HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB 2025-12-18Page 1 of 20
TOWN OF DRYDEN
TOWN BOARD MEETING
December 18, 2025
Zoom Hybrid
Present: Supervisor Jason Leifer, Cl Daniel Lamb, Cl Leonardo Vargas-
Mendez, Cl Christina Dravis, Cl Spring Buck
Elected Officials: Bambi L. Avery, Town Clerk
Rick Young, Highway/DPW Superintendent
Other Town Staff: Ray Burger, Director of Planning
*Cassie Byrnes, Secretary to the Supervisor
Supv Leifer opened the meeting at 6:06 pm. Board members and audience recited the
pledge of allegiance.
RESOLUTION #210 (2025) – APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the meeting minutes of November 6,
November 13, and November 20, 2025.
2nd Cl Dravis
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Presentation by Climate Action Committee –
Jack Wright, Chair of the Climate Action Committee, read the following statement that
was a consensus of the full Climate Action Committee:
The Town of Dryden’s Climate Action Committee (CAC) strongly urges the Town Board to implement
language fully prohibiting the development of data centers and cryptocurrency operations in the Town
of Dryden.
The only benefits that the CAC can identify from hosting high-performance computing data centers
and/or cryptomining operations include some tax revenue for the Town and potentially a few new long-
term jobs. The CAC understands the drawbacks of hosting high-performance computing data centers
and/or cryptomining operations to far exceed any potential benefits to the Town.
These facilities draw an exorbitant electricity demand and are difficult to monitor. The high electrical
draws associated with data centers can have several impacts on residents of Dryden. When data centers
require the build-out of electrical infrastructure, these costs are absorbed by ratepayers, not by the
owners of the data centers nor by the utility. In the midst of another proposed rate increase from
Page 2 of 20
NYSEG, the CAC recommends that the Town Board promote energy affordability for Dryden residents by
prohibiting the presence of data centers.
From a climate perspective, the high electrical demands from data centers increase the difficulty for
New York State to achieve the goals of its own legally binding Climate Law, known as the Climate
Leadership and Community Protection Act. The New York Independent System Operator, which
oversees New York’s electrical grid and wholesale electricity market, has identified data centers as one
of the drivers of increased energy demand, predicting a 16% increase in electricity demand over the next
decade (NYISO, 2024). This higher electrical demand is increasing New York State’s use of fossil fuels,
making our air and water dirtier while also creating excessive greenhouse gases. By prohibiting data
centers, the Town of Dryden expands on the CAC’s work to help meet the State’s climate goals and
promote an affordable, clean future for Dryden residents.
In addition to taking a close look at electrical demands, the CAC encourages the Town Board to consider
the difficulty and resource drain that monitoring any data centers would incur. Please consider if the
Town has the needed staff bandwidth, resources, and expertise to adequately monitor and regulate
data centers and cryptocurrency operations.
With the above considerations in mind, the Climate Action Committee strongly urges the Town Board to
implement language fully prohibiting the development of data centers and cryptocurrency operations in
the Town of Dryden.
If the Town Board decides, contrary to the Climate Action Committee’s recommendation, to proceed
with the Planning Board’s recommendation of limiting data centers to a 5,000 sq. ft. footprint and a
maximum energy draw of 1 MW, then the CAC urges the Town Board to include the following
provisions:
● strengthen the Planning Board’s recommendation by removing “without a variance” from the
following provision: “In the LIO and LIO-A districts, data centers shall not exceed 5,000 square
feet and shall not utilize more than 1 MW without a variance.”
● require any electrical demand from data centers or cryptocurrency mines to be sourced from an
equal or greater amount of new renewable energy generation, so as not to strain electricity
supply further;
● mandate facility decommissioning in the same way that solar projects are required;
● prohibit the use of fossil fuel-run generators for backup of data centers or cryptocurrency
mines, since these fossil fuel-run generators create significant air and noise pollution;
● require the applicant to pay for an independent expert of the Town's choosing to monitor the
operations approved by the Town and report if the expert finds a violation of any applicable law,
regulations and/or permit conditions, or if the operation changes hands;
● require the independent expert to submit an annual report to the Town Board on data center or
cryptocurrency compliance for the life of the operation, and;
● establish a process for the revocation of permits if the owner and/or operator of the data
center(s) or cryptocurrency operation(s) is noncompliant with Town code or SUP conditions.
In summary, in view of the problems of both the costs of data centers and the challenges in monitoring
data centers, the Climate Action Committee urges the Town of Dryden to prohibit data centers of all
sizes. If prohibition is viewed as impossible, we urge that the law include our recommended provisions.
Page 3 of 20
Thank you for your time and your consideration.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW REGULATING DATA
CENTERS AND CRYPTOCURRENCY MINING
Supv Leifer opened the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. and asked for comments on the
proposed local law.
Robert O’Malley said he is not here to speak against data centers; it may be inevitable.
Computers are becoming more efficient and will take less power due to coming increases in
computer power as a natural progression. He is most concerned with the humming noise these
centers generate. Data center noise issues stem from a lot of HVAC fans and back-up
generators, emitting low frequency hums and drone-like sounds that harm nearby
communities and harm wildlife. There are hundreds of servers in close quarters, and they
create noise up to 90 or 100 dba. The noise can travel as far as two miles away. Nearby
residents describe the sound as similar to living by a truck stop where all the rigs are running
24/7. The data centers run non-stop, through weekends and holidays. The area where this
might be allowed on Hanshaw Road is next to a bird sanctuary.
He suggests soundproofing, implementing better fans and silencers, and narrow-band,
low frequency tones. This is hard to regulate, monitor and control. He is also concerned with
the impact on property values near the sites.
