Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2011-02-28^ study Session Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, February 28, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. 215 North Tloga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Agenda 1. Call to Order 2. Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting 3. Town Officiars Year-End Reports and Priorities 4. Report from Committees a. Budget Committee b. Codes and Ordinances Committee 0. Comprehensive Plan Committee d. Operations Committee e. Parks & Trails Committee f. Planning Committee g. Personnel Committee 1. ERC h. Public Works Committee 1. RMAB 5. Ad-Hoc Committee Reports 6. Report on Association of Towns Meeting 7. Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract 8. Discussion of Zoning Change Regarding High-Intensity Industrial Uses 9. Discuss Rezoning of the Conifer Proposal 10. Discussion of West Hill Study & Moratorium Recommendation 11. Review of Correspondence 12. Consider Entering Executive Session to: 1. Discuss the Possible Acquisition of Real Property, 2. Discuss the Employment History of a Particular Person and 3. Discuss Status of Litigation 13. Consider Adjournment Study Session Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, February 28, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Minutes Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Rich DePaolo, Eric Levine and Nahmin Horwitz Staff: Bruce Bates, Lisa Carrier-Titti, Judy Drake, Susan Ritter, Mike Solvig and Paulette Terwilliger Meeting was called to order at 4:30p.m. 1. Town Official’s Year-End Reports and Priorities Codes – Mr. Engman noted the State report included in the year-end and thought that was helpful in showing how much goes into the State and the breakdowns given there. He also noted that the Electrical Inspector cost vs. Income was reported and was quite close to estimates and that permits were down so the Town is seeing some impact from the downturn in the economy. He also noted that open building permits were down significantly and Mr. Bates explained that his department is following through much better on making sure permits are finished completely. In the past, a final inspection may not have been done because the applicant didn’t call for one; now, the department is calling to follow through and close the permit properly. Mr. Engman then asked about the turn-around time for permits and Mr. Bates explained the weekly staff meetings and how he is tracking times. In many cases, the length of the wait is because applications are coming lacking some type of information. His goal is to have an 8 day turn-around. Ms. Hunter asked what the “ISO” was and Mr. Bates explained that it stands for Insurance Surety Organization who conduct inspections and review reports and then they rate how well you enforce the rules and regulations of the State. Insurance companies then use that for consumer rates. He thought we were rated at a 3, which is very, very good. The State Examiner said he rarely sees a 1 or a 2. Mr. Bates noted that 54% of his budget is covered by fees and although the Town has talked about reviewing them, he felt they should be kept stable for now while we see what this year brings. People are now filing for permits and he does not want to discourage that trend by charging more right now. Mr. Goodman asked what the total number of 1 & 2 family new residences were compared to 2008. Mr. Bates looked it up and 2008, 2009 and 2010 were all within the 14 -18 range. Most building permits are for renovations, repairs, etc. TBS 2/28/2011 Page 2 of 11 Financial – Mr. Solvig stated that he was starting to review next year’s budget process and documents and invited comments from the board for what they are looking for in the reports and/or budget documents. His goal was to make the budget more user friendlier and understandable. Human Resources – Mr. Engman noted that Ms. Drake’s report was very succinct, but each item is a huge amount of work and added that the Town is also responsible for Bolton Point. Ms. Drake noted that approximately 40% of her time is for Bolton Point and this past year, a lot of staff changes, negotiations, and of course the Health Consortium took an enormous amount of time and effort. Mr. Engman asked Ms. Drake to explain her goal regarding electronic performance reviews. She explained that there are programs out there that are more user friendly but the problem is finding one for smaller “businesses”. The current Excel format is difficult to navigate. She added that this year is another Satisfaction Survey year. Mr. Engman asked about the review of the benefit package and whether they are negotiable. There may be some advantages to benefit packages offered through the Consortium. Mr. Goodman asked about the office assistant noted and Ms. Drake explained that Connie Clark is leaving and she is reviewing her department and how to utilize existing staff and other options as has been done with other recent vacant positions. Ms. Drake also noted that the management team of the Town is doing a retreat again this year with all the new additions. Courts – . Written Report submitted Network Records Specialist – Ms. Carrier-Titti spoke about the restructured website she has been working on. She believes she has found a clean, easy and free site to use. This is a beta site with the ultimate goal of all staff being able to upload to it. There is a lot of staff training that will be coming up to prepare staff for that as well as the implementation of Windows 7 from Windows XP. Ms. Carrier-Titti explained that Microsoft will no longer be generating patches for the older operating systems and she has been busy preparing the hardware, and now the software and teaching staff how to navigate a new software package. Planning Dept – Ms. Ritter noted that the department is still in transition with a lot going on with the Comprehensive