No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2014-10-20 OF rr $ '�?� Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday,October 20,2014 at 5:30 p.m. ,••,, ,� 215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca,NY 14850 4� Agenda 1. Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Report of Tompkins County Legislature and Ithaca Common Council 3. Persons to be Heard and Board Comments 4. 5:30 p.m. Public Hearing regarding a local law amending Chapter 234 of the Town of Ithaca Code entitled"Subdivision of Land", regarding zones in which cluster subdivisions are permitted a. SEQR b.Adoption 5. Presentation—Maguire Automotive Company 6. 5:30 p.m. Public Hearing regarding the Town of Ithaca 2015 Preliminary Budget 7. Discuss and consider amendments to the Town of Ithaca 2015 Budget 8. Discuss and consider approval of the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility's 2015 Budget 9. Discuss Chain Works District—Consider concurrence with designation of the City of Ithaca as Lead Agency 10. Discuss and consider approval of adding the Platinum Plan to the Health Insurance Plan options 11. Consider setting a public hearing regarding a Public Interest Order:NYS Route 13 Water Main Crossing—SCLIWIC 12. Discuss and consider approval of a stipend for Judge Salk 13. Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes of September 22,2014 and October 2,2014 b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract d. Ratify Appointment of Water Maintenance Specialist—Bolton Point 14. Report of Town Officials 15. Report of Town Committees/Intermunicipal Organizations 16. Review of Correspondence 17. Consider Adjournment TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Paulette Terwilliger, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: O NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS j[.egats use Regarding the 2015 Preliminary Budget OWN OFa WCA PUBLIC HEARINGS The Town Board of one Town I And of Ithaca.11 hold cuts c mie-: rags at the Towe Hall, 215 1 Noah Tioga Street, Itlece : New York on the 20th day of: Proposed Local Law amending Chapter 234 "Subdivision of Land" September. 2014 beginning at 5:30 p.an for-the Wooing: i Regarding zones in which Cluster subdivisions are allowed. 1. A proposed wicat law amending the Torn of Ithace x Cade.Chapter 234.settled r 'Scbdraisien of land,'ragard- I ag zones in which cluster f iubdlWaona era permitted F Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: 2 Regarding the Town of L Town Clerk's Office 3uddgget 2815 Pastrami n(crmallon on ar" of the 215 North Tioga Street ewe la a stable lam the F Town Cie* and of at 11 Ithaca, NY 14850 y..,town.lthaea.nYns C Paulette Terwilliger P l0/B,10/1512014 d _ a Date of Posting: 10/8/2014 Date of Publication: 10/8/2014 and 10/15/2014 Paulette Terwilliger TOWN OF ITHACA 1 Town Clerk PUBLIC HEARINGS f The Town Board of the Town 1 of Ithaca will hold public hear ngs at the Town Hall, 215 Noah Tugs Street. Ithaca. New York on the 20th day a STATE OF NEW YORK) September. 2014 begin"ng at 5.30 p.m.for the folbwing: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: I. A praPased local za amandin0 the Town of Ithaca TOWN OF ITHACA) Code,Chapter 234,entitled 'Subd'rvtston of Land'regard. irg xmea In which cluster subdrvislons are permitted Sworn to and su cribed before me this ��t—da of 2 Raga.di^g the Town of Y Ithaca 2015 Pre;imna" Budget 12014. efomrelion on any of the above is available from the Town Clerk and online at ww.t.wri nh.te rY_us I, Paulette Tenvim0er / 10/8.10/15/2014 N Lary Public Debra DeAugtstine Notary Public-State of New York No.OIDE6148035 Oualified in Tompkins County cJ My rommir^i,n Excires Juno 12. 20 lb f f '�, Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board P, Monday, October 20,2014 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca,NY 14850 Minutes Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Bill Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor; Pat Leary(via Facetime),Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, and Rod Howe Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Mike Solvig, Director of Finance,Judy Drake,Director of Human Resources; Paulette Terwilliger,Town Clerk; Jim Weber,Highway Superintendent and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town and Lisa Carrier-Titti, Information Technology Agenda Item 1 Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance Supervisor Engman opened the meeting at 5:34p.m. Agenda Item 2 Report of Tompkins County Legislature and Ithaca Common Council None Agenda Item 3 Persons to be Heard and Board Comments Mr. Engman announced the two public hearings to be held later and invited anyone to speak to any other topics. No one wished to address the board on other topics and Mr. Engman asked if the board had any items. Mr. DePaolo stated that he would like to revisit the police training center on South Hill because of the constant sound of gunfire. When the range was first started the area was not as dense but now it is and the noise is an issue. He would like to have a conversation with the city about activity there. Mr. Engman gave an overview for the benefit of attendees and agreed that we should have a conversation because multiple agencies use it for practice. Agenda Item 4 5:30 p.m. Public Hearing regarding a local law amending Chapter 234 of the Town of Ithaca Code entitled "Subdivision of Land", regarding zones in which cluster subdivisions are permitted (Attachment#1 -= SEQR form) Mr. Engman opened at 5:37p.m. and explained that this is a clarification of an existing law to make it clear what zones cluster subdivisions are allowed since the list of zones was left out in the last revision of the law. Roy Luft, Ithaca Mr. Luft suggested that since the purpose of low density residential (LDR) zoning is to maintain the rural nature of a zone, that cluster subdivisions within that zone would not be permitted to have zero lot lines which in a sense allows multi-unit housing which is not normally allowed in a LDR. There was no one else wishing to address this topic and the hearing was closed. Pg. 1 Mr. Engman asked Ms. Ritter to explain if this would allow no zero lot line buildings. Ms. Ritter responded that this does not address that issue at all. Town cluster regulations allow an attached �1 residence,which means you can have townhomes; the comment is not to allow townhouse units 1 in LDR so you could only have detached units. This is to make our law consistent with what state law requires us to have in cluster regulations. Ms. Brock spoke to the resident's question saying that right now our law says that any residential unit can be clustered but it doesn't specify the districts and NY Town law says that you are supposed to specify what lands clustering may occur on so this law brings our current law into compliance. TB Resolution No. 2014-166: SEOR Proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 234 Entitled "Subdivision of Land,"Regarding Zones in Which Cluster Subdivisions Are Permitted Whereas, this action is the enactment of Local Law 16 of 2014 which amends Chapter 234 of the Town of Ithaca Code,entitled"Subdivision of Land,"to specify the zoning districts in which cluster subdivisions are allowed; and Whereas, this is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board is acting as Lead Agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of this local law; and Whereas, the Town Board, at their regular meeting held on October 20, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form(SERF), Parts 1,2 and 3 for this action; now, therefore,be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review, and Chapter148 Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code, for the above-referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the SEAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the SEAF Parts 2 and 3, and therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes—Howe, DePaolo, Engman,Goodman,Hunter, Leary, and Levine TB Resolution No. 2014-167: Adopt Local Law 16 of 2014 Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 234 entitled "Subdivision of Land".Regarding Zones in Which Cluster Subdivisions Are Permitted Whereas, in 2004 the Town Board amended Chapter 234(Subdivision of Land)of the Town Code to authorize cluster subdivisions for residential units only; and Whereas, New York Town Law § 278 requires towns to specify the zoning districts in which cluster subdivision development may occur; and Whereas, the proposed local law will clarify Chapter 234 to allow cluster subdivision development in all zoning districts except the Office Park Commercial Zone, Vehicle Fueling and Repair Commercial Zone, Light Industrial Zone and Industrial Zone; and Pg. 2 Whereas,a properly publicized public hearing was held on October 20, 2014 and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said local law, or any part thereof; and Whereas,pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA")and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of this local law is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to the adoption of this local law,has made a negative determination of environmental significance on October 20, 2014, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1,2 and 3 prepared by the Town's Planning staff; now, therefore,be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby adopt Local Law 16 of 2014 Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 234 Entitled"Subdivision of Land,"Regarding Zones in which Cluster Subdivisions are Permitted; and it is further Resolved,that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes—Howe, DePaolo, Goodman,Engman, Leary, Levine and Hunter Agenda Item 5 Presentation—Maguire Family Limited Partnership (Attachment#2) Phil Maguire and Schickel were present to review the overall proposal. The dealership would like to expand south towards Seven Mile Drive. They would like to mover the Cadillac dealership to where the Subaru dealership currently is, renovate the Ford dealership in front of Wegman's and mover the Fiat, Hyundai and Nissan dealerships to the Town of Ithaca on Route 13. They realize this would involve some rezoning and wanted to see if this was an idea that could move forward to benefit both the Town and the dealership. Mr. Maguire sketched out the plan stating that they would like to have a park like setting linking to Saponi Meadows park land and Ithaca Beer, adding approximately 