Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2011-06-27f \ study Session of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, June 27, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Agenda Call to Order Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting Town Offlciars Reports Report from Committees a. Budget Committee b. Codes and Ordinances Committee c. Comprehensive Plan Committee d. Operations Committee e. Planning Committee f. Personnel Committee g. Public Works Committee h. Records Management Advisory Board (RMAB) Discussion Item - a. Carbon Reduction Goals - Katie Stoner b. Cornell/Conifer Rezoning Proposal c. Longview PDZ regulations / PILOT Consider authorization to award Snyder Hill Road Repaving contract Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract Review of Correspondence Consider Adjournment Study Sessionof the Ithaca Town Board Monday, June 27, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Minutes Mr. Engman called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m. All members were present. The draft agenda for the July Meeting was reviewed. – No changes The same sex marriage law was discussed. Ms. Terwilliger noted that she planned on th issuing a press release stating that she would open the office on Sunday, July 24 if there was interest expressed by residents. Mr. Goodman stated that he would like the board to appoint him as a Marriage Officer. The board was in favor of that and the item was added to the July meeting agenda. Town Official’s Reports Codes – Mr. Bates reported that the Zoning Board has submitted comments regarding the garage local law and there was some discussion on whether those comments had to come back to the Board to be forwarded on or if they could just be sent to Codes and Ordinances. The Board agreed they should just go to the Codes and Ordinances Committee. Report from Committees th Budget Committee – Mr. Levine reported on the May 25 meeting. The tax cap was discussed in general and now that it has been passed, the committee will be discussing the ramifications. The budget process was reviewed and they discussed increasing the legal fees budget because it has gone over budget the past few years. The tax cap legislation will be distributed to Board members prior to the next Budget Committee meeting. Codes and Ordinances Committee – Mr. Goodman reported they discussed amendments to the proposed conservation zone and finished the timber harvesting portion. They hope to finish the proposed law at the next meeting and refer it to the Town Board. They also continued going through comments on the stream setback law. Comprehensive Plan Committee – Mr. Engman reported that they have been talking about SmartCode which is a type of planning philosophy which would involve re-zoning the town but it would allow for more flexibility. It is interesting from both a town-wide and region-wide aspect. 6-27-2011 Page 2 of 7 Operations Committee – Mr. Engman reported that the meeting focused on updates. There is also a push for a community garden in Eastern Heights but the land was donated with a specific list of uses and that use was not listed. The donors will be asked if they would allow the use. There is also suggestion for addressing of trailheads for ease of emergency response to the particular area of the trail needed. 911 is in favor of it and discussions have started on the details. The Safe Routes to School was discussed and the he reported that the pavement is going in now. Mr. Bates reported that the need for a fee schedule to be set for operating permits for mobile home parks. A full discussion on the topic is on the next agenda. Planning Committee – No report Personnel Committee Ms. Hunter reported on the classification presentation which basically categorizes employees so their jobs can be weighted with different criteria; for example, highway crew versus administrative etc. They also talked about the tax collection and exploring different options. It was decided to have the affected personnel attend the next meeting to discuss it and a report will be given at the next meeting. Public Works Committee – Mr. Engman reported that they did not meet in June but will be talking about the request for an extension of the South Hill Recreation Walkway towards Brooktondale Road and the inventory and condition of town roads in preparation for a road use agreement. The Governor is moving along on this and we need to be ready. Discussion followed regarding staff doing the inventory or a company like DELTA and also the legal costs associate with it and the staff time involved. TCCOG had been working on this, but the there are only about 4 left that may go together. Ms. Hunter asked for a ballpark figure and Mr. Engman responded $8,500 for DELTA. It would