Plan as the priority. Mr. Horowitz asked if the Board wants to know what kind of development and where the Town wants to encourage development with our zoning. So if the town decided that it wanted concentrated development, we would want to know where, and he assumed that the Town Board is not really qualified to determine those questions and in talking TBS 2/28/2011 Page 3 of 11 about a moratorium, how would the Board know the answers to those questions. He therefore was confused that under priorities, there is no statement about producing an explicit recommendation on the best way to develop the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Ritter responded that the Comprehensive Plan is one step; the Planning staff, residents and Board will be deciding where and what kind of development is appropriate. So the Comp Plan identifies those preferences. The zoning then comes into the process and that is where a lot more detail is worked out such as proper mix of uses. He didn’t know how at the end of the year we are going to know the answer because we haven’t formulated the question or appointed the experts to answer those questions. Ms. Ritter responded that she agreed we need professional reports also and that could be done in the coming year in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is not going to go into the detail he was looking for. That would come from zoning reviews after an area is identified for change. Mr. Engman noted that there is a land-use map developed by the Planning Department that shows a lot of detail. Mr. Horwitz was confused on what could aid him in deciding about developments such as Holochuck and whether that density is foreseen or that area etc. Discussion followed. Mr. Engman noted that this is a topic on the agenda for later and the board could focus on West Hill then and answer Mr. Horwitz’s questions. Discussion continued focusing on what data the board wanted and how one could get the data. Mr. Goodman talked about what type of questions he would ask and referred to Mr. Horwitz’s comments towards Holochuck. Mr. Goodman stated that it is allowed under current zoning and a previous Board zoned that parcel and the Town Board doesn’t have a say in that; the Planning Board does. In his mind, the question is what information does the Board need in order to change zoning in certain areas and he wouldn’t be looking to an expert for that, he would look for facts. There will be pros and cons and experts will either argue for or against rezoning and he will have to weigh those facts to decide about rezoning or down-zoning. He thought the Comp Plan and any experts would be able to answer that. Mr. DePaolo disagreed and felt that if the Town Board agrees that there is a change needed to the present zoning, we have the right to include development in the process right now. And the Board has the right to have Holochuck reflect those changes. He felt that the Comp Plan from 1993 was too vague and the zoning that came out of it did not reflect the vision of the Plan. We need flexibility, but it can’t be so vague that it does not allow for the vision of the Plan. Ms. Leary was concerned that the Comp Plan will not get into enough detail and be to general which may have led to where we are now. She was also concerned about the comments on the priorities about Codes and Ordinances and that some things could still be done while the Comp Plan continues its progress; especially smaller things like the sign ordinance and setback requirements. Ms. Ritter responded that this list was made prior to the CO meeting where they talked about their priorities and those will be integrated into her priorities. TBS 2/28/2011 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Engman reminded the Board that we were still under Reports, and this item will be discussed later this evening. Mr. Engman noted that the 2010 Census should be out soon and that should give us a lot of information on where the Town is going. He then turned back to the Planning Department report, under Development Review; he noted that the Board had discussed the possibility of Planning Staff spending less time supporting the Planning Board; there may be other ways such as asking the Members to take on more responsibility or finding ways to have Planning Staff do more planning than actual reviews of projects. He wondered what Ms. Ritter’s thoughts were on that. Ms. Ritter responded that at this point, the only thing that has been proposed is looking at the subdivision regulations through the Codes and Ordinances Committee to no longer require lot-line modifications to have to go to the Planning Board because Staff does a lot of those. She was also looking at how Planning Board projects are handled by Staff and Ms. Balestra volunteered to be the go-to person for Planning Board. In the past, projects were divided piecemeal. She added that she could not see the Planning Board Members taking on more responsibility, noting that they all had full time jobs themselves. Mr. Engman explained that he thought the idea was to put more of the onus back on the developers to produce more of the information and research rather than putting that task on the Planning Staff. Ms. Leary commented that she didn’t necessarily agree with that because Staff are the experts and impartial where the developers definitely would have a partiality. Mr. Engman responded that he was not suggesting one extreme or the other, but possibly a little more from the developers/applicants. Mr. Ritter spoke about the timeline for the Comprehensive Plan and noted that that timeline is dependent on Staff not having any significant increase in workload because that would change the deadline. Public Work – Mr. Weber noted that his report attempted to give the board an idea about the types of things his staff do that sometimes go unnoticed. Mr. Engman noted that the budget process deals with a lot