12 miles to the Saponi parkland and a trail to Tutelo Park. The front would be where there are currently two motels and purchasing some land from the Eddy's. They were looking for feedback from the board on whether to move forward. This would be a $15-$20 million dollar project and would be LEAD certified. There would be approximately 40- 50 new jobs and they stated that they are sensitive to the town's desire to not have large expanses of parking lots and they envision a spread-out, park-like complex with corporate offices there also and the vehicles surrounding the buildings and not simply lined on the street. Mr. Schickel reiterated the concept of a dealership that will fit in with the Town's vision of that area and the hope that the project would act as an anchor for other business in the area and have a boutique style front line of cars with the sales lots pushed further back from the street allowing ?O*A� for significant landscaping. Pg. 3 Board Comments Mr. Engman noted that there are some challenges. The road is very busy and the state would probably want a traffic light to create a break in traffic especially if adding traffic. Mr. Howe stated that it raises some interesting possibilities to talk about and wondered if it would be appropriate to have the Economic Development Committee meet and take a look at the idea given that we have been focusing on economic opportunities for that corridor. Mr. Goodman added that it should probably go to the Planning Committee also since it would entail a PDZ. He added that both he and Mr. Howe are on both committees and maybe they could schedule one meeting for both. Ms. Ritter wanted to make it clear that she has met with both Mr. Maguire and Mr. Schickel and she made it clear to them that this in not consistent with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and any rezoning would require reopening the Comprehensive Plan and possibly its SEQR and a PDZ generally has a mixed use and she didn't see that here. The question seems more to change the commercial zone to allow car dealerships which we don't currently have and which would impact other commercial zones so it will have to be thought about very,very carefully. Ms. Leary thought this was an innovative idea to break the mold of a standard car dealership and asked if this is what they mean by an artisan or boutique dealership and Mr. Maguire responded that they would like it to be beautiful and serene and enhance the town and their dealership. Ms. Leary stated that we shouldn't be opposed to any particular enterprise just because it fits a standard idea because they can be done differently and this is a good economic development opportunity. Ms. Hunter asked if these would be in addition to the other dealerships and Mr. Maguire responded that it would be; the master plan would be late 2015-2016 to build a new building where the two are in the city and then this site, all from the ground up. Ms. Hunter thought that car dealerships had to conform to franchise restrictions similar to, for example, Burger King and she wondered how much they could alter that. Mr. Maguire responded that yes, franchises have standard plans but they also allow dealerships to work with and abide by any Planning Board or municipal requirements and he is not concerned about that aspect. Inside the buildings would have color schemes etc. that are dictated by the franchise. Ms. Brock noted that if they are talking about relocating a town park, that would be parkland alienation and would require state legislation to do that. Mr. DePaolo asked if this would be a full service dealership; sales and service and Mr. Maguire responded that it would be. Mr. Engman asked about the timeline and Mr. Maguire said they do have a timeline of late 2015- 2016 but the biggest question for them is to know whether it is a dead-end idea or not and whether they should pursue this at all. He added that the owners of the two motels who want to either retire or relocate are interested in the knowing that also and the sooner the better. Mr. DePaolo and Mr. Howe will work on setting a date and time for a joint meeting. Pg. 4 Agenda Item 6 Public Hearing regarding the Town of Ithaca 2015 Preliminary Budget Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 6:10p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Agenda Item 7 Discuss and consider amendments to the Town of Ithaca 2015 Budget Mr. Engman opened the topic by reminding the board that Mr. Howe had asked members to come up with a specific list of items to discuss but there seems to be some disagreement on how to go about that,but the biggest question is whether to stay under the tax cap or not . He went on to say that the Budget Committee talked a lot about that and there were a number of options; first is we aren't going to play the game and the second is that this year is kind of a freebie, you can stay under the tax cap and residents will get a rebate and there is no serious work to be done and the third is that if you want residents to continue to get the rebate, in 2016 we would have to come up with a plan for consolidating and sharing services and we would have to prove that within that plan it would save 1% of the tax levy. Coming up with that plan could be a real challenge because the look-back period for that is only to 2012 and the town has been doing this for years and the last big one,the Health Consortium,was done in 2011. So unless that is changed,we do not know if we would have enough to claim. So the third option is to take advantage of the rebate this year and then not even attempt developing a plan because if the look-back period isn't extended. Mr. Howe noted that we don't have to decide what we are going to do next year now except to stay under or not in order to have those options next year. Mr. Engman agreed, that is the question for right now. But, if we decide to stay under the cap, if we add something back in,we would have to take something back out or take it from fund balance,otherwise the tax levy increases. Mr. Howe was in favor of staying within the tax cap as a target. Mr. Levine didn't think we could decide that until the issues that members have are decided. For instance, if we decide to keep the city parks in the budget, then we have to decide how we would pay for that. Mr. Engman reiterated that there is no wiggle room in the budget so any additions would have to come from a cut somewhere else or fund balance. Mr. Levine said he understands that but it comes down to the whole amount; if it is $50K then we could decide to take it from fund balance but if it is$200K we would have to either go over the cap or take it from somewhere else but that can't be decided until we see how much in total we are looking at. Mr. Goodman said he would like to stay in the tax cap but he would like to see any increases in line items taken from other line items other than fund balance. Mr. DePaolo thought that we need to set our priorities as far as services,what do our residents want and what are they willing to pay for them and then the discussion of the tax cap is a secondary discussion. He agreed that to the greatest extent possible we should find other places /0004 to cut to be revenue neutral but the tax cap is the follow-up discussion, not the main discussion. Pg. 5 Ms. Leary liked the idea of staying under the tax cap to keep our options open but we have to remember that the tax cap is an arbitrary target and it won't result in a large rebate for our residents and our residents may prefer to get more in services. She thought that if it were a significant rebate that would be different but it isn't so we shouldn't feel that constrained to stay under the tax cap if we decide other priorities are more important. Mr. Engman said that he would prefer to stay under the cap because it is relatively easy the first year but he is skeptical about being able to do it in the following years but that can be decided later. He suggested the board start going through the issues members have and see if there are any changes and go from there. Issues (Attachment#3 Letters from residents) Mr. Levine started with the voluntary contributions and cutting them in half for 2015 and he wanted to visit the possibility of the contribution to the Youth Bureau which supports Cass and Stewart Parks because they have offered some benefits to our residents which the other entities have not. One is the discount for recreation programs that the other municipalities do not get and the other is that they are committed to trying to get additional funds from other municipalities as well as a number of letters from residents supporting the contribution. Mr. Levine would like to see the $56K go back into the budget for the Youth Bureau. Mr. Engman responded by giving the overview of his reasoning for cutting these contributions saying that in most cases, we are the only municipality giving any extra money to these causes ` and organizations and in the 5-year projection was done as recommended by the Comptroller's Office and the Association of Towns, and we found out that we will not have any fund balance in 4 years if we continue to spend at the rate we are spending now. He reminded members that this is a yearly allocation and if we continue for the next 10 years,we will have spent over half a million dollars which takes away from our own internal programs that we would like to do as well as balance our budget. He went on to say that he felt the only way we are going to get anything to change with contributions from other municipalities is to stick to our guns with all of the programs,because once you start doing it on one and putting back money he didn't understand how you could not do the others, and secondly,we have seen movement in the TCAT funding after we cut our contribution and that would not have happened if we hadn't started it by cutting those monies. Now they are meeting with TCOOG and Cornell has increased their contribution. That would not have happened. Mr. Greene has been here before and nothing has happened and working towards getting other funding and it has been promised before and never happened. Mr. Engman felt that we shouldn't be fooled again into thinking something is going to happen to change the funding if we don't prove that we are serious by cutting our contribution. He added that he thought that in the long run, he felt we could get more municipalities to contribute and most of the organizations that we have supported will end up