No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2013-02-11Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, February 11, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Agenda 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Report of Tompkins County Legislature 3. Report of Ithaca Common Council 4. Report of the Board of Fire Commissioners 5. Persons to be Heard and Board Comments 6. Discuss and consider approval of funds for the Town's portion of the City of Ithaca Fire Station roof replacement 7. 5:30p.m. Public hearing regarding a proposed Water Improvement for the Town of Ithaca pursuant to Article 12-C of Town Law to be known as the Burdick Hill Road Replacement Tank Water Improvement a. Consider adoption of Public Interest Order 8. 5:45 Public hearing regarding a proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 18 entitled "Citizen and Staff Advisory Committees", to Generally Require Members of Citizen Committees to be Town Residents a. Consider Adoption of local law 9. 5:45 Public hearing regarding a proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270, Section 270-233 entitled "Permit to Build" to Allow the Issuance of Building Permits in Certain Circumstances even if Zoning Violations Exist a. Consider Adoption of local law 10. Consider setting a public hearing regarding a local law adding Chapter 57, entitled "Procurement" to the Town of Ithaca Code and authorizing the use of the "Best Value Procurement Standard" 11. Consider reappointment of J. Terpening and appointment of M. Berman on the Ethics Board 12. Acknowledge receipt of 2012 Annual Report from Justices Klein and Salk r 13. Discuss property maintenance Action Plan for 107 Pine Tree Road a. Approve Action Plan 14. Discuss and consider approval of amendments to the Joint Youth Commission Operating Guidelines 15. Discuss grant application fro TIP funding (Route 96B Pedestrian Corridor Study) 16. Discuss Comprehensive Plan Committee's recommendations regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan 17. Departmental Annual Reports 18. Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes of January 28,2013 b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract d. Approve budget line increase for Codes vehicle e. Approval of final budget transfers, amendments and modifications for Fiscal 2012 19. Supervisor's 2012 Report and Outlook for 2013 20. Report of Town Officials 21. Report of Town Committees 22. Intermunicipal Organizations 23. Review of Correspondence 24. Consider Adjournment TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Paulette Terwilliger, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: □^VERTISEMENT ^0NOy\CE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Notice of Public Hearing Proposed Water Improvement - Burdick Hill Road Replacement Tank Subject to Permissive Referendum Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Date of Posting Web/Board: 1/9/2013 Date of icatlon: 1/25/2013 Paulette Terwilliger Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this —^day of - , 2013. ^ ^f A ^ C ( Public Debra DeAugistineNotary Public • State o1 New YorkNo. 01DE6148035 Qualified in Tompkins County /My Commission Expires June 19, 20 / ^ . •V K-ymwt- . 'lianHWyi U •r .uu Reolacemenl Tank Water menls. an amount sufficient accordance with the provi-o tiui-°!Tr H M^nitTLri Ifnprovemenl consists of to pay Uie pdncipal arKi in- sions of Sectton 209-q of 2TR N^t 3- the enure area of 8a.-d lerest on sehal bonds and the Town Lawa^t Town ewepUng therefrom bond antiapaBoo notes Is- Sections, This Order T017. Older ^Hing a^lv contained within sued in anticipation of the sl.sti take effect immedate- I k Heanng Hegartii g Cayuga issuance of serial bonds, as ly. t ^ i.t^ Heights, and the same become due and Moved; Tee-Ann Hunter w 0®" C WHEREAS, the capital im- payable: and Secorxled: Eric Levtod fPursut^t to Article 12-C of proposed in WHEREAS, the aforesaid Vote: Ayes - Lavine. i. rtrBiHrck°H? RMd"R'^ connection with the Water Improvements have been Leery, Engman.Tank Kr Improvement of the Town determined to be a Type U DePaolo. Hunter and Howeplacement Tank Water Im-Ithaca consist of the Action pursuant to the reg- PaotetteTerwiliiger n,.u, ennmnn Rill conslrucUon of 3 new re- uialions of the New York 1/25/2013 ^an (S,^Z P'^ement water tank at State Department of EnviSr^unie^ E^Te3^ Burdick Hill Road: at an ini- ronmental Conservatloo " Rirh npPaolQ and Rod ''®"y determined madmum promulgated pursuant toR«;h DePaolo and Rod giate Envirortmental Ui^qpAR the Town benefited area of Ouality Review Act. the im- ihB Tov-n of liha- S792.300. it being deter- plementation of wWch as ca Tomokins County New addition- proposed, it has de-c^ompkins OO ^ $707,700 of the termined in acconJanoe | theVflBaVTunLngarKlS'.SOO.OMaMregat™^ in. ff. the' T^r^f Srrnot result h : and Drvd^ has allocated to the Villages of any significant environrnon- ,Ur«lT>g and Drydem has ^,,1 ^ ini'Jrovi^on Heigh,s and water dis.rtcts subject to further review: . nL^'^l^TmS^waTer and WHEREAS, it is now I lank arBiifdick Hill Road 1°'"' indebtedness shall be sired to call a public heartng , edness therefore in accord- '3' the ultimate share of the enng said riiap, plan airf ifr ,a urfth qnotion 1 p fiO of c°8t to be allocated to the port, including estimate of ,dnc$ With o€ction l&.vU or _ ^., . , . _j aii .ka I ^1 I avAi niir Town of llhaca pufBuafil to cost, and to near all per* jthe l^i Rnance Law pur- , | , Agreement sons interested in the sub- ,suant to sn ^eement o P ^ ,he rJ^L^ nn^Trnninn basis of benefits rece^ all in accordance ; and Ooeraiion of an Inter- conferred or to be re with the prowsions of Sec- ,UiinM^l w-iipr SuDolv ceived or conferred from tion 209-q of the Town -ar^SnsmiEsion System improvement; Uw^ NOW, THEREFORE . ^EBEAS, said ORDERED, by the To^ j WHEREAS a mao reoort $1,500,000 maximum esti- Board of the Town of Hha- ^and plan, including an esU- -"ated cost, which is t|^ ca, Tompkins County, New ^ nrate of cos,, have been cost of the projwl, shall c diiK, rmnarod in <i„rh man- aulhorljed to be financed Section 1. A puixic r n^aidTn such detail as '='7 1^® 'O""' issuarrce by the meeting of the Town Board ^^.1 Lff , r Town of Ithaca, with the of the Town of Itheta. ^ Sard Tovms of Dryden and Lans- Tompkins County. New (nf'^Aown TiS ing and the Villages of York, shall be held at the Tnmnkinfi Couniv MpvJ Cayuga Heights and Lans-Town Hall, 216 North Tioga , York, relating to the con- '"a. of jomt serial bonds Tf wilh a maximum malunty in said Town» on tne uin »stAJClloo o' a new raclaca* . • » > e p u ^ oai o a* .arenor fs^nu at RttrdifW not in excess of the forty day of Feboiary, 2013» at ^™ ro be tl as y®- pari^ P-acdbed ^ S ihp Tnvwi of Ithaca Burdick 1*^® "-ocal Rnance Law: and ing Time, to consider the j, HID Road Reolacement WHEREAS, said maximum aforesaid map, plan and re- ^Sk ^,er Krn cost, as to the port, including estimate of „(Sier imSli^enn! Town of Ithaca of $792,300 cos,, and to hwr all per- ^. ig not greater than one- sons Interested in tiie sub- UUHFREAS «!iii man nian 'ool'i ot One per centum of led thereof concerning the „ and reoort' indudinq esti- '^® '®" "a'®®''®" o' ®®'"® nmate^ cost, were pre- '®®' P'0P«Hy "^® 'P^redWaoompetente^h^JeJ;^^^^^^ The Town, ^e of S^York^ and WHEREAS, it is proposed Cle.k -s hereby aulhorired phave been filed in the office 'hat the cost of the afo^ and direc^ f ® I nt »ho Tnv„r. riprk nf said said improvements shall be copy of this Order with a ^^Ll^i^S sal are ' avpibihie rii.nno rpniilar of said benefited area by published once m tne otti I, and collecting from the sev- post a copy thereof on dwby any or p^^ig [anj ,o^ signboard mamiamed "p^iiprthpjnf and within such area, outside of by the Town Clerk, not less , WHFREAr the area of 8^7 village, which the Town than ten ClO) nor more than .M Hpitrml^pd fo Boafd Shall determine and twenty (20) days before thef JTpdtl Id Trn^ SX 10 be especially day designated for the j of Ithaca Burd^ HHl Road benefited by the improve- hearing as aforesanl, all m ^ JlltO*' ws.i 'O r. c, T .','1 'iii.-ci n.r ;i; i- '.''''-i.A _Gr. fi t dnwL r.wic.i.,ii.HfvO'^M TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Pauiette Terwilliger, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: □ ^VERTISEMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Notice of Public Hearing Proposed Local Law amending Chapter 18, entitled "Citizen and Staff Advisory Committees" to generally require members of citizen committees to be Town residents" Location of Sign Board Used for Posting; Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Date of Posting Web/Board: 1/9/2013 Date of Pm^lcatlon: 1/25/2013 Pauiette Terwilliger Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn.to and subscribed before me this day of , 2013.n if K otary Public Debra DeAugistine Notary Public - State ot New York No. 01DE6148035Oualified in Tompkins County My Commission Expires June 19, 20 V- Town of IthacaNoltceof Public Hearings j BE IT RESOLVED, that the 'Town Board of the Town of J Ithaca will hold public hear- •ings at the Town HaH, 215 ' North Tioga Street. Ithaca. ' New Yoih on the nth day ' of February, 2013 at 5:45p.m. for the purpose of pro viding full opportunity for Citizen participation a»d in put in the preparation oh (O a proposed local lawamending the Town Itha ca Code, Chapter 1S entl- 'tied "Citizer arid Staff Advl- •sory Committees', to Gen- \erally Flequire Members of ' Qtizen Committees to beTown Reaidenls. ar^d (2) a |proposed local law amending the Town of Ithace 'Code. Chapter 270, Sec- \ ton 270-233 entitled 'Per- ; mit to Build' of the Town of Ithaca Code, to Allow the I Issuance of Building Per mits In Certain Circumstan ces even if Zoning VlolB- 5ons Exist " The draft local laws can be seen at Town Hall or at " www.lown.tthaca.ny.u9 Pauiette Terwilliger TownOerk 273-1721 '• 1/25/2013 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Pauiette Terwilliger, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: □ ADVERTISEMENT;3lsJ0TICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Notice of Public Hearing Proposed Local Law amending Chapter 270, Section 233 entitled "Permit to Build" Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tloga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Date of Posting Web/Board: 1/9/2013 Date of B<i@lication: 1/25/2013 Pauiette Terwilliger Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this —day of < • ^ , 2013. Debra DeAugistlne Notary Public - State of New York NO.01DE6148035Qualified in Tompkins County J My Commission Expires June 19, 20 / 7 NswYork 1/25/2013 Town of llhacaf4otice of Public Heanngs ^ BE IT RESOLVED, tbal the ^ Town 6oafd of the Town of i®(thaca will hold public near- Sings at the Town Hall, 215 ^ North Tloga Street, Ithaca. New Yorh on the 11 ih ® of February, 2013 at 5:45p.m. for the purpose of pro- ^vtding full opportunity for ^ citizen participation and In^. ■■ put in the preparation of: ^ (1) B proposed local lew 0amending the Town of Ithe- ^ ca Code. Chapter IB enti- " lied *C)lizen and Staff Advt- ^eory Committees", to Gen- Ler^iy Require Members oF ^ Citizen Committees to be ' Town Residents, and (2} a proposed local law amend- ^Ing the Town of Ithaca l- Code. Chapter 270, Sec- " lion 270-233 entitled "Per- ' mit to Build" of ihe Town of ^ Ithaca Code, to Allow the P Issuarwe of Building Per- ' mits in Certain Orcumeten- ' ces even if Zoning Viola- ticns Exist ' The draft local laws can be < seen at Town Hall or 0t I www.town.ithaca.ny.ue ' Pauiette Terwilliger I Town Clerk : 273-1721 t 1/25/2013 •• t -- -V Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, February 11, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca,NY 14850 Minutes Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Pat Leary, Bill Goodman, Eric Levine, Tee-Ann Hunter, Rich DePaolo and Rod Howe Staff. Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Mike Solvig, Director of Finance, Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town Agenda Item 1 Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Mr. Engman called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. There was a request from the public to move agenda item 16 up. The Board had no objection and the item was moved to after item 9. Agenda Item 2 Report of Tompkins County Legislature—None Agenda Item 3 Report of Ithaca Common Council—None Agenda Item 4 Report of the Board of Fire Commissioners Bill Gilligan(Attachment 1) Mr. Gilligan gave his quarterly report. There were no comments or questions from the Board. Agenda Item 5 Persons to be Heard and Board Comments Joseph Wetmore and Stephen Wagner addressed the Board. Mr. Wetmore read from a prepared statement and distributed a"Minority Report of the Comprehensive Plan Committee" (Attachments 2 and 3) Prepared statement as submitted by Mr. Wetmore: My name is Joseph Wetmore. Stephen Wagner and I have served on the Comprehensive Plan Committee for nearly five years. On January 25, 2013 the Committee voted to recommend a draft Comprehensive Plan to the Town Board. We not only disagree with that recommendation, we are so dissatisfied with the proposed Comprehensive Plan that we feel compelled to present the Town Board with a critical analysis, which we are calling a Minority Report. The problems with the proposed Plan permeate the document so thoroughly that they cannot be addressed with a simple list of corrections. Adopted 2/25/2013 TB 2-11-13 Page 2 of 22 Above all, we adamantly take issue with the proposed Plan's assumptions that land-use planning can continue with only minor variations from"business as usual"planning so common for the past few generations. These assumptions underlie almost every recommendation in the proposed Plan. Town of Ithaca residents have been quite clear in their desire to see a dramatic change in planning—one that does far more to protect open space. And for good reason: our society is facing a future where such narrow planning approaches are increasingly more detrimental than they have ever been in the past. Although the proposed Comprehensive Plan adopts some Smart Growth principals, it ignores others which are fundamental. For example, all of the incentives for Smart Growth are focused on large parcels of opens space, the very places that the plan purports to be protecting from development. It is eerily silent on how to increase density in the already built-out areas of our community. Additionally the proposed Plan examines the Town as an isolated entity, not as an interactive member of a larger community. The municipalities surrounding the Town are rarely mentioned at all, let alone how our land-use policies interact with their policies. The proposed Plan does not address the drastic problems we are facing: peak oil/resources, climate change, economic instability, etc. which are all going to force our community to change. It is impossible to move towards a sustainable future without a hard look at these issues. These are fatal flaws: the proposed Comprehensive Plan neither fixes the problems of the previous Plan nor does it prepare us for the changes we are facing. Our Minority Report highlights some of the major flaws like those listed above, and more. Further it gives the Town Board some recommendations of how to improve the Plan. We are available tonight, and in the future, to answer questions and to continue our efforts to help make the Comprehensive Plan as good a document as possible We will be distributing the Minority Report electronically to the Town Board, and others, in an attempt to foster a larger discussion. We ask that the Town include the Minority Report on its website, alongside the proposed Plan. The community has a right to see the range of ideas that came out of the Comprehensive Plan Committee. We further ask that the Minority report be made a part of tonight's minutes. Thank You There was no one else wishing to address the board under Persons to be Heard Agenda Item 6 Discuss and consider approval of funds for the Town's portion of the City of Ithaca Fire Station roof replacement TB 2-11-13 Page 3 of 22 Mr. DePaolo asked if the Town was paying in any way for the installation of the panels and Chief Parsons responded that it is his understanding that the solar panels are entirely separate and through a lease agreement. Discussion followed and Mr. Engman stated that it was his understanding the panels were under a performance contract such as the energy saving work done at the Ithaca Area Waster Water Treatment Plant. The roof was scheduled to be replaced in the next year or so anyway, and this solar project simply moved the timeline for the roof replacement forward. The solar installation is cost-neutral but reduces our carbon footprint. TB Resolution 2013- 022: Ithaca Fire Department—Central Fire Station Roof Replacement Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe WHEREAS during the fall and winter of 2012 the roof on the City-owned Central Fire Station developed leaks over the apparatus room and WHEREAS the City Engineering Department with the assistance of a third party design professional has determined that the roof on the Central Fire Station has reached its end of life and is in need of replacement and WHEREAS the City of Ithaca has entered into a contract with Liberty Solar Inc. to install photovoltaic panels on the roof no later than July 1, 2013 and WHEREAS the life expectancy of a new roof will be in excess of 40 years and the useful life expectancy of the solar panels will be in excess of 15 years and WHEREAS, City staff has estimated the cost for roof replacement at $360,000 Now, therefore be it RESOLVED that the Ithaca Town Board hereby approves City Capital Project#784 Central Station Roof Replacement in an amount not to exceed $360,000 with the Town of Ithaca's share not to exceed 32.46% ($116,856) and FURTHER RESOLVED that no portion of the Town's payments will be used for installing and removing the solar panels and that the Town will not be held liable for any damage to the roof caused by the solar panels and FURTHER RESOLVED that funding for said project shall be derived from the Fire Protection Fund to pay the Town's portion of payments on the City's issuance of serial bonds and FURTHER RESOLVED that the establishment of this Capital Project shall be contingent on the approval by the City of Ithaca. Vote: Ayes—Howe, Goodman, Engman, Hunter, DePaolo, Levine and Leary TB 2-11-13 Page 4 of 22 Agenda Item 7 5:30p.m. Public hearing regarding a proposed Water Improvement for the Town of Ithaca pursuant to Article 12-C of Town Law to be known as the Burdick Hill Road Replacement Tank Water Improvement Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 5:50p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board and the hearing was closed. There was some discussion regarding the title of the resolution and the words "Town of Ithaca" were inserted. TB Resolution 2013—023: Adopt Public Interest Order for the Water Improvement to be known as the Town of Ithaca Burdick Hill Road Replacement Tank Water Improvement Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Eric Levine Present: Herb Engman, Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Rod Howe, Rich DePaolo, and Tee-Ann Hunter WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County,New York, in conjunction with the Village of Lansing and the Village of Cayuga Heights, and the Towns of Lansing and Dryden,has determined and agreed to participate in the provision of a joint water project for construction of a new replacement water tank at Burdick Hill Road and to contract joint indebtedness therefore in accordance with Section 15.00 of the Local Finance Law pursuant an Agreement of Municipal Cooperation for Construction, Financing and Operation of an Inter- Municipal Water Supply and Transmission System(the "Intermunicipal Agreement"); and WHEREAS, a map, report and plan, including an estimate of cost, have been duly prepared in such manner and in such detail as has heretofore been determined by the Ithaca Town Board, relating to the construction of a new replacement water tank at Burdick Hill Road to be known as the Town of Ithaca Burdick Hill Road Replacement Tank Water Improvement ("Water Improvement")to serve a benefited area in said Town whose boundaries consist of the entire area of said Town excepting therefrom the area contained within the Village of Cayuga Heights; and WHEREAS, said map, plan and report, including estimate of cost, were prepared by a competent engineer, duly licensed by the State of New York and have been filed in the office of the Town Clerk of said Town, where the same are available during regular office hours for examination by any person or persons interested in the subject matter thereof; and WHEREAS, the capital improvements proposed in connection with the Water Improvement consist of the construction of a new replacement water tank at Burdick Hill Road at an initially determined maximum estimated cost to said benefited area of$792,300, it being determined that(1) the additional $707,700 of the $1,500,000 aggregate maximum estimated cost shall be initially apportioned and allocated to the Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights TB 2-11-13 Page 5 of 22 and water districts in the Towns of Lansing and Dryden and that(2)joint indebtedness shall be issued therefore and that (3)the ultimate share of the cost to be allocated to the Town of Ithaca pursuant to the aforedescribed Intermunicipal Agreement shall be determined on the basis of benefits received or conferred or to be received or conferred from the aforesaid improvement; and WHEREAS, said $1,500,000 maximum estimated cost shall be authorized to be financed by the joint issuance by the Town of Ithaca, with the Towns of Dryden and Lansing and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing, of joint serial bonds with a maximum maturity not in excess of the forty year period prescribed by the Local Finance Law; and WHEREAS, said maximum estimated cost, as to the Town of Ithaca of$792,300 is not greater than one-tenth of one per centum of the full valuation of taxable real property in the area of the Town of Ithaca outside of any villages; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the cost of the aforesaid improvements apportioned and allocated to the benefited area shall be borne by the real property in said benefited area by assessing, levying upon and collecting from the several lots and parcels of land within said area, outside of any village,which the Town Board shall determine and specify to be especially benefited by the improvements, an amount sufficient to pay the benefited area's allocable share of the principal and interest on joint serial bonds and joint bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of joint serial bonds, as the same become due and payable; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid improvements have been determined to be a Type II Action pursuant to the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the implementation of which as proposed, it has been determined in accordance with the criteria in 6 NYCRR Section 617.5(c)(2) will not result in any significant environmental effects and will not be subject to further review; and WHEREAS,the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca duly adopted an Order on January 7, 2013 calling a public hearing upon said plan, report and map including an estimate of cost and the question of providing water supply improvements to be known as the Town of Ithaca Burdick Hill Road Replacement Tank Water Improvement, such public hearing to be held on the 11th day of February, 2013, at 5:30 o'clock P.M.; Prevailing Time, at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, in Ithaca,New York, in said Town, at which time and place all persons interested in the subject thereof could be heard concerning the same; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly posted and published as required by law; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held at the place and at the time aforesaid and all persons interested in the subject thereof were heard concerning the same; and WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize the improvement to be known as the Town of Ithaca Burdick Hill Road Replacement Tank Water Improvement;NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT TB 2-11-13 Page 6 of 22 RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County,New York, as follows: Section 1. The notice of hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient. Section 2. That all of the property within the proposed benefited area is benefited by the proposed Water Improvement. Section 3. That all of the property benefited is included within the proposed benefited area. Section 4. That the proposed method of apportioning the costs of the Water Improvement should not be changed. Section 5. It is hereby determined that it is in the public interest to establish said Water Improvement and to make the Water Improvement hereinafter described and such Water Improvement is hereby authorized. The proposed area hereby determined to be benefitted by said Water Improvement is all of that portion of the Town of Ithaca outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights. Section 6. The proposed improvement shall consist of the benefited area's allocable share of the construction of a new replacement water tank at Burdick Hill Road at an initially determined maximum estimated cost to said benefited area of$792,300, it being determined that (1) the additional $707,700 of the $1,500,000 aggregate maximum estimated cost shall be initially apportioned and allocated to the Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights and water districts in the Towns of Lansing and Dryden and that (2)joint indebtedness shall be issued therefor and that (3) the ultimate share of the cost to be allocated to the. Town of Ithaca pursuant to the aforedescribed Intermunicipal Agreement shall be determined on the basis of benefits received or conferred or to be received or conferred from the aforesaid improvement. The method of financing of said cost shall be by the issuance of joint serial bonds of said Town of Ithaca together with the Towns of Lansing and Dryden and the Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights to mature in annual installments over a period not exceeding fifteen years, and by the issuance of joint bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of joint serial bonds. The Town of Ithaca's allocable share of such bonds and bond anticipation notes shall be payable from assessments levied upon and collected from the several lots and parcels of land deemed benefited from said improvement and located in said benefited area, so much upon and from each as shall be in just proportion to the amount of the benefit which the improvement shall confer upon the same. Section 7. It is hereby determined that the estimated expense of the aforesaid Water Improvement does not exceed one-tenth of one per cent of the full valuation of the taxable real property in the area of said Town outside of villages and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of subdivision 13 of Section 209-q of the Town Law, the permission of the State Comptroller is not required for such improvement. Section 8. Pursuant to subdivision 6(d) of Section 209-q of the Town Law, the Town Clerk is hereby directed and ordered to cause a certified copy of this resolution to be duly recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Tompkins within 10 days of the date this Order becomes effective pursuant to Town Law Section 91, which when so recorded, shall be presumptive evidence of the regularity of the proceedings and action taken by the Town Board in relation to the aforesaid improvement. TB 2-11-13 Page 7 of 22 Section 9. It is hereby further determined that all of the allocable cost of the aforesaid improvement shall be borne wholly by property within the Town of Ithaca water improvement benefited area, being the entire area of the Town outside of any village. Section 10. This Order is adopted subject to permissive referendum in the manner provided in Town Law Article 7 and Section 209-q. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call, which resulted as follows: Herb Engman, aye; Tee-Ann Hunter, aye; Bill Goodman, aye; Eric Levine, aye; Pat Leary, aye; Rod Howe, aye; Rich DePaolo, aye. The resolution was thereupon declared duly adopted. Agenda Item 8 5:45 Public hearing regarding a proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 18 entitled "Citizen and Staff Advisory Committees", to Generally Require Members of Citizen Committees to be Town Residents Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 5:56p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board and the hearing was closed. TB Resolution No. 2013- 024: Adopt Local Law 1 of 2013 Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 18 entitled "Citizen and Staff Advisory Committees", to Generally Require Members of Citizen Committees to be Town Residents Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Bill Goodman WHEREAS, the Town Board has the ability to create Citizen Advisory Committees to provide recommendations to the Town Board on various matters; and WHEREAS, the existing law does not specify that citizens appointed to a Citizen Advisory Committee must always be Town residents, so it is possible that someone who was appointed to such a committee while residing in the Town might move out of the Town and still retain a vote in making committee recommendations; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has discussed the desirability of requiring that voting members of a Citizen Advisory Committee always be Town residents, unless the Town Board specifically allows otherwise when such a committee is created; and WHEREAS, at its January 7, 2013 meeting the Town Board adopted a resolution for a public hearing to be held by said Town on February 11, 2013 at 5:45 p.m., to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and TB 2-11-13 Page 8 of 22 WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said local law, or any part thereof, and Whereas,pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of this local law is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment," and thus this action is not subject to review under SEQRA, Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby adopt Local Law 1 of 2013 amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 18 Entitled"Citizen and Staff Advisory Committees", to Generally Require Members of Citizen Advisory Committees to be Town Residents, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. VOTE: Ayes—Howe, Goodman, Engman, Hunter, DePaolo, Levine and Leary Agenda Item#9 5:45 Public hearing regarding a proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270, Section 270-233 entitled "Permit to Build" to Allow the Issuance of Building Permits in Certain Circumstances even if Zoning Violations Exist Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 5:57p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board and the hearing was closed. TB Resolution No. 2013- 025: Adopt Local Law 2 of 2013 amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 entitled "Zoning", to allow the issuance of Building Permits in certain circumstances even if zoning violations exist Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rich DePaolo WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Codes Enforcement Department has interpreted Section 270-233, entitled"Permit to Build"to require property owners to obtain variances for any existing zoning code violations before the Department will issue a building permit for new work on the property; and WHEREAS, for some property repairs that require a building permit, such as replacing a leaky roof, the time taken to obtain a variance could lead to further deterioration of a structure; and TB 2-11-13 Page 9 of 22 WHEREAS, at its November 14, 2012 meeting the Town's Codes and Ordinances Committee voted to recommend that the Town Board amend the Zoning Law to allow the issuance of building permits even where zoning code violations exist when a permit is necessary to make a repair that will maintain the structural integrity of a building; and WHEREAS, at its January 7, 2013 meeting the Town Board adopted a resolution for a public hearing to be held by said Town on February 11, 2013 at 5:45 p.m., to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said local law, or any part thereof, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of this local law is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment," and thus this action is not subject to review under SEQRA, Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby adopt Local Law 2 of 2013 amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270 Entitled"Zoning", to allow the issuance of Building Permits in certain circumstances even if zoning violations exist, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. VOTE: Ayes—Goodman, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Howe and Leary Agenda Item#16 Moved up on request Discuss Comprehensive Plan Committee's recommendations regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan Mr. Engman gave an overview of the process to this point, noting that Committee held a public hearing and there will be many more opportunities for public comment and at this point the Board needs to starts its review of the draft, discuss public comments and start having discussions at the board level on scheduling the next steps in the process. Ms. Ritter discussed the list she put together of what needs to happen and one is the Town Board considering the Plan for approval, determining if it is adequate and complete and discussing it TB 2-11-13 Page 10 of 22 amongst yourselves and then start a SEQR review. She reminded the Board of the outline she provided with the draft Plan of the steps of the SEQR process and some of the options along the way. It is possible that staff will have the long environmental assessment form ready for the next meeting and we could establish the Town Board as the Lead Agency and determine if the Town Board would like to initiate a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). She added that staff and the Board need to review public comments from the public hearing and some we have received in writing and it sounds as if we should initiate a discussion about the plan amongst the board and start getting familiar with it and then get into the comments we have received. She also noted that the Board has also asked for a list of issues that were decided by vote at the Comprehensive Plan Committee level and then we have to hold at least one more public hearing and it must happen within 90 days of the public hearing the Committee held. We can have more than that, but we must hold that one within 90 days. Ms. Ritter went on to discuss the steps of the GEIS process, noting that there are opportunities for public input during the SEQR process also which will involve public input and changes can be made along the way and if the Board decides to do with a GEIS,public comments become part of that GEIS. Ms. Hunter was interested in the process because she thought people would be interested in the GEIS and its outcome before they could comment on the Plan itself. Ms. Ritter responded that we are creating a document for review and then a draft GEIS would be done and people could comment on that, then the final GEIS is done and any comments are included in that final document that we have to have commented on in that final document. The next decision is when and how the Board would like to move forward with the review. The study sessions seem like an obvious choice to start with and additional meetings on special topics of interest or training/information meetings on things such as architectural standards, form based zoning, and other topics that members of the board on the Comp Comm had but other members may be interested in. Ms. Ritter suggested that the Board start with Chapters 2 and 3 which are the Goals and Objectives and the Future Land Use Map and then the SEQR process and it might be helpful to have set items to discuss and to also ask Ms. Brock to attend if we are going to discuss the SEQR process. Mr. Engman thought one of the challenges will be that some members have been very involved for 5+years and others have had very little involvement and there are some concepts that will need a fair amount of explanation. Discussion followed on ways to have the information or presentations available to members who would like primers on specific topics. The goal is to get everyone on the same page and ready to discuss the Plan. Ms. Ritter thought the Board might be able to identify areas after the initial meeting. Mr. Engman went on to say the Plan does not solve everything, it puts a vision or thoughts forward and there is a lot of work that comes after the Plan to make those visions work. The tendency is to want to put everything in the Plan, but the Plan is an outline and a vision. Agenda Item 10 Consider setting a public hearing regarding a local law adding Chapter 57, entitled "Procurement" to the Town of Ithaca Code and authorizing the use of the "Best Value Procurement Standard" TB 2-11-13 Page 11 of 22 Ms. Brock explained that she had concerns and researched the topic and found that the Association of Towns is still drafting guidance on adopting local laws because the legislature was not clear in a number of places where stating one thing in one place does not match what is stated in other associated legislation. The Comptroller and the Association will be working on this and Ms. Brock made a number of changes to the draft the Association had sent to Ms. Terwilliger. Ms. Brock felt comfortable setting the public hearing, but cautioned there is a lot of follow up to do is setting guidelines for using the law. Ms. Leary was hoping we could use this law to take into consideration living wage issues when awarding contracts. Discussion followed and what would fall under the guidelines for determining best value would have to be considered carefully. Some discussion followed on Ms. Brock's research she asked Ms. Leary to forward any guidelines she is aware of from other municipalities and the Board expressed the hope that the Association of Towns' Annual Meeting next week will have more information. Agenda Item 11 Consider reappointment of J. Terpening and appointment of M. Berman on the Ethics Board TB Resolution No. 2013 -027: Reappointment of J. TerpeninI4 and appointment of M. Berman to the Ethics Board Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Whereas Jennifer Terpening has indicated she is willing to be reappointed to the Ethics Board for a second 5-year term and Whereas there is a vacancy on the Ethics Board of the Town of Ithaca and the interview committee has met with two viable candidates and made a recommendation to the Town Board Now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Monty Berman to a 5-year term as of this date through December 31, 2017 and Be it further Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby reappoints Jennifer Terpening to a second 5-year term as of this date through December 31, 2017 Vote: Ayes—Howe, Hunter, Levine, Leary, Engman, DePaolo and Goodman Agenda Item 12 Acknowledge receipt of 2012 Annual Report from Justices Klein and Salk TB Resolution 2013 - 028: Acceptance of Town Justices' 2012 Annual Reports Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Bill Goodman TB 2-11-13 Page 12 of 22 Whereas Justice David Klein and Justice James Salk have submitted annual reports for their respective courts to the Town Board for review Now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts the Town Justices' annual reports as presented. Vote: Ayes - DePaolo, Goodman, Engman, Howe, Levine, Leary and Hunter Agenda Item 13 Discuss property maintenance Action Plan for 107 Pine Tree Road Mr. Bates gave the background on this item, noting that this has been a property maintenance issue for years and in fact, the Town strengthened its property maintenance law to after getting the owner to court over a year ago and not having the footing to prosecute successfully. The new law sets out the process for remediation and the next step for this property is the Town Board accepting the Action Plan. The owner has made some progress and is represented by legal counsel and has had the opportunity to appeal to the Zoning Board but has chosen not to. Ms. Hunter was concerned about what would happen if the property owner could not pay the cost of the clean up. Mr. Bates explained that the costs would go onto her property taxes if not paid. A lengthy discussion followed on the situation which has been going on for years and years and the owner has had ample opportunity to remedy the situation but for what seems to be mental health concerns, it has not been done. This is not the only"hoarder"property in the Town and we have had numerous complaints from neighbors regarding this and other properties and the law was changed to let us get them cleaned up. Unfortunately, this is horribly sad, but the County can not intervene because there is no imminent danger but it has to be cleaned up. Ms. Hunter wanted the owner to be notified about the costs associated with the cleanup that were quoted. Discussion followed and Mr. Bates stated that he would take direction from the Board and inform the property owner. Mr. DePaolo was concerned about our liability if we removed private property and Mr. Bates responded that Mr. Krogh worked on this legislation and he believed we are covered on that by the procedures being spelt out and giving her ample opportunity to appeal. Each violation regarding the item to be removed has been detailed. He reiterated that this has been going on for a long, long time and she has legal representation who has probably explained the financial ramifications of her not cleaning the property up to the Town's stated level. There were over 43 violations and she has played the system before and she has had a number of opportunities to appeal. She was given a copy of the law which clearly states that costs associated with the cleanup of the property would be charged to her and ultimately put on the property taxes if needed. Discussion followed regarding modifying the Plan to allow for notice to the property owner before the costs are incurred. Mr. Bates was concerned about giving the perception of any kind of loophole that she could wiggle through again. Mr. Levine added that again, this has been going on for a long time, this is not her primary residence, she has legal representation and it seems she has worked the system before and if we send her a notice we are inviting her to try and TB 2-11-13 Page 13 of 22 work the system again and we need to strike while the iron is hot as they say. Ms. Leary agreed, saying that the best way to have someone come to their senses is to enforce the law and that is our responsibility. Ms. Hunter stated that her only concern was notifying her about the cost of the remediation and whether it will be a financial burden. Mr. Bates will contact her lawyer tomorrow regarding the plan. Discussion turned to the contract for the cleanup and Mr. Bates noted that the contractor hopes to have it done by the end of March and the terms of the contract were discussed with questions on whether the contract would be paid if the property was cleaned up. Verbiage was added to the resolution to read "further authorizes the town supervisor to sign a contract with the low bidder for property clean up not to exceed $2,680 such contract subject to the approval of the attorney for the town." Discussion continued on the same points and Mr. Engman called for a vote without any requirements on the Code Enforcement Officer for doing anything beyond following our process. TB Resolution 2013- 029: Acceptance and authorization for the Director of Code Enforcement and Zoning to execute the Compliance and Remediation Plan for 107 Pine Tree Road Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Herb Engman WHEREAS for several years the Town has received numerous complaints regarding the lack of property maintenance at 107 Pine Tree Road and WHEREAS on November 29, 2012 the Director of Code Enforcement and Zoning and a Tompkins County Sheriff served an administrative warrant for the inspection of the property and found numerous violations of the town's Property Maintenance Law and WHEREAS on December 7, 2012 a"Failure to Maintain Property Notice"was mailed to the owner of record of the property by certified and regular postal service. Said notice stated all violations needed to be removed or a request made for a hearing before the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals by January 4, 2013 and WHEREAS: as of this date, February 11, 2013, the owner of record has failed to remove all violations or request a hearing before the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals and WHEREAS: Ithaca Town Code states if the violations are not removed and a request for a hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals is not requested by the date stated in the Failure to Maintain Property Notice, the Director of Code Enforcement and Zoning must prepare and present a Compliance and Remediation Plan to the Town Board for consideration and approval and WHEREAS: said Compliance and Remediation Plan for 107 Pine Tree Road has been presented and discussed by the Town Board. Now therefore be it TB 2-11-13 Page 14 of 22 RESOLVED: that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve and authorize the Director of Code Enforcement and Zoning to proceed with the submitted Compliance and Remediation Plan for 107 Pine Tree Road and Further authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign a contract with the low bidder for property clean up not to exceed$2680, such contract subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town. Vote: Ayes—DePaolo, Howe, Engman, Goodman, Leary, and Levine Nays—Hunter Agenda Item 14 Discuss and consider approval of amendments to the Joint Youth Commission Operating Guidelines Mr. Engman asked who appoints the two at-large representatives and Mr. DePaolo said he would find out. Ms. Leary noted that they do not define what a youth member is; there is a minimum but not a maximum age. Mr. DePaolo thought the intent would high-school age but agreed that it should be defined better and not be contingent upon being in a school. Approval was moved to the next meeting to allow for clarification on those two points. Agenda Item 15 Discuss grant application for TIP funding—Route 96B Pedestrian Corridor Study (Attachment 4) There may be an opportunity to get some funding and the Town has been asked what our priority would be and this project has a strong need and also has two groups pushing for it also and that may help. There was some discussion on what role Ithaca College would play but this is the beginning step of getting ready with a proposal in case funds become available so we can act quickly to at least get the study done and get in a good position to pursue funds. Agenda Item 16—Moved to between #9 and #10 Agenda Item 17 Departmental Annual Reports (Attachments) Code Enforcement—The Customer Survey will be going out in March both on the counters, on our website,with our certificates of residency etc. Human Resources—Mr. Howe asked about the Brainteaser series and Ms. Drake explained that they are City/Town/County learning groups that are open to other municipalities and allow us to fill a class and train with other people that would not normally be available to us. Public Works—No questions. Mr. Engman noted that it was a large list of accomplishments. Network Records Specialist—Ms. Carrier-Titti explained Municity which is the new software the Operations Committee is recommending. Planning, Codes and IT have researched options extensively and our Access quilt of databases are out dated and this vendor works with all our TB 2-11-13 Page 15 of 22 applications and is owned by General Code who we already have a relationship with and it integrates with Laser Fiche which is the shared services grant we are involved with through the County. We own the infrastructure and it is not proprietary which means that if Municity goes away, we can move the application to another window-based company. The other platform being used by the City and the County focuses on other municipal tasks such as health department and social services where our focus is Planning and Codes. Ms. Carrier-Titti also noted that this year Town Hall will be converting to Office 2010 which will be a learning curve for all users. Town Clerk—Ms. Terwilliger noted that this will be a big year for electronic imaging and learning the system under the County shared services grant. Finance Office—Mr. Solvig stated that it was a good year for us and increases and decreases in the places we expected them. Planning—Ms. Ritter did not have anything to add and Mr. Levine commented that it was an impressive year. Agenda Item#18 Consider Consent Agenda Items TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 030: Consent Agenda Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Eric Levine BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda items: a. Approval of Town Board Minutes January 28, 2013 b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract d. Approve vehicle purchase and appropriate budget amendment e. Approve final budget transfers, amendments, and modifications for fiscal year 2012 Vote: Ayes—Leary, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Howe, Hunter and DePaolo TB Resolution No. 2013 — 030a : Approval of Minutes of January 28, 2013 Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Eric Levine WHEREAS, the draft minutes of the January 28, 2013 meetings of the Town Board have been submitted for review and approval; THEREFORE BE IT TB 2-11-13 Page 16 of 22 RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes as the final minutes of the January 28, 2013 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. Vote: Ayes—Leary, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Howe, Hunter and DePaolo TB Resolution 2013 - 030b: Town of Ithaca Abstract Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Eric Levine WHEREAS,the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 3310 - 3353 General Fund Town wide 73,137.52 General Fund Part Town 14,534.27 Highway Fund Part Town 53,343.81 Water Fund 18,142.30 Sewer Fund 24,062.16 Fire Protection Fund 206,442.99 Trust and Agency 897.00 TOTAL 390,560.05 Vote: Ayes—Leary, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Howe, Hunter and DePaolo TB Resolution No. 2013-030c: Bolton Point Abstract Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Eric Levine WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers. Voucher Numbers: 1488-1549 TB 2-11-13 Page 17 of 22 Check Numbers: 14365-14426 Burdick Hill Tanks Project $ 28,929.80 N. Trip Rd T-main Project $ 1,350.00 Operating Fund $ 106,913.07 TOTAL $ 137,192.87 Less Prepaid $ 6,758.97 TOTAL $ 130,433.90 Vote: Ayes—Leary, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Howe, Hunter and DePaolo TB Resolution 2013 —030d: Approval to purchase town vehicle and amend the 2013 General Part-Town Fund Budget to cover increase in cost Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Eric Levine WHEREAS: the Code Enforcement and Zoning Department submitted a request in the 2013 Town Budget to purchase a new model year 2013 vehicle at a cost of$22,000.00,based on last year's state bid pricing, and WHEREAS: on October 15, 2012 the Town Board adopted the 2013 Town Budget, TB Resolution 2012-187, and WHEREAS: as the state did not provide a new list for state bid vehicles for 2013, the department piggy backed on a bid list provided to Chautauqua County where the actual cost of the vehicle is $23,473.10, and WHEREAS: the Town Finance Officer recommends the approval of an amendment to the 2013 Town Budget, increasing appropriations to the General Part-Town Fund, account B8020.270, in the amount of$1,500.00 to provide adequate funding for said purchase, with such increase to be funded from current year reserves of the General Part-Town Fund; now therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Town Board approves the purchase of one (1)new 2013 Model Ford Escape SE AWD for the amount of$23,473.10 from Van Bortel Ford, 71 Marsh Road, East Rochester,New York 14445, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to record the appropriate budgetary amendment in the amount of$1,500.00 to provide adequate funding to meet this expense. VOTE: Ayes—Leary, Levine, Goodman, Hunter, DePaolo, Engman and Howe TB 2-11-13 Page 18 of 22 TB Resolution 2013- 030e: Approval of Final Budget Transfers, Amendments and Modifications for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2012. Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Eric Levine WHEREAS in preparation of closing the budgetary and accounting records of the Town of Ithaca, the Town Finance Officer has reviewed all budgetary revenue and appropriation accounts for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012, and WHEREAS this review disclosed certain budgetary revenues and expenditures requiring transfers, amendments or modifications needed to close the budgetary and accounting records of the Town of Ithaca for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012, and WHEREAS these findings are summarized below showing the net impact on the Fund Balance in each operating fund or fund group: General Townwide Fund Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/12 $ 2,740,150.94 ADD: Total Revenues 3,978,275.93 LESS: Total Expenditures 4,219,958.63 Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/12 $ 2,498,468.24 Net Decrease to Fund Balance from 2012 Operations: $ (241,682.70) General Part-Town Fund Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/12 (Restated) $ 447,923.34 ADD: Total Revenues 1,353,861.18 LESS: Total Expenditures 1,135,863.21 Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/12 $ 665,921.31 Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2012 Operations: $ 217,997.97 Highway Part-Town Fund Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/12 (Restated) $ 1,128,235.90 TB 2-11-13 Page 19 of 22 ADD: Total Revenues 2,377,555.14 LESS: Total Expenditures 2,060,103.38 Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/12 1,445,687.66 Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2012 Operations: $ 317,451.76 Water Fund Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/12 $ 1,142,015.22 ADD: Total Revenues 3,420,691.69 LESS: Total Expenditures 3,218,181.03 Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/12 $ 1,344,525.88 Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2012 Operations: $ 202,510.66 Sewer Fund Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/12 (Restated) $ 878,853.96 ADD: Total Revenues 2,737,945.27 LESS: Total Expenditures 2,320,670.82 Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/12 $ 1,296,128.41 Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2012 Operations: $ 417,274.45 Capital Project Funds Group Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/12 $ 1,440,466.84 ADD: Total Revenues 104,851.24 LESS: Total Expenditures 1,942,843.62 Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/12 $ (397,525.54) TB 2-11-13 Page 20 of 22 Net Decrease to Fund Balance from 2012 Operations: $ (1,837,992.38) Risk Retention Fund Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/12 $ 95,235.50 ADD: Total Revenues 15,622.93 LESS: Total Expenditures 7,141.56 Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/12 $ 103,716.87 Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2012 Operations: $ 8,481.37 Fire Protection Fund Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/12 $ 74,807.51 ADD: Total Revenues 3,680,179.90 LESS: Total Expenditures 3,252,219.86 Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/12 $ 502,767.55 Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2012 Operations: $ 427,960.04 Lighting District Funds Group Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/12 $ 10,410.84 ADD: Total Revenues 11,963.83 LESS: Total Expenditures 12,568.07 Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/12 $ 9,806.60 Net Decrease to Fund Balance from 2012 Operations: $ (604.24) TB 2-11-13 ^ Page 21 of 22 / ! Inlet Valley Cemetery Expendable Trust Fund Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/12 $ 9,050.14 ADD: Total Revenues 10.50 LES S: Total Expenditures - Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/12 $ 9,060.64 Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2012 Operations: $ 10.50 Debt Service Fund Beginning Fund Balance at 1/01/12 $ 54,457.19 ADD: Total Revenues 1,103,237.00 I LESS: Total Expenditures 697.009.79 Ending Fund Balance at 12/31/12 $ 460,684.40 Net Increase to Fund Balance from 2012 Operations: $ 406,227.21 Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to record all year end budget transfers, amendments and modifications, including all other changes deemed appropriate and necessary, to close the financial records for the Town of Ithaca for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012. VOTE: Ayes - Levine, Leary, Hunter, DePaolo, Howe, Engman and Goodman Agenda Item #19 Supervisor's 2012 Report and Outlook for 2013 Report of Town Officials / * Newsletter - Ms. Terwilliger explained that the Spring newsletter has prompted a discussion at the SAC level of whether to move toward and electronic newsletter and her suggestion was to go electronic and take the next two issues to let our residents know. She explained that she TB 2-11-13 Page 22 of 22 canvassed her Cornell classmates and found that no one does a hard copy to all residents anymore and most have an electronic newsletter. She felt the advantages of electronic where moving to quarterly newsletter for more timely information, a more attractive and eyecatching newsletter with additional color and graphics because we would not be limited by space or number of colors used, savings on money and green initiative. She went on to say that at this point SAC has discussed it and there are some concerns but she didn't want to get into the basics of moving to electronic without a feeling from the board that that is where we should be heading. There are numerous companies who can manage an email distribution list or it can be done in house but again, she didn't want to spend the time moving forward without direction from the Board. Salt Storage Barn - Mr. Weber noted that the project is moving along as well as a number of Public Interest Orders which will be projects in 2014 but the process will start now. Review of Correspondence It was noted that the Pine Tree Rd speed limit reduction request was denied by the State and Ms. Terwilliger added that Mr. Smith from the County has sent the notification out to the listserv he had of residents behind the request. Mr. Engman noted that Option B has been chosen for Pine Tree Road pedestrian walkway and design and SEQR are going along. Consider Adjournment Motion made by Ms. Leary, seconded by Ms. Hunter to adjourn at 7:47 p.m. Submitte Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk ^ I 3 Board of Fire Commissioners Rept)rt to Uhaca Town Board February 11, 2013 The following is a summary of the Board of Fire Commissioners quarterly report to the Ithaca Town Board for the 4"' quarter of 2012 including the year to date call activity summary; Included with this report arc: • The department call activity reports for January 1- December 31, 2012. (this will also posted on city Website), The number of incidents reported in 2012 was 4,871 compared to 5,019 in 2011. • The Fire Chiefs Report given at the January 8, 2013 BFC meeting, including the Fire Marshal's Report & Fire Prevention Bureau activity. • The IFD Financial Activity Report for December 2012. The City Controller's Office was still in the year-end closing processing at the time of the January BFC meeting. Fire Department Operational Staffing (December 2012). • The Fire Chief will keep the Deputy Fire Chiefs position open through 2013. A portion of the Deputy chiefs responsibilities will be covered by former Deputy Chief Tom Dorman who is working on a part-time/per diem basis (one day per week). Volunteer On;anization - There are cuiTcntly 15 active volunteers with the dcpm-tment, the majority of these arc Fire Police. The Board, the members of Company 9, and the Chief are working on reviewing requirement for volunteers and anticipate actively recruiting more volunteers beginning early in 2013. Board A2endas & Minutes The Board is working with the Fire Chief and the City Clerk's Office and has posted BFC meeting agendas and minutes on the City Website. Agendas and Minutes for BFC meetings can be found at the following site: http://www.egovlink.com/ithaca/docs/menu/home.asD7DatlWoublic documents300/ithaca/publis lied documents/Agendas Items in progress: 1 Charter Review- the BFC continues to review and discuss changes in the charter relating to the role and responsibilities of the Board of Fire Commissioners. 2 Resource recovery —the Board will be reviewing the status of a draft recommendation sent for review to the City Attorney. 3 County Fire-Disaster - EMS Advisory Board- no new action on this issue. BFC Report to Town of Ithaca Board 4 Training Center Facility Project - this is still under consideration, no construction has been authorized due to the training site being located on land designated as City Park land. 5 Town Ad Hoc Fire Service Committee and Town concerns about the cost of Fire Service to the Town. The Board would like to remain involved with the Town in the on-going discussions on this complex issue. 6 Solar Panels and Roofing project at Central Fire Station. 7 Current review of Fire Inspection process by Common Council. Respectfully Submitted, Bill Gilligan Chair, Board of Fire Commissioners Page 2 mm cny OF ITHACA 310 West Green Street fthaca, New York 14850-5497 OlM-lCE OF THE FIRE CHIEF Iclephonc: 607/272-12.^'i Fax: 607/272-2793 January 8th, 2013 Boiu'd of Fire Commissioners Ithaca Fire Department 310 W Green St Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Board Members: The following is the Fire MarshaFs Annual Report for 2012. Code Enforcement Division Inspections: Complaints Received 222 Complaints Resolved 218 Fire Safety and Property Maintenance Inspections 1025 Fire Alarm Tests 73 Fire Sprinkler and Standpipe System Tests 75 Standpipe Flow Tests 4 Fire Pump Tests 7 Art Alternative Fire Protection Systems 12 Enforcement Division Permits and Certificates of Compliance: Certificate of Compliance - Fire Safety 207 Certificate of Compliance - Alternative Fire SuDoression 11 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Alarm 66 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Pump 3 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Sprinkler System 25 Certificate of Compliance - Standpipe System 3 Operating Permit — Assembly Occupancy 270 Operating Permit—Hazardous Occupancy 14 Operating Permit - Lumberyard 2 Operating Permit — Temporary Propane Use 113 Operating Permit — Recreational Fire / Bon Fire 27 Operating Permit - Welding / Hot Work 31 Operating Permit - Fireworks 2 "An nnrtrtminlrif nrnwl/ww wItK o /-rvrnmirniMnr »r» wnrlffinrrn #HMnrcSflro*»<ir» Fire Marshal's Annual Report for 2012 Page 2 0 1 I i I Fire Investigation Unit: The Fire Investigation Unit investigated 20 lire investigations in 2012. There were 12 llres that were deemed accidental, 5 fires determined to be incendiary, and 3 fires that the cause was undetermined. Public Education: Public Education 56 Car Safety Seat Inspections 38 Witnessed Fire Drills 11 Respectfully Submitted C Thomas Parsons Fire Chief CUT OF ITHACA 310 West CJrecn Street Ithaca, New York 1 Ot-'MCH OI- I'HK FIHK Cllll-l" Tclci3honc: f>(r.2"?2-12.V» Fax 6(r MEMORANDUiVl To: Board of I*irc Commissioners From: Tom Parsons, Fire Chief Date: January 8"", 2013 Rc: F^ire Chiefs Monthly Report to the Board of Fire Commissioners LIFE SAFETY DIVISION Administratjon 1) Career Personnel Report PFRSONMLSIA 1 Chief I Deputy Chief (per diem) 5 Assistant Chiefs 9 Lieutenants 48 Fire Fighters 64 Uniform Personnel 1 Administrative Coordinator Total employees as of December 3 2012 - 65 a) I liring/Rccruitment Committee • None b) Retirements: „ • Firefighter William Baker retired as of December 27 ,2U12. c) Promotions: • Lieutenant Brian Wcinstein was appointed to a permanent position as a Fire Lieutenant effective December 23"*, 2012. Lieutenant been serving in a Temporary Appointed Position since January 19 ,2012. Page 2 of 5 - I'irc Chiefs Monthly Report January 8"'. 2013 d) Recruit Fire Fighters: • None e) Vacancies: • Deputy Fire Chief: Tom Dorman is working one day per week as a pjirt- time Deputy Fire Chief. Tom will continue to vvork through 2013 and the money saved is being used to partially fund the two firefighter positions restored to the 2013 budget. 2) Budget Status a) A budget Status Report: The fi nal budget close out tor 2012 has not been finalized, and should be complete by the February Board of Fire Commissioners. Preliminarily, some of our personnel costs will be over budget, while other budget lines are under what was projected for the year. b) Capital Budget - A Capital Project plan was developed by the City's Engineering Department to replace both roots of Central Fire Station. The estimated cost is for $359,735.75. The plan has been forwarded to the Town of Ithaca for consideration. There has been no action by the Town Board as of yet. 3) County Communications and 911 Program: a) No Report 4) Grants and Donations a) No Report 5) Resource Recovery Legislation No Report 6) City Charter Update No Report Operations 1) Mutual Aid Calls: Quarterly Report 2) Selected Calls - n ( I Page 3 of 5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report January 2013 No Report 3) Support No Report LIFE SAFETY DIVISION Fire Prevention Bureau I) Code Enforcement Division: The Codes linforcement Division received 24 complaints for the month ot December. There were 13 complaints forwarded to the City olTtlraca Building Department and 2 complaints forwarded to the Town oiTlhaca. There were 20 complaints closed out, and 4 complaints remain open as of December 3 f', 2012. Some of the complaints that remain open are complaints referred to other agencies or departments. The Code Enforcement Division performed 61 fire safety and property maintenani^ inspections or re-inspcclions, witnessed 14 fire alarm test, witnessed 1 alternative fire protection system test, and witnessed 2 fire sprinkler system tests. The Code Enforcement Division issued: 15 Operating Permits for Assembly Occupancies; 12 Fire Alarm Certificate of Compliance; I Alternative Fire Protection System Certificate of Compliance; 1 Fire Sprinkler Certificate of Compliance; and 7 Certificates of Compliance for Fire and Property Maintenance Inspections for December 2012. 2) Fire Investigation Unit: The fire investigation team performed two fire investigations in December: fhe first investigation was for an incendiary fire outside of 213 Williams St. in the City oflthaca. The second fire was a structure fire at 110 North Aurora Street, in the City of Ithaca. 1 he cause of the fire on North Aurora St. was accidental caused by an electrical failure 3) Public Education and Special Events: Tliere were 3 public education events, and 2 child car seal inspections performed by the department in December. 4) Town oflthaca: This week we are beginning to perform fire inspections in the Town oflthaca. Discussions between the City Attorney and the Town Attorney aie continuing regarding Page 4 of 5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report January 8"'. 2013 / ) some language to clarify tire inspection work as part of the Fire Contract between the City and the Town. 5) City of Ithaca: The Mayor has asked Common Council to review the lire inspection process. The expectation that: "Council will create a blueprint for change that cuts cost, improves customer service, and maintains public salety," As was proposed in the Mayor's 2013 Budget Submission to Council, it as.sumes that there is duplication of services between the Building and Fire Department, and that Building Department should able to take over the work from the Fire Department saving money by cutting firefighter positions. We will need to make a strong argument to maintain Fire Inspections with the Fire Department. It is important that we maintain our staffing as we are already understaffed when responding to major incidents. The fire fighters in fire prevention supplement our staffing during the weekdays. The two additional firefighters on duty provide backup when wc have multiple calls, or when we have major incidents that require all on duty personnel to respond. As I have explained to the Common and to the Board of Fire Commissioners, by all recognized standards the Ithaca Fire Department is understaiTed in its response to even routine fires. During major incidents supplemental response by off duty paid firefighters, volunteer fire fighters, and mutual aid departments can take 15 to 30 minutes to arrive, and in some cases it takes multiple requests to our neighboring departments to provide persons to staff apparatus during week days when most people are , 1 working. OPERATIONS DIVISION Response 1) Quarterly Call Report 2) Emergency Management No report Support 1) Training Center Quarterly Report Training ' Page 5 of5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report January 8'\ 2013 Quarterly Rcpoit - Volunteer Recruitment and Retention 1) Summaries of Service Hours: Quarterly Report 2) lliere are currently 15 Active Volunteer Firelighters and Fire Police 3) Requests from Company Members to become active: No Requests Received 4) We have had one inquiry from a member of the community to join. An application has been provided, but lias not been returned yet. December 2012Budget Program Account BalancesL ^0SI5253 •54 \1ss5657«a•oanAccount Numbers |!Aditartsinimon &jlP gninna12050iFi erPreventi nojBureau 00121j . .11Solety Section21150jResponse Section ^12200Suppor tSectinoI 22105EmergencyManagement12300Training Bureau12350MembeRlh pSection12400Service /DutySeciton42105(htI acaFestival12500BalancePercentExpendedAdmin308.96310598.0297,2221,4453251 i19,476 i7351 15779 1c:0 11132.453 ;.0SfafI4,453,138110(8,282)(12,745)(1,593)(74,620) j(47,785)1(3.026)j^(6,212)10;0 :;154,263);103^OvefTImo370.00012514,351(222)(112)!9,351)i9.517 1(231):2,412 .0 "J5.G64 !7tf/oFurn & Fixtures02050} 1.j . 1...j•A ;OSOffice Equip0210°]0"t1ji;!10 1OSOther Equip5.600225001 0;5.600 10 ii!15.600 ;OSTelephone17,139405658^!i-1-28.572 11,643 j1;n2301 :87%Utaites105,000410i:i•!i12837272%Clothes97J0Q4150013.384 ;i110 ii13.334 ;86%6as & OB75,00042013383 j11!13.383 i82%Office Expen8X1004252461!500 1746 }91%Contracts15,00043501,386!ij500[i1i1.886 i87%Staff Deve!26,1754405X100IXJOOIB50 13725 10 j]3X150 !i*14,625;44%Travel11,2004455>I69 1■" ■ 11ii16,924);ii(1,455)1113%trauranca155.000455(224)jjii1i(224);100%Prgm Sup^31.665460235;3X191262,916 i!1X141 10 j2300 jj10,109 ,6SSRenlal2,800470i r\ !1.911 1I*;1,91 i ;32%Prop Molnt48.5004751«27XM5 1ftii27.055 ;44%Equip Maint183,6694768,971{545)'(9,346)1\M2 -0;ii742 '100%Equip Parts57,000477i6.506 Ii-"ri16^6 1.) .89%BIdg Maint8,800480j4308 1i.jsii>i4308 151%5,945.349124,453(2.654)2.152(76,999):67,347 j8,299 I905 ;0 10 1o|123,503 I98%2012 A'^coi "i'1/8/3J IC iREVENuc ^tJMMARY BY ACCOUNTiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJDecember 2012Fire Code InspectionRevised : PCT ; Remaining ; Average iREVENUE ; YTD REVENUE ; Collected! REVENUE j Mthly Projected1565 $17,450Home & Comm Services 12189 $70QPublic Safety Services2260 :$5.000Fire Protective ServicesRental of Real PropertyRental of Equipment^<^2 : $3.135.00024102414Public Safety Permits>2550Fines & Forfeited Boil2610Minor SalesSale olEquiprnent_26552665Insurance Recoveries]268qOther Compensation for Loss \2690$10,900$0$7,000"$1,500$100$0$8,000$50Refur^ Prior Year Expense i2701Gifts & Donations2705Unclassified Revenue$200$730,4852770 $600Home & Community Service -3989$0$31,551$67$968i8f%0%^19%'$1,313,078$9,350$0$6,976$25$0"$8,359$0$20,874$250$0$2,258;-$14.101 t$2,629i $31.551:$633-'■I$6i$67; $4,032;$81$96842%";$1321^22 1$ [o9.423 jjui 3.07886%0%100%$1,550:$0$24$0!$9.3^$581$6,9762%4%0%$M75 _ ^2$96$0104%;-$3590%$5010437% -$20,674$0$25$0ml$697i $8,359$0$1,740;$o0%0%_0%$730,235 $21$600$0$20,874$701,445;$o-$2,258-$188$3,916,985 $1,393,761 35.6% $2,523,224 $116,147 $2.094,956) Ithaca Fire Department Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} and {12/31/2012} Incident Type 01/01/2012 01/01/2011 01/01/2010 01/01/2009 to to to to 12/31/2012 12/31/2011 12/31/2010 12/31/2009 1 0 0 0 100 Fire, Other 5 8 6 5 111 Building fire 34 34 34 37 112 Fires in structure other than in a building 0 2 1 0 113 Cooking fire, confined to container 30 32 19 23 114 Chinuiey or flue fire, confined to chimney or 1 3 2 2 118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 3 6 2 13 130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire. Other 1 2 3 0 131 Passenger vehicle fire 11 12 8 9 132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 2 0 0 2 134 Water vehicle fire 0 1 0 1 138 Off-road vehicle or heavy equipment fire 2 0 0 0 140 Natural vegetation fire. Other 11 6 6 10 141 Forest, woods or wildland fire 0 0 1 1 142 Brush or brush-and-grass mixture fire 2 1 2 1 143 Grass fire 3 0 2 1 150 Outside rubbish fire. Other 5 5 5 4 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 14 12 15 3 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 4 3 8 7 X ^ Outside stationary compactor/compacted trash 0 0 1 0 160 Special outside fire. Other 3 4 3 3 161 Outside storage fire 0 0 0 2 162 Outside equipment fire 1 0 1 1 170 Cultivated vegetation, crop fire. Other 0 1 2 0 172 Cultivated orchard or vineyard fire 0 1 0 0 212 Overpressure rupture of steam boiler 1 0 0 0 240 Explosion (no fire). Other 0 0 0 1 243 Fireworks explosion (no fire)0 0 1 1 251 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no ignition 3 1 2 2 300 Rescue, EMS incident, other 11 19 27 85 3001Gorge Rescue, EMS incident. Ground Evacuation 1 1 2 0 3002Gorge Rescue, EMS incident. Low Angle Rope 0 1 0 0 311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 28 34 36 222 320 Emergency medical service, other 13 0 0 0 321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 2034 2142 1943 1559 322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 94 112 105 125 323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped)31 17 15 25 324 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 29 37 37 11 331 Lock-in (if lock out , use 511 )0 0 2 0 3311Lock-in / Knox Box Access Required 3 0 4 0 3312Lock-in / Force Entry Required 4 0 1 0 Search for person on land 3 0 0 1 Search for person in water 0 0 1 2 01/05/2013 17:04 Page Ithaca Fire Department Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} and {12/31/2012} n Incident Type 01/01/2012 01/01/2011 01/01/2010 01/01/2009 to to to to 12/31/2012 12/31/2011 12/31/2010 12/31/2009 350 Extrication, rescue. Other 2 1 3 1 351 Extrication of victim(s) from building/structure 0 1 0 0 352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 4 2 4 1 353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 8 12 14 6 354 Trench/below-grade rescue 1 0 0 0 356 High-angle rescue 0 0 3 1 3561Gorge Rescue, High-angle Extrication 0 2 0 0 360 Water & ice-related rescue, other 1 3 2 0 361 Swimming/recreational water areas rescue 4 3 1 4 362 Ice rescue 0 0 1 0 363 Swift water rescue 0 1 1 0 365 Watercraft rescue 0 0 1 1 381 Rescue or EMS standby 4 4 6 4 400 Hazardous condition. Other 60 55 74 66 410 Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition.7 11 6 2 411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 8 6 11 17 412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG)64 81 102 22 413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 3 7 4 6 421 Chemical hazard (no spill or leak)1 2 2 2 422 Chemical spill or leak 3 2 2 1 423 Refrigeration leak 0 0 0 1 424 Carbon monoxide incident 16 25 27 22 440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem. Other 12 13 13 14 441 Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn 3 3 4 3 442 Overheated motor 6 3 9 9 443 Breakdown of light ballast 1 5 2 10 444 Power line down 26 28 28 13 445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 24 18 19 16 451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 0 1 1 1 460 Accident, potential accident. Other 1 1 2 2 461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed 1 4 1 2 462 Aircraft standby 1 1 0 0 463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 10 3 11 20 471 Explosive, bomb removal (for bomb scare, use 0 0 1 0 480 Attempted burning, illegal action. Other 3 0 1 0 481 Attempt to burn 0 0 1 1 500 Service Call, other 149 133 132 166 510 Person in distress. Other 12 10 22 16 511 Lock-out 8 9 11 14 512 Ring or jewelry removal 1 0 0 0 520 Water problem. Other 8 23 10 11 521 Water evacuation 2 76 10 5 522 Water or steam leak 13 18 23 19 01/05/2013 17:04 Page Ithaca Fire Department Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012}and {12/31/2012} Incident Type 01/01/2012 01/01/2011 01/01/2010 01/01/2009 to to to to 12/31/2012 12/31/2011 12/31/2010 12/31/2009 531 Smoke or odor removal 8 5 16 1 540 Animal problem, Other 1 0 0 0 541 Animal problem 0 0 1 0 542 Animal rescue 0 1 2 1 550 Public service assistance. Other 15 23 23 19 551 Assist police or other governmental agency 27 31 17 30 552 Police matter 1 6 7 2 553 Public service 5 2 11 7 554 Assist invalid 4 4 15 5 555 Defective elevator, no occupants 0 0 0 1 561 Unauthorized burning 7 7 12 4 571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 3 2 1 5 600 Good intent call. Other 66 68 87 84 611 Dispatched & cancelled en route 8 11 13 108 6111Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Dispatcher 14 17 10 2 6112Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Bangs 167 82 115 96 6113Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CUEMS 73 62 53 29 Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CU EH&S 57 51 45 33 ■Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IC Safety 50 9 1 1 L oDispatched & cancelled en route - By Other EMS 1 0 1 1 6117Dispatched & cancelled en route - By MA Dept 6 6 1 3 6118Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IPD 6 7 7 7 6119Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Other 0 2 1 0 621 Wrong location 3 6 5 1 622 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch address 26 32 25 2 631 Authorized controlled burning 6 8 9 6 632 Prescribed fire 0 0 3 1 641 Vicinity alarm (incident in other location)0 1 3 0 650 Steam, Other gas mistaken for smoke.Other 1 5 4 2 651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 8 23 14 33 652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke 9 9 6 2 653 Smoke from barbecue, tar kettle 4 0 2 2 661 EMS call, party transported by non-fire agency 1 3 3 1 671 HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat 38 32 20 9 672 Biological hazard investigation 0 1 0 0 700 False alarm or false call. Other 15 20 30 29 7001False alarm or false call. Other - Medical Alarm 25 31 0 0 710 Malicious, mischievous false call. Other 7 12 11 16 711 Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm 6 1 17 17 712 Direct tie to FD, malicious false alarm 1 0 10 22 713 Telephone, malicious false alarm 2 2 1 1 r "> Central station, malicious false alarm 35 51 41 26 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 3 4 4 5 01/05/2013 17:04 Page Ithaca Fire Department Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} and {12/31/2012} Incident Type 01/01/2012 01/01/2011 01/01/2010 01/01/2009 to to to to 12/31/2012 12/31/2011 12/31/2010 12/31/2009 721 Bomb scare - no bomb 3 1 0 0 730 System malfunction, Other 41 58 56 63 731 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 6 9 7 28 733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 44 49 83 79 734 Heat detector activation due to malfunction 6 6 8 16 735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 124 106 92 83 736 CO detector activation due to malfunction 29 27 18 10 740 Unintentional transmission of alarm. Other 101 100 112 297 741 Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional 15 9 20 12 742 Extinguishing system activation 2 0 0 0 743 Smoke detector activation, no fire -534 611 632 597 744 Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 221 178 150 71 745 Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 150 143 164 74 746 Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 27 18 20 4 800 Severe weather or natural disaster. Other 2 0 0 1 811 Earthquake assessment 0 1 0 0 813 Wind storm, tornado/hurricane assessment 1 0 0 6 814 Lightning strike (no fire)0 0 0 3 900 Special type of incident. Other 0 2 3 3 911 Citizen complaint 1 0 0 1 Totals 4871 5019 4874 4600 r\ 01/05/2013 17:04 Page 4 Incident Type Summary (Modified)Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} And {12/31/2012}Fire 3%Good Intent Call 11%Alarm & False Call 29%Hazardous Condition (No Fire) 5%'Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overtieat(no fire) 0.0%0.0%•Service Call 5%Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incident 47%False Alarm & False CallFireGood Intent CallOverpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat(no fire) H Service CallSpecial Incident TypeHazardous Condition (No Fire) Rescue & Emergency Medical Service IncidentSevere Weather & Natural Disaster r 1UUnknown ProblemUnknown MedicalUnconciousTraumatic InjuryStroke or CVAStabbing -Illness, Sick Person n ^Mental Health IllnessPregnancyPersonal Injury AccidentOverdose, PoisioningMedical EmergencyBleeding or HemorrhageHeart ProblemHeadacheFall or TripEye - Injury or Problem nExposure - Heat or Cold nEntrapment •Electrocution •Drowning •Diabetic ProblemConvulsions or SiezuresUD55'■a&>oS"OMH^ Carbon Monoxide PoisoningCOChokingChest PainCardiac ArrestBreathing ProblemBack PainAssaultAnimal BiteAllergic ReactionAbdominal PainVehicle PreUnknown Type of FireStructure FireService CallRefuse FireHazardous MaterialsOutside FireTress, Brush, or Grass FireFire Alarm911 Open Line>O(0wCO —^ "H? O(0 =■<0 S3 q!^ so 3.C/l=igN) w0"DJijg->93 &o 0)toCOtooto Ithaca Fire Department2012 Responses • Municipality, District, and incident TypeOverpressure/HazardousGood IntentSeverePercentage ofDistrictFireRuptureEMS/RescueConditionService CallCallAlarms/No FireWeatherOtherTotalIncidentsCity of Ithaca823137117728619291711303062.22%City of Ithaca • Cornell Property10015871182173104699.63%City of Ithaca • Ithaca Collage00300000030.06%City Cascadlllla Creek Gorge00100000010.02%City Fall Creek Gorge00000100010.02%City Six Mile Creek Gorge00300200050.10%Town of Ithaca2115784664581370090518.58%Town of Ithaca - Cornell Property202591804400982.01%Town of Ithaca - Ithaca College1001179496126003176.51%Town of Ithaca - Six Mile Gorge00200000020.04%Town of Ithaca - Buttermilk Gorge00201000030.06%Town of Ithaca • Treman Gorge00200000020.04%Outside Ithaca7013283010340.70%Total132422752505442641397314870100.00%Overpressure/HazardousGood IntentSeverePercentage ofDistrictFireRuptureEMS/RescueConditionService CallCallAlarms/No FireWeatherotherTotalIncidentsTotal City9231536184404197109021350972.05%Total Town331726641326430700132727.25%Outside Ithaca7013283010340.70%Total4870100.00% Ithaca Fire Department2012 Responses - Incident Type by District31003000290028002700260025002400230022002100200019001800170016001500s**" 140013001200110010009008007006005004003002001000g.2.Q-Q-2.g,2.o.g.2.Q:-.g.2.g.2gc»\%%g<a.Cl%-Ao.o_o.%y*.•5.District-<5<s%•SL%•SLn Othern Severe Weather■Alarms/No Fire■ Good Intent Call■ Service Call□ Hazardous Condition■ EMS/Rescue■ Overpressure/Rupture■ Fire> )ZJIthaca Fire Department2012 Responses - Incident Type by Municipality4000350030002500200015001000500n Othern Severe Weathern Alarms/No Firen Good Intent Calln Service Call□ Hazardous Condition■ EMS/Rescue■ Overpressure/RuptureI ■ FireTotal CityTotal TownMunicipalityOutside Ithaca Ithaca Fire Department2012 Responses by Municipality100%Town of Ithaca[Outside IthacaITown of IthacaI City of Ithaca)) ))3Ithaca Fire Department Responses - Electrion District2012FireOverpressureRuptureEMS RescueHazardousConditionService CallGood IntentAlarm / No FireSevere WeatherotherTotalCity - 1st Ward, District 1, NE. West Hill2046559130080City - 1st Ward, District 2. W, West Hill109856361100167City - 1st Ward, District 3. SW, Southwest801201116284400227City - 1st Ward, District 4, S, Lower South Hill312510138130073City - 1st Ward, District 5, S, Upper South Hill0032867270080City • 2nd Ward, District 1, NE, Trianqle50791412243400168City • 2nd Ward, District 2, S, Southslde, Titus14023712333517800509City - 2nd Ward, District 3, W, Fulton, Court, Lin1501892815448300374City - 2nd Ward, District 4, Commons East Business13021223353812200443City • 3rd Ward, District 1, E, Cornell Campus50134729513110375City - 3rd Ward, District 2, E, Colleqetn BelSher404589117800155City - 3rd Ward, District 3, SE, BelSher, E State302163570045City - 4th Ward, District 1, NE, West Campus303521145200107City - 4th Ward, District 2, E, Middle East Hill303111285300108City - 4th Ward, District 3, E, Lower Colleqetown3198118810711238City - 4th Ward, District 40010000001City - 5th Ward, District 1, N, Fall Crfc and Wlllw0133679140070City - 5th Ward, District 2, N, Fall Crk, Gun HII503971153900106City - 5th Ward, District 3, NE, Cornell Helqhts404076137400144City - 5th Ward, District 4, Farm, Aurora, King1019377100047City - 5th Ward, District 50020000002Town - District 1, NW, Trumansburq Rd107091671500118Town • District 2, SW, Bostwick & Elmira Rds603186640061Town - District 3, S, Stone Quarry and South Hill41128108343600221Town - District 4, E, Ellis Hollow to Slatervllle5011358165700204Town - District 5, NE, Cornell Campus to NE10206011290067Town • District 7, N, Vlllaqe of Cavuqa Hqts0010011003Town - District 8, N, Cayuqa Heights Rd0000011002Town - District 9, N, East Shore and Renwick10621180019Town - District 10, S, Ithaca College100140853212200317Town • District 11, SE, Troy Coddlnqtn Slatervllle103933270055Town - District 12, E, Maple Ave201651350032Town - District 13, S, South of King Rd102531130034 2012 Ithaca Fire Department Responses - Election District□ Other□ Severe Weather□ Alarm / No FireBGood IntentService Call□ Hazardous ConditionEMS RescueOverpressure RuptureFire% % % I I I I\ \ \ \ \ % I \ % \ % % \ % \ \ \%11 \ \ \ \ "i \^ % I i I % \ Q 5 q s I %SI i ^ \ % 'k \ ^ %Election District) 300-250-200-150-100-J)Count of Incidents by Alarm HourAlarm Date Between {01/01/2012} And {12/31/2012}11 12Aim Hour 800-700-600-500-400300-200-10OIncident Responses by Day of WeekAlarm Date Between {01/01/2012} And {12/31/2012}mm'-:rumDay of Week Name Ithaca Fire Department IFD Mutual Aid Responses by Department (Summary) Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} And {12/31/2012} Type of Aid 55001 Brooktondale Fire Department Mutual aid given 55002 Cayuga Heights Fire Department Mutual aid received Automatic aid received Mutual aid given Automatic aid given 55004 Danby Fire Department Mutual aid received Mutual aid given 5 5 Enfield Fire Department Ml jal aid received Mutual aid given 55011 Lansing Fire Department Mutual aid received Mutual aid given 55013 Newfield Fire Department Mutual aid received Mutual aid given Count Type of Aid Count 55019 Varna Fire Department 7 Mutual aid given HAZ CON Hazmat Consortium 12 Mutual aid given 1 1 1 15 55015 Slaterville Fire Department Mutual aid given 55018 Trumansburg Fire Department Mu^al aid received M \l aid given A ':atic aid given 01/08/2013 14:48 Page ^ My name is Joseph Wetmore. t \ Stephen Wagner and I have served on the Comprehensive Plan Committee for nearly five years. On January 25, 2013 the Committee voted to recommend a draft Comprehensive Plan to the Town Board. We not only disagree with that recommendation, we are so dissatisfied with the proposed Comprehensive Plan that we feel compelled to present the Town Board with a critical analysis, which we are calling a Minority Report. The problems with the proposed Plan permeate the document so thoroughly that they caimot be addressed with a simple list of corrections. Above all, we adamantly take issue with the proposed Plan's assumptions that land-use planning can continue with only minor variations from "business as usual" >\ I , planning so common for the past few generations. These assumptions underlie almost every recommendation in the proposed Plan. Town of Ithaca residents have been quite clear in their desire to see a dramatic change in planning— one that does far more to protect open space. And for good reason: our society is facing a future where such narrow planning approaches are increasingly more detrimental than they have ever been in the past. Although the proposed Comprehensive Plan adopts some Smart Growth principals, it ignores others which are fundamental. For example, all of the incentives for Smart Growth are focused on large parcels of opens space, the ^ very places that the plan purports to be protecting from , ^ development. It is eerily silent on how to increase density ' ' in the alrea :iy biiilt-out areas of our community. Mental Health Associationin Tompkins County ™AN AFFILIATE OF MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA614 West State StreetIthaca, New York 14850(607) 273-9250Fax (607) 272-5343www.mhaedu.orginfo@mhaedu.orgi ^^ /WV fi *oUnitedWay t ^ I \ Additionally the proposed Plan examines the Town as an isolated entity, not as aii interactive member of a larger community. The mtmicipalities surrounding the Town are rarely mentioned at all, let alone how our land-use policies interact with their policies. The proposed Plan does not address the drastic problems we are lacing: peak oil/resources, climate change, economic instability, etc. which are all going to force our community to change. It is impossible to move towards a sustainable ruture without a hard look at these issues. These are iar:;! flaws: the proposed Comprehensive Plan neither fixes tiic problems of the previous Plan nor does it prepare us for the changes we are facing. ( \ \ ! \ t \ Our Minority Report highlights some of the major flaws like those lis i above, and more. Further it gives the Town Board son ic r -ommendations of how to improve the Plan. We are avaihible tonight, and in the future, to answer questions a.ml to continue our efforts to help make the Comprehei .'c Plan as good a document as possible We will Ik ( n ibuting the Minority Report electronically to the To . ; ; iioard, and others, in an attempt to foster a larger ciisti; ion. We ask that the Town include the Minority i . i t on its website, alongside the proposed Plan. The o munity has a right to see the range of ideas that came (r; ); the Comprehensive Plan Committee. We furi'icr (hat the Minority report be made a part of tonight's m^.. .es. Thank Yc.. r\ f \ /> MINORITY REPORT of the Comprehensive Plan Committee ^ Submitted on Febuary 11,2012' 3 ( ^ by Joseph Wetmore Stephen Wagner in response to the TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN r> f ^ DRAFT DATE: DECEMBER 5,2012 n { Table of Contents Introduction A town's comprehensive plan should be a document that describes the Town's goals and objectives for the future and acts as a guideline for Town officials making decisions. — Our society is facing a future where the proposed Comprehensive Plan's planning approaches are increasingly more detrimental than they have ever been in the past. — Humanity has reached a point of diminishing returns in resource extraction, — Scientific studies predict that in the first half of the century we will lose between 30% and 50% of all species on earth. — The world's economy is in a state of crisis. — The Comprehensive Plan should be organized to cover 3-5 important issues the Town is facing and look at those in detail. — In this report, we critique the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan using an issue-focused approach p. 5-7. Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces A key question facing the Town is how to accommodate the perceived demand for more housing with the coexisting demand for preserving open space. — Open spaces are critical to the long- term health of the Town and to the health of the planet. — The 1993 Comprehensive Plan stated that one of its specific goals was to "focus development to avoid sprawl"; despite good intentions, we see sprawl development has continued in the Town. — The Town must reevaluate its r traditional zoning tools and implement new mechanisms to encourage landowners and developers / N to pursue the twin goals of increasing density and limiting sprawl p. 10-12. I Growth Boundaries — The current draft of the Comprehensive Plan does little to restrict development in any area of the Town. — Larger lots do not prevent sprawl; they make sprawl happen faster. — The Committee dismissed any suggestions of expanding the open space designation into areas that the 1993 Plan categorized developed or semi-developed. — Definition of sprawl. — Need for civic space. — The Town of Ithaca should designate a small number of areas for development, and gather all the tools at its disposal to stop development in all other areas p. 12-15. Road Diets — Residents expressed concerns about traffic. — Instead of transportation taking up more land , we need to allocate the space we have already dedicated to transportation differently. — Road narrowing projects result in a reduction in traffic. — When road removal was combined with an increased emphasis on alternatives to automobile use, such as bike lanes and buses, traffic reduction was substantially higher. — Opening up the streets to traffic other than automobiles has been shown to reduce traffic problems — Residents want space for bikes and pedestrians on our roadways p. 15-18. Real Density — The term "density" is used differently in the Town's proposed Plan than how it is used in most settings. — Visualizing Density which documents what various densities look like ( \ in reality. — There is disagreement among the members of the Town Comprehensive Committee f \ about what density it takes to maintain a retail base in a community. — Retail Market Study shows the average household expenditure on various categories of merchandise. — Population sizes required to meet small business sales requirements. - Despite a large population, Community Comers has been struggling as a retail center. — Unless "New Neighborhoods" are built far denser than prescribed, or take up a much larger space than designated, they will not have the population numbers necessary to support retail establishments p. 18-21. \ Incentives to Develop Large Land Holdings — The proposed Comprehensive Plan cedes planning decisions from our elected officials to large landowners. — The Town is proposing to create an incentive system to encourage the erection of buildings on the very open space that the population has indicated it wanted to keep open. — Why is the smart code not being mandated town-wide? — Why does the proposed Plan emphasize developing open space into housing rather than adding density to the existing built-out areas of the Town? p. 21-22. Transect-Based Layout — The proposed transect-based code is neither a planning strategy for individual projects nor is it described as the overall planning strategy for the Town. — The proposed Plan relies on developers/large land holders to centrally design and build entire communities. — Neighborhoods designed by a single firm look like they were designed by a sole person, hardly a desirable attribute. — The proposed plan fails to recommend any kind of growth priorities. — The proposed Plan lacks any kind of ranking of the areas of the Town which are best suited for growth. — The proposed Future Land Use Map does not reflect any semblance of transects, on which its Smart Growth ideas are based p. 22-26. Rate of Growth — The Town of Ithaca experienced a total of 669 new housing units built during the years 2000-2010. — On West Hill the proposed Comprehensive Plan calls for an additional 2283 -3424 units of housing on approximately 570 acres of open space. — On South Hill, the i s proposed Comprehensive Plan suggests an additional 1280-1922 new housing units be built on ^ approximately 281 acres of open space. — The proposed Comprehensive Plan suggests 1230 ^ and 1800 housing units be built on East Hill. — If just the large developments are built, as the proposed Plan recommends, an additional 3881-7201 new housing units will be built over the next 10-15 years. — The Town must limit development to an area(s) just large enough to meet new demand and, at the same time, maintain the targeted density p. 26-27. West Hill — Residents expressed concerns about more development on West Hill. — The Wes/ Hill Traffic Report projects major traffic problems with large scale build-out on West Hill. — No conceivable plan for a transition of West Hill into a mixed-use urban node. — It is more important to protect the agricultural area on West Hill than use the land for more housing p. 27-31. South Hill — Residents expressed concerns about more development on South Hill. — There is not enough population to support two growth nodes on South Hill. — The "South Hill Neighborhood Center" is too small to build a mixed-use neighborhood. —A State highway cuts this "New Neighborhood" in half. — The residents don't support this idea. — Emerson Place is the best-suited place for redevelopment in the Town. — It is an ideal place to develop a "car- free" neighborhood p. 31 -34. East Hill — The proposed Comprehensive Plan's suggests two "New Neighborhoods" on East f ^ Hill in response to Cornell's Master Plan. — Cornell's proposed populations will not support a / s mixed-use development. —The locations of these "New Neighborhoods" are isolated from the | rest of the community. — Residents expressed concerns about Cornell's broken promises in the past. - Residents expressed concerns about more development p. 35-37. ^ ^ ' ^ Full Build-Out? —Residents should be concerned about the totality of what is being proposed. / ^ — City V. Town vacancy rate. — The Comprehensive Plan Committee focused exclusively on full build-out scenarios p. 37. Sustainability The proposed Plan focuses on cost-saving measures rather than the community-wide structural changes that are necessary. — Mistaken assumption that growth patterns are going to remain unchanged. — Need to view Town planning decisions from a regional perspective. — Need to produce official street maps. — Good town planning discourages separation of housing from places of employment, shopping and recreation. — Single-use zoning creates transportation problems. — We need to dramatically reduce our need for motorized transport. — Food production will need to become more localized. — The local farmer-to-consumer connection needs to be strengthened. — Local food storage is important. — Need to explore ways to produce more clothing locally. — We need to choose what we produce with clear attention to the waste products. — Climate change studies show that we cannot use more than a fraction of the fossil fuels in the ground without disastrous results. — Land requirements to convert our whole society to renewable energy sources exceed available land. — Example of proposed guiding principles of sustainability from staff at Maryland's Department of Natural Resources....p. 38-46. Economic and Social Justice ' Economic Justice — The Town needs to plan for the economically marginalized sectors of our population. — Local businesses have a multiplier effect that contributes to sustainability. — The Town should prioritize local businesses over large corporations. — Every decision made by public officials moves money from one group of citizens to another. — The Town needs to state publicly that it is neither desirable nor sustainable to rely on a small number of large employers for our economic base. — The Town should strongly state its support for enterprises that are sustainable and are committed to being a part of our community in the long term. — The Town needs to take a strong stance against extractive industries p. 47-49. Social Justice — It is important that our entire community be diverse, and that individual neighborhoods reflect that diversity. — The Town is, unfortunately, developing new neighborhoods on a very segregated basis; low income in one place, seniors in another, wealthy in yet another. — Residential development should not result in ghettoizing any group of people. — The proposed Comprehensive Plan simply states the current racial demographics without looking at how they are changing p. 49-50. Intermunicipal Planning for the Next Century Tompkins County's municipalities have led the way in intermunicipal cooperation over issues such as water management, municipal health insurance, fire protection, public transportation, recreation, and youth services. — Our residential neighborhoods do not fit neatly within town borders; plarming rules and goals should not change arbitrarily in the middle of a community. — We need to decide from a regional perspective where retail centers are rather than by municipality. — The fact that the Town completely surrounds the City of Ithaca puts the two municipalities in a unique relationship; the future of the two is tied together. — The Town is studied as an isolated place, not as part of a broader community. — Cayuga Lake is the most visible and important geological feature in our community. — The Town should work with groups like the Cayuga Lake Watershed Network on their goals of preserving the health of Cayuga Lake. — The south end of f i / > / ( \ o Cayuga Lake has been identified by the New York State DEC as an impaired water body. — f ^ There are many threats to the Lake's integrity ranging from pollutants to invasive species to f \ climate change. — Large water withdrawals from multinational corporate entities are a threat to the watershed . — A Cayuga Lake compact is needed. — Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization needs to be resurrected. — Open discussions are needed about merging of the Town of Ithaca with the City of Ithaca. — The Town should build a relationship with the Cayuga Nation p. 51-56. A New Approach Although the proposed Plan adopts some Smart-Growth principles, it ignores others that are fundamental. — The rush to finish the report was exacerbated by some very problematic process decisions imposed on the committee. — The whole report was organized, designed and written by staff. — Committee members had to beg and beg to get electronic copies of any draft documents. — It took a majority of the committee members present at a meeting to make any changes to the drafts that staff presented. — The first time the Comprehensive Plan Committee approved and sent to the Town Board its recommendations, it only provided a partial draft of the proposed Plan. — The public was not allowed to speak at committee meetings. — While committee members and staff are recommending that the Town only make minor policy changes, other communities are stepping forward and are making changes that were unthinkable a few years ago. — The Town of Concord, MA banned the sale of plastic water bottles within the town. — The Philadelphia Orchard Project plants fruit trees in the City of Philadelphia that grow healthy food, provide green spaces and community food security. — Porter Township, PA became the ' ^ first local government in the United States to eliminate corporate claims to civil and constitutional f \ privileges. — The Town of Sugar Hill, NH enacted a local law to establish a local "Bill of Rights"which gives residents the right to sue corporations that damage the environment. — The Town of Ithaca should be proactive in these ways too p... 57-61. Selected Bibliography p. 62-63. ! \ 1 ' 1 ' ^ ^ A Introduction A town's comprehensive plan should be a document that describes the town's goals and objectives for the future, and acts as a guideline for town officials making decisions, especially with regard to the issues of land-use. While the Town of Ithaca's draft Comprehensive Plan was created in the hope of reducing future sprawl development in the Town, it misses the mark on numerous crucial elements. In fact, experiences in similar communities predict that implementation of the proposed Plan will encourage continued sprawl development. The problems with the proposed Plan permeate the document so thoroughly that they cannot be addressed with a simple list of corrections. We are so dissatisfied with the proposed Comprehensive Plan that we feel compelled to present the Town Board with a critical analysis of the proposal. Above all, we adamantly take issue with the Plan's assumptions that land-use planning can continue with only minor variations from "business as usual" planning so common for the past few generations. These assumptions underlie almost every recommendation in the proposed Plan. Town of Ithaca residents have been quite clear in their desire to see a dramatic change in planning—one that does far more to protect open space. And for good reason: our society is facing a future where such narrow planning approaches are increasingly more detrimental than they have ever been in the past. * ** Humanity has reached a point of diminishing returns in resource extraction. "Peak oil," the point where oil production levels off because no new significant sources are being discovered, occurred around 2005. Nevertheless, companies are drilling more and more oil wells in a futile attempt to 8 Introduction keep up with the oil production of previous years. We will now obtain less oil—and it will always ' ^ be less—than in previous years. To make matters worse, we are also facing peak extraction of ^ \ many other natural inputs to our society. Water that is both clean and widely available is becoming ^ scarce. We are losing quality topsoil at an ever increasing rate. Copper, nickel, silver, lithium, rare earth metals, etc. are becoming difficult to find and are requiring ever larger energy inputs to recover. Technological innovations cannot ameliorate these facts. We are running out of the materials we need to maintain our society's requirements and demands. We can see the results of the expanding extraction of resources to maintain our way of life: 90% of the large fish in the ocean are gone; approximately 200 species of flora and fauna go extinct every single day; climate change has dramatically changed weather patterns, and will continue to do so for generations to come. Each year, 16 million hectares of forest disappear, and by this century's end there may no longer be any rain forests left. Scientific studies predict that in the first half of the 21'^ century we will lose between 30% and 50% of all species on earth. We are witnessing what many scientists are calling the "sixth mass extinction". The world's economy is in a state of crisis. Many European countries are effectively bankrupt and no attempted solution has improved that situation. The US economy is not much better, forced to accept an ever-increasing percentage of its workforce being unemployed together with another significant percentage being drastically underemployed. The middle class is disappearing, while the rich amass unprecedented amounts of wealth and the ranks of the poor swell dramatically. Most localities are making drastic cuts to their budgets, eliminating programs that previous generations > s would never have considered cutting. We have climbed out of previous depressions/recessions by f ^ growing the economy to absorb the unemployed. Given the current resource situation, there is no ^ viable strategy to grow the economy; there are no new frontiers. The human population on this planet is growing, seven billion and counting, and the resources we have at our disposal are shrinking. We cannot continue on this path for much longer. The reality is that our society is going through significant changes. We can choose to deal with these challenges ourselves, or allow events to make our choices for us. The Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan is a place where we can start to make those choices. Given the sea change that humanity is facing, the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan needs to be dramatically different from those in the past. Unfortunately, it is not. The proposed Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan is presented, in the typical style for comprehensive plans written in the last few decades, with chapters detailing individual aspects of our community: Land Use and Development, Housing and Neighborhoods, Natural Resources and Environment, Energy and Climate Protection, Agriculture, Recreation, Historical Resources, Transportation, Municipal Services and Infrastructure, Community Services, and Economic Development. While this provides an easily accessible inventory of our Town's infrastructure, it does not describe how these elements relate to one another. Missing from this approach is a framework for coordinating these elements to create the kind of community we want to live in the future. For example, infrastructure (water/sewer, roads, bus routes, etc.) drives development. If / > one analyzes these elements separately, it is too easy to miss how adjusting one will dramatically f ^ change the other. In Chapter 2, the Plan proposes to "Limit extensions of infrastructure into areas 1 not designated for intensive development except when required for health and safety." However, Introduction / the proposed Future Land Use Map recommends extending the development line into the current agricultural area on West Hill, while also extending it beyond the capability of the current water system to service it. Sundy Rri kv- nn qJ « <0 ' ^ . Mc-c'klfintxjrg Rd 1 The orange area is proposed to be a "New Neighborhood" development area. The yellow line (and the area to the right of it) delineates the maximum elevation to which the Town's water system can provide water from the Trumansburg water tank without additional pumping stations and storage tanks. This is the maximum reach; development near this line will have inferior service compared to the rest of the Town, especially on upper stories of structures. Ideally, there should be a buffer between this line and where development is encouraged and/or allowed. The Comprehensive Plan should be organized to cover 3-5 important issues the Town is facing and look at those in detail, with the understanding that each will address all of the relevant elements. The advantage to this format is that policy makers will have more of an understanding of everything that needs to be done, in tandem, to deal with the important issues facing our community. Organizing a comprehensive plan in this way makes the document a much more useful tool in helping a community plan its future. In this report, we critique the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan using an issue-focused approach. While most of the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan may sound reasonable in detail, it fails to give us sufficient vision to deal with some of the major cumulative issues we are facing today. We will focus on these issues in the following pages: "Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces", "Sustainability", "Economic and Social Justice" and "Intermunicipal Planning for the Next Century". f \ Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces ' \ I ^ ^ \ A key question facing the Town is how to accommodate the perceived demand for more housing with the coexisting demand for preserving open space (e.g., farms, parks, natural areas, lakes, and streams). The rural environment that attracted many of us to the Town and that still attracts students and tourists to our area, is being lost. Since 1980, the Town of Ithaca has added approximately 2000 housing units to its built environment. A steady demand for new housing has resulted in a loss of agricultural and open space and an increase in population and housing units in the Town. Even with this dramatic increase in the Town's population, thousands of people continue to commute daily through the Town to get to work. In 2006, the "Tompkins County Affordable Housing Needs Assessment" projected a need for an additional 3,894 housing units within the county by 2014. Six years after that report was published, several Comprehensive Plan Committee members were still projecting a "need for 4,000 more housing units in the county in the next 10 years". Many of those same committee members felt strongly that the Town of Ithaca should be the location for a large percentage of those units. Committee members expressed that the Town had the "moral obligation" to build its "share" of the housing, not necessarily that it would be good community planning to do so. Additionally, this "share" was usually more than half of the projected needs for the entire County. However, vacancy rates are far higher in the Town of Ithaca than in the City (7% in the Town vs. 0.5% in the City), indicating that housing is needed in the City more than in the Town. ^ ^ In January 2009, the Town commissioned a survey of its residents on a number of issues. One of the clear conclusions from the survey was that residents valued natural areas and farm land, collectively referred to as "open space". Not only was open space at the top of Town residents' f ^ I I , Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces ] l list of reasons why they were attracted to the Town, but it was also close to the top of priorities of r ^ how they wanted their tax dollars spent (marginally exceeded by a call to improve the infrastructure for bicycling throughout the community). Given the pressures of increased development, whether real or perceived, it is important that we not expand the perimeter of development each time we revise our comprehensive plan. There is no point in setting limits on growth if they are moved every 20 years or so. Regularly moving the development line tells developers that these lines are only temporary suggestions. Preserving open space is not simply a matter of aesthetics. Open spaces are critical to the long- term health of the Town and to the health of the planet. As residents turn to local sources for food, the Town's agricultural lands provide a critical resource for farming. Furthermore, the clay soils that are common in the Town do not absorb water well, so preserving wetlands and woodlands are an important part of the Town's storm water management system. The Town is also blessed with natural features that provide beauty and recreation for residents and visitors, such as Cayuga Lake, Buttermilk Falls State Park, Robert H. Treman State Park, and the Laboratory of Ornithology at Cornell. We also have an obligation to the planet to maintain well-planned, well- protected open space that preserves the diverse habitats (and interconnecting natural corridors) that sustain our community. Over the years, a significant portion of the Town's open lands has been lost to sprawl. Sprawl r ! requires people to use automobiles for getting to and from work, shopping, recreation and I > professional services. Sprawl creates a world in which walking to work is impossible, convenient ' public transportation unaffordable, and life without a family fleet of cars is unthinkable. It is for these reasons that modern, "Smart Growth" principles have guided planners to minimize sprawl. The Town of Ithaca must take the lead in planning the growth of the Town to avoid sprawl while preserving a diversity of types, sizes, and costs of residences. The Smart Gro\vth approach to accommodate the needs for open space and more housing is to increase the density of already-built areas and to limit sprawl. It is not enough simply to pack more housing among the loosely spaced houses we already have. Instead, the Town needs to target specific locations for land preservation and other areas for dramatically increased density— a density that is concentrated enough to allow for public transportation, maintain a mixed-use focal point, and create a sense of community. It is vitally important that in order for non-sprawl development to meet demands, it has to be dense. If we provide developers with too many locations for new housing, they can all too easily meet demand with sprawl development. In the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, the Town stated that one of its specific goals was to "focus development to avoid sprawl." To accomplish this goal, the plan recommended that the Town "plan its development pattern with densities that justify conveniently located shops and/or facilitate access to existing shops." Twenty years later, despite good intentions, we see that sprawl development has continued in the Town. The densities the 1993 Plan encouraged never created / \ the stores envisioned. The Town must reevaluate its traditional zoning tools and implement new mechanisms for encouraging landowners and developers to pursue the twin goals of increasing density and limiting sprawl. In this context, the Town should implement a form-based zoning code, which will 12 Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces i ) ' \ encourage mixed use and a sense of community among neighbors. A form-based code addresses the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. It is the only zoning approach that allows us, as a community, to decide what our community will look like. Clearly, in order to stop the sprawl that is overrunning our open space, the Town's 2012 proposed Comprehensive Plan needs to change dramatically from the previous Plan of 1993. What follows are some specific ways in which the land use component of the proposed Comprehensive Plan should change. Growth Boundaries The largest single element in the 1993 Plan that allowed sprawl to develop was its failure to focus on small areas of the Town for targeted development. While the Town cannot eliminate all ways in which a property can be used for economic gain (without having to compensate the owner for a "takings"), it does have significant power to influence what will be done with that property. The current draft of the Comprehensive Plan, unfortunately, does little to restrict development in any area of the Town. The Plan does include some suggested actions that its authors assume to be disincentives for development. For example, it recommends increasing the minimum lot size in agricultural areas to one lot per 15 acres. I \ James Howard Kunstler points out the fallacy of this thinking in his book. The Geography of f \ Nowhere: ^ As sprawl spilled over the countryside, alarmed town officials passed laws designed to mitigate it, which had the unforeseen consequence of making it worse. One common mistake was to increase the minimum lot size in the mistaken belief that spreading houses farther apart would preserve the open character of the landscape. In fact, it had the opposite effect: it ruined the rural landscape in larger chunks. A two- to five-acre minimum lot requirement meant houses were being plopped down in the middle of every cow pasture. The scraps of land left behind weren't used for anything. They were, "to big to mow, and to small to plow,' in the words of Robert Yaro, Randall Arendt's former boss, now an officer with the regional Plan Association in New York City, (page 264) This change does not really protect open spaces from encroaching development; large lots are still able to have 15-acre homesteads carved out of them. There is not a single acre in the Town where this proposed Plan says that no new building should be built. Even in the areas designated as "Natural/Open" (the most restrictive land use category in the proposed Plan), building, albeit as "sparse residential development on a case-by-case basis, is still permitted. While every acre of open space in the Town is potentially a building site, the draft Plan recommends little, if any, rezoning to a category that limits development. Areas categorized as t \ "rural residential" in 1993 with very few homes/buildings on them are still largely designated as a f ^ "Semi-Rural Neighborhood". This designation not only allows for more sprawl development in i these areas, but implicitly approves the sprawl development that has already been built. Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces H ' ' Committee discussions made it clear that the proposed Future Land Use Map was created based f ^ more on where current buildings are, and where developers have shown interest in building more ^ of them, rather than on developing a master plan of how the Town should be laid out and where development ought to be. The Committee quickly dismissed any suggestions of expanding the open space designation into areas that the 1993 Plan categorized as developed or semi-developed. Sites with one or two houses on large acreages are still designated as "Semi-Rural Neighborhood', although one would have trouble visualizing these stand-alone houses as a "neighborhood" when viewed from the road. The Committee, however, did focus on whether more open space should be converted to housing. Remarkably, the committee could not agree to keep open space such as the Country Club. Even though there are no plans to close the club, and no developer has proposed any building there, many committee members wanted to have the proposed Plan carve out a large section for potential development of housing. Large areas of open space, such as the Country Club, located in the middle of an urbanized area, are treasured by the surrounding residents (think of Central Park in NYC). They are not only rare, but impossibly expensive to create after an area has been heavily urbanized. The pressure is one-way: open space is always redesignated as new building lots, never the other way around. Planning like this will, eventually, eliminate all open space. The proposed Comprehensive Plan should make it clear that the Town wants this acreage to remain open space, forever. f \ I ^ The primary strategy of the draft Plan is to create dense areas and avoid sprawl with density ^ "incentives". These incentives encourage developers to create projects that are denser than the surrounding area. It is a mistake to think that if we make new development denser than the old development, it will not be sprawl. This is simply wrong; sprawl comes in many densities. To avoid sprawl development, we need a working definition of sprawl. Sprawl includes these elements: 1. Developments consisting primarily of one- and two-story buildings. 2. Developments consisting primarily of single-use buildings. 3. Developments that are primarily dependent on automobiles to move the public to them and throughout them. It is important to remember that sprawl is not about how a single parcel is developed; it is about how an area is developed. For example, the motel on the corner of West King and Danby Roads is multistory, but is located in an area of the Town that is primarily strip development. Thus, it suffers from one of the largest problems of sprawl: it is still a single use project, requiring staff and visitors to commute in and out of the place one or more times each day. The surrounding area is /^\ so sparsely populated that it is impossible to maintain regular mass transit, so the motel is only > accessible via individual automobile, unless one of the 3 buses each day between 9:30 AM and 6 f PM fits your schedule. In order to have an urban development instead of sprawl, there needs to be sufficient density to allow for a significant portion of its population to pursue their daily activities (e.g., live, work. 14 Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces I \ \ play) on foot. This kind of development simply cannot be done with a few hundred people. For example, a diverse retail community needs a sufficiently large population base to allow for enough customers to keep it in business. It takes an even larger population base to support the kinds of commercial activities that create the kinds ofjobs that can support a family. Further, communities are more than a collection of houses and businesses; they need civic space. The Project for Public Spaces describes the value of well-designed civic space: Civic spaces are an extension of the community. When they work well, they serve as a stage for our public lives. If they function in their true civic role, they can be the settings where celebrations are held, where social and economic exchanges take place, where friends run into each other, and where cultures mix. They are the "front porches" of our public institutions - post offices, courthouses, federal office buildings - where we can interact with each other and with government. When cities and neighborhoods have thriving civic spaces, residents have a strong sense of community; conversely, when such spaces are lacking, people may feel less connected to each other. Great civic spaces are really great public places. They are recognized and valued in their cities and towns as places with their own special flavor that relate to and nurture the larger community and bring the public together. Developers typically do not add civic space to their projects unless compelled to by local requirements; building civic space does not add to their bottom line. Public spaces (town halls, i \ courthouses, schools, libraries, theaters, and squares, etc.) are built by the public because they /' i benefit the public. In a speech to the American Institute of Architects in Orlando (August, 1998) > James Howard Kunstler explained the importance previous generations placed on quality civic space: And this is what happened in America of the 1890s, Our cultural leaders agreed that we had to create cities and towns worthy of a great nation. This project was carried forward in the spirit of a great patriotic movement. It started with a show: the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, at which the great architects and civic designers of that day— Daniel Bumham, Charles McKim, Stanford White, and many others— demonstrated how wonderful public places could be created by using the vocabulary of neoclassical architecture and the grammar of French formal civic design— how to arrange the beautiful buildings to define space in a way that is humanly rewarding. Before long, the movement became a competitive craze across the nation. Towns and cities tried to outdo one another in fabulous buildings and public places. Every town had to have its new neoclassical courthouse, and perhaps even a civic square to go with it. Every town built a magnificent new library. The great college campuses were laid out. Every new bank, post office, and firehouse was endowed with a richly expressive, dignified facade. It was an exuberant, confident era. Many of our most beloved public places and public buildings owe their existence to the city beautiful movement: the San Francisco Civic Center, the < ^ campus of UC at Berkeley, the great museums of the Washington DC Mall, the Coply f ^ Square library in Boston, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The list is very 1 long and it includes innumerable less famous town halls, courthouses, schools, theaters, and squares. Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces ]5 ' ^ Civic space is so important that it is given premium placement in communities. The public buildings f ^ are located where street vistas terminate, at the head of a public square or prominently in r neighborhood centers. Prominent placement states that these buildings are important landmarks as well as reinforcing their symbolic importance. Other than parks and trails, the proposed Comprehensive Plan makes no provision for civic space. Parks and trails are important, and it is good that the proposed Plan clearly values these elements of our community. But the omission of even the discussion of any other kind of civic space is striking. Places for people to gather and interact with each other bind a community together. They give communities a focal point. The Town is severely lacking in such spaces, and this is reflected in the fact that most residents have trouble telling the difference between the Town and the City. One of the reasons Town residents think they are part of the City is because the City has real civic spaces. The kind of change that our community needs—a change from a community with a large amount of sprawl development to one which has sustainable land-use and real neighborhoods—is far more than a few incentives in the right direction. Incentives, at best, will produce gradual change. The proposed Comprehensive Plan's first recommendation under "Land Use and Development" is to "Avoid Sprawl by focusing and promoting development..." Avoiding sprawl requires direct measures that are explicit about what kind of development is acceptable in the Town, as well as what kind is not. As we saw with the 1993 Plan, it will take more than gradual changes to rid the f » Town of sprawl and arrest the current trends. ; > /The Town of Ithaca should designate a small number of areas for development, and gather all the tools at its disposal to stop development in all other areas. In addition, the Town should remove all the incentives that are in place that make sprawl possible. For example, the Town must assert that it is not going to extend the water and sewer districts beyond its current network, and, in some areas, will not allow new hookups, even if the property is adjacent to a water/sewer line. The creation of new roads, as well as enlarging roads to accommodate more traffic, simply encourages sprawl, yet is commonplace in our communities. The Town should be clear that in areas that are not designated for urbanization, new roads are not going to be built, and existing roads are not going to be expanded for more automobile traffic. Agricultural land becomes more viable by removing the competition of development, as well as by reducing taxes (land is valued at unaffordable tax rates for agricultural uses if serviced by water and sewer). Furthermore, the Town must note that some buildings built in the past were a mistake and should be reverted back to open space. This includes both encouraging razing of buildings in poor condition, as well as moving other buildings to more appropriate locations. Many will see this recommendation as severe and unrealistic. If we acknowledge that some of the buildings built in the Town should never have been built—and by rejecting sprawl we are implicitly saying this— why continue the mistake by encouraging them to remain in place? Mistakes should be corrected. If it was a mistake to build them, it is a mistake to keep them in place if we have other options. > I \ Road Diets V Town residents commenting to the Comprehensive Plan Committee spoke often about the challenges they face finding transportation using anything other than private automobiles. At the 16 Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces ^ Northeast Area Meeting, on June 14,2010, residents told Committee members: ^ ^ ' ^ The new plan for Hanshaw Road rebuild will remove trees that help with traffic calming; ^ the plan for the road appears to be overbuilt; the County has not paid attention to the residents. At the East Ithaca Neighborhood Meeting, on June 16, 2010, the following comments were made: • Snyder Hill - traffic too high, traffic calming needed. • Poor shoulders on Pine Tree Road - no place to bike - potholes are also an issue on Pine Tree Road - would be willing to give a little front yard for bikes. • Traffic / speed on Pine Tree Road - lots of trucks. At the South Hill Neighborhood Meeting, on June 10,2010, residents made the following suggestions: • Lack of sidewalks leads to people walking along the shoulder, this is particularly scary during rush hour traffic. Need to create a safer environment for walkers, so people can safely walk from where they live to Ithaca College. Make it safer for cars and students. • Sidewalks needed to King Road and beyond too. • Efforts to address the need for sidewalks require many parties to collaborate. > ^ • Need bike shoulders. Shoulders are soft and narrow on S. Hill roads, except for f 96B. ^ • Roads enhancement, while needed, must be built to a reasonable size - they should not be built too wide as that will only increase traffic speed and impact the safety of pedestrians. • There is no disagreement that Coddington Rd. needs improvements; but it should be reasonable for the character of the area (i.e. 10 ft. lanes, 3-4 ft. shoulders). At the West Hill Area meeting, June 17,2010, residents gave committee members the following feedback: • West Haven Rd. residents tried to get the speed limit reduced on their street and were refused. Living sustainably means more walking and biking, but can't do that here because of the speeding, frustrated that there wasn't a lot of action taken to deal with speeding and traffic impacts on neighborhood. • Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road) is really scary without sidewalks. There has been increased traffic, increased development, and increased speeding. Though Town residents are clearly worried about traffic, they are asking for the existing roads to become more narrow, not wider. The classic approach to making roads more bicycle/pedestrian friendly is to widen the road to accommodate bike lanes and sidewalks, and is exactly what the t ^ Town and County have been doing. This is a mistake. Instead of taking up more land for ( i transportation, we need to allocate the space we have already dedicated to transportation , » differently. Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces 17 ( ; 1 In 1994 the British government's Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment I ^ (SACTRA) issued a report that concluded that building roads actually generates traffic (referred to as "induced traffic"). London Transport and the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) jointly asked the natural follow-up question: "Does reducing the size of roads eliminate traffic?" They looked at locations around the world, including the United States, where roads had been narrowed or car use had been eliminated altogether. The reason for the changes ranged from construction projects to creating bus and bike lanes. The general prediction was that these road narrowing projects would result in major traffic problems. The actual results showed a reduction in traffic. Traffic problems were short term as drivers learned of the new traffic conditions. On average, 14- 25% of the traffic simply disappeared. When the road was removed, the induced traffic went with it. When road removal was combined with an increased emphasis on alternatives to automobile use, such as bike lanes and buses, traffic reduction was substantially higher. The report investigated the change in traffic patterns resulting from the collapse of Manhattan's West Side Highway. This limited-access highway running the length of the island along its western shore was a major conduit for cars. Carrying 110,000 vehicles a day, it was seen as essential to managing Manhattan's traffic. Lack of maintenance caused large portions of the highway to c \ collapse in 1973. The remaining sections were still able to carry 50,000 cars a day. It was j \ assumed that Manhattan's streets absorbed the remaining traffic. Yet, after the highway's ' collapse, Manhattan saw an 8% total reduction in traffic (or 50,000 cars per day). The report summarizes why this reduction happens: In explaining what was happening to the traffic, the following model of behavioral response emerged. Initially, when road space for cars is reduced, drivers simply change their driving styles in ways which pack more vehicles in, for example, by driving closer together. As conditions deteriorate, they then take the next easiest options - swapping to neighboring streets, or changing their time of travel, leaving a bit earlier or later to avoid the worst of the traffic. As such adjustments also become problematic, a whole variety of responses is triggered, ranging from people altering how they travel, or where they carry out activities, through to people moving house or moving job, where the change in travelling conditions "tips the balance" in a decision that was being made for other reasons anyway. Taken together, this third set of responses accounts for the measurable "disappearance" of a proportion of traffic from the networks studied. The project also highlighted the amount of variability which underlies apparently stable traffic flows, and which enables people to change their travel habits. Specifically, individuals make adjustments to their travel behavior on a fairly regular basis anyway, either because of minor factors (like the occasional decision to work from home, or to carry out one activity on the way to another), or because of more important decisions (like changes in car ownership or job location or home location), or because of longer- term, life-cycle events (like changes in household composition). Hence, when road space is reduced, some people are forced to alter a repeated, habitual pattern of 18 Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces ^ behavior, but other people are spontaneously reconsidering their travel options / ^ anyway, and can take account of changes in the network conditions as part of this { \ process. It is this flexibility which enables surprisingly large changes in traffic flows to result from a particular change to road conditions. Opening up the streets to traffic other than automobiles has been shown to reduce traffic problems, and make for a community that is more livable. This should be highlighted in the proposed Comprehensive Plan as an action item for the Town. Additionally, wide streets encourage faster traffic. Drivers generally drive at the speed that feels safe to them, regardless of the posted speed limits. Hence, we have speeding problems on Pine Tree Road and West Haven Road. Widening the roads will only make this problem worse. No amount of enforcement will change this to the point that the roads are safe for pedestrians and bicycles. Residents want space for bikes and pedestrians on our roadways. In the 2009 Town of Ithaca survey results, it was the number one way the community wanted its tax money directed. Similarly, as we have seen with the community opposition on Coddington Road, residents do not want roads to be larger, with fast moving traffic. Unfortunately, nowhere in the proposed Comprehensive Plan is there any suggestion of reducing the size of any of the Town's roads. This is a striking omission given that the studies point to road diets as the solution to the traffic problems our community is facing; essentially it is what our residents have been asking our Town and County officials to implement.I > r Real Density The term "density" is used differently in the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan than how it is used in most settings. For example the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan states: The Neighborhood Center character district is intended to be the setting for a dense mixed use neighborhoods (sic) based on the rural-to-urban transect and traditional neighborhood design principals, (page 54) The density proposed for this "dense mixed use neighborhood" (this is the highest density of any designation in the proposed Plan) is an average of 4-18 housing units per acre (which includes opens space requirements of 10%-20% of the acreage). Developers would be allowed to build slightly more dense developments if they included low income housing. The proposed Plan is suggesting this range for the developed property. So for a "dense mixed use neighborhood" the proposed Plan suggests a "neighborhood" of a block or two with the density of 18 housing units per acre with the surrounding blocks having a much lower density. The overall density in these proposed neighborhoods will be 8-12 housing units per acre. And this density is only for the three red areas of "high density" shown on the Proposed Land Use Map. The much larger orange areas, labeled "Established Neighborhood" and "New Neighborhood", have proposed overall densities of 2-6 housing units per acre. This sounds good, until you consider what this kind of density looks like on the ground. Julie Campoli and Alex MacLean authored a book called. Visualizing Density which documents what \ ' \ f A ' 1 / ^ Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces 19 n Some sample illustraiions from Julie Campoli and Alex MacLean's book. Visualizing Density, illustrating various density levels and what they look like in the real world. various densities look like in the real world. It is quite clear from their photo documentary that mixed use communities form after the overall density of an area reaches 15 housing units per acre. We can see that in our own community: the Belle Sherman area in the City of Ithaca has a density of 5-6 housing units per acre; Fall Creek has a density of 8-10 housing units per acre. The members of the Town Comprehensive Plan Committee held various opinions about what size population it takes to maintain a retail base in a community. Below is a chart from the DIA's retail market study done by Urban Marketing Collaborative in 2005. While the study is somewhat dated, it is pertinent to look closely at per capita expenditures by category, which have not substantially changed. These are total expenditures for all purchases. Average Household Expenditure r^ f ' f ^ Downtown 1.5 Mile Radius 3.0 Mile Radius Tompkins County Retail Merchandise Apparel $ 1,538 $ 1,876 $2,481 $2,1 15 Furniture and Appliances $ 1,305 $ 1,632 $ 2,295 $2,054 Recreation $ 720 S 880 $ 1,197 $ 1,036 Convenience Goods Food from Stores $ 3,466 $4,1 17 $ 5,205 $4,582 Alcohol from Stores $ 202 $ 250 $ 339 $ 281 Tobacco $ 291 $ 329 $ 385 $ 355 Health and Personal Care $ 1,025 $ 1,218 $ 1,584 $ 1,376 20 Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces Eating and Drinking Food from Restaurants $ 2,029 S 2,479 $3,317 $ 2,827 Alcohol $ 166 $ 203 $ 274 $ 227 Personal Services Personal Care $ 334 $ 401 $ 526 $ 451 Laundry and Cleaning $ 114 $ 146 $ 210 $ 172 Other Shelter $ 6,945 S 8,437 $11,251 $9,559 Transportation $6,917 $ 8,455 $11,342 $ 9,820 , \ ' \ I ^ < \ s Source: Claritas, U.S. Census So, for apparel, the average household in Tompkins County expends $2,115 from all sources. If an apparel store opened in a neighborhood, it could expect to do no better than capturing 100% of all apparel expenditures from people in the capture area (obviously this would never happen). But, assuming this unrealistic scenario, a store that grossed $300,000 (a typical small store) would need 150 households spending 100% of their apparel dollars at the business. More likely, the households might spend 10% of their apparel budgets at a local, mom and pop store in a neighborhood (maybe even less). But at 10%, you would need 1,000 households to support one $300,000 store. Until your neighborhood reaches a population near that 1,000 mark, any apparel store would fail. Realistically, it would be nearly impossible to get a potential retailer interested until you could demonstrate that you clearly have the demographics necessary to support the store (i.e., you need to exceed these numbers, not just meet them). Clearly, businesses such as restaurants and grocery stores are out of the question for development of less than 1500 people. These are, unfortunately, the very kinds of businesses that members of the committee envisioned being the first to open in these new developments. The size of these neighborhoods are all much smaller than what would be needed to support the retail that we would all like to see in the new neighborhoods the Plan is proposing. What does tend to move into development areas similar to the kind the Town is promoting? Primarily, these are the kinds of commercial enterprises that are used infrequently, but take up a lot of space. Examples include furniture and mattress sales, veterinary services, equipment rental, plumbing supplies, bridal boutiques, snowmobile or pool sales, antique stores, medical offices, gun shops, and small nurseries. These commercial buildings can be used by retail, wholesale or service industries, and even manufacturing. The key is that they need a LOT of space (big stuff, big trucks, or both) and not a lot of walk-by or drive-by traffic. For retail or service industries, that means that use is occasional (veterinary or medical, or furniture or antiques); these "destination businesses" tend to draw customers from a wider circle, including the urban core. For wholesale or manufacturing, proximity to a highway matters, but location outside the urban area is often preferred (easier for trucking, more space for material storage, etc.). This is a far cry from the cafe and corner grocery store envisioned by the authors of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. A look at how a comparable business district has fared will show that even the above assumption of a small retail district capturing 10% is overly optimistic. Community Corners is a good example ' > of a small neighborhood retail center. The Village of Cayuga Heights has a population of 3529 ( | people (2010 census data), with an additional population next to it in the Northeast corner of the > Town. It comprises 2944 acres, thus it has a population that is much higher than the 1500 cited above. I Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces 21 Despite this large population. Community Corners has been struggling as a retail center. / ^ Storefronts are being taken over by office rentals, a sure sign of a retail district in trouble. The Village is searching for ways to make the district more pedestrian friendly, a task made difficult because the buildings are surrounded by parking and the retail area is bisected by Hanshaw Road. A major obstacle for Community Corners is the Shops at Ithaca Mall, a major retail center for the area, located a little more than a mile away. Even with the density of 11 housing units per acre in the 1/2 mile surrounding the retail district, enough people choose to drive to the mall, rather than travel via foot or car to Community Corners, to keep this shopping area from maintaining a healthy retail district. This aspect is important, since every neighborhood in the Town is a short drive to a large retail area in the city or a neighboring village. So every mixed-used district will have to be strong enough to convince people to shop in the local food store rather than the larger one a few minutes of driving away. In order for the Town to have neighborhoods that maintain a retail sector and allow for a true mixed use, it will have to maintain both sufficient population and density . The areas designated as "New Neighborhood" peak at this density, but all the areas on the proposed Future Land Use Map under this category are far smaller than Cayuga Heights, so unless they are built far denser than prescribed, or take up a much larger space than designated, they will never have the population numbers necessary to support retail establishments, regardless of the illustrative photographs in the proposed Plan showing otherwise. The area designated "Neighborhood f Center" calls for more than this density. Of the two areas on the proposed Future Land Use Map / > with this designation, the area on East Hill is proposed to have far too small a population to possibly attract retail. The other, even if you included the orange area next to it designated "New Neighborhood", is proposed to have a maximum build-out of 1113 housing units - not enough to support a restaurant, even if we allow for incentives for low income housing. Incentives to Develop Large Land Holdings The proposed Comprehensive Plan cedes planning decisions from our elected officials to large landowners. The way "Smart Growth" would work under this proposed Plan is that people with a large piece of undeveloped land can opt into the incentive program, and build more than the zoning would normally allow, but would have to follow the new Smart Code. Small land owners would not be able to take advantage of this program for various reasons, mostly because they do not have enough land to be able to create the necessary elements that would be required. The proposed Comprehensive Plan is eerily silent on how to increase density in the already developed areas of town; there are no incentives targeting smaller properties. In other words, the Town is proposing to create an incentive system to encourage the erection of buildings on the very open space that the population has indicated it wanted to keep open. One cannot preserve open space by devising a system that provides incentives to build large ^ developments on large, undeveloped, parcels. While it is true that this could supply the leverage to , ^ change a large subdivision into a denser neighborhood, it also will encourage property owners who may not have wanted to build on their property to do so. 22 Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces An examination of the incentive program also raises the question of why the Smart Code, which is a preferable system, is not being mandated town-wide. In essence, the Plan is telling the development community that it can build sprawl if it wants to. If the developers want to eliminate large blocks of open space, the Plan provides an incentive program that allows them to make more money doing so. The other persistent question is: Why does the proposed Plan emphasize developing open space into housing rather than adding density to the already built areas of the Town? The proposed Comprehensive Plan makes little to no effort to find ways to add density to existing neighborhoods - a glaring oversight. Transect-Based Layout The Town's proposed transect-based code is sometimes described as the planning strategy for individual projects and sometimes it is described as the overall planning strategy for the Town. It fails to work for the former, and is clearly not the latter. Let's look at them separately. s The proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends that new development be done following a modification of a transect- based design code. Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), developed by Andres Duany. While the proposed Plan allows for new development to follow more conventional zoning rules, the developer can choose more dense development guidelines, referred to as TND. In this TND framework, the developer would design a neighborhood of varying density depending on which part of the "Future Land Use Map" the property happens to be in: "Established Neighborhood", "New Neighborhood" or "Neighborhood Center". Neighbor There are many problems with the proposed Comprehensive Plan's approach to implementing — hoods that are built by one developer generally have a small number of house plans made, which are then repeated over and over again, as can be seen in the photo at the top. Individuality is virtually non-existent. The developer, in this case, did not even paint the doors dijferent colors. On the bottom is a photo of a neighborhood in which each house has its own personality. Diversity of homes is an attribute we need to be encouraging in our planning decisions. \ f ¨ I Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces 23 ^ TND. First, the proposed Plan relies on developers/large land holders to centrally design and , ^ build entire communities. It is ironic to call this "Traditional" Neighborhood Development, since traditionally, neighborhoods were created organically, with their design the result of thousands of people—not one central planner—making individual decisions. This version of "Traditional Neighborhood Development" forces the development of the community to fit the shapes of the large land parcels, not necessarily what the terrain and community needs would dictate. Under this system, decisions are made on what makes the most money for the large landholder, not what will be most valuable to the community. Therefore, it is likely that the developer will never decide to put the most dense, and most profitable, portion of the project on a smaller neighboring property (not owned by that developer), even if this makes the most sense from the standpoint of the community. Neighborhoods designed by a single firm look like they were designed by a sole person, hardly a desirable attribute. When designing Seaside, Florida, architectural partners Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk of Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ) established a rule that any single architectural firm could design no more than 12 buildings in the community. They felt that, in order to make the community a desirable place to live, the buildings needed to have diversity in look and design. This did not create a chaotic look, design rules were firmly in place to give the buildings a unity in mass, scale, placement and character. Christopher Alexander, et al. emphasize the need for multiple designers in their book. The / Production of Houses: ' People sometimes wonder of the principal of individual house design makes sense in a world where dwellings are changing hands so often, in a world where people move all the time. If one family designs a house, and another family moves into it, later, three years later... is this house, designed by one family, and then occupied by another, still compatible with the principle? Does it make sense for the second family? Would it not make more sense to have standardized houses, since long-term occupancy is so unpredictable? The principle of individual house design does make sense even under these conditions. If we examine the real estate market, we find that houses which command the highest prices are the ones which are unique, which have charm, which have character, which stand alone. These houses, many of them built years ago, have the charm (and value) which they have, precisely because they were designed by some particular group of people. The fact that some entirely different family is now moving in does not alter the fact that these houses are more human because they are based on a human reality - and that it is this which makes them valuable. Another way of looking at the same thing is this: if we imagine the variety of houses available to be extremely great, corresponding to the range of variety that exists in actual f ^ families, then we see that a family which buys an existing house has a far greater choice. It / can choose from among a huge variety of houses, which differ in psychological qualities and peculiar character—and the situation where all this variety exists on the market gives people the opportunity to find a house which corresponds to their idiosyncrasies and special needs, much more than anything they can choose from now among the small range of limited, standardized houses, (page 205-208, emphasis in original) 24 Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces i€ P Km r'- An illustration of Andres Duany's rural-to-urban transects. The progression is from farm/natural area to the inner city. The Town of Ithaca does not have sufficenl populaiton to support mulitple "urban cores." The second problem is the absence of any actual planning, or proposals for future planning, in this document. The proposed Plan has a scale of each of these developments being a lO-minute walk across, that is, from "Urban Core" to the "Natural Zone" with a gradation of density along the way. Since no "Urban Cores" are delineated, nor even suggested, in the proposed Plan, it is difficult to discern where they would be located. Some regions of the Town may be peppered with them, as various large landholders propose new developments, while other portions of the Town may have none at all. There are many important aspects of planning that Andres Duany describes in his book. The Smart Growth Manual, that have been largely overlooked in the proposed Plan. It is worth looking at a few excerpts from this book to inform our understanding of what should have been included. V 1.6 Growth Priorities Direct investment to smart growth priority areas Smart Growth directs both public infrastructure funding and private development where they will have the greatest economic, environmental, and social benefit. This approach requires a clear prioritization of growth alternatives, from smartest to "dumbest," as follows: 1. Urban revitalization 2. Urban infill 3. Urban extension 4. Suburban retrofit 5. Suburban extension r\ n Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces 25 ^ 6. New neighborhoods on existing infrastructure ^ 7. New neighborhoods requiring new infrastructure 8. New neighborhoods in environmentally sensitive areas Once this hierarchy is established as policy and designated on a regional map, governments can attract development to the high-priority area through a range of incentives. Maryland Governor Parris Glendening described his state's program this way: "We told communities that they're still free to sprawl - we're just not going to subsidize them anymore." Under the proposed Comprehensive Plan, the vast majority of new development will fall under categories 5-7. For example, both areas designated as "Neighborhood Center" would qualify as a 5 or 6. Whereas the largest area in orange ("New Neighborhood") on the proposed Future Land Use Map, labeled "West Hill Neighborhood" would largely qualify as a 7, one place away from "dumbest". Duany further prescribes: 2.4 Map Development Priorities Identify and rank the areas best suited for growth As described in Point 1.6, there is a range of growth locations from smartest to dumbest. This hierarchy should appear as prioritized development sectors on the regional plan map. These can be described as follows: ( I N • Intended Growth Sectors: High-priority areas of urban infill, brown-field sites, and ^ transit stops • Controlled Growth Sectors: Moderate-priority areas of urban extension and suburban infill • Restricted Growth Sectors: Low-priority areas of suburban extension and new development on existing infrastructure • No-Growth Sectors: Area of development requiring new infrastructure or in environmentally sensitive locations Once these sectors have been mapped, governments at every level can use incentives and coordinate policies to prioritize development (see points 2.8-2.10). No such prioritization is done in the proposed Comprehensive Plan, nor is it suggested that such a task be done at a later date by anyone else. The proposed Plan implies, therefore, that development priorities will be made by the organization of developers queuing up at the Planning Department's door. Duany did not envision transects to consist of multiple little nodes peppered over a region. His vision, as described in his book, is: The rural-to-urban transect extends the classification system to include a sequence of human habitats of increasing density and complexity, from the rural hinterland to the urban core. 26 Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces If the Town were following Duany's prescription, we would see on the proposed Future Land Use > 1 Map a steady gradient of density from the dense Neighborhood Centers (red) to the Established/ / ^ New Neighborhoods (various oranges), to the Semi-Rural Neighborhoods (yellow) and finally to ^ the Agricultural/Conservation areas (various greens). Of course, topography and previous development will preclude this from being perfectly geometrical, but we still should be able to see the general pattern. And it should go without saying that the red areas should be largely near the City. No such progressive pattern is even remotely visible on the proposed Map. The "New Neighborhood" (red) on East Hill is essentially surrounded by green. Most of the orange areas have no yellow areas adjacent to them whatsoever, let alone being largely surrounded by yellow. The green areas of West Hill are peppered with what could best be described as small and medium-sized yellow dots. The proposed Land Use Map is much more a depiction of the current status, and what developers are likely to build, than a thought-out vision of what the Comprehensive Plan Committee would like the Town to be in the future. This was especially evident when a Comprehensive Plan Committee member suggested that the yellow area near the intersection of Poole Road and Sheffield Road be changed from yellow to green to indicate that we would not be interested in seeing further development there. The area consists primarily of woodlands, surrounded by agriculture. This area is adjacent to a "Conservation Area", and was most likely not part of this conservation area because of the extent of previous development. The change from yellow to , s, green would not tear down any existing housing. The change would simply indicate what kinds of ( i changes we would like to see—or not like to see—in the future. The conversation at the meeting \ focused on the fact that there are already houses there; the focus was on what is, not on how we would want to plan for it to be. Rate of Growth The Town of Ithaca experienced a total of 669 new housing units built during the years 2000- 2010. Of these, 270 were single- and two-family homes. That is an average of 67 units, per year, for the entire Town. Keep this in mind when looking at the construction rate that the proposed Comprehensive Plans suggests will cut back on sprawl and preserve open space. On West Hill the proposed Comprehensive Plan follows the 1993 Plan by recommending that a "New Neighborhood" be built on the open space between Westhaven Road and the City of Ithaca line. Two other "New Neighborhoods" are also proposed, one to the north of this one, and one to the south. Given the density that the proposed Comprehensive Plan calls for in these areas, 4-6 units per acre, we can conclude that the Plan calls for an implementation of incentives that its authors believe will lead to the building of an additional 2283 to 3424 units of housing on these approximately 570 acres of open space on West Hill. o On South Hill, the proposed Comprehensive Plan suggests a new "Neighborhood Center" at the i \ intersection of West King and Danby Roads. This is in addition to the "New Neighborhood" f ^ proposed to the east of this "Neighborhood Center". In the 60-acre triangle bounded by Coddington Road, Troy Road and East King Road, the proposed Comprehensive Plan calls for a creation of a "New Neighborhood". The proposed Plan is suggesting that at just these locations. Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces 27 / an additional 1280-1922 new housing units be built on approximately 281 acres of open space. This is in addition to what would be built at the Emerson location and elsewhere on South Hill. The proposed Comprehensive Plan suggests two new neighborhood centers on East Hill, both along Ellis Hollow Road. The easterly one is based on Cornell's Master Plan, which calls for 77 to 342 housing units to be built. The westerly one is also based on Cornell's Master Plan, and calls for 241 to 482 housing units. The Town of Ithaca's proposed Comprehensive Plan suggests that even more housing be built on a slightly different acreage of open space totaling somewhere between 1230 and 1800 housing units. That is another 1230-1800 housing units just for the "Neighborhood Centers" on East Hill. The proposed Comprehensive Plan is characterized as a document that "guides long-range physical development for the Town of Ithaca over the next 10-15 years". So, ifjustthe large developments are built as the proposed Plan recommends, we are looking at 3881-7201 new housing units being built over the next 10-15 years... an astounding 5-10-fold increase from what we have seen in the past. And that figure does not include the one- and two-family houses that inevitably will be built outside of the "Established Neighborhoods", "New Neighborhoods" or "Neighborhood Centers." One- and two-family houses comprised 40% of the housing units built between 2000-2012, suggesting that significant development will continue to happen outside of the proposed Plan's zones targeted for higher density development. ( There is a striking paradox in this kind of planning. If we succeed in the density of construction N that the proposed Comprehensive Plan calls for, and employ the Plan's recommended incentives, then we will dramatically increase the size of the built environment and population of the Town. Thus, the character of the community will significantly change. If only a fraction of this new development is built, and is spread out among the various development areas, the new construction will just be a continuation of the sprawl we all want to stop. In the final analysis, the only way to stop sprawl is to severely limit the areas in which growth is allowed in the Town. The Town must limit development to an area(s) just large enough to meet new demand and, at the same time, maintain the targeted density. There must be an analysis of the various areas of the Town, allowing development only in those places that make the most amount of sense, a step Duany specifically recommends. What follows is a brief look at three sections of the Town, and the beginning of a critique/ comparison between the type of development recommended in the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the kind of development that should have been recommended. West Hill The Town Comprehensive Plan Committee spent considerable time discussing the building of two t y new mixed-use areas to "infill" some of the developed area on West Hill. This is clearly at odds r s, with what the resident survey, conducted in January 2009, showed: preservation of open space was vitally, and consistently, important to residents of the Town. This concern was amplified at a meeting the Comprehensive Plan Committee had with West Hill residents. When asked, "What do 28 Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces Proposed Development of Open Space on West Hill 'N 307.9 acres open space New Neighborhoods are proposed at an average gross density of 4-6 unils.'acre allowir>g for cooslruction of 1232-1847 units in this area Biindy Rd £acres o-pen space New Neighborhoods are proposed at an average gross density of 4-6 units/acre allowing for con$1ruction of &57-12&6 units in this area 1 i Bostwick R 4B.5 acres open space New Neighborhoods are proposed at an average gross density of 4-6 units/acre allowing for conslruction of 194-291 units in this area. MuncuuH 1 Miles ] Cayuga Lake Open Space Future Land Use Agncultural Conservalion Senm-Rural Neighborhood Established Ne^hborhood New Ne^hborhaod Enterprise institubonal Neighborhood Center Inlet Valey Corridor Area of Speoal Concern (1 Map prepared by Karen Edeistein Data sources: NYS GIS Clearinghouse, Town of Ithaca Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces 29 ^ you NOT like about the area where you live?" at a neighborhood meeting on June 17, 2010 at the y ^ Linderman Creek Community Building, they responded: • There has been increased traffic, increased development, and increased speeding. • Large development proposals are being proposed here that are unlike the other proposals in other parts of the Town. • Open space and farmland being replaced by development is a concern - West Hill has the best farmland and open areas but development pressure is mounting and we could lose the best farmland in the Town to development if we don't preserve it. • Farms are important to all of the residents of West Hill (not just farmers) and once they are built upon, they are lost forever. • At what point is there a line crossed where too much development is happening? Do you keep building and building or can you say enough is enough? Clearly the community is interested in limiting development on West Hill, not dramatically increasing it. The proposed Comprehensive Plan, unfortunately, will encourage turning large tracts of open space on West Hill into more suburban sprawl. * The proposed Comprehensive Plan describes the status of various streets using a scale called j ^ Vehicle over Capacity (V/C) (see: proposed Comprehensive Plan, page B-97). As the proposed Plan explains, "A V/C of 1.00 indicates that the volume of traffic on a road is at its design capacity, a lower number indicates that traffic is below design capacity..." According to the proposed Plan's charts, all the roads in the Town are functioning quite well, with traffic well below design capacity. This assessment does not correlate with most people's experience. Traffic engineers use another measurement, called Level Of Service (LOS), to determine the effectiveness of elements of transportation infrastructure. They grade the elements like teachers do in schools, using the letters A through F, with A being the best and F being the worst. In other words, A-D represent traffic conditions that most people will find acceptable; F and E are grades that most people will not. If we turn to a traffic study that staff distributed to the Comprehensive Intersection Buffalo at Futton Buffalo at Futton Buffalo at Taughannock (NY 89) Buffalo at Taugliannock (NY 89) Mecklenburg (NY 79) at Hopkins Mecklenburg (NY 79) at Canrtpbell Seneca at Fulton State at Fulton Trurransburg (NY 96) at CMC Traffic direction and turn Fulton southbound left Buffalo westbound through/left Taughannock southbound left Buffalo westbound through/right/left Hopkins eastbound right/left Campbell right/left Fulton southbound through State westbound through Trumansburg southbound through/left 2012 Buildout LOS LOS C B C B C C B E C F F F A table from the fVest Hill Traffic Report showing the changes in traffic conditions if a heavy West Hill build-out is implemeted. Note the numerous intersections that change from "good" to "failing." 30 Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces Plan Committee, using LOS data from 2008-10, we see that the Route 79/Fulton Street ' ^ intersection receives a failing grade of "E", despite the fact that it has a V/C of 0.42. { In 2012 the Town issued the fVest Hill Traffic Report, which examines the traffic pattern on Route 96 from Trumansburg to Ithaca. That report, which was not distributed to the Comprehensive Plan Committee, looks at what will happen to traffic on Route 96 if a build-out of West Hill, similar to the one that the proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends, is implemented. The table on page 29, which comes directly from the West Hill Traffic Report, summarizes resulting traffic conditions. Note that all the intersections described, except one, start at passable levels of service and all end up failing. It is pretty clear that a full-build out will not work with commuters using individual automobiles. Yet staff still encouraged the Committee to include a large build-out for West Hill. Staff presented the Town Comprehensive Plan Committee with a full build-out scenario for the "New Neighborhood" bordering the City, complete with commercial districts containing multiple shops and offices, areas of dense housing, as well as an urban grid of roads and set-asides for parklands. It's clear that not all of this development will happen at once. To that end, a Committee member asked how the town would deal with the interim period, while there is a steady increase of people living on West Hill, but not a sufficient number to support the office and retail necessary to create a mixed-use community. During that interim period, we will see an increase of traffic ( ' "i between West Hill and Ithaca, where people will still need to work and shop, but simultaneously, ' ^ we' 11 see none of the traffic reduction benefits of a mixed-use neighborhood. Whether the staff's f \ best case scenario will ever be built is a different question; the question here is whether we can get ^ from the current development to the proposed one, or will traffic problems limit growth to the point that the dream of mixed-use neighborhoods (complete with retail) cannot be achieved? This question is important; if we cannot deal with the traffic during a long transition, the dream that staff presented will not ever get built. Developers will not build housing in places that are inaccessible. Earlier traffic data presented to the Comprehensive Plan Committee showed that Route 79 coming out of the Town and leading into the City of Ithaca is currently failing to move traffic at an acceptable level of service. The West Hill Traffic Report shows that if the proposed Comprehensive Plan's build-out happens, many more intersections will fall to an unacceptable level of service as well. Given the dramatic intersection failure rate predicted by the West Hill Traffic Report, it is reasonable to assume that some intersections will degrade to this level well before a full build-out is completed. One committee member speculated that most of the people moving to this new development would already be commuters, and thus already be part of the traffic flow, so the increase in traffic would be insubstantial. This was the sole suggestion as to how to deal with this transition period, so let's examine the implications of this solution, ignoring that it contradicts the West Hill Traffic Report's predictions, and assuming that she is correct on her first point. This committee member's argument rests on the assumption that the daily commute to work is the only drive that a family undertakes. f ^ This is an incorrect assumption; these hypothetical commuters will generate considerable new ( ^ traffic through the intersections where Routes 79 and 96 cross the Inlet. i Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces 31 ^ For example, let's say that a family that currently lives near Trumansburg moves into one of these / ^ proposed new developments on West Hill. Previously, when they needed to go shopping, wanted to go out for dinner, visit a bar, etc., the traffic remained in Trumansburg. In their hypothetical new location on West Hill, however, all this traffic would have to be routed though our already overburdened streets; what is currently one trip per day for the former Trumansburg resident becomes many. Furthermore, because the proposed Plan suggests building an additional 2283- 3424 units of housing, we need to consider all the support traffic associated with these additional homes. These would include expanded school bus routes, a new school bus for every 60 children, US Mail/UPS/ FedEx/etc. deliveries, service vehicles for NYSEG, lawn care, home repairs, etc. In addition, one must consider how much traffic the construction itself will generate. Clearly, traffic levels would change on West Hill. It is not a question of //banks, developers and potential home buyers will decide that traffic between West Hill and the City is completely unmanageable and refuse to invest in the area; it is only a question of when. The point of summarizing this exchange is that this scenario is the only way that anyone, staff or Committee members, could suggest that it is possible for the proposal for West Hill development to be built at the density they are projecting. Everyone agreed that the projected additional 2283- 3424 units of housing could not be built at once. Additionally, everyone agreed that until the area neared the recommended density it would not experience any advantages of a mixed-use neighborhood (e.g., reduction of automobile traffic). And finally, nobody could come up with a plausible way to actually implement the proposal. ! I \ If it is this difficult to envision a scenario where we get from Point A (current situation) to Point B ' (proposed build-out suggested by Town staffers), why is the Committee including this in the Comprehensive Plan? If there is not going to be enough development to achieve the mixed-use district that both Committee and staff predict, are we going to trade open space for nothing more than increased traffic on Route 96 and Route 79? West Hill has the largest expanses of high-quality farm land anywhere in the Town. Food is just as important as housing, so it makes sense to use arable land for food rather than housing. Given that the main employment center for the Town is on East Hill and we are already experiencing a transportation problem moving people from one hill to the other, the proposed Comprehensive Plan should instead suggest all possible ways to minimize development on West Hill. South Hill At a neighborhood meeting hosted by the Comprehensive Plan Committee at Ithaca College on June 10,2010, South Hill residents were asked to consider a possible Node/Compact neighborhood in the King Road/Danby Road area; they were quite clear in their uneasiness about the idea: Don't want "Collegetown" on South Hill - a pitfall to caution against. • Commercial feel should not take over the area. • Too easy to end up with just another strip development - put small shopping need bounds on the node - say a 10-year plan). / > 32 Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces Proposed Development of Open Space on South Hill Errxjtson Ccntw ITKACA COLLEGE 39 4 acres open space Ndighborhood Centers are proposed at an average gross density of 8-12 units/acre, allos^ing for conslruction of 315-473 units in this area 106 6 acres open space New Neighbortioods are proposed at an average gross density of4-S unii3,''ac^e, allowing for conslruction of 426-640 units in this area % 134. B acres open space New Neigtiborhoods are proposed at an average gross density of 4-6 units,'acre, allowing for construction of 539-809 units in this area open Space Future Land Use AgricuRural Corrservation 0.5 Miles I Semi-Rural Neighborhood EstaPliftt^ert Netglthorhood New Ne«ghborhood Enterprise Inrslitubonal Neighbortvood Center Inlet Vaiey Comdor Area of Special Concern r\ r\ f \ n Map prepared by Karen Edelstein Data sources; NYS GIS Clearinghouse, Town of Ithaca Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces ^ r ' Despite these reservations, the proposed Comprehensive Plan suggests making W/E King Road ^ and Danby Road a major development area. Town staff is suggesting that it be targeted for the development of between 741 and 1113 new housing units. Students would be the targeted population for this recommended housing. This is problematic for a number of reasons: 1. The major employer on South Hill is Ithaca College. The question we have to ask ourselves is: In which direction - towards the City or East King Road - do we want to have the surrounding development happen? The College, with its 6400 students, is not large enough to create anything more than sprawl if that development is in multiple directions. There is a large, undeveloped parcel between the College and the City, the Emerson Center site. This is a brown-field site, with known TCE contamination on the City portion of the site. It makes much more sense to focus development on this parcel, building density towards the City. By trying to develop both "growth areas" at once, the Town spreads out the development money/energy over a larger area, and sends the message that it is not too concerned where development happens. 2. The growth potential for the proposed "Neighborhood Center" on South Hill is severely limited. Staff proposed a dense growth scenario that yielded nearly 1200 units. This was a total build-out, since the area is surrounded by parks and unique natural areas. Thus the site is not large enough to allow for a population that will support a mixed use community. Further, if we actually approach a full build-out, which is unlikely, we will likely create pressure to develop some of our important unique natural areas. t \ 3. The site is split by a State highway. Given State control of this road, and the adjacent right-of- ' ways, it is going to be exceedingly difficult to make this stretch of road a walkable community and to connect the two "communities" on the two sides of the road. The fact that the road along here is already largely developed as auto-dependent strip businesses, suggests that this kind of development will continue, making the area which might develop as "dense- mixed use" development even smaller. 4. Residents of South Hill have, in the past, objected to further development of this intersection and there is no reason to believe that their opposition has diminished. The 100+ acres of the Emerson property, which is located in both the City of Ithaca and the Town, is a development project that both the City and the Town are committed to developing in a joint planning project. When residents at the June 10,2010 neighborhood meeting were asked about development at the Emerson site, they were unambiguously in favor of it. • Clean it up, it could solve everyone's problem if developed; residential density, trails, energy improvement district, affordable housing — but needs to be clean to residential standards. South Hill Business Campus is an example of what is possible; taking a brown-field building, identifying the commercial potential and making it very attractive. With ^ S.H. Business Campus someone took the risk. Emerson has done very little to clean , up the site - the potential to develop is there if someone would clean it up; need to find someone to sink money into the project. • Green building codes in Seattle give priority for "green" building proposals; move to \ 34 Land Use; Preserving Open Spaces front of list in building permit reviews - fast track - Emerson site could benefit from ' this. • The ultimate "palazzo" - great place for views - should be living units. • Love to see mixed uses - houses and clean jobs. • Should be preserved and if can be devoted to housing; mixing uses, it is a huge property with many potential uses. Development on the Town's South Hill should be focused on the Emerson site. It is adjacent to a residential neighborhood and will serve the growing Ithaca College community. It is a place where people can walk to Ithaca College for both classes and employment while also being able to walk to Downtown Ithaca for shopping and entertainment needs. If we look to see where it falls on Duany's "Growth Priorities," it is a #1, "smartest". In order to develop this property, the Town and the City should form a joint planning commission. This commission should design the area, specifically laying out all the streets, sidewalks, civic spaces and other infrastructure. This is a perfect place to design a car-free neighborhood. These designs should be modeled after Joel Crawford's Car-Free design. He started with the question of "are car-free cities possible?" After several trips to Venice, the answer was that they were not only possible but highly desirable. He has spent years researching the elements necessary to create vibrant urban areas. His work can be seen at: http://www.carfree.com/ Such a development would be tremendously popular. As Crawford explains in his book, Carfree , \ Cities: ( \ \ Carfree cities can offer rich human experience, great beauty and true peace. They greatly reduce the damage we are doing to the biosphere. They permit the construction of beautiful districts in the manner of European city centers, with parks but a short distance away. Carfree cities are a practical alternative, available now. The can be built using existing technology at a price we can afford. They are the real future for our children, (page 33) After the public space has been designed by public entities, the private spaces can be designed by various private entities. Just as it is important that the public design the public space, we want a variety of designs for the numerous uses of the private spaces. The draft Comprehensive Plan presents two proposals for South Hill: one is Emerson Center, an urban revitalization site; the other is replacing the open space to the south of Ithaca College with a new neighborhood center. The proposed plan presents them as equally acceptable areas to expand the developed part of the Town. The only location for which the proposed Plan recommends development, and where development would in fact be appropriate, is Emerson Center. The area south of Ithaca College, which the proposed Plan labels as the "South Hill Center," is currently being developed in a classic suburban sprawl style, and the plan suggests nothing that will change this course of direction. Instead of encouraging more sprawl in this area, the proposed Plan should be recommending the Emerson Center development and should be / discouraging any other development as much as possible. ^ ^ Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces 35 ' East Hill The proposed Comprehensive Plan's suggestion of two "New Neighborhoods" on East Hill is undoubtedly in response to Cornell's Master Plan, which calls for redeveloping the East Hill Plaza area into an urban village along with another development nearby. Cornell even made a presentation to the Committee, with slides showing a community with a public square, a street lined with shops and cafes with tables filled with people sipping coffee. The question is: how likely is a full build-out to match with the image presented? Given Cornell's own figures, the total number of new residential units would range from 77 to 342. This is not a new village; it is a couple of large apartment complexes. A new population of this size is not going to support the current retail in the area, let alone a significant number of new shops of the kinds pictured in Cornell's presentation. In order to maintain and/or add retail, both customers and workers will need to be imported to this "urban village". This will be done either with a fleet of buses or a sea of parking. In either case, it is hard to see how this will not add more traffic to Pine Tree Road and other streets in the area, roads that the residents already complain have too much congestion. Why is this site being targeted for development? It is located in an area that is largely agricultural in use. It is far enough removed from campus to make pedestrian access problematic. The proposed Comprehensive Plan says that Neighborhood Centers are "based on the rural-to-urban ' transect", yet this one has no lower density neighborhoods, nor room for them to act as a buffer , ^ between the "urban" area and the farmland. That the majority of the adjacent parcels to this ' proposed "node" were categorized as "conservation" in earlier iterations of the draft "Future Land Use" map (as shown in the illustration on page 36). This designation was changed to "Institutional" in later editions of the map. This revision did not reflect a specific change in plans; instead it shifted responsibility for planning decisions from the Town to the University. If a full build-out becomes a reality, there will be development pressure on the natural area next to campus as well as on the farm land on the other side of the proposed "node". If the Town intends to keep this area undeveloped, it should state so directly in their Comprehensive Plan. The residents of East Hill were very specific in their public comments regarding Cornell's follow- through on its promises to the community. The Committee's notes from the East Ithaca Neighborhood Meeting, on June 16,2010, state the following concern from the group: East Hill Plaza was not implemented the way it was originally presented - remembers the original plans with lots of trees — new plans should have some accountability. In general, the residents expressed numerous concerns about the project. Comments included: Worried about Cornell agricultural land - where is the boundary for development - /^N how strong is the boundary I ) • Questionswhy Cornell University would want to develop for housing, and not save / ^ it for Cornell University educational use • High density requires strong boundaries How do we (Cornell University) make sure students don't take over the planned workforce housing 36 Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces Proposed Development of Open Space on East Hill s "Maplevsi^od," from Cornell's Master Plan, Cornell calls for an additional 241-482 housmg unus to be boilt in tnis zone The red area lhai largely overlaps Ihis zone is where the Town of Ithaca's proposed Comp Plan suggests a iota density of 285-427 housing units East Hill Village,' from Comcirs Master Plan. Cornell calls for an additional 77-342 housing units to be built in this zone The red area that largely overlaps Ihis zone is where the Town of Ithaca's proposed Comp Plan suggests a total density of 946-1373 housing units 1.000 2,000 Feel f ^ f s ComeH's Zone 16 ComBll's Zone 17 Future Larxl Use 'itiWMa Agricultural Conseniatjon Semi-Rural Melghborhood Established Ncaghborhocx) New Ntnghtwihood Enleiphse lr\s!itut>onal Neighborhood Center Inlet Valbsy Corridor Area of Special Corvi^ern r\ ' ^ n Map prepared by Karen Edelstein Data sources: NYS GIS Clearinghouse, Town of Ithaca Land Use: Preserving Open Spaces ^ I ^ ( Would like to see concrete numbers - e.g., what amount of green space for Village plan - very firm numbers before plans get to far along • Compact / clusters ideas are good, but unsure of how they can be implemented here Will 5-story building hurt the feel of planned open space - tall building next to green area may not feel right • Support Village dream - Cornell University employee housing is very good, but would like to see trees, safe places to walk / bike, trash pickup, Cornell University students should not bring cars So while Cornell showed us drawings of a beautiful urban setting, our residents' warnings, along with the data presented in Cornell's master plan, give us reason to believe that their final product will not look like that. The committee largely incorporated Cornell's plans for East Hill into the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan without any specifically stated reservations. Full Build-Out? Residents should also be concerned about the totality of what is being proposed. The Town currently has 7500 housing units and a 7% vacancy rate. (The city has a 0.5% vacancy rate, which strongly suggests that the demand for new housing is in the City, not the Town.) The Town experienced a growth rate of 2.4% per year for the last 10 years. The proposal before us recommends an additional 3881-7201 new housing units being built over the next 10-15 years in just the areas of targeted density. The plan calls for even more development in the rest of the Town. Do we really want to add 3881 -7201 new housing units, or more, in a Town that currently has a total of 7500? How will all those new housing units change our community character? What kind of impact will that have on our infrastructure? Most importantly, what is the chance that we will see full build-out on any of these projects in the next 20 years? If we only experience partial build-out, how is that going to be different from the sprawl we would like to prevent? For example, staff gave the Comprehensive Plan Committee a presentation of an urban area at the intersection of Danby Road and King Road. But what if the Planning Board approved the plan, but all that gets built is the row along Danby Road? This is really important because it is very likely we will not see full build-out on most, if not all, of these proposed actions. This is true of virtually every spot where the Committee recommended added development. Discussions all focused on full build-out scenarios, with no thought to what partial build-out would be like. Given the facts at hand, this is a tragic mistake. What is clear from the above criticisms is that if the proposed Comprehensive Plan is adopted without significant changes, the Town will see the same kind of sprawl that it has over the last decades. In order for the Town to curtail sprawl, it will have to severely limit where development happens as well as doing real planning instead of simply commenting on plans developers present. ' \ I \ Sustainability n I ^ ^ \ y Our planet's resources can no longer support the lifestyle currently enjoyed by its more than seven billion human residents. We cannot have a sustainable society that relies on the extraction of finite resources from the planet. During the 10-15 year period that the 2012 Town of Ithaca proposed Comprehensive Plan is designed to cover, the issue of sustainability is likely to become an overriding problem for the Town. The worldwide supply of fossil fuels is finite and their use has negative environmental consequences. The disposal of unwanted byproducts of our consumption of the planet's resources has also become a major problem. It is vital that the Town, along with the greater society, recognize these limits, and move towards a truly sustainable society. This means recognizing that we are part of the natural world around us; our fate is inextricably linked to the fate of the natural world. Clean water and plentiful fertile soil are necessary to feed the growing population but can no longer be taken for granted. Therefore, it is necessary to restructure our community so as to eliminate the use of resources that are not fully renewable and ensure that all waste products from our society are benign. The Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan requires major revisions regarding its treatment of sustainability. While the Plan briefly examines how the Town's operations can become more efficient, it does not look at how they can be reworked to dramatically reduce the Town's use, both governmental and private, of scarce resources. Additionally, the Plan completely ignores how the Town's actions can encourage/require Ithaca's population to do the same. The kind of changes our society needs to make are far more drastic than using energy-efficient light-bulbs, upgrading our Town's water pumps, making sure our buildings are well insulated and buying more fuel- efficient cars, etc. Those steps do need to be taken; they are, however, much more on the level of f 1 ( ^ Sustainability ^ r ^ cost savings than a move towards true sustainability. A substantial shift towards sustainability will / ^ require significant lifestyle changes for much of our population. How the Town regulates and shapes development within its borders is where it can make the most difference on sustainability issues. After decades of building an infrastructure that relies on an unsustainable support network, it is going to take significant effort to build a sustainable infrastructure for our community. The underlying assumption in the proposed Comprehensive Plan is, unfortunately, that growth patterns and lifestyles are going to remain largely unchanged. The proposed plan assumes that housing will spread throughout the Town, especially on West Hill where agricultural land and other categories of open space are located. This is the very sprawl that the plan claims it wants to prevent. The proposed Comprehensive Plan also assumes a constant supply of fossil fuels to power an auto-dependant society and raw materials to maintain this construction boom; there is no good reason to make this assumption either. At the Comprehensive Plan Committee meetings, there was minimal discussion concerning whether it is appropriate for the Town to grow its residential base and, if so, where in the Town that growth should happen, let alone the question: "Can the recommended growth happen?" The Town must begin by asking what kind of layout is needed for the most sustainable lifestyle possible. If this question is seriously