of Public Works work and therefore the Board is aware of a lot of projects and details that Mr. Weber is referring to. Mr. Horwitz asked about the list of priorities, specifically the first 5 items, and whether he had an idea when you expect those to be done? Mr. Weber responded that he has a general idea but those timelines will depend on the bid process and external considerations, such as events at Cornell and the Ithaca City Schools which will have impacts on the construction process. Mr. Horwitz asked Mr. Weber to have some rough estimates ready for the Public Works Committee. Mr. Engman added that some projects also depend on the State Comptrollers approval and getting those approvals in a timely manner from them. Town Clerk – Mr. Engman asked about the training and cross-training goal. Ms. Terwilliger explained that her office is the back-up for Codes and Planning support staff as they are for her office, especially Ms. Whitmore who is a Deputy Town Clerk and can TBS 2/28/2011 Page 5 of 11 therefore sign the various licenses. She added that given the changes and demands of the last year, Ms. DeAugistine has not been cross-trained at all and she felt it was very important that all support staff can do all positions in case something tragic or unforeseen were to happen again. Ms. Terwilliger added that records management is also very high on her priority list. She felt that it was important to get a handle on the processes each department uses in managing its records and tracking the documents the Town receives and produces. Mr. DePaolo asked her to elaborate and Ms. Terwilliger used the example of a letter addressed to the Planning Board and followed the process for that letter. She added that right now, the Town’s Policy & Procedures states that staff does something entirely different than it does such as stamping a letter with “Archive” and filing it downstairs and some of the processes are simply outdated and other processes duplicate efforts and do not take into account new technology. Ms. Terwilliger also noted the challenge of organizing and filing the former Engineer’s office and instances of finding numerous drafts but no originals. Mr. Engman supported that using the recent example of contract negotiations where the Town did not have a signed copy, just drafts. 2. Report from Committees Budget Committee – Meeting postponed due to Association of Towns Meeting Codes and Ordinances Committee – Mr. Goodman reported that they spent a lot of time talking about garages and zoning changes associated with them. They also continued discussing the Conservation Zone amendments and reviewed comments on the stream setback law. They also have reviews of the sign law and other smaller items on their plate so they are very busy. Comprehensive Plan Committee – Mr. Engman noted that they had talked about the Committee some already and the Committee received a packet of information from Planning on potential land-uses and they included maps and descriptions of what the current land-use is and what might happen under a future plan. At the next meeting they will be looking at two potential growth areas, East Hill and South Hill to start the process of looking at what they want to see in those areas and how to make that th happen. Ms. Ritter noted that the next meeting has been changed to March 10 due to a special meeting of the Planning Board. Operations Committee – Mr. Engman reported that they have not met yet but the agenda includes review of the draft Property Maintenance Law, the Fireworks Fee Schedule, the Town Hall cooling heating/health situation and a potential RFP to look into that, and the Code requirements for Emerson closing as well as an update on the Community Gardens and the Safe Routes to School program. Planning Committee – Mr. DePaolo reported that they worked on details regarding the Vine St Cottages and the Ithaca Beer draft planned development zones. The Vine Street Cottages was referred to the Town Board and the Ithaca Beer applicants were asked to come back with some additional information. They also discussed a potential TBS 2/28/2011 Page 6 of 11 study of high-density development on West Hill that didn’t really go anywhere due to time constraints. Personnel Committee – Ms. Hunter reported that the meeting was cancelled due to weather but their goals and priorities are aligned with Ms. Drake’s. They have been walking through the weighting system and Civil Service aspects of job descriptions. She added that they are meeting the next day. Public Works Committee – Mr. Goodman reported that they talked about the infrastructure that the Town would be taking over in conjunction with the Belle Sherman Cottages and a subdivision called the Cleveland Estates. He added that they will both be coming before the Board in March for acceptance in concept of the location of that infrastructure. Mr. Goodman also reported that they continued discussion on the Christopher Circle water tank staging issue and a proposed policy where whenever a new project is started, a proposed staging area would be presented so the Committee could look at the impacts to the neighborhood and weigh those factors in. Ad-Hoc Committee Reports Asset Management – Ms. Hunter reported that she and Mr. Horwitz have met and they have set a $250K threshold for an “asset” and would like to talk about getting information from both Bolton Point and the Ithaca Fire Department. She added that they also spoke with Mr. Solvig and he noted that if the Town is not going to establish a reserve fund for Assets, it might be a time consuming effort for little return. She noted that although the Town does not have the funds or means to reserve now, after discussing this with Mr. Engman, it still seems like a worthwhile endeavor. Mr. Engman suggested Ms. Hunter talk to Katie Stoner because she has been doing a lot of work with Bolton Point and may have a lot of the information