cost about $16,000 for a law to be written by our legal. Discussion followed. Records Management Advisory Board (RMAB) – Ms. Terwilliger reported that progress is being made on the outline and departments have been reminded that the board requested procedures from each. The procedures will be the bulk of the work and the more interesting of the work involved in the revision process. She also reported that the next meeting was cancelled due to her attending the Cornell Municipal Clerk Institute which she received a grant covering 55% of the cost. AdHoc Committees Road Patrol – Mr. Engman reported that they have not met because the County has instituted an enhanced enforcement agreement between the different branches. The last loose end is working with the campus police and see what our options are, if any. Fire Services – Mr. Engman reported that a group visited the town fire stations and the Cayuga Heights Station. He was struck by the difference between the Cayuga Heights, which was welcoming and had a great bunker set up and the Town’s which 6-27-2011 Page 3 of 7 was institutional feeling and not set up for bunkers. Discussion followed on comments from the Cayuga Heights department regarding its very active bunker system. They have 60 volunteers and have to turn people away. It seems that a bunker system is more and more appealing. Youth Services – Mr. Engman reported that a representative from Cornell Cooperative Extension will be giving a report on youth employment at the next meeting. Lynne Anderson from SUNY Cortland was also contacted regarding a needs assessment project for the Town and she was open to the idea and asked that we contact her in August. Discussion Item – a. Carbon Reduction Goals – Katie Stoner (Attachment #1) Ms. Stoner gave a presentation on the progress, goals and next steps in achieving our 30% reduction by 2020. Discussion followed on particular measures and their benefit and/or costs. Mr. DePaolo asked about our fiduciary obligation when considering green measures that may cost more than traditional practices. Discussion followed with members touching on the need for hard numbers, the idea that it is similar to a venture or investment in the future and whether we could solicit comments from residents. If the increase in cost is relatively minor, it is an investment because the only way to decrease the cost is to invest in the concept and infrastructure needed by green ventures. Discussion then turned to the Town’s Building Code and what progress is being made toward giving incentives for green construction. Mr. Horwitz noted that 98% of the carbon footprint is with the private sector which can be addressed by the Code. Ms. Stoner responded that she is working with the Comprehensive Plan Committee on that subject and Mr. Bates reported that he just attended a training session on sustainable construction. The idea is being vetted now and will work its way through the appropriate committees for consideration by the Board. b. Cornell/Conifer Rezoning Proposal Ms. Ritter explained that each MR zone has been tailored to the development such as Conifer Village and Ms. Brock has been looking into what sorts of things are in the law and she wanted Ms. Brock to explain that end of the subject and then she would like to talk about what Planning Staff would like to incorporate into the law. Ms. Brock explained the tailoring of the local laws establishing Multiple Residence zones using the 2006 Ithaca Senior Living Community aka Conifer Village. She reviewed that law and marked it up as an outline for the current request. There was one issue regarding the length of time the units had to remain “affordable” and there was a discrepancy in the different paperwork stating 15 years on one and 50 years another. The PILOT is currently 15 years with the affordability 50 years. She wanted to know what timeframe the Board was thinking about the length of requiring them to be affordable. Discussion followed. The Board felt that 50 years was a good length of time to require the affordability requirement. Some discussion on PILOT agreements and whether they are going to ask for one which is still an unknown. Ms. Hunter asked for 6-27-2011 Page 4 of 7 particulars on any PILOT agreement and a reference to it in the law to keep it front and center. Ms. Ritter reported that the Planning Staff would like language incorporated to address siting and aesthetics of the development because the proposal is going to set precedent in the area and they do not want a stand-alone development that is not connected or in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood and they have talked to the developer and the Planning Committee about a neighborhood scale plan as well as the Town Board which would be to incorporate smart