Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1992-03-09 �Ty oF'I T TOWN OF ITHACA � .41 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Meeting Harch 9, 1992 5 : 30 p. m. AGENDA 1 . Tompkins County Reapportionment Committee presentation on reapportionment alternatives . ( 5 : 30 P. m . ) 2 . Report of Town Officials : a) Town Supervisor b) Town Engineer c ) ' Town Highway Superintendent d ) Town Building Inspector/Zoning Officer e ) Town Planner 3 . Report of Town Committees . 4 . Report of County Board of Representatives . 5 . Consider nomination to Tompkins County Board of Representatives for Town of Ithaca representation, Economic Opportunity Corporation Board of Directors for term expiring March 31 , 1993. 6 . Consider speed limit request of Glenside Neighborhood Association for Rt. 13A. 7 . Authorization to participate in Cornell summer job network , program for four ( 4 ) positions. S . Authorization to hire one Summer . Intern for Conservation Advisory Council. 9. Discussion on Forest Home Bridge Replacement - Jim Kazda, Tompkins County Public Works. ( 6 : 30 p. m. ) 10. Discussion on Forest Home Bridge Replacement Karen Baum; President, Forest Home Improvement Association . ( 7 : 00 p.-m. ) 11 . PERSONS TO BE HEARD r Town Board Meeting Agenda March 9, 1992 Page 2 . 12 . PUBLIC HEARING - 7 : 30 P . M. Consider local law amending the Traffic Ordinance changing the yield sign on Tudor Road at Park Lane to a stop sign . 13. PUBLIC HEARING - 7 : 45 P . M. Consider local law amending the Seater Rate Schedule for the Town of Ithaca to establish minimum quarterly charges , and to also amend the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission agreement. 14 . Consider approval of agreement with Coddington Road Community Center. 15 . Consider benefit assessment refunds . 16 . Consider budget transfers . 17 . Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council - Discussion of the Resolution regarding purchasing recycled paper products . 18 . Consider water - and sewer refund. 19 . Consider approval of contract for Cornell University GEIS Consultants . 20 . Authorization to establish Petty Cash Fund for Town Clerk. 21 . Consider authorization for municipal membership in Metropolitan Planning Organization, ( Transportation) . 22 . Consider acceptance of Whitetail Drive and Marcy Court, Deer Run. 23. Consider approval of specifications and authorization to purchase Highway Plow Truck. 24 . Designation of Town of Ithaca 1992 Polling Places . 25 . TOWN OF ITHACA WARRANTS 26 . Consider approval of Bolton Point - Budget Tranfers . 27 . BOLTON POINT WARRANTS 28. Adjournment. FINAL Town of Ithaca Town Board Meeting March 9 , 1992 At a regular meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, held at the Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, there were : PRESENT : Shirley Raffensperger, Supervisor John Whitcomb , Councilman Patricia Leary, Councilwoman David Klein, Councilman Frank Liguori , Councilman Catherine Valentino, Councilwoman Karl Niklas, Councilman ALSO PRESENT: John Barney, Town Attorney Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk Andrew Frost, Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Dan Walker, Town Engineer Scott McConnell , Highway Superintendent Floyd Forman, Town Planner Linda Nobles, Assistant Budget Officer Beverly Livesay, Tompkins County Board of Reps. Mary Call, Tompkins County Board of Reps . Stuart Stein, Tompkins County Board of Reps . Harry Missirian, Tompkins County Planner James Kazda, Tompkins Co. Senior Civil Engineer Forest Home Iprovement Assn . Representatives Forest Home Residents Ithaca High School Students Pledge of Allegiance : Supervisor Raffensperger led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance . Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 5 : 31 p . m. Supervisor Raffensperge.r began the meeting by welcoming three students from the Ithaca High School Government Class . Agenda Item #1-Tompkins County Reapportionment Presentation : Supervisor Raffensperger introduced Stuart Stein from the Tompkins County Board of Representatives Reapportionment Committee who explained the three proposed alternatives to the Board. Mr. Stein asked the Board if they each had received a copy of the maps needed for tonights presentation . Supervisor Raffensperger stated that the Board each had copies, and that copies had been sent to each of the Civic Associations . Mr. Stein began by saying that every ten years the County reapportions because there is a census. The County is required by law to adjust the boundary lines of election districts so that as closely as possible each of the districts elected officials represent the same amount of people . This is a requirement which applies throughout the country, in Tompkins County the only two legislative organizations that have to meet these requirements are the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County. These are the only two organizations that elect their representatives by district . Changes are necessary because population has grown unevenly throughout the County. The County has established a Reapportionment Committee consisting of five people ; Mr. Stein is Chairman, Mary Call, Debbie Dietrich, Dan Flinch, and Charles Evans also are members. The Reapportionment Committee has been meeting since June 1991 . Minutes are kept of these meetings and they are sent to each Town and Village within the County. The Town of Ithaca has also been represented at these meetings . The Reapportionment Committee is now going to each Town in Tompkins County to present three plans that the committee has focused on to review them and ask for a response . Mr. Stein requested that after his presentation the board comment and offer their feelings concerning the reapportionment, and the committee would like a response from each town by the end of March. During the month of April the Reapportionment Committee will select a reapportionment plan that will then be presented to the County Board of Representatives . The Tompkins County Board of Representatives will be the legislative body that acts on the plan . There will be Public Hearings at the County level so that all the towns and villages will be able to have input about the reapportionment. Mr. Stein explained that there are certain key items that guide the committee in making their recommendations . The County Charter has a description of what has to be done concerning reapportionment. There is a set of guidelines the County Board of Representatives has adopted officially to give direction about the districts . These are essentially the same guidelines that were used ten years ago , with a few minor changes. The two critical points which are sought to be met are equality of population among representative districts as consistent as possible with the second item, which is maximum practical consistency with existing municipal boundaries of various local governmental units. They are trying to draw the lines so that they are coterminous with existing lines wherever possible . This is not entirely possible } in all areas of the County, and this is where some of the conflicts have became apparent. Single member districts are being used in comparison with what the City of Ithaca does , The City has two representatives per district , the County has one . They will attempt to insure that the lines do not go through any hamlets or neighborhoods . Compactness and contiguity of areas is hoped for, weighted voting will not be considered , and consideration of fifteen County members only. The County Charter does allow for a 15 to 20 member Board, but the County has chosen to remain with the 15 member hoard . In relation to equality of population , there should be an overriding reason for the deviation spread to exceed 12% . This means the ideal redistricting plan would have an equal number of population living in each district. To conform to municipal, boundary lines we can not meet that requirement, therefore we must deviate from that . The courts of law who have adjudicated reapportionment have stated that if you deviate around 12% you are pretty safe . You can go over that amount, but you then may be open to a challenge . Mr. Stein explained the deviation format to the Board using the chart he provided, ( see attached ) . MjC . Stein stated that the reapportionment in 1980 showed a deviation of 16 and this was unchallenged . He further explained that if the County did not make any changes and kept the same districts , the deviation would grow to 33% because of unequal population growth . Mr. Stein stated that the committee had looked at many maps and that they decided' to use R-28 , R-29 , and R-30 to take to the towns and villages . Mr. Stein proceeded to explain the critical issues of these three maps . Essentially two thirds of the County districts do not change . The districts of Ulysses , Newfield , and Enfield are exactly the same in this proposal . In 1980 a drastic move was made to split the Town of Enfield in half. In 1992 there are two critical problems that do not allow a reapportionment proposal that everyone agrees with . One of the key problems is the Town of Groton , it didn ' t grow fast enough. In order to increase the population we must add to it , Since Groton is surrounded by only two towns , Lansing and Dryden there are only two places to get that population . Either take it from the Town of Lansing by mooring the line from the west, or take it from the 'down of Dryden in the hamlet of McLain. The second sensitive area is the boundary line between the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Lansing on the south in the Village of Lansing . The Village of Lansing has expressed itself in wanting to include as much as possible of the Village within District 10 . The Village of Lansing has gone on record supporting R-29 . To comply with the wishes of the Village of Lansing to get population in balance in the remainder of the Town of Ithaca the line from the south out of Danby would have to include the southeast portion of the mown of Ithaca together with the Caroline District . In all of these proposals the deviation is greater than 12% , they County was taken to court because it can be justified . Ho decisions have been made concerning these proposals, except that they have been narrowed dawn to these three . The Reapportionment Committee expects to make their decision by the end of April , and the County Board should make their decision by the and of May or June . The decisions that will be made are only being made on the County reapportionment districts only, They do not have anything to do with the Town lines or the town governmental operations . This is only for the election of County Representatives . Supervisor Rappensperger mentioned that there are letters and communications from other municipalities concerning this issue which the Town Board has received . She has received a phone call from a Councilman Dan Schwartz of the Town of Danby , The Danby Town Doard has authorized Mr. Schwartz to prepare a resolution opposing R-29 , the version has a portion of South Bill in the Town of Ithaca combined with Caroline and Danby. The resolution they are preparing will discuss the very big differences in the Town of Ithaca on South Hill , those being that DanbylCaroliae are sparsely populated, and that the different needs and philosophies would make it hard for one County Representative to represent the proposed district well . Lawrence Lever from the Village of Lansing sent the Hoard a proposal called R-29L an alternative approach to R-29 . There have been a group of municipal representatives meeting, from the Town of Ithaca, Town of Groton, Village of Lansing , Town of Lansing , and the Town of Dryden . In an attempt to come up with some kind of a compromise that might suit everyone . Mr. Lever' s summary of the proposed alternative approach is to change only to a small extent the Northern boundary in R-29 and not take a portion of the Southern part of the Town of Ithaca. His theory is that it is unreasonable , since Groton is the basis for the problem, to ask that the Groton District be any larger than a the smallest district in the City of Ithaca, Mr . Lever contends that if a city district can be that small , then a town district should be able to also . Mr. Lever has sent his proposed alternative to the Hoard for their comments and thoughts, Supervisor Raffenspez}er father reported that she had received a phone call from a resident of the South Hill area living on Ridge Crest Road , Marian Kosak. Mrs . Kosak is very much opposed to R-29 based primarily on the lack of similarity of neighborhood , between Danby, Caroline and that part of Ithaca. she feels that South Hill is unique neighborhood within the Town of Ithaca. Supervisor Raffensperger reported that she had sent a copy of the maps to.- all of the Civic Associations , along with a letter expressing her personal apposition to R-29 . Supervisor Raffensperger opposes R-29 because over 500 people in the Town of Ithaca will have diminished influence on the decisions of the County Board of Representatives . There is a difference in the interests represented in that part of the town along with Danby and Caroline . Supervisor Raffensperger opened a question and answer period from the Hoard to Hr. stein and Mr. Missirian . Councilman Whitcomb stated that he wished to go on record as opposing R-29 for all of the reasons that have been stated thus far . Councilman Whitcomb further stated that the County Board of Representatives would also be receiving a letter from the South Hill Community Association registering its opposition to R-29 , Councilman Whitcomb asked if King Road was the dividing line of the R-29 proposal , and if that line was the center of King Road. Mr. Stein responded that it was the center of King Poad . Mr. Stein interjected that there are now rules requiring that definite boundary lines on the landscape be used for districting , something that is visible on the landscape . Councilman Niklas asked how do you respond to respecting the boundaries of existing municipalities as much as you can With R-29 . This is the plan that takes two sections out of the town . Councilman Niklas stated that R-29 is the most vulnerable of the three plans in consideration of respecting existing boundaries . Councilman Niklas pointed out that with R-29 they are shifting two boundaries from what was already a municipalities prescribed boundary . Councilman Niklas showed that this is the only plan that does that, making it in his estimation the least desirable , Councilman Niklas stated that as a resident of South dill he would also like to see the integrity of South Hill maintained and he is also opposed to R-29 , Councilman Liguori asked Supervisor Raffensperger what exactly the R-29L proposed by Mr . Lever would mean to the Town of Ithaca . Supervisor Raffensperger responded that it means we remain flexible about the lines on the Northern border of the Town of Ithaca, we accommodate the needs of Lansing and all of the other results of shifting lines there , and in exchange for that flexibility it is no longer necessary to change the southern portion of the Town of Ithaca . However , one of the basis of Mr. Lever ' s proposal, is that the Groton District should not have to be any larger than the smallest City District. A question was asked from the floor if the R-29L plan was drawn out for the whole County, Supervisor Raffensperger stated that it deals with Gorton, Dryden , the Town of Lansing , the Village of Lansing, and the Town of Ithaca. Supervisor Raffensperger mentioned that she is not sure that all of the members of the group that met are in favor of this alternative proposal . Possibly the Town of Dryden will not be because they felt that the Town of Lansing should , " share the pain of making up the numbers" , for Groton . Because the numbers are so diminished it is easier to use a line keeping the hamlet of McLean with Groton . This group looked at school district lines, as well as fire district lines , and this plan is consistent with those . Supervisor Raffensperger pointed out that it is very complicated and will have to be mapped. The group hopes to meet with the Town Hoard whether to see if there is a way to compromise . The group would then like to have some professional help and advice from people at the County to look at it and see if it is realistic and fonts the basis for a solution that isn ' t imposed on the towns but is forte through a cooperative