already. As far as the IFD, the Town does have a 50-year replacement schedule and the IFD Budget so he suggested he gather that and then they could deal with any missing information once it is determined what is missing. Fire Services Review – Mr. Engman noted that they have met and talked about their approach and they have scheduled meetings with Staff who have experience as well as a gentleman who responded to the article that ran in the Ithaca Times. Unfortunately, the article focused on volunteers even though he talked about the whole range of issues but the reporter made it seem like the Town was looking to go with a purely volunteer force, which is not the case. He added that Mr. Smith produced an updated map showing coverage areas and they have a lot to do and this is a very complicated issue that will take a while. Recreation and Youth – Mr. Engman noted that they have spoken with an Ithaca College Professor and looking to talk with another who is on the Board of the Learning Web who focuses on youth and service learning programs. TBS 2/28/2011 Page 7 of 11 3. Report on Association of Towns Meeting – Mr. Horwitz noted that there may be money available for Towns that are forced to take over abandoned cemeteries. Mr. Engman asked Mr. Weber to put together an estimate on repair costs associated with the cemetery and bring it to the Operations Committee. Mr. Engman noted that since the cemetery is at the entrance to the Town, it might be nice to beautify it with landscaping and fixing the wall as the entry way to the Town. Mr. Levine talked about the tax cap discussions at the Assoc of Towns and he can not find a copy of the bill but they are talking about a 2% cap with no provision for growth. For example, if the Town has a development go in that is worth $1M to the Town, is that taken into consideration or not and the Association stated that there was no provision. If it really is what they are talking about it is pretty severe and not thought through. Ms. Hunter reported that she attended a lot of Personnel oriented presentations that she would discuss with the Personnel Committee and she also passed along the name of an Association Representative that would speak to the Fire Service Committee. Mr. DePaolo reported that he spoke to the person who wrote the fracking article in the Association Newsletter and he cited the Town of Ulysses as an example of a good approach, but the major point of his presentation was that if you took the lead, be very careful not to do it wrong because it would basically hurt municipal efforts that followed. He also attended a meeting that talked about mediating with stake holders in large projects to work through issues. He noted that there is a lot of redundancy and he wished the Association would come out with an agenda earlier so Members could decide whether to go or not. Mr. Goodman reported on stormwater presentations and ways the DEC is looking at greener ways to deal with stormwater issues. 4. Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract TB RESOLUTION NO. 2010-035: Consent Agenda BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the resolutions for the following Consent Agenda items: a. Approval of Town Board Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract MOVEDSECONDED : Rich DePaolo : Bill Goodman VOTE : Engman, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine and Horwitz TBS 2/28/2011 Page 8 of 11 5. Discussion of Zoning Change Regarding High-Intensity Industrial Uses -- Mr. Engman introduced the subject stating that this is what Mr. DePaolo had just spoke about with the recent consideration of the Local Law by the Town of Ulysses and now Dryden is beginning the process. This is looking at very specific changes to land uses that would in effect prohibit high-intensity uses. He wanted to know if the Board wants Ms. Brock to review these which would start us down the road towards changes that would change the zone so in effect it is a ban rather than just trying to mitigate through road usage laws etc. This would not be a final decision, but it would be a significant amount of money in legal fees to start down the road. The Board agreed to move forward with the review. Discussion followed on what other municipalities are doing and an article that ran in the NY Times and fracking. 6. Discuss Rezoning of the Conifer Parcel – Mr. Engman brought the Board’s attention to the packet submitted by Conifer requesting a re-zoning of the parcel. The applicants would like to come to the next meeting to make their case. Ms. Hunter asked if they were requesting a PILOT agreement because they have not paid the existing one for the last 3 years. She was concerned about the 2% tax cap and how that would play out. She felt that we do underwrite these projects generously through various types of governmental funding streams and tax breaks and she would like to know that before going forward as well as having them pay what they owe. Discussion followed. Ms. Hunter’s other concern is quality of life issues and although affordable housing is very important, it is our job as a Town to guide that development to a suitable place. She researched the area and in a 10 month period, there were 145 calls to 911 from the existing Overlook development and she has heard about law enforcement issues there and putting a vulnerable senior population next door might not be the best idea. She thought we needed to get some comparison numbers, but it should be looked at. Ms. Hunter also felt that the bus schedule was sketchy and the bus stop located at the entrance is pretty far from the development. Mr. Engman responded that he had talked to the (then) sheriff a number of times and been assured that there has not been an issue there, at least any different from Linderman Creek when there was a flurry of calls in the beginning. Mr. Engman then sketched out the history of looking at different locations and