Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1993-02-11 : r FINAL Town of Ithaca Special Town Board Minutes February 11 , 1994 At a special 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 : PRESENT : John Whitcomb , Supervisor ; Catherine Valentino , Councilwoman ; Karl Niklas , Councilman ; David Klein , Councilman ; Ellen Z . Harrison , Councilwoman . EXCUSED : Carolyn Grigorov , Councilwoman ; Edward Conley , Councilman , ALSO PRESENT : John Barney , Esq . , Attorney for the Town ; Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk ; Daniel Walker , P . E . Town Engineer ; Fred Noteboom , Highway Superintendent . Carl H . Sundell , Alan M . Fletcher , Liese Bronfenbrenner , John Coggin , Bruce Brittain , Laura F . Marks , Beverly Livesay , Brent Stephens , Ruth Mahr , Nisa Marks . Call to Order : The Supervisor called the meeting to order at 5 : 09 p . m . Pledge of _ Alle ¢ iance : The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance . Agenda Item No . 1 - Schematic Des i n Plans Replacement / Rehabilitation Forest Home Downstream --Bridge : Supervisor Whitcomb explained the purpose of this scheduled special meeting is to discuss the Forest Home Bridge Replacement Project and the public information meeting held on February 10 , 1994 . James Kazda , Sr . , Civil Engineer and Liz Cameron , Project Manager from Tompkins County attended and gave a presentation on the bridge . They presented design options and had narrowed them down to two choices as presented at the last Town Board meeting , plus two alternate choices that incorporated the cantilever walkway that this Town Board requested . Supervisor Whitcomb asked the Town Engineer to briefly summarize what was discussed at the public information meeting . Mr . Walker presented a memorandum of his recommendations to the Town Board , as well as a copy of the materials presented at the public information meeting including the project drawings . Mr . Walker reviewed the history of the process since the 1992 resolution of the Ithaca Town Board sent to the Tompkins County Public Works Committee recommending the one lane bridge . TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page 2 . The actual design alternatives evolved from the work group including the County Engineering Department , the Town Engineer , the Town Highway Superintendent , the President of the Forest Home Improvement Association , and the Forest Home Transportation Chairman . The design consultant has been present at some of the meetings . The design consultant produced the four alternatives that were presented to the Town Board on February 11 . The County engineering staff took comments from that meeting and had a meeting on Tuesday with the Town staff . Mr . Walker said his memo listed the major elements of the bridge construction that were discussed . New abutments will be placed outside the existing abutment with surface treatment such as stone to make it look better . The approaches will not be changed and the existing road surface elevation will stay the same . There were two options presented regarding the support structure . One is a four girder system , three girders to support the road deck and one girder to support the outside of the walkway ( Option 40 ) 0 The three girder system ( Option 6 & Option 9 ) , are two different options where three girders would span the gorge and support the road and cantilever beams would be attached to the right girder to support the walkway . These are examples of the sub - structure that will support whatever is placed on top . The County did not have cost estimates on the two systems . Mr . Walker feels the most economical of the two would be the preferred design alternative . The second :issue is the deck and the truss placement design . The truss is the historical aspect of the bridge . The first option would be a continuous concrete slab across the deck . This provides an opportunity to mount the trusses on top of the deck , and it is the simplest design as it is a continuous concrete slab and provides the most protection for the sub - structure . The second configuration under consideration ( Option 9 ) 0 has the deck continuous with the driving surface having a separate slab or holes put in the deck between the driving surface and the walkway . Mr . Walker said both of the design options would have a new guiderail system installed independent of the decorative trusses . There would be no worry of safety . TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page 3 . The County has applied for federal cost sharing based on the project enhancement from the historical standpoint . The construction cost figure used for that request was $ 350 . 000 . The County Budget currently has a line item of $ 180 . 000 for replacement of this bridge , and the Town Budget has $ 30 . 000 for the Town share . The Town ' s share would be for the walkway and the approach work . Mr . Walker said that he did not have cost figures to prove it , but his inclination was the four girder system would be less expensive than the three girder with a cantilever sidewalk . His basis for that was additional labor and design work would have to go into detailing 'to stabilize the outside girder making the cantilever system more expensive . That is speculation , but was Mr . Walker ' s profes $ ional opinion at this point and time . Mr . Walker said he recommends the four girder system because it would be preferable because of simplicity and structural integrity . Mr . Walker recommended that a monolithic ( continuous deck slab ) be included . Putting the! trusses on top of the deck has advantages concerning maintenance , including painting in the future and being able to move them . It would also keep them above the water . There would always ' be some spray from the road salts in winter , but having them raised six to