considered, it is unlikely that the answer will include dramatically increased rates of development of new housing in the Town, and that it should be primarily on West Hill. ^ ^ A serious discussion of development should not focus just on the Town; the impact of these ' decisions is much broader and can only be made with input from all affected communities. This should start with something like the proposed Future Land Use Map, not just for the Town; such planning should be done, at the very least, on a county-wide scale. Additionally, the map would not be drawn based on where staff and the public officials think people will want to build more housing. Instead, the group would look at the map as kind of a clean slate, and ask where development should happen, largely ignoring where it has been and where it is likely to be if nothing changes. Here are some examples of questions to be asked in the process: • Where is their sufficient infrastructure in place to maintain projected populations? • Are residential populations located within walking distances of work, shopping and recreational facilities so as to minimize transportation issues? • Are developed areas located near other populated areas, so as to allow for efficient transit links between communities? • Are urban populations located close to farm communities so as to facilitate trade between the two with the most efficient transport? Once this optimal planning map is produced, it can be adjusted based on prior development: some areas are currently so densely developed that it is highly unlikely that they will be redeveloped as some kind of open space within the next generation. Once the areas of further development have ^ \ been identified, specific street layouts can be developed for those areas. In the distant past, f Towns and cities adopted official street maps, and mandated where people built new streets and thus mandated where the buildings would be located. These maps have the force of law and give the community much more control over designing its future. The Town's current policy of letting developers determine road and building designs is short-sighted: the municipality saves the 40 Sustainability expense of planning our community but is saddled with using and maintaining the developers' ' roads long after the developers have cashed their checks and left the projects behind. ^ Design decisions are made based on costs to the developers, not on ease of public use or the costs of maintenance. Good planning is having the public lay out where and how future development should be permitted. This kind of planning is sometimes avoided because it will require planners to tell some large land owners that they will have to develop their property in ways that are most beneficial to the public at large, not just how it is most profitable to the developer. If the Comprehensive Planning Committee had really done its job of planning for the Town's future, we would have made very different recommendations. For example, the proposed Comprehensive Plan targets West Hill for extensive expansion of its residential populations. Given that the County's major employers are on South and East Hill, it seems odd to want to pave over large acreages of the hill that is most suitable for farming with new housing. If you put housing miles away from major employers, you create a transportation problem - hardly a sustainable move. Choosing to build our infrastructure to minimize the need for transporting individuals and goods will strengthen our community and make our Town and region a more pleasant place to live and more sustainable as well. When the community takes back planning decisions that it has, over time, ceded to the development community, there will be some resistance. The developers are used to the way things are and change includes the possibility that the future will not be as profitable as the past. It is clear, however, that we cannot continue to allow our community to sprawl out over every open piece of property within our borders. The f ^ community has a right to determine how it wants to develope, a right that trumps any desires of a ^ l small circle of developers. As we saw in the public comment about the various proposed areas for development, the public was positive about good development, and disliked problematic development. One of the major lifestyle changes our community must accomplish is to find a way to drastically reduce the need for individual automobiles. This is not an optional change; the consequences of peak oil will make the ubiquitous use of the automobile impossible. Dense, mixed-use developments, "Smart Growth" practices, and commitment to pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation are a first step. We have allowed our community to spread out thinly over our region, and additionally allowed necessary elements of our daily routine to be placed far from where we live. This has created a transportation problem. The only way ultimately to eliminate the transportation problem is to transform our community to one where we live, work, shop and play within walking distance of each other. During the transition, as our community redevelops to lessen the need for motorized transportation, public transportation is going to need to play a much more prominent role in our society than it currently does. Mass transit is an obvious substitution for the individual automobile. Currently, however, every time a major new development is built in the Town, the only way for TCAT to service that community is for service to degrade somewhere else in the system. The fact that the TCAT system cannot cover the expenses for its busiest route (# 10 Downtown — Collegetown) via fares without t ^ subsidies demonstrates how hopeless it is to think that it will be able to cost-effectively maintain f rural or semi-rural routes without massive subsides. Public transportation routes should be looked I at much like our water/sewer line: they are not going to be extended or moved. If developers understand that new developments that are not on existing bus lines will not get bus service, they will stop proposing such developments. We will see far less of the orphaned developments Sustainability 41 f * because the developers are not willing to pay for mass transit service and are aware that nobody ^ ^ else will either. Ultimately, we are going to have to move away from the commuter lifestyle. It is a tremendous waste of resources to move people back and forth every day so that they do not have to live in the same community in which they work, shop and play. As resource depletion becomes more extreme we, as a society, will have to choose if commuting is the best way to use our precious, nonrenewable resources. Given that our food production is also energy intensive, as energy becomes scarcer, people will want to use that resource for growing food rather than commuting. Only a small percentage of the earth's surface can grow the plants we need, either to eat or make things with. We are coming to the limits of how much we can extract from the planet, yet our plans do not recognize this limit. We cannot continue to grow on a finite land base. Every time we choose to turn a farm into a housing development, we choose to reduce the amount of food we can grow. In the 19th century, Tompkins County was able to largely grow the food needed to feed its residents. It even exported staples, like cheese, to New York City. That has changed; we now import most of our food, often from thousands of miles away. Ironically, much of the food we grow is exported to other communities. As fossil fuel supplies diminish, it will become more and more unaffordable to ship the food we need from distant places to our local supermarkets. ' ^ Exploring how we can use our farm land to once again grow most of our food should be a priority , ^ for our community. I As farming has adapted to the requirements of the grocery wholesale market for vegetables, it is no longer able to meet the needs of local and regional consumers. While end-use customers desire a wide variety of produce to be available over a long season, the wholesale market wants just the opposite. Instead of meeting local needs, farmers everywhere are part of the nation's supply line, and their farm's output reflects that. The Ithaca area has one of the stronger local foods movements in upstate New York and a substantial number of diversified farms. We need to build on this base, looking not only for ways to build up our farm community, but to expand the farmer-to-consumer connection. While the Town has spend considerable time looking at its local agricultural community, it needs to look harder at how to connect this community more strongly to local consumers. Binghamton did just that, which resulted in the report Improving Access to Good Food in Northern and Central Binghamton: Assessing the Feasibility of Three Models For Building Farmer-to-Consumer Connection. This report, authored by Town of Ulysses resident Krys Cail, focuses on how to bring locally-grown food to the poorer sections of the City of Binghamton; many of its insights, however, could be applicable to the Ithaca area. The proposed Comprehensive Plan should recommend conducting a similar study for our community. f \ The Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan should encourage local sustainable farms to create ( ^ their own fuels, fertilizers, seed stock, etc. As petroleum supplies diminish, petroleum-powered machinery becomes more and more costly to operate. Our fertilizers and pesticides are largely petroleum derived. Modem farming practices will be increasingly difficult as fossil fuels become 42 Sustainability scarcer. We need to facilitate the conversion to more sustainable practices now, not when we ' n reach a crisis point. ^ Local production should not just be limited to growing food, but should also include food storage and processing. By bringing production of necessities like food back to our community, we build self-reliance. Locally-grown food requires less refrigeration and transportation and thus will reduce the environmental costs compared to our current system. In a society that is facing a massive resource shortage, this will have a significant impact on our overall energy use. This needs to be highlighted as a necessity for the long-term sustainability of our community. Likewise, we need to consider how more of our clothing can be produced locally. As energy scarcity becomes more pronounced, it is not going to be feasible to import the vast majority of our clothing from half-way around the planet. This is not to suggest that we can start developing cotton plantations in the Finger Lakes Region, we do not currently have the climate to grow cotton here; climatologists predict, however, that our children will live in a world where cotton can be grown here. A trip to the Ithaca's Farmer's Market will demonstrate that we already have people farming animal fiber locally. Though it only represents a tiny fraction of what we consume, this fraction can, and should, be increased. As rising fuel prices make it prohibitively expensive to ship clothing from China to Ithaca, we, as a community, will discover that it is far more desirable to have suburban sheep farms than to turn that farm land into housing. The proposed Comprehensive Plan should reflect this reality. I 1 Decisions need to be made, not based on the economics of today, but on our community's long- f i, term needs. Since Tompkins County, or even the Finger Lakes region, is far from being self- ^ sufficient in food and clothing production, we need to prioritize farming in our community. We need to plan our community for a time when cheap energy is gone, so we can take advantage of the last of the relatively cheap energy to rebuild our community's infrastructure. The longer we wait to rebuild our community, the higher energy prices will become and the less affordable they will become. Sustainability is not just about making the things we need, but it is also about the waste products we produce. We need to choose what we produce with clear attention to the waste products. All our waste products have to go somewhere: they need to be broken down and integrated into the cycles of nature. If we allow forms of production that result in highly toxic waste that is of no use, then we end up slowly poisoning ourselves. The proposed Comprehensive Plan makes little mention of waste production in the Town. The Town may have limited control over some or many of these issues, but the Town must look at pollution reduction in its long range planning, for example: • Particulates in storm water run-off • Pesticides and fertilizer in storm water run-off from farms and yards • Run-off from CAFOs • Air pollution from wood stoves, burning farm waste, burning residential yard waste, f etc. ^ ^ • Improperly functioning septic systems, especially in watersheds i • Air pollution from automobile use Sustainability 43 f * • Industrial pollution ^ • Yard waste No discussion about sustainability is complete without a detailed look at energy. Cheap energy is what made our suburban society possible; without it, the Town of Ithaca will look and act vastly different. As oil production declines, the fossil fuel industry is turning to natural gas and coal to fill the void. We in the Marcellus Shale region can clearly see what a turn to natural gas will mean: the technologies necessary to extract the gas below us will poison our underground water and industrialize the surface. These are reasons enough to turn away from fossil fuels. In a talk at the University of Colorado, Boulder on December 2, 2012, Bill McKibben described how a continuation of reliance on fossil fuels will endanger our species: You will recall the dismal climate summit in Copenhagen. 1 was saying to someone earlier today, if Hollywood had written the script, we would have all come together as a world and surmounted all obstacles and done the right thing. But Hollywood didn't write the script. Nobody came together and it was a complete fizzle. And at the end, the world's leaders were reduced to writing this two-page, somewhat pathetic little statement that came with no targets, no timetables, no penalties, no nothing. Only one number in the whole thing — 2 degrees. We promise we won't go above 2 degrees. Everybody signed it: the EU, Japan, Russia, countries that make their living selling oil, the United Arab Emirates, N the most conservative, reluctant, recalcitrant, China signed it. Even the United States 1 signed on to this thing. They said. That's it. That's the one thing we've agreed on, 2 \ degrees is too much. That is the only red line we've drawn. The second number, how much more carbon could we pour into the atmosphere and have a realistic hope of staying below 2 degrees, not a perfect hope but an 80% chance, let's say. The number that scientists have been giving us now for a few years — it's actually a couple years old so it's a little lower than this now, unfortunately — is about 565 gigatons, 565 billion tons. That sounds like a lot; it sounds like a high limit. It actually is a lot; 565 billion tons of anything is by definition a lot. But we pour 32 or so billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere which year, which means, since we're increasing at about 3% a year, it's about 15 years before we blow past that mark and guarantee going past that red line. Which is very bad news, of course. But it's not the worst number. The third number is the worst one. It's the reason that 1 wrote that piece originally, the reason that we decided to do this tour, and the reason that we're launching all these campaigns that come out of it, the important stuff that we'll get to tonight. The third number comes from a team not of scientists but of financial analysts in the U.K. They set out to find out how much carbon the world's fossil fuel companies and the countries that are essentially fossil fuel companies — think Kuwait or Venezuela — have in their reserves now, how much coal, oil, and gas they've got. That number, when you add it up, turns out ^ to be 2,795 gigatons, or five times as much as the most conservative governments on Earth ^ think would be safe to burn. It is without question that the era of cheap energy is over. It is equally clear that the world will not be able to be run on an oil economy for much longer. And, for the news nobody wants to hear, the physics of the planet also mean that we as a society can forget about finding another fuel to 44 Sustainability replace oil and continue our current lifestyle. Oil is magical: it takes almost no energy to extract it; ' it is easily transportable; and it is quickly transformed into heat and work. Nothing else on the ^ planet has these unbelievably useful properties. Dr. David MacKay, Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Department of Physics at the University of Cambridge, did the calculations of what it would take to replace oil in Britain with other energy sources. The calculations of alternative energy requirements in the paragraphs below, which were derived from the work of Dr. MacKay, should give Americans, especially those who think we can switch to renewables and thus continue our current lifestyle, pause. If we wanted to switch from petroleum to biofuels, how much land would it take to grow those biofuels? The answer is, approximately a 10-mile swath of land along the entire length of an average two-lane highway to power the cars on that highway. If you need to transport your biofuels to that highway, it would take even more land. Just try to imagine removing a 10-mile swath of land along every single highway just to power the cars on it. Those figures are Just for the cars traveling on the highway, the fuel needs for cars in the city would require additional acreage. This would be the area necessary for fuel production for automobiles, a fraction of our energy use. In order to consider what it would take to power our whole society with renewables, it's necessary to know that country's power consumption per unit area. On average, the world uses about 0.1 watt per square meter of land. The United States consumes power per land area at an average rate of about 0.3 watts per square meter of land. The fact that we use energy at three I ^ times the rate of the whole world should, alone, be a basis for self-reflection." f Since virtually all renewables are land-based (e.g., acres of bio-crops, acreage for wind farms, acreage of solar panels, etc.) it is possible to express their potential power output based on watts per square meter of land as well. Biofuels can produce, at peak production, roughly 0.5 watts per square meter. In other words, if the United States wanted to switch from petroleum (which supplies 90% of our energy) to biofuels, we would have to devote 3/5 of our total land base to growing energy. Most serious discussions about implementing large scale biofuel production s sustainable harvesting from forests as a source of biofuels. To get an idea of what this would look like in the real world, only 33% of the land in the United States is currently forested (745 million acres of 2.263 billion acres). So if we used 100% of all the National and State Parks, woodlots, tree farms and nature preserves to produce our energy, we would only produce about 1/2 of the energy needed at our current rate of consumption. That also assumes that we no longer need domestically grown wood for anything, and we are OK with harvesting trees from ecologically sensitive areas. An alternative to using wood for biofuel is growing crops for energy. This, of course, assumes that all that land is suitable farm land, which it is not. It also assumes that we have a sizable amount of surplus agricultural land; we may have some, but not 3/5 of the country. t ^ Neither approach leaves much land for other uses. In order for us to switch from oil to biofuels we \ would need to dramatically reduce our energy use. Since there is not enough forested land to i produce fuel for our energy needs, and most arable land is currently growing food, even if we ^ Sustainability 45 were to reduce our energy consumption by two thirds, bringing ourselves down to the current j ^ world average, we'd still be hard-pressed to grow enough biofuels to meet our energy needs. Properly placed wind farms produce 2.5 watts per square meter of land or sea on average. This means that we would only have to devote 20% of our entire land base to wind-farms to power our society. Coastal wind farms are very efficient, but there is not nearly enough coastline to cover our energy needs. It is doubtful that lining the coasts of the Untied States is going to be very popular with the residents, who tend to be the more wealthy and powerful members of our society. Again, even if we ignore the other problems of wind farms (they kill large numbers of birds and bats, they generate noise that is audible for quite a distance, etc.), that is still a huge amount of our land that would have to be switched to energy production. Remember, that is not only one out of every five acres, but it would need to be concentrated near the population centers, where energy use is most intense. Solar panels situated in solar parks in Vermont produce, on average, 4.2 watts per square meter of land area. Solar would require us to only cover about 12% of our entire land base with solar panels. Rooftop solar panels reduce this amount somewhat, but only about half of an average building's energy usage can be produced from the area of the roof available for solar panels. Additionally, not all buildings have the necessary sun exposure to make solar panels practical. Even if we could get 50% of the necessary solar panels on roofs, which is an unrealistically high estimate, we would still need to devote 6% of our land to solar energy farms. / ^ Since production of solar panels is a tremendously energy-intensive process, it is not entirely clear if it is possible to produce that many solar panels, should we even decide to cover that much of the country with them. Given that we are currently at peak energy production, we'd have to give up some substantial energy use just to bridge the transition. Again, even with drastic reductions in energy use, it is difficult to imagine the kind of dramatic land use changes necessary to convert to solar energy. If we can substantially reduce demand, we will reduce the need to fossil fuels with other energy sources. It is not possible to upgrade to more efficient versions of the things we have and make more than a small dent in our energy consumption. Insulating our buildings will result in a 25% reduction in heating and cooling costs. Heating our homes represents approximately 1/3 of our energy consumption. That is a relatively small reduction in only one part of our total energy use package. If we succeed in universal insulation, we only drop our overall energy usage by 8%. People would probably not notice the difference between covering 11% of the community with solar panels compared to 12%. Transportation significantly depletes our resources. As demonstrated above, if we rely on biofuels to power automobile use at the current rate, there would be scarcely room left over to do anything else. Here is the energy consumption of some typical transportation systems. ' \ f \ Gas powered cars use 80 kWh to move one person 1 GO kilometers Electric cars use 15-21 kWh to move one person 100 kilometers Trains use 6-8 kWh to move one person 100 kilometers Bicycles use 1 kWh to move one person 100 kilometers 46 Sustainability n The kinds of reductions we need to be making are only possible when we stop relying on the ' individual automobile. Transition to trains and bikes will mean that much of the commuter lifesty le ^ that Town residents currently enjoy will no longer be practical. Worldwide resource depletion will force us to use less energy; our choice is what kinds of energy use we eliminate from our lives. Given all of these issues, it is simply not possible to plug in renewables into our society and not radically change the way we live. Finally, it is worth looking at what other communities are doing on the subject of sustainability. Here are some proposed guiding principles of sustainability that Dave Goshom and Sean McGuire, members of Maryland's Department of Natural Resources, recently put together: 1. As natural systems decline, human systems decline. 2. Resources from beneath the Earth - oil, gas, coal - should not be extracted at a pace faster than the millions of years it takes to form them. 3. Resources on the Earth - forests, fertile soils, water, living resources - should not be diminished in quality or quantity. 4. The Earth's natural resources should be used to meet human needs in ways that are just and efficient. 5. Substances made by human hands - products - should not be produced at a pace faster than they can be broken down and integrated into the cycles of nature. 6. Humans owe a debt to nature and we should repay this debt by restoring the natural capital we have taken. { ) 7. A sustainable society is not possible without personal commitment. f Minimally, the Town of Ithaca should have some equally forward thinking language highlighted in its proposed Comprehensive Plan. I ) ( \ I \ > \ Economic and Social Justice ' ^ I \ I Without economic and social justice, no community can reach its full potential. Unless these goals are an integral part of the Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan, the Town is missing a key step on the path to a vibrant future. While the Town's proposed plan makes some inroads in this direction, it could go much further. Economic Justice Job creation is very important to the Town of Ithaca. The Town should be interested in business development and job creation that prioritizes the full economic participation of those members of our community who are economically marginalized or left out altogether by our economy. But our community needs jobs that pay enough for a person to support themselves and a family, one that allows for the accumulation of wealth in economically marginalized sectors of our population. Just because the larger society is accepting growing income inequality does not mean we have to accept that same inequality. While the Town is a Living Wage employer, and mentions living wages in its proposed Comprehensive Plan, the plan does not examine the marginalized sectors of our population. As long as this population remains invisible, it will continue to remain outside of the economy. Any economic development that does not focus on this sector does not contribute to building a society in which every member has an equal share. Every decision made by public officials moves money from one group of our citizens to another. With every vote, officials need to ask themselves how this vote affects the poorest members of our community. It is far too common for the wealthy members of our society to bend policies to their 4g Economic and Social Justice r^. own benefit. People working two jobs just to make ends meet rarely have time to follow ' complicated policy discussions. Public officials then vote to move money collected from ^ everybody to the rich members of our community. As resources get scarcer, we need to ensure ' that those who have historically been on the bottom get their share of what is left. The proposed Comprehensive Plan notes that the Town welcomes locally focused business; it avoids the conflict between supporting locally owned businesses and national/international corporations. Large corporations are primarily extractive in nature; the proposed Plan should directly state that they are not welcome in our community. It should favor locally owned businesses in all contracts that it makes for goods and services. It should be looking for ways to make the permitting process easier for local businesses and at the same time harder for large corporations. Whenever it has the option, the Town should prioritize local businesses that are owned and operated by traditionally economically marginalized members of our community. Local businesses have a multiplier effect that contributes to sustainability because profits from local businesses are more likely to be invested locally. For instance, a local entrepreneur who builds a store or factory will employ local construction workers and employees and put the profits in a local bank, where the profits may be invested in other local businesses. At the same time, employee wages are spent in the community, contributing to the financial stability and growth of other local businesses such as cleaners, restaurants, book sellers and all the while generating taxes for the Town. In contrast, enterprises such as big box stores have a smaller multiplier effect because profits generated locally are sent out of the community and invested globally. f ^ Diversity in the economy is vital for social and economic justice. The anti-trust laws have not been ( ^ serious enforced in our society for decades. Big-box, "category-killer" stores litter our society, destroying local stores and local economies. Many communities, however, are still courting these large stores as a "quick fix" to their financial woes, despite the track record of doing the opposite. Lansing recently gave tax abatements to BJ's Wholesale Club to build a store on Triphammer Road. The vast majority of new jobs came to people from outside of the community. The profits are shipped several times a day to Arkansas. And when this corporation chooses to close this store, we will be stuck with a large, ugly, useless building. The Town needs to state publicly that it is neither desirable nor sustainable to rely on a small number of large employers for our economic base; we have watched too many large corporations close down operations that were profitable, moving them overseas for a slightly larger margin, devastating the community left behind. The proposed Comprehensive Plan should state that our community's economic development plan is not oriented to attracting a few large employers. Our local economic future is strongest when it is backed up by a large base of small companies that are locally owned and operated. It is important that these businesses be owned by members of our community and employ members of our community. The Town should also strongly state its support for enterprises that are sustainable and are committed to being a part of our community for the long term. Extractive industries have a business model that provides a short-term influx of money, but increases local costs in the long- ( > term. This is because, in part, business models that are designed to last less than a generation f ^ leave our community with the problem of cleaning up the remains of their business when they close shop. This is in addition to the fact that they saddle the community with the costs associated with infrastructure improvements, upkeep and repair. ^ Economic and Social Justice 49 When talking about extractive industries, many people think of oil- and gas-drilling companies, but J ^ there are others we have to consider for the future. For example, a bottling company could locate here, and ship large quantities of our fresh water outside our watershed. As clean fresh water becomes ever scarcer, this kind of threat will become more real. We need to set up safeguards now, before companies start buying property and applying for permits. As the examples above demonstrate, the Plan needs to examine critically how the Town, with its decision-making powers, can insure that our community is constantly moving towards a more just society. Social Justice One aspect of social justice over which the Town has significant influence is the diversity of our community. It is important that our entire community be diverse, and that individual neighborhoods reflect that diversity. When housing is designed for only one class of resident (low income, senior, student, etc.), it isolates people and creates friction between groups who no longer interact with each other in their daily lives. We learned that "separate but equal" did not work when dealing with race; we need to recognize that it doesn't work when separating people by class either. The Town is, unfortunately, developing New Neighborhoods on a very segregated basis. Low- income housing is ghettoized into one location, while McMansions are built in yet another. Seniors * are being sorted in a similar pattern: wealthy retirees in one neighborhood, less affluent in another. I As we slice off sectors of our community to isolated units, we make diversity elsewhere less possible. Instead of placing the various populations in an area where they will see each other on the street, we separate them, making interaction between the two uncommon. When our community is segregated, poor people in one area, old people in another, rich in yet another, it becomes easier to treat these segments of our population differently. When the poor members of our society are in one neighborhood and the rich in another, then it is very easy, almost natural, to place the well-kept park next to the wealthy members of our society and allow the poor members of our society live with an industrial building as a neighbor. If our neighborhoods reflect the diversity of our population, it becomes, by design, much more difficult to treat different segments differently. Poor and rich alike enjoy the park and suffer the negative externalities of the industrial operation. There were frequent excuses given for segregated neighborhoods. One excuse often mentioned was that it was a good idea to place senior citizens next to the hospital (with the implicit assumption that the rest of us don't ever need emergency care). Building "retirement communities" between the hospital and the graveyard is a not-so-subtle way of warehousing old people until they die. The elderly thrive on interaction with young people, who are equally nourished by this relationship. When they live in the same neighborhood, they can regularly interact on the street; when separated, they have to plan visits to see each other and the potential for spontaneous ' ^ socializing is removed. Transportation becomes another issue to be resolved; and interactions f \ diminished by the result. Residential development should not result in ghettoizing any group of people. 50 Economic and Social Justice When these facts were pointed out to the Comprehensive Plan Committee, someone would ' quickly point to Kendal, as if this was a typical senior center, and explain how segregated ^ communities can be positive for the residents. What this argument misses is that: • Kendal is a retirement home for wealthy people. Their wealth brings all kinds of positive amenities that many working families do not have during their working lives, let alone in retirement. • Kendal could be vastly improved if it were a mixed-age community. If upper stories were build on the buildings that are there now, allowing for younger families to live above the retirees, both communities would have better lives. For that matter, more able-bodied retirees may prefer an upper story, and some younger family may need a ground floor because of some disability. Our aging population makes it more and more popular to attempt to move the elderly to peripheral locations. The reality is that the elderly are valuable members of our community. Instead of building warehouses for them to go off and die, we should be making our communities more responsive to their needs. For example, we should place more healthcare facilities throughout our communities. This would be beneficial for old and young alike. Instead of dealing with this issue directly, the proposed Comprehensive Plan ignores it all together. Diversity is an important component in our neighborhoods. The above examples demonstrate the need to maintain diversity in class and age; similar arguments could be made for diversity in race, culture, family size, etc. The proposed Comprehensive Plan simply states the current racial ' ^ demographics without so much as looking at how they are changing: f ^ ' ^ 2000 census 84.14% White, 2.93% Black or African American, 0.13% Native American, 9.18% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 1.38% from other races, and 2.19% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.36% of the population. 2010 census 79.9% White; 4.1 % Black or African American; 0.2 % Native American, 11.5% Asian/ Pacific Islander, 1.2% from other races, and 3.4% from two or more races. 4.4% Hispanic or Latino. If we do not look at the changing racial make-up of our community, how can we insure that we have a diverse make-up of neighborhoods? Municipal decisions are critical in determining if we are building a socially just society. The proposed Comprehensive Plan should, at a minimum, recommend specific steps that the Town can do in directing development that will maximize the diversity of every part of the Town that is experiencing development. It is important that we reverse the current trend of building segregated communities throughout the Town. f ) f 1 N f \ Intermunicipal Planning for the Next Century ' I ' ^ Tompkins County's municipalities have led the way in intermunicipal cooperation over issues such as water management, municipal health insurance, fire protection, public transportation, recreation, and youth services. If we are to plan for the long-term future of the southern part of Cayuga Lake, it makes sense to decide regionally where the major commercial, education, shopping, recreational, health care, agricultural, manufacturing and residential sectors will be located. The reality is that our municipalities are not in competition with each other; they survive, rather, in symbiotic relationships. We should build on these cooperative relationships in land-use decisions as well. Many of our neighborhoods, open spaces, and natural features cross municipal boundaries; forests alone cover 18.9 million acres of our 30 million total acres. Our transportation network only works by criss-crossing many municipal boundaries. If we can plan our roads together, we can plan the rest of our communities together as well. Our residential neighborhoods do not fit neatly within town borders; planning rules and goals should not change arbitrarily in the middle of a community. We need to make regional decisions as to where our population centers are, and, as a united front, discourage development anywhere else. We need to decide where retail centers are within the region rather than by municipality. Too often, multi-national corporations attempt to play towns against each other because we do our planning by town rather than by region. These large corporations try to start a bidding war, with neighboring communities offering larger and larger tax breaks to persuade the large corporation to locate in their community. It's the communities that loose these kinds of bidding wars. 52 Intermunicipal Planning for the Next Century New York State Law delegates planning decisions to the town and city levels, but does not forbid ' ^ a more coordinated process. The Town of Ithaca, which borders a vast majority of the other towns ^ \ in the County, is in a unique position to play a key role in making this inter-municipal planning possible. And yet, the proposed Comprehensive Plan is mostly silent on this subject. The need for a regional approach to planning requires more than including a couple of neighboring communities on your Comprehensive Plan Committee (only the City of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights were invited, and then only as non-voting members). It is also more than simply telling neighboring communities what you are planning to do at the border of the Town, and maybe soliciting some input. It requires giving up some of your rights to make all planning decisions in the Town in exchange for having some voice in what happens in the areas surrounding you. The fact that the Town completely surrounds the City of Ithaca puts the two municipalities in a unique relationship - the fates of the two are tied together. The Town of Ithaca has traditionally recognized the City of Ithaca as its commercial hub and looked to Downtown Ithaca as its downtown center. This relationship is most clearly demonstrated in the fact that the Town located its municipal offices in Downtown Ithaca. The proposed plan takes a dramatic departure from this historic stance: the proposed plan recommends numerous commercial centers located throughout the Town. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan consistently describes the Town in terms on its relationship to the ' ^ County. The City of Ithaca is also regularly mentioned as both a neighboring entity and an f ^ important partner. Most demographic statistics cited are for Tompkins County, with a narrative ** describing how they will affect the Town. The proposed Plan focuses on the Town, rarely mentioning the County or neighboring Towns. This isolationist view of the Town is a step backwards from the 1993 Comprehensive Plan. The Town of Ithaca does not exist by itself, and its long term planning document should reflect this fact. Cayuga Lake is the most visible and important geological feature in our community. It is becoming more clear each passing year that the most precious commodity soon will be - and in many places already is - clean, fresh water. Currently, the Town of Ithaca as well as most of Tompkins County has plenty of clean water, abundant and free, or available at very low cost. As other communities have discovered, this resource can quickly become rare and precious. The Cayuga Lake Watershed Network, a grassroots organization founded in 1998 to provide a central organization for the protection of Cayuga Lake watershed, eloquently describes the importance of Cayuga Lake in its May, 2012 "Position Statement on Hydraulic Fracturing": Cayuga Lake, 38 miles long and 435 feet deep, is at the center of New York State's majestic Finger Lakes, which drain to Lake Ontario. These local water bodies define our region, providing clean water that supports the life, economy, and lifestyles of our region. All of our residents depend on the lake, its creeks, and groundwater resources for clean f ^ drinking water, as do our vibrant agrarian livelihoods. f \ The Cayuga Lake Watershed Network is willing to lead the way in developing a sustainable and protective future for the water resources in the Cayuga Lake watershed and beyond. The Cayuga I / ' Intcrmunicipal Planning for the Next Century 53 f ^ f S Lake Watershed Network's Strategic Plan supports projects with communities, organizations, and businesses that maintain and improve the quality of Cayuga Lake, its tributary creeks, and the watershed as a whole. Their mission is "to identify key threats to Cayuga Lake and its watershed, and advocate for solutions that support a healthy environment and vibrant communities." The proposed Comprehensive Plan should recommend that the Town share these worthwhile goals and work with groups like the Cayuga Lake Watershed Network on these goals. The preservation of the lake, and the watershed that nourishes it, is vital for our community's long- term viability. Numerous municipalities border Cayuga Lake within the three counties with lake shoreline (Cayuga, Seneca and Tompkins) and four counties (Cortland, Ontario, Schuyler, and Tioga) contain even more town within the uplands of i the watershed, each Town individually with its own development plans and goals. All of Ithaca's waters and most of Tompkins County's waters drain to Cayuga Lake, and thence to Lake Ontario, making us part of the Great Lakes Basin. For more information on how our regional drainage system works, please see, Managing the Water Resources in the Oswego River Basin in Central New York The Northern portion of the Town of Ithaca includes part of Cayuga Lake. maps and diagrams illustrate clearly where our waters flow. We cannot make reasonable planning decisions without understanding what is both upstream of our community and also what is downstream. All seven Counties and their towns and cities need to look at the lake as a shared treasure and fi nd a way to make sure that all the communities bordering it are in agreement as to its use. There is nothing to insure that the Town is actively addressing the long-term health of Cayuga Lake; the lake is rarely mentioned in the proposed Comprehensive Plan at all. This is short-sighted and needs to be corrected. The south end of Cayuga Lake has been identified by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as an impaired water body due, in part, to high levels of phosphorus. As a steward of the south end of the lake, the Town should be very concerned about this status. A coordinated effort to rebuild Cayuga Lake's health is important and necessary. Some of the continuing threats to the lake's good health are: • Sediment from stream and road bank erosion • Phosphorus pollution from animal wastes, poorly maintained septic systems and sewage treatment ^ ~ . "-.Vi n • 1 -. •1*1—. ,S«" . f. n ' . J 54 Intermunicipal Planning for the Next Century • Heavy metal concentrations (chromium and lead) ' n • Coliform bacteria from sewage systems and wild and domestic animals { • Agricultural chemicals in the lake and tributaries • Invasive species (Eurasian watermilfoil, spiny water fleas, zebra mussels, and more recently, "hydrilla" or "water thyme") • Large scale commercial water withdrawal Another threat is that reduced precipitation, due to climate change, will permanently lower lake levels. It may be hard to imagine significant drops in the level of Cayuga Lake. The much larger neighboring Great Lakes, however, are experiencing just that. The January 2,2013 Buffalo News reported: As of Dec. 19, Lake Erie was at 570.3 feet above sea level, which is roughly 6'/2 inches below the lake's long-term average for December, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. The corps monitors lake levels.... Ontario, meanwhile, is about 10 inches below normal for this time of year; Superior is more than a foot below normal. "The worst is Michigan and Huron, which is about 2'/2 feet below the normal average," said Paul Yu, chief of water management for the Army Corps of Engineers in Buffalo t 1 This is not likely to change. The paper continued: ( ^ In the short term, a good six months of above-normal precipitation will be needed to return lake levels to normal, Yu said. And based on recent predictions by the Army Corps of Engineers, don't count on that happening. "It would take a massive amount of water," Horanburg said. The Union of Concerned Scientists' report Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions, indicates that, by 2090, the climate in New York State will resemble that of Georgia today (much of the modeling used in this report was carried out by Cornell researchers). It is our responsibility, as a headwaters area that drains to the Great Lakes, to do what we can now to help protect the water resources of our wider region as we undergo rapid climate change. Our watershed is in danger of losing water from sources other than climate change. The natural gas industry is proposing to drill thousands of gas wells in New York utilizing a process called, "horizontal, high-volume, slick water, hydraulic fracturing", or more commonly called 'Tracking." This industrial process, which is done several times in the life of a gas well, requires 5-8 million gallons of water for every "fracking" of every well. Much of this water remains underground, while that which returns to the surface is too toxic to return to the environment. That is a potential of a t \ tremendous amount of water to be removed from our watershed, never to be returned. ( ^ i The DEC has recently written "Water Withdrawal Rules," which will govern water withdrawals from our area starting this spring. These rules were developed (over the protests of many) to aid in ^^0^ Intermunicipal Planning for the Next Century 55 / \ / N water withdrawal permitting and export of Great Lakes Basin water for gas drilling and "fracking' activities. New York attorney Rachel Treichler, on her blog, NY Water Law, describes some of the shortcomings of these regulations: It is the areas of the state outside the Delaware and Susquehanna River Basins [such as Tompkins County] that will suffer most severely from the deficiencies of the new regulations. This is ironic because the principal reason given for the enactment of New York's new water withdrawal laws in 2011 was the need to adopt regulations to properly protect the Great Lakes Basin, which includes our state's greatest freshwater resources. Earlier this year, groups throughout the Great Lakes Basin called on the DEC to strengthen the proposed regulations, saying "there are changes to be made before the proposed program can be considered protective and rigorous or to fully implement the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (the Compact). Given the deficiencies in the draft regulations, we call on DEC to revise the proposals and issue a new draft for public comment once changes have been incorporated." It is not just the petroleum industry that threatens massive water withdrawals; we are also a prime target for bottling plants. As drought conditions worsen, people across this continent will be willing to pay more and more for bottled water. We need to put laws in place now, before outside ' ^ interests start pressuring us to export our water, and/or make destructive, polluting use of it. If we ' ^ wait until these corporations have bought up property and filed their appropriate applications, it ' will be too late to say no. In the event that the State is unwilling to protect our valuable water resources, we as the residing stewards need to do so. What is really needed is a Cayuga Lake compact; where the Towns and Counties that are a part of the Cayuga Lake watershed enter into binding agreements to protect the future health of the lake. In 2000, a "Restoration and Protection Plan" for Cayuga Lake was issued by the 10 (Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization), to be the basic planning document for that process. In the years since, other priorities and budget demands took over, and the vision of this plan has faded; however, the 10, Cayuga Lake Watershed Network, Town of Ithaca and others have discussed renewing this process in 2013. The original document is downloadable here: http://www.cayugawatershed.org It is vital that all municipalities are on board with such a program, and that such an agreement be in place as soon as possible. The Town of Ithaca ought to take a strong leadership role in creating such a compact, and the proposed Plan ought to reflect that commitment. I \ Another topic, which is only discussed in closed rooms, is the merging of the Town of Ithaca with f \ the City. Virtually everybody in elected office agrees, in private, that this is a good idea. There is a shared opinion among elected officials that they would get voted out of office if they talked about merging in a more open forum. This discussion needs to be brought out into the open. Given the topography, the economic interdependence, the numerous shared services, and the residents' 56 Intermunicipal Planning for the Next Century general lack of understanding of the boundary between the two, it makes sense to eliminate this ' ^ artificial boundary. The resulting savings for both communities would be substantial. ^ The largest outstanding issue is not burdening the Town taxpayers with the large debt the City has accumulated. Ignoring the fact that a significant amount of this debt is a result of people choosing to live over the line so they can enjoy the services provided by the City while not having to pay for them, it is easy to structure the merger so that the debt burden does not transfer to the town residents. The Comprehensive Plan should propose that the Town build a relationship with the Cayuga Nation. Though the power to make treaties rests with the Federal Government, the Town must recognize that we are living on land that once belonged to the Cayuga Nation. The proposed Comprehensive Plan only refers to the Cayuga as a historical people; it does not acknowledge that they are still alive and have an organized Nation. The Cayuga have a long and continuous history with this land and that relationship continues today. A solid, positive relationship between the Cayuga Nation and the Town would be beneficial to both peoples. In conclusion, the suggestion that the Town Comprehensive Plan not merely look at the Town as an isolated municipality, but adopt a much more regional approach, is not Just the idea of a minority block on the Comprehensive Plan Committee. It is also a suggestion that the New York Legislature felt so strongly about that it wrote it into New York State law: I 1 § 272-a.3 Content of a town comprehensive plan. The town comprehensive plan may f \ include the following topics at the level of detail adapted to the special requirements of the ' town. (b) Consideration of regional needs and the official plans of other government units and agencies within the region. f ) f ) / \ / ' A New Approach »■ ^ Although the Plan adopts some Smart-Growth principals, it ignores others which are fundamental (e.g., all of the incentives for Smart Growth are focused on large parcels of opens space, the very places that the plan purports to be protecting from development.). It examines the Town as an isolated entity, not as an interactive member of a larger community. It does not address the drastic problems we are facing: peak oil/resources, climate change, economic instability, etc. which are all going to force our community to change. These are fatal flaws: the proposed Comprehensive Plan neither fixes the problems of the previous Plan nor does it prepare us for the changes we are facing. The 21st century is going to be a time of unprecedented change for humanity; the communities that embrace this change early are the ones that will be the strongest as fi nite resources run out. During the almost 5 years that the Comprehensive Plan Committee met, the Chair regularly stressed that we needed to complete the work of the Comprehensive Plan Committee so that the Town Board could start implementing the policies we were discussing and stop the sprawl that is so problematic for the Town. There was no disagreement that it was, and still is, urgent that the Town change its development patterns immediately. The disagreements at the committee level were not about how quickly we should proceed, but instead about how we should proceed. Unfortunately, it was the minority opinion to take a dramatically different approach to planning ' ^ than what the 1993 Plan recommended. The majority wanted only minor changes. The fact that the f \ proposed Comprehensive Plan did not take any drastic departures from the previous plan insures that its implementation will not result in significant changes either: open space will continue to be replaced with sprawl development. 