how they have told other applicants that other locations were not good for senior housing and to look at West Hill. Now that there is a proposal for where we told them to go, there are issues. Discussion followed. Mr. DePaolo stated that during his first stint as Chair of the Planning Committee the initial talk was for a PDZ was born out of the conclusion that a stand-alone zoning request was an insufficient way to comprehensively plan for this area. So if we are willing to stipulate that we are throwing in the towel and no longer going to take a comprehensive look at this potential node, then we should admit it to the public. He felt that we could not have it both ways and continue to entertain stand-alone zoning requests and build an interconnected, well-planned high-density area; the two are TBS 2/28/2011 Page 9 of 11 mutually exclusive. He felt we could not revert to a way that was deemed a poor way to continue as the solution now. Mr. DePaolo’s second objection was the manner in which it was proposed; it was not forwarded out of Planning Committee. Conifer was asked to come back to the Planning Committee with a zoning request and he has not seen that request and the resolution sent to the Board looks like an advertisement rather than an endorsement of a zoning change and it is being offered to grease the wheels of a proposal that was not originally seen as a viable way to proceed. He reiterated that he has issues with the chronology and the fact that we are pretending to comprehensively plan an area but are continuing to entertain zoning change requests wherever and whenever they come up. Mr. Engman responded that it is unfair to put the process in terms of absolutes and he thought that the town felt that a PDZ was the better way to go, but it did not appear to now have the support needed to move it forward so this is the other option to keep the project going. He felt that this type of housing was badly needed in the Town and would become part of any future nodal development. Mr. Engman felt that the Town was not banning changes of zoning but we have to figure out if the proposals fit into our overall thinking which he felt this one did. He also added that he felt that we have encouraged this particular project for a long time passing it along to the Planning Board etc, knowing it was going to need a PDZ or change in zoning. Discussion followed. Ms. Hunter disagreed, stating that she has had concerns since the beginning and the developers should not have assumed they had the Board’s support. Mr. Engman countered saying that the vote to send the proposal to the Planning Board conveys a message that the Board feels they are on the right track and he believed that vote was unanimous. He felt the Board should stop a project before that. He felt that Conifer has been caught in the middle and he feels it is a good project and should be given consideration. Ms. Leary added that the Board should look into past payments for PILOTs but she looks at it as a public service. People support more housing for older people. She felt that the project was an extension of what was already there and she would have liked a PDZ but this component is worth salvaging. Mr. Goodman stated that the reason he gave up on a PDZ and is considering the moratorium is because he would like to see greater density in the area and hopefully that is what will be determined during the moratorium. He was willing to consider keeping parts of parcels or projects out of the moratorium on the merit of the proposal and he did not think the PDZ was coming out the way he hoped. He stated that if Conifer or anyone else wanted the Board to look at their specific projects, he was willing to do that. Mr. DePaolo responded saying that there is no doubt that there is a market for senior housing but he felt the Board could not compare the Vine Street Cottages with the proposals on West Hill. He felt the Board considers zoning changes when they fit what TBS 2/28/2011 Page 10 of 11 the Board wants to see in a specific area; it is not a case of you do one you do them all. As far as Conifer, he stated that the Town has had numerous meetings with them trying to work out a compromise but felt that we would lose any leverage with Cornell regarding their parcel if we go ahead with Conifer. Mr. Engman brought the discussion to a close stating that if the Board had Conifer come to the next meeting to make their case, he felt the Board should then give them a clear message as to where the Board stands one way or the other so they are not caught in limbo. They have funding deadlines they need to meet and the Board needs to give them a clear idea of what the Board is thinking. Ms. Ritter coordinated a site visit to get a feel for the parcel on Monday afternoon prior to the meeting. 7. West Hill Study & Moratorium Recommendation Audio recording stopped/malfunction. Summary is from hand written notes and recollection the next day. Board members discussed the possible moratorium on West Hill development and who it would affect. Mr. Engman and Ms. Leary were concerned that it was unfair to developers who were already into the process for up to the last three years. Hollochuck, Carrowmoor and Conifer were identified as the major projects in the process that might be affected. Discussion followed on particulars of the Hollochuck development and the fact that by zoning regulations as they stand, the development is within the regulations. Mr. Engman noted that they have followed all the rules and processes and although he does not like the project, they have done nothing wrong. Mr. DePaolo agreed, but felt that the rules are no good and that is what needs to change and a moratorium is needed to allow the time to change the rules. Mr. DePaolo discussed the need for planning the growth and development and the consideration of a planned development zone that did not materialize and he felt the one year moratorium