eight inches above the deck would make that problem less than if they were below the deck . Option 9 , shows a detail with the truss being lowered down and being supported off of the girder . That truss could also be rebuilt " to expand abutments with supporting ties to the bridge deck to make it consistent . There is fourteen inches between the bottom part of the truss and the surface in the original design . The other truss detail where the truss goes through the deck creates a maintenance nightmare . That should be avoided to keep the historical perspective with regard to the height of the trusses . The second truss could be put on a flat slab , the bottom structures trimmed down so that it appeared to converging through the deck keeping it consistent to the appearances now . Mr . Walker said his recommendation is a four girder bridge with a monolithic slab attaching the historic trusses , this would meet as much as possible the aesthetic appearance presently . Supervisor Whitcomb asked for any questions or comments on Mr . Walker ' s recommendation . TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page 4 . Councilwoman Harrison said she investigated the relationship of what is proposed and the ISTEA federal funding . She discovered the federal government has over 126 proposals for funding under this program and will only fund a small percentage of those . The rating is presently unavailable . The committee that will evaluate all the proposals will make a list of the projects within the next two weeks , and make a recommendation to the Commissioner of DOT . The Commissioner will review the list and make recommendations to the Governor who will decide what projects get funded and then make an announcement . Depending on how politically interested those parties are , it is unclear how long this process will take . Once the projects are announced a contract will be written between the municipality who has applied. for the funding and the DOT . It is not going to be a straightforward operation because it is going to be the first time the DOT is turning the project work over to the localities . DOT will be very skiddish about the responsibilities of the projects . Therefore , the contracting timetable is an unknown . Anything spent before the actual contract is executed is not reimbursable . If the County has applied for construction and it is done before the contract is signed that is the municipalities expenditure . Ms . Harrison said one of the things she does not quite understand is how the historic restoration of the bridge dealing with trusses fits with the construction of the rest of the project . What kind of decisions will hinge on whether the ISTEA funding is received ? Mr . Kazda stated last night say that if we don ' t get the funding the Town should pay for it if they think the historic aspect is so important . That could and would be argued . Ms . Harrison asked if it would make any sense to proceed with design decisions until it is known if the federal funding will take place for the historical preservation aspects of this project ? Or would that lead us on a path that may end up in several months asking , " why did we do that " ? Mr . Walker said the schedule the County has comprised a very tight schedule . There could have been a much higher comfort level if the design had been started two years ago . Mr . Walker ,agreed the ISTEA funds are not definite . r TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page. 5 . Ms . Harrison asked how the decisions that will be made on the ISTEA funds relate to the decisions the County Public Works Committee will make regarding design options ? Mr . Walker responded the design options the County is looking at would have truss rehabilitation as an added option . Ms . Harrison asked if that means their design could look like the Pinckney Road Bridge ? Mr . Noteboom stated it appears the County is going to build a bridge there regardless and they are going to have options on the historic part of it . Ms . Harrison asked if it was Mr . Walker ' s and Mr . Noteboom ' s understanding the County can proceed with any of these particular options and it would not jeopardize the ISTEA funds or the historic preservation if they went ahead on construction before there was a contract with the State ? Mr . Walker said he would not necessarily say that , if the bridge was not there when the funds came through the State may ask , " where the historical portion of the bridge is , and why did you apply for funding when there is not a historic bridge there anymore " . The ability to put the historic component on the bridge would be there , but the need for it may not be there . Supervisor Whitcomb asked if the ISTEA funds had to be spent within a certain period of time if they were received ? Councilwoman Harrison said that she did not know . Representative Livesay interjected that she had a conversation with Liz Cameron subsequent to last night ' s meeting , and her indication was the time schedule might be more important if the County gets the ISTEA funds as there may be a time schedule related to the funding . Representative Livesay said she did not specifically ask Ms . Cameron that question , but she also backed off a little and said she did not know . Councilwoman Harrison said Ms . Cameron told her today that one of the criteria for deciding on whether the funds are received is , " are you ready to start construction / rehabilitation " . It may therefore be that , rather than whether there is a limitation of the time frame . TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page 6 . Mr . Walker said if they are under a specified calendar year they have to get under contract and commit those funds by the end of the year so they would have to start construction . On some of the federal funding coming through the State they look