with more money than they are getting now because it will be other municipalities and the county but it won't happen if we give them the money because there will be no incentive to do so. Mr. Engman made two additional points specific to this topic; there are two additional funds that town residents pay in order to participate in the Cass Park programs, as calculated by Mr. Solvig, about$77K is paid in fees and the portion of the programs paid under the Rec Partnership Pg. 6 program which we contribute to. We were also told at our last meeting that the benefit of lowering the fees for town residents to the level of city residents would save$38K which is less than the $55K we have already proposed. Ms. Leary wanted clarification that we are proposing to contribute the $55K which is half of the usual contribution and Mr. DePaolo added that the proposal is to then cut it entirely in 2016. Mr. Engman responded yes, $55K in 2015 and right now the proposal is to cut it in 2016 but that can be re-visited next year when we see what movement has been made on the promise to look for other funding. We have to get other municipalities to contribute; right now the usage numbers are 1/3 City, 1/3 Town and 1/3 the rest of the municipalities and none of those other municipalities are contributing anything and that is what this is all about, to expand the support base so we have a better base of support. Ms. Hunter stated that this is a little more complicated an issue to her. She said that it was her understanding that the $111K was a contribution to help with infrastructure and she asked if she was correct in that assumption. Mr. Engman responded that he did not think that was the case. He thought we had talked about infrastructure at one time but that was flatly rejected because we don't have any ownership of it so there was no interest in that. Ms. Hunter said then that we do not contribute to any pool maintenance etc. and these monies don't go towards that type of expense? Mr. Engman responded that he thought it goes towards programing. Mr. Greene addressed the board with Ms. Vance, acting Director. He started by updating the board on recent actions by the Board of Public Works and they are looking at pavilion rental rates and there have never been any resident/non-resident fees and they are moving in that direction and that discount �..,, would also be extended to town residents. That being said, to answer the use of the funds currently, he stated that he was very involved in the meetings that set the current funding and it was clearly to cover facilities costs, not programs, because in the early days of the Rec Partnership there was no category of programs that are now called the City-discount programs or the ones that we are now proposing would be the City/Town discount programs. In the early days,virtually all the rec programs were funded by the Rec Partnership and this practice of having different fees for some of the programs has evolved over the last 19 years as the budgets have tightened and the Rec Partnership Board has said that we need to hold the line on expenses so they were faced with either eliminating the programs because the Partnership didn't fund them or continuing to offer them through the Ithaca Youth Bureau as City Discount programs and they chose to do that. Ms. Hunter picked it up again saying that having established that this$111K is not for programing... and Mr. Engman noted that we have never received anything about facilities costs in real numbers and that is why he thought it was for programing and Mr. Green responded that Al Carvil (former Finance Director)developed a spreadsheet along with Youth Bureau staff and other people involved in the past that looked at all the facilities costs and showed the totals of those costs and there were a lot of discussions about what the appropriate percentage would be for the Town to pay and it was between 22%-25% in all those conversations. The spreadsheet has not been updated in recent years because the contract has basically just been renewed. Mr. Green stated that they used to have more conversations about the costs and the amount and that sort of thing but it has since just been an automatic renewal process. Mr. Engman responded that he has never seen that and it would be helpful to have that. He added that if that was the case, then like when we buy a fire truck with the Village of Cayuga Heights or the City of Ithaca,we have a say in whether we want to buy those and he asked what say we have if the City wants to Pg. 7 spend money on a park facility in question. Mr. Green responded that in the budget that Mr. Carvill looked at, it looked at operating costs and not capital project costs and the exclusion was done on purpose because Ms. Valentino thought very strongly that if the City decided to do something like enclose the ice rink, that the Town did not want to be in a position where the City could decide on a major capital project like that and the Town would be responsible for 22%- 25%. He added that under the current MOU there isn't a lot of control as far as the operating budget but clearly capital projects were taken off the table. Ms. Hunter brought the topic back to having established that these funds go towards facilities, it changes our discussion and we need to look at the value-added aspect because they are not going towards funding programs that the Rec Partnership has discontinued and she doesn't know how to respond to that although she does think that although she understands Mr. Engman's feeling that we should not be contributing when others do not, she felt that since we do surround the City and we are the closest to the city and do not have any real recreation facilities such as a pool, rink, tennis courts etc. and that many town residents use these facilities and we need access to them. Having a seat at the table and being involved is something she would like to see happen and when that spreadsheet was made all those years ago, that was a discussion that should have happened and should happen now. She did not think that withholding our contribution benefits our residents and if we did withhold it,she would like to see it in some kind of a reserve fund for the development of our own recreational infrastructure or make it contingent on some kind of a meaningful, and she stressed meaningful, discussion with the city about how, regionally,what kind of recreational infrastructure we want and where it should be and how we are going to finance and maintain it. Those are meetings that need to happen and if withholding money is the way to get meaningful talks, then she would consider it,but if we can't hold meetings, she would like us to start saving funds for our own recreational facilities. Ms. Leary said she agrees with a lot of what Ms. Hunter just said. She felt that we do need more control over what our residents are getting for the fees they pay and part of that would be having more control over the facilities,maintenance and improvements and pausing for a year to get their attention might be the way to do it. She added that she felt it would be inefficient for us to build our own pool but she would like to see more control over our contributions. She was in favor of the decreased funding for the year in the hopes that some of these specifics about the governance can be worked out. Mr. DePaolo stated that he was trying to reconcile the equation and asked how much money the city gets from the county taxes for these facilities and Mr. Green responded they did not get any support for the facilities. Mr. DePaolo said then it could not be said that our residents are already paying for these facilities through their county taxes like we said about the TCAT funding. Mr. Green responded that the county is a partner in the Rec Partnership but that is separate. Mr. DePaolo responded that the usage percentages actually work more in this instance than it would in some other cases since our residents are 1/3 of the usage so we should pay for 1/3 of the wear and tear more so than other municipalities who in total add up to 1/3 of usage. He also thought that it was good not to be involved in the running of it because there are a lot of headaches in that and there is a premium to be paid for not having to do that. He was in favor of cooperation as far as how the facilities get maintained and used but he didn't think eliminating the contribution is the best way to do that and he felt that there were other areas in the budget that we could be looking at instead of this item and a lot of the community services we have chosen to Pg. 8 focus on. He had a lot of questions about the budget in general and a lot of expenses that are /001� proposed that if were reduced could easily pay for the support we are proposing to cut. Mr. Engman reiterated that to his mind, the missing third is the other third which is the rest of the residents of the county who use these facilities and don't pay anything and that is why he is saying, yes, as Ms. Leary and Ms. Hunter have indicated,we should have the conversation about what all of this means, but it has to be with the county also because they have a responsibility to also support this type of facility or destination park. The county is the logical way to get the contributions and to make the rest of the municipalities to make a contribution to these parks because going out to ask individual municipalities is not going to work and the county has to step up to the plate. The Town the City and the County have to have these conversations. Ms. Hunter asked if he thought holding money from the City would force the County into discussions and Mr. Engman responded that he felt it was the only way. Mr. Levine pointed out that the City was the only one of the entities that came to us with some added-value and the others did not so to say that if we chip away at this one, all are going to line up to chip away doesn't seem to be the case. As far as saying we might be interested in keeping our contribution up if you allow us a seat at the table or let us be part of the conversation about what the City is doing; when you look at the vastness of these waterfront parks, the location and the operation costs, that sounds like saying to someone who asks you for gas money that you respond by saying you would love to but you didn't consult me on what kind of car you were going to buy or the maintenance and I don't know if you are getting the best gas mileage and if we had just talked about this