Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963 - Joint Annexation and Consolidation Committee Proceedings �(' February 4,,'Y1963 O TO: Members of Steering Committee -,I64 Atlr►�iovl aKA 1, t I t FROM: F.G. Marcham, Mayor of Village of Cayuga Heights SUBJECT: Topics for consideration A. SERVICES 1. Are there areas urgently in need of services and if so is it part of our responsibility to advise regarding them? 2. Within the Greater Ithaca Area (total area of Town, City, Village) what are the reasonable limits to which all services should be extended? Where would you cut off (1) water, (2) sewer, (3) garbage pickup? 3. Are there, within the Town, any areas whose citizens nrefer, for economy's sake, not to have all services? 4. Are the present service resources, i.e. water supply, sewage disposal plants, adequate for the demand within the area, mentioned in (2) above? Would Glenside Water Company supply help? S. Assuming a consolidation of services, would an equalization of charges follow? B GOVERNMENT 1. When we consider consolidation of government are the alternatives - government or two? 2. When we consider the possibility of a one unit government for the Greater Ithaca Area what patterns are available to us? a. A simple extension of the present City Government, as nrovided by the existing charter, with an enlarged Council - so many to represent Town, so many to represent Village. b. A City Government incorporating the recommendations of the Charter Revision Committee, with a council appropriately enlarged. c. A totally new type of government say, built around a fulltime super- visor and a small elected council or some other variant of standard city government. 3. What legal limits are there to the kind of government that could be con- structed for the Greater Ithaca Area? 4. Is it possible to unify services and administration without consolidating the government of the areas affected? What are the advantages and dis- advantages, from the point of view of consolidation of unifying services first and government later? S. If services and/or government were unified in the Greater Ithaca Area, how would this affect the relation of Cornell University with this Area? To: Members of Steering Committee Page 2 C. PUBLIC RELATIONS 1. In presenting the case for change in the organization of services and/or government what are the best media to use? 2. In presenting this case would a one stage change be more easy to present than a two or three stage change? 3. In presenting this case what are the best practical and the best theoretical arguments to use? 4. What should be done to meet the probable forms of opposition to change in the existing structure of services and government? a. In Cayuga Heights protest against increased taxes, and over the availability of services and over the zoning system. b. In City objection to change in pattern of government and to influence on city policy of 'outsiders" and "intellectuals". (I make these re- marks (a) and (b) after a thorough rereading of newspaper reports on the first discussion of annexation of Cayuga Heights and the attempt to change the City Charter.) It appears that a primary interest of the Town of Ithaca is to contract for Water and Sewer Service; that the City is interested in expanding boundaries in order to grow; that the Village would consider consolidation under a new form of regional government. If this evaluation is correct, then any joint study group must look into the possibilities of both extension of Municipal Services and Consolidated Govern- ment. It must survey both possibilities exhaustively and maintain studies in both areas right down to the finish of a completed report. If there is agreement to study both areas, the next hurdle is to determine the geographical scope of study. Two main courses of possibility have been mentioned in the past: 1. The entire city, town and village. 2. The entire city, village and that part of the town which is urban in character and can be served centrally in water and sewer service. It would seem that both possibilities would have to be explored. One approach could be to divide the Joint Committee into two study teams and tackle the various questions which both courses pose but in different ways. e Team One might explore the legal and Legislative aspects. For example, should Ithaca embrace the entire village and town, what would the representation be on the County Board of Supervisors? Would the Board of Supervisors have the deciding say in its numerical composition, or would it be accomplished by State Legislation? Bear in mind that the present alignment of 7 city supervisors and one urban supervisor (The Town of Ithaca) pairs off against representatives from 8 rural towns. Would the urban population of 40-thousand and the rural population of close to 30-thousand require a greater study of merger than is contemplated by our group? Would some of the rural towns want to merge? Would the deeper question be one of forming a new alignment in County Government? Or consider the course of having one Government for Greater Ithaca bounded by topographical ability to provide water and sewer service. This presumes that the rural remnants might be absorbed by the six rural towns presently bounding the Town of Ithaca. Here again, what are the legal and legislative possibilities? Team Two might explore attitudes_. How do six rural town boards feel about absorbing more land and in doing so absorb the cost of more Town highways and other services? Or how does the County Board of Supervisors as a whole view a Central Government of either dimension? What are the political ramifications? Ultimately our joint study committee would have to weigh possibilities of realigning or getting approval of four local governments by one course (City, Town, Village and County) or 10 local governments by the other course (in adding the six rural towns) . Team Two might also look into the question of how a city taxes an inner belt getting all city services and an outer belt which gets only the rural services it needs. The City of Rome is an example. Page 2 Having determined the geographical area for detailed study, a next step might be a clear understanding of the function of our joint committee. Would it be to devise a suggested form of new consolidated government, or would it be to prepare the groundwork for such a study? It does not seem that we are a charter study group commissioned as such. Our mission, in part, is to evaluate a Possible method of achieving consolidation. Consider State Annexation Law where only suburbanite voters are required to decide merger and the City Government Acts on behalf of its voters. From a political stcxlpoint, it is very doubtful that Ithaca voters would support any merger in which they were denied opportunity to cast their Personal votes. Some City people still complain of how they had no voice in the school consolidation decision or, recall how muddied the City Charter Revision issue became. I£ any vote on merger were ever attempted without the City voter having his Personal say, it is doubtful if a Common Council would be in position to