effort, Mr. Stein stated that the Reapportionment Committee would be delighted to help , Supervisor Raffensperger commented that the Town Board needs to discuss what R-29 would coo to the town, because at this point R- 9L is theoretical . Supervisor Raffensperger personal opinion is that the Town should remain flexible as far as the northeast district is concerned , but that we should oppose the idea of combining a small portion of the Town of Itaca with Danby/Caroline . A resident from the floor stated that he had come to find out exactly what reapportionment meant and what it effects . Supervisor Raffensperger explained that it has only to do with the County Board Representative that represents you, it doesn ' t have anything to do with municipal boundaries . The Town of Ithaca will have to take a look at this for their own election districts to see how it will effect election districts . The Board discussed how they can communicate with the Reapportionment Committee in a timely manner so that they can understand the Board ' s intent. A motion was made by Councilman Whitcomb, seconded by Councilwoman Valentino concerning this issue , see the attached resolution . ' A discussion ensued among the board members as to the context of a letter to the Committee . Supervisor Raffensperger stated she would make sure the letter reflected the concerns and intent of all the members of the board . Agenda Item #4-COUNTY BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT : Representative Mary Call reported to the Board that the County is working on fiscal plans that will effect everyone . Supervisor Raffensperger asked the County Representatives if the County Board had applied to the State legislature for the additional one percent sales tax. Representative Call stated that they had through a resolution. Supervisor Raffensperger requested a copy of that resolution. Agenda Item #2-REPORTS OF TOWN OFFICIALS : Supervisor Raffensperger reported that she has attended a number of meetings of an informal group of representatives on the reapportionment options as reported tonight. She will continue to attend those meetings, and will inform the Board if anything from those meetings effects the letter she will be sending to the Reapportionment Committee . Supervisor Raffensperger spoke to the Board concerning the increasing problem of the handling of raccoons . A year ago the Town passed a resolution asking Tompkins County to take the lead in setting up a strategy of dealing with the increasing dangers and complexities of the problem. To the best of the Supervisor ' s knowledge that has not been done . On Friday, March 6 a dead raccoon was located along Warren Road in proximity to Dewitt and Boces near the walkway used by the Northeast school children . The only solution that could be found during a prolonged investigation to make sure that a problem did not occur with contact to the children was to have the Town call a Wildlife Control Officer and have the animal removed at town expense . It is evident that better systems must be set up for the removal of such animals. Supervisor Raffensperger believes that this system should be set up by Tompkins County. She stated that it makes no economic or other sense for each town and village to attempt to cope responsibly with the complexities of this situation. Supervisor Raffensperger told the board that she would write a letter to Tompkins County and present it to them, asking for their development of a system to deal with this problem. Supervisor Raffensperger also stated she would solicit other towns and villages to join her in contacting the County with our concerns . The Supervisor asked the board for their consensus in taking this approach. Mary Call asked how the Town has handled such matters in the past. Supervisor Raffensperger commented that our Town Highway Department has in the past handled this by picking up deer, and taking them to the landfill paying to dispose of them. The Highway Department has picked up raccoons before . However, Supervisor Raffensperger did not want to ask one of the highway employees to do that as they have not had their pre-exposure shots for rabies . A question was asked as to hoar the residents outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights take care of this problem. Supervisor Raffensperger commented that they call the town . Supervisor Raffensperger further stated that the Department of Health will do something about these animals if the person calling says that the raccoon has had contact with a pet, child, or other person. Supervisor Raffensperger mentioned that this particular raccoon was on a County Highway, and that the County Highway Department would not respond to the complaint . She further stated that she could not in good conscience allow the animal to be left there when it was in an area where children pass by to school . I The complexity of the problem is that you have to take different procedures depending if the animal is dead or alive , or if the animal has been in contact with someone . or if they haven ' t. Supervisor Raffensperger expressed her concern for both the residents and the town employees with the potential health j implications that are evident. Councilman Liguori stated that he had a conversation with a Wildlife Control Officer who was very concerned that there is no procedure whereby a licensed officer has the authority to shoot an animal that is obviously ill . Councilman Niklas requested that the letter to be sent to the County Board include the suggestion that they explore the policies and guidelines that have already been put in place by some of the other southern counties who have already had to deal with this issue . Supervisor Raffensperger offered that the Town is not necessarily opposed to paying for the services needed, the problem lies in the fact that the town does not even know how to get these services at the present time . Representative Call suggested that Supervisor Raffensperger may wish to present the letter on the floor of the County Board. The Chairman would probably then turn the issue immediately over to the appropriate committee . Councilwoman Valentino noted that it would make common sense for the issue to be handled as suggested by Representative Call . Councilwoman Leary stated that she felt it was the total responsibility of the County Health Department and that she was concerned with their lack of concern before rabies hit the County. Supervisor Raffensperger explained that at the time the County Health Department made the presentation and explained the services they were willing to provide , the town asked the County to set up some kind of coordinated plan to help each town with this growing problem. Agenda Items #9 and #10-FOREST HOME BRIDGE REPLACEMENT: Supervisor Raffensperger welcomed the residents of Forest Home , and introduced James Kazda, from the Tompkins County Public Works Department. Mr. Kazda has requested to address the Board concerning the bridges located within Forest Home . Mr. Kazda informed the Board that he would like to first provide some background concerning the bridges . Last year in June the Tompkins County Board approved the budget including design money for the downstream Forest Home Bridge . Both of the bridges in Forest Home are located on roads within the Town of Ithaca. The Supervisor offered the floor to Karen Baum of the Forest Home Improvement Association. Mrs . Baum started by thanking the Board for allowing the Association to address the board . They have come to present their case for the preservation of the single lane bridges in Forest Home specifically for the repair and preservation of the downstream bridge . Mrs . Baum further stated that they had come to make a case for the preservation of a bridge that is not only integral to life at Forest Home , but also to make a case for a small bridge and community that are considered integral to the character, history, and definition to the larger Ithaca area. They will show that the single land downstream bridge has a good accident safety record. The bridge helps to reduce vehicle speeds to safe levels , and additionally platoons traffic for the benefit of pedestrians and motorists alike . Each day this bridge handles more traffic than anyone would believe that an area such as Forest Home could handle with only minor delays , even in rush hour traffic . Replacing this bridge with a two lane structure would eliminate all of the mentioned safety advantages and would increase the traffic in Forest Home and other surrounding overburdened residential areas . The Forest Home Improvement Association strongly opposes any plans for building a two lane bridge and requests the Town and County take the steps necessary to preserve this bridge . Mrs . Baum explained that the Executive Committee would be covering portions of the information packet presented to the Board, ( see attached) . Lars Mashburn, Vice President made a presentation on the history of Forest Home . Bruce Britton, Chairman Traffic Committee spoke about the engineering aspects of the bridge ; William Goldsmith made points concerning traffic projections and future problems with a two lane bridge , Mr. Shipe pointed out that many people are under the assumption only the people in Forest Home are concerned with preserving the community. The Forest Home Association decided that they would test this assumption by circulating a petition stating their position, and find out how many outsiders would support them . Mr. Shipe then presented the petitions with over 2000 signatures , ( see attached ) . Mr. Shipe pointed out that the signatures are those of individuals who work and live all over Tompkins County. Mr, Shipe further stated that they share the frustration of their friends who travel through Forrest Home about the safety and congestion through Forest Home , The Forest Home Association wishes that these people had a safer and less congested route to use to get to their destinations . Mrs . Baum concluded the presentation by explaining to the Board that the information packet included all that was presented tonight as well as additional information , The Supervisor asked if any of the Board Members had any questions that they wished to ask of the Forest Home Improvement Association , Supervisor Raffensperger asked if the Forest Mome Community would support the new construction of a single lane b2�idge . Mrs . Baum stated that their first choice would be the repair and restoration of the existing bridge . They are not sure why the construction of a new single lane bridge would be necessary unless the Town and County felt that they had additional money they wished to spend. Supervisor Raffensperger stated that her impression was that restoration might be more expenslyi� than new construction . Mrs . aaum restated their position of seeing the bridge repaired and preserved . Councilwoman Leary asked , regardless of the cost? Mrs . Baum said nn, not regardless of the cost . Super visor Raffensperger Mentioned that txiere is a cost benefit analysis that has not been done yet. Mrs. Baum interjected that in her conversations with James Kazda he stated the coat of restoration of the bridge is far less than new construction , Supervisor Raffensperger asked Hr . Kazda to explain , Mr . Kazda stated that the repair option varies considerably with the options chosen . For example , if just the steel stringers were rehabilitated without the trusses, the price would be substantially lower than a new ]aridge . If they rehabilitated the existing trusses which serve only an ornamental function the cost would he in the same range or higher than a new bridge . But we would still end up with an old bridge . To paint the upstream bridge would cost approximately $ 50 , @ @0. The downstream bridge would cost approximately 580 , 000 to because it is higher , although shorter. Mr. Kazda continued saying that if the bridge were replaced they would remove and replace it with prepainted or steel that did not require painting. Just one aspect of the rehabilitation would probably consume one third of the replacement budget. Mr. Barney asked if the rehabilitation of the stringers was what the County would do , and the deck and sidewalls would be the responsibility of the Town? Mr. Kazda responded that was correct. Mr. Barney asked if the entire bridge were replaced , who would pay for that? Mr. Kazda stated that it would be the same breakout. Mr. Kazda explained that there is a cloud over the issue of the deck. In 1946 decks were predominantly wooden decks with an asphalt covering meaning as a wearing surface . To construct a bridge with a concrete deck that has an inner roll wearing surface , (meaning the structure is part of the wearing surface ) , figuring a cost breakdown would be difficult. The sidewalk would almost probably be the responsibility of the Town . Scott McConnell asked hir. Kazda if the rehabilitation should also include the walkway, the stringers, deck, the abutments, the wingwalls, and if all of this would bring the bridge up to nearly the same life expectancy as a new bridge . What would that cost? Mr . Kazda stated that they could not give an estimate at this time because there are so many options . He stated that they were hoping to limit the choices so that they would not have to do a cost analysis on all the options . Mr. Kazda reported that rehabilitation would probably cost about $200 ,000, the only thing that would not be replaced would be the stringers which cost approximately $30, 000 to $40,000 . Superintendent McConnell asked if this would give the community a bridge with the same life expectancy or the same maintenance long term cost? Mr. Kazda responded no, if you are using the old steel whichhas already gone through some of its useful life . They are usually designed for a fifty to seventy year lifespan, but they do go far beyond that . This bridge through rehabilitation may last fifty years , whereas a new structure may last seventy to one hundred years . We are looking into the Future , how we spend the money now will determine how money is spent in the future . Councilwoman Leary mentioned that based on this information we are looking at an approximate cost for rehabilitation around $200,000, versus new construction of around $275,000 to $300,000. Councilman Niklas added that the cost factor includes an issue of longevity. If you install a bridge that doesn ' t last as long as a rehabilitated one you have to factor in the cost of that in its functional lifetime . Councilman Niklas stated that we must define the parameters of the bridge before an analysis of cost could be done . He recommended that the Board make a decision on what type of bridge will be rehabilitated or replaced . Councilman Klein questioned the issue of longevity of the bridge depending on maintenance . A bridge designed for seventy years will fail in ten years if it is not maintained . 