HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2013-09-23 MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, September 23, 2013
4:30 pm Aurora Room
AGENDA
1. Review of Draft Agendas
2. Presentation on Restoration Plan—Intermunicipal Organization—Deb Grantham
3. Question and Answer Meeting with Mr. Stein and Ms. Dotson re.TCAT
4. Continue Review of draft Comprehensive Plan Comments
5. Consent Agenda
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, September 23, 2013
4:30 pm Aurora Room
Minutes
Board Members: Herb Engman, Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Rich DePaolo, and
Rod Howe Absent: Eric Levine Staff. Susan Ritter, Bruce Bates,Mike Solvig, Paulette
Terwilliger, and Dan Tasman
Agenda Item 1 Review of Draft Agendas
The October 3rd and October 7th agendas were reviewed. Mr. Goodman suggested adding
"Continue review of draft Comprehensive Plan"to the October 3rd meeting in case there is time
since we do not have a study session scheduled for October. The Board agreed.
Agenda Item 2 Presentation on Restoration Plan—Intermunicipal Organization—
Deb Grantham
Ms. Hunter introduced the topic. The Intermunicipal Organization(10) is a Committee made up
of municipalities in the Cayuga Lake Watershed which completed a Cayuga Lake Restoration
and Watershed Management and Protection Plan (Plan)which identified projects which
municipalities could go after grants to complete. There are two grants that have been awarded
but not administered. Deb Grantham is the chair of the Cayuga Lake Watershed Network
(Network), a non-profit group, and she is here tonight to talk about contracting with the Town to
do and update to the Plan. The grant is for$29K and the Network would need some money up
front and we would be reimbursed by the State.
Mr. DePaolo added that an update to the Plan is important to show the State we are serious and
understand the importance of the management of the watershed and it will lend credence for
going after future grants by any of the member municipalities. He stated that as liaison to the
Committee for the last several years, he believes this is an opportunity to re-energize the
Committee and having said we believe in the goals of the 10, we should support it. He also
reminded the Board that at a recent meeting here at Town Hall, the DEC indicated they are very
interested in seeing the Plan updated and Ms. Grantham added that in conversations with the
State, they have indicated that the discussions we have had are progress towards fulfilling the
grant agreement so there was no deadline or timeframe issues at this point.
Ms. Grantham introduced herself and added that she was a Councilperson for the town of Dryden
when this started and there are things that municipalities can do that not-for-profits can't do and
this would be a collaborative effort. The original Plan was over$500K so it has a very good
base to grow from and the Network is very familiar with the Plan and can do an update very
efficiently. Ms. Grantham went over the outline for the update.
Questions from the Board
Mr. Goodman asked for clarification on the financial aspect; the Town will have to pay up front
for the update to the Plan and the Network will submit invoices to be paid by the State to the
Town.
Adopted 11/8/2013 1
Mr. Engman was concerned about the scope of the projects compared to the small amount of
money. It seems there are at least 23 tasks and less than$7,000 to administer it. He asked Ms.
Grantham if she was confident they could come through with the deliverables. Ms. Grantham
responded that many of the tasks can be rolled together and she has talked to representatives
from the State and outlined what the proposal and they are comfortable with it.
Mr. DePaolo asked about the timing of the update and whether it should be closer to the end of
the Cornell University sponsored modeling project. Ms. Grantham responded there is not
enough money to evaluate and interpret the Cornell modeling but she would reference it and
emphasize its importance as well as point to where and how it should be incorporated in another
few years.
Ms. Leary asked about Town staff involvement in terms of time and Ms. Grantham responded
she was not sure, but noted that Ms. Kiley, who was the administrative liaison in the past, would
have a better idea but staff would not be asked to do any of the researching or updating, they
would simply be the conduit for billing the state and managing the accounting aspect of the
project. Mr. Engman added that in the past, the staff time was not significant.
The Board felt that in general the idea is interesting and has merit, and the next step might be
drafting a revised proposal from the Network with defined deliverables and talking to the State
about whether they would allow changes to the agreement associated with the grant and get their
permission to move forward.
Agenda Item 3 Question and Answer Meeting with Mr. Stein and Ms. Dotson re. TCAT
Mr. Goodman explained that this came from the last board meeting and they were going to
present numbers and an overview and take questions.
Mr. Stein began with a few issues he wanted to clarify and put on the table for discussion; the
gift issue and the memorandum of understanding.
The gift issue is whether the town could give a gift to the county for TCAT and his opinion is
that it is legal under NYS law. Mr. Stein distributed an opinion/argument from the county
attorney stating that it is legal. (Attachment#1) He summarized the handout saying that the
Comptroller adjudicates these issues and the Comptroller has made a decision in the past that a
public municipality could give a monetary gift if the gift supports a public purpose and
municipal law says that mass transportation that serves the public is a public purpose.