go along with any merger. This brings us to the point that any means of consolidation might have to be staged. This Committee can agree that the goal of consolidated government is to devise a new structure tailored to an expanded City. But this Committee might also _- agree that the only feasible way to reach this point, would be to confine a first vote on becoming part of an expanded city under the present city form of government. It would seem impossible to guarantee the Town of Ithaca or the Village of Cayuga Heights a new form of consolidated government. It would seem Possible, how- ever, to guarantee safeguards that a Common vote would be provided for before their people would be asked to give up their forms of Government for that of Ithaca. It could be stipulated that City Mayor, Village Mayor and Town Supervisor MUST appoint equal representation to a charter study group that would place the issue of a new form of conso" idated government before voters within one year. If consolidation still looms as a course of common desire, at this point, then this Joint Cc::mittee could sub-divide into several small committees to weight the brand of service, the cost of service, and the pros and cons of providing these services through contractural agreement or through consolidated Government. A. Water and Sewer B. Police and Fire protection. C. Clerical -- controller, tax collector, assessor, administration. D. Public Works -- garbage collection, street lighting, street maintenance, storm drainage, etc. E. Plpnning, library, parks, Youth Bureau and miscellaneous services. In addition, there are special areas where sub-committees might operate. Were this group ever to recommend consolidation as preferable to contractual services, _ we would have to know answers in these fields: 1. Zoning. What safeguards could an expanded city offer suburbanites to preserve their desired form of zoning, a question which would weigh heavily in any vote on merger. 2. Capital Construction. What does the city have in mind in the way of improvements to be borne by the coming generation; the Town; the Village. Page 3 3. Intangibles, such as Human resources. What are the pros and cons of being able to draw on all the neonle of Greater Ithaca to help solve common problems? What are the pros and cons of giving suburbanites a voice they presently lack in municipal problems like parking, urban renewal, snow removal, bridge replacement, street maintenance, questions where suburbanites are presently as much a party to as city voters but lack voice in their solution. Is there any benefit derived in one taxing unit being able to plan land use more effectively? For example, would it make so much difference where a shopping center were located as long as it were part of the expanded city? Would this eliminate squabble of the past in extending water and sewer service? February 18, 1963 r JOINT ANNEXATION AND CONSOLIDATION COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS 4:00 P.M. February 18, 1963 PRESENT: CITY OF ITHACA: Mayor Ryan, Stallman, Chairman, Leary, Dr. Hall, Chatfield (represent- ing Hanna) Laverty, Secretary, Smith TOWN OF ITHACA: Supervisor Boynton, Allen, Bishop, McManus VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS: Mayor Marcham, Dean, French, Weatherby ABSENT: Gibson Chairman Stallman read a statement in reference to the difficulties of getting this Committee into being, and suggesting that a mutual atmosphere of trust prevail. RELEASES: The following resolution was presented: BE IT RESOLVED, FIRST: The press shall have a standing invitation to attend all meetings of this full Committee. SECOND: No member of this Committee shall give out any releases, utterances or turn over documents from this Committee or any subcommittee without the approval of the Chairman of the Committee. By Smith: seconded by Marcham Carried. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: Mr. Ralph Smith read in detail, after some discussion, a re- vised statement reading as follows. It was adopted on motion of Smith and seconded by Allen. Statement of Purposes and Procedures for the Committee It shall be the purpose of the Annexation and Consolidation Committee consisting of representatives of the City of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca and the Viallage of Cayuga Heights, to encourage cooperative action between these governmental units, (and also with the COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL COOPERATION including the Board of Education and Tompkins County and other municipalities) , when possible, to the end that greater economy and efficiency in local government operations may be effected. In furtherance of this purpose the committee shall first review current emergency public utility needs of such areas, and recommend whether desired services should be provided on a contractual basis to organized special districts or through annexation in conformity with the present policy of the Board of Public Works, or through other alternatives. The committee shall then study potential future public utility services that may be needed in areas adjacent to the city and village and determine whether they can be provided better, to all parties concerned, through contractual arrangement or by consolidation of governmental units. In any consideration of the city's or village's extension of services, it must first be determined what their present distribution capacity for extension might be: what if anything, would be involved in increasing this capacity within their present municipal limits; and what new service resources may be necessary. Page 2 In any consideration of possible consolidation of the city and town, it must be decided whether the entire town area would be included on a services-provided- zoning basis, or just that portion of the town which could be physically and practically served by the city with water and sewer facilities; and whether adjacent towns would be willing to absorb the balance of the Town of Ithaca area. In any consideration of consolidation of the Village of Cayuga Heights with the city, or with the city and the town, the committee recognizes that a detailed arrange- ment must be developed that would be of advantage to all parties concerned. In general, it shall be the underlying policy of the committee in all its deliberations, to be guided by what appears to be in the best interest of the entire Ithaca Urban and Suburban area, which is now one community in all respects extent their political boundaries. STEERING COMMITTEE: RESOLVED, that the Steering Committee be discharged. yLeary: seconded by Bishop Carried. TOPICS FOR CONSIDERATION: Mayor Marcham presented a memo in which he outlined a lure procedure, an the consideration of three topics. A. Service B. Government C. Public Relations During discussion Chairman Stallman presented a twelve point breakdown for sub-committee study as follows: 1. Water and Sewer S. Zoning 9. Garbage Collection 2. Fire Protection 6. Snow Removal 10. Taxes 3. Police Protection 7. Street Lighting 11. Government 4. Sidewalks 8. Inventory of Equipment 12. Public Relation $ Education. Following discussion on these items, it was generally agreed to concentrate on Mayor Marcham's points, and Stallman was designated as Chairman of the service sub-committee. Next meeting 7:30 P.M., Thursday evening, February 28th. Laverty stated that at the next meeting a general outline of the city water and sewer system would be presented. F.J. Laverty Supt. Pub. Wks. f C0MMITTEE ON ANNEXATION AND CONSOLIDATION CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 7:40 P.M. February 28, 1963 PRESENT: For the City of Ithaca: Arthur C. Stallman, Chrmn., Michael Leary, Ralph C. Smith, Michael R. Hanna, Dr. E.F. Hall, Supt. Public Works Laverty, Asst. to Supt. Hannan, Acting City Engineer Melchen. For the Village of Cayuga Heights: Frederick G. Marcham, Mayor, Robert Dean For the Town of Ithaca: Ben V. Boynton, Supervisor, Philip Allen, Franklin Bishop, A.W. Gibson, John F. McManus. Chairman Stallman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Minutes of the previous meeting were read and corrected by adding "with thanks" to the motion which discharged the Steering Committee. Vincent P. Hannan, Assistant to the Superintendent of Public Works, City of Ithaca, discussed the City's water $ sewer systems and details incident to expansion of these services. Mr. Hannan's presentation is summarized as follows: "A map entitled 'Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board' scale about 2000' per inch was marked to show (a) Areas presently within water districts and (b) areas below elevation 1070 which could be served by the existing water supply. "Limiting factors in water expansion being (1) an additional million gallons per day available at the filter plant allowing an expanded supply to 10,000 population (2) sizes of mains around the periphery of the present areas would require new trunk mains from the source to any new area of supply (3) new storage tanks may be necessary for any large new area dependent on location of area in relation to existing storage. Suggested new concept to supply eastward expansion being a major new trunk line to a master storage tank located so as to enable 'feeding back' thru the City's present tank and pressure systems and thus eliminate the 'step pumping' process now being used, which is extremely vulnerable in times of emergency. "Sewer trunk lines and existing or planned treatment facilities will be adequate to service any area which the City could supply with water." The next meeting of this Committee will be at 4:00 P.M. on Friday, March 15, 1963. E.W. Melchen, Jr. Recorder GREATER ITHACA STUDY COMMITTEE CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 4:IS p.m. March 1S, 1963 PRESENT: For the City of Ithaca: Arthur C. Stallman, Chairman, Michael R. Hanna, Mayor Ryan; Alderman Hart., Fire Chief Weaver, Police Chief VanOstrand, Superintendent Public Works 'Laverty, Assistant to Superintendent Hannan, Controller Weinstein, Acting City Engineer Melchen. For the Village of Cayuga Heights Orville French, Fire Chief Quinlan, Robert Dean. For the Town of Ithaca: Supervisor Boynton, John McManus, A.W. Gibson, Franklin Bishop, Harry Gordon. Chairman Stallman called the meeting to order at 4:15 P.M. Minutes of the previous meeting were amended by adding to the list of those present the name of Orville French, and by including Supervisor Boynton's invitation for all members to attend the public meeting with respect to water source development hold March 14, 1963, at the Tompkins County Courthouse. Mr. A.W. Gibson expressed disapproval of the title "Joint Committee on Annexation and Consolidation" for the reason that such name seemed to forecast a conclusion be- fore studies have, in fact, been undertaken. Chairman Stallman's suggestion of "Greater Ithaca Study Committee" was duly adopted. The Recorder was directed to express the committees best wishes to Mayor Marcham for a speedy recovery from his present illness. City of Ithaca Fire Chief Weaver's remarks regarding fire protection services are summarized as follows: "Fire Protection requirements are based upon two prime factors, population served and area served. "Present protection in the study area; City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, and Village of Cayuga Heights is provided by the City with 7 engines, 2 aerials, 45 paid employees and 8 volunteer companies and the Village with 2 engines and one volunteer organization. "The present combined apparatus and Manpower is sufficient to serve a community of approximately SO,000 people. The present fire station locations are adequate under existing conditions. However, any substantial industrial or commercial development in the Township might well require a relocation of existing equipment in the direction of the development. Also any substantial increase of population over 50,000 would probably require one more aerial ladder truck. "The vital' element' in our present protection, volunteer manpower, may be the least predictable item in the future. If the general public attitude changes and we are required to meet our needs with paid manpower the budget will go up approximately $24,000 per year for each man needed 24 hours a day 7 days a week. 1 Page 2 "No great gain is possible from good fire protection equipment and manpower in those areas not provided with hydrant service. It is generally uneconomic to provide one service without the other." Village of Cayuga Heights Fire Chief Quinlan explained the handicaps faced by a volunteer fire company in responding to daytime alarms and stressed the importance of reaching a fire at the earliest possible moment with adequate equipment and trained personnel. City of Ithaca Police Chief VanOstrand described the mobile beats patrolled within the City. Each additional mobile unit would require an estimated first-year expenditure of approximately $22,000. Maintaining police services over larger areas, with greater population than now served, would result in increased costs to the City for administrative staff, mobile units, detectives, and uniformed personnel. Police needs are not solely dependent upon area served since the character of neighborhood, population, topography, traffic and highway mileage significantly effect service requirements. An Enforcement Index of 1.9 policemen per 1000 population was recommended. Chairman Stallman noted that the municipal services discussed thus far by the committee have been water, sewer, fire and police. The Acting City Engineer was directed to pre- pare a comprehensive list of other services for committee consideration. The next meeting will be at 4:00 P.M. Friday, April S, 1963. Sun_ ervisor Boynton will discuss "County Water Systems." On due motion the meeting was adjourned at 6:12 P.M. Edward W. Melchen, Jr. Recorder TALK BY F. F. !TILL 3-07ORE ` liZ ITgA CA ROT.1Y CLUB APRIL b, 1953 ON THE REPORT OF THE GREATER ITHACA FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE Note: The part of this talk which follows was preceded by showing ten or twelve slides intended to bring out some of the problems confronting the Greater Ithaca Community and to indicate in rough fashion the general