for projects that are already designed . Having a design ready to go or pending , may be a positive thing . Supervisor Whitcomb said he felt there were two decisions this Town Board would have to make this evening . One is to instruct Mr . Walker and Mr . Noteboom what to present to the County Public Works Committee next Wednesday , and what is to be done in case the ISTEA funding for the historic component of the project doesn ' t come through . It was made very clear at the public meeting last night , if that portion of the money does not come through the County did not intend to restore the bridge historically . Representative Livesay said that we should not mistake who is the " County " , a County Engineer said that . Supervisor Whitcomb said at if the ISTEA funding failed this Town Board would be at another decision point as to whether the project should continue this year , or design it and reapply for ISTEA funds . Councilman Klein said through the memo Mr . Walker provided the County has estimated and budgeted $ 180 , 000 for the standard bridge , they have identified the historical aspect as an additional $ 170 , 000 . Mr . Noteboo :m said no , they said their estimates were somewhere around $ 50 , 000 . The design engineers estimated around $ 100 , 000 which included taking the historic parts off the bridge and restoring them . . Councilman Klein said the numbers do not add up . Mr . Walker ,said $ 350 , 000 was the estimate the County put on the application for ISTEA funding for everything . Councilman Klein said he did not believe it would cost $ 170 , 000 to restore the trusses . Councilwoman Harrison said it was mentioned last night to be between $ 50 , 000 and $ 100 , 000 . TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page 7 . Councilman Klein said , then if a stock bridge is $ 180 , 000 they are thinking this might up ', to $ 250 , 000 . In a sense it is dangerous to bid the restoration portion as an alternate or an option , because the option could in the future be totally disregarded . Supervisor Whitcomb said that was discussed last night , why not include it as a package instead . What is the best way to bid it ? Councilman Klein said bid it the way it should be constructed , the historic portion not an option , it must be completed . If the sense of the Town is that because it is a historic bridge worthy of restoration that should be the way it is bid once it has been decided which is the most appropriate way of constructing that means . With the historic portion as an option in the design we are opening the door for the restoration to be lost . Mr . Noteboom said the reason the County put it that way in bidding the design -was because the staff was directed that way by the County Public Works Committee . The reasoning was the Committee did not feel it was " every taxpayers " responsibility to restore the historic portion of the bridge . Councilman Klein said it is part of a historic district , it is part of the historic fabric of the community . The local governments have a duty to protect their historic resources , and be very firm in that . Councilman Niklas noted that reflects the original intent of the Town Board when we made the resolution two years ago . Councilman Klein said he did not feel this Town Board should accept the historic preservation as an option in the design . Representative Livesay said she felt last night that the County staff was going one step beyond , into what are political decisions . The County frequently bids alternates so they can pick and choose when they see what different things are going to cost . It is not a bad way to bid . What was before the Public Works Committee at the time of the submission for design bids was to choose between many different options . One was a new one lane bridge , one was a new two lane bridge , one was a restoration / rehabilitation of the existing bridge . They all had various price tags . The Committee chose the one lane bridge with retaining the historic element . That was done as an amendment to the motion to do the one lane bridge . It was TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page 8 . all one resolution . the amendment does not have less significance than the original portion of the motion . The amendment was to bid the historic portion as an alternate . How binding that is , whether it could be changed is not known but that was how it came about . Councilman Niklas stated he wished to comment on the items that concern him regarding this issue . The first is the Downstream Forest Home Bridge Project schedule is ill considered . We were told at the regular Town Board meeting held February 7 , when Representative Winch ( Chairman County Public Works Committee ) . Beverly Livesay and County staff were here there is a great need to conform with the schedule because of the need for the bridge for school buses . Yet . when you look at the bridge project schedule , ( this is not a criticism , only an observation ) the design contract was awarded on November 17 , 1993 . An entire month went by until the first design kick off meeting . over a month went by between that meeting and when preliminary drawings were submitted . Essentially two months up front , and then a schedule that is very condensed , restrictive and not well adapted to providing town residents who are most influenced by this , an opportunity to hear what the County plans and to make their feelings known to the Town Board before this Board is given presentations by the County and asked to comment . This is putting the Ithaca Town Board in a political and ethical dilemma . The Town Board is asked; to speak on behalf of our electorate without them or us , having an opportunity to discuss things properly . The second concern is all the designs presented are easily converted into a two lane bridge . Councilman