Hilary Lambert thanked the Planning Board and Cl Lamb for drafting this law. If
society were different, it might work, but she is concerned with what is going on with data
centers and crypto siting nationwide, that all the good attempts to control might not work out.
She is afraid the law may not be sufficient and asked the board to please consider prohibiting
these land uses in this town.
Marie McRae, a member of the Climate Action Committee but speaking individually,
said she personally cannot find any compelling reason to participate in promoting data centers.
If we allow them in town, she sees no benefit to Dryden residents, only deficits. Someone said
today that bravery is mostly refusal; refusal to take what is coming at you and accept it. She
asked the board to show Dryden’s bravery as we did with the fracking and not allow this
scourge of data centers into town at all. Please ban them.
Tony Salerno, chair of the Planning Board, speaking individually, said he would like to
offer some insights into how he approached the issue. While going through the process, he
heard a lot of information from a number of different people, a lot requesting a ban, like the
fracking ban. Concerns about very large data centers are legitimate. They do have issues such
as power draw, noise, and negative impacts to the community and the environment. We should
take those into consideration. He listened to all the comments in the Planning Board and the
advisory group.
The fracking comparison is not a good one because data centers come in a wide variety
of sizes, capabilities, and power draw. The larger ones use huge amounts of power and huge
amounts of water for cooling. They run 24 hours per day. However, modern-day data centers
can and do monitor power draw and cooling load as requested. For example, if there is a power
shortage in the area, the utility can request the data centers to power down.
The proposed law is very restrictive and is for very small data centers, under 5,000
square feet and under a megawatt of power draw. There are limitations on noise. Ultimately
Page 4 of 20
that means the larger data centers will not be built here. He agrees with the removal of the
language suggested. The proposed law requires a special use permit process that allows the
town to scrutinize each project and require mitigation of impacts.
He spent some time in the light industrial zones. It really comes down to data centers
of the size we allow would draw less power and make less noise tha n some of the existing
buildings and businesses. He could not justify banning something that we already have or
allow in those zones. That is why he came to the position that this law is better than doing an
outright ban.
Brad Will said he is a member of the Planning Board but is speaking as a resident of
Dryden. We are all aware of the many issues and challenges including noise, air, water quality,
aquifers, utility rates, and the uses proposed for light industrial and mixed commercial zones.
He is surprised to see this document labeled a final draft. It is not well written and not ready
for prime time. A lot of the language is not adequate. He believes there are inconsistencies and
inadequacies.
Section 2 is unclear as to size and seems to invite corporations to come in and propose
larger facilities. These buildings can be filled wall to wall and floor to ceiling with racks of
supercomputers that are churning away and producing a lot of noise and drawing resources
from a system that is already potentially limited.
This law is written as if these are buildings used by humans. They are not. The 24/7
everyday use of these buildings is primarily filled with equipment and computers. Other
language requests a narrative of the nature of the onsite activity and operations, including the
market area served by the facility. The market area is anywhere in the world. This is
meaningless.
There is a question about number of employees per shift. There are no employees on a
regular basis. The language doesn’t apply here.
This is all old speak zoning law. It doesn’t apply here. It’s a whole new use and very new
to all of us. It’s a big deal and is coming to every county in every state in the nation. The law
needs a lot of work. He is not in favor of data centers of any size in Dryden.
We need to look 5, 10, 20 years down the road. What happens if even a small data
center is located here and, in a few years, becomes obsolete? Empty buildings become a blight.
This would be a windowless box. The landscape could be dotted with empty buildings that
can’t be re-used because of the way they were designed. What is the plan and how is that
regulated? He is looking at what is happening in Lansing. What happens when NYSEG moves
out of their space? Regulations won’t be strong enough to dissuade the temptation.
We should seriously consider not allowing them. There could be a bubble or a tax
impact with PILOTs that could just be a burden on the rest of the taxpayers. This is premature
and we don’t know enough yet. Drafting a local law that is a band aid for something that is
much bigger is not addressing the issue. We don’t have the tools yet. The language in the
document looks like zoning written in the 1960s or 1970s. This is n ot ready for prime time.
Ann Rhoades said she is confused about why there is hesitation to ban. We all know
the dangers. A few people could make a lot of money and walk away. If we had been this
cautious with fracking, we’d have fracking in Dryden now. Are we worried about being sued?
We were sued with fracking and we found resources and got help. We need to be bold, and we
need to say no. If we want to create more jobs in Dryden, there are better ways. This is not the
answer. We can stimulate job growth in much more productive ways that help our people. We
absolutely have the power to limit things that can harm our people. We have the power as a
Page 5 of 20
town to do that, and we know this can be harmful. We need more information and think more
carefully about what the harms could be and what could be coming. We need to make sure
any regulations address all the potential harms. She is urging the board to ban and if not ban,
limit. If limit, not just limit to 1 megawatt per site, because another megawatt can be added
and then another. Have a total maximum for the town; what is the total amount that we can
live with? The town should not be responsible for any clean up when they leave. Because there
will be a bubble and they will walk away and we’ll be left with whatever they decide to leave
behind. Be bold. We need to be bold. It’s calling us. Be bold. We need to be bold.
Charles Geisler a member of the Workforce & Affordable Housing Committee, speaking
individually, read the following statement:
I will summarize the local law before us briefly: Allow Data Centers (DCs) but make the eye of the approval needle
so small that even a 1MW Data Center won’t fit through it.
I get this logic, but am worried about it for 2 reasons:
1. I don’t think the eye of the needle is small enough. In particular,
** we require only a minimum 100 foot setback between residential property lines and data centers (other
jurisdictions require greater setbacks);
** under Performance Standards we hold a DC proponent to all manner of renewable energy expectations. But
these are encouraged, not required.