1•ir. Kazda stated that hopefully with a bridge that is either rehabilitated or replaced a bridge will be created requiring very little maintenance . Superintendent McConnell asked Mr. Kazda if in his opinion the concerns of the community as far as aesthetics, traffic volume , and safety between the interfacing with pedestrians and the vehicular traffic could be dealt with on either a one lane or two lane bridge? Mr. Kazda responded that it is possible to address all the concerns with a one lane or two lane . It is at what level you address them, it is really difficult now to access whether there would be a higher accident rate or a lower accident rate . If you replace the bridge with a one lane bridge , and someone unfortunately gets injured on the bridge , whether or not there would be an increased liability on the town because we were not prudent to go with a one lane versus two lane is questionable . These are really difficult decisions to make , we can do the best that we can in both the designs of one lane and two lane . We are trying to separate the vehicles from the pedestrians and bicyclists . Councilman Niklas asked Mr. Kazda what was his most compelling argument, your strongest advocacy for changing this bridge to a two lane bridge . ? Mr. Kazda responded that it will limit the possibilities in the future . The roadways are seventeen feet wide they handle at times their peak capacity, should they handle more . As a highway engineer I say no , this is not the community for traffic . It does not have the road configurations nor the bridge configurations for traffic . Supervisor Raffensperger interjected that the Town has long had a policy of wishing to provide to forest Home a bypass , our decision about the bridge might be very different if that had not been the In 1946 Tompkins County passed a resolution that stated that the County would be responsible for all bridge structures over 25 feet that are on town roads . Both of these bridges are over 25 feet, with the downstream bridge being 83 feet. The bridge rating now is rated a four out of a possible seven . meaning it is considered to be deficient structurally and functionally obsolete . The ranking on functionally obsolete is ranked from 1000 down to 0. there 1000 is a new bridge meeting all the current standards . The bridge ranks at 464 , anything below 500 is considered to be functionally obsolete . The upstream bridge ranked on functional obsolescence is rated at 182 , primarily because of its five to posting . Only a portion of the structure is considered a responsibility of the County. The Town is financially responsible for the deck, (wearing surface ) and the sidewalk. The current County budget has $30,000 available for design . There are many factors that determine what type of bridge would be recommended through the' design process . The design process has not yet begun. The most significant issue for the residents is the discussion of a one lane bridge versus a two lane bridge . The most important issue to the County is safety. The safety factor must be considered not only for the people who walk through the area, but also for the over 5000 vehicles a day that cross the bridge . In 1979 the State of New York indicated the traffic flow across the bridge as 3000 cars a day. In 1989 it has gone up to over 5000 cars a day. Although the residents of Forest Home do not appreciate the amount of traffic each day, the County and Town must provide for those 5000 cars to safely pass through the area. Between 1983 and 1989 at the bridge there were seventeen accidents . Only one of those was a personal injury accident. The majority of the accidents go unreported, and are filed with the insurance companies and the State Department of Transportation . The County understands the need to preserve the integrity of the Forest Home Community but must consider both factors ; the community ' s quest for Historic designation, and the need for those other vehicles, pedestrians , and bicyclists who do use the bridge . Current standards for bridge widths are the width of the bridge deck should not be less than the approach roadway. The approach roadway on the Judd Falls side of the bridge is 17 feet. The current bridge is 14 . 2 feet between curbs . There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether or not the present bridge can be rehabilitated, from an engineering standpoint we can rehabilitate just about anything . The more specific issue is what it is going to cost to rehabilitate , and what it is going to cost to replace . Current bridges of that approximate length have a replacement cost within Tompkins County in the neighborhood of $275 ,000 to $300,000 . A portion of that amount would be the responsibility of the Town of Ithaca. Rehabilitation costs vary widely based upon how the rehabilitation takes place . The bridge is a three girder bridge and at one point it was a truss bridge . In 1975 the State of New York in the process of turning the bridge over to the Town and County went through a rehabilitation process . During that process the bridge was supposed to be shortened by six. feet, and it was supposed to be widened as a two lane bridge . However, because of the local opposition to that proposal we have the situation that we have today. A bridge both structurally deficient and functionally obsolete . Mr. Kazda cautioned the Board and the residents not to make the same mistake again because we do not want to be back within twenty years asking for additional money to rebuild or rehabilitate this bridge . Most of the design considerations are going to be presented in the design report, which is part of the consultants responsibility. Vie have not yet contacted a consultant for the design phase , because we need an agreement with the town that they are willing to support whatever the final results of replacement or rehabilitation will be . We also need to know what is planned to be done, we need to limit the scope for the design professional . We don ' t want to get a design professional involved in lengthy discussions with one lane versus , two lane , or rehabilitation versus replacement. The local level must fully understand what is intended to do and carry that through the design and construction . Mr. Kazda then asked the Board if there were any questions . Supervisor Raffensperger asked Mr . Kazda to gave an exact definition of functionally obsolete . Mr. Kazda responded that no one exactly knows . It is a number that is assigned to the bridge based upon a lot of factors such as lane width. Mr. Kazda further explained that he brought up the subject of both bridges because there is a great disparity between the two . The primary reason the down stream bridge is rated about 460 , versus the 180 for the upstream bridge is the fact it is posted for 5 ton. This is an indication that load carrying capacity of the structure is of primary importance , secondary to that is width. Supervisor Raffensperger asked if the lower bridge were posted at 5 tons would its functional obsolescence diminish? Mr. Kazda stated that it would be more obsolete , 1000 is a good score 100 is bad. Supervisor Raffensperger mentioned that they are proposing to replace the bridge that has a score of 464 , and not replace the one that a score of 180 . Mr . Kazda responded, yes . The cost of replacing the upstream bridge is tremendous, and the benefit is very little . The traffic counts on the upstream bridge is much higher. The 1989 counts on the upstream bridge were 8000 versus the lower bridge which is 5000. There was a problem in that count because they had trouble keeping the hoses on the road . Fir. Kazda estimates that the loiter bridge actually had a higher count than that. A true count on the upstream bridge is 8000 . Counilwoman Leary asked if that would not support the argument of replacing the upstream bridge because it has more use? Mr. Kazda explained that functionally obsolete is one category, they also look at structurally deficient. There are major concerns about the structure itself. The bridge that was put in was old steel from another structure . It was originally six feet shorter it was thought that the abutments were going to be raised inside the current abutments reducing the width by six feet. But because of the opposition locally the beams were extended by six feet. They took one of the four members that they were supposed to install to make it a two lane bridge, then cut it into three pieces and welded it on the ends . This created fracture critical details which are primarily welding detail which over time through fatigue could propagate a crack. The down stream bridge was reviewed because it is a three girder bridge it is not a truss . A few years ago the State of New York had a program to inspect two and three girder bridges to see if there were a failure of one member would that cause a catastrophic failure . The downstream bridge was removed from that index only because it is a three girder one lane bridge . If it were a three girder two lane bridge it would remain on the inventory as a fracture critical structure . The workmanship on the structure is extremely poor, the entire structure is in poor structural shape as indicated by the four in its grading by the State of New York. Four out of seven where anything below five is considered to be structurally deficient. Councilman Niklas asked if it were safe to say that any bridge becomes functionally obsolete as the volume of traffic it will experience increases through the normal evolution of traffic in an i area, whereas structural deficiency talks about the engineering safety factors that are consistently being eroded under any volume ,of traffic it would experience? Mr. Kazda responded that being functionally obsolete has nothing to to with the volume , it has to do with the width and its capacity to carry traffic . Not the amount that it has but the amount that it can have . This bridge is considered to be a high volume County bridge . Councilman Liguori asked if this bridge were a two lane bridge would it have the tendency to have even more traffic? Mr. Kazda responded that any change is going to have an effect on the traffic flow. With the roadway width at 17 feet, and the turns within Forest Home it is highly unlikely that one change would effect the volumes of traffic through Forest Home . Councilman Whitcomb asked Mr. Kadza to explain what would be involved in the restoration or rehabilitation of the bridge? Mr. Kazda stated that what needs to be addressed is the failing abutments and wing walls . The wing walls on the Judd Falls downstream side which supports the walkway is a laid up stone wing wall which is failing. The Town is aware of the problem that is being experienced by the open steel grating . The grating has failed and there are cover plates that run the entire length. There can be things done to enhance the life expectancy of the steel itself . If we did rehabilitate the three stringers strong recommendations would be made for deck types because of the fracture critical details . The County would like to insure that there won ' t be a catastrophic failure of the entire structure . Supervisor Raffensperger mentioned that with this kind of description of rehabilitation, and replacement costing between $275 ,000 and $300,000 does that mean replacement no matter how wide it is? Mr. Kazda explained that the number he quoted is based on the two lane approximately that length . They would recommend that the roadway width be no less than 20 feet. Supervisor Raffensperger asked if it were possible to replace the bridge with a 14 . 2 foot bridge? Mr. Kazda responded yes . Councilman Niklas if the bridge width were made to be the same width as the approach would this help to eliminate the bottleneck of traffic? Mr. Kazda mentioned that the standards for a one lane bridge is anything less than 14 feet, so if it were 17 feet wide it would be considered a two lane bridge . Supervisor Raffensperger stated that in the Board members folders were copies of the resolution from the Forest Home Association. (See attached . ) i long standing policy of the Town . The only effective solution to the problem of the volume of traffic through Forest Home is a bypass . . - Councilman Whitcomb asked if a rehabilitated bridge would be as safe as a new bridge in terms of structural integrity? Mr. Kazda responded that is an unknown with the existing steel . He stated that he could not say that it would be the same as far as safety with a rehabilitated bridge . Councilman Whitcomb asked if a new bridge could be built that would resemble the existing bridge? Mr. Kazda responded yes , if it were a three girder bridge and you are talking about the ornament, but we would not know how much that would cost. Mr. Barney asked if it were replaced with a new one lane bridge would be it the same type of three girder bridge? Hr. Kazda said it would probably be a steel girder bridge with either a rolled section as we have now, or a built up section depending on the analysis . Mr. Barney questioned if the bridge would still have a catastrophic failure protection? Mr. Kazda said yes, with the structural deck limit someone would notice something wasn ' t, right such as the deck shifting . When you combine that with maximum traffic you may then have a failure , but it is highly unlikely. ]-fr. Walker said that the County ' s primary concern is the structure of the bridge , the girders that support the traffic, and the Town ' s primary concern is the super structure and the wearing surface . The girders were state of the art in 1904 when they were built, they are riveted cast iron. In the limited inspections that Mr . Walker has performed on the bridge , the integrity of those iron members is severely questioned, thus the closing of the walkway. From a safety point we have a very serious situation ifthe guiderails that are attached to those structural members should sustain any impact, one of the structural trusses could fall off . Mr. Walker further explained that when the wooden deck was replaced this year on the walkway, the highway crew did some remarkable patching of some structural members . There was a structural member, which had no steel left, you could see through it. It had to be replaced with other I-Beams . Should that be indicative of what else is under the bridge that we can ' t see , I as Town Engineer cannot recommend leaving that structure in place strictly as an ornamental feature . It serves a structural safety mechanism to support the guiderails from keeping the cars from bumping off and keep the people from falling off the walkway. Councilwoman Leary asked what was the possibility of avoiding a headon collision as the bridge is now? Mr . Kazda stated that the warning devices and the curves coming in from the Judd Falls area prevent that. Councilman Niklas made a recommendation that a feasibility study and cost analysis be made by an engineer. This study should include making a comparison of rehabilitation versus replacement with as close a facsimile as possible . Then we can continue our discussion with the residents and the Forest Home Community Association once we have this report from our Engineers . Councilman Whitcomb felt there are really two issues . One is should the bridge be replaced with a two lane bridge , and if the answer to that is no . Should we have a new one lane bridge or repair the bridge that is there . Re further stated that as far as he was concerned the first issue is simple . Keep the one lane bridge both for the historic reasons that have been sited , and also because if a two lane bridge lane goes in there it takes the pressure off the Town and County to solve the long term traffic problem in Forest Home . It is unconscionable that that amount of traffic has to proceed through Forest Home . The second issue we do not know the answer to , whether the existing bridge can be repaired safely and economically, or whether we have to build a new bridge . The Supervisor asked 1•1r . Kazda if the opinion of this Board this evening were that a one lane bridge is what we are talking about, but that we do not have the technical information nor the financial impact information to know whether or not we should support a rehabilitation of the existing bridge, or reconstruction of a new bridge , how do we get that information? Mr . Kazda stated that the County has taken the responsibility for all of the design costs . There will be no need For Town involvement, but the Town must be involved during construction . Prior to the County proceeding with any design contract the County needs a contract with the Town to guarantee funding during construction of the Towns portion of the bridge . Mr. Barney asked at what point the contract would be needed? The County will give the Town an estimate of the cost prior to the construction so that a contract can be entered into . Typically it is dictated as a percentage of the total cost, and is given as an approximate estimate . A replacement of the bridge would cost approximately $275 , 000 to $300,000. The Supervisor stated that what the Town is asking is for some understanding of the financial and technical feasibility of the two alternatives . i Councilman Niklas asked what is the time frame for this information being supplied to the Town ? Mr. Kazda stated that the schedule for this project is, design in 1992 and construction in 1993 . The County can probably get that information to you within three months . Councllman Liguori asked if the agreement between the Town and County would be based on the approximate figures? Mr. Kazda responded the County will be making the decision as to whether or not to proceed with any of the design or feasibility without an agreement. Since it all is construction costs , it would seem reasonable that we would design and then go through the contract phase . But I cannot speak for the Board of Representatives or the Public Vlorks Committee . Mrs . Baum asked if the Town Board can pass a resolution favoring a one lane bridge versus a two lane bridge when the feasibility study of repairing or new construction has not been done . Supervisor Raffensperger