HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2009-06-24BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Special Meeting 3:30 p.m. June 24, 2009
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Commissioners (5) - Jenkins, Dotson, Schlather, Tripp, Wykstra
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Hoffman
Superintendent of Public Works - Gray
Acting Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Benjamin
Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney
Common Council Liaison – Zumoff
Information Management Specialist - Myers
O’Brien & Gere Consultant – Eckler
O’Brien & Gere Consultant – Gell
Alderperson Schuler
EXCUSED:
DAC Liaison – Roberts
Water Supply – Discussion of Findings and Options:
Review of Draft Findings Statement
A revised Table of Contents for the Water Supply Project Notebook was distributed.
Mayor Peterson asked the Board to note that the May 11, 2009 Special Common
Council meeting minutes are draft minutes which have not been approved by Common
Council yet.
O’Brien & Gere Consultants Eckler and Gell joined the Board for the discussion.
Discussion began on page 16 of the Draft Findings Statement.
Page 17 of 25 – Mayor Peterson questioned item #8 “CEAs” (Critical Environmental
Areas) whether it should be noted that there are no CEAs. She stated that there is an
implication, from the response in the mitigation/recommendation column, that there are
areas. O’Brien & Gere Consultant Eckler stated that he would make an appropriate
note to that effect in the document.
Page 17 of 25 – City Attorney Hoffman questioned the intent of the response or
mitigation/recommendation concerning potential long-term impacts on the use,
maintenance, and access to the portion of the Six-Mile Creek Natural Area up stream of
the Sixty-Foot Dam (i.e. access to lands currently restricted by City ordinance due to its
use as a water supply source). O’Brien & Gere Consultant Eckler responded that if the
purchase option is selected the protection of that Natural Area as the City’s water
supply would not apply. He stated that this area could potentially open up for more
access which could have either a positive or negative impact. He noted there is
potential to add future restrictions. City Attorney Hoffman stated that there is potential
for expanded recreational activities because right now the public is not allowed in this
area. He further stated that if the area is no longer used as a water supply that
restriction would go away. There is a potential impact on the open space for
development or greater recreational activities that needs to be acknowledged in the
document somehow. He noted that it would be unlikely that Common Council will sell or
develop the land in the future, but the potential impact should be noted. O’Brien and
Gere consultant Eckler suggested making a note in that section for the reader to refer to
mitigation measure “M”. The Board, Mayor, and City Attorney agreed to that suggestion.
Page 18 of 25 – Mayor Peterson questioned the amount shown in total change in
annual electrical use; she wondered if the figures in the rebuild and purchase option
columns represented the total number or total change. O’Brien & Gere consultant
Eckler responded that those amounts represent the total change in the amount of
electrical use, but that he would double check.
2
June 24, 2009
Page 21 of 25 – Mayor Peterson had a question about the water system redundancy
with the purchase option as she believed there was also a third source of water that
should be included for redundancy. O’Brien & Gere consultant Gell explained that the
third source the Mayor is referring to is Cornell University and that supply could not
meet the demands of itself, the City, and Bolton Point in case of emergency. Asst.
Supt. Whitney explained this third source is the Town of Ithaca/Cornell University tank
on Hungerford Hill road and has served the City in the past with a small amount of
water, but even with the new improvements to it, it would not be able to supply all three
needs. O’Brien & Gere consultant Gell stated that they would still recommend the
suggested mitigation option. The Board agreed to leave the wording as presented.
Page 21 of 25 – City Attorney Hoffman noted that under Community Character and
Land Use that there is a local ordinance that commits the City to protecting the natural
area not just because it is a water source so one should not assume that benefit would
be lost if the purchase option is chosen. He stated that it is misleading to check the one
column or include it at all because the City policy is to protect the Six Mile Creek Natural
Area. O’Brien & Gere consultant Eckler stated that it could be indicated that there are
mitigation measures in place as per City code. City Attorney Hoffman questioned
whether the impact should be listed even though it will be the same under either option.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding what, if any, impacts would result from either
option under Community Character and Land Use. It was agreed that the horizontal line
in the chart for this section would be removed to make it clearer to the reader.
O’Brien & Gere Consultant Eckler stated that pages 23 and 24 of the document list
potential impacts that would remain despite mitigation measures for both options.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that on page 23 under long-term effects and modification
of existing habitat/vegetative cover as a result of construction activities and
improvements with the Six-Mile Creek Natural Area that expansion of the drying beds
should be included as it has been identified as both a visual impact and impact on land
because more land would be needed for intake operations.
The Board agreed that expansion of drying beds should be added to the document.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding short and long term impacts on
private property in the DOT right-of-way that had been used for lawn, gardens, retaining
walls, etc. and the impact of the removal of large trees during construction and the
replacement of those with smaller, younger trees. Further discussion followed on the
floor regarding who would be responsible for the cost and replacement of those items.
Additional discussion followed regarding the long term effects on private property
because with this decision the property would become a piece of land with an easement
which will affect future sale and use of the property and is actually changing the nature
of what someone possesses.
O’Brien & Gere Consultants Gell and Eckler stated that they would provide suggested
language to mitigate this impact and provide a red-lined version of the Findings
document for the Board’s review and approval at the July 1, 2009 Committee of the
Whole meeting.
The Board agreed to wait for the proposed language from the consultants before
suggesting language themselves.
Mayor Peterson asked if the title of the document that the Board would certify could
read “Certification of Findings” rather than “Certification of Findings to
Approve/Fund/Undertake:”
The Board agreed to that suggested change.