Niklas understood the debate concerning whether it is desirable to have a two lane bridge or not , but it is very clear given the historic designation of the Forest Home area . plus the intent of the discussions of this Town Board of a historical renovation or at least a restoration of the bridge consistent to its current status of a single lane bridge . Representative Winch made an ill considered comment on February 7 . that he thought it should be a two lane bridge . but he promises it will stay a one lane bridge . How can he make that promise ? Councilwoman Harrison said she heartily concurred with Councilman Niklas ' comments . Two other things that should be added however , no costs estimates are currently available for any of the options . This puts the Town Board and the County in an impossible position . TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page 9 . Councilwoman Harrison said another issue that distressed her was the RFP for the proposals for design led her or anyone else to believe that they were accommodating a two lane bridge by saying , " the potential future expansion to two lanes during the life of the bridge " . There was not a good faith effort to look at only a one lane bridge . Councilman Niklas stated he and Councilwoman had been working together on a resolution regarding this issue . Councilman Niklas made the following motions WHEREAS , all designs currently before Tompkins County appear to accommodate if not encourage future expansion of the Forest Home Downstream Bridge to two lanes ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board is aware of the opposition by the Forest Home community of any proposal to expand said bridge to two lanes ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board is deeply concerned over the apparent compressed time schedule prepared by Tompkins County that appears to unduly limit communication among Tompkins County and Town of Ithaca staff and Board members , and appears to unnecessarily limit public participation in design considerations of said bridge ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby requests that the design consultants hired by Tompkins County be instructed by Tompkins County to develop one lane options that do not enhance the potential for future expansion of the said bridge to two lanes ; and be it further RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby requests that Tompkins County modify its project schedule of public meetings and schedules presentations to the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca in a manner that permits the public access to all information pertinent to , and an opportunity to , communicate their feelings about said bridge before the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca is required to comment on design options or specific features of an approved design by the County of said bridge . Motion seconded by Councilwoman Harrison . Councilman Niklas he wants to go on record saying this Town Board encourages a one lane design option , and that this Town Board encourages the schedule be changed so that the Town Board can hear from the public and the County what is going on before the County gets some reaction from this Town Board in an official way . TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page 10 . Councilwoman Harrison said the resolution addresses the points that need to be made and asked that some other things be added to the resolution . Councilwoman Harrison pointed out that the bridge is presently rated a ( 5 ) and is not ready to fall down , for the Town to be held hostage to the school bus issue is not reasonable . Motion to amend the resolution made by Councilwoman Harrison : WHEREAS , the most recent rating of the Downstream Forest Home Bridge from the NYS Department of Transportation is a rating of five and provides adequate safety ; and WHEREAS , the request for proposals for bridge design specified the " potential future expansion to two lanes during the life of the bridge be considered " , and the Town of Ithaca Town Board feels the RFP should not have suggested that ; and WHEREAS , the Forest Home Downstream Bridge is a historic structure in a historic district ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca believes there is a responsibility to preserve such areas ; and WHEREAS , the intent of the Town Board was to retain the historic character of the bridge ; and Councilwoman Valentino asked that the resolution be amended as the Town Board had already made its position very clear two years ago about the bridge remaining a one lane bridge . The communities concerns and. the Town Board ' s concerns are what that bridge should be , this one lane idea was not decided tonight . WHEREAS „ the Town Board by resolution in 1992 decided that the Downstream Forest Home Bridge was to be restored / rehabilitated as a one lane bridge ; now therefore be it Supervisor Whitcomb asked for the following amendment : RESOLVED , the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby requests of Tompkins County that the contract for the construction of this bridge be bid as a whole with no alternates so that the historic component is not separated out , but is considered an integral part of the contact . Attorney Barney suggested to the Board that part of the information which needs to be known is the cost estimates . I TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page 11 , Councilman Niklas added the following : and be it further , RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca requests that the County Engineer ' s estimated construction costs be provided before the Town of Ithaca commits to an opinion regarding design options presented to the Town of Ithaca by Tompkins County ; and be it further , RESOLVED , that a certified copy of this resolution along with a draft copy of