The second question is has TCAT lived up to the 2010 MOU between TCAT and the Town. He
argued that it has lived up to the deliverables. To put it into context, he felt that TCAT, in
composing the MOU felt they were addressing what was essentially a gift; namely that it was not
a contract where the Town gave $50K for which TCAT would give the Town $50K of value it
wouldn't have gotten if the gift had not been received. So TCAT did not consider this a contract
but rather that the Town believed that TCAT did an important job for this area, including the
Town of Ithaca and that we wanted to help support that because we understood it was difficult
for TCAT to support itself. On the other hand, TCAT did sign a MOU with the words "TCAT
Adopted 11/8/2013 2
will work to address the following 5 issues. It doesn't say that it will do it, it says it will work
with the Town to address. Therefore, Mr. Stein felt they had met that and addressed what he felt
was the central issue, C. Address with the Town service to South Hill,particularly for Ithaca
College students. Mr. Stein said that they did do that and noted that it did not say TCAT would
provide $50K of service to South Hill. TCAT worked with IC and persuaded them to finance
additional services to South Hill in excess of$50K and continued to talk to the College for
increased service to College Circle and other locations for a total of approximately$400K a year.
Mr. Stein felt that both those activities, which have not been finalized, and the activity of
providing service to the students means they have delivered that item.
Mr. Stein went on to address item D, bus traffic through Forest Home. He has been involved in
researching this issue and Forest Home does not like busses running through there and the town
asked TCAT to look at alternate routes. Mr. Stein said they did, and getting from Rte. 366 back
to the other side of Forest Home is a major route of TCAT and there are not many ways to do
that. It is either through Forest Home or through and around Cornell. To stop the route through
Forest Home would increase the time of that route to 1 hour, 6 minutes. If the route takes more
than an hour it is impossible to do. The second reason is the through and around Cornell route
avoids the major point where people get on and off the bus,which is East Avenue. Given that,
they decided that it was not possible to eliminate the route through Forest Home. That being
said, Forest Home also asked that busses going back to the garage be diverted and he thought
that might be able to be done and there was a suggestion of speeding up Routes 81 and 82
express to avoid Forest Home and they are looking at that. He said he personally rode those
routes to see what the problems were and he came to these conclusions and felt they addressed
the item.
Mr. Stein went on to address Carrowmoor or whatever development gets built. The question is
have we done that and he is assured by Doug Swartz that he is in a great deal of contact with Sue
Ritter and other members of the Planning Department to talk about potential developments and
how the bus can serve them, how we would change the Route 14 and 65 incase certain
developments took place. He also said they talked to the County a lot about a park and ride for
the new development around the hospital and agreed to look at that. Mr. Stein felt that that also
qualified as working with the town to do something. He added that the park-and-rides are
extremely expensive and the number he was given is $900 41,500 a day to supply the
maintenance and security for a park-and-ride.
The last item Mr. Stein addressed was the governance regarding TCAT services; he did believe
TCAT has not worked with the town on that issue. (E) He went on to remind the board that he
was on the Town Board when this was discussed; there was a sense that if you give money you
should have a seat at the table. A seat at the table costs a lot of money; there are 9 seats at the
table right now with 3 for each partner and each partner gives close to $1M a year so each seats
costs about $300K a year. So it would be difficult to grant a seat at the table for$50K when
others are paying $300K. He also stated that there are very few votes taken where there is any
difference of opinions and these votes are on broad issues, not specific services. He believes
what would serve the Town the best is a non-voting seat at the table. He felt if the Town would
be willing to do that, he would argue very strongly for a liaison person who had the right to sit at
Adopted 11/8/2013 3
the table and attend any and all meetings and speak when they wished in return for a significant
financial contribution.
Ms. Dotson then addressed the Board with some ridership numbers. She stated that untangling
CU ridership from municipal ridership is difficult but the Town's ridership remains at 18-19%
which is the same as a few years ago when a spreadsheet was done. She wanted to hear the
Board's questions and find out what the issues are. She did state that she is in favor of the non-
voting seat and thought that would be helpful.
Mr. Engman started by saying he has had a distinctly different experience than what has just
been related. As Supervisor for the Town we have been told by our attorney that you have to get
added value for any money you give to another_entity. We already pay County, State, Federal
and Mortgage taxes which support the TCAT system; so unless we get something additional, it is
illegal for the Town to make a contribution to a general cause and that is why these deliverables
were put into the MOU.
The second point, on the individual items; there was a focus to the service on South Hill and his
understanding was that after considerable pressure, including from him, TCAT did agree to
provide some service to South Hill/Ithaca College but only if Ithaca College guaranteed the
dollar amount, so our funds were not used in that regard whatsoever. Ithaca College guaranteed
there would be no loss in funds to TCAT if they provided the service.
As far as bus service to proposed new developments such as Carrowmoor; his understanding is
that we have been turned down flat in most of the discussions we have had with TCAT about the
possibilities of service to developments and indeed we have received a response from Tompkins
County Planning Dept on our Comprehensive Plan the statement that "we should not plan any
development that is not already served by a TCAT bus route."And that does not sound like
cooperation to him.