** we have Site Plan and Special Use Permit requirements that include potential positive and negative impacts in
writing. This is good, but it’s a very short list of impacts (emergency services, sewage disposal, and solid waste
disposal).
** and decommissioning the DC should we wish it: we “may require” a decommissioning plan. Why wouldn’t we
insist on this, lest it become an abandoned property and brownfield in the future at a cost to taxpayers?
Again, I don’t think the needle’s eye in this law is small enough.
2. But I am worried about something else more fundamental:
** The proposed law offers a Statement of Purpose which says we are regulating to make sure that location,
design, scale, and operations are compatible with the town’s comprehensive plan. Major emphasis in the Plan is
placed on affordable housing—it’s mentioned no less than 16 times. The Plan tells us (p. 44) that Dryden has
“challenges with poverty and affordability that suggest an urgent need for proactive housing policies.” It goes on,
encouraging us to concentrate A.H. in our nodal development zones: “Nodal development is the process of
concentrating future growth within an established or emerging neighborhood centers (i.e. nodes) and is a viable
tool for combating unwanted sprawl. Nodes … have a variety of developments including mixed housing types,
retail establishments, restaurants, educational services, health services and municipal offices.” (p.75)
**Here is my point: The 2 Light Industry zones the proposed law specifies for DCs are none other than our 2
emergent development nodes. We’re unintentionally putting a potentially hazardous land use in the midst of
recommended A.H. concentrations . I simply don’t believe that even the smallest eye-of-the-needle will protect
these homes from harm, any more than an insurance policy full of fine print will necessarily satisfy our claims in
the wake of an accident. Data center lawyers will almost surely invalidate the good intentions of this proposed
zoning law.
Let me go back once again to our comprehensive plan. It devotes an entire page (76) to the Tompkins
County Housing Strategy. The Strategy’s expectation that the same two emergent nodal areas will host 50 -100 new
affordable housing units annually. If we approve this law, we will be legally at liberty to locate Data Centers in the
midst of these housing clusters with only 100 feet of buffering. The Strategy estimate is overly hopeful, yes, but it
suggests that we could have quite a land use collision awaiting us.
Page 6 of 20
Conclusion:
So I’m worried that this law allows data centers, no matter how small, in two locations already mortgaged for a
different and very important land use—affordable housing. Recall that the comprehensive plan survey over 700
people in the town, 3 stakeholder group meeting, and countless planning and Town board meetings. and Which
land use will you choose for our 2 nodal areas? Housing for people or housing for data? They are incompatible
together.
Rebecca Frye, farmer and NYSEG customer, read the attached statement.
Dryden High School Sustainability Club - Tyler Jones and Hannah Emmelhainz read
the attached statement.
Judith Pierpont said she was impressed with the comments tonight. She supports the
statement of the Climate Action Committee. If the board does pass the law, requiring the data
center to provide funding for an expert monitor would be absolutely necessary.
Joe Wilson, former member of the Planning Board and was part of the committee that
orchestrated the comp plan update called Dryden 2045. He is a member of the Climate Action
Committee, speaking for himself. He attended many Planning Board and Zoning Advisory
Group meetings that led to the development of the proposed local law. He subscribes to many
of the comments given by Brad Will and to comments on use of the land instead for affordable
housing mentioned by Chuck Geisler.
He read the commitment of the Town Board as written in the 2045 Plan: “Our Vision:
The Town of Dryden is committed to sustainable and inclusive development that preserves
open space, protects its rural character, and supports its agricultural heritage, while improving
the quality of life for current and future residents.” He has been unable to discern how data
centers and crypto mining operations are consistent with a vision that says it will improve the
quality of life for residents, both current and fut ure. The industry and the operations are
greedy. They are greedy for land, for natural resources, for power and for money. The money
drives very aggressive efforts by applicants such as was exhibited by the one that came before
the board with a show of personal pressure and demeaning behavior.
Small data centers are probably not something you can rely on given the need to scale
up the data centers. You can see that the industry needs more resources, land, power, and
money. It will not be reduced by the efficiency of machines. All the folks advocating for centers
want to scale up. The need for what AI does means scaling up. The notion that a cleverly
drafted regulation will avoid litigation, he thinks, is an illusion. Lansing has brought in a large
aggressive law firm, and they are already litigating the regulations in place. They are litigating
whether the regulations apply. He doesn’t think that what is going on here and in Lansing is
anything but an exact replica of what you will witness if you allow them to put their nose under
the tent. For those reasons, he urges the town to use the definitions that have been crafted,
expand them along the lines that have been suggested, and prohibit the use within the town.
Given the litigious nature of the industry, he suggests that in addition to requiring an
applicant to pay for an independent monitor of the operation, that they also be required to pay
for an attorney to monitor the arguments they will put forth to expand their operation.
There were no further comments and Supv Leifer closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m.
Comments that have come in digitally are posted on the website.
Cl Lamb thanked everyone for the thoughtful, well researched remarks. The town
currently has a moratorium in place that will expire in February. Time during the moratorium
has been used to research, gather data and input and they are grateful for the work the
Page 7 of 20
Planning Board has done. In August, the town was approached by an interest in crypto mining
here and they approached our Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to create their industry.
The Town Board put a moratorium in place and charged the Planning Board to do the research
and develop the proposed law that is being discussed tonight. The board asked them if crypto
mining and data centers were consistent with the town’s comprehensive plan, should
commercial crypto mining and data processing facilities b e included in the town zoning law,
and if so, what regulations. They did so and we have a well-researched piece of legislation.
