PRESENT: B. Blanchard, G. Totman, Penniman, T. Joseph

EXCUSED: M. Lane, C. Evans

STAFF: B. Benjamin, Deputy County Administrator;  M. Shakarjian, Planning Department; L. Shurtleff, J. Miller, Fire, Disaster and EMS; R. Nicholas; Airport; J. Kazda, J. Boodley; Engineering; P. Meskill, Sheriff'; J. Wood, County Attorney

GUESTS: L. Withiam, E911 Operations Committee; B. Wilbur, Ithaca City Fire Department;  B. Mastropole, C&S Engineers; D. Kiefer, Board of Representatives; K. Lansing, Cayuga Heights Police Department

CALL TO ORDER

 The meeting opened at 12:07 p.m.

ADDITIONS TO/DELETIONS FROM AGENDA

Resolution - Initiation of the SEQR Process for the Public Safety Communication System Project, Positive Declaration and Lead Agency Designation
 Lease Agreement - Tower Location - Town of Groton
 Resolution - DOT

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 The minutes were deferred to the next committee meeting.

RESOLUTION NO.         - INITIATION OF THE SEQR PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, POSITIVE DECLARATION AND LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION

 Ms. Shakarjian said the SEQR process and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project is being started now in order to keep with the aggressive timeline for the project.    She said the County is issuing a positive declaration with the project as a Type I Action that may result in significant adverse impact.  She said the County is identified as lead agency.   Following the adoption of this resolution a concurrence letter will be sent to all involved agencies.  It was Moved by Mr. Totman, seconded by Mr. Penniman.

Ms. Blanchard asked if the long Environmental Assessment Form would need to be completed.  Ms. Shakarjian stated that it does, and because the County passed Resolution No. 63 of 2000 saying the county would be completing an EIS she will be using the Dutch Hill Study to get site-specific information and this information will be disclosed in the letter.  Mr. Kazda questioned using sites that have not been optioned because those sites may change.    Mr. Penniman asked how far we can go without sites; Ms. Shakarjian said we can do the EIS scoping without sites.  Mr. Kazda clarified that the optioned sites will be used for the EIS.

Mr. Joseph said that he is not ready to move ahead with this step stating it sounds like the County is moving ahead with building a system and he would like to know more about the State's proposed system before taking this step.  He said he believes the County will be involved with the State's system in some way, and he is not ready to put the time and effort into a nine-tower project that may not be built.

Mr. Benjamin stated that we will be pursuing multiple parallel tracks.  He said it is not known at this time at what level the County will be involved in the State system.  It is necessary to move forward with this step as though we are going to build a tower system in order for NYSTEC to be able to adhere to the timeline and be able to report back in January.  To wait on the State could mean the County's plans get backed up for several years and to wait until NYSTEC reports back in January will back up plans several months.  He said that should the County decide in January not to move forward then this will be time that could have been better spent, but if we don't do it and decide to move forward we will have lost time.

Mr. Penniman asked if by moving ahead now this would diminish the urgency of the State coming in to help us.  Mr. Benjamin said that NYSTEC has indicated that this will enhance our chances.  He said that when the State's system is done it would be based on State criteria, not Tompkins County's.  Propagation will be the same regardless of whether the County or the State is doing the study and the outcome will be the same.  If we determine a tower system with sites we can approach the state about joining in or picking up the construction cost.    Mr. Penniman asked if a statewide analysis would be completed.  Mr. Benjamin said he can't speak to how much environmental impact analysis will be done by the State, but this committee is very clear about protecting the County's interests and by making those decisions we have a certain amount of dictation capability.

Ms. Kiefer asked that Board Resolution No. 63 be identified in this resolution.  She said that she recalls there was great concern in the community about the County having chosen a project and moving forward without checking alternatives and the community was greatly reassured when the County took a step back to review options.  She said she believes it would be a mistake to move forward with the EIS at this time - that the County should wait until the NYSTEC documentation of options is received.  It is just a matter of a few months.

Mr. Joseph said his concern is not whether we are going to have a towered system; he is fully convinced that it is necessary.  He said his concern is whether the County builds the system or if the State builds it.  He believes it is necessary for the County to identify its needs, but he is not sure preparing the EIS does that.  He has concerns about what is going to happen if we spend 8 million dollars to build a system and then the State comes in and builds a system for free.