The Board also requested that language on page 25 of 25 the paragraph under item 1
that the words social, economic be changed to socio-economic. The consultants agreed
to make this change. In that same paragraph the Board requested that the word
“recommended” be changed to “determined”; Mayor Peterson and City Attorney
3
June 24, 2009
Hoffman agreed to that change as well. The consultants agreed to make that change
as well.
Mayor Peterson questioned whether the Board would be voting on the findings
certification separately.
Commissioner Schlather stated that whether there are two resolutions or whether they
are combined into one there should be a joint discussion that is wide open regarding the
two options and then the final resolution can reflect that sentiment.
Supt. Gray suggested that the findings statement be considered as its own item and
that the next step would be the Board’s determination. He believes there should be two
separate resolutions – one for the findings statement and one on the determination. He
further stated that the law says that the findings statement has to be considered first as
the environmental impact statement is part of that decision making process because
one closes out one step and then the next step can be taken.
O’Brien and Gere Consultant Eckler stated that he would write the resolution for the
findings statement for the Board’s consideration at the July 1, 2009 Committee of the
Whole Meeting.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the timeline for making the decision, whether
the vote should be done at the July 1st or the July 8th meeting and how to proceed with
the discussion. The Board requested that the July 1st meeting be used for discussion
purposes and the vote taken at the regular meeting on July 8, 2009.
Commissioner Schlather stated that at this point he would be interested in getting a
sense of which way other Board members are leaning in their decision for the
recommended option. He explained that the Board has reviewed all the information
pertaining to the two options, knows the advantages/disadvantages for either option,
and mitigations are in place for either option. He quoted the Board’s charge from the
City Charter regarding its power to make a decision on the city’s future water supply. He
stated that there is no question that Common Council as the funding agency has the
right to review the Board’s decision and he is not refuting that. The Board has to make a
decision and Common Council has said they are going to review that decision.
Commissioner Tripp explained her history of serving on the Board in the early 1990’s
and noted that when she left the Board discussions were taking place about the
decision that needed to be made regarding the source of the City’s future water supply.
She stated that the decision is overdue and given the information provided to the Board
on the options, to her, the decision should be to rebuild the current water plant and that
would be her recommendation to the Board.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that he was glad that someone had finally stated what
their choice is in this process. He further stated that he would like the Board to have a
brief discussion to determine what it wants to recommend to Common Council and let
Common Council make the final decision. The Board’s obligation in the Charter will
have been fulfilled then. He feels that the re-build option is the best choice as well.
Mayor Peterson stated that she would suggest drafting language for a resolution to
determine the Board’s recommendation/decision so Common Council can understand
the Board’s position. She further stated that she is in a difficult position because she is
on Common Council as well as a voting member of this Board. She does not believe in
abstaining from any vote so she is trying to figure out how she feels about voting at this
point.
Commissioner Schlather stated that he would call the Board’s recommendation a
decision and would ask that the Board ask Common Council to fund that
recommendation. His view is that the City should rebuild as well and explained the
history of how the current two options were chosen. He stated that the purchase option
appeals to him because he has always believed that this community should be one
4
June 24, 2009
community – i.e. one fire department, one police department, one school system
because a lot of money is being spent on government and redundancy right now. He
noted, however, that the arguments for the rebuild option are compelling and listed
those. He further stated that the City has not been extended much of a hand from the
other municipalities at Bolton Point and the City would be in a precarious position if it
were a customer at Bolton Point. He believes there is a way to rebuild from a cost view
that makes sense and can prove that the City can build a system that will be energy
efficient and as green as possible and become a sustainable facility. This option will
show skeptics that this facility can be far better than their fears and he offered to sit on a
sub-committee to help draft a resolution.
Commissioner Wykstra stated that he has great confidence that construction of a new
facility can occur with great sensitivity to the Six Mile Creek Natural Area.
Commissioner Schlather asked if a straw poll could be taken from the rest of the Board
to determine which option they are leaning towards.
Commissioner Jenkins stated that she has been on the Board for twelve years and her
choice from day one has been for the City to rebuild the current water plant. She further
stated that the City should have its own water supply and not be a customer to anyone.
She noted that Commissioners Schlather and Tripp had eloquently expressed her
thoughts as well.
Commissioner Brock stated that she is new to the Board and since November 2008
there has been a lot of catching up that she has had to do to try to have as deep and
complete an understanding of this important decision as possible. She stated that she is
in complete support of the rebuild option because of Bolton Point’s unwillingness to
have the City as a complete partner.
Mayor Peterson stated that one thing that she will hinge her decision on will be a
meeting taking place at Bolton Point tomorrow regarding partnership.
Commissioner Schlather stated that it would be helpful for the discussion at next week’s
meeting if Board members would draft their own language for the different areas and
the rationale for their decision in terms of why they support the rebuild option over the
purchase option.
O’Brien and Gere Consultants Eckler and Gell will plan to attend the meeting on July 1st
and provide a resolution for the Findings Statement.
Mayor Peterson noted that there would be a meeting on July 1st with herself, City
Attorney Hoffman, Supt. Gray, Planning Board Chair Schroeder, Traffic Engineer
Logue, and Planning and Development Director Cornish to discuss Phase III of the
Cayuga Waterfront Trail. She noted that the Planning Board is very interested in being
lead agent as they were for Phases I and II.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson
Information Management Specialist Mayor