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