these minutes be provided to the Town of Ithaca representatives on the Tompkins County Board of Representatives and the Tompkins County Public Works Committee before their meeting on Wednesday , February 16 , 1994 ; All amendments were approved by Councilman Niklas and Councilwoman Harrison . Ruth Mahr , 103 Judd Falls Road addressed the Town Board and thanked them for the resolution . She asked if the Town Board ' s intent in this resolution is to eliminate from further consideration a bridge with four girders ? Councilman Niklas said the resolution does not specifically address the design consideration , it addresses the Town Board ' s desire that the bridge be a single lane bridge . Mrs . Mahr asked , convertible to a two lane bridge ? Councilman Niklas said no , that was included in the resolution . Laura Marks „ 1055 Danby Road said she also approved of the resolution but had a question for the Town Engineer ? Mr . Walker m. ade it very clear to the public at the meeting last night he would be making one recommendation , and today it is different , what has happened for him to change his mind ? Councilman Niklas asked Ms . Marks what her understanding of Mr . Walker ' s recommendation last night was ? Mr . Walker said last night he recommended , Option No . 4 which is the monolithic bridge with a four girder design . Ms . Marks said she understood Mr . Walker was going to recommend that the cantilever and the one for I - beams across be explored and he would recommend it be done strictly on a cost basis . TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page 12 . Mr . Walker said he did state that early on in the meeting last night . It was his assumption the four girder bridge would be the least expensive and based on that he made the recommendation . Prior to that he had stated the least expensive should be the one selected . Bruce Brittain . 135 Warren Road appreciated the efforts of the Town Board at this meeting . The County Engineer caught the Forest Home Improvement Association off guard and the Forest Home Improvement Association is not here this evening to make an official presentation, The Town Board very well summarized the feelings he has heard from the community . Mr . Brittain had four recommendations as to specific design which have not been seen by anyone else in Forest Home . Since the Town Board is considering a general resolution these items can be addressed at a later time . Councilwoman Harrison said she would like to hear the four items . Mr . Brittain said that if the bridge were going forward as is . he would present them . but he felt he should wait until the other residents of Forest Home had an opportunity to review and discuss them . Councilman Niklas said that the resolution he and Councilwoman prepared was a generic resolution to the philosophy regarding the kind of designs this Town Board would entertain , we are not at the level of specifics . Councilwoman Harrison asked Representative Livesay if this item was on the agenda of the County Board on Tuesday , February 15 ? Representative Livesay said it will not be on the agenda , there is a Privilege of the Floor , anyone may address the County Board at that time . This is definitely County Board business and one or more persons could come and make a brief presentation . Supervisor Whitcomb asked if the County Public Works Committee had the final say about moving ahead with this project . or does it come back to the full County Board for approval ? Representative Livesay said that the procedures are presently being streamlined . The Public Works Committee could authorize this going to bid . The County Board just has to award the bid for a contract his size . TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page 13 , Councilman Niklas asked the Town Clerk if this resolution could be made available to the County Board on Monday ? Councilwoman Harrison asked Representative Livesay to read the resolution into the record of the County Board of Representatives at the meeting on Tuesday , February 15 , 1994 . It is important that the County Public Works Committee understand , what the public part of their title really means . Representative Livesay said she would be happy to . Ms . Noteboom said she will have the resolution done on Monday , and the minutes will be finished for Mr . Walker and Mr . Noteboom to take to the Public Works Committee on Wednesday . Councilwoman Harrison said it was made very clear last evening by Ms . Cameron and Mr . Kazda there are technical decisions and there are political decisions and the one lane / two lane issue is a political decision . Councilwoman Harrison asked that the chair of the Town ' s :Public Works Committee make a presentation of the resolution and the minutes , along with Mr . Walker and Mr . Noteboom at the County Public Work ' s Committee meeting on Wednesday . February 16 . This is a political issue and one of our Board members should be there . Councilman Klein said he would attend the meeting . The Supervisor asked for a vote on the resolution with all amendments . Motion carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 2 - In Lieu of Tax Payment Cornell University : Motion made by Supervisor' Whitcomb , seconded by Councilman Niklas that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby accepts the recommendation of the Town Attorney to receive $ 6 , 420 for 535 sewer units on Tax Parcel # 65 . 