We’ve learned a lot about data centers. For him, initially it was all about energy. Even
the US Department of Energy anticipates that energy needs for data centers will double by
2028. It will double again after that. There are a whole host of other reasons, but if we want to
build out more housing, where is the power going to come from and how will it be generated?
The Planning Board prepared this legislation, and the Town Board is very, very grateful.
The Planning Board was split on the issue, but they passed it 4 to 3. Everyone involved has
learned a lot. We are in Federal court right now on this issue. The town has been doing its
diligence and not rushing in. There was a deliberate process and work was done. The board
has received counsel from the town attorney. He thanked the Planning Board and Climate
Action Committee for their work. What the board is doing is being watched and they will move
forward based on information.
Cl Buck said this has been a herculean effort of volunteer work and research, and
board members have a responsibility to the town, its citizens, and the state. We can try to find
a law that sets an example for others. She is here to represent the citizens and takes seriously
the comments. She heard it all and appreciates the input.
Cl Dravis said for the past year everyone has asked what direction she was looking at.
She had been waiting to see what the ZAG came up with. She doesn’t want them to feel the
board doesn’t appreciate the input. The CAC is robust and has received silver certification and
won hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money.
Supv Leifer said he appreciates the research and is concerned that if we crack the door
open it offers an opportunity to break down the door. Business practices of this industry are
deplorable. It is clear in his mind that for right now we should put the brakes on this. If later
the industry changes its ways and the business has less impact to those around them, perhaps
it can be revisited in the future. The areas where it would be allowed under this law would
impact water usage and nearby streams. There is no community benefit for residents,
increasing costs for the purpose of subsidizing another’s business. It goes against the whole
climate action policy we’ve been following for the past ten years. He would rather ask counsel
to prepare a simple clean change of definitions and make it clear that this type of business is
not permitted. It is not a good idea to open the door now. He sees very little benefit to the town
by doing that.
Cl Vargas-Mendez said this type of business is completely opposite to the intention of
the town’s comprehensive plan. It has nothing to offer in terms of economic well-being for our
town. He doesn’t see any way we can support this type of business in the town. It doesn’t
create jobs; we are unsure of the impact on taxes. It will likely affect the power supply and
rates. On top of that it is part of a financial bubble in this country. He sees no way he can
support a business that doesn’t do anything good for us.
Cl Lamb said the board is not moving on this legislation.
Supv Leifer would like to tighten up definitions and address reasons why the town
would not allow this use. He suggested drafting a local law amending zoning to tighten up
Page 8 of 20
definitions and make it clear that the use is prohibited so there is no further confusion for
applicants.
RESOLUTION #211 (2025) – DIRECT TOWN ATTORNEY TO DRAFT LOCAL LAW
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby directs the town attorney to draft a local law
amending zoning definitions and make it clear that data processing centers and crypto mining
are prohibited uses in the town.
2nd Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
HIGHWAY/DPW DEPARTMENT
Highway Superintendent Rick Young would like to sell two trucks.
RESOLUTION #212 (2025) – AUTHORIZE SALE OF TRUCKS
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the sale of a 2015 Cat dump truck
VIN 3HTKATKT1FN691363 and a 2010 Western Star VIN 5KJJALCK4APAN9809, with proceeds
to be returned to budget account DA-5130.2.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
R Young reported that the department has been busy plowing and keeping the roads
clear.
He met with the Town of Ithaca, Bolton Point and D Harner regarding a PRV installed
by the Town of Ithaca on Freese Road a few years ago. The Town of Ithaca would like to turn
that over to the Town of Dryden along with the apple orchard PRV and station. There was an
agreement in 2019 or 2020 and there is a recommendation to change the agreement. Dryden
maintains it but the Town of Ithaca still owns it. The actual ownership of the PRV at the apple
orchard will now be owned by the Town of Dryden and we’ll have to insure it. The town of
Ithaca wants to retain their allocation of customer water on our lines. When Dryden takes over
the Freese Road PRV, Dryden cannot use their water unless for emergencies and we cannot
utilize the Sapsucker Woods Road tank capacity for any future development. The board will be
receiving the agreement for review and approval.
They discussed the pumps at the PRV by the FH Fox bridge. There are two pumps that
together pump 350 gallons per minute between the two. They want to increase that to 350
gallons per minute per pump because the newer water tank at NYSEG needs a lot of work. The
Page 9 of 20
remaining tank will need to manage the work of both tanks while the work is being done on the
empty tank.
Yellow Barn water district has a leak that they have been unable to locate for about two
weeks. Bolton Point has been out to help and used their machines and tracers to no avail. R
Young is hoping to have someone come the first of the week who can locate the leak. They are
purchasing water from Water Boy. The district uses about 6,000 gallons of water per day.
Customers have received notice to conserve water.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The Planning Department monthly report is on the web. Most things are agenda items.
R Burger noted there were seven more dwelling units added this month.
The situation on Deerhaven Drive has not been resolved. The application for a variance
to the ZBA was not heard because the applicant did not appear.
DRYDEN FIBER
Executive Director Dave Makar reported that at the end of November they had 499
customers and have 510 paying customers today. He expects the Freeville expansion to be
done by the end of March. They will soon be submitting for over $2,000,000 in grant
disbursement. The network audit is complete, and they are assessing that and planning the
future growth of the network. They’ve put together a job description for an account manager to
help with outreach and are hoping to make a hire in the first quarter of 2026. Work on the
Caroline Hut is underway.
There are three main projects going all at once: the Freeville expansion, the greater
Dryden zone, and Caroline. The goal is to reach 100% of houses in Dryden by the end of 2026.
In March they will likely have contracts for these three areas. Those contracts have contract
days between 50 and 150 days, giving us enough time to get them done in 2026, with certain
penalties built into the contracts if the work is not completed on time. This is a completely
different way to build than the first three years of the project, with standards, timelines, and
contracts. It is likely they’ll be working every single day in 2026.