procedures followed by the Committee in making its studies.. What did the Greater Ithaca Fact-Finding Committee find out? What conclusions, if any, is one justified in reaching based on its 350-page report? Except as they are complicated and made more acute by the topography and soils of the area, the basic problems of the Ithaca Community are much the same as those confronting hundreds of other urban communities in the United States. Here we have a central city surrounded by more or less thickly-settled 'fringe' areas in which there is a demand for what I shall call 'central city services' -- public water supply, public sewage disposal, city fire protection, zoning, etc. (garbage collection) The urgency of the demand for these services differs from area to area around the city depending largely upon density of settlemento topography and soils. These are the principal factors which determine the nature of the sewage disposal problem in unsewered areas and it is the problem of sewage disposal that turns the thoughts of the 'fringe dweller' toward city services -- especially water supply and sewage disposal. It frequently happens, of course, that by the time the sewage problem reaches a really acute stage, as in the area north of Cayuga Heights Village at the present time, density of settlement has reached a point where residents of the area also are interested in other munici- pal services such as zoning, refuse collection, better fire protection, local police service, ect. In thinly-settled areas, on the other hand, residents may be con- tent to do without central city services with the possible exception of city water. In these days of automatic washing machines, garbage dis- posal units and other types of household equipment which use large quantities of water, an ample and dependable water supply is essential. Wells that supplied plenty of water for the family in grandfather's day frequently run dry under today's constant pressure for more and more water per household. In addition to the preblem of adequate water supply, there is also the problem of a safe supply. Under many circumstances, this may be a very real problem even in thinly-settled areas where there is emough land per dwelling so that the sewage nuisance can be kept within reasonable bounds, at least for the time being. Thus there may be, and frequently is, a demand for city water in fringe areas long before there is a demand for other city services. I .. 2 - The point I want to emphasize is that the range of city services which fringe areas want and the intensity of demand for these services differs from area to area depending upon density of settlement, soils and topography. This means that interest in becoming a part of the City or Village by annexation, or in obtaining municipal services by other means, also differs from area to area. You cannot simply block out an area of equal width around the City and assume that everyone within such an area has the same interest in central city services and, there- fore, in making some sort of arrangement to obtain them: The area north of Cayuga Heights Village, for example, has reached a stage where it has got to do something about sewage and the only feasible answer is public sewage disposal. The question is not whether a public sewage system is needed in this area but what kind of governmental machinery to use in getting such a system. Does this area join the Village, does it join the City or does it set up a special sewer district within the town of Ithaca? It looks now as though it was going to join the Village. While I have not taken a public opinion poll, I would guess that the urge for central city services, including public sewage is much less acute along Titus Road to the west of the City than in the north Cayuga Heights Area. Here settlement is still comparatively thin and the soils are somewhat better suited to septic tank operation than they are to the north of the City. My first proposition, then, is that the problem of providing central city services in the Greater Ithaca Area is not one that is likely to be solved at one time, for all time. I doubt if sparsely settled parts of the town of Ithaca are interested in a full line of such services, at the present time on the basis of the taxes they would have to pay to get them. As density of settlement increases, however, interest will quicken and ability to pay for services also will increase. Even if central city services were made available today for those fringe areas that need and want them badly, five or ten years from now, if population in the Greater Ithaca Area continues to increase even at a modest rate, we shall have new fringe areas that want and need such services. We are dealing here with a continuing problem. While we cannot expect to solve it here and now on a 'once and for all' basis, we can develope long-term community policies to deal with it both now and in the years ahead -- policies that are hammered out and subscribed to by the City, Village and Town and that are designed to keep this community one of the finest places in the United States in which to live. I would like to suggest what I think one of these basic policies should be. At this point, I want to make it perfectly clear that I as speaking for myself and not for the Committee although I have no reason to be- lieve the other members of the Committee disagree with what I am about to say. However, the Committee's assignment was to make a fact-finding study and report and what I am about to say represents personal judgements and opinions for which the Committee is in no way responsible. The first proposition I want to lay down is the obvious one that the Greater Ithaca Community is a single economic and social unit and that - 3 - as a matter of basic policy its public problems ought to be attacked and solved on a community basis. Let's take a specific problem -- the problem of sewage disposal. This is a health problem and, therefore, a community problem since disease is no respector of municipal boundaries9 If anyone has any doubts on this score, I suggest he go back and read the files of the Ithaca Journal for 1894 and 1903 -- years in which there were severe outbreaks of typhoid in this community resulting from a water supply contaminated by sewage. To repeat the obvious, sewage disposal is related to health and health is a matter of community concern. This being the case, I would urge that regardless of the form of governmental organization we use to accomplish our purpose we follow a fixed policy of having but one public sewage disposal system in this community -- a single unified system under a single management that meets the highest standards of sanitary engineering. In terms of governmental organization this can be done in either of two ways. Areas which. have reached a point where public sanitary sewerage is a MUST might, for example, become part of the City by annexation. Another possibility, is to form town sewer districts which would contract with the City for sewage disposal just as the Village of Cayuga Heights has contracted with the City for years for this service. Under either