I would have paid for some gas. He added that the $111K is a lot of money but what the City is spending is way,way more. Mr. Goodman spoke to the topic saying that we do have city residents that use our parks and trails and facilities and we don't get any contribution for that from either the city, county or other municipalities so he felt that the town has its own parks and trails support and he would rather see us put the money into our own facilities rather than into the City's facilities. That being said, he added that if someone wants to do the numbers and compare the two usages he would be willing to look at that but things have changed a lot since these numbers and systems of having the Town contribute to City parks was put together and it would be a very good discussion to look at this with fresh eyes with the city and the county and the municipalities on a regional basis to see what are fair contributions from everybody for the use of these assets. He added that he did not think it is a bad idea to have users pay a fee to use the facilities such as Myers Park in Lansing so having fees are not a bad idea because people who use the facility should pay for it rather than asking all the tax payers to fund the costs. He went on to say that he would make some exception if there was some way of subsidizing or doing scholarships for low-income residents and he didn't think that was the case currently. He was fine with reducing the contribution for this year but skeptical about cutting it all in 2016 and he is hoping that there would be enough discussions going on to keep that funding in place. He agreed with Mr. Engman in that it has taken 10 months since we cut TCAT to get discussions started so cutting in half to start is a reasonable approach. Mr. Engman asked the board if they wanted to try and decide this issue now or come back to it later. Ms. Hunter thought it was part of a bigger picture and they should go back to it and the feeling of the board was to come back to it. Pg. 9 Mr. DePaolo noted that Mr. Levine mentioned that no one else has come to us with value-added propositions but in looking at the proposed cuts, the Learning Web is essentially a contract and we receive a certain number of apprenticeships and the return is known etc. He stated that Mr. Engman proposed these cuts as a way to keep it neat and clean by proposing 50% reductions in this group of expenditures but he did not think it was neat and clean and he was unsure that we can avoid evaluating the legitimacy of spending money on these individual programs just because it is easier to do as a group. He thought we should go down this list and he thought that each member probably has their favorite and would like to see some compromise on so we will have to go down the list. Mr. DePaolo started with the Learning Web and the one thing that sticks in his mind as a liaison for the Joint Youth Commission is that the JYC itself seems to favor this program over some of the other expenditures so if there is some feeling among the membership as an advisory body, the will of that body is not being valued. As liaison he is reporting this and there is some feeling that the town does not value the input of the JYC as far as advising where monies are to be spent. He also pointed out that there was a reduction to Coddington Road summer camps and he thought that was done because the management there failed to achieve JYC targets for the number of youth that were supposed to be served so the JYC made the decision to reduce their funding so at a minimum,he would like to see that amount reallocated for the Learning Web. Another thing that stuck out to him in the Community Services line was that the Community Science Institute is slated for an increase in funding and he would propose that given the fact that they saw a rather healthy increase in 2013-2014 that they are maintained at the level of 2014 which would result in a $700 amount that could be reallocated to the Learning Web. Mr. DePaolo then said that he would like to look at the things that we shouldn't be spending money on which would pay for the cuts we are considering. Mr. Engman noted where the full list of Community Services could be found,A15, the summary of appropriations and asked Mr.DePaolo how he wanted to proceed since he mentioned a number of things. Mr. DePaolo stated that at a minimum, the cut to Coddington was unexpected because we had anticipated continuing their funding which is a$3,237 reduction that we weren't anticipating and that should stay in Youth Services and to the Learning Web. He also didn't know what the justification was for the Community Science Center was. Mr.Engman responded that they have had some spectacular results; they are the ones that found out the Village of Trumansburg sewage treatment plant was dumping raw sewage into Cayuga Lake through their monitoring program and they are involved in the Cornell study and they are delivering more than we expected since we spoke to them a year ago about quantifying their efforts and putting them into something useful. Mr. DePaolo responded that he agrees but it is conspicuous that that one is being set apart and given an increase when you can point to any one of these programs and say they have done something great this year. Mr.Engman responded that he considers the Community Science Center as one of our programs since we started it decades ago as our way of continuing town involvement in water quality monitoring and it is run by primarily volunteers and we get the most bang for our buck. Ms. Leary noted that a lot of the Town residents are getting older and especially with Gadabout, it would be nice to maintain that because it is specifically targeted to elderly and disabled Pg. 10 residents so that might be one we want to consider fully funding. It is different from recreation /00111` and more like human services and there is a fee for using if you don't fall into one of the categories and they use a lot of volunteer drivers. Mr. Howe said that it is hard to go through this and to him it seems that this is a separate discussion during the budget process in the beginning because there is so much to go into and assess when it is different amounts and what the affect will be on the program. There is a big difference between cutting$3K form a$8K budget or$40K form a$125k budget and that needs to be looked at and he doesn't know what to do with it as a whole or going through each. Mr. Goodman suggested that the board look at what the board is willing to cut and then look at whether we increase the amount taken from fund balance or look somewhere else. Ms. Hunter asked if we have received request from other entities and Mr. Engman responded that we have received letters from some but this has never been about the quality of the services; these are all good programs but the question is what the town should be concentrating on in terms of its own budgeting and whether things are fair or not in the funding streams from other municipalities. He added that his favorite is the library and every other municipality has their own library because they are so far out but ours is right in the middle of our municipality but happens to be located in the city and he would advocate for adding that back and that is what he was saying earlier in that once you start adding back in, how do you argue about not adding everything back in and there go the savings. Ms. Leary responded that there is a difference in the amount of say restoring 6k to Gadabout versus the$55K for the City parks because there would be a big savings there and there is a strategy that we are trying to do with the city parks to induce talks or changes whereas it is a straight cut from Gadabout,which is much smaller and our contribution would go much further and we don't have governance issues with them. Ms. Hunter asked Ms. Carrier-Titti about the information technology contractual lines in the water and sewer funds and she responded that those are for maintaining infrastructure and software costs and licenses etc. under contractual. Ms. Hunter turned to Buildings and Grounds, 1620.400 pg. A5, Contractual—has $90K in the general contractual line and she wondered what that was, especially since the YTD spent was under$300 so was it necessary to keep such a large amount in that line. Mr. Solvig responded that in the summary on pg. 2 PW line item description, that line is made up for specific projects and the $90K is$35K for the boiler room exterior stairway repairs, $30K for replacing the drywell on Tioga St., and $15Kfor sound absorbing panels in the Town Clerk, PEZ and straight back and $10K painting of the general office areas of Town Hall. Ms. Hunter asked if we were contracting that out or doing it in-house and Mr. Solvig didn't know at this point. Mr. DePaolo asked about the $35K for the stairway and Mr.Weber responded that that was identified as a hazard by our insurance company because it is identified as an emergency exit. Ms. Hunter asked why the discrepancy in the budgeted amount and the amount spent. Mr. /0OWN Weber responded that the stairwell was budgeted in 2014 but that had to be shifted to replacing the small boiler which failed so the funds for the stairwell this year were used for the boiler and the boiler which was slated for 2015 is now the stairwell. The replacement of the drywell is Pg. 11 being researched now and the corner of the building has been identified as a source of mold and a health hazard. Ms. Hunter asked Ms. Drake to explain pg A9, 7320.464 Youth Employment Program, $74,362 which is up by about$45K. Mr. Engman responded that this was the line where we are putting the Town of Caroline and the increase funds from the County; the amount the Town is putting in is the same. Ms. Hunter asked about the Contractual line in Sewer and Water and the difference between the budgeted amount and the YTD expenditure. Stormwater management projects seem to be the focus. Mr. Weber responded that the work began just the past month or so because these types of projects are done when time is available and he anticipates using close to the budgeted amount. Mr. Solvig added that the repairs to the Elm St. Ext came in way below what we had estimated. Ms. Hunter turned to the office reconfiguration. She was not sure if the design that we have come up with addresses the problem or is bigger than other problems we are facing. She was also concerned that once this is approved, the board then is out of the decision making