58 A New Approach The rush to finish the report was exacerbated by some very problematic process decisions. In ' ^ order to speed up the group, process policies were imposed by the Chair that were not only ^ \ troubling, but cannot be easily discerned from reading the Committee's meeting minutes. It is ^ important to review them in an effort to not repeat them in the future. The whole report was organized, designed and written by staff. The Committee as a whole reviewed most of the material, especially chapter 2, and recommended changes; however, the first draft was always something prepared by staff. Even when nearly half the Committee members took it upon themselves to draft an introduction, staff completely rewrote it, and it was the staff's work that the Committee reviewed, not the work of Committee members. Committee members had to beg and beg to get electronic copies of any draft documents. Even then, we were often turned down by staff. One Committee member threatened to file a FOIL request to obtain a document, an act that demonstrated the degree of frustration Committee members felt about this policy. This discouraged rewriting what staff had presented, and also made it difficult for Committee members to share drafts of documents with their constituents. When it came to the proposed Land-Use Map, not only could we not get electronic versions of the document, we could not get staff to add features, such as parcel boundaries, to the maps they did print for us. This made it extremely difficult to understand what was being depicted on the map. Electronic copies were only provided after the sections were voted on. o It took a majority of the Committee members present at a meeting to make any changes to the f drafts that staff presented. When the base quorum (four out of eight members) of the Committee f was present, final decisions were made by a "majority" that was, in fact, a fraction of the whole ^ Committee (three out of eight). Further, when the Committee members at a particular meeting were evenly divided over whether a change should be made or not, the staff's draft was accepted by default. Effectively, staff had the tie-breaking vote, even though when the Town Board appointed the Committee, it chose not to make any staff members voting members of the Committee. The first time the Comprehensive Plan Committee approved and sent to the Town Board its recommendations, it only sent a partial draft of the Plan. The Committee's vote on December 5, 2012 did not include Chapter 4, "plan implementation". Most, if not all, of the Committee was unaware of this. Staff drew up a very rough draft and shared it with the Committee on May 16, 2012, but it was not discussed in detail, was not included in the draft being voted upon and no further drafts were reviewed. Staff is revising that draft, and submitting it to the Town Board without the Committee's input or approval. The public was not allowed to speak at Committee meetings. A number of residents came to the December 5,2012 meeting to express their concerns. A Committee member asked that the group be given the floor for 5 minutes. The Chair refused. Ironically, weeks later, the Attorney for the Town pointed out that it was not only a good idea to f ) give the public a chance to speak at the end of the process but that a public hearing was required f ^ by New York State law [§272.a.6 (b)]. So the Committee was reconstituted, minus one i outspoken member, for the sole purpose of holding a public hearing. Staff indicated how carefully A New Approach 59 n it expected the Committee to consider public comment judging by the e-mail they sent to the ! ^ newly constituted Committee on January 25,2013: Dear Comprehensive Plan Committee Members, Attached is a revised resolution for the Committee's consideration at the January 28th meeting. This is essentially the December 5th Committee approved resolution with modifications. With the exception of the date change, the proposed modifications are indicated in redline—so you can see what is different. The proposed modifications reflect updated information as well as subtle language changes to reflect requirements in NYS Town Law (i.e. changing "referring" to "recommending"). 1 will have a clean copy of this resolution available to all of you at the meeting on Monday. The resolution would need to be considered following the public hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Have good weekends and I will see you on Monday. Thank you. What is noticeably absent from this e-mail is any indication that anyone is considering changing a single word of the proposed Comprehensive Plan based on the public comment received at this hearing. Public officials need to understand that these opportunities for public comment are more ' ^ than Just formalities; they are an occasion for public officials to hear the comments and concerns I ^ of citizens and incorporate them into the document being reviewed. The public hearing was well attended and members of the public commented on many aspects of the Plan. Topics included the need to support farmers preserving open space in the Town, architecture requirements for new houses, traffic volumes in neighborhoods, especially on West Hill, noise in residential areas, and the need to maintain the character of West Hill in the face of numerous plans for development. Immediately after receiving all this public comment, the Committee voted to recommend the same report voted on in the December meeting to the Town Board. The Chair stated during the meeting that comments received at the public hearing would be passed along with the draft Plan to the Town Board, although the resolution passed by the Committee said nothing about forwarding any public comment. In the end, the Committee seriously failed to discuss any of the comments from the public, let alone incorporate them into the draft it recommended to the Town Board. Further, it failed to complete its mission and, instead, voted to recommend an incomplete draft. The changes from the 1993 Plan that the proposed Comprehensive Plan calls for are minor, rarely challenging the status quo, especially with regard to developers. It is clear from the discussions at Committee meetings that many members of the Committee, as well as many staff members, are uncomfortable telling large land owners that the Town is no longer interested in allowing farms to I * be converted into townhouses. While Csommittee members and staff are recommending that the f \ Town only make minor policy adjustments, other communities are taking the lead in making changes that were unthinkable a few years ago. 60 A New Approach I \ \ If the Town of Concord, MA can ban the sale of plastic water bottles within the town, a law that went into effect on January 2, 2013, then the Town of Ithaca can take some equally strong steps. The City of San Francisco received national attention when they not only banned the use of plastic bags, but required that all retail stores charge at least 10 cents for all other bags. This expanded ordinance brings San Francisco in line with 49 other cities and counties in California that ban plastic bags from retailers, according to the City's Department of the Environment. The United States uses 17 million barrels of oil to make the single-use plastic bottles consumed in the U.S. in one year. The planet's resources are finite, and it is time that we start treating them that way. The Philadelphia Orchard Project (POP), founded in 2007, describes its mission as: ...plants orchards in the city of Philadelphia that grow healthy food, green spaces and community food security. POP works with community-based groups and volunteers to plan and plant orchards filled with useful and edible plants. POP provides the plants, trees, and training. Community organizations own, maintain, and harvest the orchards, expanding community-based food production. Orchards are planted in formerly vacant lots, community gardens, schoolyards, and other spaces, almost exclusively in low-wealth neighborhoods where people lack access to fresh fruit. Even in a densely populated city, it is possible to grow at least some of the residents' food locally; ( > initiatives such as the Binghamton study (described on page 41 above) bring fresh produce to f ^ communities where such staples are traditionally out of reach. The Town can, and should, play a ^ far more active role in such activities. Governmental bodies around the country are taking strong, binding steps to severely limit corporate power in their communities. On December 9th, 2002, Porter Township, - a municipality of 1,500 residents an hour north of Pittsburgh in Northwestern Pennsylvania - became the first local government in the United States to eliminate corporate claims to civil and constitutional privileges. The Township adopted a binding law declaring that corporations operating in the Township may not wield legal privileges - historically used by corporations to override democratic decision-making - to stop the Township from passing laws which protect residents from toxic sewage sludge. The state of Nebraska forbids corporate ownership of farmland in their state constitution: Article XII: Sec. 8. (l)No corporation or syndicate shall acquire, or otherwise obtain an interest, whether legal, beneficial, or otherwise, in any title to real estate used for farming or ranching in this state, or engage in farming or ranching. The Town of Ithaca should be following these communities' lead, and making it clear that any rights corporations have in our community are subordinate to the rights of the individuals who live f^\ in the Town. ( \ ( On March 17, 2012 the Town of Sugar Hill, NH enacted a local law to establish a local "Bill of Rights", which in part reads: 1 ANew Approach rnnrl..dnn ^ ! \ > \ Section 3-Statements of Law-Rights of Residents and the Natural Environment (d) Rights of Natural Communities. Natural communities and ecosystems, including, but not limited to, wetlands, streams, rivers, aquifers, and other water systems, possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist and flourish within the Town of Sugar Hill. Residents of the Town shall possess legal standing to enforce those rights on behalf of those natural communities and ecosystems. This law was passed in reaction to a proposed power line that was to cut through a section of the community that is a protected National Forest. When the Federal Government indicated that it would not protect this local treasure from development, the locals took action to protect it themselves. Certainly the residents of the Town treasure the natural world around us every bit as much as the residents of Sugar Hill. Other communities are taking bold, strong steps to change both how their communities are designed and their impact on the planet. The Town of Ithaca can still choose to join these pioneers of a new future. The sooner we do, the sooner we stop the damage that sprawl and our current unsustainable lifestyle are causing our community. I \ I \ r^ I \ Selected Bibliography ^ \ Alexander, Christopher, Murray Siiverstein and Sara Ishikawa. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Alexander, Christopher, Howard Davis, Julio Martinez and Don Comer. The Production of Houses. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Alvord, Katie. Divorce Your Car! Ending the Love Affair with the Automobile. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2000. Appleyard, Donald. Livable Streets. Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1981. Cail, Krys. Improving Access to Good Food in Northern and Central Binghamton: Assessing the Feasibility of Three Models For Building Farmer-to-Consumer Connection. Oneonta: Center for Agricultural Development and Entrepreneurship. 2012. Campoli, Julie and Alex MacLean, Visualizing Density, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2007. , ^ f ] Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization Cayuga Lake Watershed Restoration and \ Protection Plan. 2001. Crawford, J.H. Carfree Cities. Utrecht: Intemational Books, 2000. —. Carfree Design Manual. Utrecht: Intemational Books, 2009. Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking, 2004. Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press, 2000. Duany, Andres, Jeff Speck and Mike Lydon. The Smart Growth Manual. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Engwicht, David. Street Reclaiming: Creating Livable Streets and Vibrant Communities. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers, 1999. Frumhoff, Peter C., James J. McCarthy, Jeny M. Melillo, Susanne C. Moser and Donald J. Wuebbles. Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions. Cambridge: UCS Publications, 2007. i \ ' \ Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. Jensen, Derrick. Endgame, Vol. I: The Problem of Civilization. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006. t / \ / I \ t \ ' \ ^ —. Endgame, Vol. 2: Resistance. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006. Kay, Jane Holtz. Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took over America and How We Can Take It Back. New York: Crown Publishers, 1997. Kunstier, James Howard. The City In Mind: Notes on the Urban Condition. New York: Free Press, 2002. —. The Geography of Nowhere. Riverside, New Jersey: Simon & Schuster, 1993. —. The Home From Nowhere. Riverside, New Jersey: Simon & Schuster, 1996. —. Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking, Technology, and the Fate of the Nation. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2012. MacKay, David J. C. Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air. Cambridge: UIT Cambridge Ltd., 2009. Mumford, Lewis The City in History: Its Origins Its Transformations and Its Prospects. Harcourt, Brace& World, 1961. —. The Myth ofthe Machine: Technics and Human Development. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1967. —. The Pentagon ofPower: The Myth of the Machine. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964. Novacek, Michael. Terra: Our 100-Million-Year Old Ecosystem — And the Threats that Now Put It at Risk. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 2007. U.S. Department of the Interior. Managing the Water Resources in the Oswego River Basin in Central WmrorA:(USGS, 2002). Wolfe, Tom. From Bauhaus to Our House. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1981. TOWN OF ITHACA COURT JAMES A. SALK, TOWN JUSTICE 215 N. TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NY 14850 January 16, 2013 RE: 2012 ANNUAL REPORT TOWN OF ITHACA COURT JAMES A. SALK, TOWN JUSTICE Activity for Justice Salk's part of the Town of Ithaca Court for 2012 is as follows: Number of cases closed: 940 Number of Cases opened: 1512 Arraignments for other Courts 27 Charges Transferred to T.C. County 28 Pending Cases - (Includes Scofflaws) 2728 Judge Wallenbeck's Scofflaws 186 FINES AND FEES Criminal, Motor Vehicle $ 43,320.00 NYS Surcharges 43,507.74 Civil Charges 2,266.00 Bail Poundage 375.00 TOTAL REMITTED TO TOWN OF ITHACA $ 89,468.74 Bail Received $ 15,750.00 Bail Forfeited $ -0- ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES Arrest warrants and Bench warrants issued; search warrants issued; orders of protections issued; conditional discharges; probation inquiries and documentation; jail terms; bench trials; jury trials; motion hearings; felony preliminary hearings held; small claims trials; summary proceedings and warrants of evictions; arraignments for other courts; certificates of dispositions; case researching; processing of scofflaws; decisions written; legal research, pre trial hearings, annual budget processes, implementing on-line access to various web sites, dictation and transcription of hearings and preparing written decisions on all. Attend annual continuing legal education classes and training. n Justice TOWN OF ITHACA COURT DAVID L. KLEIN, TOWN JUSTICE 215 N. TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NY 14850 RE: YEARLY REPORT TOWN OF ITHACA COURT DAVID L. KLEIN, TOWN JUSTICE January 30, 2013 Activity Tor Justice Klein's part of the Town oflthaca Court I'or 2012 is as follows: Number of cases closed: I310-DLK / 50 MJW Number of Cases opened: 2034 Arrjugnments for otlier Courts 20 Charges Transferred to T.C. Court 10 Pending Cases - (Includes Scofllaws) 674 FINES AND FEF^S Criminal, Motor Vehicle $ 81,515.00 NYS Surcharges $ 74,762.00 Civil Chrirges $ 5,663.50 Bail Poundage $ 61.50 TOTAL REMITTED TO TOWN OF ITHACA: $ 162,002.00 Biu\ Received $ 10,000.00 Biiil Forfeited $ -0- ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES Arrest warrants and Bench warrants issued; search wjurrants issued; Orders ol Protections issued; Conditional Discharges; Probation inquiries and Documentation; Jail Terms; BenchTrials; Jury Trials; Motion Hearings; Felony Preliminary Hearings held; Pre-trial Hearings; Small Claims; Summary Proceedings and Warrants of Evictions; Arraignments for other Courts; Certificates of Dispositions/ State agency inquiries; Case researching; Processing ol Scofllaws; Decisions written; Ixgal reseju'ch; Transmissions of Court Dispositions to DCJS; Annual Budget processes; part-time clerk sorting/closing out old cases for Judge Wallenbeck (MIW); Implementing Credit Card transaction processing; Grant application process; Facilitate new carpet installation project and receive updated equipment from tlie State Unified Court System to include: new fax machine, courtroom computer, ticket filing cabinet. Respectlully submitted, David L. Klein Town Justice Compliance and Remediation Plan 107 Pine Tree Road February 5,2013 Location 107 Pine Tree Road Owner of Record Karen Herzog Background November 29, 2012 - inspection of property by Director and Sheriff's Deputy December 7, 2012 - notice of Failure to Maintain Property sent to owner of record with compliance date of January 4, 2013 February 5, 2013 - no request for appeal or removal of violations has occuixed. I, Bruce W. Bates, Director of Code Enforcement and Zoning for the Town of Ithaca do hereby state that the existing violations have not been remedied and a request for an appearance before the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has not been received. I hereby state that I have solicited quotes for the clean up of the property and the removal of automobiles in violation of Town Code. Quotes received for clean up were $2,680 and $5,300 and for the removal of the automobiles, $125. Action Contract with the lower bidder for tlie clean up of the property and the sole bidder for the removal of the autos. As required by Town Code, I am hereby submitting this plan and requesting Town Board approval. Bruce W. Bates Date Director, Code Enforcement and Zoning ly Town Board on February 11,2013 Pa(?lette'T^wiIliger, Town Clerk Approvj -SEAi:.^- TOWN OF ITHACA 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 WWW. town. i thaca. ny. u s Code Enforcement and Zoning - PHONE (607) 273-1721 - FAX (607) 273-5854 Bruce W. Bates, Director CODE ENFORCEMENT/ZONING END OF YEAR REPORT 2012 The Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department is an enforcement agency. We have been given the task of enforcing the Code of the Town of Ithaca and The New York State Fire and Building Code, which includes the 9 series of Codes, building, residential, fire, existing, plumbing, mechanical, fuel gas, energy conservation and property maintenance code. We are responsible for assigning 911 addresses and investigating complaints within the Town of Ithaca, with the exception of the Village of Cayuga Heights. The year 2012 has been an even busier year than the last 4 years for the Code Department. We continued inspections of on going projects from 2011 such as Cayuga Medical Center, Ithaca Beer, Holly Creek Development, as well as many single family home projects. We closed out Ithaca College's A&E Center and the College Circle project. Construction was started on Eco Village's Tree project consisting of 36 structures ranging from garages, to residential and a community building. Long View's Vista Circle 11 two unit senior town house project, and the infrastructure of both Holochuck and Cleveland Estate developments. We once again had changes to staffing due to employees moving on. Our senior Code Officer and Clerk left in March and July respectfully. During the year I was asked how I thought we were doing. I felt that we were improving on permit review times but I thought it was coming at the expense of fire safety inspections and complaint follow ups. However, as you will see in this report we had in increase in all but one category. So much so that I am concerned about how productive our current size staffing can be with such an increase in work load. Our current budgeted staff consists of (1) 37.5 hrs/wk clerk, (Lori Kofoid); (1) 30 hrs/wk Code Enforcement Officer / Electrical inspector (Charles Bruner); (1) 37.5 hrs/wk Code Enforcement Officer / Electrical inspector (Martin Kelly) (1) 37.5 hrs/wk Code Enforcement Officer (Steven Williams); (1) Director of Code Enforcement and Zoning (Bruce W. Bates). We started to explore outside companies to assist us in our data record keeping system. The reason this was necessary is twofold: the county discontinued updating our SDG database this year and our own data base is outdated, having been created by graduate students in the early to mid 90's. Our hope is that whatever system we decide on will allow a Google notes type system which allows us to relay information between each inspector, other departments and the office. 20012 Code Enforcement Annual Report PERMITS ^ The department issued 410 building permits during 2012. This is an increase of 62 permits from ^ ^ the previous year and a continued increase for a second year in a row. In fact, 2012 was the ' highest of the last four years. (See appendix A). The total reported estimated cost of construction was $45,555,200, almost double from last year's $23,365,617. Each permit application is reviewed for compliance with the Code of the Town of Ithaca and NYS Fire and Building Code before it is issued. All applications (per the Town of Ithaca Code section 125-4 D) must comply with all zoning and other town regulations, including but not limited to: planning restrictions, soil and water protection plan, and sanitation requirements. This means consulting with other departments to confirm compliance (this is where Google notes is helpful) Large projects may require days or even weeks to confirm compliance. It is not uncommon for architects or engineers to consult with code officials throu^out the design stages of a project. While smaller project applications may take a couple of days for review, simple projects may take even less time to review. But, this is if all the information and the application are complete. There were a total of 202 electrical permits issued which is also up from last year. About 15% of electrical permits are for items not associated with a permit such as an electrical update fora new entrance into a structure. SIGN PERMITS Last year I reported that we were working on procedures to track sign permits through the system; while we have not fully achieved our goal, we have incorporated the use of our task list > to track these This year there were 51 new sign permits issued. This is way over the amount issued in pervious years (See appendix A). The review of our sign law has made it to the top of the agenda of the Codes and Ordinance Committee. Currently it is one of the committee's goals of 2013 to bring the new sign law to the full board for discussion and adoption. PERMIT RENEWALS The new fee schedule has been in effect for 2 years now. The cost of renewing a permit is the greater of $50 or 50% of the original fee for the first renewal and 100% of the original permit fee for any subsequent renewals. 32 permits were renewed during 2011; this is 1 less than last year. Of these renewals 14 were 2"^^ renewals. OPEN PERMITS We have seen an increase in the number of open permits 338 this was 64 over last year's 274. The increase of open permits may have to do with the number of new permits that came in late in the year. There was a rush for permits from about September to December. One could only guess, was this because of the oncoming prediction of a winter that we did not get the year before? Was the increase because of the total increase in the number of permits for the whole year? Did the shortage of staff for a few months and the time it takes to train and bring new staff up to speed or the complexity and size of the projects submitted add to this increase? I am hoping that the next year will answer these questions as we move ahead in the New Year. , Page 2 of 14 20012 Code Enforcement Annual Report ^ CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS / Staff conducted 1853 reported construction inspections during 2012.this was an increase by more than 350 in 2011. The number of inspections in 2011 was also an increase over the number of inspections done in 2010. This figure includes progress inspections firom footings to finals. I am not sure if the increase was due to the number of permits, better recordkeeping or the increase of the required inspections per the energy code changes. However, we went fi-om spending about 25% of our time in the field to about 30%. COMPLAINTS New York State's title 19NYCRR Part 1203 require that the town establish procedures for addressing code related complaints. The department received 73 complaints for 2012 which was a decrease from the previous year's record high. Whether the new revisions to property maintenance law, giving the town more enforcement powers, that was passed in 2011, assisted in keeping the number down one can only hope. We investigate all code related complaints that are filed with our office. It is our duty to identify the problem, contact the responsible party, and resolve the situation. This is done, for the most part, without reimbursement of our costs related to the investigation and resolution of these complaints. The three highest complaints, in order of numbers, are 1) Building Code Violations, 2) Property Maintenance Issues, and 3) Zoning and other violations of the Code of The Town of Ithaca. Fire related complaints dropped fi-om last year's third highest to almost the bottom of the list with 6 complaints just beating out 911 addressing issues and rodents. While signage violations were not included in our complaint numbers most signage complaints were handled by calling the person responsible for the sign and asking them to correct the violation or remove the sign. If they did not remove the sign, the Code Officers would remove it and take the sign to the town's DPW, placing it in the dumpster where they can be picked up before the dumpster is emptied. So the actual number signage complaints are not tracked FIRE SAFETY / OPERATING PERMITS INSPECTIONS Fire Safety and operating permits have always been a priority for the Town Board. However, I fear this is an area that was victim to the increased work load in 2012. The department performed 65 fire safety/operating permit inspections and 92 re-inspections during 2012. This was down fi-om last year. To that end the department and Ithaca Fire Department agreed on how the Ithaca Fire Department, as part of the fire contact, could assist us in getting these done and as of January 2013 they were starting these inspections. These inspections do not include when Code Enforcement Officers are requested to respond to the scene of a fire or emergency. REPORT OF FIRE/EMERGENCY There were a total of 4 complaints received due to fire emergencies. This when the Fire Department requests that a Code officer report to the scene before the Fire Department relinquishes the scene back to the owner or they feel we need to act right away on a particular incident related to public safety. This could be any hour of the day or night. MONTHLY REPORTS The monthly report reflects the activities accomplished by this department. The report lists the number of building permit inspections, permit consultations, permit reviews, complaints and associated follow ups, continuing education, fire incidents, fire safety/operating permit inspections and re-inspections, legal, meetings, miscellaneous, storm water pollution. Zoning Page 3 of 14 20012 Code Enforcement Annual Report Board, and 911 addressing activities. It also includes a report indicating the number of permits issued, Certificates of Occupancy issued (new construction), complaints received and their ^ disposition, and Certificates of Occupancy issued to existing buildings. The monthly report is given to each Town Board member and the Tompkins County Assessment Office. ZONING BOARD The Zoning Board consists of five full members who are appointed by the Town Board and they serve five year staged terms. We started the beginning of 2012 with Chairman Kirk Sigal (term expires 1/31/13), Vice Chair David Mountin (term expires 12/31/12), members Bill King (term expiresl2/31/15) and Ron Krantz (term expires 12/31/14). We had a vacancy for a full member and two alternates. The full time position was filled with the appointment of Rob Rosen (term expires 12/31/16) and the two alternate positions were filled with the appointment of Yvonne Fogarty and Andrew Dixon. Alternates serve a 1 year term and have to be reappointed each year. Zoning Board applications take a lot of staff time in research and prep of the case to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. 47 Zoning applications requesting 50 variances were filed in 2012. 11 more than the 2011 and 2011 were up by 9 fi"om the 2010's application numbers. The Board heard 25 area variances one more than last year. 7 use variances 5 more than 2011. 6 sign variances and 4 heiglit variances both up 3 from last year. 3 sprinkler variances, the same as last year. 2 special approvals an increase of 1. Modification of an existing approval, fence and our new stream setback regulations had 1 each. Of these 50 requests, 4 were adjourned, 2 were withdrawn, 1 was denied and the rest were granted (see appendix C). Some times the Zoning board will allow the withdrawal of an application or adjourn a case if it looks like the variance may not be granted. This allows the applicant to modify their request. Because once a variance has been denied it can only be heard again if new conditions arise or the Zoning Board agrees to reopen the case by a unanimous vote. FINANCIALLY* The 2012 Code Enforcement's share of the budgeted income was $144,100.00. The actual income share was $178,019.40 which created a surplus of $33,919.40. Budgeted expenses were $311,700.00 and actual expenses were $ 298,453.66 - coming in $13246.34 under budget. 59% of our budget was raised from fees. This is up by 7% over last year's percentage. I don't know of any other town department that can say only 41 % of their budget comes fi-om the tax base. OBJECTIVES/GOALS So how did we do? Last year's Objectives and Goals are listed below. I have included the progress we have made toward reaching our goals and what goals we did not accomplish this year. 2072 objectives/goals How did we do? 1) Continue to strive to improve customer service and education. We started the year off strong with ideas. We redesigned our application in an effort to make them more applicant fiiendly. We started posting monthly information at the front counter so applicants could see where their application number was in relationship to the number of applications submitted. However, with the change in staffing and the increase in work load we did not get to do a lot of customer education other than during an application review process. Page 4 of 14 20012 Code Enforcement Annual Report 2) Improve turn around time for applications. We will concentrate on the above goals this year incorporating the Smart Work outline developed during our work sessions. We started out strong implementing the Smart work outline. However, the same problem arose with an increasing work load and the changes in staffing. We regressed slightly during the middle of the year. But I am happy to report that by the end of the year our permit turnover time has dropped from last year's average ofjust over 22 days to just less than 10 days. 2013 Objectives/goals • Continue to strive to decrease permit review time • Strive to improve department's image • Continue to advance public education • Implement a new data record keeping system. CONCLUSION The Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department is an enforcement department. We enforce the Code of the Town of Ithaca and the New York State Fire and Building Code. The Code Enforcement Department saw a second year of increase in work load and in the number of permit applications. Not only for building permits but all permits. Complaints and the complaint investigations were down. Fire safety inspections fell victim to our work load and staffing changes. Construction inspections and Zoning Board reviews were up. Budget-wise, we came in under budget on expenses and over budget on income for the second year in a row. I feel that our staff, despite all the increases, has been able to continue to improve the department and make it a department that other municipalities continue to look to for guidance. Respectfully Submitted Bruce W. Bates Director of Code Enforcement and Zoning Page 5 of 14 20012 Code Enforcement Annual Report Appendix A CODE ENFORCEMENT/ZONING 2012 Year End Report Department activities 2012 2011 2010 2009 New One and two Family 33 19 13 12 New Commercial 3 8 3 3 Total other permits 374 326 230 262 Stop work orders 8 7 7 14 Complaints 73 121 93 73 Eiectrical 202 176 168 Sign 51 6 6 13 Fireworks 2 1 1 2 Page 6 of 14 Appendix B CODE ENFORCEMENT/ZONING 2012 Year End Report Staff activities 2012 2011 2010 2009* Building permit inspections 1853 1495 1197 999 Building Permit Consultation 401 244 160 127 Building Permit Review 1725 1592 846 467 Complaint New Investigation 76 121 126 52 Complaint Follow-Up 84 185 80 54 Continuing Education 68 49 50 30 Fire Incident Investigation 4 14 11 14 Fire Safety/Operating Permit Inspection 65 118 63 67 Fire Safety/Operating Permit Re-Inspection 92 299 49 28 legal 266 36 28 27 Meetings 470 501 479 383 Miscellaneous 960 1234 1103 541 Stormwater Pollution 0 0 3 4 Zoning Board of Appeals 71 74 56 66 911 Addressing 32 30 ^Does not reflex the full year. New system started mid February. Appendix C Town ofWwea 2oning Boanl of An>oala 3012 Schedule 1'.... ■.J.|M.I.!-II ,1 ■DEilSnH rzcsTI Action withdrawn variance heiahtvartance heioht variance12/8/2011 12/8/2011 Pr^ect Name Reaueftt Ares variance Ares variance KfTTgn WiJ .T.Tt«nu Prorect Name ■innn SBETBE 'SMS. BSEn^H ■■.li.l.l.l.LLM m Project NamAdd. ComDlete S/4/2012 SM/2D13 S/14/2012 S/16/2012 CMC awna-tobacco nt Trumanslxjra Rd. ConSer Senior Lrvina atWeet Hil 380 Pine Tree Rd. Farmers Mariiet mmM BEnsn'j'BiH WS^2 m^ikiut: 7JM2 Proiect Name 1259 Trumanslxiro Rd Slon Variance granted 606 Elm Ira Rd Use Variance IwShdrawn 1290 TrumansCuro Rd 1 Use Variance ranted6/8/2012 1 comcdete |934R East Shore Dr 1lArea Variances jodioumed Reouest Action Area Variance Area Variances/adioumed Irom 7/16/12 □ranted oianted Area Variance nranted 137 Kendall ave loranted 1095 Taughannocit Bhd Use Variance/ adioumeid from 5/21/12 detued ■vnjrri.'ff Action Granted Area Variance Area Variance Area Variance &.H .UJMI.-U.IIM r^s? Lii.'JLili Complete Comnlete Residential Steraoe Shed/ ITS Kirw Rd East Comel Sotlbal Field/240 Pine Tree Road Area Variance Height Variance Area Vorlsnce Use Variance Use VarianceChinese Cutuml Center/572 Warren Rd Ib.i.hjj.i.i..!Ado. Complete?Project Compieta Complete Naiite NE Pediattics SlatV 1290 Tnirr EcovPlaoe Gourd Worlcshoo 77 Rachel Carson Wa Garage Addition/151 Northview Rd Frandaen SubdivWan/ Brian Lane iBn^Dsni Project Name Shed in front yard/216 NorOtview Rd West/ n Variance Sprinliler Variance i i 20012 Code Enforcement Annual Report Appendix D - State reporting report Hew Y«rl( state PepaitTTHnt of S»tB DMsion sfDMlaEnforcaniBnttind ModnlltiVllOft AuB[uja,SiAiE nsa Ho-».|S1B|4T4.4Qn FA>L|5iQ4B«-U!7 V/«lifdsi.It*1• n y-«n "SubmR byEii^lll PlIhrtFiofi E 1PflYCR/tfA!m2l» UNIFORM CODE; Mlr«MUM?TANDAnDS FOR AOStlHKTltAnONANDENPMCEMEHT LOCAL GOVERNMENT Uniform Code Administration and EnforcemenLReppjJ 2EN«tAL iritPDItMATTON Page 1 of 6 fteportlng Y«ar: 2012 MunkipAlitV TAw*df1(Ku*Name lyfCode Cfflclel Srvif W'Satn CF^fTown/vni»gBofC9tirvt)f fiiiAnsi 21S HJk>9a St. E 3ipi^rte1Co4e Coiwtyi TamfiMn* lUtACA 1MS0 Tlik«FCod»iM1i<lHl pir^etQi'flfCodeEirfortftRvwtA Zq cadaOAIddOOStetdflntieAir 119^74MB HounvjarliedpcmMVi jQp PhoneMivbai; e-tnkiiMtfyoise libMeSijilciiwn.khKiJky.uF ^ b isUe^denb Wcm—irtOinQiUifttotiHplllwVinlfgm lellhfn wrmwi<l^ljir.H««i«UM^H»»*tl*faft«g laAicthWeutycentnrtKJsmkn unil|aMM(irM i«ifilnRi>r«>(ir n NVCNK nin 13tiU ib.ir Vkiiiiu eu ew&isriy nicit ihoeduiacicrtf legataTienbcf g CObC leMMfcCleUENT 3 s non1h* nra dtajn m MC pa noniI ^P4 tafotir CCdie(KI re uuii>U«NrnttMftrtytrd«tMnil KadiD|%i•If'tp.'flUnkncwn :: tOCftt LAW. OHDlWAMg. HECMLATIO PnKllrtlhelocBirHv.eidlnhinoroit'e'approjirratB n^ulotkitt that provide For tlie edrA'nKtntian andsnlbKsnientortheNevrYaikSiatelJnlfMinFlrePce'/tnllafidnEl BvUding Cede end EnagyCona0v«llB(iCoiiili«h(lunC4da^1j^''$Nunlclp2i':y. CFiapW r 13& ofThe Ce^ cf Yhe roNliflFMiAlA vrP;->- -■arAiTT.i iiiUoi el fttttki twiedfanhtt latwiUng yewj'n 3. Mm One- cr Two dnf ||>^ 4 NHvCornrtwcbl'fndjttrtilfaullllngs: | £ Ne *r 11 n I rd ni 11 ^ll ecenpn nc b V ]r.^ikj|ikaft^ rf hmijuiiKor iofiilise(-i4i[idnp i3Mdh»esjn4c«il4^n)1dburldlH9i«r LAddnlptB attsitBninrr'pilt^B^eufdng PliMuitsfeiniaBPdous buldlngr 219 53 G-MctrRetdeiUd IF^PCOJptrdM !tK>tlr<t|urlir^Qpi»-or TWO- F.AP olFieriwirAv lp'>^^ «liU|. <!*(&. (AJMtMng WkCauO IA N b tn IM r ed CP rd At iU s of Ouop a oty a r Qunpiiian bu«d fn ill BtnipriilK 101 STOPWORKOfWEHS 11. idiimb«-er SeMWaikOsJiM muod iNi rapor.ro>ui; NOTffKATIONOF FIRE OR«PL0S|OSs* li.H»wprafflaifB xBneHbrBhEdfi)rn»1in«»dpnbifc»«hW'Jio<"A'a<lai«n>nS'>tW'B3JrdnBArewEjplsTvnvii.'dviiig ai)}UfLk:iun(4l^a^.rudl)umihas9FliaKs,d«myarsMvv-tr SJUfOEQUJPU 1 k Km* pmtMJtai bMA HUbGshtdlor khnorying andaddnlng ur<»A>lpi(t<'nMnri»qu^«iii1 oos-iM) nv'i PiiKaippier^tltillAF'lMiiaMttwaqtMrftnii-MiiPifCBffpe' Page 9 of 14 20012 Code Enforcement Annual Report Ne* Yoik Stale OBpartntui af State DMsIdk of infarumettt Md AdmlrtlrtrBtian AvsnL«i Sjlte MCC AJbBry.rYTIZ!?! fTaia:l$iaM74-4Dn rB>:i;isi4ca-4tar 'Mvw.AskItMk nyu. ( PHrtt Tgnn } Page 2 of6 iBTftQini>i^ffT ma UM|FORM.COCIBriyr«MWMSTAN0AR0SMRADMIHISTHAl]WfAK0eHFOIlCEMEWr LOCAL GOVERNMEMT Uniform Code AdminislraUon and Eriforcement Report Rsportlns Van 2012 Hunieip.my 14ii jifiBairatny ^pnbKqitKd py tha muniap«1>y7 MH MnuftcTJAiit iinilpg 011-dcJiiig huaidaus mtUfltJi »i giiirairM Btcoodlng Ihoz llstid In T(6ln JTOll-ljU 1703 or 2nM.1 Kl.or IM FI«2mIc afSini YpA te M-roiil Par I2a|: 14c, Hua-dniY ii'okmj *'<4 unhlilM, bvticlnp ttic Ml [mlled 10, psTnaidM vJ Dithjiiiid qpernmo Khldi prnduu cambuBtie djst si e Trjl aM ciofi npurilig. end ■"ie»K<m3r(ig: 14fc tc.lklngs cvitalnnjaid er man aus of inibrc eixmbll wViiiii u(aipenlMd«H 10 amsm or mOie 147 guIdlrtpl'Hn6t»IB4 4«0mipn'V7<tAtl'<l(irlSAmay po:e»nb»l4nllflFoei»ilJ luawUbopubtie dsMeenliBd by ibjao-wmenl® •d*''cyJiarpLj wlih or BC«p»Yl4oro''a>lmiru(lu4dn and enfenx^ni d iXnUnna'mCDdE 14cL Ukt(4 p^AlBt/tiCdnilcn In «n4mbh oceitpinCci ^aNvraRPMmzoFfM ^1 Di^ia .oitlsibd rvlip.fiBMiCaCliy!\ta CiMn AraB of FiJMlc Assembly (wtTti an □ccupsntload ofdOerncira »nd nbtanastaiMirjrujal;ISa MutWxfxCoxiifuriclsfnTlllcTMnlclpelni: CK] 15b NRi^ri^KiupowJof Incited In (hifTreiddFiltiir- HultlpleDwBliRgsItotiAdmliIng dormlterlap^ lb. NumbaoriiLlldt'^'oiiiJniigS'Ui iiTCfBiluuBngunFbln1hatiM^'lr*"V 271 16b. Tobi nurlber<f biiluin iibldpli <hi4l1t»as 2074 llcMimbAieT hUlll)pl;d*cllhipbi4iljngi inspettedtfnmlam lB>l:19 Cpirail*rd«l/ladvstrb<i ooxvanciai (not iiutuded abl><n]l ill. Nurnbvurba«wn(lMln'tlila''MrT*'l'^ IteMASnt^KPTjQ) 77 fi^kiNSK T7b. Humbpr qracGUtoficlu hjpectsd in thli >Y>>|iJilpaJhy cmns A/vapd J<l'ii(p»alar^ erqoind hy LS 3 1 ifi I $ a nalsfr B fit s7 s p«o n*p»<dew M q tffd 4 s p»rt 0 F" cnndnCY r«i peitrttt isuanto? led Aiaipacjdinspeok'i repoite i^uliiid Id be iuDmnadtflir pat)isiuuBn:e<^aeerfin<Pieol£aniplbnca Drc9nip'eiJbn>iab.^>ddTrj*i4MlK)-R(4ln3pK>1bl>^^hilf^#U ' c6bEc»fiaiiANce 'l9e. Hefi^'iniin-dpal^ ^^'iTm"tes)ri:tii.Vhn>] nwda'td'ira^lBndnb; j to thf Wntfnmfle* PMr"nl6«i tnd'ayKAQ e-^fikillyril CadO?f;' V«.a«Jbntfde»£y U^Tcs.Cem-Mrei.lonV p y*vC«*f«ttJJat>dlUddoThl R ISb f Yh; Kv ptbUufi bCb^fledysldvlhBStol* Pm .hwonduiiyieJBuidlrip Coda Cniovilp^ k#ekri*Lavi titttk ieSBBtkn)7^F ^ YB R fa l~Mu. HByDOfnv*il;0>|ir/odooi6dtBOtBftstrtaWcl«i!jBndifdii»^'e">*i*4OBihsStib*'tiwnyC*a»*'''*****^'*''*''*'"'^4«l6'*'JSf"-«l4l7 Rl V—,ntol3«*daoriy R'fci.CqminofBlonV Rj Yi6,C1iti'n>inJiilrnHfi4tUifiUa! R Fto JCb V Y» ha ihomo'o nuidciiwlflcl tSnoBnl |ieinFmm»»rt fnr iti» frdfgp Cutfe bean BWYfllh intCo^CbiiMl. pa EncfopLiw tma n '1-S1W |- *», Rwo R Uetng-ft ma>9M,3 {ivir-tliWCOpf *f |faitlqlMY-a(>i";6Mieriri.dtea FMM «« boMbinHd Page 10 of 14 20012 Code Enforcement Annual Report f i t f New VDifc jcBteOepartmvntDrSuie Dlvifjon of Code ^foreeineBt and AdrtiJltiltrwIlHI go WaihfrigtarkA'jetiua, Suks MdO /Ibenn Ny^2i3l mHiie;i$ieji7<-l?:r] Farniisi-lfti-I'Vdr ••nvudouBibnyus r&.ibm;tby Emaill Page 3 of6 19r(TCRRMnt-|203 jr4IPai«COI7£:mir<IMt)ntStAriPAnM FOPtAPMraiSrnATIONANDBJFOftCEMENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT Unifomri Cods Administration and Enforcement Report Reporting Ydari: 2012 Munidpalily Touin cvf Ithica lllftYCRh ?w!fi lioi,, • n ?1. Ha ihtr«uril:l(4lQadap1adCiHn«rSimlnalaauldlngSbr>^Ns hmnilnictnn' P" Yu,l^letHiddcflly |~:VatrCanineieulad^ ^ Ye^CanrrcnlilafdRcsldviT*! 32' pb*i»<hMAl^«K>ir4tusB9lvUi»rr<nilp!