of these alternatives -- annexation to the City or the formation of town sewer districts which would contract with the city for sewage disposal service -- we would have a single sanitary sewer system in this community which in my judgement is a matter of prime importance. Let's decide on this as a fixed policy of the Ithaca Community and do our wrangling on the question of how costs are to be allocated and not about whether we ought or ought not to have two or more independently operated sewer systems. Similarly, as a matter of community policy, let's decide to continue to have a single public water system under single management, a single fire fighting system under the direction of a single fire chief and, when we feel we need 24-hour police protection in areas adjacent to the City, a single police system under a single command. Only in this way, in my judgement, can a community of this size assure itself of first class public services. The quality of these services, which is involved in keeping Ithaca a good place in which to live, is the most inportant single consideration before us now or that is likely to be before us in the years ahead. I have said that we can have unified basic services under either of two forms of governmental organization. Fringe areas that want such ser- vices can become a part of the City, assuming, of course, that mutually satisfactory arrangements for annexation can be worked out between the City and the area or areas to be annexed. Another possibility is to create special purpose districts within the town of Ithaca which would contract, as the Village does and as town water districts now do, for specified services. This latter procedure again assumes that it is - 4 - legally possible to contract for the services in question (it is not possible, for example, to contract for police service) and that the City and the special districts concerned can agree upon the terms of a contract. What about costs and the allocation of costs under these two forms of governmental organization? Is it to the advantage, from a tax point of view, for the City to annex outside areas or is the City taxpayer likely to get stuck and find himself paying part of the cost of sewerage to serve an area now outside the City after having already helped pay for City sewerage? Is a town water district or a town sewer district at a disadvan- tage in bargaining with the City for contract service or is the City taxpayer likely to find himself subsidizing the cost of providing City services for such districts. Time does not permit going into the Committee's detailed studies of tax rates under different assumptions as to the mariner in which the costs of providing public services are allocated among various groups of tax- payers inside and outside the City. The manner in which costs were derived and the effect on tax rates of alternative methods of allocating costs are described in detail in the Committee's report. Let me say here and now, however, that I see no reason why under either annexation or the use of special purpose districts one party to the arrangement has to get stuck. Residents of the City and Village have paid for their sewerage installations and persons now living in unsewered areas, such as your speaker, should pay for theirs. The cost of services such as fire protection can be shared on an equitable basis regardless of whether there is or is not a change in the corporate boundaries of the city of Ithaca in the years ahead. tnything the City gets for providing fire protection for outside areas over and above its out-of-pocket costs, is a gain to the City. Anything outside areas pay for fire pro- tection which is less that the cost to them of providing their own fire-fighting facilities is a gain from their point of view. Here, under normal circumstances, is a wide range for bargaining and disagree- ment as to 'who gets what part' of the financial advantage of a single unified service. Let's not overlook the fact, however, that a settlement anywhere between the limits I have described leaves residents of both the City and adjoining areas better off, from a tax point of view, than they would be if fire protection services were to be duplicated. Equally important, we gain the advantages of a unified fire fighting system under a single command. I haven't time to substantiate the following statement with detailed figures, but here is the way I interpret the Committee's findings, with respect to tax rates under alternative forms of governmental organization. The Committee's studies indicate to me that there is not likely to be any significant advantage to the City, so far as tax rates are con- cerned, from annexing the study areas delineated by the Committee. True, annexation of these areas would add to the City's assessed valuation. But it also would add to the miles of streets that would have to be maintained, the miles of garbage cans that would have to be emptied each week, the miles of water and sewer mains that would have to be - 5 - iaintained and the miles of residential streets that would have to be provided with police and fire protection. A substantial mileage of roads in areas adjoining the City, now maintained wholly or partly at State expense, would have to be taken over and maintained by the City at City expense. It is true, of course, that there would be an increase in per capita state aid to the City. However, annexation would add little or nothing to suchh central city revenues as business franchise taxes, utility taxes, fines and penalties, income from parking meters, gate receipts at Percy Field, etc. These simply would be spread over the enlarged City and they represent a substantial amount of revenue available at the present time to the present City. While I see no significant tax advantage to the City in annexing the study areas delineated by the Committee, neither does annexation appear likely to result in adding to the burdens of the present City taxpayer -- at least it need not: do so. Based on the Committee's cost estimates, and the assumption made as to the manner in which costs would be ,allocated amoung taxpayers both inside and outside the City, there would be no significant difference in City tax rates whether additional public services in fringe areas are provided by annexing these areas to the City or by the creation of special purpose districts in the town of Ithaca -- water districts, sewer districts, etc. What about areas outside the City? Is it to their advantage from a tax point of view to become a part of the City, assuming they want City services, or are they better off to create special purpose districts within the town of Ithaca as additional services are required? Assuming they want most or all of the major municipal services -- City water, public sewerabe, fire protection, police protection, zoning -- the Committee's figures indicate that in most cases there would be a small. tax advantage under annexation although the advantage is not large -- probably not large enough to be statistically significant. In those cases where there appeared to be a small tax disadvantage under annexation, again