growth. Smart growth incorporates site and aesthetics and the language is ready to go so it would not delay the timeline they need for the grant process they are talking about. Ms. Ritter went on to highlight siting of the project and how it relates to bus service. The best situation would be if Conifer would reverse their parking and put the parking in the back because of the sidewalk coming down from Overlook and the bus pick up location. The grade is extreme and if the front door was instead on the new road they are proposing and add an ADA sidewalk connector that would be a critical component and could be added to the MR zone law. Mr. Tazman talked about Smart Growth elements. The intent would be to give the Planning Board the option of requiring under site plan review process a number of set requirements. Secondly, it would clarify that the local law would take precedence over code when necessary and thirdly, that affordable housing does not have to be substandard or institutional. Mr. Tazman listed some examples such as building position, grading, terracing, parking lots, encouraging porous pavement and bio swales, no false fronts, personal gardens, community centers/space, mechanical equipment screening, landscaping, clearly identified crosswalk etc. Mr. DePaolo asked if they are asking for 15 acres or 7 acres. Ms. Ritter responded that she thinks they are asking for more than what is needed for one residence. The Board discusses different amenities they would like to see in the development such as green outdoor sitting areas, pedestrian connections to Overlook and a pedestrian loop around the building to allow for exercise etc. Ms. Ritter reminded the Board that Cornell owns some acreage and she was hoping that only the 7 acres needed for the proposal are rezoned at this time. Ms. Brock noted that the law limits to one building with 72 units regardless of how many acres are rezoned. Ms. Ritter added that the preference is to keep it the 7 acres so the rest of the parcel can be planned when a proposal is ready. Mr. Engman asked about the second building that was going to be the assisted living facility and Ms. Ritter responded that she did not think that was specifically on the table anymore. Discussion followed. The Board felt that the next step is to tell Conifer this is what we are talking about and get their feedback on whether they are willing to add some if not all of these type of 6-27-2011 Page 5 of 7 requirements. Ms. Ritter will contact them and report back and Ms. Brock will forward the MR language. Ms. Brock was asked for a draft for the Planning Committee meeting. c. Longview PDZ Regulations / PILOT Mr. Engman introduced the topic stating that we as a Board need to research and learn about the PILOT process; who authorizes them, who negotiates them, how long are they etc. so we can understand the financial implications. It was his impression that PILOTs were used to encourage development, but we don’t need to encourage it. Ms. Leary thought they were used to encourage development good for the community or social good. Discussion followed. Ms. Ritter will invite Mr. Stamm from IDA or TCAD to the next study session. Specific to Longview, Ms. Hunter noted that a PDZ is an opportunity to get something the Town wants from the developer so maybe asking for connectivity to Ithaca College or sidewalks, or walking paths within the site plan etc. Ms. Leary added exploring low- income units. Discussion followed. Ms. Hunter added that she felt the Board should send their own recommendations to the Planning Board when PDZ’s are forwarded to them. Mr. Goodman added that maybe they should be discussing this at the Planning Committee to determine if we want to ask for anything and Ms. Ritter added that Mr. Macera should be told the Board may be asking for things because it may affect their decision to go forward. The Board thought it should definitely be looked at by the Planning Committee and Ms. Ritter should speak to Mr. Macera and invite him to the meeting. Consider setting a public hearing regarding the Ithaca Beer PDZ Proposed Local Law Ms. Ritter talked about the draft PDZ and referenced an email Mr. Smith (Planner) received from Mr. Mitchell expressly stating that he was not interested in having the PDZ in the County’s Agricultural District. Discussion followed on the need to put that into the law because nothing else would bind either Mr. Mitchell or future owners from going for an Agricultural designation. Ms. Brock was not sure if it would be legal or enforceable to make that kind of stipulation in the PDZ language. She will report at the next meeting. The Board also discussed the letter from the Sallinger’s expressing their concerns about the initial size of the project and how it seems to grow each time they hear something about it. It was first proposed as 15,000 and now it is 65,000. Ms. Brock noted that any increase in size would have to go through the Planning Board for approval. Motion was made by Mr. DePaolo and seconded by Ms. Leary to set a public hearing for the August meeting at 6:00 p.m. Unanimous. Meanwhile, Ms. Ritter and Ms. Brock will work with Mr. Mitchell on the legal aspects and options. 