<ltylD4rsu[eci>*«IUflRVi1tfalheUn[tamCBdr 1^ FlsldlrupBctUns [)j^ t1«n k;>dr*i &9n»di»l)i^r-JTii<iT'Mt r O.I« irlee-fWr* JS? to pi? :«tiipiMeciibii-ix 2a. (iiiH.M]jiuiikidb)ihbriVjri'dpa'lly id ensure mn plane?Wih thetotrnvO>^* nHdtvpoulont l^rtmilevRHi inrnMicRtfMrJPrfnMUt p Oindt l7li«iaSptofy> 24,4>i'Mr^^hMiniaiyinkth9atiiansiracenAiaKlorUaKDnnCedeiafnpt«ne?r^ea^t>Kia«dtiiiU M|dtn}7 po ft C Z ra 9 ^ or mote a. Onerbu^. hWt piatytiiB Htvasbns an agr/Stcted' larllntfOfni CoderarnplbKefareKh new otfOffln'W bdldfig) p. 0.2 (- 3.5 C 6-9 r 10-1^ t* 15 or more jf, onneiis^ hntmuiv tK" lu tlxud Fui EMigYCnde caniplBiwfpreadg nnv neiUeniid aiJIdir^T pg pi (&2 r3 r loimae 27. OnTien^i.harin'aigtiiuliuptcibMuiAsvidonMirarEnBrfrCDdaccrpplarHerdrcadinnirovBwinH Mld>(q1 PC pi r 2 r 3 (8 dermore " ""^ERfiVCODr^ 2ft ftisedi)n(1icnM<k1p(lttrl ifeoidi. Nhar mart-ad «dEriisvCMriotriipiUrKel>fjtoT2cxdrrMs;sftentoPr7tliiiT<|tInipiira:ilair (fknl'r v'aIr>a>^1 uftuQhl botig Uiemostubd melhcd} SahrMrvK&Chcdi niharfrrfhUin- Mmltad rrtdMrNAiKbi VI«ibhNC>II>0£'ML.jJcO S omcrtpdw i^<eih'«< EneiffrAnilinlt kVthod 29. dawH eart^ miihli^iyiHeMdx wFMt mKrndar inoigpCade umpla FdiklnoMdrlnm llaS.Mtth I Mn(t(ii»nKKt>"i-dm>*had| SeFliatc^MVCheek OrTur SarMzr? Mcitvad TndconMelhad WwtdPwtslIXU'Mt:^ KliwhrplttednioitdfienNrCumniwlilrtniBLeddnT □3 ZJB Energy Rrabd* Nalhad 1 DOi-'n» rvm Page 11 of 14 20012 Code Enforcement Annual Report W€rt VOfk Sta1« P^partnent of Slate DJvbkm DfCpdn EnfoRcMiUeDdAdnlivtTlratfciti P(iWa'Mi?ti»iAn«iuir,SijlU 1180 Albfln^,HY 122^1 PhaneQISfrd'COT^ FF*^|SiS'<<4fj6-4447 y/v^m^swuK/m j'SutonliibyB-ftgTl'l I Pirkn'rFpfm ."I Page 4 of 6 isNVCfUcPAATiaGa UNFORhl COPE; AllNiaiUM STANOAPlPS FCA AOMINlSTRATlOM ANO SMFORCEMENr LOCAL GOVERNMENT Uniform Code Administration and Enforcement Report Reporting Yeir: 2012 r^.Tuaal iiiiiiibei i^«b rcBbltivlUn^cirn CnJe Mlil«ilc<>npbH*rr«Hi<>lh«irJiKponkaiT«r MbiTdltl sl> MBlntrcdlJnlfo-in U:iJh pA<uJ ojcrfJdn ts 4[ted vpip'IT-puK Murticlpaftty Tawn of tthsc* .11> ToiJpufnliDrcrallregbtEndD'Vigit^^ •d4l^<pni|HblM« titsNtdrai ihb teppeins ytpf^ 31b.TbDlnumMrar'l la^Hcsd fraigyCrdb r<iaiid<«inpurnacredup9n^M<'dFoi[hB jmr KEEPMd 3Z Mippty*Mtnflri»ertsof:l»fwliitwa*laecf««jp«fcdln ijNVCrifiUiIiifaHhfbi»flKO»»«sg**»NBh*daietrutnianKr jT9g " ADDrrioh^iNToBMH^ AdiJlti*«Mr lnf4trnDltonABmn'aR«c V.itutdc^hMatapa^idoswIhJwIslt'cdJ'ai'^.l" aou d bb cuitr Qi Ml GUI tfil) Mppt dM flU[Hler.*ffsrefkei« af ififtKiupiiidBhthr «dn Inntad of jslng CijrniTi«.W ui t-djsdbl an i OKwntv ""W be in cthtf d»J SKUATURE riame^nd Title oFtMruin <pmpletlnq this fom;: Bruce W. Bates E-null AddrwK ASs'iffl>"*lir«ij«?M>Iviih«naArdRl'icithlihiiTn^wiAinkilb' Fhone: 607-273-17B3 Daw- 1/13/13Stgnatum; TideimitHflPaii i2«.iei4ul«5arefy€ltr.vlUfl».in"n,»rt««uniy,<±jracdw>haiWneiiKfin ind<jnfBtttmMHn['VtliiltoJi'"CcaawH"nuellT «J»^ia«&^Whsaet(iltiolPlht5lcniiJr(e'Sal».Kiert?mM«so pis.1flad4niTfcfcfTiiriyirtbi*»Tfyyuirii:uniaj>alli'>wtnplbtKa»riiiiw inKhiiimjtendireifw-d-iPluiMlcfl }ni<tif"i"m.rti pr-hBi/yjrfliwiCodBcontekvrlinPini 13BlTfk!nfbnTktlcf.pfovd>^»llal»6au»dto dwHoo jJu[an«i\ Dutnspdiwidwm'' p^-gums tor(niink|iiittei anJ o:«I« Biiteiuiment pftitfi. ekEASE«Ql£ Mci5tr]fftpb'n'W«r»'rn6telrortcdf^ind«-n»a{o5««CWHanolCbdelnftin:vn»nc*iJ.Mri»CiradbnlCw!ei D|.Uun)PlMS»URr*-Jvbg'll Vr £iriJrUjTOnfnundonilwv^<1gliiKindc««rtesjbmllSi>!f"rw«6-'T<Jlrttt«mtc.tho[»»'hinnerCod»BilDroimtJf6Td.*diTirB«iriit6ftnBlJwr isrnirara(4i-rad,»eC«^iOlvNenwaiiaip8fid«*kint-Tia9<>knabra«B^tKt4ir<>rth«fprmUf<NnambuMbe]]^Vi<l'«ri «t»#«ledBmirrt«r>bHi BbUKSrtifrrm tfia Ol^nr*"j ri«a" u*wTnrfa a W afme rsna M Ihp tddf*-htkiir. 'ra-iriinB'unir«ltl9l«lh^Ki"ii iiiiybe ixalpdpr fnwdia SBteeS1harota»-''i94'*3'an; NnyattrSuMDipottinnrt efSnB DhbJon or Codr D-rarcan-anibiiiJ AtlirAilsitnlb') P»Wj11>I n i/i b n Avcni■. {lite lldO Abpnr.HS'isni DOMJH tuillj r^nlj|iniialil1HMiT|- innirri'''~'WtfnrnwiIfTt"!r*'™"* I i Page 12 of 14 20012 Code Enforcement Annual Report rN r\ 1rNYCIlRF>Altri2ci» | Submhrb;/Ern^ ^ - UNIFORMCODE:UNIMUMSrANDAnDSFanADMiniSTIU'nQnAHDENFORCEMEKT | t^ntFomi j LOCAL GOVERKMENT Uniform Code Administration and Enforcement Report Page 5 of fi PLEASE NOT? Fi«fi««<rci«re irui%nn a«[trtiiv;4irirat)d p-m;? tgipq PMa:^ c^ojcg EtirorcivnvitandAJmrTEC-anon^iaUmCtWsi^niisiq u(4itif'3.onttl;yEmaT ktittTi round on ttniOBerrtPK hndctrnertasubnLths^m. E-mal itYsfonn tatheOMjbnciCDde Erdoicsrente/id fchinblr^rtrolSlErChSn lot c/Cw>wWltr*l'etrnf«p>rO\SyMr [s«rTF'«: 1"® JWJ FUfi>nir©\«i K if/l W. 3Ql3;.Oi»«tli«<iHaro«1cfcinn-d:r«:*S««d,»# Cafes&i«falDn laS iBpnndwmiBi e-naitzdmniletfi^nii reearptflFihe Fomvdtfdn threefaiBlasda^ it ■<ef^otifciT^iiBiL bnnt r««Prtd rranitio C9<i«i9ivio[en, p ufycf tA«romt4th«M)Arw>4iow. tFe-<rel uinwdWe,1tvlb-ni merbc mdserfaiediD li>stepstrT>9'AGr dUa ttd-el^hr.vrirsddiEs: mkTrer}:.5a«M □•PM^MtoTStRtA [tddD(i oF Cgde ^orocfTcnt Hul R^nlslnlXr « y/s*iyoten"W«rt<, Suits 11B5 AtPflf, NY LZZ3L Phinei (518)474-^073 FjR:{51g)4Bb-4497 IHSTRUCTtONS DiiiivhilnKtJuiarulWrl|>iiuiiJM|c{|w:fj«>lMj|i|(jiin>bn«iiilli>AriiIu<|l^u|dotfMA'-Ji|irJ>lr>ll>"l'^ tu|in, it tiCiiHl&i U <2iiirplliwlevoTKicquircdFot BcsmdrtErepoit LtyausUlhnequeftbajaltEr icsdlna<h:rorcrt^imandtheset1ltnletj9M,F'Msec(tltl)^P:B«at^^B^lo^Sta1e,C^1sDRo(Code En ^imiiHil a nd JtcAnh 111 ta I e<-St (S1A1474-407 ) eiMtAAL iNioib'iATiari • U«<ee tc<m rqreadi muntpslly. *TF4'Rt6onV-i9Tta''l>'4<(n>«rrd#rtiir|AnmytV>r(nQhDf«(mSir|fef v.nchlharepontd'daeaKajLwficitlKtadi 'lh>i'CBdaQmxLrikthvcdraJJiNruidiiy1-BllaMVer<iSU1«Un1Wini« F>«<Mnl>Bn snd&ilUn j (JfiKaM Cdstjin iM mw^'dpJillpi aPiTi>tilgit^aRirBiTratton]nr;hjoi1iTuiMiMilagftoeflmenttrfr>:BHfrhcc«1ma-vt[>aBBrfc«Mgcn[<afcta!ISfi«WtCCnHUaErnCfrhe«»p:c«dogtftariiri [ampMBD ditc-PistasdoFlhcicitirMDn Mjmbrr.l* the DOS certirktdnn tipwir *Pihervl»tnnnihv'ar^B^tntai(viTpntaris)«E|n4<®rr4t>ldpMri'-ViSpP9>dtelbMl«ridd|ijpiwlwdt4ii<*(®''ttntvin;M<|r4iillid|<M>mUli01>M(RiiSn4<J,|iiiqr TlifirapMTbJ cAnllnikx .:ar4darkJAiJiC«. InMbUoT il>q aiiinti'lsi iiuinzBi, tnil* DOS uiniruduii A apoL*. CapEENreASUtfiHffiHlMnili IhtEughJblAnr^ Uand 1l> on Ihf uwtf d-JnApiitytenlrMlad lavkiB brtlnKarni CE^sdmritlMllfln srd*lhlal^■^(;^ thamurtdpalt'/. Vsmr]aatd2atol'DI:aee'iNnslsKspoiuHchirpct1ntinlr>gntDs^tf|lnspqe1lmlniheinunHf;dty. LOCAL LAW, asonANCE REG AATtONi»ii«i7cAiinevidfrjR)^Dr:hslMlUsv,erdt-3neoird/oi re(tuDdan tilt pmMdcsrDrihe»drrlnKxK>}fl and enlfiKermK rJlhi>llqt4Ttiirn'l»lnth"'»e>l'lplAF^'''''^' t""4 liw'IJ rf JWO ft BURSiNGniMfni intreisthiuutfiiot LrtanhEnumbBqfbilCdinpEeiTnlbksusdtbrematcupen^DvelBed.ButilnflpomianctlnchJiteilinSthfPi^SshouM t?B inlMiwd In 0. EnlAr JiB nlcriljkr«rGqi4Ec«tiicdoc0^Nrinc^«nd^i uxnplLncd LoshJ ai til AT&PWOitlL0CINb|llan 11)EnlMitt*rwrnb«irfilcpwBifcordHn laiisd. 9 qBiahun bnnliMiaA FtOTVICWnOHOf fllS4RKPA09|fiN>n4(lHdArESn|UCTUAESAHbEQUPA<arr)t.ini i;nr4*'Vs«'9-te-tr|inBddJ'*ih^iabMii«.l<UlihAd eAllATIMtiPtllWT5;1eemMHaelTts.T]M4Bl/.nhvsYeysr'jl»'irotwiBll-oE»'mll)r«heue4'flhe»TKserh'V<i."eneerlhrnufflbBer«Tar»nlx>Pf"Tft>hivrdfef o^aF'tAhbA Isicdlh lAiiK^A^IsKf.tfttrirMrUpdhytcqiibcsiipeiatlnppcimtBiKxIlKMIn Idbiti'buphlta.crilciihcnje-tieroldwoopcrMnp pqmlCitsucd In ]«f.unaen*(detiTpiianqfMchenns4ddiiKntlqpetBiirapeiiRlbh(hf9pa;rpi7rided Finwrnf ANDPROFlirTTirtADnlrtjWAlHiFECIIaNSrtneni i;ihieugh 17) Enter the number araQ;up<i<citAnihemuntd^RyfcrMcKc«:ip<ni:>'t)^1lr.>dln jciJ t7Bln lfli,i>ii«n>>qiqU>nu<Aiir£iTi><HlFit4tb'lEtl*iU>«hiuhlpl»<Mcl|b^bu1i].njL EwritutaiilPumboielUuldlii|^trdfMccadehb icpcnis^^Mrl-i ISIt IQtand t7bifqrNtlitn)epfwcfpniKr49<lsitrthedln19i.1S«mdirB NcrtK IFBne>B7trMnbef bwAtKrAinharlSlhraushir,enter in fTHmiteifrNmbr' RnCiALIMtPbCTIorttittions iBi IKfiFinmc'IBadimgh PRdInreFeience to iMdtftapeeDont EdetinedV'b77^«rih:fuiUhpZe^sfXmK«r^Stain C4DECDMPlJPMCi!|iiHnsl9itwiBh27IAi«wi3f 1SithiDuifn27bKedofvthcmunlct>^tysadintil!Sntton>rd [rFi3rctTnenlcFtbeUn'F:rnCqdeK<idlheEretgv<odc EllERCTCCiDEilltaMaihinii|Ai2S>Annuif32inrautfi »basKlDn(h«inui«dpallty{recnr<h1-iR!9ticitatFieadmmTal)Dnvidcn4]tan)nt^lheEiKrayEadn CtUlPlAlNTS: OtBrrei«.31>SnUrini number aMJnliHinCo^jndEnarqy CbdbrelwBdianipeinuiscaiMdIniilivtfZiLEniar'UiknumlMrblUimrmCode-tnc PnrarCe^ralatideP'rclpntaertiidvpefi'ptdbfndtlb FM*ilFineiiKrm»rtber«pnIoioain^2A«rll-«>qtT>r'tatiniqe4mi"<e4r' AEDi7RPlcetPtN4ii;tam1Zi|tn»<er''r«crMo''b rcccrdkecphg QstmForeclNniesitTcinnlin lPNVCAKPeit1ZD7 3]i<hgibcaintal>lBhediirriiml<itpli)ed. ADOmoNALMPOOdtmoHi Piaridetny oldlODndniFbirraOanorcaimeib that raypinn heWnprecesfnpiPvtianTi SOSMATUREiEAtierthanBnqinie.btiBl wdpAwenumtariTll-MpimnewrtTDBnsthe'o'm rthetombbmonibmltiediHPDnlRlVlidoe-mieinoilBnilureb rei|1llr*d fldOMMP* lH«'Submit by EniAirbtitton fbund'iinlhd upp4rrlglith»iHlcuniartefubifih<h*forTnsl«etTonlai9y. TWJ.17M |iii'i;i Page 13 of 14 20012 Code Enforcement Annual Report 19NYCRRPAfm303 UHIPdRMeOOiiriUreMUrtlSTj<MOARPSraRAOMir4ISTaAT10r4W2I>ENFOFlCEMEfrr 5;)bTTi[tta','En'^!)i PrTntParm ^ LOCAJL GOVERNMENT Uniform Code Administration and Enforcement Report ^ RvpoiilnvYear; 2012 lUuAkipiltty Tawji of Ithaca UftofaifcKbonal Ctitf^EtlfarceiMfUCtflUbfllEEnfMclngthe UntfomCadevrithinyvurfilunciiMlity. PleuedQ not itKlud? Indivtilials limfiedte Zoning-tod/nr Ploricg haKtiem. tdb i^aAMT40 DO<<XOC«rtifI(Mr*ftP mo 727s 0610-0124 0404-72966 Bouei" $0 V»dt Chei BiJrner Martin Kelly SttvO-WililariH CFQrTlar. CEO/flK. «t<imEJi?to'iim.!thj?a.ny.us mkedy^nmn.hhaca oyur siiylBlamj§>tQi.vn.tthM:a.iiiy-,v; 30 S7.5 J7.S . . : > - - • .1«. •'« • ' , . -U Ptaat* uft tac 'Eabcnh by inul' button found op «« appw right hand coinor foiBfanittlaefotav ar.#-l NS-iTn (ivii t ) Page 14 of 14 Human Resources 2012 Year End Report, by Judy Drake Civil Service: Maintained compliant requirements o Received approved payroll certification as required by law. o Reviewed changes for positions and reclasslflcatlons o Position changes at the Town and SCLIWC due to deaths, retirements, resignations/terminations. Total of 12 staff changes = 9 -Town 3 -BP o Staff levels as of 12/31 n Town: 48 FT/ 2 PT (30 hrs) no vacancies n BP: 18 FT/ 0 PT (20 hrs) with the part time position vacant o Worked with management on personnel related Issues Including negotiated MOU's for SCLIWC with the UAW and I DOE regarding new positions and health contributions Town and BP Personnel Committee and Employee Relations Committee staff support o Consistent meetings with each committee each month- prepared minutes/agendas o Completed revised Job Classification Program and update Wage Scales o Reviewed Post Exit Interview questionnaire with committee o Discussed and recommended revisions to policies and completed update of Personnel Manual, which was printed and provided to all staff. o Designed a phase In for health Insurance contributions for non CB staff & mgmt o ERC reviewed several suggestion box comments and reviewed policies Conducted an Employee Engagement Survey-to be reviewed and discussed in 2013 Finalizes the Teamsters and UAW collective bargaining agreements for 2012-2014, which Include the reduction of LTD Insurance and added cost share for health Insurance. Town Hall management rep. on Safety Committee - winners of PERMA safety award Benefits Administrator for: o Health, Dental, Life, Short Term Disability, Flex Spending, Workers' Compensation, Deferred Compensation & NYS Retirement System o Great deal of time has been devoted to working on the Greater Tompkins County Municipal Health Insurance Consortium n Serve as the Director representing the Town and serves as Board Secretary n Member of sub committees-Joint Committee on Plan Structure & Design, Audit Committee and the Executive Committee Insurance coordinator - Worked on insurance claims -10 claims/Incidents filed. Payroll management and law compliance - ran payroll collaboratlvely with Debby Kelly o 118 w-2's Issued - Completed budget work for 2013 Worked with Codes Department on a follow up Customer Satisfaction Survey Worked with PWD and BP on providing an all staff communication/collaboration training Applied for and received a Safe Routes to School grant for speed indicator signs Designed and coordinated staff & board lunches and appreciation picnic event Work with Bralnteaser group for Intermunlclpal training opportunities Human Resources support to Bolton Point Commissioners and staff Represent Town on TC Diversity Consortium and served on Society for Human Resources Management of Tompkins County as President. TOWN OF ITHACA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2012 Annual Report The Ithaca area experienced an unusual year for weather related incidents. Therefore, the Public Works Department had a very busy 2012 in which the following was accomplished: • Experienced an unusually mild winter season, resulting in the placement of only 1000 tons of salt. Surplus salt was stored at the Town of Newfield Highway facility. • Worked with other Town Departments to address concerns with Inter- municipal Utility Agreements. • Provided Engineering assistance to Bolton Point for Distribution Main Replacement projects. Began design and ROW work on the Triphammer Transmission main. • Employed 12 seasonal workers for the summer providing assistance on Highway, Engineering, Water and Sewer and Parks projects. • Employed two Engineering interns. • Welcomed one new employee. • Provided training sessions for staff on topics including: construction site safety, snow removal operations, motor vehicle laws and CDL requirements, CPR and First Aid, trench excavation, and Storm water. Completed 3-year Driver Safety training and 'Tn vehicle" CDL Driver evaluations for five staff members. Two of our Heavy Equipment Operators trained on grader operation in the Town of Newfield. • Purchased equipment and tools, as approved within the budget including; Three light duty trucks, drum chipper, leaf vacuum, wheeled excavator, utility vehicle, lawn mower. Gravel Screen, 2-post service lift and a Trench Box with supplementary components. • Completed drainage maintenance work at various locations throughout Town which included, ditch cleaning, driveway culvert replacement/ installation, replacement of 30" and 36" road crossing culvert and various culvert replacements. • Completed pavement overlay work on part of Elm Street Extension in conjunction with storm water drainage installation and pavement repair on sections of Eastern Heights Drive. • Completed pavement maintenance work on 3.8 miles of roadway in the Northeast section of the Town. Provide weekly grounds maintenance at 65 Town owned sites (parks, n trails, preserves, tank sites, pump stations. Town Hall and the Public Works Facility). Completed weekly site checks at park and trail facilities. Replaced a failed culvert on the South Hill Recreation Way, including restoration of disturbed areas and installed plantings. Completed design, public hearing process, and utility approval for four water projects scheduled for 2012 which includes; Permy Lane Water main replacement, replacement of the Danby Road and Northview Water tanks and the relining of the Hungerford Hill Tank. Began construction on three water projects, which include Penny Lane water main, Northview Water Tank replacement and Hungerford Hill Tank restoration, and Town Hall Roof replacement. All projects were completed on time and within budget. Performed site work for Northview Water Tank, Pole Bam, and Annex projects as a means to control project costs. Completed design, construction and project administration of Harris B. Dates Drive capital project. Completed the monitoring and testing of the Ridgecrest Tank in accordance with Health Department regulations. Completed an investigation into the Air Quality concern at Town Hall. ^ This included the preparation of a "Scope of Services", RFP, ' Consultant selection and investigation. Administered 35 SWPPP permits. Represented the Town at the Tompkins County Storm Water Coalition. Represented the Town at the Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan update meetings. Completed engineering support and design review for 20 development submittals. Installed and monitored temporary traffic counters in various locations throughout the Town. Responded to and repaired 32 water main breaks, repaired/replaced three hydrants, replaced/repaired four water valves and performed preventative maintenance on 50 hydrants. Installed 50 new high visibility markers on hydrants around town. Responded to and repaired two sanitary sewer emergencies. Installed and monitored temporary flow meters in eight sanitary sewer locations throughout the Town. Completed the restriping of all cross walks and stop bars within the Town and restriping of our three basketball courts. Several lawn drains were installed along Warren Road Walkway where persistent drainage issues had been experienced. The affected areas were top-soiled and re-seeded. Removed old pressure-treated lumber play structure at Tareyton Park and installed new plastic and metal play structure. Cornell University POST project team assisted with the installation of Fibar mulch. Designed and received Zoning approval for playground installation at Tutelo Park. Prepared site and installed new plastic and metal play structure adjacent to the picnic pavilion. Volunteers from the adjacent Assembly of God Church assisted with the installation of Fibar mulch. Installed concrete steps and metal hand railings at Valentino Field to facilitate access to the ball field from the parking lot. Pervious pavement was installed around the perimeter of the pavilion at Tutelo Park. Continued administration and maintenance of the use of Tutelo Park and Valentino Field for Cal Ripkin Little League and pavilion picnic use. Prepped site and prepared a base for installation of a Batting Cage by the Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken Leagues at Tutelo Park Continued to support volunteers doing grounds maintenance at the Inlet Valley Cemetery, West Hill Community Garden, and Tutelo Park. Continued support for the West Hill Community Garden. Assisted Town's Conservation Board with the annual Richard Fischer Award tree planting at West Hill Community Park and Community Garden site. Continued to assist Cornell Natural Areas staff with Pale Swallow- wort eradication efforts at the Troy Road water tank site. Mulched beds and no-mow areas were refreshed with new woodchip mulch at all park and trail sites. Continued administration of the Town's " Adopt-a-Trail program. Completed the biannual town wide pick up of leaves, debris and Christmas trees. Realized over 940 visits by Town Residents to either drop off leaves and debris or take compost and mulch. In cooperation with the Village of Cayuga Heights, facilitated the storage and processing of woody debris. Grinding of the brush pile was completed in May and again in October. Management of yard waste stockpiles, composting and topsoil mixing. Completed three rounds of roadside mowing throughout the Town. Crews responded to 20 "call-in" events for winter maintenance and plowing. New park and trail identification signs were installed at Hungerford n Heights and Tudor Parks and at the Juniper Drive entrance to South Hill Trail The parking lot at Grandview Park was surface-treated. Provided assistance to the New York State Parks along the Black Diamond Trail with culvert installation and ditching. Completed mowing and clearing along trails and utility easements. Cooperated with other municipal agencies to provide manpower and equipment support through our mutual aid agreements. Continued to provide staff support and representation to Town committees and intermunicipal organizations. Continue to coordinate with Tompkins County for improvements to Hanshaw Road, Pine Tree Road and Forest Home Upstream Bridge. Responded to 1016 NY Dig Safely utility "mark out" requests. Provided input and review for the Roadway Preservation Law discussion. Provided for and responded to the daily maintenance needs of the Town's vehicle, equipment and small tools, utility infrastructure, buildings and facilities, roadways parks and trails. Continued dealings and service to the citizens of the Town. I Overall Town staff was able to meet the expectations of the community by providing services and representation and being fiscally responsible by staying within approved budgets. 2013 Priorities The year 2013 will provide many challenges for the Public Works Department as we continue to meet the expectations of the community and complete programs and projects identified within the approved 2013 Town Budget. 2013 Programs/Projects include: • Participate in the County Reconstruction/replacement projects of "Upstream Forest Home Bridge", Hanshaw Road, and Pine Tree Road • South Hill Recreation Way culvert repairs • Danby/W. King Road Water Main Replacement • Danby Road Water Tank Replacement • Whitetail Drive and Marcy Court Reconstruction ^ ^ Town Hall Parking Lot Reconstruction Public Works Facility Salt Storage Building Replacement Biannual leaf and brush pickup Pavement Maintenance, including "Stone and Oil" treatments and overlay of Forest Home Drive at Flat Rock Pavement Markings Administration support and cooperation with other Town departments and Municipal organizations Maintenance of Town water and sewer infrastructure Maintenance of Town's parks, trails and preserves Respond to Dig Safely New York "mark out" requests Provide engineering support for development proposals Respond to citizen concerns and needs Installation of new plastic and metal playground at Tudor Park Hazardous tree and brush removal town wide Reconstruction of parking lot and pavilion walkway at East Shore Park Install scenic vista sign for East Shore Park provided by Town Conservation Board Tree plantings at Triphammer Road T-main project, Harris B. Dates Drive reconstruction project and Tutelo Park playground which were completed last year Plantings and seeding of silt berm and associated area at Pole Barn addition Repaving of several walkways in the Northeast Playground maintenance and re-freshen Fibar mulch at various parks Design and cost estimate for access to Glenside Preserve and adjacent water main Install bike racks at East Shore Park and Tutelo Park Incorporate additions to Dress Woods Preserve and East Ithaca Preserve into our green space Assist New York State Parks with additional ditch maintenance and grading on the future Black Diamond Trail within the Town of Ithaca Landscape restoration for water main breaks and hydro-seeding of disturbed areas Complete final seeding at Northview Tank Provide design and construction administration support to Bolton Point for Transmission Main Replacement Water system modeling for Christopher and Sapsucker Tanks service areas Sanitary Sewer maintenance work including re-lining of mains and manholes TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us FINANCE AND BUDGET - (607)273-1721 FAX - (607)273-1704 Date: February 6, 2013 Memo to: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor, and Members of the Town Board From: Michael T. Solvig, Finance Officer Subject: Fiscal Year 2012 Year-End Report The financial results for Fiscal Year 2012 were generally good, with fund equity increasing in all major funds except the General Townwide Fund. For all funds, combined revenues of $18,784,195 virtually equaled combined expenditures of $18,778,653. Revenues for sales tax and mortgage tax increased over 2011 totals, although mortgage tax collections remain almost $100,000 short of 2008 levels. Results of Fiscal Year 2012 Operations bv Fund: • General Fund Townwide - Fund equity decreased by $241,683, with expenditures of $4,219,959 exceeding revenues of $3,978,276. Both sales tax and mortgage tax collections exceeded prior year totals. Ending fund balance totaled $2,498,468, which includes reserves of $682,326 for the Parks and Open Space Plan Reserve and $106,460 for the General Benefit Reserve. The unreserved fund balance of $1,709,683 represents 31.5% of 2013 budgeted appropriations. • General Part-Town Fund - Fund balance increased by $217,998 as revenues of $1,353,861 exceeded expenditures of $1,135,863. Total revenues were higher than expected due to sales tax receipts finishing in excess of budgeted amounts. The ending fund balance of $665,921 includes reserves of $38,641 for the General Benefit Reserve. The unreserved fund balance of $627,280 represents 42.7% of 2013 budgeted appropriations. • Highway Part-Town Fund - With revenues of $2,377,555 exceeding expenditures of $2,060,103, fund equity increased by $317,452. Revenues were higher than expected due again to sales tax receipts totaling in excess of budgeted amounts. Expenditures also remained well under budget due, in part, to mild winter weather conditions. Ending fund balance of $1,445,688 includes reserves of $105,285 for the Highway Equipment Reserve and $56,738 for the General Benefit Reserve. Unreserved fund balance totals $1,283,665, or 47.3% of 2013 budgeted appropriations. • Water Fund - The Water Fund was one of only two funds that experienced a decrease in fund equity during Fiscal Year 2011. For Fiscal Year 2012, fund balance increased by $202,511 as revenues of $3,420,692 exceeded expenditures totaling $3,218,181. Revenue received from water sales was 11% over budget, attributed to the extremely dry summer experienced through much of the region. Increased expenditures to purchase water from SCLIWC were offset by savings on the Penny Lane Water Main Improvement and Hungerford Hill Water Tank Rehabilitation capital projects. The ending fund balance of $1,344,526 includes reserves of $8,217 for the General Benefit Reserve. The unreserved fund balance of $1,336,309 represents 33.3% of 2013 budgeted appropriations. • Sewer Fund - Fund balance increased by $417,274 as revenues of $2,737,945 exceeded expenditures of $2,320,671. Increased revenues were realized due to higher than expected sewer rent receipts. The ending fund balance of $1,296,128 includes reserves of $5,804 for the General Benefit Reserve. The unreserved fund balance of $1,290,325 represents 52.1% of 2013 budgeted appropriations. 1 Capital Project Funds - As of December 31, 2012, the Town of Ithaca had eight active capital project funds with a combined fund balance of ($397,526). This negative fund balance is largely due to expenditures for the Northview Water Tank Replacement and Harris B. Dates Drive improvements capital projects. These expenditures will be reimbursed from bond proceeds when the 2013 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds are issued later in 2013. Capital project Warren Road Walkway Hanshaw Road Walkway Pine Tree Road Walkway Town Hall Roof Replacemenl Snyder Hill Road Improvements Gateway Trail Northview Water Tank Replcmnt Danby Rd Water Tank Replcmnt East Shore Drive Water Main Snyder Hill Road Water Main Hungerford Hill Pump StaUon Forest Home Upstrm Bridge H. B. Dates Dr. Improvements Town Hall Parking Lot Imprvmnts BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (99,122) 100,250 35,000 125,488 20,391 87,208 1,042.359 (3.734) 30,125 102,500 1,440,467 2012 REVENUES 99,122 109 38 107 63 101 2012 ENDING EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE 104,851 125,595 20,454 480,710 3,720 1.043,804 30,167 238,270 120 1,942,844 100.359 35,038 87,309 (480,710) (3.720) 102,589 (238,270) (120) (397,526) Risk Retention Fund - Fund balance increased by $8,481 as revenues of $15,623 exceeded expenditures of $7,142. Ending fund balance totaled $103,717. Fire Protection District Fund - With revenues of $3,680,180 exceeding expenditures of $3,252,220, fund equity increased by $427,960 to total $502,768 at year-end. The year-end fund balance represents only 15.2% of 2013 budgeted appropriations. Light District Funds - Fund equity for all light district funds at year-end totaled $9,807. The results of 2012 operations for individual districts are presented on the table shown below. Light district Forest Home Light District Glenslde Light District Renwick Heights Light District Eastwood Cmmns Light Dist Clover Lane Light District Winner's Circle Light District Burleigh Drive Light District Westhaven Road Light District Coddington Road Light District beginning 2012 2012 ENDING FUND BALANCE REVENUES expenditures FUND BALANCE 1,779 2,003 2,400 1,382 758 701 724 735 1,347 1,002 1,014 1,335 1,902 2,003 2,121 1,784 327 246 253 320 624 751 752 623 623 851 865 609 1,979 2,754 2,787 1,946 1,072 1,653 1,652 1,073 10,411 11,964 12,568 9,807 Inlet Valley Cemetery Fund - There were no expenditures and $11 in revenue for this fund in Fiscal Year 2012. Fund balance at year-end totaled $9,061. Debt Service Fund - In 2012, $448,415 in remaining bond proceeds from the 2011 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds was transferred to the Debt Service Fund. These funds will be used for future debt service payments. Fund balance at year end totaled $460,684, an increase of $406,684 over the prior year. Reserves: Parks and Open Space Plan Reserve - The General Townwide Fund includes reserve funds designated for the purpose of future park development and the purchasing of development rights, as outlined in the Town's Parks and Open Space Plan. $75,000 in unreserved fund balance was designated as reserved for this purpose by the Town Board in 2012. The balance at year end was $652,149. Highway Equipment Reserve - The Highway Part-Town Fund includes reserve funds established for the purchase/replacement of highway equipment and machinery. $42,655 was added to this reserve in 2012 through the sale of surplus equipment. The balance at year end was $105,522. General Benefit Reserve - The General Townwide Fund, General Part-Town Fund, Highway Part- Town Fund, Water Fund, and Sewer Fund equity includes funds established for managing unanticipated increases and decreases In employee fringe benefits (e.g. NYS Retirement Costs, Health insurance). The aggregate balance for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $215,860. The balance by fund is as follows: General Townwide Fund General Part-Town Fund Highway Part-Town Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Total Reserve: $ 106,460 38,641 56.738 8,217 5.804 $ 215,860 Sales Tax and Mortgage Tax: • Sales Tax - Collections increased to $2,907,213 in 2012 from the previous year's total of $2,809,431. Sales tax revenues are split between the General Townwide Fund, General Part-Town Fund and Highway Part-Town Fund. • Mortgage Tax - Collections for 2012 totaled $279,560, an increase over the previous year's total of $248,039. Mortgage tax collections still remain significantly below the $372,390 collected in 2008. TAX COLLECTIONS SALES TAX MORTGAGE TAX ACTUAL 2007 ACTUAL 2008 ACTUAL 2009 ACTUAL 2010 ACTUAL 2011 ACTUAL 2012 2,667,941 2,678,451 2,582,422 2,667,106 2,809,431 2,907,213 325,220 372,390 341,823 222,213 248,039 279,560 General ObliQation Long-Term Debt: • Outstanding Debt - As of December 31, 2012. the total outstanding general obligation long-term debt of the Town of Ithaca totaled $5,660,000. This total is aggregated from the Town's outstanding bond issues, as shown on the following table: Description of Debt Amount of Amount Year of Debt Issued Outstanding Maturity Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds -2003 $ 1,000,000 $ 356,000 2017 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds -2004A 1,000,000 469,000 2019 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds -2004B 2,000,000 1,200,000 2024 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds -2005 500,000 180,000 2015 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds -2009 1,125,000 935,000 2024 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds -2011 2,650,000 2,520,000 2031 Total General Obligation Long-Term Debt:$ 8,275,000 $ 5,660.000 ' ^ Of this total outstanding general obligation debt, $626,000 is for facility improvements, $315,000 is for road improvements, and $4,719,000 is for water infrastructure improvements. • Constitutional Debt Limit - The Town of Ithaca maintains a very low direct debt burden. At year end the Town had exhausted only 1.10% of its debt-contracting power. • Bond Rating - In August 2011, Moodys Investors Service assigned an Aa2 rating with a positive outlook to the Town's $2,650,000 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds issue. The Aa2 rating reflects the Town's ample reserves, modest tax base with significant institutional presence and a very low direct debt burden. The positive outlook reflects the Town's consistently strong financial operations and positive trend in taxable values throughout the economic downturn, and the prospect for continued strong performance despite the property tax cap. Challenges and Concerns for Fiscal Year 2013: • Economy - Although the national, state and local economies have slowly improved since the depths of the Great Recession in 2008/2009, they remain in a somewhat fragile state. The Ithaca-area economy has faired better than many through this period, maintaining an unemployment rate below the national and state averages. We remain cautiously optimistic that the economy will continue to expand, albeit slowly, through 2013. • Sales Tax and Mortgage Tax - The level of sales tax and mortgage tax collections are a good indicator of the state of the economy, and whether the economy is expanding or contracting. As the economy has slowly improved over the past several years, sales tax and mortgage tax collections have continued to increase. Sales tax collections for 2012 were 3.5% above coliections in 2011, and 12.6% above collections in 2009. 2012 mortgage tax collections increased 12.7% over the prior , year, and 25.8% over 2010 collections. • 2013 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds - The Town will need to issue approx. $4,000,000 in new long-term debt to finance capital projects budgeted in 2012 and 2013. • 2014 Ithaca Town Budget - The development of balanced budgets that adequately fund increasing expenditures such as employee retirement, health insurance, and capital projects costs against limited and restrained revenue sources will continue to occupy the time and attention of the Town Board and staff. Development of the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget will include: - Multi-year financial planning, with forecasts of revenues, expenditures, capital project and debt service costs, to identify possible future budget imbalances beyond the next fiscal year. - Improvements in the process for reviewing the Town's 5-Year Capital Improvement Program. • Property Tax Cap - Funding the 2014 Town Budget while remaining under the limits of the property tax cap will again be a challenge for the Town Board in 2013. While the 2013 property tax levy was below the tax cap, preliminary projections for 2014 indicate this will be more difficult to achieve in the coming year. ))TOWN OF ITHACASCHEDULE OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES - BUDGET TO ACTUALFOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012)GENERAL TOWNWIDE FUND GENERAL PART-TOWN FUND HIGHWAY PART-TOWN FUNDWATER FUNDSEWER FUNDCAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDSBUDGETACTUALBUDGETACTUALBUDGETACTUALBUDGETACTUALBUDGETACTUALBUDGETACTUALREVENUES:REAL PROPERTY TAXES2,231,5552,231,123--743,000742,7917,5007,5008,5008,500-REAL PROPERTY TAX ITEMS49,30054,596----725,083725,083192,843192,843-SALES TAX400,000438,630900,000987,4331,350,0001,481,150-----FRANCHISE TAX--75,00072,277-------DEPARTMENTAL INCOME15,15076,701159,100203,017--2,387,5002,654,1692,120,0002,223,141-INTERGOVERNMENTAL CHRG36,17535,320--15,00030,257-546---INTEREST INCOME13,0007,5305005343,5002,8243,8002,0721,0001,644-2,101RENTAL INCOME45,00044,374---------LICENSES AND PERMITS13,00015,418---------FINES AND FORFEITURES280,000249,769---------PROPERTY SALE/RECOVERY-30,300-20025,00042,655-994---LOCAL SOURCES-(11,636)-2,746-3,695-160-395-STATE SOURCES200,000284,58389,00087,65474,00074,184---311,421-FEDERAL SOURCES-n--------TOTAL REVENUES3,283,1803,456,7091,223,6001,353,8612,210,5002,377,5553,123,8833,390,5242,322,3432,737,944-2,101INTERFUND TRANSFERS521,567521,567---30,16730,16711-102,750PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS-----300,000-----TOTAL OTHER SOURCES521,567521,567---330,16730,16711-102,750REVENUE & OTHER SOURCES3,804,7473,978,2761,223,6001,353,8612,210,5002,377,5553,454,0503,420,6922,322,3442,737,945-104,851EXPENDITURES:GENERAL GOVERNMENT1,731,2851,576,167143,900114,73677,64071,42366,99545,90250,67537,689-63,846PUBLIC SAFETY77,45074,485----------HEALTH &WELLNESS-------n-n--TRANSPORTATION418,145418,788--1,650.2701,402,997-----238,270CULTURE & RECREATION926,252913,207----------HOME & COMMUNITY SRVC214,050272,719804,100644,328--2,425,0102,398,7472,157,3402,085,241-1,162,070EMPLOYEE BENEFITS777,100777,659284,850300,700468,850431,94460,20056,28442,51037,741--DEBT SERVICE-•----------TOTAL EXPENDITURES4,144,2824,033,0251,232,8501,059,7632,196,7601,906,3632,552,2052,500,9332,250,5252,160,671-1,464,187INTERFUND TRANSFERS99,02799,02776,10076,100153,740153,740717,248717,248160,000160,000-478,657TOTAL OTHER USES186,934186,93476,10076,100153,740153,740717,248717,248160,000160,000-478,657EXPENDITURES & OTHER USES4,331,2164,219,9591,308,9501,135,8632,350,5002,060,1033,269,4533,218,1812,410,5252,320,671-1,942,844EXCESS (DEFICIT) OF REVENUESOVER EXPENDITURES:(526,469)(241,683)(85,350)217,998(140,000)317,452184,597202,511(88,181)417,274-(1,837,992)BEGINNING FUND BALANCE2,740,1512,740,151447,923447,9231,128,2361,128,2361,142,0151,142,015878,854878,854-1,440,467ENDING FUND BALANCE2,213,6822,498,468362,573665,921988,2361,445,6881,326,6131,344,526790,6731,296,128-(397,526)% OF 2013 APPROPRIATIONS:31.5%42.7%547.3%33.3%52.1%N/A ):)ITriACTOWN OF ITHACASCHEDULE OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES - BUDGET TO ACTUALFOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 20123RISK RETENTION FUNDFIRE PROTECTION FUNDLIGHT DISTRICT FUNDSINLET VALLEY CEMETERYDEBT SERVICE FUNDTOTAL - ALL FUNDSBUDGETACTUALBUDGETACTUALBUDGETACTUALBUDGETACTUALBUDGETACTUALBUDGETACTUALREVENUES:REAL PROPERTY TAXES-3,630,6003,629,71711,94511,945--6,633,1006,631,576REAL PROPERTY TAX ITEMS-9,20010,482---976,426983,003SALES TAX------2,650,0002,907,213FRANCHISE TAX------75,00072,277DEPARTMENTAL INCOME------4,681,7505,157,028INTERGOVERNMENTAL CHRG------51,17566,123INTEREST INCOME-1237,2004,590-19-111,00054330,00021,991RENTAL INCOME------45,00044,374LICENSES AND PERMITS------13,00015,418FINES AND FORFEITURES------280,000249,769PROPERTY SALE/RECOVERY------25,00074,149LOCAL SOURCES--10,882----6,242STATE SOURCES-26,00024,510---389,000782,352FEDERAL SOURCES--------TOTAL REVENUES-1233,673,0003,680,18011,94511,964-111,00054315,849,45117,011,516INTERFUND TRANSFERS15,50015,500----1,102,6941,102,6941,669,9291,772,679PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS--------300,000-TOTAL OTHER SOURCES15,50015,500----1,102,6941,102,6941,969,9291,772,679REVENUE & OTHER SOURCES15,50015,6233,673,0003,680,18011,94511,964-111,103,6941,103,23717,819,38018,784,195EXPENDITURES:GENERAL GOVERNMENT--5,0003,207---1,0002,8002,076,4951,915,770PUBLIC SAFETY--3,468,0003,249,013----3,545,4503,323,498HEALTH & WELLNESS15,5007,142------15,5007,142TRANSPORTATION----12,97012,568--2,081,3852,072,623CULTURE & RECREATION--------926,252913,207HOME & COMMUNITY SRVC------1,500-5,602,0006,563,105EMPLOYEE BENEFITS--------1,633,5101,604,327DEBT SERVICE-------694,207694,210694,207694,210TOTAL EXPENDITURES15,5007,1423,473,0003,252,22012,97012,5681,500695,207697,01016,574,79917,093,881INTERFUND TRANSFERS-.-.-----1,206,1151,684,772TOTAL OTHER USES---------1,206,1151,684,772EXPENDITURES & OTHER USES15,5007,1423,473,0003,252,22012,97012,5681,500695,207697,01017,780,91418,778,653EXCESS (DEFICIT) OF REVENUESOVER EXPENDITURES:-8,481200,000427,960(1.025)(604)(1,500)11408,487406,22738,4665,542BEGINNING FUND BALANCE95,23695,23674,80874,80810,41110,4119,0509,05054,45754,4576,581,1416,581,141ENDING FUND BALANCE95,236103,717274,808502,7689,3869,8077,5509,061462,944460,6846,619,6066,586,682% OF 2013 APPROPRIATIONS:> 100%15.2%675.3%> 100%61.4%31.0% / \ \ TOWN OF ITHACA FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,2012 REPORTS: BALANCE SHEET REVENUE & EXPENSE SUMMARY and CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS rs f ^ TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 GENERAL GENERAL HIGHWAY CAPITAL DESCRIPTION TOWNWIDE PART-TOWN PART-TOWN WATER SEWER PROJECTS FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUNDS ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH; CASH INVESTMENTS PETTY CASH $ 1,908,934 $ 570,813 $ 843,358 $ 653,870 $ 1,402,742 $ 357,481 725 - 200 TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH $1,909,659 $570,813 $843,558 $653,870 $1,402,742 $357,481 RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN $682,326 $- $$-$-$- GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT 106,460 38,641 56,738 8,217 5,804 - HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT --105,285 --- FIDUCIARY FUNDS .----- TOTAL - RESERVED CASH $788,785 $38,641 $162,023 $8,217 $5,804 $- OTHER ASSETS; ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $2,238 $2,175 $$-$-$- WATER & SEWER RECEIVABLES ---240,377 238,369 - ■^UE FROM OTHER FUNDS 37,722 -399,178 500,000 -- >TATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE ------ UE FROM OTHER GOV'TS 46,899 105,522 158,283 --- REPAID EXPENSES 76,740 30,792 30,222 4,433 3,429 - TAXES RECEIVABLE - CURRENT ------ TOTAL - OTHER ASSETS $163,599 $138,489 $587,683 $744,810 $241,798 $- ITOTAL ASSETS $2.862.043 ?747.943 5 1.593.264 $1.406.897 $1.650.344 $357.481 UABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $■$- 3 $-$-$- ACCRUED LIABILITIES 239,399 78,470 147,577 27,073 335,348 - DUE TO OTHER FUNDS 124,176 3,552 -35,298 18,868 755,006 BAN PAYABLE ------ DEFERRED REVENUE ------ RESERVED FUND BALANCE 788,785 38,641 162,023 8,217 5,804 - UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 1,709,683 627,280 1,283,665 1,336,309 1,290,325 (397,526) ITOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $2.862.043 $747.943 3 1.593.264 $1.406.897 $1.650.344 5 357.481 1 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2012 $2,740,151 $447,923 3 1,128,236 $1,142,015 $878,854 $1,440,467 Add: REVENUE 3,978,276 1,353,861 2,377,555 3,420,692 2,737,945 104,851 Less: EXPENSE 4,219,959 1,135,863 2,060,103 3,218,181 2,320,671 1,942,844 IFUND BALANCE -12/31/2012 2.498.468 665.921 3 1.445.688 $1.344.526 $1.296.128 $/397.5261 Page 1 of 5 r\ : 1 TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 RISK FIRE LIGHTING DEBT TRUST &INLET DESCRIPTION RETENTION PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE AGENCY VALLEY FUND FUND FUNDS FUND FUND CEMETERY ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH $ 103,717 $666,362 $9,807 $460,684 $-$ INVESTMENTS ------ PETTY CASH .----- TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH $ 103,717 $666,362 $9,807 $460,684 $-$ RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN $$-$-$-$-$ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT ------ HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT ------ FIDUCIARY FUNDS .---120,937 9,061 TOTAL - RESERVED CASH $$-$-$-$120,937 $ 9,061 OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $S -$-$-$$ CUSTOMER RECEIVABLE ----- '-^UE FROM OTHER FUNDS JTATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE )UE FROM OTHER GOVTS PREPAID EXPENSES TAXES RECEIVABLE-CURRENT TOTAL - OTHER ASSETS $- $$- $$ TOTAL ASSETS $ 103.717 $ 666.362 $9.807 S 460.684 $ 120.937 $ 9.061 LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ACCRUED LIABILITIES DUE TO OTHER FUNDS BAN PAYABLE DEFERRED REVENUE RESERVED FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 103,717 666,362 9,807 - $ 120,937 9,061 460,684 TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $ 103.717 S 666.362 $9.807 $ 460.684 S 120.937 $9.061 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2012 Add: REVENUE Less: EXPENSE 95,236 $ 74,808 $ 15,623 3,680,180 7,142 3,252,220 10,411 $ 54,457 $ 11,964 1,103,237 12,568 697,010 - $9,050 11 FUND BALANCE -12/31/2012 S 103.717 $ 502.768 $9.807 $ 460.684 $- $9.061 Page 2 of 5 TOWN ..)>ACABALANCE SHEET for CLOSED CAPITAL PROJECTSFOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012CLOSED CAPITAL PROJECTSDESCRIPTIONFUND HIFirst StreetInterceptorFUND H2Forest HomeTraffic CalmingFUND H3Warren RoadWalkwayFUND H6Town Hail RoofReplacementFUND H7Snyder HillRoad Imp.FUND H11East Shore Dr.Water MainFUND H12Snyder Hill Rd.Water MainFUND H13Hungerford HIHPump StationTOTALCAPITALPROJECTSASSETSUNRESERVED CASH:CASHINVESTMENTS$$$$$$$$$TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH$$$$$$$$$RESERVED CASH:FIDUCIARY FUNDSINVESTMENTS$$$$$$$$$TOTAL - RESERVED CASH$$$$$$$$$OTHER ASSETS:ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $CUSTOMER RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER FUNDSSTATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER GOVTSPREPAID EXPENSESBAN LOANS$$$$$$$$TOTAL - OTHER ASSETS$$$$$$$$$ITOTAL ASSETSS$$$S$$S$LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCEACCOUNTS PAYABLEACCRUED LIABILIITESDUE TO OTHER FUNDSRETAINAGEBAN PAYABLERESERVED FUND BALANCEUNRESERVED FUND BALANCE- $• $- $- $ITOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCET^_L- $- $' $ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE • 01/01/2012Add: REVENUELess: EXPENSE1 $ 1 $ (99,122) $ 125,488 $ 20,391 $ 1,042,359 $ (3,734) $0 1 99,122 107 63 1,445 3,7341 2 - 125,595 20,454 1,043,80430,125 $ 1,115,50943 104,51530,167 1,220,024FUND BALANCE -12/31/2012- SPage 3 of 5 TOWN>^ACABALANCE SHEET for ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTSFOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTSFUND H4FUND H5FUND H8FUND H9FUND H10FUND H14FUND H15FUND H16TOTALDESCRIPTIONHanshaw RoadPine Tree Rd.Gateway TrailNorthviewDanby RoadForest HomeH.B.Dates DriveTown HallCAPiTALWalkwavWalkwav(Grant Funding)Water TankWater TankUpstrm BridgeImprovementsParking LotPROJECTSASSETSUNRESERVED CASH:CASH$ 100,359$ 35,038$ 87,309$ 9,290$ 6,280$ 102,589$ 11,736$ 4,880$ 357,481INVESTMENTS---------TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH$ 100,359$ 35,038$ 87,309$ 9,290$ 6,280$ 102,589$ 11,736$ 4,880$ 357,481RESERVED CASH:FIDUCIARY FUNDS$$$$$$$$$INVESTMENTS----nn---TOTAL • RESERVED CASHOTHER ASSETS:ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLECUSTOMER RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER FUNDSSTATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER GOVTSPREPAID EXPENSESBAN LOANSTOTAL n OTHER ASSETS- $- $n $- $- $$$- $$ITOTAL ASSETSS 100.359 S35.038 $87.309 $9.290 $6.280 S 102.589 $11.736 $4.880 S 357.48LIABIUTIES and FUND BALANCEACCOUNTS PAYABLEACCRUED LIABILIITESDUE TO OTHER FUNDSRETAINAGEBAN PAYABLERESERVED FUND BALANCEUNRESERVED FUND BALANCE100,35935,03887,309490,000(480,710)10,000(3,720)102,589250,006(238,270)5,000(120)ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE - 01/01/2012Add: REVENUELess: EXPENSE100,250 $10935,000 $3887,208 $101480,710- $ 102,500 $893,720 - 238,270755,006(397,526)ITOTAL LIABILITIES^FUND BALANCE $ 100.359 $ 35.038 $ 87.309 $ 9.290 $ 6.280 $ 102.589 $ ^I1,736__$__4,^B_80_ $ 357.48l"- $ 324,958336120 722,820IFUND BALANCE - 12/31/20125 100.359 S 35.038 £ 87.309 S f480.710) S (3.7201 $ 102.589 $ (238.270) S M20) $ /397.526)lPage 4 of 5 TOWN■>ACA^3^BALANCE SHEET for LIGHT DISTRICTSFOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012FUND SL-1FUND SL-2FUND SL-3FUND SL-4FUND SL-5FUND SL-6FUND SL-7FUND SL-8FUND SL-9TOTALDESCRIPTIONForestGlensldeRenwickEastwoodClover LaneWinner'sBurleighWesthavenCoddlngtonLIGHTHomeHeightsCommonsCircleDriveRoadRoadDISTRICTSASSETSUNRESERVED CASH:CASH$ 1,382$ 734$ 1,335$ 1,784$ 319$ 623$ 609$ 1,945$ 1,074$ 9,807INVESTMENTS.-...--...TOTAL ■ UNRESERVED CASHOTHER ASSETS:ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLECUSTOMER RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER FUNDSSTATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLEPREPAID EXPENSESTAXES RECEIVABLE - CURRENTTOTAL - OTHER ASSETS1,382 $$734 $• $1,335 $ 1,784 $$$319 $- $623 $$609 $1,945 $ 1,074 $- $$$9,807ITOTAL ASSirs"£ 1.382 i734 $ 1.335 $1.784 $319 £623 £609 £ 1.945 £ 1.074 £9.807LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCEACCOUNTS PAYABLEACCRUED LIABILIITESDUE TO OTHER FUNDSDEFERRED REVENUERESERVED FUND BALANCEUNRESERVED FUND BALANCE- $1,382- $734- $1,335• $1,784- $- $- $319623609- $1,945- $1,0749,807ITOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE £ 1.382 £ 734 £ 1.335 £ 1.784 $319 £623 £6091.945 £ 1.074 S9.807ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE ■ 01/01/2012Add; REVENUELess: EXPENSE1,7792,0032,400758 $7017241,347 $1,0021,0141,9022,0032,121327 $2462536247517526238518651,9792,7542,7871,0731,6531,65210,41111,96412,568FUND BALANCE-12/31/20121.382 $734 £ 1.33S £1.784 £319 S623 £609 £1.945 £ 1.074 £9.807Page S of 5 r^ TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 GENERAL GENERAL HIGHWAY CAPITAL DESCRIPTION TOWNWIDE PART-TOWN PART-TOWN WATER SEWER PROJECTS FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUNDS REVENUE BUDGETED REVENUE $3,804,747 $1,223,600 $2,210,500 $3,454,050 $2,322,344 $1,524,250 ACTUAL & ACCRUED 3,978,276 1,353,861 2,377,555 3,420,692 2,737,945 104,851 REVENUE OVER (UNDER)$173,529 $130,261 $167.055 $(33,359)$415.601 $(1,419.399) % EARNED 104.6%110.6%107.6%99.0%117.9%6.9% EXPENSE BUDGETED EXPENSE $4,331,216 $1,308,950 $2,350,500 $3,269,453 $2,410,525 $3,145,739 ACTUAL & ACCRUED 4,219,959 1,135,863 2,060,103 3,218,181 2,320,671 $1,942,844 EXPENSE OVER (UNDER)$(111.257)$(173.087)$(290.397)$(51.272)$(89.854)$(1.202.895) % EXPENDED 97.4%86.8%87.6%98.4%96.3%61.8% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2012 $2,740,151 $447,923 $1,128,236 $1,142,015 $878,854 $1,440,467 Actual & Accrued Add: REVENUE 3,978,276 1,353,861 2,377,555 3,420,692 2,737,945 $104,851 less: EXPENSE 4,219,959 1,135,863 2,060,103 3,218,181 2,320,671 $1,942,844 IFUND BALANCE -12/31/2012 $2.498.468 $665,921 $1.445.688 $1,344,526 $1.296.128 $(397,526) CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) CASH-SJC OPERATING INVESTMENTS PETTY CASH TOTAL-UNRESERVED CASH $ 1,909,659 $ 570,813 $ 843,558 $ 653,870 $ 1,402,742 $ 357,481 $ 1,908,934 $ 570,813 $ 843,358 $ 653,870 $ 1,097,943 $ 304,799 725 200 357,481 RESERVED CASH PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT INVESTMENTS FIDUCIARY FUNDS TOTAL - RESERVED CASH TOTAL CASH -12/31/2012 $ 682,326 $ 106,460 - $ 38,641 - $ 56,738 105,285 - $ 8,217 - $ 5,804 $ 788,785 $ 38,641 $ 162,023 $8,217 $5,804 $ $ 2.898.444 S 609.454 $ 1.005.581 $ 662.088 $ 1.408.546 $ 357.481 Page 1 of 5 s TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 RISK FIRE LIGHTING DEBT TRUST &INLET DESCRIPTION RETENTION PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE AGENCY VALLEY FUND FUND FUNDS FUND FUND CEMETERY REVENUE BUDGETED REVENUE $ 15,500 $3,673,000 $ 11,945 $1,103,694 $-$ ACTUAL & ACCRUED 15,623 3,680,180 11,964 1,103,237 -11 REVENUE OVER (UNDER)S 123 $7.180 S 19 $(457)5 -$ 11 % EARNED 100.8%100.2%100.2%lOO.OYo 0.0% EXPENSE BUDGETED EXPENSE $ 15,500 $3,473,000 $ 12,970 $695,207 $-$ 1,500 ACTUALS ACCRUED 7,142 3,252,220 12,568 697,010 -- EXPENSE OVER (UNDER)S (8.358)$(220.780)$ (402) $1.803 S -$ (1.500) % EXPENDED 46.1%93.6%96.9%100.3%0.