it was not large; not large enough to be significant. These conclusions, assume of course, that you are willing to accept the Committee's cost estimates and the methods the Committee used in allocating costs. If, after reading the Report, you are willing to do this, our results indicate that annexation need not take place at the expense of either the present City taxpayer or taxpayers in the areas annexed. This result is hardly startling since the Committee proceeded on the assumption that whether fringe areas were annexed, or whether special purpose districts were created in the town of Ithaca, persons living outside the City would pay the cost of such basic facilities as are required to meet their needs as well as their fair share of overhead and central facility costs. However, I think it is useful to get rid of the bogey once and for all that under annexation somebody has to get stuck -- either present City taxpayers or persons in the areas annexed. Similarly, there is no need for anyone to get stuck if special town districts are created and these districts contract with the City for sewage disposal, fire protection and other services as the Village has done for years. Let's bury that bogey also. - 6 So much for one man's interpretation of the Committee's Report? Where do we go from here? Shall we annex large areas to the City, shall we follow the special district route or shall we just continue to talk about these problems? The sewage problem in the area in which I happen to live is beyond the talking stage. Something has got to be done. Residents of Cayuga Heights Village have recently indicated their approval of a proposal to annex the Cayuga Heights Water District to the Village. Village authorities presumably will seek to modify their present contract with the City to take care of additional sewage as sewers are laid in the areas proposed to be annexed. From my point of view this con- stitutes a good solution to the problems of this particular area at this particular time since it adbears to the basic principal of main- taining a single public sewer system in the Greater Ithaca Area. I would expect one or more fringe areas to the east, south or west of the City to join the City if and when an intensive demand for a wide range of City services, including sewerage, develops in these areas„ One or more such areas may decide to go the special district route. Sooner or later I would expect the more densely settled areas surrounding the present City to become a part of the City proper, in- cluding Cayuga Heights Village. If this does not occur in the 1950'S then I would expect it in the 19601s, if not in the 19601s, then in the 19701s. The basic forces seem to me to point in this direction. I should think that in the case of the Village, the determining factors pointing toward an eventual merger with. the City are likely to be a demand for 24-hour police service and a fire station located somewhere on the Heights. I could, of course, be wrong about futtzra developments of this kinds I have been in the past on occasions too numerous to mention. In any case, I would expect provision for a complete set of central city services in areas now outside the City to be slow, and it may well follow both patterns so far as governmental organization is concerned, namely, annexation and the creation of special purpose town districts. Sooner or later, if population continues to increase, I would expect densely settled special districts near the City to become a part of the City because, as settlement becomes increasingly dense., the demand for all types of central city services increases and the greater the number of central city services that are wanted, the greater the advantages of annexation are likely to be from the standpoint of both the City and the area annexed. If developement should proceed along some such lines as I have described we will be confronted from time to time in the future with decisions of the kind we face today. Let's develope sound basic policies for making them. The two big things I got out of six years of work on the Greater Ithaca Fact-Finding Committee are first, that a SINGLE SYSTEM of basic public services is of major importance to all of us whether we live in the City, Village or Town and second that whether we follow the annexation or special district route or a com- bination of the two costs can be allocated in a basis that is equitable To all. - 7 - As I said at the outset, the Greater Ithaca Community is a single social and economical unit. Let's keep this number one fact in mind at all times and develop it on this basis. Minutes of l MEETING OF THE GREATER ITHACA STUDY COW City Hall Council Chambers 4:00 P.M. April 5, 1963 PRESENT 1,1ERE: City Michael Hannan Michael Leary Arthur Stallman Dr. Edward Hall Mayor Ryan Village of Cayuga Heights Robert Dean Town of Ithaca Ben Boynton A.N. Gibson Phil Allen Franklin Bishop John F. McManus Otherd. . . F.J. Laverty Dr. Fisher V.P. Hannan Tom Dyer (Onondaga Co. ) Leon Newhart George Williams (Monroe Co.) A. Golder Russell Sutphen (O'Brien & Gere) Harry Gordon Samuel W. Williams Jr. (O'Brien & Gere) Harold Jansen (Ithaca Journal) CORRECTION Minutes of last meeting indicated Michael Hanna as being present, in error. Minuted of last meeting readsand approved Ben Boynton spoke on the possiblilies and ramifications of a County Water System, and introduced Samuel W. Williams, Jr., an Engineer with the Syracuse firm of O'Brien & Gere, who presented a summary of JXheir report of a preliminary study of various sources of water supply other than that of the City of Ithaca. The possible sources considered were: Fall Creek - Dam downstream from Cornell supply Cayuga Lake Ground Water Estys Point The four areas to be served are: Section 1 - Northeast (including Village of Cayuga Heights) Section 2 - Southeast (S. of Cornell Dam as far as 6 Mi. Creek) Section 3 - 6 Mile Creek - Cayuga Inlet Section 4 - North and West of Cayuga Inlet 2. i Estys Point is considered the most feasible source. First cost estimated to be $1,110,000., to be bonded. Estys lst. year Principle & Int. 674,400. lst. year Operating Cost 26,500• TOTAL 0100,900. Fall Creek 130,000. Cayuga Lake 126,50o. Cayuga Inlet - Ground Water 121,000. Mr. Williams elaborated on the source at Estys, explaining that a finger of gravel extends into the Lake (not flooded), and it is proposed that a caisson with screens on the bottom to keep out fine gravel deposits, or shallow wells be driven. The water would be drawn thru the existing gravel strata, thereby losing it's turbidity. The water would have to be chlorinated, but it is expected that it would require less chlorination than the present city water supply. The maximum daily demand for the Town of Ithaca (including Section 4), based on the year 1980, is estimated to be 1.65 MGD. Section 4 could be supplied by development of wells in the area. Mr. Hannan stated that the proposed supply could not supply the entire county, as their requirements would be 6 or 7 M.G.D. Mr. Williams agreed. Mr. Boynton cited the following figures on water Cost from City before .'