Excused: R. Booth

Staff:  K. Fuller, Deputy Clerk, C. Nelson, Public Works Administrator, B. Eckstrom, T. Richardson, S. Parr, Solid Waste Division; W. Sczesny, Highway Department; E. Marx, Pubic Works Commissioner; S. Whicher, County Administrator

Guests:  D. Barber, Town of Caroline Supervisor; D. Barr

Call To Order

 Mr. Randall, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m.

Changes/Additions to Agenda

 There were no changes or additions to the agenda.

Persons Wishing to Address the Committee

 Mr. Barber, Town of Caroline Supervisor, spoke to the Committee regarding the Boiceville Road Bridge.  This County bridge was originally built with a ten-foot clearance, however, due to erosion and other natural causes, gravel has filled in under the bridge to where there is only about 5’ clearance  between the stream and bottom of bridge.  This area experienced a major flood in 1996, at which time the Lounsbury Bridge was repaired.  Mr. Barber indicated this April’s rain created some flooding around the bridge and without remedial work future flooding is anticipated.    He explained the bridge is between the two fire departments and loss of use would be detrimental to the community.  Mr. Barber stated the Town of Caroline recognizes need for work within this creek and has just had a $600,000 stream-stabilization project completed further upstream.  He hopes the County, City, and Town can work cooperatively on this project.  Mr. Barber reported that it would take a number of years before all gravel would be washed out to bedrock, therefore a cooperative approach is required to minimize any washout that is occurring.  Mr. Barber said that the DEC had given the Town permission to work in the area of the bridge last year to do some emergency work; he believes they will allow removal of the gravel beneath the bridge.  In response to Ms. Nelson’s question, Mr. Barber said that the sediment removed would be used to rebuild other areas of the stream.

 Mr. Joseph said he has lived along two separate areas of the creek and had experienced times when deep holes were filled, other holes were expanded, and then subsequent times the converse was true.  He is not certain that by removing gravel the problem would be resolved.

 Mr. Marx noted that the County has built bridges as short as possible to keep costs down, but if they were wider it would not constrain the stream as much.  If bridges were longer it may be less expensive in the long run.  In addition, the topic is covered in the Flood Mitigation Program that is presently under review, with the suggested work subject to funding availability.  Ms. Kiefer noted the reason she asked if it was in the Flood Mitigation Program was due to her belief that projects should be prioritized on a watershed basis.  It was noted that in previous projects, Mr. Todd Schmidt acted as the individual responsible for the Town of Caroline’s lead agency status.

Approval of Minutes of March 28 and April 11, 2006

 It was MOVED by Mr. Shinagawa, seconded by Mr. Randall, and unanimously approved by voice vote, to approve the adoption of the minutes of March 28 and April 11, 2006, as amended.

Available Downtown Real Estate

 Mr. Marx reported that the County had been approached by the owners of Boardman House to determine any interest in a lease or purchase of the property.  Mr. Marx reported that Mr. LeMaro and he toured the building and did not find it favorable for County uses.  A brief discussion regarding the matter took place during which it was noted that there is no handicap entrance, first floor rest rooms, and is an historical building.  Mr. Marx indicated that it was thought it would require extensive renovations that would be detrimental to the building and does not appropriately meet County needs.

 Mr. Whicher addressed the issue of whether it is an administrative duty to screen offers such as this one, noting the County is often approached when properties become available.  He believes that it is the administration’s responsibility to review each offer, bearing in mind the needs of the County, and only bring forward information if it is deemed appropriate.  Ms. Kiefer noted that properties near the Courthouse complex are always of interest to the Committee.  Mr. Randall said he appreciated them bringing the matter forward, however he trusts the judgment of staff.

Report from the Commissioner of Planning and Public Works

 Mr. Marx reported that Mr. Tony Rudy, Assistant Airport Manager, has completed the requirements to become a nationally recognized Certified Accredited Airport Executive.  He noted that only four individuals within the State have this certification, two of which are Mr. Rudy and Mr. Nicholas, Airport Manager.  Mr. Marx stated Tompkins County if very fortunate to have a high-caliber, knowledgeable workforce.