6-27-2011 Page 6 of 7 Consider authorization to award Snyder Hill Road Repaving contract TB RESOLUTION No. 2011-112a: Authorization to Award Contract for Construction of the Town of Ithaca Snyder Hill Road Improvement and to Establish the Town of Ithaca Snyder Hill Road Improvement Capital Project Fund WHEREAS: On June 22, 2011, the Town of Ithaca Director of Public Works/Highway Superintendent received bids for the Town of Ithaca Snyder Hill Road Improvement for the Milling of a 2 lane- 22ft wide road to a average depth of 5 inches with profiling the road cross section. Placing of asphalt layers consisting of 3 inches of binder and 2 inches of top, and WHEREAS: The Director of Public Works has reviewed the bids and qualifications of the bidders and has recommended that the low bid of $274,000.000 for the total project made by Suit-Kote Corporation, 1911 Lorings Crossing Road, PO Box 5160, Cortland, NY 13045, is a qualified bid, and WHEREAS: At the June 13, 2011, Town Board meeting under Resolution No. 2011-102 the maximum amount of $500,000.00 was authorized to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for this improvement, now therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the award of the contract for the Town of Ithaca Snyder Hill Road Improvement project to Suit-Kote Corporation, subject to final approval of the contract documents by the Town Engineer and Attorney for the Town, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute such contract upon such approval; and be it further RESOLVED: that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve change orders to such contract upon receipt of appropriate justification provided that the maximum amount of such change orders shall not in the aggregate exceed $25,000.00 without prior authorization of this Board, and provided further that the total project cost, including the contract, engineering, legal and other expenses does not exceed the maximum authorized cost of the project, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Town Finance Officer is directed and authorized to record all necessary and appropriate budgetary and cash transactions transferring $301,400 (bid amount plus a 10% contingency) to establish the construction account, and transferring an additional $48,600 for ancillary project and bonding costs, for a total budget of $350,000.00 for the capital project fund “Town of Ithaca Snyder Hill Road Improvement” project. MovedSeconded : Bill Goodman : Pat Leary Vote : Aye: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Hunter, DePaolo, Levine and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. 6-27-2011 Page 7 of 7 Consider Consent Agenda Items TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011-114: Consent Aoenda 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. Town of Ithaca Abstract b. Approval of Minutes of June 13, 2011 MOVED: Eric Levine SECONDED: Pat Leary VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Levine, Leary and Horwitz Absent: Hunter and DePaolo Motion passed. Review of Correspondence - None Consider Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Respectfj/lly subrpitted. f \ Paulette Terwilliger Town Clerk ^ ENERGY SAVING MEASURES STRATEGY SESSION June 27,2011 4:30 P.M. Ithaca Town Hail Discussion items: 1) Review progress, goals and next steps a. Goals #1 and #2 complete I. 80% X 2050 II. 30% X 2020 - this is what we're writing a plan for b. Goal #3 underway - identifying reduction measures and create action plan i. What do we wont to coil the plan? Climate Action Plan? Energy Strategy? 2) Present proposed measures and discuss feasibility. Consider the following questions: • What are the energy and financial impacts/outcomes of implementing this measure? • How much of an impact will this measure contribute towards reducing emissions? • What measures do we wont to prioritize? • What is the appropriate phasing for this measure? Short (0-2 years), mid (2-5 years) or long (5-10 years) term? • Can we implement this measure with the staff and resources we currently hove or do we need to hire someone (consultant or odd staff)? • Are there financial incentives available to help fund this measure or other ways to lessen the Town's financial commitment? • Are these measures already on their way to implementation and can we piggyback onto them and increase their effectiveness by calling them out in this plan? • Can the Town moke decisions about implementation or are there / , others entities that need to be involved and if so, who? \ 3) Exercise: Additional measures for consideration, stretch goals 4) Prior to recommending these measures and drafting a plan, who else needs to be involved and how should they be involved in vetting the proposed projects and measures? 5) Share elements of the draft plan (time allowing) )3MeasureWastewater Facility UpgradesWater System EfficiencyRenewable Energy CertificatesFleet Conversion to Blodiesei (B20)Limit Idling of Heavy Duty Vehicles (tniEfficient Street Lights (othnr than LED)C02e (metric tons)% towardsaoalComments Point People Costs $ Savings Occurrence40434.(X)%Construction is expected to begin Summer 2011, andcompleted in 18 months (minimum).Dan RamerTotal: $8,026 M Upfrontpayment: $2.4 M (City isbonding) Monthlypayment schedule isspread out over remainderof 20 vear termYear 1: $145,372Total: $4.1 millionovef 20 year term(savings increaseannually)Savings occur annuallyonce construction iscomplete with a one-timeinvestment, plusmaintenance and repairsto svstems28624.24%This assumes just under a 20% savings (kWh and $) inthe water treatment sector (facilities and pumps); will beeasier to assess feasibility after Wendel audit 5A7;motor inventoiy meeting took place 5/18, possible tosave in all facilities through this program. Othermeasures not quantified here include restructuring ofthe current fees to incentivize water conservationamongst Bolton Point customersPaul Tunnison, Joan Foote, Jim WeberTBD; likely to be aperformance contract withguaranteed savingsTBDSavings would occurannually with a one-timeinvestment plusmaintence and repairs tosystems20717.57%Calculation based on purchasing 10% of our totalelectricity used from RECsMEGA: quotes providedCommunitv Energy; spoke with Unda Burtis who isworking on a proposal for the Towa will put together amix of regional and national windHerb Engman, Town Board, Mike SolvigMEGA: $0.0110/kWH fornational wind in anyincrement (on top of whatwe pay now)Steriing Planet: $0.88/mWhor $0.00088/kWh for 100%of our electricity (on top ofwhat we pay now) $567 for10% of our electricityNo financial savingsC02 reductions wouldoccur annually with anannual investment inRECs, have to renewcontract annually (orbiannually, or whateverthe contract requires)13611.53%If we were to transition 25 of our fleet (diesel) vehiclesover the B-20Tompkins County used B-20 In their Highway Divisionfrom April 2009-October 2009. State contract award didnot include B-20, but the County is working with GrifTithEnergy (the diesel supplier) to supply B-20 agaiaAwaiting update from the County on the AlternativeFuels ConsortiumJim Weber, Herb Engman, Town Board, Leslie SchillNation-wide average fordiesel: $4.04/gallon Nationwide average for blodiesei:$4.05(asof4Al:http://www.afdcenergy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afpr_apr_ll.pdf)B20 Is $4.12/d!esel gallonequivalent'695.82%Reduce idling time of 30 vehicles by 1 hour/day. Thiswould probably wrap into a comprehensive Green Fleetpolicy, along with alL fuels and mileage reductionmeasures (look at County's Green Fleet policy)Jim Weber, Herb Engman, Town Board27232%If we replace 230 Mercury Vapor lights with HPS or MH.Need to firm up how many lights we actually have (allrecords are different); Just contact NYSEG directly?Public Works Lights Out at Night PolicyIncrease Chiller EfficiencyEfficient Lighting RetrofitsEnergy Efficient ComputersReflective RoofingReduce Municipal Fleet MileageHVAC Fan UpgradesIncrease Boiler EfficiencyEnergy Efficient PrintersEnergy Effldent Computer Monitors171.40%Consider adjusting this policy to include more generalenergy conservation strategies, Le. lights out when notusing space during work hours; determine whereoccupancy sensors might be needed; this is where weneed an internal employee education effort6' 0.50%Might fit in with some of the NYSERDA programs (DirectAssistance) or with NYPA Energy Sen/ices Program.Should be done as part of a larger facilities retrofit□rooram.60.48%Recalibrate this number based on what we actuallyexoect to save30.29%Green IT plan - look at long-term purchasing needs andbudqetLisa30.29%Jim Weber, Joe Hulbert30.24%6,(X)0 miles reduced annuallyJim Weber30.23%Fit in with some of the N)^ERDA programs (DirectAssistance) or with NYPA Energy Sen/ices Program; alsocould be covered by Flex Tech (contact S. Simon)20.15%Might fit in with some of the NYSERDA programs (DirectAssistance) or with NYPA Energy Services Program; alsocould be covered by Flex Tech (contact S. Simon)20.13%Green IT plan - look at long-term purchasing needs andbudoetLisa10.09%Green IT plan • look at long-term purchasing needs andbudqetLisa1.17399.58%1,178100%333