1 - 1 from Cornell University as an In Lieu of Tax Payment for 1994 . Councilwoman Valentino understood that this was somehow not included in the tax roll , and asked if it is accepted as an In Lieu of Tax Payment this year , will this be changed next year to be included on the tax roll ? The Town Clerk stated it was included on the 1993 roll and will be included on the 1995 roll . Attorney Barney explained that Cornell University has voluntarily stepped forward to pay the bill as they did not receive one . We can not now add this to the roll . TB Minutes 2 / 11 / 94 Page 14 . The tax roll is prepared annually and the units are determined every year . This will be on the 1995 roll . Motion called and carried unanimously . Adjournment : As there was no further business to come before the Town Board , Councilman Niklas made a motion to adjourn . Seconded by Councilwoman Harrison . Carried unanimously . The Supervisor adjourned the special meeting at 5 : 57 p . m . Respectfully submitted , L+ '7C Joan Lent Noteboom Town Clerk Special Town Board Meeting 2 / 11194 Agenda Item No . 1 Downstream Forest Home Bridge Replacement / Rehabilitation Project Plans Resolution No . 56 Motion : WHEREAS , all designs currently before Tompkins County appear to accommodate , if not encourage future expansion of the Forest Home Downstream Bridge to two lanes ; and Amendment : WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca feels the statement " potential future expansion to two lanes during the life of the bridge be considered should not have been included in the specifications for bids for the bridge design ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board by resolution in 1992 decided the said bridge was to be restored / rehabilitated as a one lane bridge ; and Motion : WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca is aware of the opposition by the Forest Home Community of any proposal to expand said bridge to two lanes ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca is deeply concerned over the apparent compressed time schedule prepared by Tompkins County that appears to unduly limit communication among Tompkins County and Town of Ithaca Board members and staff , and appears to unnecessarily limit public participation in design considerations of the said bridge ; and Amendment : WHEREAS „ the most recent rating of the said bridge from the NYS Department of Transportation is a five ( 5 ) which provides adequate safety ; and WHEREAS , the said bridge is a historic structure in a historic district ; and. WHEREAS , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca believes there is a responsibility to preserve such areas ; and WHEREAS , it is the intent of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca to retain the historic character of the said bridge ; now therefore be it TB Res . No . 56 - 2 / 11 / 94 Page 2 . Motion : RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby requests that the design consultants hired by Tompkins County be instructed by Tompkins County to develop one lane options that do not enhance the potential for future expansion of the said bridge to two lanes ; and be it further RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby requests that Tompkins County modify its project schedule of public meetings , and schedules presentations to the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca 1. n a manner that permits the public access to all information pertinent to , and an opportunity to , communicate their feelings about the said bridge before the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca is :required to comment on design options or specific features of an approved design by the County of said bridge ; and be it further AMENDMENTS : RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby requests of Tompkins County that the contract for the construction of this bridge be bid as a whole with no alternates so that the historic component is not separated out , but is considered an integral part of the contract ; and be it further RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Ithaca hereby requests that the County Engineer ' s estimated construction costs be provided before the Town of Ithaca commits to an opinion regarding design options presented to the Town of Ithaca by Tompkins County ; and be it further RESOLVED , that a certified copy of this resolution along with a copy of the minutes of this Special Town Board meeting be provided to the Town of Ithaca Representatives of the Tompkins County Board of Representatives , to the County Board of Representatives as a whole , and to the Tompkins County Public Works Committee before its meeting on Wednesday , February 16 , 1994 . MOTION : MOVED : Councilman Niklas SECONDED : Councilwoman Harrison AMENDMENTS : MOVED : Councilman Niklas SECONDED : Councilwoman Harrison DATED : February 11 , 1994 Q.2" I'+ ' YO an Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk Motions with all amendments carried unanimously . Special 'Town Board Meeting 2 / 11 / 94 Agenda Item No . 2 In Lieu of Tax Payment - Cornell University Resolution No . 57 WHEREAS , the 535 sewer units to be charged to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 65 . - 1 - 1 , Cornell University amounting to $ 6 . 420 ( 535 units x $ 12 . 00 ) was not included on the 1994 Tax Roll ; and WHEREAS , the Town Attorney has determined that the charges for these sewer units can be received as an In Lieu of Tax Payment to the Town of Ithaca for the year 1994 ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts the recommendation of the Town Attorney to receive $ 6 , 420 for 535 sewer units on Tax Parcel # 65 . - 1 - 1 from Cornell University as an In Lieu of Tax Payment for 1994 . MOVED : Supervisor Whitcomb Carried Unanimously SECONDED : Councilman Niklas DATED : February 11 , 1994 . Qcaovv Joan Lent Noteboom , Town Clerk MEMORANDUM T0 : DANIEL WALKER , TOWN ENGINEER FROM : SALLY ALARIO , ASST . BUDGET OFFICER DATE : AUGUST 30 , 1993 RE : CORNELL SEWER UNITS The sewer units to be charged to Parcel # 65 - 1 - 1 are 535 units . 535 units x $ 12 . 00 = $ 6 , 420 . 000 Computations are attached . SA / cc ; Shirley Raffe: nsperger , Supervisor attachments i /7 130 191 -� O O O O 00 GOO eon a b DO b = / nn b o = 35 jl� UL