process. She was willing to take some money and put it in a reserve fund to then engage staff and come up with a better design that may be less expensive and take those funds for community services. She didn't feel the renovations benefit the community at large. Mr. Engman responded that this project goes back many years and when he started he found a staff that did not communicate and had silos with separate groups working against each other. We had retreats, training programs and some turn over. The current group works very well now at the management level but we have not had as much success at the support staff level and there is some carryover from the previous systems and the support staff feel that they manage their own time and programming and feel free to say"no"to helping out and we have to come up with a system to eliminate that sort of approach and serve the public better by having good coverage so when someone walks in the door they immediately see someone to help them and so that when coverage is needed or requested, it will be there. We also want to do cross training so that everyone knows enough to provide the basic services for the customers. Over two years ago we started looking at the entire alignment of the support staff as well as what we could do to the arrangement of the office to facilitate communication and cooperation. We hired a consultant and 9 versions were discussed with the support staff. Support staff had varying reactions and most had concerns about items that would affect them personally but that is normal,most people do not like change and they don't want to lose total control over their function but that's what we need. This reconfiguration is not an end in and of itself; it is a means to an end. After all the department heads, the consultant and he as Town Supervisor reviewed numerous options the one submitted to the Board comes as a recommendation from that group asking for this expenditure in order to improve our service to the public. It isn't just a reconstruction project. Mr. DePaolo said that means that in order to increase our service to the public we have to reduce our service to the public and Mr. Engman reminded him that this is a one-time expenditure and the other programs are annual. The $100K for the renovation is a one-time while a$100K to the others over ten years is a $1M. Mr. DePaolo had a couple of comments saying that his instinct is that people either work well together or they don't and he didn't know if remodeling town hall, particularly when you compare this facility with municipal facilities in other municipalities Pg. 12 noting that when he has committee meetings in other municipalities they have a fax, and air !'r`*N conditioner and a roll of duct tape so we need to put these things into perspective. This is,by comparison, a very elaborate and functional facility and what you are considering here does more than what you would need to do minimally to address some of the more glaring problems such as immediate point of contact with the public and that sort of thing. Mr. DePaolo went on to say that those were his general comments but specifically, he had questions about the budgeted costs versus the estimates sent out by Ms.Terwilliger from the consultant. The furniture line, for example, is$45K in the budget yet the furnishings in the Chang estimate is $17K. Mr. Engman replied that the carpeting that we had anticipated changing regardless of any renovation is in there so we changed some things in the Chang estimate to add things that we were going to do anyway regardless of what we do with the reconfiguration. Mr. Solvig responded that he has$10K for the filing cabinets, $10K for the desks in the PEZ area, $11,500 for carpeting and Mr. DePaolo asked everyone to look at the estimate from Ms. Chang which in aggregate is $118K but we have $145K proposed plus the $15K for the acoustical tiles, it seems to exceed by a significant amount the aggregate amount of the professional proposal and he asked what the discrepancy is. Mr. Solvig responded that his experience in remodeling is that you always go over the estimate and we can adjust those estimates but as you get into remodeling projects you come across different things that you want to get done and make sense to get done that were not or may not necessarily be part of the project that the consultant was asked to look at. For example, he didn't know what grade of furniture she was proposing and he recommends that you go with high-grade �..,� furniture because cheaper stuff doesn't last; if you are going to do it, do it right. Mr. DePaolo asked if he had some reason to believe that Ms. Chang was estimating with cheap furniture? Mr. Weber added that the work by Ms. Chang has been conceptual up to this point and until you get to the next phase,you don't know. Mr. DePaolo responded by saying that if we don't have that level of specificity,why would we approve a budget with something so much larger instead of approving what she recommends and then come back with any increases that may be needed? Mr. Solvig responded that we could do that. Ms. Hunter added that when she looks at this design she thought the lack of visual connection with the clerk's area and the lobby is a safety issue and there are potential problems with the design and the foundation of the decision and the board hasn't had an opportunity to discuss this project in relation to other projects and the cuts needed to make it happen and we have to discuss this. She was not opposed to putting$50K in a reserve fund and have some meaningful discussions at the board level about this; this is supposed to solve some personnel issues and there may be other ways and we may come out of it with replacing the tiles and the rugs but this is a big expenditure given our fiscal future. She does not want to lose a say in the review of the design which seems to happen now after something is approved at the budget level. Ms. Leary thought that the way she understood it, there are still a lot of details to be worked out and the board would be involved in those with the architect. Mr. Engman responded that the problem with things like this; like a public works project such as a tank replacement, once we decided something needs to be done we don't hold up a project on the final details or amounts until we all decided what the color of the tank should be. We allocate the money and say we are going to do it and we do it. He sees this as somewhat similar; if we don't have the allocation by the Board to go ahead and get it done, then we shouldn't be Pg. 13 nickeling and diming it and not knowing whether we should go ahead or not. We have to have engineering plans drawn up,get permits, all those sorts of things and going ahead without knowing that we have the allocation from the Board is not worthwhile. The Town Board trying to micromanage this project would be like micromanaging the erection of a water tower; he did not see the point in that happening. Ms. Leary stated that she does not mind going ahead but there is room for some of the details to be worked out as we go but shouldn't hold them up and her only concern was the interface between the clerks and the lobby and she thought it would be nice to have a clear,more conspicuous entryway etc. but that is a detail, the general project should go forward but as decisions come up we should weigh in on it. Mr. Engman responded that she has hit on the whole idea; when people come in right now, they see this little door and they think that is private and they can't come in plus the problem of climate control and the coverage of the window area. That was part of the whole design, to say come on in we are waiting for you and ready to help you and again, the consultant and the entire management team are in agreement that this will work and that is what we are proposing. Mr. Goodman thought that the board would be involved along the way because we will have to approve contracts so approving the line item doesn't mean we are not involved. Mr. Solvig responded that the contract would have to be approved by the board and the board can specify that they would like to approve the specifications before they go out to bid. He added that we understand that this plan isn't the perfect plan but the department heads have looked at this and decided that it solves the problems that were identified as priorities even though it may cause some other problems. Mr. DePaolo turned to the $150K budgeted for the boiler replacement and the$100K for the emergency generator and neither is supported by any estimates with research to back them. If we reduce both of those expenditures by$50K and then have actual research done on both and if needed come back for more money since they don't seem to be grounded in reality. Mr. Weber responded that these numbers are done in May and June and are best estimates. The emergency generator comes from the Emergency Management Policy and he has started to research that and pull together information on our usage and just the generator is$45K with the other part being the connections for gas and electric and the permitting that will be needed etc. etc. Mr. Weber stated that they are comfortable with the amount and Mr. DePaolo asked if the basis is for the generator to power the entire facility and Mr.Weber responded that it was. Mr. DePaolo asked if it was logical that we would need full power and there is no room to shut down some needs since this is an insurance policy in essence and for the one time in 20-30 years that it may be needed we can't run at half power for the few days it takes to restore municipal facilities? Mr.Weber responded that we shouldn't pick and choose what can and cannot be done in an emergency situation. We need to have all of our equipment up and ready and maintained so to say that we can worry about turning some things off to conserve etc. is not ideal and there may be other municipalities using our facility and resources. Mr. Engman added that we always think it isn't going to happen to us but FEMA says that if we have a plan set up and we do have an emergency we may not get any reimbursement if there is an emergency if we haven't done what we have stated we would do in the emergency plan. Mr.DePaolo thought it was not fiscally responsible to budget for this without professional estimates and Mr. Engman responded that we have been talking about this for a few years but it Pg. 14 doesn't make sense to do anything with a project until we have an