Call To Order

 Ms. Kiefer, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:20 p.m.

Changes/Additions to Agenda

 As it would require an executive session, Agenda Item No. 6, Space Needs – COFA and Other Agencies was moved to the end of the meeting.

There were no additions to the agenda.
 
Persons Wishing to Address the Committee
 
 Members of the public were present to address Agenda Item No. 11 – Ellis Hollow Road.  Ms. Kiefer offered to have public comment at that part in the agenda, which was agreed to.

Minutes of August 22, 2006

 It was MOVED by Mr. Booth, seconded by Mr. Joseph, to approve the minutes of August 22, 2006. After some amendments were offered and agreed to, the minutes were unanimously approved by consensus of members present.

Commissioner of Planning and Public Works Report

 Mr. Marx provided information relating to the Highway Division budget request and noted no OTR was requested due to the ability to utilize the revenue from the motor-vehicle use fee dedicated to highway materials.  As a result of this fee the Division was able to stay within the target budget.  He noted that although there is the strong possibility of needing additional funding for fuel and materials it was recommended not to include it within the budget but to seek the funds from the contingent fund if necessary.  The department was requested to reduce their budget by $40,000; upon review it was noted there are some County roads that do not function as Countywide highways; some of the roads have very low usage, particularly some rural roads.  When attempting to determine how to reduce the budget it was felt that a reduced level of maintenance on roads not serving a County function would achieve the reductions.  Staff will be undertaking a review to more specifically determine what roads would be included in this grouping.

 Mr. Shinagawa arrived at this time (3:27).

 Ms. Kiefer asked what this would mean.  Mr. Marx said perhaps a road would get a stone/oil treatment rather than asphalt; he said some roads should not be a County responsibility, but no transfers have taken place at this time.  Mr. Booth asked for the Highway Division to develop criteria and bring that back to the Committee.

 Mr. Marx then reported a decision was also made to extend the approved five-year road reconstruction capital program out to a sixth year, which would reduce 2007 costs by $100,000.  It would not be recommended to continue to do this as it defeats the purpose of that capital program to catch up on deferred maintenance.

 Ms. Robertson said she feels the reduction of the maintenance levels on rural roads seems to be a logical choice.  In response to her question about motor-vehicle use revenue, Mr. Marx stated it provided approximately $300,000 to the highway budget.  He noted that the motor vehicle use revenue had not originally been included in the target.  When preparing the 2007 budget it was noted this revenue had inadvertently omitted from last year’s budget; upon inclusion of the revenue at this time it was determined there was no need for an OTR.  Mr. Joseph stated it is important for the Legislature to be aware of situations such as this one.

 Mr. Marx then indicated that the Facilities Division has requested a target increase to offset maintenance costs.  This request was approved by the County Administrator as a one-time increase for deferred maintenance, although the County Administrator noted he recognized the need and would like to see this continue if possible.  Mr. Marx said a target increase of $400,000 is needed on a continuing basis to enable the division to do necessary work that has been deferred as well as maintain the buildings and equipment.  It was noted that the funds would be used for contract labor, equipment, various materials used by the division, as well as for work completed by County staff.  Mr. Marx said equipment that requires replacement does not qualify as a capital project by itself.  He also noted that when reviewing next year’s budget a one-time approval could not be feasible due to the reduction of the fund balance.

Health Department

 Mr. Marx stated that $250,000 was put into the 2007 budget for design work on the Health Department building, and the PAR was approved by the Committee.  He would like to have a sense of direction from the Committee how to proceed.  He noted that thus far direction has been provided as a result of the former Space Needs and Location Committee’s (SNL) study and that subsequent discussions clearly indicated a need to further discuss location and the appropriate manner to proceed with the project.

 Ms. Kiefer noted the former Committee voted 3 to 2 to proceed with the recommendations presented by the SNL with an understanding that other site locations would be considered when we get to actual project commencement in the future.  Mr. Marx expressed his desire to begin work in January if the budget passes with the project included and he also said at this time no additional information relating to the project is available.  A brief discussion on the work of SNL took place during which it was noted that the consultant assigned for the project had provided information on potentially available sites to be used when comparing project variables between a downtown and west hill location.  Mr. Booth suggested a straw poll be undertaken of the Committee and full Legislature to determine a preference of location.