Many people have signed up already in the Freeville expansion area and will be ready to
hook up as soon as construction is complete. Caroline has about 150 signed up.
Resolutions were presented related to Dryden Fiber.
Resolution #213 (2025) - Award Contract for Dryden Fiber FTTP Electronics Plans
and Equipment
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Whereas, one bid was received for the Dryden Fiber FTTP Electronics Plans and Equipment
RFP and was opened on December 15, 2025 and
Whereas, the bid was reviewed and evaluated by Vantage Point Solutions, who provided the
town with a recommendation dated December 16, 2025 and
Whereas, the Dryden Public Broadband Committee has reviewed the bid and recommends
moving forward dated December 17, 2025 and
Page 10 of 20
Whereas, Netegrity, Dryden Fiber’s networking partner has reviewed the bid and recommends
moving forward dated December 17, 2025 and
Whereas, this bid includes equipment that will be paid by Town of Carolne MIP grant funds
and
Whereas, the portion of the bid that for equipment that will be placed in the Town of Dryden is
a mix of MIP and non-MIP grant funded, now therefore, be it
Resolved, that this Town Board hereby awards the contract for the Dryden Fiber FTTP
Electronics Plans and Equipment to Calix in the net amount not to exceed $416,487.42 with a
recurring annual cost of $4,780.00 and authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign the contract.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Resolution #214 (2025) - Authorize Town Supervisor to Sign Renegotiated Agreement
with Plume for Wi-Fi Cloud Services for Dryden Fiber
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption :
Whereas, Dryden Fiber has been partnering with Plume for Wi-Fi Cloud Services since 2021
and
Whereas, over 400 Dryden Fiber customers are making use of Plume SuperPods in their
homes or businesses and
Whereas, the initial 120 month contract was written around an aggressive growth plan set in
2021, making for an outsized cost per user per month, and
Whereas, Dryden Fiber has discussed this situation with Plume, and they have offered to
amend and replace the existing contract with an agreement extending for 36 months from
January 2026 based around the current Dryden Fiber customer base and growth plan, and
Whereas, the renegotiated agreement will save $62,304 over the 30 month agreement, and
Whereas, the contract was reviewed and evaluated by Vantage Point Solutions, who provided
the town with a recommendation dated December 17, 2025 and
Whereas, the Dryden Town Attorney reviewed and evaluated the proposal and recommends
moving forward, now therefore, be it
Resolved, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the town supervisor to sign an agreement
with Plume that replaces the existing agreement with a thirty-six month agreement not to
exceed $72,696 over three years, subject to legal review and approval as to form.
2nd Cl Vargas-Mendez
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Page 11 of 20
Supv Leifer Yes
Resolution #215 (2025) - Approve Purchase of Materials for Dryden Fiber
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Whereas, materials are needed for the construction materials for the Dryden Fiber network
Whereas, specific quotes are funded by the ConnectALL grant and the remaining is funded with
Town BAN Funds,
Whereas, there are four separate quotes for the materials:
Date Quote # Project name Amount
12/17/25 2001205021 Freeville Non-MIP 170,840.89
12/17/25 2001204523 Freeville MIP 52,318.18
12/17/25 2001206384 Dryden CO Non-MIP 499,049.95
12/17/25 2001205661 Dryden CO MIP 341,785.16
12/17/25 2001207112 Caroline MIP 392,027.93
Total 1,456,022.11
Therefore, be it resolved that the Board approves the purchase of a variety of materials from
Graybar for a total of $1,456,022.11 as listed in quotes above.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Varna Fire Department
Chief Mason Jager asked the board for an update on the fire district plan.
Cl Lamb said he understood it was a good idea to move forward with next steps and
hire an advisor, probably an attorney to do that. The board has not decided on an attorney and
will make that decision in January or February. It may turn out it will be done in house. They
would like questions answered before moving forward. There are big questions to answer with
respect to structure and commissioners, as well as what to do with the apparatus and
buildings. He’s heard of instances where the department would retain its fire house and the
district could lease it and perhaps maintain it with that income. The district would have taxing
authority to raise funds. Discussions would have to happen with the boards to integrate their
input and come up with an acceptable structure. There has been good collaboration with the
chiefs, but we need to get the board chairs involved as soon as possible. He expects a summit
in January and some suggestions on who to bring in as a special advisor in the process, and
then a decision on whether we want to hire a consultant to manage the process or whether we
can manage it in-house with town legal representatives. The Fire District could be created in
2026 but not have any funding or capacity until January 2027.
M Jager said there needs to be more discussion. There are other options. Varna could
form its own independent fire district if the residents of their area choose that. It isn’t a
foregone conclusion that they have to do a consolidation or that it is the best option for them.
They are an independent department, have a strong tax base, and an ISO Class 2 rating (the
Page 12 of 20
highest in the County). There are some downsides to consolidation, so that conversation needs
to be had first, before assuming that consolidation is the only answer. It’s difficult to put the
large strategic plan in place, when they don’t know what it will look like in six months. Having
mediation and discussion about options makes sense, and he looks forward to that.
Cl Lamb said the goal is to bring in facilitators that have been through the process a
few times that can give the best practice recommendations to everyone. The basic structure
and timeline was discussed in the budget process.
Cl Dravis said she was surprised with the Etna merger with Neptune and asked about
that.
