to be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement and, WHEREAS, on October 3, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works adopted a final scoping document, and Board of Public Works – September 10, 2008- Page 8 WHEREAS, on July 15, 2008, O’Brien and Gere submitted a dEIS to the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, which has examined possible environmental impacts, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, as Lead Agency for the purpose of environmental review, has reviewed the dEIS for completeness and adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and has with the assistance of City Staff and the City’s consultants, O’Brien and Gere, found the dEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, as Lead Agency, has on September 17, 2008, found that the dEIS for the for the Evaluation of the City of Ithaca Drinking Water Upgrade Options Including: Purchase Option from the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission or Replacement of the City’s Existing Water Treatment Plant is satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review, and be it further RESOLVED, That a public hearing on the dEIS be scheduled by the Board of Public Works for 0:00 on 00/00/00, to obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed action as evaluated in the dEIS, and be it further RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works hereby directs the City of Ithaca Staff to take those steps, including filing a Notice of Completeness of the dEIS and Notice of SEQR Hearing as required under 6 NYCRR Parts 617.10 and 617.21 and distributing the dEIS to all involved agencies and the public, as may be necessary or appropriate to commence public review of the dEIS. Release of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Proposed Resolution By Commissioner ; Seconded by Commissioner WHEREAS, the current water source for the City’s water distribution system relies upon the Six Mile Creek watershed, and the filtration plant located on Water Street in the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, due to the age of the filtration plant and a number of impending changes in water quality rules, which require significant upgrades to the plant in the near future, it has been determined that either a major system upgrade or a switch to another, existing water supply is advisable, and WHEREAS, the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (SCLIWC) operates a facility on East Shore Drive (built in 1976), which provides drinking water to all or part of five municipalities, using Cayuga Lake as its water source, and WHEREAS, the SCLIWC and the City of Ithaca have executed a Memorandum of Understanding, dated January 4, 2007, which indicates the willingness of the SCLIWC to expand its facility and to provide a sufficient water supply to the City, pending environmental review of such a project, and WHEREAS, preliminary analysis of options available to the City has narrowed the choice to two viable options, consisting of: (1) upgrading the existing water-supply system, including replacement of the filtration plant, dredging of the upper reservoir and modifications to the intake system, settling lagoons and access routes to the raw water reservoir and pipeline: or (2) decommissioning the existing system, and purchasing finished water from the SCLIWC, which would require expansion of the SCLIWC facility on East Shore Drive and construction of a new water transmission main (pipeline) between the SCLIWC facility and the existing City distribution system, and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works declared its intent to act as lead agency for the environmental review of the upgrade or replacement of the City’s current water supply, pursuant to one of the options described above, and Board of Public Works – September 10, 2008- Page 9 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works directed the Superintendent of Public Works, or his designee, to provide the required notice of the Board’s intention to act as lead agency to all other involved agencies, including the City of Ithaca Common Council, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the SCLIWC, the New York State Department of Health – Bureau of Water Supply Protection, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of Transportation, the Town of Ithaca, and the Village of Lansing, and WHEREAS, the involved agencies have either consented that the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works be designated lead agency for the environmental review for the project to upgrade or replace the City’s water supply system, or have not responded within the designated time period, and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works declared itself lead agency for the environmental review of actions resulting from the upgrade or replacement of the City of Ithaca’s current water supply, and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, as lead agency, issued a “Notice of Determination of Significance (“Positive Declaration) indicating its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess potential significant environmental impacts from the project, and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works issued a draft scoping document for the purposes of identifying potential environmental impacts of the project which should be addressed in a Draft EIS, to narrow issues to be addressed in the Draft EIS, and to facilitate the preparation of a concise, accurate and complete Draft EIS that is adequate for public review, and WHEREAS, on October 3, 2007, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works accepted a final scoping document, which incorporated written and oral agency and public comments solicited during a 47-day review period, including a public information meeting on July 12, 2007 and a public scoping meeting on July 26, 2007; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2008, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works was presented with a Draft EIS (July 2008) prepared by O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. for the purposes of determining whether the Draft EIS is complete and adequate for public review, and WHEREAS, in determining the completeness of the Draft EIS, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works has relied on the written scoping document approved by the Board on October 3, 2007, as well as the standards identified in Section 176.9 of the City Code and 6 NYCRR Section 617.9, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works accepts the Draft EIS dated July 2008 and prepared by O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., and be it further RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works direct the Superintendent of Public Works, or his designee, to initiate a public review period not to exceed 30-days without additional authorization from the Board, to accept public and agency substantive comments on the Draft EIS, and be it further RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works direct the Superintendent of Public Works, or his designee, to schedule a public hearing within the public review period to accept oral and written public and agency comments on the Draft EIS, and be it further RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works direct the Superintendent of Public Works, or his designee, to file appropriate notices regarding the Notice of Completion of the Draft EIS and Notice of Hearing consistent with State and City requirements. Board of Public Works – September 10, 2008- Page 10 O’Brien & Gere Consultants Steve Eckler & Rick Gell explained to the Board the amended, red-lined version of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and distributed three appendices that were modified. They explained that the pagination would be corrected after the document is accepted. They stated that they are confident that everything discussed at the last meeting has been captured in this document. Power to Act – Release of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Proposed Resolution: By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on the Release of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Proposed Resolution at the Committee of the Whole Meeting scheduled for September 17, 2008. Carried Unanimously (Commissioner Chapman absent from vote) Power to Act – Request for Encroachment Agreement at 232 South Albany Street – Resolution: By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins RESOLVED, That the Board grant itself Power to Act on the Request for an Encroachment Agreement at 232 South Albany Street at the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 17, 2008. Carried Unanimously (Commissioner Chapman absent from vote) Vehicles on Grass in Stewart Park Resolution By Commissioner Schlather: Seconded by Commissioner Tripp WHEREAS, Chapter 336-15, Article II of the City Code states that "No motor vehicles will be allowed on any grassy area within the park at any time without a permit, which may be granted by the Board of Public Works”, and WHEREAS, the City Employee Recognition Committee is striving to provide educational activities during the 2008 Annual Recognition Program that may require demonstration vehicles to park on the grass; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works hereby authorizes the City Employee Recognition Committee to park display vehicles on the grass near the cul-de-sac of the large pavilion during the Annual Recognition Program, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board requests that the City Forester work with the City Employee Recognition Committee on where said vehicles will be allowed to park. Carried Unanimously (Commissioner Chapman absent from vote) REPORTS: Assistant Superintendent of Streets & Facilities Report Asst. Superintendent Ferrel reported that NYSEG would begin their coal tar removal project on Court Street starting September 15, 2008. NYSEG has hand delivered notices to the neighborhood about the work that will continue for the next two years. He further reported that the milling machine crew will start work on Giles and West Clinton Streets next week and crews are preparing to finish paving on Turner Place by September 11, 2008. He stated that there is still six weeks of paving construction work left and there is still a lot of work that needs to be accomplished. Assistant Superintendent of Water & Sewer Report Asst. Superintendent Whitney reported that 20% of the water meter replacement project has been completed. He explained the process used to notify homeowners of the project and all of the outreach that has been done. He stated that appointments can be scheduled for meter replacements from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the time it takes to schedule these appointments, the costs involved, and how replacements are scheduled and handled for property owners that are only in town seasonally. Board of Public Works – September 10, 2008- Page 11 ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson Information Management Specialist Mayor