 Ms. Blanchard said that the resolution does not indicate the EIS is being completed on a towers project, it says we are starting the SEQR process on a communications system.  She said the problem is identifying the type of SEQR action and Type I-7 identifies tower heights of 100 feet and because the tower heights are defined it may be interpreted that we are moving forward with a towers project.  Mr. Benjamin stated that the initiation of the process does not commit the County to any end result.

Mr. Joseph asked what we can do to move forward with an EIS if we don't know what type of project we are doing.  Ms. Blanchard said that options can be outlined at a public scoping and we can ask what types of things people are interested in knowing and what they are concerned about.

 Mr. Lane said that each of the elements in Tasks 1-3 will be included in the EIS based on comments received and it is possible to move forward without adopting the resolution by sending out the lead agency concurrence letter.  This will also help us move into scoping.  Ms. Kiefer said that using a general description is fine with her, but what troubles her is that Ms. Shakarjian has indicated that we will be using sites we have options on.  She asked if it is possible to move forward with the long form without specifying the actual project.  Mr. Benjamin asked if it is necessary to specify which sites are being used.  Mr. Lane said this is a technicality because Resolution No. 63 was already passed.  Mr. Hanson said that the real issue is the schedule.  If we go through the process and wait until we have a contractor hired and sites chosen it could add six months to one year to the schedule.  We have indicated that we will go through the process based on optioned sites and make modifications later if needed in order to keep the project moving forward.

A voice vote resulted as follows:  Ayes - 4 (Representatives Blanchard, Totman, Penniman, and Joseph), Noes - 0, Excused - 2 (Representatives Evans and Lane).  MOTION CARRIED.

WHEREAS, Tompkins County has an interest in replacing or enhancing its current wireless communication system for public safety to achieve better reception (coverage) for communication and interoperability amongst fire, police, and EMS agencies in the County, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is subject to the New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act, and
WHEREAS, the project is a "Type I action" as defined by the underlying regulations of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York, and
WHEREAS, County Board Resolution No. 63 of 2000 states that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared, and
WHEREAS, an involved agency must be established as lead agency to conduct an environmental review of the action, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Communications Capital Projects Committee, That the Tompkins County Board of Representatives seeks lead agency status for coordinated review and scoping relative to the EIS,
RESOLVED, further, That notification and request for concurrence on lead agency status be sent to all involved or interested parties,
RESOLVED, further, That a notice of positive declaration (determination of significance) be prepared, filed, distributed, and published.
SEQR ACTION:  TYPE I (Positive Declaration)

REPORTS AND UPDATES

 E911 COMMITTEE CHAIR'S REPORT

 Mr. Withiam reported that the group has been busy. The final draft of the Police Communications Policy has been received and the next step will be to combine these policies with the Fire and EMS policies.

 He said that the E911 Committee participated in a survey that was distributed by NYSTEC.  Over 240 surveys were distributed and approximately 200 were returned.  Twelve groups of people have been identified and NYSTEC will be interviewing each group beginning December 15th.  He said that as decisions begin to be made on systems there is a concern about the location of the consolidated dispatch center and also operational questions.

GREEN STREET DISPATCH CENTER

 Mr. Miller stated the transition is moving smoothly ahead.  Phones will be transferred tomorrow, the 911 phone switch people will be in next week to make connections, and the State Police have approved our application for the NYSPIN terminal.  The transfer of personnel is anticipated to take place January 10, 2001.  He said he and Mr. Meskill have made a decision not to take the 18 bank alarms to the new facility and those involved have been notified.

Mr. Benjamin said that the task of moving the dispatch function to a centralized facility was much larger than expected and he thanked Mr. Withiam, Mr. Wilbur, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Meskill for their cooperation in moving this incredibly difficult operation.  He noted there are union issues.  He said the only thing that needs to be completed is making sure everyone is cross-trained and that it is implemented in the time needed.  Everyone should be cross-trained by the end of January.

COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH CENTER SITE SELECTION MATRIX

 Ms. Blanchard introduced Bob Nicholas, Airport Manager and Bob Mastropole from C&S Engineers stating she asked both to attend today's meeting to discuss options at the Crash, Fire, Rescue (CFR) site.

 Mr. Benjamin stated that Jim Kazda would also be assisting on this project.  He said a meeting has been held with Tom Salm at Ithaca College and a follow-up meeting will be held this Friday to resolve issues on the South Hill site.