Mr. Joseph said at this time the County is doing more than exploring possibilities, it was included in the Capital program which a determination of a serious project and the need to look at a site for construction.  In addition, he noted site selection would be based on information gathered, sites that may be available, as well as factors reviewed by SNL such as economics, parking, transportation, etc. to find a good balance in the decision making.

The Committee continued a brief discussion of how to determine sites, noting that the City Planners had not indicated specific interest during the work of SNL.  Mr. Marx said a review of potential sites would be required, discussions regarding availability, and possible options prior to going public.  It was noted that site availability could be more open upon public and municipal input.  This topic will be on each agenda to enable further discussions of procedures to be prepared if the project is included in the approved budget.

Weights and Measures

 Mr. Ellis, Director, reported all work for this year is on schedule.  He said that New York State is attempting to pass a pricing accuracy law for scanning devices; although it has been presented over the course of several years, it is now out of State committees, and appears it may pass both the Senate and Assembly.  He said if this legislation passes it would require a good deal more testing than he presently must do as testing on a variety of products to show accuracy is required; Erie County has eight full-time employees to complete this task.  Mr. Ellis indicated that while this measure is not yet a State requirement, individual counties could pass local laws to require scanner testing.  Ms. Kiefer noted that Mr. Ellis’ time already limits him from some additional duties he could undertake and asked if any additional staffing is being requested.  Mr. Ellis stated not at this time.

 Mr. Booth asked about fees charged by the Division and was informed that all fees are at the maximum allowable levels, with a fee of $120 for a vehicle scale being the highest allowable fee.  He noted that often he is required to test scales several times a year but may only collect one annual fee.  With regard to fees Mr. Ellis noted a milk truck can take between 3 to 17 hours to complete with a fee of only $60 to $80, gas pumps are charged $20 per measuring chamber, grocery stores scales are approximately $15 to $20 per basket scale depending on volume.  In response to a question by Ms. Kiefer, Mr. Ellis said several counties do not charge fees, including Seneca and Madison counties, though that may change on an annual basis.

 Ms. Kiefer asked what is the cause of broken seals mentioned in his writtenreport and was informed it can be due to repair being done by the owner on the equipment, or on fuel oil trucks may be due to weather conditions.

Capital Payment Summary Reports

 The Committee was provided written reports for review.

Memorandums of Understanding – Tompkins County and Towns of Ulysses and Ithaca

 Mr. Marx noted the item is being brought forward as previously discussed at Committee.

 Mr. Sczesny reviewed the information that is a result of discussions with Town Highway Superintendents regarding road exchanges.  At this time Memoranduma of Understanding are under review by the Town of Ulysses and Town of Ithaca to exchange portions of Town and County roads to enable the towns and County to have more efficient operations of road maintenance and snow removal.  At this time the Committee reviewed the proposed exchanges, noting the following items:

· Game Farm Road – Although the County will be obtaining a small portion from the Town of Ithaca, a small portion of the road still remains the responsibility of the Town of Dryden and discussions will take place.
· Information indicating needed maintenance of roads was provided during the discussions of the road exchange.
· The Town of Ulysses modified the original proposal, excluding the transfer of 1.29 miles on Searsburg Road to the Town.
· The County Attorney has reviewed the Memorandums of Understanding.
· Although there are not full records of the road construction from towns, each road has been evaluated to determine the condition it is in.
· ITCTC mapping from the road study previously was used to determine which would improve functions through an exchange.
· The Committee requested a map indicating the classification and condition and description of the road transfers be provided.
· The Town of Ithaca may not include Pleasant Grove Road in the Memorandum of Understanding.
· More detailed information and a resolution will be forthcoming.

Ellis Hollow Road

 The Committee heard from various residents on Ellis Hollow Road who expressed concerns relating to the proposed project, particularly the possibility of moving the centerline of the road to the north.  Steve Vrana shared photographs and reiterated his statements made at the September 5th Legislature meeting.  Mr. Lampman said the centerline could vary throughout the course of the project, looking at the neighborhoods, assessing impacts, followed by determining design.  He stressed the project is very preliminary at this point.