allocation and this is where /00� you have to trust your professional staff. Mr. Weber responded that he just got the professional estimate on the design and it was to be presented at the next Public Works Committee but in general we do not do in-depth engineering estimates until we know we are moving forward and the allocations have been made. Mr. DePaolo stated that he was skeptical that we need a generator of that size and cost and Mr. Weber reiterated that the generator itself is $45K but the project entails a lot more and that is where the costs are. Mr. DePaolo turned to the boiler replacement that also sounds like a lot of money because he has bounced that figure off some people he knows and they thought they could do it for half that so again, he didn't know how or why we should allocate this amount of money without some information to back it up. Mr. Engman commented that an example is the small boiler and when that was replaced it uncovered a host of other problems and that is why you have to be careful to budget for the full project not just the item. Mr. DePaolo asked what the estimate was based on and Mr.Weber responded that they used the information provided by the consultant, O'Brien and Gere,who looked at the HVAC system. Mr. DePaolo stated that he did not think the full amount needs to be budgeted before there is an actual estimate because we are in a climate where we are cutting programs and we are setting aside $150K for something that we don't know all that much about, so yes, I am nickeling and diming because we are nickel and diming our program suppliers so it does come down to how much money do we need now because we are telling people we have no money,so that is the bottom line. Ms. Leary asked if there was a reason why we did not want to bond for this type of thing because rates are still low and she wondered if it was timing or lack of information because it would not come out of this year's budget and would be free money and Mr. Engman responded that we wouldn't want to bond for this type of amount and you will still pay 3% interest plus the ancillary bonding costs and Mr.Solvig agreed. Mr. Engman added that this is an example of us saying let's delay or put off our own internal projects in order to justify giving money to other municipalities for running their own programs and he didn't get that. We put off the generator last year and there wasn't enough money so we didn't move ahead and this is a budgeting approach that causes more problems than it solves. Ms. Leary wanted to make the point that the cuts that we are thinking about is not just because we don't have enough money this year,but these are recurring expenses and we have to keep that in mind but part of our thinking is strategic,especially for the bigger ticket items, to force a broader involvement of other municipalities so it is not just a budget issue but a strategic issue. Mr. Engman noted the time and there are a number of other items that need to be finished and asked the board if there were any other items for discussion because at our next meeting we will really have to make some decisions because we must have a budget in place by November 20`h and we need to give Mr. Solvig enough time to submit the numbers to the State and then adopt the budget. The Board decided to continue the discussion at the Study Session on October 27`h and hold it in the main boardroom at its normal time. Pg. 15 Agenda Item S Discuss and consider approval of the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility's 2015 Budget Mr. Engman explained that for the Town it is an even budget. Mr. Goodman asked about the expenditure line that shows about $300K more than income; about $200K which is a transfer to the capital reserves account so he assumes there is about a$100K more expenditures and he wondered where that was coming from. Mr. Engman responded that he thought it was coming from fund balance and Mr. Goodman asked about the particulars of why that was being done. Mr. Engman thought it was for the major projects that are being done under NYSERDA which is a multi-million dollar project but will be cost neutral with savings from operations and Johnson Controls having to make up any difference in costs if that is necessary but they don't expect that to be the case. The idea is to change the focus of the facility to an energy producing plant instead of a sewage treatment plant and the current director is amazing and it will be a completely different facility when all of this is done. We are already seeing savings in our operating expenses. There is actually a little battle brewing over who will get the food waste from Cornell and the whole thing is very interesting and exciting. TB Resolution No. 2014- 168: Approval of the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility 2015 Budget Whereas, the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility's 2015 Budget has been submitted to the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca and discussed and considered at its October 2, 2014 Budget meeting; now, therefore,be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the 2015 Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility Budget. Moved: Tee Ann Hunter Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes—Hunter, DePaolo, Engman, Goodman,Howe, Leary and Levine Agenda Item 9 Discuss Chain Works District—Consider concurrence with designation of the City of Ithaca as Lead Agency Mr. Engman noted that Ms. Ritter has provided the board with a lot of background information and a memo including some of the drawings and maps and the Planning Committee has looked at some of the material. Her suggestion is that the Board concur because we will still have input and at the end we can still issue our own Findings Statement. Since the majority of the buildings in the first phase of the project will be in the City of Ithaca it seems to make sense for them to be the lead agency. Mr. DePaolo asked about legal costs and whether there was any discussion about the City charging us for the EIS and similar tasks. Ms. Ritter responded that a percentage of the cost of reviewing the EIS can be charged to the developer and Ms. Brock added that the Lead Agency prepares the documents and Mr. DePaolo noted that that is his concern; that the City will come and ask for funds for that. Ms. Ritter responded that there will be costs for our attorney to review and comment on what the City prepares but there haven't been discussions about costs and she hasn't heard of a Lead Agency asking for money from an Involved Agency before. Mr. Engman added that no one has approached him about that and the assumption is they would not Pg. 16 ask us but it is an unknown at this point. He thought it was nice for the City to do it just in terms of the amount of time needed and Ms. Ritter added that at some point the Town Board has to have a conversation about how involved you want to be. TB Resolution No. 2014-169: Concurrence that the Citv of Ithaca Planning and Development Board be declared Lead Agency under SEQRA for Chain Works District Prolect Whereas, Unchained Properties, LLC. proposes to develop the Chain Works District,a mixed use development located in the Town and City of Ithaca(810 Danby Road/620-40 Aurora Street) on the former Emerson Power Transmission/Morse Chain factory property; the proposed project includes repurposing large portions of the former factory building,with long range future phases to involve enlarging the development footprint with new buildings on portions of the 90-acre property, and Whereas, development of the project will require rezoning by the Ithaca Town Board and City of Ithaca Common Council, site plan approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and potentially other approvals from State and County agencies, and Whereas, the Chain Works District project is a Type I action under SEQRA and will be conducted as a coordinated review among the various agencies that have discretionary decision authority to approve certain aspects of the project, and Whereas,while both the Town and City will be affected by the repurposing of the former factory, certain environmental impacts are likely to be more concentrated within the City, such as traffic and stormwater runoff, and Whereas, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has indicated, in a letter dated September 23, 2014, its intent to serve as the lead agency for the environmental review of the Chain Works District project, now therefore be it: Resolved, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby concurs with the designation of the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board as lead agency under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the purpose of overseeing the environmental review of the Chain Works District project. Moved: Tee Ann Hunter Seconded: Rod Howe Vote: ayes—Hunter, Howe, Leary, Levine, DePaolo, Engman and Goodman Agenda Item 10 Discuss and consider approval of adding the Platinum Plan to the Health Insurance Plan options Ms. Drake explained that this is an opportunity for the Town to offer more than one plan that ,.r•� may be a more cost efficient plan for some employees. It is a step down from our current plan but as the percentage that employees pay goes up, it is an option that some may choose. Pg. 17 TB Resolution No.2014- 170: Approve Offering Standard Platinum Plan Whereas, the Greater Tompkins County Municipal Health Insurance Consortium(Consortium) has approved the Standard Platinum Plan to be available January 1, 2015; and Whereas, the Personnel and Organization Committee has reviewed the Standard Platinum Plan as it compares to the Town's current Participating Provider Organization(PPO)plan; and Whereas, the Personnel and Organization Committee recommends that the Town consider offering the Standard Platinum Plan as an additional health insurance plan option to employees at a 2015 monthly premium of$540.75 Individual and$1,405.95 Family; now,therefore,be it Resolved, that the Town Board does hereby approve offering the Consortium's Standard Platinum Plan effective January 1,2015 as an additional health insurance plan option for employees. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Pat Leary Vote: Ayes—Goodman, Leary, Hunter, Levine, DePaolo, Engman and Howe Agenda Item 11 Consider setting a public hearing regarding a Public Interest Order: NYS Route 13 Water Main Crossing—SCLIWIC Mr. Engman noted that this is a redo of a public interest the board already approved because the numbers estimated were incorrect and Ms. Brock added that the percentages, allocations and costs have been reviewed by the director, herself and the lawyer for the Commission and it is now fair and firm and she suggested that the words"pursuant to an amended public interest order"be added to the resolution to make it clear that this has been amended. TB Resolution No. 2014 - 171: Order Setting a Public Hearing Regarding a Proposed Water Improvement for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, in Connection with other Members of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission, pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, to be known as the NYS Route 13 Water Main Crossing Water Improvement, and establishing the NYS Route 13 Water Main Crossing Water Improvement Area Present: Herb Engman, Bill Goodman, Rich DePaolo, Rod Howe,Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine and Pat Leary (via FaceTime) Absent: None Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Tee Ann Hunter Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, in conjunction with the Village of Lansing and the Village of Cayuga Heights, and the Towns of Lansing and Dryden, has determined and agreed to participate in the provision of a joint water project for a new water main crossing under NYS 13 and connection of the new main to the existing Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (SCLIWC) water system pursuant an Agreement of Municipal Cooperation for Construction, Financing and Operation of an Inter- /a"1 Municipal Water Supply and Transmission System(the"Intermunicipal Agreement"); and Pg. 18 Whereas, a map, plan and report, including an estimate of cost, have been duly prepared in such manner and in such detail as has heretofore been determined by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, relating to the establishment and construction, pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, of water system improvements to be known and identified as the NYS Route 13 Water Main Crossing Water Improvement, (the "Improvement") of the Town of Ithaca, to provide such water Improvement to the present Town water system, such water system Improvement to be constructed and owned by the Village of Lansing and used by SCLIWC on a temporary emergency basis whenever it cannot use its existing water main under NYS Route 13; to serve a benefitted area in said Town to be known as the NYS Route 13 Water Main Crossing Water Improvement Area(the"Water Improvement Area"); and Whereas, said map, plan and report, including estimate of cost, were prepared by a competent engineer, duly licensed by the State of New York and have been filed in the office of the Town Clerk of said Town, where the same are available during regular office hours for examination by any person or persons interested in the subject matter thereof; and Whereas, the area of said Town determined to be benefited by said NYS Route 13 Water Main Crossing Water Improvement Area consists of the entire area of said Town excepting therefrom the area contained within the Village of Cayuga Heights; and Whereas, the Improvement proposed in connection with the establishment of the Water Improvement Area consists of approximately 425 feet of 18-inch ductile iron pipe, gate valves, �••, connections to SCLIWC's existing water main and other necessary fittings and related ancillary facilities, at an initially determined maximum estimated cost to said Water Improvement Area of $141,000, it being determined that the (1) additional $131,000 of the $272,000 aggregate maximum estimated cost shall be initially apportioned and allocated to the Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights and water districts in the Towns of Lansing and Dryden, and that (2) the ultimate share of the cost to be allocated to the Town of Ithaca pursuant to the aforedescribed Intermunicipal Agreement shall be determined on the basis of benefits received or conferred or to be received or conferred from the aforesaid Improvement; and Whereas, said $272,000 maximum estimated cost shall be authorized to be paid from the SCLIWC Capital Improvement/Replacement fund, which fund contains revenues paid by SCLIWC members to SCLIWC for water sales from SCLIWC to its members, with the Town of Ithaca's share paid by money in this fund from water rates from the Town of Ithaca Water Improvement Area; and Whereas, said maximum estimated cost, as to the Town of Ithaca, of$141,000 is not greater than one-tenth of one per centum of the full valuation of taxable real property in the area of the Town of Ithaca outside of any villages; and Whereas, the Improvement to be constructed and owned by the Village of Lansing and used by SCLIWC on a temporary emergency basis will be subject to a use agreement between the SCLIWC members and the Village of Lansing, which agreement will apportion the expenses of construction of the project between the SCLIWC members and the Village of Lansing; and Pg. 19 Whereas, it is now desired to call a public hearing for the purpose of considering said map, plan and report, including estimate of cost, and the providing of the Improvement, pursuant to an amended public interest order, and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same, all in accordance with the provisions of Section 209-q of the Town Law; Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as follows: Section 1. A public hearing shall be held by Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, in Ithaca, New York, in said Town, on the 10th day of November, 2014, at 5:30 o'clock P.M., Prevailing Time, to consider the aforesaid plan, report and map, including estimate of cost, and the question of providing the Improvement, and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same and to take such action thereon as is required by law. Section 2. The Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish a Notice of Public Hearing regarding the aforesaid Improvement to be published once in the official newspaper, and also to post a copy thereof on the town signboard maintained by the Town Clerk, not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty(20)days before the day designated for the hearing as aforesaid, all in accordance with the provisions of Section 209-q of the Town Law. Section 3. This Order shall take effect immediately. The question of the adoption of the foregoing Order was duly put to a vote on roll call, which resulted as follows: Herb Engman, aye; Bill Goodman, aye; Pat Leary, aye; Rod Howe, aye; Eric Levine, aye; Tee Ann Hunter, aye and Rich DePaolo, aye. The Order was thereupon declared duly adopted. Agenda Item 12 Discuss and consider approval of a stipend for Judge Salk TB Resolution No. 2014- 172: Approval of a Temporary Stipend for Judge Salk Whereas,Judge Klein has been on a leave of absence since July 7,2014 and is expected to be out through October; and Whereas,Judge Salk has assumed responsibility for both courts during Judge Klein's absence; and Whereas, the Personnel and Organization Committee discussed the situation and recommends that the Town Board approve a monthly stipend for Judge Salk for the extended coverage of the caseload for both courts since July at an amount of$500 per month for July, August, September and October; now,therefore,be it Resolved, that the Town Board does hereby approve a monthly stipend for Judge Salk as recommended and set forth above. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Pat Leary Pg. 20 Vote: Ayes—Goodman, Leary, Levine, Hunter,DePaolo, Howe and Engman Agenda Item 13 Consider Consent Agenda Items TB Resolution 2014- 173:Adopt Consent Agenda Resolved,that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda items: a. Approval of Town Board Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2014 b. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract c. Ratify appointment of Water Maintenance Specialist—Bolton Point Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes—Howe,DePaolo, Hunter, Leary, Levine, Engman and Goodman TB Resolution No.2014- 173a: Approval of Minutes of September 22,2014 Whereas, the draft Minutes of the September 22, 2014 meetings of the Town Board have been submitted for review and approval, now therefore be it Resolved,that the Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes as the final minutes of the meeting September 22, 2014 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. TB Resolution No. 2014-173b: Bolton Point Abstract Whereas, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment; and Whereas, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now, therefore,be it Resolved, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers. Voucher Numbers: 434-494 Check Numbers: 15498-15558 Burdick Hill Tanks Project $ 0 Capital Impr/Repl Project $ 288.00 Operating Fund $ 86,280.03 TOTAL $ 869568.03 Less Prepaid $ 421,078.30 TOTAL $ 441489.73 Pg. 21 TB Resolution No.2014-173c: Ratify Appointment of Water Maintenance Specialist- SCLIWC. Whereas, there is a vacancy in the full time position of Water Maintenance Specialist in the Distribution Department at Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission; and Whereas, the Distribution Manager, General Manager, and Human Resources Manager interviewed 8 candidates from the open recruitment for the position; and Whereas,the said have determined that Cory VanNederynen possesses the necessary knowledge and skills to satisfactorily perform the duties of a Water Maintenance Specialist; and Whereas, Cory VanNederynen was appointed by SCLIWC at the October 9, 2014 meeting based on a full time level of 40 hours per week,effective October 6, 2014; Now, therefore,be it Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby ratify SCLIWC's appointment of Cory VanNederynen as a full time of Water Maintenance Specialist in the Distribution Department; and be it further Resolved, this is a 40 hours a week position, at the hourly wage of$15.69 from account number SW8340.101,with full time benefits; and be it further Resolved, a twenty six(26)week probationary period applies and shall end effective April 6, 2015,with no further action by the Commission or Town Board, if there is successful completion of the probationary period as determined by the Distribution Manager. Approval of October 2,2014 Minutes—It was noted that the section regarding the elected officials wages was not transcribed and showed Ms.Terwilliger's short notes. Ms.Terwilliger responded that she will listen to the tape and redo the minutes for the next meeting. Ms. Hunter had a question on the abstract and the boiler; we bought one boiler and we already have service calls for it? Mr. Solvig responded that they are not for the boiler itself but for the issues discovered while installing the boiler itself. Ms. Hunter was satisfied with the explanation and turned to the Better Towns and Cities and Ms. Ritter responded that that is the Park Foundation grant for community outreach and education. Ms. Hunter was satisfied with that explanation. TB Resolution No. 2014 -174: Town of Ithaca Abstract Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it Pg. 22 Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in f,.