 Ms. Kiefer hoped for additional information on potential downtown properties.  Mr. Marx indicated he does not have anything additional at this time.  In addition, he said the Space Needs and Location Committee had looked at all available properties at that time.  Mr. Joseph said there are many properties that may be available, but not suitable to the County.    Mr. Marx noted there will not be any capital projects for several years and it is difficult to determine what may be available at the time construction occurs.

 Ms. Mackesey arrived at this time (3:28 p.m.).

Available Downtown Real Estate – Continued

 Ms. Mackesey expressed her belief that any decision regarding pursuing of real estate should come before the Committee.  Mr. Whicher reiterated the present procedure of Administration screening offers to determine if they would suit County needs.  Ms. Mackesey thought the Committee should make a determination of whether or not to explore an offer.  Mr. Shinagawa felt to involve the Committee at the inception of an offer would be too time-consuming.

Mr. Joseph informed the Committee that he had been aware of the potential availability and that it only came forward as a result of several Legislators desiring to be informed.  He believes that there are two questions at hand:  (1) does the Committee desire to disagree with the determination made about the property’s usefulness, and (2) as a matter of practice should all properties being reviewed be brought to the Committee’s attention.  Ms. Mackesey stated that due to the County’s future needs she would like all properties under review to be brought to the Committee’s attention.  Ms. Kiefer would like information regarding any properties reviewed over the course of the last year be made available to members of the Committee.  Ms. Mackesey would like to have a future discussion of siting of building(s) downtown.

Consensus was to have any offers brought forward to the Committee for discussion.

Twenty-Year Capital Plan

 The Committee continued their discussions regarding prioritizing of capital projects to be included within the Twenty-Year Capital Plan, noting that previously no decision could be made due to a 2/1 vote that had occurred.  Ms. Mackesey indicated she had been attempting to determine if a possibility existed of adding a second floor to the Public Safety Building.

Mr. Shinagawa spoke of his discussions with Mr. LeMaro regarding expansion of administration area at a cost of $3.5 million; to do so would not lend itself to inclusion in expansion at a later date.  He would not like to see $3.5 million spent if further work will occur in five years time.

Mr. Whicher noted that to build a second story on the jail it would require the entire building to be emptied during the process.  Mr. Joseph noted that if an addition were completed to extend the sides of the building it was suggested it be a jail expansion, with the former cells utilized to expand the civil/administrative staffing areas.

 Ms. Kiefer noted that if looking only at the structures it is obvious that the Health Department building needs more attention than the Public Safety Building; however, a review of program/staff needs would indicate the Sheriff’s Department space needs more attention.  In addition, she feels the decision of priority should not rest solely with the Facilities and Infrastructure Committee.  Ms. Kiefer said she would like to see the projects completed closer together as she does not feel the Public Safety Building modifications should wait ten years.

 A brief discussion regarding the length of time for projects to be undertaken occurred.  It was noted the projects would most likely occur in 3, 8, and 13 years out.  Mr. Whicher spoke of the how a capital project costing $20 – $30 million would not be undertaken without changing the tax levy until 2012; he reminded the Committee that the County has absorbed the Communication project’s financial commitment of $20 million.  Mr. Joseph agreed that it was right to view the needs in a holistic manner and base a decision on everything known.

 Ms. Mackesey expressed her concern regarding waiting to do work at the Public Safety building; she would rather spend funds to assist in relieving space constraints while awaiting a major project.

 Mr. Randall expressed his thoughts regarding the prioritization saying he is really torn, but as a contractor he sees the Health Department as the priority due to structural concerns.  He also agrees there is a problem with being able to operate programs at the Public Safety Building.  Mr. Randall said he read reports and believes many of the same questions being asked were addressed during the studies.  He would like to see the priority be the Health Department, followed by the Public Safety Building, and finally Center of Government.

 Mr. Shinagawa believes the Health Department project should be a priority; to undertake repairs in the short term would lose money in the long run.  He recognized the space need at the Public Safety Building but felt it could function temporarily while awaiting construction.

 The Committee discussed how a potential capital project for the Public Safety Building may be subject to review and/or approval by the Commission of Corrections.

COMMITTEE-ONLY RESOLUTION REGARDING PRIORITIZING CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION WITH THE TWENTY-YEAR CAPITAL PROGRAM

 It was MOVED by Mr. Shinagawa, seconded by Mr. Randall, to set the priority as Health Department, Public Safety Building, and Center of Government.

 Ms. Kiefer stated she would like to see in the resolution language stating this prioritizing is based on the condition of the Health Department Building.  She also would like to see work done on the Public Safety Building occur sooner than later and inquired what the status was with the State-Wide Wireless System funding, which could reduce the County’s cost.  Mr. Whicher said discussions are ongoing and that any collaboration with the State would not affect the projects discussed.  Ms. Kiefer asked if the Committee would be willing to include language in a “Whereas” that states the difference between the program need versus the building need.

 Mr. Shinagawa inquired what the actual procedure should be.  It was noted that the decision was to provide direction for the Twenty-Year Capital plan that would be forwarded through Budget and Capital Committee and the full Legislature during the budget process.

 Mr. Whicher indicated that ultimately the full Legislature would set the final priorities, that the Committee discussion allows Mr. Marx to move forward with the capital plan to be presented to the Legislature.

 Ms. Kiefer said she had asked what the annual difference in cost would be depending on which project went first and that two versions be prepared for consideration.  Mr. Marx said that if the Public Safety Building were completed first, in the first five years there is an $8 million difference, so it would be an additional $720,000 per year.

 Mr. Joseph stated his belief that the needs of the Public Safety Building are related to space for the Civil and Administrative Division; he did not agree the plan should necessarily include expansion of the jail.

 The motion made by Mr. Shinagawa, seconded by Mr. Randall, was clarified by use of a resolution format.  Ms. Kiefer desired to add a resolved that specified the priority was based solely on the physical conditions of the facilities.  Mr. Joseph objected to the recommendation.

 It was MOVED by Ms. Kiefer, seconded by Mr. Joseph to indicated that based on information about the facilities, the Health Department building needs to be taken care of first, with the Center of Government building to be considered as a distant third choice as departments could deal with present space constraints.

 A voice vote on the motion to amend the resolution as noted above resulted as follows:  Ayes – 2 (Legislators Kiefer and Mackesey); Noes – 3 (Legislators Joseph, Randall, and Shinagawa); Excused – 1 (Legislator Booth).  MOTION FAILED.

 A voice vote on the original Committee resolution noted below resulted as follows:  Ayes – 3 (Legislators Joseph, Randall, and Shinagawa); Noes –2 (Legislators Kiefer and Mackesey); Excused – 1 (Legislator Booth).  RESOLUTION APPROVED.

WHEREAS, there are space needs in the county that need to be addressed, and
WHEREAS, the Health Department building has structural deficiencies that need to be addressed as soon as possible, and
WHEREAS, the Public Safety Building has programmatic space deficiencies that foreclude offering programs and inhibit present programs from functioning at optimum capability, and
WHEREAS, the Center of Government recommendation recognizes the need for long-term centralization of record storage needs as well as other space needs of the County, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Facilities and Infrastructure Committee, That the Twenty-Year Capital Program reflect that construction priority be indicated as follows:  (1) Health Department; (2) Public Safety Building; and (3) Center of Government.

 Ms. Nelson noted that Cortland County is again looking into the feasibility of a new facility.

Solid Waste Division

Nike Sneaker Recycling

 Ms. Eckstrom informed the Committee of the pilot program that recycles used sneakers into materials used for tracks and playgrounds.  This will be one of the items highlighted on the Ithaca Festival float.  Ms. Kiefer recalled that the Fontana Shoe store advertises collection of old shoes be donated for reuse.  Ms. Eckstrom agreed reuse is always the choice before recycling.  Ms. Kiefer asked how the program will be advertised and was informed by Ms. Eckstrom that it is very expensive to place advertisements within the Ithaca Journal, thus advertising is made in less expensive papers.

Re-Business

 Ms. Eckstrom has been speaking to the Chamber of Commerce; she will provide information about the Re-Business Program in May.

Organic Waste Program

 Ms. Eckstrom stated that since offices have learned to reduce waste the next logical step was restaurant organic waste.  The pilot program will assist in diverting organic waste rather than just throwing it in the garbage.  The food material involved is what was used in preparation, not what is on plates after consumption.  Ms. Kiefer recalled that Tompkins County Solid Waste had tried something similar before.  Ms. Eckstrom said that had been a program with Cornell, using windrow composting.  Now Cornell does its own.  Ms. Kiefer noted Ithaca College has long had an excellent food waste composting program.

Sliding-Scale Fee

 Ms. Eckstrom indicated that the revenue gained by the newly adopted sliding scale fee has recouped approximately $1,100 of the $12,000 loss.   She anticipates that all lost will be recovered by the end of the year.  Ms. Eckstrom also noted that it appears a small loss is occurring in the SUV/Pick-up designation ($5 coupon).  This may have to be addressed at a later date.

Household Hazardous Waste

 In response to a question from Mr. Joseph, Mr. Parr noted there will be Household Hazardous Collection days six times during the year, the next being the third Saturday in May.  The practice of calling ahead to schedule was intended to provide information about the approximate number of cars that would be handled on the collection date.  The only fee is for a $5 permit if an individual does not already have one.  It was noted that normally spots open due to “no-show” are filled by individuals who did not realize the need to call ahead.

Discussion

 Ms. Mackesey inquired how many complaints have been received regarding the sliding fee.  Ms. Eckstrom said the complaints are reducing in number as individuals are more clearly understanding the process.

Bottle Bill

 Ms. Kiefer stated a new bottle bill is being acted upon in the State and asked if any further information was available regarding separation of refundable bottles at the Solid Waste Center.  Ms. Eckstrom indicated she has not included this item within the work plan.

Illegal Dumping

 Ms. Kiefer requested an update on illegal dumping.

Budget Transfer

 The Committee was provided a budget transfer.  No action was required.

Highway Division

Authorization to Seek Construction Bids - Ringwood Road Bridge Replacement

 It was MOVED by Ms. Kiefer, seconded by Ms. Mackesey, and approved by voice vote by members present, to authorize seeking a construction bid for the Ringwood Road Bridge Replacement.  MOTION APPROVED.

Boiceville Road Bridge

 Ms. Kiefer asked if there could be a continuation of the discussion now that Mr. Sczesny had arrived.  Mr. Randall indicated the information would be provided to Mr. Sczesny and would be discussed further at a future meeting.

Highway Capital Projects

 The Committee again requested a tutorial on highway terminology.

 The Committee reviewed the Highway Capital Projects.  Items of interest are noted below:

· Halseyville Road Bridge Replacement – Mr. Sczesny will be attending a Town Board meeting in June 2006 to discuss this project.
· Spring Street Bridge Replacement – Construction will be delayed to allow the Halseyville Road Bridge project to be completed.
· McLean-Cortland Road – work on this has started with silt fencing up at this time.
· Red Mill Road Bridge – no activity is occurring at this time.
· Ringwood Road Bridge – the County is awaiting the bid.
· Newfield Depot Road Bridge – a public hearing will take place at 7 p.m.  A request to defer this project to allow completion of Hanshaw Road was made to the MPO.  This will allow $385,000 to be used on Hanshaw Road.
· Hanshaw Road Reconstruction – The design is complete and the Department of Transportation and County are working through the comments.  Although the comments are not received by the County, it is understood they relate to right-of-way issues.
· Coddington Road Reconstruction – SHPO was given comments and work is expected to begin in May 2007.
· Warren Road Reconstruction – appraisals for the rights-of-way are beginning.
· Station Road Culvert Replacement – there is some difficulty receiving cooperation from the railroad regarding their right–of-way review; they would like payment from the County for the time spent reviewing the issue.

State Reimbursement of Projects

 It was noted that reimbursement from the State has not been consistent due to changes in staffing assignments.  At this time it appears that the reimbursements will again start to be done regularly.  Mr. Sczesny said this has been a problem state-wide and that at this time approximately $700,000 is due.

Route 38 Bridge

 The Committee briefly spoke of the proposed bridge over Route 38 that would allow a direct route for traffic heading east/west on McLean/Peruville Road.  The Federal government has promised $1.6 million toward the project, however it was noted the cost would be approximately $8 million.  It was thought the funds provided could be used for design, with the item possibly being constructed at a later date.  It was noted that not everyone agreed a bridge project needs to be pursued.

Miscellaneous

 Mr. Randall noted the Committee could change to one meeting per month beginning with may; members agreed.

Adjournment

 On motion, the Committee adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
 

Respectfully submitted by Karen Fuller, Deputy Clerk