 Ms. Robertson spoke of the proposed widening of the road, with 11 foot travel lane and 4 foot shoulders, and how the additional width to the shoulders combined with the two feet of gravel would undoubtedly require removing the fence shown in the example, even if the centerline remained intact.  Mr. McFarren noted that new zoning regulations would not allow a house to be built as close to the road as the example given.  Mr. Booth stated that in doing road reconstruction or maintenance could require removing some fences or trees, that in the course of completing the job there could be some negative impact.  He indicated that the County does not have the ability to deal with each property in a manner that would not affect any given property.  Mr. Sczesny said he has topographic maps that indicate the area accurately for purposes of the engineering required.

 Mr. Robert Kuehn spoke of Ellis Hollow Road being a major commuter road, e.g., from Richford, with many drivers exceeding the speed limit.  He feels although there is not heavy bicycle traffic a bicycle lane would be good.  He noted that in the area near his home moving the centerline between Dodge and Fox Hollow Roads would require moving a total of nine telephone poles.   Mr. Kuehn feels that overall the present four-foot shoulder should be adequate for a bicycle lane.  He stated that many residents are not pleased with the proposed work and what appears to have negative impacts to the residents.  Mr. Kuehn and others will seek legal assistance if eminent domain proceedings are undertaken.

 In response to a question by Ms. Kiefer, it is not yet decided whether to keep the ditch open or closed.  Mr. Kuehn said the water runs off the road into his yard.  He spoke of having a gentleman from the Soil and Water Conservation District look at the soil in his area and inform him that the water does not percolate in the area due to the soil composition.  He believes covering the ditch would require pipe that would assist in proper drainage.

 Nicholas Vrana reiterated his statements made at the September 5th Legislature meeting, that it is unfair to take an additional six feet on the north side of the roadway for the construction work.  He would like the road to remain at the present width and placement; to widen it would not benefit those who reside in the area.

 Mr. David McFarren spoke of the numerous accidents that presently occur on the road and how he believes this will increase if the road is widened.  Much of the damage occurring is not reported due to individuals leaving the scene.  Although he recognized that improvements to the Thomas Road/Ellis Hollow Road intersection reduced the number of accidents at that location, increased speeds resulting from an infrastructure improvement are likely to happen.  Ms. Kiefer indicated the Committee recognizes that many accidents are not reported.  He also spoke of the heavy truck traffic that utilizes Ellis Hollow as it is unable to travel Route 366 due to a defunct railroad overpass at Pine Tree Road and recommended that removal of the overpass be considered.

 Mr. Geoffrey Sharp noted his concern for both widening the road as well as the potential to increase the number of individuals speeding on the road.  He said the fence he installed two-years ago has been damaged twice by motorists.  He is concerned that if the road is widened it will create a larger hazard due to the proximity of his home.  In addition, Mr. Sharp also stated that there is not sufficient room on the south side of the road and, widening the road would bring the roadway to the fence line.

 Mr. Taber, resident of Ellis Hollow Road plus thirty-year member of Cornell Safety Division, commented he does not like the north versus south conflict being set up.  He expressed a concern that the project is not progressing in a manner originally discussed.  He said it was his understanding the centerline would remain in its present location within one or two feet, ditches would be cleaned and possibly covered for a bicycle lane and various other aspects; what is being proposed now is a different design.  He believes rights-of-way extend 16 feet on either side of the centerline.  He noted that each time the ditch is re-dug it is done too deep.  He also spoke of the number of vehicles speeding on the road and the lack of police presence, noting the only road enforcement is done by Cornell police at the west end.  He had spoken to Sheriff Meskill and New York State Police Captain Jackmin to request additional patrols, both of who were responsive.  Mr. Taber said the Sheriff’s Department did recently patrol and in one day had written only four speeding tickets, the fastest going 62 miles per hour.  He was appreciative and recognized the need for more manpower to be able to do more.  Mr. Taber would like the project to remain as originally discussed and that if need be address the railroad overpass issue to alleviate additional traffic of heavy trucks.