Mr. Engman went on to address the potential park-and-ride which we thought we had a deal
done on that; Cornell was going to donate the land near the hospital and when we approached
TCAT they refused saying they would not do anything for it or pay to send our busses there or
help maintain it. The County also refused so it came back to the Town. The Town would have
to maintain a parking lot was designed to service the entire County, not just the Town and that
isn't feasible.
Bus traffic through Forest Home; Mr. Engman noted that the Forest Home Improvement
Association submitted a plan for re-routing some of the 80 busses a day that come through Forest
Home and those busses cause tremendous back-ups in traffic and danger to pedestrians due to the
narrow roads, one-lane roads and sharp corners. TCAT never disagreed that it is feasible; what
they said was they could not do it because it would cost them $3,500 a year to do it. We are
giving $50K a year and they can't spend$3,500 in order to get the busses out of Forest Home.
Mr. Engman said he also approached Hank_Dullea, who was the Chair at the time, about the
governance issue and the MOU and how we could have a voice at the table and his response was
that we could go to the Citizen Advisory's Committee; you don't have to pay$50K a year to go
Adopted 11/8/2013 4
to that, anyone can go there and participate. There was no opening to any sort of discussion to
our having any kind of say in to how TCAT was running.
Mr. Engman summed it up by saying when he looks over the list, our experience has been
abysmal with TCAT. We have gotten no cooperation, no consideration and we have basically
frittered away$250K and gotten nothing that we wouldn't have gotten without that contribution.
Ms. Dotson responded that they were here now to open up the communication in any way that
they could.
Mr. DePaolo spoke saying that he has heard both sides of this argument and he has never heard a
significant response to what Mr. Engman has said and asked if she had anything significant to
add.
Ms. Dotson said she did, but instead of going through the points again she explained that TCAT
has been experiencing 10% growth for a number of years with not much increase in funding.
She wanted the Board to think about the issues in that context. Mr. DePaolo asked if the three
partners' contributions have risen and Ms. Dotson responded it had not; it had remained flat. Mr.
Stein disagreed and Mr. Engman responded the contribution has remained flat in the last 10 years
as a percentage of expenses. Ms. Dotson looked at their Annual Report, and although the dollar
amount has fluctuated slightly in the past 10 years, it has remained the same for the last 5 years.
Ms. Dotson addressed some of Mr. Engman's statements, saying that she did not review the
County's response to the Comp Plan and did not know the sentence regarding new service was in
there, but what she suspects comes from that is not the sense that the Town should just bow
down to what TCAT says but rather a recognition that providing certain services,just like water
and sewer, is a give and take and once you lay the pipe or the bus route it is there to deal with
and there that has to be coordination of land use and transportation.
Regarding the Forest Home issue, she has seen a lot of staff time going into reviewing the issue;
planners riding the buses and looking at options and routes and timetables to make the best
decision. Sometimes getting back to garages has to be done on a certain schedule and all of this
was reviewed by staff and then at the committee level and they couldn't make some of the
changes. She felt that this was a good example of why Town Board members should be involved
so they can see what goes into the decision and they could be there to advocate and understand
the issues affecting the Town and how they are discussed.
Mr. DePaolo asked what the percentage of the bus trips essentially deadheading through Forest
Home was. Mr. Stein thought it was around 25% and Ms. Dotson said that it was not more than
half but her point was that it is a service-based decision taking the needs of the greater
community into account and they have dealt with the same thing for Cayuga Heights. This is not
an uncommon request.
Mr. DePaolo asked if there are other municipalities who receive a significant ridership who do
not contribute or are not being asked to contribute to the system and does the Town of Ithaca
have ridership that rises to the level of exceeding that which is being paid for by tax dollars alone
Adopted 11/8/2013 5
compared to other municipalities? Mr. Stein and Ms. Dotson both responded yes. Ms. Dotson
said the City is the largest with the Town of Ithaca next, followed by the Town of Lansing with
7% -10%. Mr. Stein stated that he intends to approach the Village of Cayuga Heights and Ms.
Dotson thought Mr. Engman' s suggestion of approaching TCCOG was a good one.
Mr. Engman thought an idea for discussion is increasing the County tax to cover ridership from
everyone. Ms. Dotson said there is no comparable service and the County did go after a
mortgage tax. Mr. Engman asked Mr. Stein to explain the tax because articles in the paper have
been confusing. He understood that the tax would take in $800K but only$650K of that would
go to TCAT. So the first question is where the other money is going; Mr. Stein said it is a
County tax that can only be used for mass transportation. When pushed, he said he did not know
where it would go but $600-$650 would go to TCAT with the remaining $150 he wasn't sure.
Mr. Engman asked if the $650K was going to be part of the County's contribution or in addition
to and both Mr. Stein and Ms. Dotson answered in addition to its other contribution. Mr.