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE -UND BALANCE - 01/01/2012 $ 95,236 $74,808 $ 10,411 $54,457 $-$ 9,050 Actual & Accrued Add: REVENUE 15,623 3,680,180 11,964 1,103,237 -11 Less; EXPENSE 7,142 3,252,220 12,568 697,010 FUND BALANCE -12/31/2012 $ 103,717 $ 502,768 $9.807 $ 460.684 $- $9.061 CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) CASH-SJC OPERATING INVESTMENTS PETTY CASH TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH RESERVED CASH PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT INVESTMENTS FIDUCIARY FUNDS TOTAL - RESERVED CASH $ 103,717 $ 666,362 $ $ 103,717 $ - $ - $ 9,807 $ 460,684 $ 666,362 $ - $ 9,807 $ $ - $ 460,684 $ $ $ - $ - $ n $ 120,937 $ 120,937 $ 9.061 9,061 9.061 I-^TOTAL CASH -12/31/2012 $ 103.717 S 666.362 $9.807 $ 460.684 $ 120.937 $ Page 2 of 5 r.)TOWN .IACAREVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for CLOSED CAPITAL PROJECTSFOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012CLOSED CAPITAL PROJECTSFUND HIFUND H2FUND H3FUND H6FUND H7FUND H11FUND H12FUND H13TOTALDESCRIPTIONFirst StreetForest HomeWarren RoadTown Hall RoofSnyder HillEast Shore Dr.Snyder Hill Rd.Hungerford HIMCAPITALInterceptorTraffic CalmingWalkwayReplacementRoad Imp.Water MainWater MainPump StationPROJECTSREVENUEBUDGETED REVENUE$$$ 20,527$$$$ 3,723$$ 24,250ACTUAL & ACCRUED0199,122107631,4453,73443104,515REVENUE OVER fUNDERI$ 0$ 1S 78.595S 107S 63£ 1.445£ 11£ 43$ 80.265% EARNED0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%EXPENSEBUDGETED EXPENSE$$$$ 187,285$ 20,454$ 1,407,832$$ 30,167$ 1,645,739ACTUALS ACCRUED12-125,59520,4541,043,804•30,1671,220,024lEXPENSE OVER fUNDERlS 1S 2$s fei.egol$£ f364.0281$$S 1425.7151% EXPENDED0.0%0.0%0.0%67.1%100.0%74.1%0.0%100.0%74.1%ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE • 01/01/2012$ 1$ 1$ {99,122)$ 125,488S 20,391$ 1,042,359$ (3,734)$ 30,125$ 1,115,509Actual & AccruedAdd: REVENUE0199,122107631,4453,73443104,515Less: EXPENSE12-125,59520,4541,043,804-30,1671,220,024[FUND BALANCE . 12/31/2012$£$$$$£$£CASH andCASH EQUIVALENTSCASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS)$$$$$$$$$INVESTMENTS-------•-ITOTAL CASH . 12/31/2012- $- $- $- tPage 3 of 5 r.)TOWN>'ACAREVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTSFOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTSFUND H4FUND HSFUND H8FUND H9FUND H10FUND H14FUNDH15FUND H16TOTALDESCRIPTIONHanshaw RoadPine Tree Rd.Gateway TrailNorthvlewDanby RoadForest HomeH.B.Dates DriveTown HallCAPITALWallfwavWalkway/Grant Fundinq)Water TankWater TankUpstrm BridqeImprovementsParklnq LotPROJECTSREVENUEBUDGETED REVENUE$$$$ 500,000$ 500,000$$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 1,500,000ACTUAL & ACCRUED10938101--89--336REVENUE OVER /UNDER)S 109S 38S 101S fSOO.OOO)S /500.0Q0)S 89$ /250.000)S /250.000) S ri.499.664)% EARNED0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%EXPENSEBUDGETED EXPENSE$$$$ 500,000$ 500,000$$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 1,500,000ACTUALS. ACCRUED---480,7103,720-238,270120722,820[EXPENSE OVER /UNDER)$$$S f19.2g0)S /496.280)$S /11.730)S /24g.880)$ (777.180)% EXPENDED0.0%0.0%0.0%96.1%0.7%0.0%95.3%0.0%48.2%ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE - 01/01/2012$ 100,250$ 35.000$ 87,208$$$ 102,500$$$ 324,958Actual 8. AccruedAdd: REVENUE10938101--89--336Less: EXPENSE---480,7103,720-238,270120722,820IFUND BALANCE-12/31/2012 S 100.359 $ 35.038 $ 87.309 £ (480.710^ $ (3.720) $ 102.589 $ (238.270) $CASH andCASH EQUIVALENTSCASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 100.359 $ 35,038 $ 87,309 $ 9,290 $ 6,280 $ 102,589 $ 11,736 $ 4,880 $ 357,481INVESTMENTS .........[TOTAL CASH n 12/31/2012 S 100.359 $ 35.038 $ 87.309 8 9.290 $ 6.280 $ 102.589 $ 11.736 $ 4.880 $ 357.481Page 4 of 5 TOWN>'ACAREVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for LIGHT DISTRICTSFOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012FUND SL-1FUND SL-2FUND SL-3FUND SL-4FUND SL-5FUND SL-6FUND SL-7FUND SL-8FUND SL-9TOTALDESCRIPTIONForestGlensldeRenwickEastwoodClover LaneWinner'sBurleighWesthavenCoddlngtonLIGHTHomeHetqhtsCommonsCircleDriveRoadRoadDISTRICTSREVENUEBUDGETED REVENUE$ 2,000$ 700$ 1,000$ 2,000$ 245$ 750$ 850$ 2,750$ 1,650$ 11,945ACTUAL & ACCRUED2,0037011,0022,0032467518512,7541,65311,964REVENUE OVER fUNDERI$ 3$ 1$ 2S 3$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 4£ 3£ 19% EARNED100.1%100.2%100.2%100.2%100.2%100.2%100.1%100.1%100.2%100.2%EXPENSEBUDGETED EXPENSE$ 2,200$ 750$ 1,100$ 2,200$ 270$ 800$ 900$ 3,000$ 1,750$ 12,970ACTUAL & ACCRUED2,4007241,0142,1212537528652,7871,65212,568lEXPENSE OVER /UNDER)£ 200$ (261$ f86)$ f791$ (17)$ (48)$ /35)$ (213)$ (98)$ (402)% EXPENDED109.1%96.6%92.1%96.4%93.9%94.0%96.1%92.9%94.4%96.9%ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE • 01/01/2012$ 1,779$ 758$ 1,347$ 1,902$ 327$ 624$ 623$ 1,979$ 1,073$ 10,411Actual & AccruedAdd; REVENUE2,0037011,0022,0032467518512,7541,65311,964Less: EXPENSE2,4007241,0142,1212537528652,7871,65212,568IFUND BALANCE -12/31/2012S 1.382S 734S 1.335£ 1.784S 319£ 623£ 609S 1.945$ 1.074£ 9.807CASH andCASH EQUIVALENTSCASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 1,382 $ 734 $ 1,335 $ 1,784 $ 319 $ 623 $ 609 $ 1,945 $ 1,074 $ 9,807INVESTMENTS ..........ITOTAL CASH-12/31/2012 $ 1.382 S 734 $ 1.335 $ 1.784 S 319 $ 823 $ 609 S 1.945 S 1.074 $ 9^807"Page 5 of 5 ^ Town Clerk's Office 2012 Year-End Report and 2013 Goals The Town Clerks' office is the front line for the public and the helpers for everyone. It seems that every department is helped in some way by the clerks whether it is simply taking in money and printing receipts or organizing, distributing and receiving bids, or filing and tracking public interest orders, or coordinating and collating materials for meeting and taking minutes. I feel we have a behind-the-scenes part in almost all business of the Town which can not always be quantified, but is always there. 2012 Board meetings Town Board n Prepared for and attended all meetings of the Town Board n Prepare and file minutes n Filed 225 resolutions n Filed 13 local laws with the state n Posted public hearing and permissive referendum notices on the web, in the lobby and in the Ithaca Journal n Began posting complete packets of Town Board meeting information on the web n Facilitated distribution and advertisement of capital project bids to contractors » Planning Board n Attended all meetings of the Planning Board n Prepared minutes n Filed 89 resolutions ZBA n Attended 3 meetings n Prepared resolutions and minutes Records Management Advisory Board n Chair of the Board focused on organizing information on the town website Ethics Board n Revised disclosure form to implement Ethics Board suggestions after Town Board approval Contracts Prepared and mailed annual contracts. Logged signed contracts in Town Clerk Database. Licenses and permits / cash management transactions n Issues 170 marriage licenses ^ n Issued 1,300 dog licenses and renewals n Issued 287 handicapped parking permits n Collected $4,428 in Town Clerk fees / \ n Performed 706 Building/Zoning transactions, totaling $184,149 t n Performed 49 Planning transactions, totaling $ 13,241 Training n Assisted with coverage and training of the Administrative Assistant for the Building/Codes Department n Attended week-long Cornell Municipal Clerks Institute, president of class n Continuing education class at TCB.biz: Beginning Photoshop CS6 n Attended regional town clerk meetings focused on shared services Records management n Revised access to records procedure and forms to be more user friendly n Worked with the County to accept and pilot a shared services grant for records management n Logged and filed 66 pieces of permanent correspondence n Filed 97 easements, agreements. Public Interest Orders and Miscellaneous documents with the Tompkins County Clerk's office n Began a project logging into the database all Town Board agenda item discussion topics for which there was no action Community projects n Edit and prepare the Fall and Spring editions of the Town of Ithaca newsletter n Manage ^e Community Garden Tax bills and water bills Continue assisting the Tax Receiver with collections 2013 Goals n Investigate and transition into an electronic newsletter for timely information to our residents n Shared services with the County - Implementation and training of the shared services grant and the scanning of all Town records n Deeds and Easements project which was a goal for 2012 will be finished with the help of the scanning and implementation of Municity n Leam about Municity as well as continue cross-training for emergency coverage Town of Ithaca Planning Department Planning Department 2012 Annual Report Accomplishments & Proposed 2013 Priorities Accomplishments in 2012 Comprehensive Plan Update A major accomplishment of the Planning Department and Comprehensive Plan Committee was the release of the long-awaited draft Comprehensive Plan to the public for review and comments in June. This action followed many months of discussion and consideration of the draft Plan by the Committee with revisions of the document prepared by staff. Copies of the draft Plan were posted on the Town's website and paper copies were made available for the public to view. • Major components of the draft Plan include: Chapter 1 ilntroduction - sets the stage for the Plan update; it acknowledges the challenges of growth and the Town's successes and shortcomings since the 1993 Plan, and describes how the updated Plan seeks to make corrections with more sustainable and contemporary planning approaches. This chapter also contains the Town's vision statement. Chapter 2:Goals and Recommendations - establishes the broad goals that form the foundation of the Plan with specific recommendations directing actions towards achieving those goals. Chapter 3:Future Land Use Plan - provides a geographical depiction (a map) of future recommended land use character and development patterns in the Town with narrative descriptions defining the intent of each character area. Chapter 4:Implementation - provides a guide for implementation of the Plan; it is largely comprised of a table listing all the recommendations from Chapter 2 with their relative priority and other basic implementation information. - Appendix Arlmplementing Best Practices - provides a description of current contemporary practices in planning whose concepts and techniques are recommended approaches in the Plan. Appendix B/Existing Conditions - provides a current snap shot of the Town with a wealth of facts, figures, descriptions and maps characterizing the Town, including: demographic profile, land use patterns, land use regulations, housing, natural resources, energy use, agricultural resources, recreational resources, historical resources, transportation system, municipal services and infrastructure, community services, and economic development profile. Appendix C through J - includes Residents Survey report, public meeting summaries, population and housing projection calculations, build out analysis, glossary, bibliography, Ag and Farmland Protection Plan, and Scenic Resources Inventory and Analysis report. Additional milestones and progress on the draft Plan included: • Staff coordinated the June 28,2012 public information meeting on the newly released draft Comprehensive Plan; staff provided a presentation that highlighted some of the Plan's new concepts and proposals and fielded questions and comments from the public. • Staff responded to inquiries and met with various representatives throughout the summer in response to questions and concerns regarding the draft Plan. • Public comments on the draft Plan, compiled following the August 31®' initial submission deadline, and were considered by staff and addressed by Committee members during meetings in October and November resulting in revision to the draft Plan. • The December s"' revised version was posted on the Town's website and concluded the Committee's work on the Plan. Planning Department 2012 Annual Report Accomplishment and 2013 Priorities Staff prepared and presented information to the Committee on a number of topics to assist discussion on particular issues, most notably: • To facilitate discussion of the Future Land Use Maps and specifically the proposed "New Neighborhood" and "Neighborhood Center" concepts for West Hill, East Hill and South Hill, staff prepared conceptual development scenarios for the areas. The scenarios incorporated transect zones to illustrate how gradations of development densities could be applied, with higher densities at the mixed use center core and lower densities at the development fringe. The scenarios also illustrated how green space could be utilized and incorporated throughout. • To help committee members visualize different development densities and address public comments recommending the densities in the Neighborhood Centers be significantly increased, staff prepared and presented "Visualizing Density", a presentation assembling aerial and related street level photos from semi-rural, suburban, and urban developments in and around Ithaca, Buffalo, and Cleveland. Other Comprehensive Plan related events: • Two joint meeting of the City and Town Comprehensive Plan Committees were held (April 25*'' and September lO"*) providing an opportunity for members to focus on issues of mutual interest to both municipalities (e.g. lake stewardship, fulfilling housing needs, affordable housing, climate change, coordination of development objectives, re-use of Emerson facility, standardization of codes and inspections, and more) as well as identify and share concerns specific to each municipality (e.g. accommodating growth in City to lessen sprawl and loss of open space in the Town, etc.). Development Reviews - Planning Board The Planning Department received a total of 41 new development review applications in 2012, compared with 45 in 2011. Actions associated with these applications and other Board responsibilities resulted in a total (same project, but multiple actions) of 61 Planning Board actions (as compared to 57 in 2011 and 77 in 2010). While 2011 had a lower number of total actions relative to 2010 and 2012,2011 saw more complex projects with three projects involving rezonings and one involving an environmental impact statement. In 2012 there was only one rezoning. A tally of Planning Board actions is attached at the end of this document. Planning Department Agricultural Related Activities • The Town's Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan was approved by NYS Department of Agriculture & Markets (NYSDAM). The grant was closed out, the final reimbursement was received, and implementation of the Plan began. • Work continued on the agricultural conservation easement for the Indian Creek Farm. The draft easement language and preliminaiy site plan was approved by NYSDAM. The survey (T.G. Miller) and title search (Guy Krogh) was completed in 2012. • Staff developed an agricultural webpage (http://www.town.ithaca.nv.us/town-agriculturel on the Town's website which includes individual pages for where to buy local products in the Town, the Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan, the Town's Agricultural Land Preservation Program, the Agriculture Committee, agricultural maps and zoning, and farming links. • The Town's Agriculture Committee met three times in 2012 and discussed and approved a new organization structure, nominated new officers and membership, reviewed and provided comments on the Town's draft Comprehensive Plan, provided comments on the Town's Sprinkler Law, heard a presentation from a representative from the Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District, and prepared an article for the Town's newsletter regarding Groundswell and their upcoming events. Planning Department 2012 Annual Report Accomplishment and 2013 Priorities ' • Conducted the annual inspection for the agricultural conservation easement for the Ferguson property, and found the property to be in compliance. Gateway Trail Progress continues to be made on moving the Gateway Trail forward. Staff submitted to NYS DOT a revised scoping report for the trail project and completed several grant-related tasks, including an archeological sensitivity analysis, a survey of ground disturbances, and determinations from NYS DEC Natural Heritage Program and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the ecological significance of the trail corridor. Staff prepared an advertisement to announce that the Town was looking to hire a project design consultant. NYSDOT had recommended that the advertisement include a preliminary design for the entire trail project and only a final design for the Phase 1 section between Stone Quarry Road and the City parklands. A committee was formed (including representatives from the City of Ithaca and NYS Parks) to review the five submitted proposals. Based on rankings and reference checking. Fisher Associates were tentatively selected, along with their local sub-contractor, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects. Next steps will be to obtain a proposal from Fisher Associates including cost figures. Other Activities The Planning Department continues to provide regular staff support and coordination to the Conservation Board, Planning Committee, and the Codes and Ordinances Committee on a variety of projects. Below is a summary of their activities/accomplishments for 2012. Conservation Board: Awarded its Richard B. Fischer Environmental Conservation Award to Cayuga Compost and held the associated tree planting ceremony at the Town's West Hill Park; Environmental Review Committee continued to provide comments for site plan and subdivision projects and conducted site visits to many of the projects; Coordinated the design and production of the interpretative sign panel for East Shore Park; Prepared articles for the Town newsletter regarding a general update on CB activities and timber harvesting; Reviewed and provided comments regarding the Town's draft Comprehensive Plan; Drafted the Southwest Glens and Creeks Conservation Zone report and presented it to the Town's Planning Committee; Developed a post card and brochure regarding timber harvesting, for landowners in the Town's Conservation Zone; Developed a Conservation Board Facebook page (hltp://www.facebook.com/lthacaConservationBoardk Discussed and provided comments regarding the potential new Conservation Zone along East Shore Drive; Continued to discuss water rates in the Town and potential water conservation ideas for public outreach. Codes and Ordinances Committee: • Finalized amendments to the Conservation Zone language concerning timber harvest regulations (later adopted by Town Board); Planning Department 2012 Annual Report Accomplishment and 2013 Priorities • Finalized amendments to the fill permit provisions in the Town's Zoning Code (later adopted by Town Board); • Finalized the Stream Setback Law (later adopted by Town Board); • Developed and finalized amendments to the Town Sign Law pertaining to banners (later adopted by Town Board); • Initiated the review of a revised draft Town Sign Law; • Finalized other Code amendments including revisions to garage/accessory buildings & definitions; interpretation of woodsheds; and amendments to re-roofmg requirements (all later adopted by Town Board). Planning Committee: • Completion of the West Hill Traffic report which analyzed potential traffic impacts under conceptual future full build-out scenarios. Staff prepared several build-out scenarios for a certain defined area of West Hill and provided associated traffic related input calculations. These inputs were provided to ITCTC (Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council) staff who, using a traffic modeling software, analyzed and provided volume and volume to capacity ratio data results in both table and map forms. The entire project, including the development of scenarios, the methodology, and analysis, were described in the report, along with a discussion of findings and future consideration. • Drafted initial comments for submission to Tompkins County on their draft Request for Proposal seeking a development proposal for the County Biggs property; • Reviewed and provided input on the Southwest Glens and Creeks Conservation Zone report prepared by the Conservation Board; • Considered and provided recommendations to the Town Board on proposed modifications to the ' 1 EcoVillage Planned Development Zone amendments to allow limited commercial uses (later adopted by Town Board); • Considered and provided recommendations to the Town Board for establishment of an open development area designation for 572 Warren Road and certain properties along E. Shore Drive (later adopted by Board); • Considered a request by residents of E. Shore Drive for establishment of a conservation zone along E. Shore Drive; • Considered and discussed MR language for Eastwood Commons and in relationship to the Greenways development Planning Department Proposed Priorities for 2013 Comprehensive Plan Update - Completion Completion of the Comprehensive Plan update is a high priority for the Planning Department. Now that the Comprehensive Plan Committee has finalized its work, the Town Board can undertake its discussion and consideration of the draft Plan and conduct the SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) review. Adoption by the Town Board must be preceded by no less than one required public hearing. implementation of Comprehensive Plan ' Depending on when the Comprehensive Plan is adopted by the Board will determine to what extent implementation efforts can get underway in 2013. A priority for implementation should be revision of the Zoning Chapter of the Town Code. Areas experiencing development pressure and which have been 4 Planning Department 2012 Annual Report Accomplishment and 2013 Priorities ^ identified for more compact mixed use development, which could not take place under existing zoning, should be given the highest priority. This would include identified areas on West Hill, which would benefit from a collaborative design/planning process involving residents, landowners and various stakeholders to establish a neighborhood vision and a regulatory framework to guide future development in the area. Equally important will be the update of the Town's subdivision regulations. The subdivision regulations are covered in a separate law within the Town Code which at times creates confusion. While the Town is in the process of modernizing its zoning and subdivision regulations, staff has recommended that the Town consider consolidating all of its laws governing planning and land use into a Unified Development Code. This approach is being taken by a growing number of communities who see the advantages of having these regulations (zoning, subdivision, sign, lighting, stormwater, stream setback, etc) consolidated rather than being in disparate chapters throughout the Town Code. Development Reviews/Planning Board Staff will continue to provide support to the Planning Board. It is anticipated that the submission of development review applications will remain at a steady pace in 2013. Additional Planning Department Priorities • Continue staff support and coordination for the Conservation Board, Codes and Ordinances Committee, Planning Committee and Agricultural Committee; • Complete and submit the necessary documentation to NYS Ag and Markets to secure a conservation easement and grant funding for the Indian Creek Farms; • Continue progress and coordination with the consultant team and stakeholders in developing a design for the Gateway Trail; • Finalize the Scenic Resource Inventory and Analysis Report; • Continue implementation of recommended actions in the Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan; • Assist the Conservation Board with public outreach and necessaiy steps towards approval of a conservation zone for the Southwest Glens and Creeks area (includes Coy Glen, Culver Creek, and Hackberry Woods Unique Natural Areas); • Propose modifications to the Town Code related to criteria triggering required site plan approval by the Planning Board. Submitted by Susan RItter, Director of Planning February 6,2013 Planning Department 2012 Annual Report Accomplishment and 2013 Priorities SUMMARY OF 2012 PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS & ACTIONS The following provides a tally of Planning Board actions in 2012. This is followed by a descriptive list of major (large/complex) projects that were considered by the Board in 2012. Tally of Planning Board Actions In 2012 Preliminary Subdivision Applications/Approvals Final Subdivision Applications/Approvals (includes simple subdivisions where preliminary and final approvals were simultaneously granted) Preliminary Site Plan Applications/Approvals Final Site Plan Applications/Approvals (includes actions where prelim. & final approvals were simultaneous) Preliminary Site Plan with Prelim Subdivision Applications/Approvals (generally large projects involving both approvals) ' Final Site Plan with Final Subdivision Applications/Approvals (generally large projects involving both approvals) Modifications of Site Plan or Subdivision Applications/Approvals Sketch Plan Reviews Sign Review Board - Recommendations to ZBA Special Permits/Approvals (includes actions where special permits were simultaneous with other approvals) Miscellaneous Planning Board Actions: Acceptance of Scoping, EIS Recommendation to Town Board for Rezoning Recommendation to Town Board on other proposals 0 16 0 7 5 10 13 TOTAL ACTIONS BY BOARD IN 2012 61 ' ^ Town Clerk's Office ' 2012 Year-End Report and 2013 Goals The Town Clerks' office is the front line for the public and the helpers for everyone. It seems that every department is helped in some way by the clerks whether it is simply taking in money and printing receipts or organizing, distributing and receiving bids, or filing and tracking public interest orders, or coordinating and collating materials for meeting and taking minutes. I feel we have a behind-the-scenes part in almost all business of the Town which can not always be quantified, but is always there. 2012 Board meetings Town Board n Prepared for and attended all meetings of the Town Board n Prepare and file minutes n Filed 225 resolutions n Filed 13 local laws with the state n Posted public hearing and permissive referendum notices on the web, in the lobby and in the Idiaca Journal n Began posting complete packets of Town Board meeting information on the web n Facilitated distribution and advertisement of capital project bids to contractors I > Planning Board n Attended all meetings of the Planning Board n Prepared minutes n Filed 89 resolutions ZBA n Attended 3 meetings n Prepared resolutions and minutes Records Management Advisory Board n Chair of the Board focused on organizing information on the town website Ethics Board n Revised disclosure form to implement Ethics Board suggestions after Town Board approval Contracts Prepared and mailed annual contracts. Logged signed contracts in Town Clerk Database. Licenses and permits / cash management transactions n Issues 170 marriage licenses ^ n Issued 1,300 dog licenses and renewals n Issued 287 handicapped parking permits ' * n Collected $4,428 in Town Clerk fees n Performed 706 Building/Zoning transactions, totaling $184,149 n Performed 49 Planning transactions, totaling $13,241 Training n Assisted with coverage and training of the Administrative Assistant for the Building/Codes Department n Attended week-long Cornell Municipal Clerks Institute, president of class n Continuing education class at TC3.biz: Beginning Photoshop CS6 n Attended regional town clerk meetings focused on shared services Records management n Revised access to records procedure and forms to be more user friendly n Worked with the County to accept and pilot a shared services grant for records management n Logged and filed 66 pieces of permanent correspondence n Filed 97 easements, agreements. Public Interest Orders and Miscellaneous documents with the Tompkins County Clerk's office n Began a project logging into the database all Town Board agenda item discussion topics for which there was no action Community projects ( ^ n Edit and prepare the Fall and Spring editions of the Town of Ithaca newsletter n Manage the Community Garden Tax bills and water bills Continue assisting the Tax Receiver with collections 2013 Goals n Investigate and transition into an electronic newsletter for timely information to our residents n Shared services with the County - Implementation and training of the shared services grant and the scanning of all Town records n Deeds and Easements project which was a goal for 2012 will be finished with the help of the scanning and implementation of Municity n Learn about Municity as well as continue cross-training for emergency coverage AGENDA*!^ PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO To: Town Board Members From: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning Date: February 4, 2013 Re: Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 2014-2018 Funding - Application for a Pedestrian Corridor Study along State Route 96B/Danby Road The Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) is in the process of assembling a list of potential projects for the 2014-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Required by federal law, the TIP represents the transportation improvement priorities of the Tompkins County Transportation Area that will be funded using federal transportation funds (with a 20% local match). Projects chosen for the TIP are selected based on funding categories and a ranking system. While a wide range of transportation related projects are eligible for the TIP, the funding categories for project selection tends to favor road and bridge related projects over non-auto related projects (e.g. bicycle and pedestrian facilities). In addition, with federal funding anticipated to be limited over the next five years, pedestrian/multi-use projects are expected to be especially competitive. Of the many pedestrian/bicycle facility needs in Tompkins County, the lack of safe pedestrian facilities along Route 96B in the Town of Ithaca has recently generated particular attention. Proponents seeking to have a sidewalk constructed from the City of Ithaca/Town boundary to Ithaca College have made a concentrated effort to get the word out and have lobbied at ITCTC meetings, contacted elected officials, and garnered media attention. This lobbying effort has also reached representatives of NYS Department of Transportation who, along with other ITCTC members, will play an important role in the ranking and finalizing of the TIP list. The need for safe pedestrian facilities along Route 96B, particularly for Ithaca College students traveling to and from the City, as well as to businesses located on Route 96B, is not a new concern, but this current attention coinciding with the TIP update provides a potential opportunity for serious consideration of this long identified inadequacy. In consultation with several ITCTC representatives, the Town Planning and Public Works Departments are proposing to request inclusion of the TIP for a pedestrian corridor study along State Route 96B from the Town/City municipal line to the intersection with King Road. The purpose of the study is to detennine where a sidewalk would be most feasible, investigate alternative routes, and address such issues as right-of-way ownership, drainage considerations and costs. The study would provide an important first step and "ready" a project for future funding for the design and construction. This memo is intended to inform the Town Board of staffs intent to prepare and submit an Initial Project Proposal (IPP) application for the TIP, for the Route 96B pedestrian corridor study, and determine if members have any concerns. The proposed cost of the study is currently estimated at roughly $100,000. Should the project be selected for the TIP and the funding allocated, the Town would be asked to contribute a 20% match, and at that time the Town Board ,? ! /i would have an opportunity to further consider whether to proceed with the proposed project and ^ ^ fund the 20% match. i") ( 1 n I 1 Network/Record Specialist 2012 Accompiishments / 2013 Priorities Report 2012 Accomplishments Town Web site Network New pages and enhancements o Comprehensive Plan o Town Board and Planning Board packets now available on web site o Bolton Point, West Hill and 211 Tompkins links added to TOI web site Meeting agendas and minutes are now posted by support staff for timelier availability of web site information. Installed new file server at Town Hall; quadrupling the storage capacity. Installed additional hard drive space to Public Works server; maximizing the storage capacity. Installed 46" internet-ready LCD TV in Public Works Lounge Installed laptop for field office staff use at Public Works Lounge Installed new Xerox Color printer/copier at Town Hall Created guest Wi-Fi network access at Town Hall Installed large document scanner/plotter at Public Works. Updating computer operating systems from Windows XP to Windows 07 and Microsoft Office from 2003 to 2010. Provided software updates and hardware maintenance for Town Hall and Public Works networks and peripherals. Provided daily Help Desk support for Town Hall and Public Works staff. Additional Responsibilities Member of ad hoc committee to find new Code Enforcement/Planning Parcel Software Assisted with planning and installation of replacement carpet in Court Office Working member of the Records Management Advisory Board Committee Priorities/Goals/Expectations for 2013 1. Project manager for Municity Integrated Parcel Management Software for the Code Enforcement and Planning Departments. 2. Finish Windows 7 and Office 2010 migration at Town Hall and Public Works 3. Purchase and install following equipment: Workstation computer for Senior Planner. Desktop computer for Planning Support staff. Two Mobile printers for Code Enforcement Officers. Toughbook rugged laptop for Public Works Working Supervisor. Desktop computer for Public Works Administrative Assistant. 2012 Year-End/2013 Priorities Report o^: TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us Town Supervisor (607) 273-1721, Ext 125 ; HEnaman@town.ithaca.nv.us TOWN CLERK (607) 273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS (607) 273-1656 ENGINEERING (607) 273-1747 PLANNING (607) 273-1747 ZONING (607) 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 SUPERVISOR'S 2012 REPORT AND 2013 OUTLOOK Recently I read the book The Anatomy of Power by John Kenneth Galbraith. Although written in the mid-1980s, the author's conclusions seem relevant today including at the micro-level of the Town of Ithaca. Galbraith says that government as well as private enterprise is now run not by the leadership of a sole individual at the top, but by committees and the bureaucracy. With few exceptions - possibly Bill Gates and President Barak Obama, for example - the heads of companies and government are less well known and have less influence than in generations past. He also states that the old use of punishment and/or reward has been replaced by the ability to convince others of a course of action. Examples are advertising by private enterprise and reasoning (and maybe lobbying) in the public sector. We in the Town of Ithaca have been moving more toward the committee model. Our Town Board committee structure, while not perfect, now involves more Town Board members at an earlier stage of program and projects than ever before. Our bureaucracy - the staff members who often are here before Town Board members are elected and stay when elected officials leave - is involved in the committees' deliberations and puts its own stamp on decisions as they are carried out. The public has more opportunities to weigh in on issues when they are discussed in committee as well as at the Town Board level. Our boards with considerable legal authority - Planning and Zoning - benefit from strong leadership and dedicated members. Our Conservation Board, Codes and Ordinances Committee, and Agricultural Committee make major contributions to the Town through the incredible talents of the members and long hours of discussion and decision-making. While these internal committee operations do not attract the attention of the media or the general public, they improve greatly the transparency and effectiveness of government although perhaps not its efficiency. One recent example of a successful committee output is the Comprehensive Plan which was essentially completed in 2012 after many years of effort. The plan was substantially improved through vigorous committee discussion and the input of the public. Since Department Heads' reports will summarize most of the accomplishments of the Town in 2012,1 will focus in this 2012 report on my activities as Town Supervisor and administrator, especially in relation to committees, both external and internal. f 1 INTERMUNICIPAL i \ \ Tompkins County Council of Governments (TCCOG) My second and last year as co-chair of TCCOG was completed in 2012. TCCOG has continued to be very active in the area of high-volume, horizontal hydrofracking for natural gas. A significant report was commissioned on the community impacts of hydrofracking and a public hearing was conducted on the proposed New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulations. TCCOG's Health Consortium continued its successful run, adding the City of Cortland to its membership. The Dog Control sub-group continued, resulting in substantial savings for the Town of Ithaca. I also chair a sub-committee consisting of 13 Tompkins County municipalities analyzing the potential for negotiating improved franchise agreements with Time Warner Cable. Ithaca-Tompkins Countv Transportation Council (ITCTCl Also completed in 2012 was my second and last year as chair of the ITCTC Policy Committee. Sue Ritter is active on the ITCTC Planning Committee. ITCTC coordinates federal and state moneys for transportation projects in Tompkins County. The Town of Ithaca benefits tremendously from ITCTC recommendations. In 2013, for example, the Town will see construction of Hanshaw Road, including a sidewalk for the first time, the reconstruction of the Forest Home Bridge and the construction of a new multi-use trail along Pine Tree Road. Also of note was the cooperation with State Parks which helped lead to the construction of two crucial bridges for the Black Diamond Trail by State Parks and the replacement of a number of culverts on the Trail, some through two weeks' of work by the Town of Ithaca's Public Works Department. Tompkins Countv Area Development (TCADI Economic Initiative Although the TCAD Economic Initiative meetings are more informative than action- oriented, I did extend activity with TCAD to a survey of code enforcement officials to add to TCAD's previous study of developers and others doing business with municipalities. TCAD has also helped keep the Town informed regarding plans for the Emerson complex. Special Joint Committee (SJCI of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility The SJC saw the completion of many of the $9 million of improvements to the plant including those under an energy performance contract with Johnson Controls and including nearly $1 million in outside grants. Plans for renovation of the septage receiving station and additional improvements were completed and will be implemented , ^ in 2013. Southern Cavuea Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (Bolton PoinO I continued to serve as Treasurer of Bolton Point. Of special note was the decision in 2012 to replace a water tank, add a second one in 2013, and replace a major transmission line, also in 2013. A staff member was hired to maintain fire hydrants, a task that had been left essentially undone for decades. Tompkins County Animal Control (TCAC) With seven municipalities coordinating dog control services with TCAC, a subsidiary of the Tompkins County SPGA, 2012 saw a relatively quiet year, with all members completing dog censuses, although not to the same standards. Nonetheless, the Town will be paying $45,334 in 2013, down from $54,594 in 2010. INTERNAL Supervisor's Advisory Council (SAO SAC preceded me and, in fact, I sat in on it when a Town Board member before assuming the chair as Town Supervisor. After discussing town procedures with other town supervisors, it seems clear that SAC is somewhat unique, especially the role it plays in developing Town Board meeting agendas. As a consequence, Ithaca Town Board meetings are more efficient and relatively free from errors when compared with many other legislatures. In addition, SAC provides a crucial opportunity to discuss Town-wide issues and plan across departmental lines. Fire and Emergency Response Ad Hoc Committee I served as a member of this very active committee, which visited five fire departments surrounding the Town of Ithaca. We also explored various options, including the creation of a fire corporation with the City of Ithaca, which was ultimately deemed impossible because paid firefighters are not permitted as part of a fire corporation. Youth and Recreation Ad Hoc Committee Also serving as a member of this committee, I helped work on a survey of recreation and youth services conducted by Cortland State. While some good information was gathered, the study was not completed by the sponsoring professor, who moved away. Comprehensive Plan Committee Serving as chair of the Comprehensive Plan Committee for four years was both rewarding ^ and frustrating. Committee members demonstrated impressive dedication by voluntarily meeting twice a month in the last year in order to complete the plan. It is a very strong and progressive plan, but one with which not all committee members were in complete agreement. Eventually we had to use not the "do you like it" option but the "can you live with it" one. Review of the plan by the Town Board will be more efficient since a number of members were actively involved in committee discussions. It is a tremendously important document which will set the stage for zoning and other changes in 2013 and will guide the Town of Ithaca of the future. Other I also attended most meetings of the Budget, Personnel and Planning Committees although I was not a member. I approached the Park Foundation for continued support for the sustainability planner and have continued to support Nick Goldsmith's work in that position. I have also continued conversations with Cayuga Medical, the potential owner of the Emerson complex, and others concerning district heating, especially using bio-fuel. I continued attempts to come to an agreement with the Dryden Town Supervisor to pay back bills for agreements signed in 1977 (payments mysteriously stopped in 1996) and 1996 (no payments were ever collected). ' My administrative work continued in 2012: serving as treasurer for the Town, conducting performance appraisals of department heads, dealing with personnel issues, evaluating departmental needs, signing vouchers and checks, investigating Town Hall heating and cooling and space issues, representing the Town on potential intermunicipal cost-saving efforts, responding to media and constituent inquiries, etc. 2013 OUTLOOK f ' i \ Despite the dire predictions of some state officials concerning the fiscal decline of local governments, the outlook for the Town of Ithaca remains cautiously optimistic. Thanks to a local economy that did not dip as low as that in other areas and careful management of Town resources, the Town of Ithaca should remain on an even keel in 2013. Retirement and health costs will continue to absorb huge amounts of money with no relief expected for at least two more years. For 2014 we will have to decide if we can continue our push for infrastructure improvements while project bids and bonding rates are very low. While there is little likelihood of increased staffing, there appear to be few if any retirements and other staff turnover projected for 2013. In addition to moderating expenses, we must continue to explore operational efficiencies and increases in income from non-profits and payments of bills owed to the Town. Some of the major challenges for the Town are listed as follows. Complete Comprehensive Plan It is essential that we approve the new Comprehensive Plan early in 2013. The plan helps protect our natural and agricultural lands and water while focusing development in more livable and sustainable areas. Revise Zoning t \ Given the major changes in the comprehensive plan it will be necessary to bring zoning into compliance with it. Adopting form-based zoning for at least a portion of the Town will entail a good deal of adaptation by Town government, residents and developers. Decide on an Approach to More Affordable Fire Protection With fire and emergency response absorbing nearly half of the Town's property tax, changes must be made to protect the Town's future fiscal viability. Our contract with the City of Ithaca expires at the end of 2014. We are currently negotiating the continuation of our contract with the Village of Cayuga Heights. At this point it seems we have the following options: 1. With the City of Ithaca create a joint fire district with its own taxing authority and an independently elected board of fire commissioners 2. Create a Town of Ithaca fire district(s) independent of the City of Ithaca with its own taxing authority and an independently elected board of fire commissioners 3. Create a Town of Ithaca fire district(s) or corporation with which the Town contracts 4. Contract with additional surrounding fire departments (in addition to the Village of Cajoiga Heights) to replace part or all of the contract with the City of Ithaca \ 5. Establish some combination of two or more of the above options. ^ ^ Continue to Improve Service to the Public The Smart Work Program provided some valuable insights into the operations of our Code Enforcement Department. As we implement changes we must consider whether other departments would benefit and if customer satisfaction forms should be expanded. Gas Drilling The gas drilling threat to our quality of life and economic vitality will likely continue through 2013. We must pass our road preservation law, develop corresponding road use agreements, and support home rule. Economic Development We must place more emphasis on economic development in the Town, especially related to Emerson, East Hill Plaza, commercial activity in mixed-use developments and agriculture. Sustainabilitv O We must complete the community energy action plan to add to our Government Energy f \ Action Plan and make more concrete decisions to reduce our carbon footprint by 30% by ^ ^ 2020 and 80% by 2050. There also may be opportunities to support district heating and bio-fuel production in the Town. « Intennunicinal Collaboration The Town of Ithaca has a remarkable record of intermunicipal cooperation. We must continue to look for additional opportunities such as at Emerson, the Black Diamond Trail, the East Hill and South Hill trails, code enforcement, fire protection, plastic bags, smoke pollution, the new City of Ithaca water system, etc. The year 2013 may be a relatively uneventful year compared to some recent ones. Nonetheless, there are always surprises and there will be no lack of activity in the Town of Ithaca. With the continued active involvement of the Town Board, staff and citizens, especially via the committee structure, we should be able to continue building a bright future for the Town of Ithaca.