responded that they are two separate questions. If the Board feels that the continuation of a one lane bridge is something that they have enough information about they can entertain a resolution, but the board does not have enough information to pass a resolution on repairing the existing bridge or building a new one . Supervisor Raffensperger at this time made a motion that the Town Board is in support of the lower bridge in Forest Home remaining a one lane bridge , and that the Town Board requests additional information be provided to them from Tompkins County so that a decision can be made as to the financial and technical feasibility of reconstruction or replacement of the present bridge , and the Town Board recognizes the solution to the traffic problem in Forest Home does not depend on the width of this bridge , and it is the Town ' s intention to continue to investigate a long term solution to the traffic problem in Forest Home through alternatives such as a by-pass . Motion was seconded by Councilman Niklas . Carried unanimously. ( See attached . ) Supervisor Raffensperger thanked James Kazda for coming ,to the meeting and for his presentation . The Supervisor stated that it was a pleasure for the Board to have information presented to them that was so forthcoming and as constructive . Councilwoman Leary asked to comment on the petitions presented by the Forest Home Community Committee . She stated that she would have been more impressed with the amount of signatures , if the information given in the petition had been presented more fairly. She stated the petition said nothing about replacement, the petition only speaks of demolition of the bridge . She feels that many people might not have understood what they were signing, because the petition only spoke of demolition. Mr. Shipe responded that the Association left the petition open on the grounds that there were more qualified persons to make a judgment as to the exact solution, that is why the petition stated, "the appropriate solution" . Mr. Kazda asked to make a closing statement. The responsibility and decision lies with the County Board of Representatives through their delegation to the Public Works Committee . There are still many steps to follow. Agenda Item #12-Public Hearing : Traffic Ordinance At this time the Supervisor interrupted to open the Public Hearing on the Local Law Amending the Traffic Ordinance Changing the Yield Sign on Tudor Road at Park Lane to a Stop Sign. Proof of publication and posting has been noted . The Public Hearing was opened at 7 : 30 p . m. Supervisor Raffensperger asked if there was anyone present wishing to address the Board . Steven Zinder, 108 Park Lane , Eastern Heights addressed the Board . Mr. Zinder presented to the Board a petition that was signed last summer by 51 people . The residents wish to have more than a single stop sign . The residents would like stop signs along Park Lane as there are so many children playing along those streets . The petition is specifically asking for stop signs at Park Lane and Tudor, Park Lane , at Joanne and Eastern Heights, and Eastern Heights and landmark. The petition also asks for watch children signs at the entrance of Joanne Drive , the entrance of Charlene Drive , and from the entrance coming up Park Lane from Route 79 . Supervisor Raffensperger stated that the Board would be happy to accept the petition and would like to discuss it. Supervisor Raffensperger remarked that she had been aware that the petition had been circulated . The Town did traffic counts in order to access what will happen when the road to Rt. 79 is opened . It was recommended by the Highway Superintendent that we not proceed with all the stop signs, until we were aware of what would happen once Park Lane Extension is opened . This proposed change resulted from a comment made at an Civic Association meeting where the proposed amendment to the traffic ordinance was the one that residents felt would address the immediate problem until Rt . 79 were open and we could access the other areas . Mr. Zinder requested that a stop sign be placed on Park lane itself . Mr. Zinder pointed out that drivers will be coming at a very fast pace up the hill . The Supervisor asked the Highway Superintendent to look at this situation and make a recommendation to the Board as to what is appropriate and reasonable . On the matter of the children playing signs, the Supervisor stated that the town attempts to reserve those signs for areas where one would not expect to see children playing . The town does this because there are situations where children are handicapped , mobility impaired, deaf , etcetera. If these signs were placed indiscriminately, no one would pay any attention to them. The town tries to balance placement through the community and not overuse the signs . The standard that the Town uses is if you are in a residential area where you would assume there are children, and there are not special circumstances that require a sign we prefer to reserve those signs for other areas. Superintendent McConnell stated that the basis for the decision concerning the watch children signs is found in the manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices . Superintendent McConnell reported that in his dealings with the County Highway Manager it has been brought to his attention that problems can be created by anticipating a bad situation and then acting on it before it is actually substantiated as undesirable . Superintendent McConnell states he is going to take the stance that we wait until Park Lane is actually opened to Rt. 79 and see what the effect is, monitor those effects to adjust what is to be done in accordance with manual . He further stated that most people either live there or are building there . If those people are having trouble conforming to driving safely in a residential area then we should police ourselves . Councilman Niklas commented that the Board cannot act on Mir. Zinder ' s other recommendations since there has already been a notice of the Public Hearing. To modify it would require stopping the process now and then advertise for another Public Hearing. Supervisor Raffensperger asked if they were opposed to the action the Town Board could take tonight concerning the advertised notice . bar. . Zinder stated that they were not opposed to it. Joyce Jones of 104 Joanne Drive , asked to address the Board. Mfrs . Jones commented that the residents are not opposed to what the Board is doing tonight, but that they would be much happier to see a stop sign placed in the other direction at the intersection . The reason for that is there is an intersection near a park located in that area . She stated it would be much safer for the children going to and from the park if the stop sign was at the same Supervisor Raffensperger commented that whenever Park Lane is opened it can be determined at that time after traffic counts have been made to see if there is a necessity for Children at Play signs. The Supervisor stated that at this time the Board would accept the petition and consider what has been asked of them tonight. Supervisor Raffensperger commented that it would probably be in the best interests of the Town and the residents that the Board not act on the Public Hearing as advertised since it will not accomplish what has been discussed this evening . Supervisor Raffensperger asked the attending residents if they would be willing to accept the situation as it is with the yield sign only until the board has a chance to look at any changes that might take place when Rt. 79 is opened. Mr. Koslo asked if the board could act on the proposed Public Hearing this evening . Supervisor Raffensperger stated that it is very difficult to do with so many small additions to the Traffic Ordinance because it makes the ordinance hard to understand. Supervisor Raffensperger stated that the town would proceed with the three way stop to accomodate the request of the residents to provide a method of slowing down the traffic in this area with the summer months coming on . The Town Clerk was authorized by the Board to advertise for a Public Hearing to be held on April 13, 1992 at 7 : 30 p . m. to amend the Traffic Ordinance for the placement of stop signs on all three approaches to the intersection of Tudor Road and Park Lane . Motion to hold Public Hearing as stated by Councilwoman Valentino, seconded by by Councilman Niklas . Carried unanimously. Public Hearing to Amend the Town of Ithaca Traffic Ordinance was closed at 8: 13 p. m. Agenda Item #13-Public Hearing to Amend the dater Rate Schedule for the Town of Ithaca to Establish Minimum Quarterly Charges and to Also Amend the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Agreement. Public Hearing was opened at 8: 15 p . m. The Town Clerk has proof of posting and publication . Kevin Kaufman, Executive Director of Bolton Point stated that became tonight to answer any questions the board may have about the new rate structure . Supervisor Raffensperger asked if there were any other member of the public who would like to comment on the subject of the Public Hearing. intersection, but instead of being on Tudor coming down if it went the other way. Superintendent McConnell stated that placing the stop sign as Firs. Jones recommended would not conform to the manual, if we did something it would have to be an all way stop. Superintendent McConnell said that he would be receptive to the all way stop, but he would not like to start putting all tray stops on Park Lane , Regency, and Joanne the entire way to make people stop and go, that could create a more dangerous situation than a smooth progressive traffic at a reasonable speed. Councilman Niklas asked the Highway Superintendent if he was recommending a three way stop there . Mr. McConnell replied, yes . Fred Koslo, of 1 05 Park Lane addressed the Board . Mr . Koslo stated. that he agreed the stop sign should be placed from both directions as Tudor Road is a steep hill at that point . When Park Lane is opened up from Rt. 79 , there certainly would be a danger of cars speeding down Tudor, and in inclement weather going right into Park Lane without a stop sign. Mr. Koslo stated that he is also concerned about having to observe the traffic patterns and waiting until Park Lane opens up to determine if there should be stop signs at Landmark and Joanne . When Park and Rt. 79 opens traffic will be measured coming onto Park Lane , and going onto Rt. 79 from Park Lane . Will that allow you to determine the flow of traffic further up . Superintendent McConnell asked if the fear is that when Park Lane opens onto Rt. 79 that there will be a lot of through traffic? Mr. Koslo commented that it could defin ately increase the traffic levels. Superintendent McConnell responded that he has done a traffic count on Regency, Charlene , and Skyview to see what the difference in total traffic counts will be after another count when the roads open up to Rt. 79 . Mr. Koslo stated that Eastern Heights is asking that serious considertion be given to stop signs on Park Lane both ways . Then if it is determined to be necessary and feasibile to have three way stops at those intersections, they would not argue with that . He further stated that they are very concerned about their children and not the smooth flow of traffic . He further commented on the Children at Play signs . People that would be coming from Rt. 79 and using Eastern Heights as a thruway may not necessarily be aware of the character of the neighborhood . No one asked to address the board . Supervisor Raffensperger closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 17 p . m. Supervisor Raffensperger asked if any board members had any questions of I•tr. Kaufman , and stated that these amendments dealt with a reduction of some rates having to do with the necessary perfection of a new rate schedule as well as the minimum charges for meter sizes . Mr. Barney asked Mr. Kaufman that in the suggested changes that the 3/4 inch meter be deleted , and that it be changed to read the appropriate meter. Mr. Barney was not sure just what that meant. Mr. Kaufman responded that he was not sure how the 3/4 inch meter would be interpreted, so that was why it was stated the appropriate size . ' Supervisor Raffensperger mentioned that the primary change in the meter size calculation had to do with the 30 ,000 number, and also the 350 ,000 . Mr. Kaufman explained that the previous table adopted in 1988 was 24,000 per quarter for the one inch size meter. With the adoption of the new rates last fall that was raised to 40,000 , they are adjusting it back to 30,000 . Supervisor Raffensperger further explained that people were getting a very large percentage increase which was not intended . That is why the change was made . Councilwoman Valentino stated that in previous years when the rates were reviewed that it was her understanding that in the future the meter rates would change so that people who were using less would pay less. Supervisor Raffensperger explained that there would be a constant rate for eveyone . This will take approximately two years to accomplish in order that the change not be too abrupt for the largest users . There will be a flat rate , meaning that every gallon of water would be sold for the same amount no matter how many gallons are used. Councilwoman Valentino felt that is a definate improvement over the schedule as it is now. She also feels that in the future we should consider people who use less and are conserving should pay less. Mr . Kaufman interjected that the Commissions intention was to do away with the minimum charges besides the size of the meter, but before they did that they wanted to make sure it wouldn ' t have too much effect on the revenues including the municipalities . Mr. Barney suggested that some clarifying points needed to be made that would not change the substance of the law. In the metered water consumption on the table it should be rates per 1000 gallons . In allowable consumption put a parenthetical under that in gallons . Under multiple housing in home parks over two dwelling units, the calculation of water consumed per dwelling, and then if there were 20 dwelling units, and so on . Section 1 , is further amended by deleting for as set forth below. Supervisor Raffensperger signed a Certificate of Necessity before the vote . Motion made by Councilman Niklas approving the changes to the Water Rate Schedule To Establish Minimum Quarterly Charges . Motion made by Councilman Niklas . Seconded by Councilman Liguori . Roll call vote taken. All Town Board Members voted yes . See attached. Supervisor Raffensperger brought up the changes to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Plater Commission agreement. She asked Mr. Barney,, to explain these changes . Mr. Barney stated the changes are typographical and the other changes were the same referenced in gallons and dwelling units in the water rate change . Mr. Barney suggested a resolution authorizing the Supervisor to execute this agreement on behalf of the Town of Ithaca with such minor changes therein as may be necessary in the course of negotiating or completing the agreement . Motion made by Councilman Liguori , seconded by Councilman Niklas . Roll call vote taken. All Town Board Members voted yes . See attached. Agenda Item #22-whitetail Drive and Marcy Court Mr. Barney explained that this is an authorization to accept Marcy Court and the balance of Whitetail Drive . The town has already accepted and received conveyance of title to approximately two hundred feet of it. This would extend Whitetail' Drive all the way around and complete the loop back to Saranac Way and off of the extended part where Marcy Court runs . The roads are not yet constructed. There was a discussion at the last meeting that Mr . Holford ' s group would construct the roads and post $125,000 for completion of the roads in accordance with the Town specifications . By accepting the roads now it will allow Mr. Holford to get the needed building permits for the areas where the roads are not in place . Supervisor Raffensperger asked for any questions or comments from the board. Supervisor Raffensperger made a motion to accept Whitetail Drive and Marcy Court. Seconded by Councilman Niklas . Carried unanimously. Agenda Item #2-Report of Town Officials : Supervisor Raffensperger reminded the Board that they had asked the Town Department Heads written reports and if the Town Board had any questions they could be answered in the meeting, it would not be necessary to read the written reports. Town Engineer Report-Dan Walker the Town Engineer reported that he and members of the Building Department, Highway Department, and Engineering Department have been attending a thirty hour OCHA training course on Safety in the Workplace . One of the issues that they are addressing has to do with blood born viruses , and the fact that if we anticipate in any activity where an employee could come in contact with these that we have to provide adequate barrier protection or immunization. Therefore , if the town employees are going to handle the complaints of dead animals these guidelines must be used . Mr. Frost reported that with immunization the body develops what is called a blood tighter level , the immune ability. This should be tested on an annual basis, and when the level falls reimmunization should be done . An initial immunization will have to be followed up on. Councilwoman Valentino asked how expensive the immunizations were . Superintendent McConnell remarked that the immunizations can be gotten through the State contract for about $100 . 