would send a message that the Board was serious about planning future development and allow some growth and consideration of nodes. The completion of the Comprehensive Plan was the key issue that would map out the Town’s vision of future growth. Ms. Leary asked how he saw the moratorium playing out and Mr. DePaolo talked about using the time to have meetings with the large stakeholders on West Hill such as the Cayuga Medical Center, PRI, Conifer, Cornell and the developers to brainstorm about the projects on-line and future growth. Ms. Leary was concerned about how fast a year will go and did not want to see extensions to the moratorium if it was passed. Ms. Hunter spoke about the need for quantitative information. Mr. Horwitz asked what studies were being contemplated and who would conduct them. He didn’t feel there were companies that could answer the Board’s questions. Ms. Hunter and Mr. DePaolo responded that they would forward information from the TBS 2/28/2011 Page 11 of 11 Association of Towns meeting and assured him there are companies that go in to a municipality and assess and recommend types and locations for development. The actual boundary of the proposed moratorium was discussed. Mr. DePaolo noted that the draft local law enacting the moratorium has not been distributed to the full Board. It would include the low density residential area around the hospital/PRI up to the Ulysses border. Mr. Engman noted that he has already received preliminary calls from Trumansburg regarding water supply in anticipation of development there. It was decided that the draft local law regarding a possible moratorium would be sent to all board members and discussed at the Planning Committee next week. 8. Review of Correspondence -- None 9. Consider Entering Executive Session Motion made by Ms. Hunter, seconded by Ms. Leary to enter Executive Session at 7:43 p.m. to: 1. Discuss the Possible Acquisition of Real Property, 2. Discuss the Employment History of a Particular Person and 3. Discuss status of litigation. Unanimous. Motion made by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Ms. Hunter to re-enter open meeting at 9:19 p.m. Unanimous Consider Adjournment Motion made by Mr. Levine, seconded by Ms. Leary to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. f J1 TOWN OF ITHACA FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31, 2011 REPORTS: BALANCE SHEET REVENUE & EXPENSE SUMMARY and CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS DETAILED CASH LISTING FOR FIDUCIARY FUNDS SUMMARY OF BANK COLLATERAL TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31,2011 GENERAL GENERAL HIGHWAY CAPIl..^ DESCRIPTION TOWNWIDE;<PART^PWWC PART-TOWN;WATER SEWER PROJECTS FUNC^^FUNIX 1 FUND-"g-FUND FUND FUND#- ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH $1,332,476 $237,748 $652,584 $1,022,951 $311,301 $329,257 CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT ------ PETTY CASH 725 -200 --- TOTAL UNRESERVED CASH $1,333,201 $237,748 $652,784 $1,022,951 $311,301 $329,257 RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE $578,547 $.$.$.$-$ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT 84,820 22,255 44,295 8,192 5,787 HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT --27,194 -- CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT ----- TOTAL RESERVED CASH $663,367 $22,255 $71,489 $8,192 $5,787 $ OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $2,140,702 $550 $736,881 $689,646 $152,104 $ WATER & SEWER RENTS RECEIVABLE ---159,074 117,397 DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS 367,289 -72,214 -- STATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE 21,142 ---- DUE FROM OTHER GOV'TS 11,147 107,799 47,779 -- PREPAID EXPENSES 182,328 61,317 79,201 9,319 7,809 4 BAN LOANS ----- TOTAL OTHER ASSETS $2,722,607 $169,666 $936,074 $858,038 $277,310 $ TOTAL/^SETSf Ji 4,719,175^429,663-3 1,660,343 3 1,883181^594,393^- 329,257: UABIUTIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $-$-$-$-$-$- ACCRUED UABIUTIES 106,007 65,396 95,185 60,884 100,194 - BAN PAYABLE -----381,600 DUE TO OTHER FUNDS 53,650 -9,907 26,511 36,446 312,989 DEFERRED REVENUE --8,003 --- RESERVED FUND BALANCE 663,367 22,255 71,489 8,192 5,787 - UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 3,896,152 342,017 1,475,762 1,793,595 451,971 (365,332) TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND EIALANCE $;'4J19,17^ ^429,663 3 1,660,343 $1,883181?$594,393 3 329^257 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2011 $2,630,578 $413,240 $881,661 $1,243,305 $596,317 $(365,402) Add: REVENUE 2,179,755 17,999 736,920 695,293 154,271 70 Less: EXPENSE 250,815 66,967 71,330 136,811 292,828 - RESERVED FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 663,367 3,896,152 22,255 342,017 71,489 1,475,762 8,192 1,793,595 5,787 451,973 (36 2) FUND BALANCE-01/31/2011 $4,559,513 $364,272 $1,547,251 1,801,787 $457,760 r (36 ^ Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31, 2011 RISIC FIRE LIGHTING DEBT TRUST INLET DESCRIPTION'RETENTION; PROTECTION^DISTRICT SERVICE AGENCY^valley^:: FUND FUND^FUNDS FUNDfe ;. FUND CEMETERY ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT PETTY CASH TOTAL UNRESERVED CASH RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT FIDUCIARY FUNDS CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT TOTAL RESERVED CASH OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE CUSTOMER RECEIVABLE DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS /^TE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE : FROM OTHER GOVTS 'PAID EXPENSES bMN LOANS TOTAL OTHER ASSETS TOTO. ASSETS- LIABILITtES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ACCRUED LIABILITIES BAN PAYABLE DUE TO OTHER FUNDS DEFERRED REVENUE RESERVED FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2011 Add: REVENUE Less: EXPENSE /'Served fund balance RESERVED FUND BALANCE hUND BALANCE - 01/31/2011 $ 99,947 $ 366,461 $ 8,917 $ 44,339 $ $ 99,947 $ 366,461 $ 8,917 $ 44,339 $ - $ $ 102,680 - $ 102,680 $ $ 3,369,674 $ 13,150 $ $ 3,369,674 $ 13,150 $- $$ $ 99,947 3,736^134^ $ 22.067 $ 44,339^ $ 102,680^ ^ - $ 39,716 - $ 396,240 - $ 102,680 9,035 9,035 9,035 ::. 