Cl Lamb explained that the State Attorney General’s Office has advised Etna they could
either merge or dissolve. They chose to merge and initiated the process by reaching out to
Neptune. M Parker said Etna has sold their side-by-side. Cl Lamb said they have to be
allowed to do that and presumes they aren’t doing any more liquidation in the process of
merging. The town can’t control the initiation of a process by Etna. If Etna had done nothing,
they would go through a dissolution process that the town would be more involved in, but that
is a more lengthy and elaborate process. The merger plan has to be agreed upon by Etna and
Neptune, and then the town has to approve it. There have been some discussions between
Etna’s attorney and the town’s attorney. The number one priority for the town is that taxpayer
funding has provided 95% of the resources and we want to make sure that they stay in service
to the taxpayers.
Cl Dravis said she believes it is important to have an attorney who knows the fire laws
because there are a lot of questions. M Parker agrees that a fire attorney is a good idea. Cl
Lamb noted Etna’s attorney is a fire attorney.
M Bell, Neptune Fire Chief, noted that as of this moment, they have not been given any
of Etna’s equipment. Etna asked them to consider a merger and they have had conversations,
but nothing formal has been presented. Dissolution would involve more state agencies ; a
merger is faster.
Cl Lamb said he expects new ideas from the board chairs in the next weeks, and he will
circle back with Etna’s attorney.
Mark Bell noted that the departments have been close knit over the past three years
and whatever is done has to be in the best interests of all departments. He noted it is
important for Etna to continue to make their station available for public use.
A facilitator will be necessary for the summit. M Bell requested 30 days’ notice of this
and that it be held in the evening. February is a busy month for the firefighters. It is
anticipated to be a two-to-three-hour discussion. Cl Lamb said the merger seems to have to
happen before forming a fire district.
M Jager said there needs to be as many conversations as necessary and emergency
services should be minimally disruptive.
Cl Buck said in preparation for the discussions for consolidation and forming a district,
participants should make a list of their whys and why nots. For example, there would be an
opportunity for shared administrative support.
M Bell reviewed Neptune’s call reports for November. They had 49 calls, average 7
personnel per call, average 3:12 minutes out the door. Year to date they have 510 calls, 155
ambulance calls. He added the state is moving to a new reporting system. They have switched
Page 13 of 20
already and the numbers don’t line up. This is his last official meeting as Chief. Neptune’s
contract has been signed.
M Parker reported Freeville has 538 calls year to date, and they are projecting over 550
by the end of year.
COUNTY BRIEFING
Mike Lane announced this is his last appearance as one of our town’s county legislators
and said he has attended a lot of town board meetings over the years. It was a pleasure to
represent people of the 14th district of the county and work with the town board. Board
members have given time to the town. There have been tough issues here. Board members
have been leaders, whether it involved fracking, natural gas, the fiber system, or issues with
planning and data centers. All of those are tough issues. They do the community proud in what
they do. He has always said Dryden is the crown jewel of Tompkins County. He asked the
board to continue to think about what is best for the town and the taxpayers. He mentioned
Town Clerk Bambi Avery and said she gives her time to state offices and not -for-profits in the
community. The town is lucky to have someone with that broad experience. He sees Ray
Burger here and at other meetings and he does a good job. Rick Young hasn’t been afraid to tell
the county what it should be doing, or who should be the Highway Director.
Supv Leifer said M Lane has been a huge help to him over the past eighteen years he
has been involved. No one probably knows more about the county than Mike.
The board wished Mike well in future endeavors.
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
Budget Modifications – Budget modifications were presented for the 2025 fiscal year.
RESOLUTION #216 (2025) – APPROVE BUDGET MODIFICATIONS
Supv Leifer offered the following budget resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the following budget modifications
for fiscal year 2025:
A Fund
From To
(2,000.00) A2770 Misc Revenue 2,000.00 A1410.4 Town Clerk - Contractual
(136,485.99) A3910
NYSERDA Climate Smart
Grant 88,146.70 A1490.2 Public Works - Equipment
48,339.29 A7020.2 Recreation - Equipment
(237.37) A1660.401 Central Office Supplies 237.37 A1660.2 Central Office - Equipment
(6,781.40) A2544 Dog Licenses 6,781.40 A3510.401 Dog Control - Enumeration
Page 14 of 20
(1,400.00) A7320.4
Summer Camp -
Contractual 1,000.00 A7330.4
Community Recreation -
Contract
400.00 A7330.414
Community Recreation -
Market
(425.00) A2005 Rec - Misc Grants
(2,775.00) A7020.101 Recreation Assistant 3,200.00 A7989.402 Community Music
(3,285.90) A8745.403 Crispell Dam Engineering 3,285.90 A8745.5 Crispell Dam
(153,390.66) Total 153,390.66 Total
B Fund
From To
(38,514.01) B3910 NYSERDA Grant 38,514.01 B3620.2
Code Enforcement Car
Purchase
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
IAWWTF Agreements – The plant-to-plant agreement covers charges for waste sent
from Cayuga Heights to the main plant.