00 each . Without the State contract it costs approximately $115 . 00 to $130. 00 . Superintendent McConnell mentioned that he is in the process of establishing a policy with the Safety Committee that will dictate how we will handle these complaints. In the meantime , two men from the Highway Department have volunteered to become pre-vaccinated and to go to the proper training so as to provide this service . This course of action will allow us to prohibit any other employee from dealing with animal alive or dead . Superintendent McConnell will be informing each department of this and then a policy will be set up to include how these complaints will be handled. Mr. Barney asked if there were possible side effects from the immunizations . Superintendent McConnell stated that the two volunteers will be made aware of any possible side effects . Mr. Barney recommended that from the Town ' s standpoint these vaccinations should be done with open knowledge and consent to the employees . They must be made aware of any risk no matter how small. . Building/Zoning Report-Mr. Frost added to his report that on the second page for sign permits issued, one permit was issued to the rear entrance to the Ides Plaza off of Mitchell Street. Town Planner Report-Report was submitted in writing . Agenda Item #11-Persons to Be Heard : There were no petitioners to the board. i Agenda Item #5-Nomination of Representative to the Economic Opportunity Corporation Board of Directors for the Town of Ithaca Supervisor Raffensperger stated that she had a resolution prepared and apologized to the Board for not providing it to them prior to the meeting. The resolution as per the attached recommended Patricia A. Driscoll as the Town of Ithaca ' s representative on the referenced board. Supervisor Raffensperger moved the resolution. Seconded by Councilman Liguori . Carried unanimously. Agenda Item #6-Speed Limit Request by Glenside Neighborhood Association for Rt. 13A. Supervisor Raffensperger reported that a letter has been received from the Glenside Neighborhood Association requesting that the Town apply for a reduction in the speed limit on Five Mile Drive/Rt. 13A from the current 30 mph area at CoyGlen Creek south to Route 13. The speed limit goes from 55 mph to 30 mph and a case can probably be madefor an interim speed limit in that area. The Supervisor asked for authorization for tier to proceedwith this application and to include such supporting documentation as necessary in the application . Motion made by Councilman Niklas authorizing the Supervisor to apply, and to include supporting documentation. Seconded by Councilman Whitcomb. Carried unanimously. See attached. Agenda Item #7-Participation Cornell Summer Job Network Program One position is a Planning Aide , two positions are for Engineering Aids , and one position for Financial Assistance Aide . Motion made by Councilman Niklas authorizing the participation in the Cornell Summer Job Network Program. Seconded by Councilman Whitcomb. Councilman Niklas asked if this program has been successful in the past? Dan Walker responded that they have had very good luck with the people that are hired . Carried unanimously. See attached. Agenda Item #8-Summer Intern for Conservation Advisory Council i Supervisor Raffensperger suggested that the prepared resolution be amended in the last Resolve to state that the Town ' s share of the - cost shall not exceed 50% or $1750 . 00 . Motion with amendment made by Councilman Whitcomb. Seconded by Councilwoman Valentino . No discussion. Carried unanimously. See attached. Agenda Item #14-Agreement Coddington Road Community Center: Supervisor Raffensperger began by saying that the Town of Ithacahas had a very long relationship with the Coddington Road Community Center, going back to the 1940 ' s and 1950 ' s and has from time totime provided payments to them. This has always been an informal agreement. In recent year ' s the town paid utility bills and some repair bills on a very i unpredictable basis. Mr. Barney has drawn up an agreement which recognizes the contributions of the Community Center to the Town of Ithaca and set up an annual payment to the Coddington Road Community Center . Supervisor Raffensperger asked to make one change in the agreement. To reduce the amount to $5000 . 00. The reason for the change is because we have a budgeted amount this year, and we have already paid one repair bill out of this year' s budget. This does not include the summer program. Supervisor Raffensperger called the President of the Community Center to say that this would be on the agenda and to assure her this was not a unilateral step, but for the Board to review this and authorize the Supervisor to come to an agreement with them based on the elements of the agreement as presented. Councilman Niklas made a motion authorizing the Supervisor to enter into this agreement with the amendment to the amount. Seconded by Councilwoman Valentino . Councilman Liguori asked if this is the only agreement that we have with this kind of an organization. Supervisor Raffensperger responded that the Community Center is the only agency that we have ever had this kind of relationship with . This agreement will also be of benefit to the Community Center. When they wanted to do some remodeling at the Center, if they had a definite agreement with the Town that could have been a part of the application for the loan. As it was they only had an informal agreement to pay utility bills which did not advantage them in anyway in negotiating a loan . Mr. Barney stated that tie questioned the legalities of paying someone else ' s utility bills . We now are agreeing to purchasing services which we can clearly do for a flat fee . Motion was carried unanimously. See attached. Agenda Item #15-Benefit Assessment Refunds : Supervisor Raffensperger asked Dan Walker to speak concerning this issue . Inlet Valley Cemetary-There is an old cemetary in Inlet Valley which has no source of revenue and they do not intend to ever put a building up where they would need water. In the process of the water/sewer expansion that property was picked up and one unit was assessed . Benefit assessments to cemetarys have been modified by convention, but not by approval of the Town Board. If they have frontage that if assessed would be charged three or four units for developed or undeveloped acreage we have in the past limited the benefit assessment to one unit based on the fact they would have limited water useage . Mr. Walker stated that he wants to propose to the Public Works Committee some modifications and additions to the benefit formula to bring us into conformance on these issues . Regarding the Inlet Valley Cemetary, it is obvious that they will never benefit from the water and sewer because they have no vacant land to build on. Mr. Walker recommended to the Board that they refund the money to the Inlet Valley Cemetary for the benefit assessment and that in the future they not be charged a benefit assessment. Mr. Walker futher explained that if in the future that property were transfered to some other use , it would not exempt that property from being charged the benefit assessment . West Hill Cemetary Benefit Assessment: Mr. Walker explained that the West Hill Cemetary Association has two parcels . The one parcel was assessed for one unit, and this should stay at one unit. There is a large parcel of land adjacent to the cemetary which they have still not produced a deed for . This parcel was charged seven benefits units based on frontage and acreage . The Town Attorney has suggested that even restrictions placed on deeds may not be binding, and that parcels may benefit considerably from water and sewer. Mr. Walker requested that this parcel be changed to one benefit. Motion made by Councilman Niklas that the benefit unit assessment for West Hill Cemetary be changed from seven to one . Seconded by Councilmen Liguori . Mr. Barney suggested that the motion be made contingent on the West Hill Cemetary Association providing us appropriate documentation that the property is used limited solely to cemetary purposes . There was no further discussion. Motion with the amendment suggested by Attorney John Barney carried unanimously. See attached . Motion was made by Councilman Whitcomb , seconded by Councilman Liguori that the Inlet Valley Cemetary Association receive a refund of their benefit assessment for the property on Elmira Road, and that in the future the proporty show no units for benefit assessments. There was no further discussion. motion carried unanimously. See attached . Supervisor Raffensperger explained the last matter of benefit assessment is an apartment where an attic apartment was converted to the use of a single family. Paul Hansen has inspected this as the regulations require . There is an authorization for a refund of $36 .00 for water and $27 . 90 for sewer. Motion made by Councilman Niklas to approve the refund, seconded by Councilwoman Valentino . Carried unanimously. See attached. Councilman Whitcomb informed the Board that the Public Works Committee is considering making some changes in the benefit formula for special circumstances . Councilman Whitcomb requested that Public Works Committee look carefully at those property ' s which have deed restrictions placed on them. Agenda Item #16-Budget Transfers : Linda Nobles , Assistant Budget Officer, explained that the resolution deals with the end of year 1991 appropriation transfers to offset unencumbered balances . She further explained that the New York State Department of Audit and Control requires that no line item can be over budget. These in no way change the total budgeted numbers, it merely adjusts to show where expenditures actually occurred. Motion made by Councilman Niklas, seconded by Councilwoman authorizing the budget transfers . Carried unanimously. See attached . Agenda Item 417-Recycled Pater Products : Supervisor Raffensperger explained that the Board had received a resolution from the Conservation Advisory Council which asks that the town consider purchasing recycled paper when that cost did not exceed 10% more than virgin paper. Sally Alario, Accounting Supervisor investigated this request. Even if it were legal for us to buy recycled paper at the 10% premium it is not possible for us to get it at that low a premium. Mrs . Alario found that it would cost approximately 25% more . Supervisor Raffensperger went on to say that there can be problems with recycled paper as it sometimes does not work in the copy machines as well as virgin paper. Supervisor Raffensperger stated that the memo reflects that if it is possible for us to use recycled products we will make every effort to do so . Councilman Whitcomb mentioned that he would take this information to the Conservation Advisory Board . Supervisor Raffensperger asked the Board that if any of them have any further information about recycled products priced within the 10% limit to speak to Mrs . Alario . Agenda Item #18-Water and Sewer Refund : Supervisor Raffensperger told the Board that there is a water and sewer refund due on a property at Muriel Street due to a change in ownership and an incorrect billing for a previous quarter. Supervisor Raffensperger moved motion to authorize the refund for this property. Seconded by Councilman Niklas . No discussion followed. Carried unanimously. See attached. Agenda Item #19-Cornell University GEIS Consultants : Supervisor Raffensperger commented that basically this is a resolution authorizing the Supervisor to enter into an agreement with Larsen Engineers who will do the review on the GEIS . The Supervisor stated that she did not have for the agreement tonight an amount to be inserted after, "an amount not to exceed" . i The Board disussed the SEQR Law and whether that law would be applicable to the amount needed . Councilman Niklas suggested that it may be possible for the Town Attorney to amend the wording to say the , " amount agreed upon by the Town Supervisor and the Town Attorney" . Councilman Niklas felt that the Supervisor can come back to the board if she feels uncomfortable with any amount that seems excessive . Attorney Barney stated that is possible, and under the circumstances that may be the sway to go . Councilman Niklas remarked that lie felt comfortable with this arrangement. Councilman Liguori asked Floyd Forman, Town of Ithaca Planner why we did not have a number at this time . Mr. Forman responded that they are are in the process of negotiating the amount with Larsen Engineers . The Supervisor feels that we can not get an amount until Cornell presents draft GEIS . She stated that a consultant can not give us a good estimate , unless he has seen the document he is going to be dealing with . Mr. Forman commented that Larsen Engineers will be billing the Town on a monthly basis. Mr. Forman feels that we may receive a bill before the GEIS is actually completed sometime in mid-April . The Supervisor suggested that we say, " for an amount not to exceed $10,000 for the initial phase of the review" . Councilwoman Valentino asked if the Town of Ithaca was going to pay for all the costs . Mr . Forman responded that the money comes from Cornell and goes into an escrow account that the Town of Ithaca pays to the consultant. Supervisor Raffensperger explained that further in the resolution it states that we will communicate with Cornell University concerning the terms and costs. Councilman Niklas made a motion to approve the resolution with the amendments suggested by Supervisor Raffensperger. Seconded by Councilman Liguori . No further discussion . Motion carried unanimously. See attached . Agenda Item #20-Town Clerk Petty Cash Fund : The Town Clerk reported that at times there is a problem with having enough cash when making change for customers . The cash on hand is also shared with the accounting department . It is appropriate for the Town Clerk to have established a Petty Cash Fund. This will enable the accounting department to have available cash without the Town Clerk ' s funds being depleted. Councilman Niklas moved to authorize the development of a Petty Cash Fund for the office of the Town Clerk in the amount of $100. 