60,231 3,339,895 22,067 44,339 9,035 $ 99,947 $3,736,134 $22,067 $44,339 $102,680 $ 9,035 $ 60,214 $ 17 60,231 13,131 $ 3,369,839 43,075 3,339,895 9,685 $ 13,152 770 22,067 94,092 $ 28 49,781 44,339 - $ 9,034 2 9,035 $ 60,231 $3,339,895 $22,067 $44,339 $- $ 9,035 ^ Page 2 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET for CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31,2011 ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTS DESCRIPTIOR.^ k FUND Ht;. : FUNDH2r FUND HE/ FUND HE. k ; First SfreetiA./ Forest Hornet Warren Roadr ' Gateway:Trall '■tnterceptop^-r Traffic Ca!mlns!< Waikway- TQTALi , CAPITALv ^ PROJECm t \ ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT TOTAL UNRESERVED CASH RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE FIDUCIARY FUNDS CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT TOTAL RESTRICTED CASH OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE CUSTOMER RECEIVABLE DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS STATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE DUE FROM OTHER GOV'TS PREPAID EXPENSES BAN LOANS TOTAL OTHER ASSETS TOTAL assets: LfABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ACCRUED LIABILIITES DUE TO OTHER FUNDS RETAINAGE BAN PAYABLE RESERVED FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $ 5,072 $ 50,177 $ 187,401 $ 86,608 $ 329,257 1 5,072 $ 50,177 $ 187,401 $ 86,608 $ 329,257 $ - $- $ $$$$ $ - 5,07E 50,177 S 187,40T $e 86.608^ $ 329^2STI $ - $ 312,989 • $ 5,072 381,600 (262,813) (194,199)86,608 312,989 381,600 (365,332) / \ / * 5,072^ $. 50,177 $ 187,401$ 86.608 $ 329,2S1N ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2011 Add: REVENUE Add: RETAINANGE Less: EXPENSE RESERVED FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE- 01/31/2011 5,071 $ (262,831) $ (194,236) $ 1 18 37 5,072 (262,813) (194,199) 86,594 $ (365,402) 14 70 86,608 ( \(365,332) ! $ 5,072 $ (262.813) S (194,199) $ 86,608 $ (365,332)1 Page 3 of 4 TOW ^ACABALANCE SHEET ror LK^TING DISTRICTSFOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31,2011)PpSCBiPTfONFUND SL--^FUNDSL-2 FUNDSL-3FUhfDSL-4FUNDSL^P4NP?UFUND SL-7FUNDSL4FUNDSL-9TOTAL'i-fwm'':,, . RenwickpljBy^Uirie■ilVlfjrow*opiurteigh •yifesthaveiiCoddinglttdUGHTINGHmneIteightsCommons' CfrciotNive ./ RoadRoadDISTRICTSASSETSUNRESERVED CASH:CASHCASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT$1,746$656$1,194$1,655$291$507$442$1,570$857$8,917TOTAL UNRESERVED CASH$1,746$656$1,194$1,655$291$507$442$1,570$857$8,917RESERVED CASH:PARKS & OPEN SPACERDUCIARY FUNDSCASH IN CERTIRCATES OF DEPOSIT$-$•$"$•$"$-$-$-$"$•TOTAL RESTRICTED CASH$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-OTHER ASSETS:ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLECUSTOMER RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER FUNDSSTATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER GOVTSPREPAID EXPENSESBAN LOANS$2,270$780$1,100$2,200$270$800$980$3,000$1,750$13,150TOTAL OTHER ASSETS$2,270$780$1,100$2,200$270$800$980$3,000$1,750$13,150TOT/H.AS§pTS$4.016$1,438$2,294$3,655$561$1,307$1,422$4370$2,607$22,067UABIUTIES and FUND BALANCEACCOUNTS PAYABLEACCRUED UABIUITESDUE TO OTHER FUNDSRETAINAGEBAN PAYABLE$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-RESERVED FUND BALANCE-----■----UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE4,0161,4362,2943,8555611,3071,4224,5702,60722,067TOTAL LIABjLrriES ^ FUl^p pALANCE$4,016$1,436$2,294$3.855$561$1,307$1,422$4370$2,607$22,067ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE - OI/OIAOII$1,861$699$1,254$1,797$308$562$499$1,744$961$9,685Add: REVENUE2,2707801,1002,2002708009803,0001,75013,152Ado: RETAINANGE----------less: EXPENSE1154361143175557175104770RESERVED FUND BALANCE----------UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE4,0161,4362,2943,8555611,3071,4224,5702,60722,067FUND BM^I^CE • p1/31A0t]^$4,016$1,436$2,294$3,855$561$1,307$1,422$4,570$2,607$22,067Page 4 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31,2011 / \ GENERALS GENERAL:^HIGHWAY CAPITAL DESCRIPTION^ 1 1 PARTTOWNR PART^OWN-WATER sewer: PROJECTS FUNK FUNK FUND>FUNDt y FUNDi FUNDR REVENUE BUDGET $ 4,004,000 $1,023,364 $ 2,927,886 $ 5,948,184 $1,797,330 $297,000 ACTUAL & ACCRUED 2,179,755 17,999 736,920 695,293 154,271 70 OVER (UNDER)$ (1,824,245) $ (1,005,365)$ (2,190,966) $ (5,252,891) $ (1,643,059) $(296,930) % EARNED 54.4%1.8%25.2%11.7%8.6%0.0% % UNEARNED 45.6%98.2%74.8%88.3%91.4%-81.3% EXPENSE BUDGET $ 4,549,125 $1,163,714 $ 2,855,841 $ 5,779,635 $2,231,667 $344,339 ACTUAL & ENCUMBRANCE 250,815 66,967 71,330 136,811 292,828 - OVER (UNDER)$ (4,298,310) $ (1,096,747) $ (2,784,511) $ (5,642,824) $ (1,938,839) $(344,339) % EXPENDED 5.5%5.8%2.5%2.4%13.1%0.0% % UNEXPENDED 94.5%94.2%97.5%97.6%86.9%0.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE • 01/01/2011 $ 2,630,578 $413,240 $ 881,661 $ 1,243,305 $596,317 $(365,402) Actual & Accrued Add: REVENUE 2,179,755 17,999 736,920 695,293 154,271 70 Less: EXPENSE 250,815 66,967 71,330 136,811 292,828 - FUND BALANCE - 01/31/2011 $ 4,559,513^$364^72^$ 1,547,251 $: 1,801,787 $'AETjm $:(365,332)1 n f ) CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS)$1,332,476 $237,748 $652,584 $1,022,951 $7,360 $329,257 CASH - SJC OPERATING --..303,941 . PETTY CASH 725 -200 --- TOTAL UNRESERVED CASH $1,333,201 $237,748 $652,784 $1,022,951 $311,301 $329,257 RESERVED CASH PARKS & OPEN SPACE $578,547 $-$-$.