Mr. Kazda said that he continues to review the site matrix and he is working to understand how the numbers got to be what they are.  He said that Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Mastropole will be talking about the Airport's Master Plan and how it will be affected should expansion be authorized on the CFR site.  He said that additional analysis needs to be done at the South Hill Fire Station site,  noting that parking, utilities, the need for a disaster emergency center and a training site for volunteers are some of his concerns along with possible land restrictions -- so there are more needs than what Tony Egner designed for.  He said that Ithaca College is presently in schematic design for their own public safety facility and noted there may be some synergy in combining facilities.  They have selected their site, but there is some flexibility.  He estimates it will take four to six weeks to work through all this.

AIRPORT SITE

 Ms. Blanchard asked what impact expansion of the CFR building would have on airport operations and what the possible implications could be with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

 Mr. Nicholas said the airport is presently constrained for space and there is virtually no room for expansion and that was part of the reason the Agway parcel was acquired.  He noted the importance of not constraining the area from growing.  He said the immediate area of the CFR building is a bad idea because the airport has its own expansion design.  It is necessary to accommodate airport equipment and the expansion will be going directly where the current CFR building is located.  He said it might be conceivable that a space could be designed to accommodate the airport and dispatch function, but asked what will happen in the future if both need to grow.  The Airport's Master Plan for the next 15 years shows the Airport using all of the space south of the CFR building for ramps.  He said that based on what has happened over the last 25 years he has no reason to doubt that the future expansion won't occur.  He also spoke about the location of the jail stating that prior to the jail being located next to airport property that area was earmarked for an airport industrial park that could have been revenue producing.  That could have provided enough money to build the badly needed FBO Facility and also lower fares at the airlines.  The other thing that has happened over the last 25 is the investment of over 20 million dollars.  He said the land needs to be protected for the airport in the future.

 Ms. Blanchard said that having this explanation has been very helpful and it makes it difficult to continue discussions about expanding the CFR building.  The Committee set a goal to decide on the location of the centralized dispatch facility by the end of January.

Mr. Mastropole spoke about the importance of the County's relationship with the FAA.  He said the FAA is the funding agency for projects at the airport and there is an excellent relationship between the County and the FAA at this time.  Over the last ten year the County has received nearly $11 million in entitlement money and another $8,343,000 in discretionary funds.  He said the FAA as a funding agency would discourage any development at the airport that is not aviation oriented and he would hate to see the County placed in the position of possibly losing money and jeopardizing that relationship.

Mr. Joseph asked how much operations have increased in the last ten years.  Mr. Nicholas said that enplanements have gone from roughly 50,000 in 1978 to 106,000 passenger enplanements this year.

Mr. Meskill stated that the issue of expansion of the jail needs to be decided.  He said the Sheriff's Department is currently using the airport's access road and part of the grass because there is no room left within the security perimeter of the jail.

Mr. Nicholas said he does not have the same concerns about the expansion of the jail as the expansion of the CFR building.  He said that the problem is if you encroach on the airport the FAA may need to be repaid because they funded acquisition of the Agway parcel.

 Mr. Penniman asked what Ithaca College's timeframe is for making a decision on their public safety facility and if there is a possibility that additional parking may be available.  Mr. Kazda said that Ithaca College has land that may be considered and they are willing to discuss it.  He stated that the building that was designed by Egner Associate was four stories and may not work.  He will be discussing this with Egner once it is known which sites are available on the Ithaca College campus.  He said a meeting is scheduled for this Friday to continue discussions with Ithaca College.

 Ms. Blanchard said she attended the Town of Ithaca Board meeting last night to discuss the plans for the facility and the Town has indicated they want to make sure the fire department isn't compromised and their town engineer will be sitting in at the meeting on Friday.

 Mr. Joseph noted the only reason to consider the airport site is because it would just be an addition to the CFR building and therefore the only reason not to consider it is it reduces airport flexibility, and that has a price tag.  Mr. Kazda noted that the County wants to maximize revenues at the airport.  Mr. Joseph agreed, but pointed out there is a difference between revenue to the airport and revenue to Tompkins County's General Fund.
 There was discussion about keeping the fire coordinator and dispatch operation together rather than separating the two functions as discussed during earlier meetings.  It was Moved by Mr. Joseph, seconded by Mr. Totman and unanimously adopted by voice vote of members present to discontinue looking at options where the dispatch function is separate from the Fire Coordinator's operation and to consider options only where they can be combined.  Ms. Blanchard commented that this will remove three option columns from the matrix.

 Mr. Benjamin stated he hopes to have the siting matrix work completed and be able to make a recommendation at the January 24, 2000, committee meeting.  Ms. Kiefer asked for a copy of the revised matrix.

PROJECT STATUS REPORTS

 DOT PROJECT

 Ms. Blanchard said a meeting between County officials, State DOT representatives and a representative from Senator Seward's office was held this past Friday to discuss the DOT relocation.   We received appraisals of DOT sites in Tompkins County and Cortland at $1.5 million.  Senator Seward has been able to earmark $3.8 million in the multi-modal money for the relocation.  The DOT is ready to move ahead with their funding ($500,000 - $750,000), but they need a commitment about the County's funding as well as a location.  The next step is to acquire an option on the Hanshaw Road site and this will allow us some time to work out the transfer of funds and put together the final pieces of the deal.  Optioning the property will show a commitment to the DOT.  Cornell has also been contacted about entering into a contract and we have been told to move forward.

RESOLUTION NO.        - AUTHORIZING OPTIONING OF APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRES OF  PARCEL 41.-1-22 ON HANSHAW ROAD IN THE TOWN OF DRYDEN

It was Moved by Mr. Totman, seconded by Mr. Penniman and unanimously adopted by voice vote of members present.

WHEREAS, a New York State Department of Transportation Maintenance Facility occupies a 10.7 acre waterfront site off Third Street Extension in the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the maintenance facility impedes public access to the waterfront and does not take full advantage of the waterfront's full potential, and
WHEREAS, relocation of the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Maintenance Facility and appropriate redevelopment of the site was recommended in the Tompkins County Waterfront Plan (1997) and confirmed during preparation of the County's Economic Development Strategy (1999), and
WHEREAS, the Communications Capital Project Committee (COMCAP) has as one of its charges the relocation of the NYSDOT facility to a more appropriate site thereby freeing the lakefront property currently occupied by the facility for uses that would be enhanced by a waterfront location, and
WHEREAS, County Planning and Engineering staff to COMCAP have worked cooperatively with NYSDOT for many months to identify an appropriate site for the facility, which will also accommodate a County Highway Division presence for provision of emergency services to the eastern portion of the County as well as possible future use by towns, evaluating several sites along Hanshaw Road as well as other sites in the Route 13 corridor, and
WHEREAS, a portion of Parcel 44.-1.22 fronting on Hanshaw Road in the Town of Dryden has been identified as the most appropriate site for the facility because it:
* Meets all NYSDOT locational criteria,
* Has been approved by unanimous vote of the Town of Dryden Town Board Resolution No. 204 for "Out-of-District" sewer and water services,
* Is priced at a level that meets project budget guidelines,
* Does not result in the removal of real property from the tax rolls,
* Is located in a sparsely populated area thereby avoiding potential land use conflicts, and
* Does not impinge on any areas of environmental concern, now therefore be it

RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Communications Capital Projects Committee, That the County Attorney is directed to pursue and secure an option to purchase on Parcel 44.-1.22 so that further planning for relocation of the DOT facility can proceed in a timely manner.
SEQR ACTION:  NOT AN ACTION

 Mr. Joseph noted the resolution has not price information in it.  Ms. Blanchard said she believes $1400 per acre was agreed to with Cornell.  Mr. Penniman recommended asking Cornell that the option price be included in the purchase price.
 Mr. Wood noted the lease is running out on one tower site in Groton, and asked for Committee action on the following resolution:

RESOLUTION NO.             - AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO LEASE PROPERTY FOR RADIO COMMUNICATIONS TOWER

It was Moved by Mr. Joseph, seconded by Mr. Totman and unanimously adopted by voice vote of members present.
 WHEREAS, the County currently has radio communication equipment including a tower on the property of Marlin Houston, in the Town of Groton, and
 WHEREAS, the lease for the use of such property has expired, and
WHEREAS, the County's emergency communication needs require the continued use of this parcel, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Communications Capital Projects Committee, That the County Administrator is authorized to enter into a lease with Marlin Houston for the continued use of the property.
SEQR ACTION:  Type II-16 Lease Renewal

ADJOURNMENT

 The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.  The next meeting will be held January 23, 2001, at Noon in the Scott Heyman Conference Room.
 
 

Respectfully submitted by Jennifer Luu, Administrative Assistant, Board of Representative's office.