00 . Seconded by Councilwoman Valentino . No further discussion . Motion carried unanimously. See attached . Agenda Item #21-Membership Metropolitan Planning Organization The Supervisor asked Mr. Forman to explain this item. Mr. Forman explained that since the Ithaca area has now gone beyond the population of 50,000 people the local area can now designate itself as an MPO . The designation would involve four communities, the Town of Ithaca, the Village of Cayuga Heights, the Village of Lansing, and t11e City of Ithaca. The MPO would allow these communities to do a variety of things such asto plan locally. The Federal Government would be allocating funds, nothing from the town budget. The MPO would be receiving approximately $115,000 in the first year alone . The staff at the MPO would be responsible to the Policy Committee which would include the Chief Elected Official of each of the communities mentioned; as well as the County Board of Represeotatives, and the Regional Department of Transportation Representative . Each of the six people on the Policy Committee would have the right to veto . The Town would not be forced to accept anything that it didn ' t want. Councilman Niklas moved that the Town of Ithaca become a member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization , and that the Supervisor will be the towns representative . Seconded by Councilwoman Valentino . Councilman Whitcomb expressed his concerns about the proliferation of committees in the County. There really needs to be cooridination from the County or another entity on some of these issues. Fir. Forman stated that he felt that the Organization would, because it will force the Chief Elected Officials to get together and make decisions on transportation planning. This organization will not be under the auspices of the County. Councilman Niklas moved the resolution that the Town of Ithaca become a member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and that the Town of Ithaca be represented by the Town Supervisor. Seconded by Catherine Valentino . No further discussion . Motion carried unanimously. See attached . Agenda Item 423-Highway Plow Truck: Superintendent McConnell told the Board that he mailed the specifications to the Public Works Committee members . The Town Board has copies of the specifications in their folders . Councilwoman Valentino asked if there were sufficient funds in the budget to pay for the truck. Supervisor Raffensperger assured her that the funds were available in the budget. Superintendent McConnell stated that the truck would cost around $90,000 and that it would be payable in two installments . A discussion ensued with the Superintendent explaining to the Board the type of truck and its options . Attorney Barney asked Mr. McConnell to explain the specification packet and if the bidders would with the yes/no columns be complying with the specifications . Mr. McConnell felt the general paragraph would make it clear to the bidders as to how the specification bid works . Mr. Barney expressed his concert, the the specifications that with the yes/no you give the implecation that it is not necessary to meet all the specifications . Mr- Barney advised the board to approve the specifications, and that he would add a sentence which would clarify more completely the general paragraph . Motion made by Councilman Niklas to accept the Highway Plow truck specifications and authorize the Town Clerk to advertise for bids, with the adendum by the Town Attorney. Seconded by Councilman Liguori . No further discussion . Carried unanimously. Additional Addenda Items : Supervisor Raffensperger asked the Board to approve her attendance at a Supervisor ' s Forum in Albany on March 22 - March 24 , 1992 at an estimated cost of $350 . 00 . Motion made by Councilman Niklas approving the authorization of the Town Supervisor to attend the annual Supervisor ' s Forum on March 22 - March 24 in Albany. Seconded by Councilwoman Valentino. No discussion . Carried unanimously. The Supervisor stated that she would like to appoint Peter Scala a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Codes and Ordinances Committee on the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals . This does not require a vote of the Board. The Supervisor asked to review items to be picked up in the Town of Ithaca, Landfill Clean Up Day. The Supervisor and the Highway Superintendent have reviewed the list provided by the County and they were astonished that they would pick up what is considered to be demolition and construction materials. The Supervisor requested that the acceptable waste to be picked up in the Town of Ithaca consist of carpets, furniture , non-recyclable appliances . Empty containers and drums not be picked up as each would have to be opened to determine they were empty. i Corrogated cardboard flattened, mixed paper, not leaking car batteries , white goods , tires , and plumbing and electrical fixtures will be picked up. 'Phone recyclables that are picked up at the residence curb every other week will not be picked up . The Board approved the list, the Supervisor mentioned that this list will be advertised so that the residents will be aware of the date , time , and allowable items to be picked up. Agenda Item #3-Town Committee Rencrt.s - Councill�-roman Valentino reported on the Intermunicipal Youth C4�mmission stating that she is very pleased with the work the group has been doing on the questions they want to ask the City of Ithaca . She felt that thence needs to be a great deal of discuzzion concerning t he contract with the City of Ithaca before the next budget process takes place . Councilwoman Valentino was upset that even though the Town of Ithaca ' s budget amount is more than what has been given to the City of Ithaca before , the City is going to chaacge the youth that play iwanis Baseball this year $ 10 . 00 . Councilwoman Valentino stated that she understood that one of the reasons the Town was contibuting a greater amount to the City was to insure that these kinds of programs would continue with no charge to the youth that needed them. There will be a meeting next week and Councilwoman Valentino asked the Board how they felt about the questions that were going to be asked of the City of Ithaca . The Board felt that all the questions mentioned on the list she gave them should be asked . Councilman Whitcomb stated all the questions needed to be answered, and wondered hov, long should this Board wait to proceed Without these answers . COuncilwornan Valentino explained that we do not need to concern ourselves until the budget process starts . Supervisor Raffensperger stated that the City has their problems with Budget, and that they charged for the Kiwa,nis Baseball to try and make up some of their deficit , she felt it was not a great deal to charge for the program, Agenda Item #25-Town of Ithacs, Warrants : i Councilman Niklas moved the approval of the March warrants to be paid . Seconded by Councilman Liguori . No discussion . Motion carried unanimously . see attached . Agenda Item #26-Bolton Point Budget Transfers : Supervisor Raffensperger explained these transfers were being made to offset unencumbered balances in the budget fox this fund as described previouf5ly in the meeting for the other funds . Motion made by Supervisor Raffensperger to approve the Bolton Paint Budget Transfers . Seconded by Councilman Liguori . No discussion . Carried unanimously . Agenda Item #27-Bolton Point Warrants : Hoti.on made by Councilman Niklas to approve payment of the Salton ,Point Warrants , seconded by Councilman Liguori . Carried unanimously. Additional Agenda Items : G Superintendent McConnell asked the Board to approve the the hiring of an additional, Highway Mechanic as per the discussion Of the previous month. Councilman Niklas moved the resolution approving the hiring of a Mechanic for the Highway Department.. Seconded by Councilman Liguori. . Superintendent HcConnell told the Heard they had twenty two applicants and interviewed five people . The gentleman he hired has some very good training - No further discussion , Motion carried unanimously . See attached. Agenda Item #28-Adlournment : As there was no further business to come before the Board, Councilman Liguori Moved to adjourn , Seconded by Councilman Whitoomb . Carried unanimously . Meeting was adjourned at 10 : 17 p . m , Respectfully submitted , Joan Lent Hamilton Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca TOWN OF ITHA CA �� �E- rt�� EA�7 ENEMA TREE7, lTHAA, �l. . 148�Q TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-14356 PARKS 273-6035 ENOINEEAING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Meeting 3!9/92 Agenda Item No. 1 Tompkins county Reapportionment — Resolution No. (12 [,7H REAS, the Town Board of the `I'nwn of TLhace has heard a report Ero1n the Tompkins County Reapportinument Committee having to do win the County reapportionment alternotives, now therefore he it RESOLVED, that the Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to draft a setter to the Tompkins County Reapportionment Committee stating the 'Town Board wishes to go on record as opposing the R-29 alternative, particularly that part which takes a portion of the Town of Ithaca on the southern border and combines it into District 9 , and be it further RESOLVED, the Town Board expresses a desire to have the minimum number assigned to the Town of Croton reexamined, and he it furthei,- RESOLVED,, that the 'town Board will be flexible as Co their input concerning; the boundaries for District 10 to the North. MOVED: Councilman John t4hircomb -SEAL- SECONDED:Councilwoman Catherine Valentino UATED:March 9 , 1992 Carried Unanimously. Q""' 1-4 ,Yuan Lent Hamilton, Town! Clerk OF I" TOWN ITHA A 126 EAST SEN E A STREET, ITHA A, N.Y. 14850 to 1 0, TOWN CLERK 273-172$ HIGHWAY 273-4656 PARKS 273-8035 E"GINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 27 1747 ZONING 273--T747 Town Hoard Meeting 3/9/92 Agenda Item No. 5 Nomination To Economic Opport"nity Corporation Board of Directors Resolutinu No. 63 WHEREAS, Patricia A. Driscoll has expressed RP interest in nQrving on the Economic Opportunity Corporation Board of Directors as the representative for the Town of Ithaca, and WaWAS, the Town Board has reviewed the letter of requast and resume 0L• MS. Driscoll, new therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of 10baca hereby nominates Patricia A, Driscoll an the representative from the Town W T.thaca to serve on the Fconomic Opportunity Corporation Board of Directors, for a term expiring Ma ch 31 , 1993 , and be it Eu r. ther RESOLVED, a rernified copy of this resolution along with Ms. Dr.:i-scoll' s resume be sent to the Tompkins County Board of Represcntative8 , and the Economic Opportunity Corporation Board of Directors, and be it further RESOLVED, a certified copy of this resolution be geno to Patricia A. Driscoll. MOVED: Supervisor, Shirley Raffensperger S13COND]ED. Councilman Frank Liguori Carried Unanimously, DATED: March 9 , 1992 k Joan 'Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk OF 7?' TOWN OF IT AC z� 126 EAT SENECA STREET, ITHACA, fV_Y_ 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1655 PARKS 273A035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town RaW Meeting 3/9/92 Agenda Item No. 6 Rt . 13A Speed Limit Glenside Neighborhood Association Resolution No. 64 WHEREAS, the Clenside Neighhor,hood Association has requested Q writing that the Town Board petition the appropriate agency For a reduction in the speed 11mit on live Mile Dr.JRt. 13A in the Town of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, the Olenside Neighborhood Association feels that it would be advisable to have a reduction in the. 55 mph speed limit WoTe reaching the current 30 mph zone as motorists are not traveling at the posted 30 mph speed upon reaching a blind curve and the residential area, and WWREAS, the 'log.*n Board deems the request of the Cl.enside Neighborhood Association to be one that is prudent to insure the safety and wellbeing; of the rhsidents of the Torn of Ithaca, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Supervisor, is hereby authorized and directed to proceed with the application for a reduction & speed at said location, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Supervisor shall submit all necessary documentation to support said request, and be it further RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resulut;i,on be sent to the Ol,enside. Neighborhood Association. MOVED: Councilman Karl, Niklas SECONDED: Councilman John Whitcomb carried Unanimously. DATED: March 9 , 1992 -SEAL Joan Lent flanLilt0l], '/.'own Clark TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARIS 273-8035 ENGr!%! BRING 273-1736 PLANNING 273-1735 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board meeting 3/ 9192 Agenda Item No . 7 Participation Cornell Summer Job Program resolution too . 65 WHEREAS , there is a need for additAon,-:k1 skilled employees during the summer months in the Accounting, Engineering , and Planning Departments , and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca has -an opportunity to particjpa,te in the Cornell Summer Job Network ( formerly Cornell Tradition ) , whereby Cornell students can work for the Town in jobs relevant to their course of study, and the "Town would 13e reimbursed for 50% of their salarj.es , now therefore he it RESOLVED , that approval is hereby given for the Town of Ithaca to employ four ( 4 ) students through the Cornell SuiTlrner Job Network in the f of lowiing areas : Planning Aide - Planniny Depa'rtment, : Salary - 7 . 00 /h `. to be charged to account 88020 . 10 - Planning Personal Services , ( Funds were included in the 1.992 budget for this purpose , ) 1 position . Engineering Aide - Engineering Department : Salary - S7 . 00 /hr . 2 positions - to be charged to account A1440 . 100 - Engineering Personal Services ; (Funds were included in the 1952 budget for this purpose . ) $7 . 041h1r . - 1 position - to be charged to accounts H8120 . 2 and H8340 . 2 - Capital Projects - I-latex & Sewer , Financial Systems Aides - Budget/Accounting Departments - Salary - 7 . 00jhr, t4 be charged to account A1344 . 1 - Budget Personal services ; Funds to be transferred from Shared Services - Computer Support.. Period of --Employment - May 18 , 7.992 to August 21 , 1992 . ' MOVED : Councilman Karl Niklas Carried Unanimously . SECONDED : Councilman John w1iXtcom13 ` -SEAL- DATED : Aarch 9 , 1992 Lan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk OF 12 TOWN F ITH C M 126 EAST SENE A STREET, fTHA A, N.Y. 14850 TOWN GI.ERK 2731721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARK$273A035 EN IN E-E R M,273-1717 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 2731747 Town Board HfI-atilxg 3/9192 Agenda Item No , 8 Conservation Advisory Council Summer Internship Resolution No . 66 WHEREAS , the, Town of Ithaca CoRSe ,,vation Advisory Council has expressed a need for additional support staff to assist, with various ongoing projects Xelated to protection of the natural environment, and WHEREAS , the Torn of Ithaca has in the past sponsored various internships in ( 00pi*rELt> 017 with universities and colleges to the benefit' of both, and WHEREAS , it is desirable to Continue to PI`O Otc Cooperative ventures between the Town of Ithaca and vazioues educational institutions , and WHEREAS , it is, an expressed goal of the Town of Ithaca to promote and protect the natural. environment to the greatest extent practicable , now thi .refore be it RESOLVED, that the Tovdn Board will create and help fund a summer irlternship for the Town of Ithaca ' s Advisory Council for a college student in order to assist, with ongoilig project$ , and be it further RESOLVED, that the Torn of Ithaca ' s portion of funding costs for said internship shall, not exceed fifty ( 50% ) percent or 1750 .00 . 14C}Vi;D : Councilman John Whitcomb Carried Unanimously . SECGJNDED : Councilwoman Catherjrne Valentino --SEAL- DATE : 11arCh 9 , 192 dl Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk y OF 1p TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENE A STREET, ITHA A, N,Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-$721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PAFiKS 273-1{135 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Meeting 3/9/92 Agenda Items 9 & 10 Forest Home Bridge Resolution No. 67 WHEREAS, the residents of Forest Home have made a presentation to the Town Board requesting thou the lower bridge in forest home remain n one lane bridge and that said bridge not he demolished and replaced but be refurbished , and WHEREAS, James Kazda, Senior Civil Engineer from the Tompki= County M U Works has made an engineering and technical report as co the refurbishing or replacement nf: said bridge, flow thQT&ore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board is in support of the lower bridge in Forest Home remaining a one lane bridge, and be it further RESOLVED;- than the Town hoard hereby requests additional information be provided to them from Tompkins County so that a decision can he male its to the financial, and technical feasihil,iny of reconstruction or replacement of the present bridge, and be it further, RE OLMD, that the Town Board recognizes chat the solution to the rraffic problem in Forest Home does not depend on chc width & this bridge, and that the tOwa' s intoollion is to continue to investigate a long term solution to this traffic problem through alternatives such as a by-pass for tr.alffi-o through forest Flome. MOVED: Supervisor Shirley baFfensperge,T SECONDED: Karl Nikl,a Carried Unanimously. DATED: G arch 9, 1992 -SEAL- +v t ZQan Lent Hamilton, Toun Cleric TOWN OF ITHACA �, _�i��� 126 EAST �E:NE � TREE=T, iTHAA, N. , 14850 TOWN!CLERK 273--1721 HICGHWAY 273-S656 PARKS 273035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Meeting 3/9192 Agendz Item No. 13 Adoption Local Law #11, 1992 Resolution i0v. 68 WHEREAS, the properly adverti zed Public -Hearing has hQcn held Lo consider the a6eption of Local. Law III f.or, the year 1992 , and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed said Local_ Low and approved said Local Law, now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town Board & the Town of Ithaca does hereby adapt Local. Law V11 of the year 1992, A LOCAL LAW TO 02ND LOCAL LAW NO. 2 , 1976 , BY ADOPTING A NEW WATER i{ATA SCHEDULE FOR WATER RATES, CHARCES, AND OTHER FEES CHAVEAL'LE TO CONSUFFRS Of WATER IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA. MDVEA: C;ounQillman Karl Niklas ROLE, CALL VOTE SECONDED:Councilman Frank. Liguori Supervisor, Shirley A. Raffensperger- Yes Councilman John. Whitcomb- Yes DATED: Marcb 9, 1992 Councilman David Klein-Yes Councilman Frank Liguori-Yes Councilwoman Patricia Leary-Yes Councilwoman Catherine Valent:inn--Ye5 Council.olau Karl Nitta.