RESOLUTION #217 (2025) – APPROVING PLANT TO PLANT AGREEMENT AND PRE-
TREATMENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO IAWWTF
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWWTF), which is owned and
operated by the IAWWTF Owners, treats municipal wastewater originating from the City and
Town of Ithaca, as well as portions of the Town of Dryden, pursuant to a Joint Sewer Agreement
dated December 31, 2003, as it may be amended; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant (VCHWWTP), which is
owned and operated by the Village of Cayuga Heights, treats municipal wastewater from the
Village of Cayuga Heights as well as portions of the Towns of Ithaca, Dryden, La nsing, and the
Village of Lansing under the terms of individual agreements with the Village of Cayuga Heights
and their respective sewer use laws and ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the parties believe that it is in their best interests to make full use of existing
community assets before building new or expanding existing facilities; and
WHEREAS, because their mission is to serve the aforementioned municipalities, there is a history
of cooperation between the owners of the two wastewater treatment plants focused on protecting
the environment by cooperating in the treatment of sewage; and
Page 15 of 20
WHEREAS, the parties’ Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement dated December 31, 2003,
endorses the concept of the Village of Cayuga Heights’ utilization of excess IAWWTF capacity to
leverage the efficient treatment of waste without causing an environmental emergency and/or to
comply with regulations; and
WHEREAS, IAWWTF and the Village of Cayuga Heights have previously entered into “Plant to
Plant” Agreements and “Pre-Treatment” Agreements, and new agreements continuing the
existing relationship between the parties have been proposed in the forms attached hereto and
incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the overarching history of past agreements and purpose of the proposed agreements
is to foster a cooperative framework among the owners of their respective wastewater treatment
plants and those who are served;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and approves the
Town of Dryden’s participation in the agreements referenced above, and authorizes the Town
Supervisor to sign all things and take all steps necessary to effectuate the same; and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution shall take effect immediately.
2nd Cl Vargas-Mendez
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Award of Contract – Route 13 Pedestrian Bridge – Bids were opened for the
pedestrian bridge over Route 13. Bids were similar to last time. If we receive DOT approval, the
bridge could be completed in 2026.
Resolution #218 (2025) - Route 13 Pedestrian Bridge project for Dryden Rail Trail -
Award of Contract
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Whereas:
The Town of Dryden solicited bids for Dryden Rail Trail Phase 2 -PIN 395071, the construction
of a pedestrian bridge to carry the Dryden Rail Trail over State Route 13 and connect Hall
Woods Road to Monkey Run Road, and
The deadline for bidding was December 4, 2025 and three bids were opened on that date, and
Hurd Development LLC (“Hurd”) was the apparent low bidder, and
Hurd’s proposal was evaluated by Erdman Anthony, the Town’s consultant on this project, and
found to be responsive to the published criteria and they recommend awarding this contract to
Hurd, and
The NYS Department of Transportation retains final approval for this contract.
Therefore, be it resolved that:
Page 16 of 20
The Town of Dryden approves the award of this contract to Hurd Development LLC pending the
concurrence of NYS Department of Transportation, and
The Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute all necessary agreements, contracts, and
other documents necessary to execute the Dryden Rail Trail Phase 2 project (Route 13
Pedestrian Bridge).
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Best Value Procurement – The board introduced the following proposed local law and
set the public hearing for January 15, 2026 at 6:05 p.m.
A LOCAL LAW CONCERNING BEST VALUE PROCUREMENT
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden, County of Tompkins, State of New
York, as follows:
Section 1. Statutory Authority and Purposes
This local law provides for the Dryden Town Board to exercise its local option under General
Municipal Law ("GML") § 103, Subdivision 1 to award purchase and service contracts (but
excluding any purchase contracts necessary for the completion of a public w orks contract
pursuant to article eight of the labor law) subject to competitive bidding under General Municipal
Law § 103 based on either lowest responsible bidder or the "best value," as defined in § 163 of
the New York State Finance Law.
This "best value" option may be, but is not required to be, used to award an applicable purchase
contract to optimize quality, cost, and efficiency among responsive and responsible offers instead
of the lowest responsible bidder standard. Best value procurement links the procurement process
directly to the Town's performance requirements, incorporating selection factors such as useful
lifespan, quality, options, and incentives for more timely performance and additional services.
Even if the initial expenditure is higher, considering the total value over the life of the
procurement may result in a better value and wiser long-term investments of public funds. Best
value procurement also encourages competition and, in turn, often results in better pricing,
quality, and service. Fostering healthy competition ensures that bidders will continue to strive
for excellence in identifying and meeting Town needs, including the participation of small,
minority, and women-owned businesses, and the development of environmentally preferable
goods and service delivery methods. Best value procurement will provide needed flexibility in
obtaining important goods and services at favorable prices and will reduce the time to procure
such goods and services.
Section 2. Adoption of Article II of Chapter 14
Article II of Chapter 14, entitled “Best Value Procurement,” is adopted as follows:
Section 14-20. Definitions
Page 17 of 20
“Best value" shall mean and refer to a basis for awarding contracts for services to the Town which
optimize quality, cost, and efficiency among responsive bids and offers from responsible and
qualified bidders and offerors.
Section 14-21. Best value purchasing authorized.
A quote or proposal received pursuant to standard bidding procedures, including both purchase
contracts and contracts for service work (but excluding any purchase contracts necessary for
the completion of a public works contract pursuant to article eight of the labor law), may be
awarded on either a best value or lowest responsible bidder standard, so long as the requirements
of this article have been met.
Section 14-22. Requirements for utilization of best value purchasing.
A. Bases for best value bidding or procurement shall reflect, wherever possible, objective
and quantifiable factors subject to reasonable analysis.
B. Such bases may also identify quantitative factors for bids and offers that are small
businesses or certified minority- or women-owned business enterprises as defined in
Executive Law §§ 310, Subdivisions 1, 7, 15 and 20 (as the same may be amended from
time to time), to be used in the evaluation of offers for awarding of contracts for services.
C. All awards based on best value shall require Town Board approval. The Town Board shall
determine, as required pursuant to subparagraph (A) and (B) of this section, that goods
and services procured and awarded based on best value are those that it has deter mined
will be of the highest quality while being the most cost efficient. In addition, the
requirements of State Finance Law § 163 and the following criteria and procedures shall
apply and be observed:
1. The Town Board shall document in the procurement record and in advance of the
initial receipt of offers a clearly articulated procedure and a clear statement of
product specifications, requirements or work to be performed; a documentable
process for soliciting bids, proposals or other offers; a balanced and fair method,
established in advance of the receipt of offers, for evaluating offers and awarding
contracts; contract terms and conditions that protect the Town’s interests and
promote fairness in contracting with the business community; and a regular
monitoring of vendor performance.