$-$- GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT 84,820 22,255 44,295 8,192 5,787 . HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT ..27,194 _.. FIDUCIARY FUNDS ------ TOTAL RESERVED CASH $663,367 $22,255 $71,489 $8,192 $5,787 $- TOTAL CASH - 01/31/2011 $1,996,56S $260,00r r 724,273 $1,03ti143^$317,088 $329,257 Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31,2011 RISI^;FIRE UGHTINGr ;DEBT. TRUST&INLET I DESCRIPTION RETENTIONi PROTECTIONS DliStRIClCS SERVICE AGENCT VALLEY FUNI^^-s,'S-s:FUND^a^v;-.Fimmi FUND> i FUND^CEMETERY REVENUE BUDGET $10,000 $ 3,408,137 $ 13,150 $ 775,918 $$ ACTUAL 17 3,369,839 13,152 28 2 OVER (UNDER)$(9,983)$ (38,298)$ 2 $ (775,890) $$ 2 % EARNED 0.2%98.9%100.0%0.0%0.0% % UNEARNED 99.8%1.1%0.0%100.0%0.0% EXPENSE BUDGET $11,500 $ 3,372,500 $ 14,150 $ 815,918 $$ 1,500 ACTUAL & ENCUMBRANCE -43,075 770 49,781 - OVER (UNDER)$(11,500)$ (3,329,425)$ (13,380)$ (766,137) $$ (1,500) % EXPENDED 0.0%1.3%5.4%6.1%0.0% % UNEXPENDED 100.0%98.7%94.6%93.9%100.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2011 $60,214 $ 13,131 $ 9,685 $ 94,092 $$ 9,034 Actual & Accrued add: REVENUE 17 3,369,839 13,152 28 2 Less: EXPENSE -43,075 770 49,781 - FUND BALANCE -01/31/2011 $60,231 3,339,895^$ 22,06T $ 44,339fc $s -. 9,035t<i CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) CASH - SJC OPERATING PETTY CASH TOTAL UNRESERVED CASH RESERVED CASH PARKS & OPEN SPACE GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT FIDUCIARY FUNDS $ 99,947 $ 366,461 $ 8,917 $ 44,339 $ 99,947 $ - $ 366,461 $8,917 $ - $ 44,339 $ - $ $ - $ - $ 102,680 9,035 TOTAL RESERVED CASH $ - $- $- $- $ 102,680 $9,035 TOTAL CASH - 01/31/2011 $ 99,947 $366,461 $8,917 $44,339 $ 102,680 r 9,03Si Page 2 of 4 TOWN OF tlHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31,2011 ACTIVE CAPTTAL PROJECTS FUND HI'FUND H2^FUND Ha FUND Ha TOTAL ' DESCRIPTION^.. First Street^''Forest HomoK - Warrens Road^) 0 1 1 ! CAPITAL Interceptor Traffic. Calming Walkways , PROJECTS^ REVENUE BUDGET $$ 297,000 $.$.$ 297,000 ACTUAL & ACCRUED 1 18 37 14 70 OVER (UNDER)$ 1 $ (296,982) $37 $14 $ (296,930) % EARNED 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% % UNEARNED 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% EXPENSE BUDGET $$ 33,622 $226,717 $84,000 $ 344,339 ACTUAL & ENCUMBRANCE ----- / ^ OVER (UNDER)$ (33,622) $ (226,717) $ (84,000) $ (344,339) % EXPENDED 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% % UNEXPENDED 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2011 f» 5,071 3 (262,831) $(194,236) $86,594 $(365,402)' 1 I Actual & accrued i \ add: revenue 1 18 37 14 70 Add: RET/UNANGE ----- less: EXPENSE ----- FUND BALANCE- 01/31/2011 $ 5,072 $ (262.813V $ (194,199y ^ 86.60r $ (36g.332yi CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 5,072 $ 50,177 $ 187,401 $ 86,608 $ 329,257 INVESTMENTS ..... TOTAL C/\SH -01/31/2011 $ 5,072 $ 50,177 187,40t $ 86,608 $ 329,257 Page 3 of 4 3TOW^HACAREVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for LIGHTING DISTRICTSFOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31,2011)DESCRIPTIONFUND SL-1 ^ND SL-2 . FUND SL-a FUND SL-4 FUflD SL-S FUND SL-6 FUND SL-7 FUND SL-8 FUND SL-9 TOTALForest Glmflde Renwick Eastwci^ Clover Lane ' Winner's ' Burlelgh W^thaven Coddjngton LIGHTINGHome •' Helots Commons Circle Drive Road Road DISTRICTSREVENUEBUDGETACTUAL & ACCRUED$ 2,270 $780780$ 1,100 $2,200 $2,2002702708008009809803,000 $3,0001,750 $1,75013,15013,152OVER (UNDER)$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$2% EARNED100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%% UNEARNED0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%EXPENSEBUDGET$3,270$780$1,100$2,200$270$800$980$3,000$1,750$14,150ACTUAL & ENCUMBRANCE1154361143175557175104770OVER (UNDER)$(3,155) $(737)$(1,039)$(2,057)$(253)$(745)$(923)$(2,825)$(1,646) $(13,380)% EXPENDED3.5%5.5%5.5%6.5%6.3%6.9%5.8%5.8%6.0%5.4%% UNEXPENDED96.5%94.5%94.5%93.5%93.7%93.1%94.2%94.2%94.0%94.6%ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE - 01/01/2011$1,861$699$1,254$1,797$308$562$499$1,744$961$9,685Actual & AccruedAdd: revenue2,2707801,1002,2002708009803,0001,75013,152Add: RETAINANGE----------Less: EXPENSE1154361143175557175104770FUND BAMM^CP 01/31/2011 $ 4,016 $ 1,436 $ 2,294 $ 3,855 $ 561 $ 1,307 $ 1,422 $ 4,570 $ 2,607 $ 22,067CASH andCASH EQUIVALENTSCASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 1,746 $ 656 $ 1,194 $ 1,655 $ 291 $ 507 $ 442 $ 1,570 $ 857 $ 8,917INVESTMENTSTOTAL CASH-01/31/2011 "$ 1,746 $ 656 $ 1,194 $ 1,655 $ 291 $ 507 $ 442 $ 1,570 $ 857 $ 8,917Page 4 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA DETAILED CASH LISTING - FIDUCIARY FUNDS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31, 2011 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TRUST & AGENCY FUND TA200C DISBURSEMENTS CHECKING $ TA200P PAYROLL CHECKING 3,564.45 TA202 ON-LINE COLLECTIONS 2.97 TA205 NEXTEL SITE LEASE DEPOSIT 4,482.48 TA206 ITHACA TOWERS OPTION ESCROW 11,792.95 TA207 WIRELESS ONE 4,573.81 TA209 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING 10,379.23 TA210 STORMWATER COALITION 41,798.36 TA211 VERIZON WIRELESS ESCROW 270.15 TA212 CAYUGA LAKE WATERSHED INTERMUNICIPAL ORG 25,816.00 TOTAL CASH: TRUST & AGENCY FUND $ 102,680.20 INLET VALLEY CEMETERY FUND TE202 INLET VALLEY CEMETERY - EXPENDABLE TRUST $ 9,035.23 ( 1 TOTAL CASH: FIDUCIARY FUNDS $ 111,715.43 TOWN OF ITHACA SUMMARY OF BANK COLLATERAL FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31, 2011 TOMPKINS TRUST COMPANY: CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS $ 5,289,710 INVESTMENTS TOTAL CASH ON DEPOSIT $ 5,289,710 LESS: FDIC INSURANCE $ 250,000 LESS: FMV OF COLLATERAL ON DEPOSIT @ 1/31/2011 U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS $ 7.543.388 OVER (UNDER) COLLATERALIZED $ 2.003.676 CASH ASSETS COLLATERALIZED ® FMV 1/31/2011 143% Collateral is held by the Bank of New York, pledged for the Town of Ithaca, New York, for all deposits and/or repurchase agreements of Tompkins Trust Company. NOTE: For deposits in excess of FDIC coverage. General Municipal Law, section 10 requires that the excess amounts are to be secured by eligible collateral.