+-Yes -SEAL- Joan Lent damilton, Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHAC ai {6 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CI,ERK 273-1721 HIGH VIAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-6035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board 'Meeting 3/9/92 Agenda Item No. 13 Anendment to the :youth M Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Agreement Revolution No. 69 WFEREAS, the properly advertised Public Hearing has been held to amend LK Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunici,pal. Water. Commission agreement, and UREREAS, the Town Beard has reviewers and agreed upon said amendments, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby adopt the amendments to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal- Water Commission Alreemant as per the attached . MOVED: Councilman Drank Liguori loll Cali, Vote SECONDED: C;ountflman Karl Nikl.as Supervisor - Shirley Raffensperger,-Yes Councilman John Whitcomb-Yes DATED: March 9, 1992 Councilman David Klein-Yep Councilman Frank Liguori-Yes Councilwoman Patricia Leary-Yes Councilwoman Catherine Valentino-Yes Councilman Karl. Niklas-Yes Joan Lem Hamilton, Town Clerk -SEAL- 4 TWIT OF ITHAA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHA A, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-161i� PA.RYS 273-8Q�5 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Heeting 3!9/ 92 Agenda Item No . 14 Agreement Coddington Road Community Center Resolmt.ion No . 69B WHEREAS , the Coddington Road Community Center, Inc . ( CRCC ) and the Town of Ithaca with to enter into an agreement whereby the Town will compensate the CRCC for the use of its fanilities and services at the CRCC PtOperty located at 920 Coddington Road , Ithaca , New York; now therefore he it RESOLVED, the EUpervisor is hereby authorized and directed to enter into an agreement with the Coddington Road CommQnity Center for the purchase of services ; and be it further RESOLVED , for the serViCes other than the summer camp program the Town agrees to gay to the CRCC for 1992 the sum of $3750 . 00 plus bill? already paid , the remaining $3750 . 00 to be paid in threp- quarterly installments of 51250 , 00 each commencing upon execution of this agreement and OntinuinJ on July 1 , 1992 and the last installment for 1.992 to be clue on October 1 , 7,992 ; and be it further RESOLVED , unless the Towp of Ithaca and the CRCC othef wise agree the fee for 1993 and years thernaftei� shEL11 ]�e S5000 . 00 payable $1250 . 00 quarterly commencing January 1 , 1993 with payments to continue quarterly at the beginning of each quarter , MOVED : Councilman Karl, Niklas Carried Unanimously SECONDED : Councilman Catherine Valentine DATED ; March 9 , 1992 i Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk i o�rr ° TOWN OF IT AC z� ^k 126 EAST SENE A STREET, ITHA A, N.Y, 14850 TOWN CLERX 27Z�-1721 XH',HWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-45035 EOMNEERING 273-1735 PLANMNC 273-1738 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Heeting 319192 Agenda Item No . 15 Benefit Assessment Refund Resolution No . _ WHEREAS , Daniel and Lynn Walks , 1410 Slaterville Road , were charged 2 . 70 units of water and 2 . 10 units of sewer on their 1992 tax bill , and 4 WHEREAS , the attic area of, their house was used as an attic apartment by the previous owners , and WHEREAS , Hr . and Ms . Wilk, have since converted the attic apartment into a family room, and WHEREAS , Paul Hansen , Assistant Building Inspector/Zoning Officer has conducted an inspection of the residence and has verified the use of the attic as a family room , and WHEREAS , it has been determined by pan Walker, Talon of Ithaca Engineer that the property should be assessed 2 . 25 units of water and 2 . 25 units of newer based on the benefit assessment formula, , for a single family residence on a developed lot , now therefore be it MOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby authorize a refund of . 45 units of water in the amomnt of $36 . 00 , and . 45 units of sewer in the amount of $27 . 90 , for a total refund of $63 . 90 , to be made to Mr. and Ctrs . Daniel Walks as the 1992 Town and County taxes have been made in full . MOVES . Councilman Karl A . Niklas t Carried Unanimously SECONDED; Councilwaman Catherine Valentino DATED : Hatch 9 , 1992 -SEAL- r Joan Tent Hamilton , Town Clerk OF I ZF`Y TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN CLARK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 27Z-1658 PARS 273-4035 :NCrNUE-RING 273-1736 PLANNNG 273-1736 ZONING 27�--1747 Town Board fleeting 3/9!92 Agenda Item 00 . 15 Benefit Assessment Refund ReS.olution No . 71 WHEREAS , the West Hill Cemetary Association , Trumansburg Road , Parcel too . 24- 1-25 . 23 was charged seven ( 7 ) units of water benefit on its 1992 Town and County taxes , and WHEREAS , the parcel has been dedicated for use as the Frear Cemetary with restrictions on the deed limiting the use to cometar, y Purposes , which limits the benefits of water to the parcel , and WHEREAS , the Cemetary Association has no plans or intentions to modify the restrictions to the Parcel to allow development other than for Cemetary use , and WHEREAS , the Cemetary Association has paid its 1992 Mixes in full , now therefore be it , RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes a .reduction of the benefit assessment for water f.rorn seven ( 7 ) units to one ( 1 ) unit for the Parcel No . 24-1-25 , 23 , and be it further RESOLVED , that the Town Hoard of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes a refund of S480 . 00 for the water benefit assessment, total refund of $480 . 00 to be paid to the West Hill Cemetary Association , Trumansburg road., Ithaca, New York. MOVED : Counpilman Karl Niklas Carried UnanirnausJ.y, 8Eg0NDED : Councilman Frank Liguori -SEA.L- DATED. March 9 , 1992 I'a- Jo n Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk I OF 17- TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN CLERK 273--1721 ]- CHWAY 2-73-T656 PARKS 273-800 LNGIN ING 273-5736 PLAxNINC 2731736 ZONING M-5747 Town Board Heeting 319! 92 Agenda Item too . 15 Benefit Assessment Rej'.urLd Resolution No . 72 WHEREAS , the Inlet Valley Cemetary Association , Elmira Road, Parcel No . 35- 1°20 was charged one ( 1 ) unit of water benefit and one ( 1 ) unit of sewer benefit on its 1992 Town and Cournty taxes , and IlEtREAS , the parcel known as the Fischer Cemetary has historical significance with no remaining plots available , and basically no revenues , and WHEREAS, the Cemetary Association has no need or plans to connect to either water or sewer , and WHEREAS , the Cemetary Association has paid its 1992 taxes in full , now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes a refund of 580 . 00 for kiater and $62 . 00 for sever, total refund of $142 . 00 to be paid to the Inlet Valley Cemetary Associatiot'i, Elmira Road , Ithaca , New York . MOVED : Councilman John Whitcomb Carried Unanimously. SECONOE4 ; Councilman 'Karl Niklas -SEAL- DATED- March 9 ;_ 1992 .Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk F OF I? TOWN OF IT A A TOWN CLERIC 273--1721 HIC,HWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-9035 ENGINEeRING 273--1734 PL.NNINC 273--1738 ZONIMd 27Z—t747 Town Hoard Meeting 319 /92 Agenda Item No . 16 1991 Year End Dudget Fran�.fers Resolution No . 73 WHEREAS , there are insufficient amounts of appropriations an some of tale lane items cf the General Townwi.de Fund , General, Parttown Fund, Highway Fund , Water Fgnd , Sewer Fund, and Special Lighting Districts Funds 1991 Budgets to meet the needs of these fends, for the year - 1991 , and WHEROAS , in conformity with Town Lane and good bookkeeping pi`actices accounts should not be over appropriated, now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca , Financial Officer is hereby akithoriz.ed and directed to 'make the attached budget transfers from unencumbered balances to offset any shortages in said budgets for the year 1991 , and be it further % RESOLVED , that the Sookkeeper of said funds be sent a certified copy of this resolution so that said budget tzansfers can be recorded . MOVED : Councilman Karl Niklas Carried Unanimously . SECONDED : Councilwoman Catherine Valentino -SEAL- DATED . Ma27ch 9 , 1992 Le "- Joan Lent Hamilton , ' Town Clerk 1992 YEAREND 5UI)GET TRANSFERS GENERAL TOtVN VIDE FUND FROM: TO: A1010,2 TOWN BOARD-EQUIP. 5190. 17 A1010.4 TOWN 5D.--COPTRACTUAL A1220.2 SUPERVISOR-EQUIP. $500.00 A1220. 4 SUPERVISOR-CONTR. $500.V A1330.4 TAX COLLECTION-CQNTR. $1,833.49 A1330. 1 TAX COLLECTION-PERS.SERV. $1,$33.41 A1340.4 8UDGET-00VTR. $83.02 A1340. 1 BUDGET-PERS.SERV, $80.01, A1410.2 TOW CLERK-EQUIP. $1,000.00 A1410. 1 TOWN CLERK-PERS.SERV. $1,000.0 A1410.4-- . ._ 'TOY CLERK-CONTR. $1, 116.75 A1410. 1 TOUN CLERK-PER S.SERV. $1,116.7E A1430.2 PERSONNEL-EQUIP. $99.75 A1430.4 PERSONNEL-CQNTR. $59.7` AIJ50.402 ELEC'FTON.9-CON'TR. $790.00 A1450. 1 ELECTIONS-PERS.SERV. 5790,0� SO.2 CROSSING GUARDS-EQUIP. $100.00 A3120. 1 CROSSING GUARDS-PERS.SERV $100.0c $5,710. 18 $5,710.1 A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR, $327, 77 A1220.4 SUPERVISOR - CONTR. $327.71 A1910.4 INSURANCE GEW L-CQNTR. $460.00 A1320.4 IND.AUDITORS-CQNTR. $460.0Q A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $562. 21 A1410. 1 "TOWN CLERK-PERS.SERV. $562. 21 A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $10,371. 74 A1420.4 TOW ATTORNEY-CQNTR. $10,371.74 A1910.4 INSURANCE GE� 'L-CQNTR. $108.00 A1920.4 RUNICZPAL DUES-CONTR. S108.0cc A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $1,095. 56 A3127. 1 CROSSING GUARDS-PERS.SERV $1,095. 55 ,-1°' 4 INSURANCE GEW L-CQNTR, $237.85 A3510.4 DOG CONTROL-CQNTR. $237.8 A19� .4 INSURANCE GENT'L-CQNTR, $3,251.57 A5010. 1 SUPT,H4•TY.-PERS.SERV. $3,251.5-3 A1910. 4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $1,804. 17 A5010. 4 SUPT.HWY. -CQNTR. $1,804. 17 A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $492. 89 A5132. 2 HWY.GARAGE-EQUIP S492.85 A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $2,351. 11 A5182.4 STREET LIGHTING-CQNTR. $2,352.11 A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $428. 20 A7320, 401 CITY YOUTH BUR.-CONTR. $428. 20 $21,491.07 $21,491.0 A9010.8 STATE RETIREMENT $1,412. 86 A9030.8 SOCIAL SECURITY 5] ,412.86 A9010,8 STAVE RETIREMZNT $375. 24 A9055.8 DISABILITY INS. $375.24 A9 @10.8 STATE RETIREMENT $1,053.63 A9060. 8 GROUP HEALTH INS. $1,053.63 $2,841. 73 $2,841. 73 GENERAL PARTTOWN FUND FROM. TO: 3 4 CONTINGENCY-CQNTR. 57,000.00 31420.4 A'TT'ORNEY-CON'1`Ft. $7,0 @0.00 B .4 BUS OPERATIONS-CONTR. $3,486.83 B1420.4 ATTORNEY-CONTR. $3,486,83 880x0.401 ZONING-BD.74E3BER FEES $3,648.79 H8010. 1 ZONING-PERS.SERV. $3,648, 79 B8020, 2 PLANNING-EQUIP. $424,03 B8020. 1 PLANNING-PERS.SER'V. $424.03 57140.403 SOUTH HILL TRAIL $4,241.09 B1420.4 ATTORNEY-CQNTR. $4,241.09 37140.403 SOUTH HILL TRAIL $2,528.38 59050.8 UNEMPLOYMENT INS. $2,628. 38 $21,429. 12 $21,429.12 B9010.8 STATE RETInMENT $159. 50 51670. 408 POSTAGE ' $159. 50 890161.8 STATE RETIREMENT $803.96 83310, 4 TRAFFIC SAr'ETY-CQNTR. $803.96 390 8 STATE RETIREMENT $3,224.51 B9030.8 SOCIAl SECURITY 53,224. 51 B901+0, 8 STATE RETIREMENT SG,923. 58 B9060.8 GROUP HEALTH INS. $6,923. 58 B9010.5 STATE RETIREt)ENT $177.61 39 055.8 DISA$ILIT'Y INS. $177.61 $11,289. 16 $11,289, 16 a or wAA*we*M*Wwf4w rs lrw*yrw*wY1*A*arw*w xw ***r*w+YA kA*A*yrYr wrw f4wlr*lr**wY1 wYl fk#*a+Rwww k*yrW RAY YkWw**wxw* ,Www w,k lr,kxwYrwxX GKWAY FUND OM: TO 51 75 GEN'L.REPAIRS-DISASTER RP $19,079.62 DB511O.1 GER'L.RE PAIRS-PERS.SERV, $19,079.62 51 60 MACHINERY-VtH.NAINT. $6,649.29 DB5130. 1 MACHINERY-PERS.SERV, $6,649-29 5142. 1 SNOW REMOVAL-PERS,SERV. $14,981. 51 x]85142.452 SNOW RE140VAL-SALT $14,981. 51 $40,710.42 $40,710.42 9010.8 STATE RETIREMENT $179.00 DB9O4O.8 WORKER'S COMPENSATION $179.00 9010.8 STATE FLETIRERENT $447.00 DB9055.5 DISABILITY INS 5447,00 9010.8 STAVE RETIRE14ENT $990.43 D$9060.8 GROUP HEALTH INS. S990,43 ,x`1,616. 43 $1,616. 43 * �*yr Y4%'wwJrK fk.44yyrt*A *r Yr yrWwV**A 'r w,r vrw3k***ay** TER FUND 014; TO 060.8 GROUT' HEALTH INS. $23. 25 x'9055.8 DISAHIL= INS, $23.25 ,060.8 GROUP HEALTH INS. $644.71 r9O:3O. 8 SOCIAL SECURI'Z`Y 5640 -1 $567.96 $66. o **#*i,yrwvr*wyrw*�**+.xwxwwve*ve**ir*7r�xwvee****,rrsxwvrw*k*+ **«*wrrwwwve*** ,yrresrwrw**a.*w,rwwxvex*�*,k*w,rvx�*****ww� NER FUND )M: TO: 120AWO BAFd. 5E$MR5-RP1S/14AINT. $2,050. 93 G812O. 1 SAN. SEWERS-PER$.SERV. $2,050. 93 12QMO SAN. SEWERS-RPRS l -#T. $302. 50 G1420.4 ATTORNEY Sf:RVS.-CONTR. $302. 50 12 IVO SAN. SEKSRS-RPjRSIMAINT, $692.00 G812O.2 SAN.SE4'E RS-EQU1P. $692.00 $3,045.43 $3,045.43 60.8 GROUP HEALTH INS. $289.25 G903O.8 SOCIAL SECURITY $289.25 60.8 GROUP HEALTH INN. ;24. 25 G9055.8 DISABILITY $24.25 $313.50 $313. 50 xwwpkVe*****yYrYwY4kYlwwl ee *7wYWxwvwwwk****fsvrwww *l ** *xrwxwiSVeA*y *wx*lwAe****fsxxw*w,xkY * k1e44*YaYtrYwlee**� ECIAL LIGHTING DISTRICTS FUIgD ]GET AMEVOIENT: vREASE: INCREASE: 3-599 FUND BALANCE $45.11 SL3-5182.4 REM=K HEIGHTS-CONTR.- 545. 11 i Agenda Item #16 R s.Continued Town. Board Mtn,. 3 9(92 WATER FUND FPO": TO: F9340.485 TRANS&DISTR-TANK SEC,IMPR $302. 50 F1420.4 ATTORNEY SERVICES S102, 5( F8340.485 TRANS&DTSTR-TANK SEC.IMPR $8,173. 11 F8340. 101 TRANZ&DISTIR-PERS.SEEN. $8,173. 1' F8340.485 TP MS&DYSTR-TANK SEC.IHPR $692.00 F8340.200 TRANS&D1_STR-EQUIPMENT $692.0 $9,167.61 $9, 167.6: J OF Ip F-d TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-6035 ENGIREERINC ?73-1735 PLMNING 27:�°1736 ZONING 273-1747 Town Hoard HP-eting 3 !9192 Agenda Item No , 1a VlaCer and Sewer Refund Resolution Po . 74 WHEREAS , it has been determined that a refund is due on the water and Sewer billing of the Property located at 3 HUriel Street, ACCount No . T 1524 , as there has been a change in ownq�rshi.p and an incorrect billing for the previous two quarters due to owner mis- reading, and WHEREAS , the amount of zefund should he $6 . 02 for water, $ . 83 for water surcharge , $32 . 32 for sewer, and . 42 for sewer surcharge for a total xefund of $39 . 59 , now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the 'town Board of the Toren of Ithaca does heraby authorize a refund in the amount of $39 . 59 be made to Mr . Salah Samed, 145 Si.mpang 'turnpike , Reading , Connecticut for said overpayment. , MOVED : Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger SECONDED .. Coun(-ilman Karl Niklas Carried Unanimously, DA ED : March 9 , 1992 -SEAT,- r Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk �- ip. TOWN OF ITHAC 126 FAST SENECA STREEC, ITHACA, N.Y. 14550 TCAM CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1856 PARXS 273-B0,)5 ENGINEERING 273-1736 PLANNJNrG 273-1736 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Meeting 3!9192 Agenda lCEm No . 18 Water and Sewer Refund Resolution No . 75 WHEREAS , it has been determined that a refund is due on the water and sewer billing of the property located at 2 Muriel Street, Account 19o . T 1524 , as there has been a change in ownership and an incorrect billing for the previous two quarters due to owner mis- rea,di.ng , and WHEREAS , the amount of refund should be $6 . 02 for wager, $ . 83 for Crater surcharge , $32 . 32 for sewer, , and $ . 42 for sewer surcharge for a total refund of $39 . 