 In response to Mr. Booth’s question of what the main thing is the Highway Division is trying to do, Mr. Sczesny said the changes are to improve safety; if the 11 foot lanes were retained a four foot shoulder would be constructed, which would allow additional space for driver recovery if necessary.  He indicated it is always assumed that when an improvement is completed to a road speeds have a tendency to increase between 5 to 8 miles per hour.  Mr. Lampman added information about the proposed work, noting that it would recycle the present roadbed and add a finished pavement on top that would remove the crown that presently exists.  In doing this the roadway, including the shoulder area would be raised to a certain degree and require transitioning into yards.  Mr. Lampman said the proposed work is intended to improve safety on the road that has a higher-than-average number of accidents and decrease County liability.  He said that to enclose the ditch would increase the project cost by approximately $1 million for the section between Thomas Road and Turkey Hill Road; extending it to Game Farm Road would add an additional $500,000.  Full-depth reconstruction of the road was considered but would increase the cost between $750,000 and $1,000,000.

 At this time the Committee briefly discussed various aspects of the proposed project and included the following items of note:

· The project will assist in elimination of fixed objects within the highway right of way.
· The plan includes a difference in color between the driving lane and shoulders to maintain the appearance of a narrow road, which helps keep speed down.
· Ms. Robertson is concerned that five years ago discussions included traffic-calming measures that are not presently included.  She is concerned that the present project will take a great deal from the individuals residing on the north side of the road and could be costly.
· Mr. Lampman said the intention is to have the shoulder colored red.  We could stripe the road at 10 feet, so that the first foot of the shoulder would be strong.
· Mr. Marx stated to provide a design that would not have the impacts noted would be an additional $2 million.  This compares to the $1.6 million budgeted for all highway projects.
· Mr. Joseph stated this is not a State or Federal funded project and therefore doesn’t have to meet the standards they set.  In light of present budget constraints the County cannot afford to do more than repave.
· Mr. Booth reiterated his comment that we need information from Mr. Wood, County Attorney, regarding liability issues.  He also does not want the Legislature to become involved in the design aspect of highway projects.  Mr. Joseph agreed with Mr. Booth’s statements regarding design, but stated it is up to the Legislature to approve or disapprove highway projects, particularly if other programs or needs are a higher priority.  Mr. Booth noted there is the question of liability to be answered yet.
· Mr. Marx noted the intent of the design is to create a road that would not need additional work for 20 – 40 years, and that other factors would be included such as future needs.  The intent is to design a road for safety and reduction of liability; many factors including discussions with residents assist to produce the final design.

Mr. Booth was excused at this time (5:03 p.m.).

Space Needs – County Office for the Aging and Other Agencies

 It was MOVED by Mr. Shinagawa, seconded by Mr. Joseph, and unanimously approved by members present to enter into an executive session to discuss potential property negotiations.

 An executive session was held between 5:04 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.

Single-Stream Recycling

 Ms. Kiefer referred to the previous meetings presentation on single-stream recycling and noted material presented was limited to only the positive aspects.  She reported on having looked for more information regarding single-stream recycling that could provide a more balanced viewpoint and she will provide this to members of the Committee and those in attendance today.  Ms. Kiefer also recommended that no decision be made until a tour of the newly constructed facility near Syracuse takes place.  She expressed concern that people are losing sight of the circular continuum of which recycling is just one part.  A single-stream recycling facility is designed to keep products out of landfills rather than saving a resource.  In response to a question from Mr. Joseph, she noted that if during the collection and sorting process materials get cross-contaminated when they are received at the plant to be re-manufactured, this may instead simply be sent to a landfill.  This defeats the purpose of true recycling, in which materials are reused as many times as possible.  Mr. Marx noted that the systems present today are much better than when originally started.  Ms. Kiefer believes that simply by co-mingling the recyclables contamination could occur.

Adjournment

 On motion the meeting adjourned at 5:16 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Karen Fuller, Deputy Clerk