2. Reasonable efforts shall be made to ensure that the private and not-for-profit
sectors in New York State are apprised of procurement opportunities, including
by specifying the elements of a responsive bid and disclosing the process for
awarding contracts, including, if applicable, the relative importance or weight of
cost and the overall technical criterion for evaluating offers and ensuring the
procurement is conducted accordingly.
3. Guidelines and specifications for procurements and best value determinations
shall reasonably address performance and shall prescribe the minimum
specifications or requirements that must be met in order for an offer to be
considered responsive, a process for ensuring a competitive field, a fair and equal
opportunity for interested bidders to submit responsive offers, and a balanced and
fair method of award. Such criteria may include, but are not limited to: the cost
of maintenance; the proximity to the end user if distance or response time is a
significant term; durability; availability of replacement parts or maintenance
contractors; longer product life; product performance criteria; or quality of
craftsmanship.
Page 18 of 20
4. In the event that no best value election is made, purchase contracts will continue
to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder furnishing any required security.
5. All information gathered in the course of the bidding procedures of this local law
shall be filed with the documentation supporting the subsequent purchase or
public works contract. When a contract is awarded on the basis of best value
rather than a lowest responsible bidder, the basis for determining best value shall
be properly documented.
B. The Town shall adopt procurement policies that, in conjunction with this local law, help
develop procedures for governing awards on the basis of best value procurement and
bidding. These policies may be adopted by resolution and shall be periodically revie wed
and updated by resolution of the Town Board.
Section 14-23. Applicable Contracts
A. This article applies only to purchase contracts involving an expenditure of more than
$20,000, including contracts for service work, but excluding any purchase contracts
necessary for the completion of a public works contract pursuant to Article 8 of the L abor
Law (i.e., building services under Article 9 of the Labor Law and utility services). Such
number is based upon current procurement levels set in GML § 103. If the dollar
thresholds of GML § 103 are increased or decreased in the future by proper amendm ent
to law, then the dollar thresholds as set forth herein shall be deemed simultaneously
amended to match the then stated updated thresholds for goods and services
procurements that are not public works.
B. This article does not apply to purchase contracts for the following:
1. Any purchase contract necessary for the completion of a public works contract
pursuant to Articles 8 or 9 of the New York State Labor Law; and
2. Any purchase or procurement of goods and services otherwise excluded by law
from best value purchasing standards, whether now existing or hereafter arising.
Section 14-24. Procurement policy, Savings, Construction
Any inconsistent provision of the Town's procurement policy, as adopted or amended prior to the
effective date of this local law, shall be deemed superseded and supplemented by the provisions
of this local law so as to incorporate best value bidding rules therein. If any part or provision of
this local law or the application hereof to any person or circumstance be adjudged invalid by any
court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to
the part or provision or application directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment
shall have been rendered and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this local
law or the application thereof to other persons or circumstances. The Town Board of the Town of
Dryden hereby declares that it would have passed this local law, or the remainder hereof, had
such invalid application or invalid provision been apparent or omitted. Any reference to a state
statute or code shall include the future amendment or recodification of such statute or code, and
such references herein are for convenience and construction purposes only.
Petition to Lower Speed Limit on Pinckney Road – The board has received a petition
to lower the speed limit on Pinckney Road. Between Route 13 and Lower Creek Road there is a
trail crossing and concrete plant. Between Lower Creek Road and Etna Road is a residential
area with line-of-sight issues. There are school bus stops, large trucks on the road, and people
Page 19 of 20
cycling and walking with children and pets. There was a large packet of information and
photos submitted.
RESOLUTION #219 (2025) – REQUEST TO LOWER SPEED LIMIT ON PINCKNEY ROAD
Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, Pinckney Road is frequently used by pedestrians, joggers, and bicyclists, yet
lacks shoulders or designated pedestrian paths,
WHEREAS, Pinckney Road has become more heavily travelled over the years, with many
drivers using the road as a shortcut, often travelling at excessive speeds, and
WHEREAS, Pinckney Road features multiple hidden driveways, crests, and dips that
limit visibility and reaction time for drivers, thus creating a dangerous environment for all
users, particularly those not in vehicles, and
WHEREAS, the Dryden Rail Trail intersects Pinckney Road at its southern end not far
from its intersection with the entrance to a concrete plant, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board is concerned with the safety of the travelling public,
pedestrians, bicyclists, and residents of Pinckney Road, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby requests that the speed limit on Pinckney
Road be reduced to 35 mph and that NYS Department of Transportation conduct a study of the
area to determine whether such a reduction in speed limit is warranted and whether the re are
other traffic mitigation and safety measures that should be considered and implemented.
2nd Cl Dravis
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Dog Control Officer Recommendations – Cl Vargas-Mendez said there were two
proposals for dog control services, and they interviewed them and Cl Buck investigated
references. They assessed the price difference in them ($9,600).
The board moved into executive session at 9:05 p.m. to discuss the proposals for dog
control services. The board moved back to regular session at 10:03 p.m.
RESOLUTION #220 (2025) – OFFER DOG CONTROL SERVICES CONTRACT
Cl Buck offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to offer and
execute a contract for dog control services to Amaretta Beardslee for the 2026 calendar year.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Page 20 of 20
Cl Dravis No
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
ADVISORY BOARD UPDATES
Affordable & Workforce Housing – Dryden received a Town Gown Award for being a
member of the Community Development Fund. There will be an article in the town newsletter.
The board’s organizational meeting will be held January 2, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bambi L. Avery
Town Clerk