59 , now tkterefore be it RESOLVED, that the To%%Tn Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby authorize a refund in the amount of $39 , 59 he made to Mr. Salah Samed , 145 Simpang Turnpike , Reading , Connecticut for said overpayment. MOVED : Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger SECONDED : Councilman Karl Miklas Carried Unanimously. DATED : March 9 , 1992 -SEAL- I � r Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk Ns war A ASOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION 1.NEW�O TOWNS OF DRYDEN • ITHACA • LANSING — VILLAGES OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS • LANSING P.O. BOX 178 r_ ; ITHACA, NEW YORK 14851 2/5/92 Betty Poole 126 E . Seneca St. Ithaca NY 14850 Re : Refund due on water account Acct . #T 1524 3 Muriel St. Dear Betty: A refund is due on this account because a change of ownership was done and the previous two quarters were billed incorrectly because of the owner mis-reading the meter. The amount of refund should be : $6 . 02 for Water. $ . 83 for Plater Surcharge . $32 . 32 for Sewer and $ . 42 for Spwer Surcharge . The total refu;id is x39 . 59 . Please send refund tot Salah Samed 1.45 Simpang Turnpike Reading CT 06896 Sincerer. Judy Bower Billing Clerk "vmmiSsion Offices Plant Operations ( GEORGE J.CONNEMAN,Chairman JEFFREY CLEVELAND 1402 East Shore Drive COMMISSIONERS J LAWRENCE LEVER,Vice Chairman JEANNINE KIRBY Ithaca, New York 14850 SHIRLEY RAFFENSPERGER,Treasurer THOMAS O'ROURKE (607)277.0860 FAX(607) 277-3056 NOEL DESCH.Admin. Commissioner JAMES SCHUG SHAILER PHILBRICK, Consultant GORDON WHEELER STEPHEN LIPINSKI fly OF 1 T� TOWN OF ITHACA ,y�y 21 044- 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Meeting 3/9/92 Agenda Item No . 19 Cornell University GEIS Consultants Resolution No . 76 WHEREAS , Cornell. University has submitted a proposal to the Town Board to rezone a portion of the Town of Ithaca encompassing an area commonly known as "the Orchards" from an R-30 District to a Special Land Use District; and WHEREAS , pursuant to the Planning Board ' s request, and with the agreement of Cornell University, a Generic Environmental Impact Statement ( "GEIS" ) is being prepared which will evaluate potential significant environmental impacts , mitigation measures, and possible alternatives associated with the proposed rezoning ; and WHEREAS , the Town requested that proposals be submitted for the review and analysis of the GEIS ; and WHEREAS, after review of a number of proposals , Larsen Engineers of` Rochester, New York, which has a diverse professional staff and over 35 years of planning , engineering, and environmental review experience , was determined to be the most qualified candidate by the selection committee ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby selects Larsen Engineers as the consultant to assist the Town Planning Board and staff in reviewing the Cornell University GEIS; and be it further RESOLVED , that the Supervisor be authorized to execute an agreement with Larsen Engineers for the provision of such services, such agreement to be for an amount not to exceed $10 , 000 for the initial phase of the review, without further approval of this Board ; but otherwise to be upon such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Supervisor with the assistance and advice of the Town Planner, Town Engineer, and attorneys for the town ; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Supervisor be authorized and directed to recover the costs of such services from Cornell University in the amounts and to the extent permitted by applicable laws and regulations ; and bP it further RESOLVED, that if the Supervisor, deems it advisable to do so, that there be communicated to Cornell University the proposed Lerms and costs of the agreement with Larsen Engineers . MOVED: Councilman Karl Niklas SECONDED : Frank Liguori DATED:JMarch 9 . 1992 Carried Unanimously. Joan Lent 1-facnilLon, Town Clerk r by 0F1 TOWN OF ITHACA ,�,� 2104 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1736 PLANNING 273-1736 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board 1.9eet'ing 3/9/92 Agenda item No . 20 Town Clerk Petty Cash Fund Resolution No . 77 WHEREAS , it has been determined that there is a need to establish a petty cash fund for the making of change when conducting cash transactions for the Town Clerk ' s Office , and WHEREAS, the development of said fund is in conformity with Town Law, now therefore BE IT -RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize and direct the Financial Officer to establish a Town Clerk ' s Petty Cash Fund in the --amount of $100 . 00 . MOVED: Councilman Karl Niklas Carried Unanimously. SECONDED : Councilwoman Catherine Valentino -SEAL- DATED: Harch 9 , 1992 CL"ill Jk-14" I t �. Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk OF 1 T� TOWN OF ITHACA �' 4� 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town Hoard Meeting 3/9/92 Agenda Item No . 21 Metropolitan Planning Organization Membership Resolution No . 78 WHEREAS, a portion of Tompkins County including most of the Town of Ithaca has now become a federally designated urban area as a result of the 1990 Census , and WHEREAS , federal transportation law mandates that such designated urbanized areas must create a Metropolitan Planning Organization to coordinate and approve federal , state , and local transportation planning projects and programs which receive federal funding, and WHEREAS , voting members of the proposed Hetropolitan Planning Organization would include the Town of Ithaca Supervisor and principal elected officials of the City of Ithaca , Village of Cayuga Heights, Village of Lansing , and Tompkins County, as well as the Regional Director of the New York State Department of Transportation, and I WHEREAS, it is desirable to coordinate regional transportation planning efforts with local concerns and plans, now therefore be it i RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca will become a member of the proposed Metropolitan Planning Organization and will be represented by the Town of Ithaca Supervisor. MOVED: Councilman Karl Niklas Carried Unanimously , SECONDED : Councilwoman Catherine Valentino DATED: March 9, 1992 -SEAL- Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk OF 1 T,y _ TOWN OF ITHACA Ak 21 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-*1747 Town Board Meeting 3/9/92 Agenda Item No. 22 Acceptance of a Portion Of Whitetail Drive and All Of Marcy Court Resolution No. 79 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows: That the Town accept all of Marcy Court (approximately 860 linear feet) , and all of Whitetail Drive from the portion previously conveyed to the Toum in December., 1988 (Book 642, Deeds 101,3) westerly, southerly, and southeasterly to the intersection of Whitetail. Drive with Saranac Slay (approximately 1,400 linear feet) , all. as shown on a plat entitled "Subdivision plat for Doer Run Subdivision Phase III-B and Marcy Court Subdivision" prepared by George Schlecht, P.E.L.S. , revised 1-28-1992, and filed in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office in Map drawer Q, Sheet 107, on January 31„ 1992, subject to the following conditions: (a) 'Completion of the road in accordance with an agreement between the Town of Ithaca and the Developer. ; (b) Posting with the Town the sum of $125,000.00 in cash, bond, letter of credit or other similar security satisfactory to the Town Supervisor and Town Engineer in a form approved by the attorneys for the Town; (c) Approval of the construction of such roads by the Town Highway Superintendent and the Town Engineer; (d) Approval of the title to such roads, and the documentation provided in connection with such road dedication by the attorneys for the Town; (e) Execution of all agreements and documents required by the Town Supervisor, the Town Engineer. , the 'Town Highway Superintendent, or the attorneys for the Town by the Developer to assure completion of the road, adequate security to the Towi1 for such completion, payment of taxes on the roads by the Developer until the status of the road is changed, and such other matters as may be reasonably required by any of the foregoing Town officials.. MOVED: Supervisor Shirley A. RaFfensperger. SECONDED: Councilman Karl, J. Carried Unanimously DATED: Afar.ch 9, 1.992 e.v / tL- Joan Lent Hamilton, 'Town Cleric OF I T� TOWN OF ITHACA � � 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 . ��'J� •�pot TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 2734035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Fleeting 3/ 9/92 Agenda Item No . 23 Approval of Specifications and Authorization To Purchase Highway Plow Truck Resolution No . 80 WHEREAS , a snow plow truck is scheduled to be replaced this year, and WHEREAS , the maintenance cost on the truck to be replaced is high and the reliability is low , and WHEREAS, the moneys have been budgeted in the 1992 Highway Fund Budget, the type of truck and equipment has been researched by the Highway Superintendent. , and the specifications have been written, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the specifications as drawn up by the Highway Superintendent for the new 1992 plow truck and plow, wing, and material spreader are hereby approved, and be it further RESOLVED , that the Town be authorized to advertise and receive bids for this new 1992 truck. MOVED : Councilman Karl Niklas Carried Unanimously. SECONDED : Councilman Frank Liguori DATED : March 9 , 1992 n , -�'�L{,,,.,.•c�,�. -;EAL- Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk 4� OF 17, TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1736 PLANNING 273-1736 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Meeting 3/9/92 Agenda Item No . 24 Designation of Polling Places Resolution No . 81 WHEREAS , in conformity with Town Law it is necessary that the Town of Ithaca designate the names and addresses of Polling Places for voting within the town, and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Town Board wishes to be in compliance with the law, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby 'designate the following list by Districts of Polling Places, as the official Designated Polling Places for the year 1992 , and be it further RESOLVED, said Designated Polling Places are all in compliance with the law and are accessible to the handicapped . District #1 West Hill Eire Station , 1242 Trumansburg Road District #2 Machinist Local 1607 , 638 Elmira Road District #3 South Hill Fire Station , 965 Danby Road District #4 Ellis Hollow Elderly Housing, 1028 Ellis Hollow Rd . District #5 Cayuga Heights Fire Station, 194 Pleasant Grove Rd. District #6 Northeast School , Winthrop Drive District #7 Cayuga Heights School , Corner E . Upland & Hanshaw Rd . District #8 Boynton Middle School , 1601 N . Cayuga St . District #9 BOCES , 555 Warren Road District #10 Northeast School , Winthrop Drive District #11 Ellis Hollow Elderly Housing, 1028 Ellis Hollow Rd. MOVED : Councilman John Whitcomb Carried Unanimously. SECONDED : Councilman Karl Niklas -SEAL- DATED: March 9 , 199/2 Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk OF 1p ti TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town board Meeting 3/9/92 - Agenda ;I:tem No. 25 Town of Ithaca Warrants Resolution No. 82 WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Town Board off, the Town of Ithaca for approval. of payment, and WHEREAS, said vouchor.s have been audited for payment by the Town Board, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the payment of said vouchers. General Outside Village Vouchers- No. 42-73 Highway. Fund Vouchers- No. 45 - 75 Fire Protection Fund Vouchers- No. 1 & 2 Lighting; Fund Vouchers- No. 3 & 4 Capital. Fund Vouchers- No. 18 - 21 Water and Sewer Fund Vouchers- No. 27 - 47 General Townwide Vouchers- No. 76 - 133 MOVED: Councilman Karl Niklas SECONDED: Councilman Frank Liguori Carried Unanimously. DATI�D: March 9, 1992 -SI-;AL- Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk 0F1 TOWN OF ITHACA ,�,��04�- 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 rp Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1736 PLANNING 273-1736 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Meeting 3/9/92 Agenda Item No . 26 SCLIWC 1991 Year End Budget Transfers Resolution No . 83 WHEREAS , there are insufficient amounts of appropriations in some of the line stems of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 1991 Budget to meet the needs of the fund for the year 1991 , and WHEREAS , in conformity with Town Law and good bookkeeping practices accounts should not be over appropriated, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Treasurer of the SCLIWC is hereby authorized and directed to make the following budget transfers from unencumbered balances to offset any shortages in said budget for the year 1991 , and be it further. RESOLVED, that the SCLIWC Bookkeeper be sent a certified copy of this resolution so that said budget transfers can be recorded . From: SW8310 . 438 Insurance $ 2 , 958 . 52 51,18320 . 212 Tools/Equipment 740 . 98 SW8330 . 419 Buildings and Grounds 28 , 917 . 12 SW8340 . 405 Plumbing Insp . 4 , 054 . 84 SW8340 . 201 Equipment 236 . 70 SW8340 . 410 Office Supplies 53 . 29 SW9010 . 800 State Retirement 6 , 873 . 29 TOTAL: $43 , 834 . 74 To: SW8310 . 410 Phone/Telemete.r. $ 2 , 560 . 13 SW8310 . 435 Advertising 167 . 10 SW833.0 . 437 Data Processing 231 . 29 5118320 . 221 Maintenance B . P . System 740 . 98 S1 18320 . 402 Electric 6 , 623 . 32 SG18330 . 402 Electric 22 , 293 . 80 SW8340 . 101 Personal. Services 4 , 054 . 84 SW8340 . 212 Tools/Equipment/Parts 236 . 70 SW8340 . 418 Vehicle Equipment/Maintenance 53 . 29 SW9040 . 800 Workers Comp . 5 , 278 . 24 SW9060 . 800 Health Insurance 1 , 595 . 05 TOTAL: 543, 834 . 74 MOVED: Supervisor. Shirley Raffensperger DATEQ . -larch 9 , 1992 SECONDED : Councilman Karl Niklas ' ..A,-'W Carried Unanimously Unanimously ,loan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk OF I Tg TOWN OF ITHACA ,V41 04� 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 Y TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 I Town Board Meeting 3/9/92 Agenda Item No . 27 Bolton Point Warrants Resolution No . 84 WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Town of Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment, and WHEREAS , said vouchers have been audited for payment by the Town Board, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the payment of said vouchers . Bolton Point Operating Fund Vouchers : No . :131 - 180 Bolton Point Capital Projects Fund Vouchers : No . H10 - H12 of Abstract No . 9 , dated 3/9/92 . MOVED: Councilman Karl Nikla Carried Unanimously. SECONDED : Councilman Frank Liguori (y DATED : March 9 , 1992 -SEAL- Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk qty OF 17, TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 A I i TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Meeting 3/9/92 Agenda Item No. Additional. Supervisors Forum Resolution No. 85 iNIIEREAS, the Sixth Annual Supervisors Forum, sponsored by the Association of 'downs will be held in Albany, March 22-24, 1992, and WHEREAS, the meeting will focus on legislative programs effecting towns in New York State, including the state budget, transportation, environmental conservation, and other matters of concern to the Town of Ithaca, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the To%m Supervisor Shirley Raf£ensperger is authorized to attend the Annual Supervisors Forum to be held March 22-24, 1992 at an estimated cost of $350.00. MOVED: Councilman Karl J. Niklas SECONDED: Councilwoman Catherine Valentino Carried Unanimously DATED: March 9, 1992 -SILAL- Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Cleric OF 1p a TOWN OF ITHACA 21 04� 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 Town Board Meeting 3/9 /92 Agenda Item No . Additional Highway Mechanic Position Resolution No . 86 WHEREAS , due to the announced retirement of the highway mechanic , the position was advertised , 22 applications were received and Eive people were interviewed, and WHEREAS , it was determined that due to his experience , training , and attitude Scott A. Brown is the best qualified person for the position, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that Scott A . Brown be hared as the highway mechanic with a start. date of March 23 , 1992 , at a pay rate of $9 . 00 per hour, with consideration for increase at the end of a six month probation period. MOVED: Councilman Karl Niklas SECONDED: Councilman Frank Liguori Carried Unanimously. DATED : March 9 , 1992 -SEAL- Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk