Staff Present:  Kate Hackett, TCPD
Ed Marx, Commissioner, TCPD
Kathy Wilsea, Secretary, TCPD

 
Chair Dooley Kiefer called the meeting to order at 9:24 AM.

I Aquifer Study

Kate Hackett provided copies of information received from United States Geological Survey, noting that the information and cost estimates provided are preliminary and subject to a final review by USGS that will be completed within two weeks.  She provided a map of aquifer reaches and a chart of cost estimates, noting that it is adjusted for 2.5% inflation rate.  Information with costs adjusted for 4.5% inflation rate was provided by USGS.  Kate will make color maps available.

Kate said these needs assessments were developed by USGS in response to various questions posed by the County.  In addition to the baseline assessments recommended for most aquifer reaches, groundwater models were recommended for two of the aquifer reaches that provide municipal water supplies, Owasco Inlet Valley and Virgil Creek Valley. The USGS baseline assessment reports would include maps showing aquifer boundaries, well locations, surficial geology, water levels, and direction of groundwater flow.  Text would include geological framework, general aquifer characteristics, information about the groundwater and surface water interaction, and information about water quality.  Capacity and impacts of draw down would only be available as part of the groundwater models recommended for Owasco Inlet Valley and Virgil Creek Valley.

At the bottom of the chart, USGS estimates the total cost (at 4.5% inflation rate) to be $393,865 for Six Mile Creek/Willseyville Creek and $398,699 for Virgil Creek Valley.  [The rest of the chart is demonstrated at 2.5% inflation rate.]  On the chart, inflation is demonstrated as compounded annually for the term of the contract, which would be nine years for Six Mile Creek and six years for Virgil Creek.  Other studies would be two to three years.  In response to a comment from Peter, Kate said the chart can be calculated to reflect net present value.  Kate distributed draft scopes for Pony Hollow and Owasco Inlet Valley but noted the numbers in the scope are represented at 4.5% inflation rate, so will differ from the chart provided.

In terms of reducing costs, the County could cut out extra drilling, for which there is no USGS match, but Kate did not recommend that as it would affect the longevity and quality of the data.  They could also cut out water quality testing or pay for tests separately, but she noted any data analysis not completed by USGS would not be put in their national database.  By having the information in the USGS database it has credibility and can be used for many programs.  Ed said Oswego County had at times done their own testing at much lower costs.  Frank said we would need to be sure we are testing for the same options, then compare prices.

Martha asked about column headers on the chart, and Kate said the last column should be Total County Cost (w/ drilling).

Kate said she and Ed Marx spoke about options.  One idea is to fund one study over a longer period of time, five to eight years rather than two to three years.  Having the County provide human resources to gather data, etc., might lower costs.  Peter speculated on creative ways to use staff and/or students, for example, paying to put a graduate student through school in exchange for his/her doing the work.  He asked if there are other contractors available to do such a study.  Kate said there are consultants who do this type of work, but she does not know about quality or cost.  Nancy asked what other counties did.  Kate said all have used USGS.  Ed said if the County pursued study of one reach over four to five years, it could be a pilot to examine the process as well as the project.  Ed felt this would be prudent based on the fiscal climate. Martha asked if we would lose the USGS matching funds if we contract with someone else to complete the studies, and Kate said we would.  Frank asked if there is any state funding.  Kate said DEC has a funding program for high priority aquifers, but Tompkins County doesn’t qualify under the parameters.  Regarding hiring a consultant, Frank expressed concern about their business longevity and consistency of skills.  Dooley expressed a preference to stick with USGS.  Ed noted USGS produces a nice published report that becomes a long-term reference document.

Martha said we might get some municipal support, or have the County provide some support for municipalities that proceed on their own.  She wondered if we could have the needs assessments done and provide them to the municipalities.  Frank said it would make good sense to let the municipalities help in the decision-making.  Dooley felt county-wide information is important.  Frank said some municipalities feel this doesn’t affect them.  They all need to recognize the necessity of this information.  Dooley said the information is important, even for municipalities that at this point won’t or can’t cost share.  Kate said Cortland County has offered to work with us because a recharge area for one of their aquifers extends into Tompkins County.

Peter said he spoke with the Ulysses Town Board six or eight months ago.  They expressed an interest in splitting equally the 70% county share.  They expressed a strong interest in the study.  He wondered if we can get a dollar amount, as the towns need lead time to plan and set up funds.  Ed thought it would be about $50,000 per year for the County share, but choices are unclear without having the priority list finalized.  Getting municipal funding might mean we could start with two reaches or shorten the time frame.  Nancy expressed an interest in doing a pilot.  Dooley said she would like to arrive at one formula for all the towns.  Ed commented that in a pilot we would be in more control of the process.  If we jump into the towns’ process, we become a bystander.

Dooley had an agenda attachment from August about the Cascadilla Creek reach, and mentioned differences in the cost estimates between that information and the current chart.  Kate will find out the differences and pass the information along to Dooley.

Peter made a motion for Tompkins County to proceed with this program, offering towns an opportunity to participate equally with Tompkins County, and putting $50,000 per year in the capital budget.  Frank seconded the motion.

Nancy asked if towns can contribute more.  Peter said sure, if they would.  He said this motion would make $50,000 available in 2003 and allow the county to pursue a study in a slower time frame.  Ed said $50,000 averages the local cost of the estimates over three years.  More reaches could be studied if we can get municipalities to participate.  He noted the first-year cost estimates in the chart have no inflation factor.

Dooley said it is not clear to her that one reach falls in one town, or how costs could be split among municipalities that share reaches.  She was interested in increasing the funding as she felt $50,000 would not be sufficient.

Peter amended his motion to put $50,000 in the capital budget for 2003 and $80,000 in subsequent years until the studies are done, based on a 35% County share, 35% local municipal share, and 30% USGS share.

Kate said USGS can start one or two reaches next year.  Frank asked if USGS can change their contribution rate.  Ed said it is his understanding they are locked in at 30%, subject to federal appropriations, by their relationship with Tompkins County.  Frank would like the towns of Caroline and Dryden not to be cut out of this County process just because they have already started.  Martha asked what will happen if the reach considered to be the top priority is located in a town that is not interested in cost sharing.  Dooley said we would need to educate the public and the town representatives, which is a role of the Water Resources Council.

Martha asked that the chart be amended for the Capital Committtee meeting on Friday, showing number of years of study for each reach.  Peter also wanted costs expressed in current dollars, and with borrowing at 2% for comparison purposes.  He said David Squires or Kathy Smithers could be contacted to help in producing those cost comparisons in the same format that all capital projects are considered.  Dooley said she has previously spoken with David Squires and Kathy Smithers about this and learned this is a bondable project that can be bonded in pieces.  Peter felt it should be set up for 20 years.  Ed said figures will be produced for comparison.  Ed and Kate said they would check with Kathy Smithers and prepare figures in a manner consistent with other capital projects.  Peter amended his motion to put in $50,000 for next year and divide the balance over the remaining 19 years.

Vote on Peter’s motion to put $50,000 in the capital budget for 2003, remainder in subsequent years, to complete the total project in 20 years.  Yes 5, no 0.

III SEQR Procedures

Ed distributed two sets of documents about the review of SEQR procedures.  One shows the edits and the other shows the newest version only.  He said some of the changes were based on comments, and others came from staff.  He spoke with Steve Whicher on 10/1 about this, and  Industrial Development Agency will discuss it on 10/4.  Then it will go to other committees,  department heads, and the County Attorney.  He would like to finish by the end of this year.

Frank asked if IDA is lead agency on a project, do they assume liability.  Ed said any lead agency has responsibility and liability.  Frank mentioned the priority set in # 3, and said if that empowers IDA to act on the County’s behalf, do they have to take the good with the bad.  Martha asked what IDA projects would require SEQR.  Ed said bonding projects.  Dooley said in #2, Capital Projects, the document originally referred to the Capital Project Coordinator, and now has “or” options.  Ed said it may be simplified, and will be reviewed with the Capital Project Committee.

Regarding #3, County IDA, Dooley would prefer to have IDA make use of the Planning Department’s expertise for SEQR analysis.  Ed said this idea has already been discussed with IDA.  Dooley felt the relationship should be made firm.  Nancy asked if TCPD would charge a fee under those circumstances.  This has not been established.

Frank asked what is the Capital Project Approval Review Team, as mentioned in #1 and #2.  Ed said that team is being developed.  The Team will monitor the process of approving capital projects within the County, but that does not preclude Board approval.

Frank would like to review this after Ed gets comments from IDA.  Dooley asked about the next procedures for taking this to the Board of Representatives.  Ed said it still needs to be reviewed by others.  Nancy and Dooley felt that since this will be a County policy, it will need to go to Government Operations Committee, too.  Nancy would like some clarification re liability in #3 before Ed sees IDA on Friday.  Dooley was interested in separating out the IDA requirements.  Martha felt it was necessary to finish this procedure as it applies to IDA and clarify it at the end of the year.

Ed said IDA staff has been comfortable with the draft.  Peter felt this policy also needs to address IDA’s role in non-County projects.  Dooley said in those instances the IDA would really need to make use of the Planning Department for environmental reviews.

At this point Ed needed to leave to attend another meeting.

II Flood Hazard Mitigation Program

Kate Hackett said the County received three proposals in response to the RFP for revising the Flood Hazard Mitigation Program.  The proposals from Integrated River Solutions, Malone & Green, and Schumacher Engineering are being reviewed by Planning Department staff.  All of the proposals say the requested work is not possible within the budget of $25,000, and suggestions run in the range of $40,000.  For $25,000, there would be review of the program and completion of two or three of the selected watershed reviews (of six hoped for).  Craig Schutt has told Kate he thinks the balance can be funded from Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance (FLLOWPA) funds.

Peter noted there was $25,000 in the budget for 2002, and this committee recommended $15,000 for 2003, but Steve Whicher recommended $0 for 2003.  Kate will pursue information about FLLOWPA funds.

Frank said he would like selection of areas of study to correspond with areas that received FEMA money over the last few years, and zones established on FEMA flood maps.

Kate will provide more information following a staff meeting on 10/9.

Addition to Agenda – Committee Administration

The joint evening meeting of this committee and HHS for the public to comment on the Neighbor Notification Law (NNL) will be October 17th at Town of Ithaca Town Hall.  EMC members had received an offer from a DEC staff person to present background information about the law.  Kathy will contact him and make arrangements for him to attend the meeting on the 17th.  A press release will go to the media, and notices will be sent to persons who have attended previous meetings on the subject or asked to be notified.  Other meeting procedures will be discussed at the regular committee meeting on 10/17.  It was noted that the Board of Health will be meeting at noon on 10/8 to discuss the NNL; Dooley hopes they will focus on health impacts of pesticides.
 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 AM.

Respectfully submitted Kathy Wilsea, Secretary,Tompkins County Planning Department