.pril lst. - 33¢ 100 C-f- (Average cost per. consumer) It of ff (lifter -pril 1st. ) - 430/100 c-f- ( ° It it �' ) Can supply our own for 350/100 C.F. - Average cost per consumer (Section 1, 2 and 3) Section 4 should continue to obtain water from the city. The annual maintenance cost for the Town was estimated to be $26,500-, in response to a question by Mr. Laverty. 250,000tga1. storage capacity is proposed at first point, and the size of pipelines are based on the year 2,000. Mr. Hannan stated that the City water supply oould be augmented for somewhat.. less than the $1,110,000. proposed expenditure by the Town. Mr. Williams said that $20,000. had been included in their figures as the estimated cost to acquire all rights of the Glenside Water Co., which includes some easements. Mr. Fisher stated that possibly 5 or 6 Right - of - Ways would have to be obtained. The road would be followed where it is practical, and some city property would have to be crossed North of the Cityls Dam. Mr. Boynton stated that the water reserves would be well over the requirements of the Underwriters, for fire protection. A water agency has been set up by the County, and members appointed. The next step should be to appropriate money for investigation. 3- George Williams, Chairman of the Monroe County Water ituthority spoke, and gave the following advice to the county water agency. 1 - Get your i,gency going - rippropriate the money to investigate 2 - Consider all of the people. 3 - Set uniform ratee thruout the system. He stated that their average consumption is 20,000 gals. per. quarter for $11.50 (60,000 customers). They can sell water inside or outside the County, and have a uniform rate thruout the County. He also said that they have a movie that would be helpful. Tom Dyer, Counsel for the Metropolitan Y+ater Board, which plans to bring water from Lake Ontario into Onondaga County also spoke. His advise was to have competent legal and engineering advice every step of the way. He stated that it is a long process to embark on. Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 P.M. NEXT MEETING DhTE: Friday, iipril 19, 1963 at 4*.00 P.M. in City Hall Council Chambers. i r GR&,TER ITH:,Ct. STUDY COMMITTEE ITH�C:,, NEW YORK April 5, 1963 GENER.i.L SUMAu,RY CF P-,iMICIP..L SERVICES W.,MR Source Treatment Distribution Sgl,�GE Sewer Construction & Maintenance Sewage Treatment and Disposal FIRE PROTECTION POLICE PROTECTION PLAriNING FINANCE Revenues & Collections Purchasing & Disbursements 1;ppropriations Special Assessments assessment Rolls RECORDS & LICEPISING INSPECTIONS & ENFORCEMENT Building Electrical Plumbing Weights & Measures Zoning PUBLIC WORKS Engineering General Traffic Equipment Maintenance Highway Construction & Maintenance Refuse Collection & Disposal Street Cleaning & Snow Removal Street Lighting Property Management PixRKS & RECREI,TION Minutes of MEETING OF THE GREATER ITHACA STUDY COMMITTEE City Hall Council Chambers 4:00 P.M., April 19, 1963 PRESENT WERE: CITY - M. Hanna, R. C. Smith, Dr. Edward Hall, A. C. Stallman TOWN - John McManus, Phil Allen, Franklin Bishop VILLAGE • Orville French OTHERS - Dr. Fisher, H. Gordon, B. Boynton, E. Rogers, A. Golder, E. Melchen, F. Weinstein Principal speaker was Arthur J. Golder, Bldg. Cofto & toning Officer for the City of Ithaca. In line with the thinking of consolidating various services from the standpoint of economicsy Mr. Golder suggested that a uniform set of codes for the entire area, with enforcement by one agency receiving financial support from the cooperating municipalities, would be far more economical than each Government entity doing the work individually. Mr. Golder said that strict enforcement has not been praetift! in some instances because of the proposed Urban Renewal and Flood Control Projects which would necessitate the removal of tome properties. The question is whether a man should be forced to spend money on property that may be removed. Supervisor Boynton suggested that the Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Hts. might contract with the City to have one Zoning Enforcement Officer. Alderman Stallman agreed that this is a good suggestion. Zoning procedures in the event of annexation were discussed, and We Golder also described procedures of the Boards of Appeal on the Zoning and Bldg. Codes. Paul. Fidler, City Supervisor of Maintenance & Construction, is tentatively scheduled to discuss Street Cleaning, Snow Removal and Garbage Collection at the next MEETING at 4:00 P.M., Friday, May 31 1963 Corrections to Minutes of 4/5/63 Meeting: Pg. 1 - para. l,pg.2-para.2,4,8-substitute Mr. Sutphen for *.�'Villiams Pg. 1 - Boynton shown under '"Town of Ithaca" - Change to "Otheri" Pg. 1 - para. 2 - Fall Creek "Downstream" - change to "Upstream" Pg. 2 - para. 10 - Substitute Dr. Fisher for Mr. Fisher Pg. 2 - para. 6 - Omit $26,500 - Insert "Paid from water revenues ®35¢/100c.f. Minutes of MEETING OF THE GREATER ITHACA STUDY COMMITTEE City Hall Council Chambers 4:00 P.M., May 3, 1963 PRESENT WERE: CITY - M. Hanna, A. C. Stallman, R. C. Smith TOWN - A. N. Gibson VILLAGE - None OTHERS - 9. Boynton, F.J. Laverty, P. Fidler, L. Newhart Meeting postponed at 4:15 P.M., due to the small number of members present. F. J. Laverty, Ben Boynton and Mayor Marcham will make personal phone calls to members prior to next meeting. Paul Fidler, City Supervisor of Maint. & Constr. is scheduled to discuss street cleaning, snow removal and gar- bage collection, and City Controller Fred Weinstein will dis- cuss fiscal policies of the City at the next meeting at 4:00 P.M., Friday, May 17, 1963. Minutes of MEETING OF THE GREATER ITHACA STUDY COMMITTEE City Hall Council Chambers 4:00 P.M., May 17, 1963 PRESENT WERE: CITY - A. C. Stallman, R. C. Smith, Dr. Edw. Han TOWN - A. W. Gibson, J. F. McManus VILLAGE - Mayor Marcham, R. Dean, 0. C. French OTHERS - F. J. Laverty, P. Fidler, L. Newhart„ F. Weinstein, E. Melchen, Mayor Ryan This meeting winds up City Services. Paul Fidler, City Streets and Sanitation Supervisor, gave figures on costs of operation for garbage collection, city dump, street patching, street cleaning and snow removal. Costs (including deprec. on equip. & overhead): Garbage Collection - $59,000 $5.38 per yr. per ton hauled 1.97 per yr. per capita 10.56 per yr. per pick-up City Dump - $18,000 1.67 per ton dumped (by City) Street Patching - $39,000 Street Cleaning - $25,000 Snow Removal - $44,9000 Fidler said that the City would probably have to buy an incinerator for garbage disposal in 10 yrs. or so, at an approx. cost of one-quarter million dollars, as available dumping sites are being filled quite rapidly. Fred Weinstein, City Controller, explained the City's fiscal policies, and described the functions of the Finance Dept. He stated that some City office machinery is not being worked to full capacity and could do more work, such as taxes and billing, if the need arises. He also explained that the City has a 5 yr. plan of Capital Improvements, and that the need for additional revenues, such as a Sales Tax, was indicated by a projection of the revenue and expense figures for the next 5 yrs. Mr. Stallman will obtain facts from the previous speakers, and a decision will be made on line of future procedure. NEXT MEETING - FRIDAY, May 31, 1963 - 4:00 P.M. Meeting adjourned - 5:55 P.M. !TcUTES OF MF_.,ETINC OF THE GREATER ITH&CA STUDY COMMLSSION CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 P.M., May 31, 1963 PRESENT: City - A. C. Stallman, R. C. Smith, Dr. Edward Hall Town - A. W. Gibson, Franklin Bishop, J. F. McManus Village - Mayor Marcham, O.C. French Others - Mayor Ryan, F. J. Laverty, L.H. Newhart, Ben Boynton (5:35 P.M.), F. Weinstein. "Summary of City Service" was distributed to those present, and the secretary was directed to mail copies to those not present. Mr. Stallman presented the following figures on per capita state aid for 1963: City: $197,484 ($6.75) Town: 32,205 ($3.55) Village: 8,364 ($3.00) Ralph Smith said there are over 30 existing, more or less independent, governing units in the county, which could be reduced to one under City Government, although the financial obligations of these districts might present some problems. Mayor Marcham suggested that the representatives for the Village and Town go back to their respective governing bodies with the "Summary of City Service" for a determination by them as to whether or not any services can be rendered better or cheaper by consolidation. He then presented his thoughts on possible alternatives for study and consideration: 1. Annexation (geographical extension of the City of Ithaca.). 2, r".nnexation of the Village by the Town. 3. Consolidation of somewhat different geographical area than Town, City and Village. 4. New approach to whole problem of government through the County. Some consideration would be geographical areas, financial committments and forms of government. Mr. McManus said that until the people can be shown that some personal benefits are to be derived, that not much enthusiasm will be evidenced by them for consolidation or annexation. Some people feel that they have closer contact with their government in the smaller communities. Where do we go from here? Mayor Marebam pointed out that it would be difficult to convince anybody to exchange a known form of government for a speculative form of government. How do you sell the idea? Mr. McManus said that an extension of services should be the first step toward further cooperation. I A committee composed of McManus, Smith, Gibson, Marcham and Hall was appointed to prepare something for presentation at the next meeting. MEETIAru ADJOURNED - 5:45 P.M. NEXT MEETING • FRIDIffs JULY 12 - 4:00 P.M. I MEETING OF THE GRFkTER ITHACA STUDY COMMITTEE City Hall Council Chambers 4:00 P.M., July 12, 1963 PRESEA!T: CITY: Michael Hanna, Arthur Stallman, Ralph C. Smith, Dr. Edw. Hall CAYUGA HTS.: Orville C. French, Mayor Fred T. Marcham TOWN: John F. McManus OTHERS: F. J. Laverty, C. Chatfield, L. Newhart Report of sub-committee which was appointed at last meeting: 1. We endorse the view that a unified form of government for the greater Ithaca community is inevitable. 2. With this in mind, we recommend that the community study alter- native forms of government, and consider what is involved in persuading public opinion to accept the necessary changes. 3. We recommend that the community, thlroligh common action, provide for a maximum use of resources, and seek maximum cooperation among political units. 4. We recommend that the Greater Ithaca Planning Board's recommend- ation of Nov., 1962 in favor of: (a) study of community sewer resources and (b) study of the City of Ithaca.'s water system be put into effect. 6. We recommend that the Greater Ithaca Planning Board be asked to define the criteria by which the community should decide the circumstances in which the extension of services should go forward. The above 6 points will be circulated to Committee members for comment. The above report of the sub-committee was unanimously accepted. Mr. Stallman will contact the Greater Ithaca Planning Board, and arrange a joint meeting to find out if they or we should persue these recommendations. Mayor Marcham will get more specific information as to costs involved, etc. in hiring a team of government experts. Meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M. Next meeting date will be announced. i f JOINT MEETING OF THE GREATER ITHACA STUDY C0MMITTEE AND THE GREATER ITHACA REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD City Hall Annex - 7:30 P.M. - Aug. 5, 1963 PRESENT: CITY: M. Hanna, A. Stallman, R. Smith TOWN: A. Gibson, F. Bishop, J. McManus CAYUGA HTS. : 0. French, Mayor Marcham GIRPB: T. Niederkorn, J. Angell, F. Liguori, A. Ceracche, R. Mueller, H. Stilwell Brown, G. McGrath Mr. Stallman apprised the GIRPB of the work done to date by our Committee, and was informed by them that they have a great deal of basic material which is available for our use. Mr. Liguori stated that private enterprise will probably furnish water to part of Lansing, and make offers to furnish Cayuga Hts. , which would be favorable cost-wise. He believes this might work out O.K. , and give the City a reserve of water for future expansion on South and West Hill. After some discussion of area water and sewer needs, the following resolution was carried by both the Greater Ithaca Study Committee and the GIRPB: The Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board and the Greater Ithaca Study Comm. in joint session recommend to the City of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca, the Town of Lansing and the Village of Cayuga Hts. that they join in applying to the State of New York for funds with which to undertake a comprehensive study of the water and sewer resources of the Greater Ithaca community, directed and financed by the State Health Dept. We do this in the firm belief that such a study will point the way to the most economical and effective development of these resources and thus will lead to the growth and prosperity of the community. For this study the Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board and the Greater Ithaca Study Committee seek the support of the citizens of the Greater Ithaca community on the grounds that until such a study is completed, development of other sources of water and sewer services ought not to begin. The Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board and the Greater Ithaca Study Committee. also seek support from the City of Ithaca for this approach to the water and sewer problems of the area. For this reason we urge the City of Ithaca to waive its existing practice regarding extension of water service for a two-year period as a temporary measure while the study is in process. In presenting this request to the City we believe that the necessary facilities for extension are available. The Board and the Committee understand that extensions should take place only in areas where they are feasible from an engineering point of view, when no capital cost accrues to the City, and only where the cost of extension is the full responsibility of those who benefit from it. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Next meeting date will be announced. I i i I i 1 i