Goodman added that he got the sense the $150K would be used to offset the County's regular
contribution and Ms. Dotson responded that the County may choose to use it for that. Mr. Stein
said that he doesn't understand it but it would be consistent with the law.
Mr. Goodman stated that he would like to get a sense of how TCAT does make their routing
decisions so as we look at development and our Comprehensive Plan we are aware of the factors
that are involved. We have heard many times that TCAT will not add a stop at this place or that
and if we understood it we could work with it. Ms. Dotson thought that could be a one or two
session meeting but most of those changes start with staff and then go to a committee of three
which takes into account times and costs and a recommendation is made to the Board.
Mr. Stein talked about discussions on service and how decisions are made to bringing service to
other areas and how routes are done. TCAT has to distribute their resources to the best of their
ability to provide service for the entire County and decisions have to be made. If buses were
taken off of the Groton route to accommodate more from in the City then that is a disservice to
the rural routes and they don't believe that is the way to do it; to maximize the total amount of
traffic by not providing for some peripheral locations. There is no rule of thumb but you can't
think of TCAT as having a pile of money. If you say, look, we are going to build a development
over there and we want you to provide service to it; well, if we give service there, we have to
take it from somewhere else. We do not have any extra money and it is all a matter of balance
and that's the way it works. As for the park-and-ride, the maintenance had to come from
somewhere and we had to make a decision between closing a route to pay for it or not having it
at all. He was told it would cost $1,000 a day and Ms. Dotson added that that would have been
the first piece of land TCAT owned and she remembers voting against it because they would
have had to lose services elsewhere to pay for it.
Ms. Leary thought the County's hands were not tied and they have an obligation to provide more
funding and they have the taxing authority. She thought that something has to give if the
ridership is growing 10% a year and choices between rural and populated routes have to be
made. Ms. Leary felt that, especially with the mortgage tax, if the Town were to continue to
contribute it would be a disincentive to use that$150 left from the mortgage tax toward TCAT; it
should all go to TCAT. She thought the County is passing the buck, literally and figuratively, to
Adopted 11/8/2013 6
local municipalities for what is really a county-wide function. She went on to say that they have
not talked about capital projects, but one of the reasons some neighborhoods may object to the
buses is they are so large and noisy and dirty and she wondered if there had been any planning as
they replace their fleet to going with smaller, cleaner buses that are more suitable for going up
the hills. She felt the current buses are designed for major metropolitan areas with laid out
streets and this community is not that way. Mr. Stein responded that he has thought of all those
things also and he was surprised they could not do that. It is complicated because all the buses
come to TCAT as gifts or grants on an unpredictable level and in exchange, TCAT has to agree
to certain policies about buses and they are not allowed to have a variety of small buses to use on
routes that are not full. The rules say that 80% of the buses have to accommodate peak loads of
the busiest times of the day. Makes no sense, but those are the rules that the Federal Government
makes. Ms. Dotson added that even though you may see a bus that looks empty, it may be full to
capacity at the next time slot. They also are not allowed to keep extra buses and on top of that,
the storage area is full; even if we could get extra buses we would have no place to keep them.
Ms. Leary responded that is the problem and if the community wants you to grow you have to
look at ways to accommodate that. Are you completely locked into federal regulations? Is the
infrastructure of TCAT something that should be changed? It was changed years ago from 3
separate entities to one and maybe it needs to change again to separate entities that could be
operated under different rules. Ms. Dotson responded that they could certainly restructure but
the major funding is from the Fed Gov. Ms. Leary said the situation does not sound workable for
much longer and we are pushing back and saying look at these things.
Mr. Engman added that if we were to increase our budget by the $50K it would increase our levy
from 3.85%to 4.58% so those amounts of money have a tremendous amount of influence on our
budgets where it would not cause a blip in the County's. Ms. Dotson responded that very soon
we are going to have to make those decisions and take it to the public and see what they say.
Mr. Stein wanted to sum it up by saying that all the local governments in Tompkins County
believe in global warming and that it is the major problem we are facing and if you ask what the
solution is high on the list is mass-transportation. That is why TCAT gets so excited when we
see our ridership go up every year; we thing we are doing something good albeit they make some
problems. It is easy to say let someone else raise their taxes and we are not asking you for
dollars that are similar to what the county is putting into it but nonetheless, if we all believe this
is a good thing to do then we all should put some money behind it.
Ms. Dotson added that if you look at rides per capita it keeps going up; now we are at 40.
Broome County is at 16, Albany is at 20 and Syracuse and Rochester is at about 25. The only
other municipality in NYS that is higher than us is NYC so we have these questions to struggle
with. It has to be based on good relationships with the municipalities and she is here to ask for
our help as an ally in advocating for finding other forms of funding and chipping in as we can as
well as contributing to the relationship that means we do not have to have discussions about
cutting bus service. She asked where we take this discussion and anything they should follow up
with.
Adopted 11/8/2013 7
Mr. DePaolo thanked them for coming but we are going to be making budget decisions next
week so all these participatory and mutual exercises are for longer term. So what we have to
think about it what would be enough for us to justify continuing the funding. I don't know if
whether having a liaison rises to that threshold; does that pique everyone's interest enough; that
we have a voice in the process that not everyone else has by virtue of our contribution. But that
decision has to be made now, and what I am getting at is if we discontinue funding as currently
on the table, does the good will go out the window? Mr. Stein responded that if we were to
discontinue funding, he did not believe he would go and ask for a special liaison spot for a
person from the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Dotson said that going from $50K to $0 doesn't feel like a
budget issue but rather a relationship statement between the two entities and that concerns her.
From the TCAT perspective, cutting it would be very different than bringing it down to zero.
Mr. Engman responded that it is a budgetary issue because we have done our 5-year projection
and we have seen we will have no reserves available in either the Town-Wide Fund or the
Highway Fund within 5 years unless we do something drastic now. We can either cut expenses
or increase taxes so it is very much a budget issue. We have to start making these hard
decisions.
Mr. DePaolo said what he has heard is that Cornell's amount they pay per ride has gone down
and is significantly lower than what it was. Mr. Stein said he has reason to believe that will
change this year and Mr. DePaolo asked if that changed their budget. Ms. Dotson said well yes,
but the problems are not solved. She added that they are coming back up to the bulk rate similar
to the monthly pass prices and that has been a problem.
Ms. Hunter asked if they anticipated any impact on their grant-seeking capabilities if the town
does not contribute and Ms. Dotson said it would be hard to say but that their administrative
capabilities would be affected she would think. Ms. Hunter clarified that she was talking about
in the review process and how they would look at applications without the town. She added that
she has not reviewed the budget by line item yet but it seems we are doing this at the eleventh
hour and she was uncomfortable with that and saddened that this discussion hasn't been
happening throughout the year because now she felt she was in an uncomfortable position having
worked on a Comp Plan for a number of years relying on mass-transit and now we are taking
away funding from it and/or the opinion that the county should fund it totally and these
conversations should have happened so it is unfortunate and she's was not sure how this can be
resolved. She went on to ask why the County isn't raising taxes and stepping up since they knew
about TCAT's budget issues for a while? Ms. Dotson responded that there is an agreement
between the 3 funding partners that each contribution will remain the same, so even if the
County wanted to contribute more through their partner share, if the City and Cornell did not
want to step up, the low end carries.
Ms. Hunter asked how the topic gets on the TCCOG agenda and Mr. Stein responded that he felt
it was a mistake to bring it there because there are really only two other players; Lansing and
Cayuga Heights. He thought all the other small places simply do not have that level of service
and they are already paying more than their share through their County taxes. Ms. Leary
responded that if the County's hands are tied because of the agreement between the three
partners then that is very convenient for each partner to be able to point fingers at the other. That
is an awful way to do this; if Cornell and County wanted to increase it and City did not, it
Adopted 11/8/2013 8
couldn't happen so it seems you should address that agreement. Ms. Dotson thought the
conversation should go to TCCOG as an entity that represents the municipalities in the County.
Mr. Goodman suggested that we finish this conversation at the Budget meeting next week and
Ms. Dotson asked members to contact her if there was any specific information that was needed.
Item 3 Continue Review of draft Comprehensive Plan Comments
Minority Report—
Mr. Goodman started by saying when reading the Minority Report (Report) when it first came
out and having a conversation with Joe Wetmore, it seems they didn't have specifics suggestions
about specific parts of the Plan because they thought we should redo the whole thing and in an
entirely different format and focus just on some key issues instead of going through all the topics
our Plan goes through. He said he has only read a couple of other comp plans from other
municipalities in his years in public service, and he has never seen one like what they are
suggesting. To him the Plan we are working from is fairly comprehensive and the Report seems
to be a four-focus plan or issue-based. He asked Ms. Ritter if she has seen any like it. Ms. Ritter
responded that Mr. Tasman has worked on a few but she did not think that this is the type of
plans communities are doing. Mr. Tasman said he has only seen a few other issue-based plans
but the ones he has seen where much broader in scope. In the Minority Report, he felt their
focus was 80% Open Space with some Sustainability, Economic and Social Justice, and
Intermunicipal Planning; there is nothing on housing, community facilities, transportation or
economic development. It looks at separate issues and looks at them in a vacuum. Ms. Ritter
added that picking issues can be contentious and the ones in the Minority Report are rather
narrow.
Ms. Leary Pat added that she and Mr. Wetmore worked together on the Economic Development
Chapter and for him to criticize the Plan as much as he does seems strange. She did not
understand where he gets some of the things he says such as "segregated neighborhoods"which
we do not endorse at all. He also talks about the West Hill Traffic Study and the levels of
service and he represents it exactly opposite of what those letter grades mean; he says they
correlate to school letter grades and it doesn't and that is clearly stated in the Traffic Report. She
felt he misrepresents so much it is hard to know where to start with his statements.
Mr. Engman said he was very frustrated when trying to read it. He understands that Mr. Wagner
and Mr. Wetmore have the best of intentions and some of the statements were very confusing.
For example, it says "The Comprehensive Planning Committee could not agree to keep open
space such as the Country Club." and we did. Another comment, "The Comp Plan does little to
restrict development in any area of the Town." and yes, it does. The whole idea was to try and
direct development so we would restrict development further out but we can't prohibit
development, that's not legal. Part of the idea was somehow we should be prohibiting
development in the Town and we just can't do that. We have to use other tools, more delicate
tools, to get what we want rather than simply prohibiting. He went on to say that he had a really
hard time trying to pick out ideas to glean out of it and maybe use to change our draft Plan
because he couldn't find specifics to use. He felt it is written like a political position paper rather
Adopted 11/8/2013 9
than a comprehensive plan which makes it difficult to pull out items that we could then consider
applying to the Plan.
Mr. DePaolo stated that he has read it twice, and his general observation is that there are some
substantive take-aways from the document. He agreed that it is written in a hyperbolic fashion
and there is probably some pent up resentment from having been on the other side of some issues
at the Comprehensive Planning Committee level but it does lay some questions on the table that
this Board needs to consider. One has to do with the number of neighborhoods being designated
as New Neighborhoods versus historical growth rates and future growth rate projections and
whether or not the Town would be better served by having fewer growth areas and incentivizing
those few areas more in order to ensure the kinds of density we are all saying we need in order to
get these synergies of transportation, walkability etc, etc and he wondered when we are going to
revisit that but he doesn't think this is a plan and didn't think it was ever intended to be a plan;
it's a critique of the Plan and he does not endorse the idea of scrapping the Plan and going back,
but there is a disconnect between the idea of having a 15-20 year planning document and having
a land use map that will only work in the best-case scenario that will take 50-70 years. That is
what we have to reconcile now; the question for him is, we can always say down the road, wow,
this worked here, here and here and there is so much development pressure now, we should add
some additional areas that we took off the table instead of saying put development here, here and
here and finding out that there is not the density to sustain the kinds of mixed uses we are hoping
to sustain. That is the concept that is worth discussing.
Ms. Ritter responded that taking the land use plan as drafted and discussing that as a group is one
thing, but the Report it basically saying no development in the Town of Ithaca except for the
Emerson site and to densify the northeast which is largely built out at this time. So what Mr.
DePaolo and the Report are saying are two different things. Mr. DePaolo agreed but said he is
just asking the question; he doesn't think the land use map as proposed reflects the balance that
we need. Ms. Ritter said that is fine for something to discuss,but the report is saying no
development except for two areas and tearing down"mistakes"that have been built. The Board
agreed that that was not even worth talking about it is so out there. Ms. Ritter thought it should
be on the record that the Report advocates the Town buying up properties they feel should never
have been built and demolishing them. Staff did find a lot of incorrect and exaggerated
statements in the Report and Ms. Ritter felt the Report scared a lot of people but it was not
accurate information as well as statistical data that was misused or misunderstand and used in
ways that compared apples to oranges and those numbers are the ones people are repeating and
they are incorrect.
Ms. Hunter did want to respond to the statement regarding the thousands of people that could
come to the area, and whether or not they come no one knows, but the question is should we be
opening up the door or set the stage for that influx of people as it pertains to our infrastructure.
She said that she has lived in places which have had incredibly growth in a 10-year span and we
have no way of knowing what will happen. We may continue to grow at the historical pace but
during the SEQR process, we are not assessing the impacts of what could happen but what we
think will happen and we don't know. We are putting out a Plan that we don't think will come to
fruition for 50 or more years so we don't have to look at the impacts of what we are setting the
stage for, we will look at the impacts of what we think will happen in the next 15 years based
Adopted 11/8/2013 10
upon historic trends. That presents a huge problem for her because she feels we are opening the
door to development but we are not going to assess the effects of that development. So in some
ways the Report has a point. Ms. Ritter addressed the SEQR concern saying that the Plan is a
10-20 year document which the GEIS will address but then we will implement zoning and we
will do another environmental impact review which will not be 10-20 years but the built out
scenario. Ms. Hunter said she could not reconcile in her mind if we are doing that with the
zoning, why aren't we doing it with the Plan and Ms. Ritter responded that the Plan is a general
document. We don't know how it is going to be interpreted into zoning but when we do that, we
will have a better and more detailed idea of what it will look like for that zone and therefore it
makes more sense to do the SEQR at that time; on the specifics instead of on the general.
Ms. Hunter followed with the scenario that we do that, but then during the zoning SEQR, what
happens if we find out through that SEQR process for the zoning that we were wrong and the
effects can't be mitigated? Ms. Ritter responded that we can adjust the zoning and we could
even change the Plan. Mr. Tasman added that the Land Use Map is not a phasing map because
we cannot control and we don't know when property is going to be available for building. If we
have a very limited area, the price of that property goes up due to supply and demand and then
we don't have affordable housing. The Plan is the holistic approach taking all of that and more
into consideration. He went on to say there are legal issues with downzoning and limiting a
landowners rights or a return.
Ms. Leary talked about the population projections and referred to a survey that was done a few
years ago among Cornell employees which showed people would like to move to the Town if
there was affordable housing and the Report does lip service to social justice but ignores the need
for housing. She thought that was the basic flaw with the Report; it emphasized open space to the
exclusion of any development at all while acknowledging there are people who don't make
enough money to live here.
Ms. Ritter noted that she and staff will be suggesting at the next meeting that we shrink the New
Neighborhood to some degree and move the line north of Elm St Ext because that area is divided
into a lot of smaller parcels and we don't think we would realize the benefits we want.
Agenda Item Consent Agenda
TB RESOLUTION 2013 - 117: Adopt Consent Agenda
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 Minutes of September 9, 2013
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract
c. Disposal of Surplus Computers and Computer Equipment
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Tee Ann Hunter
Vote: ayes: Goodman, Hunter, Leary, Engman, DePaolo and Howe
Absent: Levine
Adopted 11/8/2013 11
TB RESOLUTION 2013 - 117 a: Approval of Minutes of September 9, 2013
WHEREAS, the draft minutes of the September 9, 2013 meeting of the Town Board
have been submitted for review and approval;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes as the final
minutes of the September 9, 2013 meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca.
TB Resolution No. 2013 -117b: Town of Ithaca Abstract
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. 4279 - 4371
General Fund Town wide 45,161.07
General Fund Part Town 2,802.10
Highway Fund Part Town 52,477.10
Water Fund 488,179.04
Sewer Fund 119,668.66
Northview Road Water Tank Replace 3,229.82
Danby Road Water Tank Replace 4,393.51
Harris B. Dates Drive Reconstruct 1,598.26
Town Hall Parking Lot Improvement 932.32
Salt Storage Building Replacement 7,450.66
Whitetail Drive Reconstruction 11,405.16
Forest Home Reconstruction 1,664.86
Danby Road Water Main Replace 2,863.55
Fire Protection Fund 264,792.00
Forest Home Lighting District 39.75
Glenside Lighting District 15.78
Renwick Heights Lighting District 21.00
Eastwood Commons Lighting District 27.31
Clover Lane Lighting District 3.61
Winner's Circle Lighting District 5.45
Burleigh Drive Lighting District 12.74
West Haven Road Lighting District 50.48
Coddington Road Lighting District 29.37
Adopted 11/8/2013 12
Trust and Agency 562.43
TOTAL 1,007,386.03
TB resolution No. 2013- 117c: Disposal of Surplus Computers and Computer Equipment
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca maintains an inventory of computers and computer equipment
used by Town staff to conduct the daily business of the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town staff will from time to time identify various computers and computer
equipment which is surplus, obsolete and no longer needed to conduct the daily business of the
Town and identify such equipment to the Town Supervisor for the purpose of receiving approval
to dispose of such equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Town staff has reviewed the probable proceeds to be realized from the public
sale of the surplus computers and computer equipment and has determined that the costs to the
Town associated with public sale of the identified computers and computer equipment will
exceed the probable proceeds; and
WHEREAS, the Town staff has determined that it would be unlikely to receive competitive
proposals from public schools, public libraries, or other entities if the Town were to try to donate
the surplus computers and computer equipment pursuant to the provisions of General Municipal
Law Sec. 104-c: and
WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the Town Supervisor to seek the approval of this
governing Town Board to declare that the equipment identified below is surplus, obsolete, and is
no longer needed by the Town
MAKE MODEL SERIAL
NUMBER
HARD
DRIV
E
YEAR
PURCHASE
D
Compaq Evo PC D500 6X21JYFZT0GC No 2002
Compaq PC DC5100 MXL5330Q4J No 2005
Acer LCD Monitor AL1511 UG78340 N/A 2008
Compaq LCD Monitor 1501 945032728 N/A 2008
TV CRT tube type N/A N/A ?
VHS Player Protech N/A N/A 7
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby declare that the computers and computer
equipment identified above is surplus, obsolete, and is no longer needed by the Town; and be it
further
Adopted 11/8/2013 13
RESOLVED, that the Town Board finds that the transfer of computer software installed on the
computers and computer equipment identified above would not cause a breach of a computer
software license agreement or an infringement of a copyright; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby directs Town staff to discard and dispose of the
computers and computer equipment identified above in the most economical and
environmentally responsible manner currently available and consistent with the best interests of
the Town of Ithaca.
Meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
Submittt
Paulette Terwilliger
Town Clerk
Adopted 11/8/2013 14
The Gift Issue
Article Vin section 1 of the NYS constitution prohibits municipalities from making gifts or loans to or
in aid of any individual, private corporation or association. When something is given to an entity in
exchange for fair consideration, it is not a gift. The State Comptroller has rendered many opinions on
what it believes constitutes unconstitutional gifts
Significantly, the Comptroller has held that municipalities can give gratuitously to other municipalities
without violating the gift provision, as expressed in the following quote from Comptroller Opinion 90-1
"This Office has expressed the opinion that, pursuant to this authorization, a local government, by local
law, may authorize a gift to another public corporation in furtherance of a public purpose of the donor
municipality (see, e.g., 1982 Opns St Comp No. 82-342, p 434; 1982 Opns St Comp No. 82-164, p 173).
In this regard, we note that Article VHI, §1 of the State Constitution, which prohibits municipalities
from giving or loamng any money or property to or in aid of any individual, private corporation or
association, or private undertaking, does not prohibit gifts to public corporations for public purposes
(Comereski v City of Elmira, 308 NY 248)."
On the following page. Section 119-r of New York General Municipal shows that mass transportation is
a public purpose of a Town.
-•Si'--§ 119-qmass transportation; AVIATION! ! MVSS TRANSPORTATION; AVIATION\ Art. 5-1J l'The provisionb of this paragraph are intendedi '' The provisions of this paragraph are intended§119-ras enabling legislationResearch References ^ interpreted as implying that absent their, .. , i ^'«nactment a municipal corporation would lack the power to author-^""^NY^r.^d, Counties, Towns, & Municipal Corporations § 206, Qss - ^ ^ interpreted aS an authorization.' tion to public authorities generally to accept such grants. The1 I T n acceptance of any such grant by a public authority shall not operateS 119-r Provision of mass transportation by certain municipal c - ^ such authority an agency of the municipal corporationcorporations _ | making the grant.tv» rovision of mass transportation services to the t acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or improvement1. To assure the p reasonable cost, every city, town, J transportation capital project by a county, city, town orpublic at adequat contained within a city, shall have power | pursuant to this section shall not be subject to the jurisdictionvillage or county no ^Yiorize' I of the commissioner of transportation except as provided in sectionsto adopt local laws o a n traction, improvement, % Sisty-eighf, sixty-nine, sixty-nine-a, sixty-nine-b. sixty-nine-c, and six-a. The acquisition, one or more mass transpof- I jy-nme-d of the transportation corporations law.'equipment, corporation shall have power to J, powers granted by this section shall be in addition to andtation projects, buc roads, highways, avenues, parks or i substitution for any other power to acquire, construct, recon-occupy or use any o . i corporation therefor and to agree S, ^ .p, improve, equip, maintain or operate any mass transportationb. ,h. .•. -•Trrsr.i-' '■ '■purchase of all or any ° Lcilitv actually used and useful for fT- ^ i liepealed'by L 1983, c 635, § 3, eff. Jan. 1,1984.an existing mass transportation laeu r jthe convenience of the public. ^^ References1 • f o ,^nntract or contracts with any person, nrni uiC. The making 01 a con thp enuioment, mainte%^p-%%i%s-;tSt0texvide. mass transportation assistance programs, see Transportation Lawconstructed, reconstructed or improve y uuSVi ji/ Library Referencesr.S°,;USt.«d.bu,n«b«^^ c..., Hate funds for payment of such cor^sid ^ | , _, , ^or part of such consideration shall be , . Research References WMment to be furnished to and used and maintainea ny ecsjaepcdtolnwned or operated mass transportation aci ity. counties, Towns, & Municipal Corporations § 206, Masse. The making of unconditional ^public authority . ■ ^rder to assist such public ^ _ Mf^Kinneys Forms, Selected Consolidated Laws, Workers Compen^^^^^^Sof such municipal corpora -cp? nrovided such § ll, Form lo Reply Affii-mation in Support of Motion toin meeting its capital or operating expensch, y , notbeefrB > ^7^ itfjrri .live Defense of Exclusiveness of Remedy Under the N.Y. Workei^SHJHB3.^ ' - ' .fV ivv'C^ °.<-t .'-'Vt-V; "n •Topic Nos 104,268. S• Courthes § 145 SResearch References 3fincjitlopediiis'' Sv: i . J*^3prc 2dj Counties, Towns. & Municipal Corporations § 206, Mass T^gFajwa^- M^Kitmeys Forms, Selected Consolidated Laws, Workers Compen^^' § 111 Form 10 Reply Affii'mation in Support of Motion to Dism^g' C.1" i > tive Defense of Exclusiveness of Remedy Under the N.Y. Workei^B\ 'X. 'x i is&tlonlaw on Ground that Plaintiff Not Employee of Defendant.^^yl" , ki - _V •- > -"-S ij