•.� total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 6045 -6138 General Fund Town wide 601,478.70 General Fund Part Town 91155.34 Highway Fund Part Town 360,970.36 Water Fund 525,302.14 Sewer Fund 9,499.34 Gateway Trail 11,040.89 Fire Protection Fund 2652116.00 Forest Home Lighting District 134.58 Glenside Lighting District 39.52 Renwick Heights Lighting District 69.53 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 92.47 Clover Lane Lighting District 12.33 Winner's Circle Lighting District 18.42 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 43.09 West Haven Road Lighting District 170.89 Coddin ton Road Lighting District 99.36 Trust and Agency 33,745.90 TOTAL 1,235,988.86 Moved: Tee Ann Hunter Seconded: Bill Goodman Vote: Ayes—Hunter, Goodman, Levine,DePaolo, Howe and Engman Abstention—Leary Agenda Item 14 Report of Town Officials Ms. Ritter reported that we have interviewed two consultant firms for the Route 96 Corridor Study and they have selected one. Consider Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:40p.m. upon a motion and a second. Submitte by Paulette Terwilliger,Town Clerk Adopted November 10,2014 Pg. 23 617.20 Appendix B Short Environmental Assessment Form Instructions for Completing Part 1 -Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part I. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1-Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: Amending Town Code,Chapter 234"Subdivision of Land,"Regarding Zones in Which Cluster Subdivisions Are Permmfted- Project Location(describe,and attach a location map): Town of Ithaca Brief Description of Proposed Action: The action is adoption of a local law to amend Town Code Chapter 234,titled "Subdivision of Land." Chapter 234 currently allows cluster subdivisions for residential units. NY Town Law Section 278 requires specification of districts that permit cluster subdivisions. The proposed modification clarifies the wording in Chapter 234 to specify the zones that will allow cluster subdivisions. The effect of the local law will not /� change where cluster subdivisions may occur, because they will be permitted in all zones except those where residential units are highly restricted and allowed only as an accessory use. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: 607-273-1747 Town of Ithaca E-Mail: Address: 215 North Tioga Street City/PO: State: Zip Code: Ithaca NY 14850 I.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES administrative rule,or regulation? If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2. El W 2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? NO YES If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval: ❑ ❑ 3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on,adjoining and near the proposed action. ❑Urban [:]Rural(non-agriculture) [:]Industrial ❑Commercial []Residential(suburban) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Aquatic Other(specify): ❑Parkland Page I of 4 A o 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑ 1:1 0 b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? El ❑ ❑ 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural NO YES landscape? El 1:1 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes,identify: ❑ ❑ 8. a.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES El ❑ b.Are public transportation service(s)available at or near the site of the proposed action? El ❑ c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? 1-1 1:1 9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: El F� 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No,describe method for providing potable water: El ❑ 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ❑ ❑ 12. a.Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES Places? El ❑ b.Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? El 13.a.Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? F-1- b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? ❑ EL If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: ❑Shoreline ❑Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑Early mid-successional ❑ Wetland ❑Urban ❑Suburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed NO YES by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? 1:1 1:1 16.Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES 17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES If Yes, ❑ ❑ a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑NO [—]YES b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems runoff and storm drains)? If Yes,briefly describe: 15 NO ❑YES Page 2 of 4 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of NO YES water or other liquids(e.g.retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? If Yes,explain purpose and size: ❑ ❑ 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed NO YES solid waste management facility? If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑ 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO I YES completed)for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑ I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: Herbert Engman, Supervisor Date: /�!9 /y Signature: Part 2-Impact Assessment. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept"Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?" AI \ No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning ❑ regulations. 2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? ❑ 3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? ❑ 4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the ❑ establishment of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)? 5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or El existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway? 6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate ❑ reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 7. Will the proposed action impact existing: ❑ a.public/private water supplies? b.public/private wastewater treatment utilities? ❑✓ ❑ 8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,archaeological, 1-1 architectural or aesthetic resources? /1 9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands, El waterbodies,groundwater,air quality, flora and fauna)? Page 3 of 4 No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainage 1:1 problems? 11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? Part 3-Determination of significance. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3. For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur",or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please complete Part 3. Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,probability of occurring, duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-term,long-term and cumulative impacts. The action is adoption of a local law to amend Town Code Chapter 234,titled"Subdivision of Land." Chapter 234 currently allows cluster subdivisions for residential units. NY Town Law Section 278 requires specification of districts that permit cluster subdivisions. The proposed modification clarifies the wording In Chapter 234 to specify the zones that will allow cluster subdivisions. The proposed amendments will allow cluster subdivision development in all zoning districts except the Office Park Commercial Zone, Vehicle Fueling and Repair Commercial Zone, Light Industrial Zone and Industrial Zone.The effect of the local law will not change where cluster subdivisions may occur, because they will be permitted in all zones except those where residential subdivisions cannot occur(because of restrictions on residential units in those four zones that allow residential units only as certain accessory uses). The local law is consistent with the recently enacted Comprehensive Plan, as it encourages compact, more .� walkable development patterns and the preservation of natural resources and agricultural lands. The law is not expected to significantly change the intensity of land or the character/quality of the existing community, although, like the law it is amending, it may result in more land preservation and more compact development in areas that currently contain conventional, large-lot suburban tract development. Unlike conventional development, clustering decreases the potential for erosion,flooding,and drainage problems by using less infrastructure and utilities while at the same time protecting trees,wetlands, slopes,wildlife and other natural resources. ❑ Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Town of Ithaca Town Board ZG__ex /y Name of Lead Agency Date Herbert Engman Supervisor Print or Type a of Respo sible icer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Si#Yure of Res nsible O r in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(if different from Responsible Officer) "/N Page 4 of 4 16 10OL000o Proposed Concept for MAGUIRE AUTOMOTIVE with Subaru - Hyundai • Fiat - Alfa Romeo - Nissan and Corporate Office SAPONI PARK with Coreorgonel Remembrance Trail to Tutelo Park 1 1 E Presentation to Ithaca Town Board October 20, 2014 SCHICKEL ARCHITECTURE i \ ov ww D o /m7 r L _ IL € / I I i r, 1 O MAGUIRE AUTOMOTIVE RRALAtvmELw.ACw.17 uw1� PROPOSED PLAN 4111 lull/11111 llllllliiill��' 1• _ I //lull/lull/ll/ll l/Il I • I earth Y VNOLWO'IXdIN0OMWI w..wrnw,wanerexvwvJVHL 1W 01011 3a190VW 1 / tsL 7 ) 8L � � OV 4Cll r; _ OV 96"S � .i `G5 9e ov co Aa313W-O ";,�ov � '/ U3TItln 13110 - 6L.x °m OV b£'Z m R _ VDVHII d0 NM01 OZ 3V U 11 o DOV 9E'Zb °b �g ZV� . L9 _ ri / I , EI0OV LLZI F[ LZ .6 OOV>fiB OO ov 19'9 O ov 66'£L , ' Z Otl 9Z'Z Z•L Oov Sk vt vZVZ _ N Z VT kl L�!$ 6 iC4 Z 1 Z JC NNtld INOdvS) f Z S - a une tl do Wl _G L . ,{ a �tlNl a OV 6 V oZ- {� OOSSVS.N31.13811 C.L - $ Nva313n vOtlHl ' z zel %vz �•� I i <p b'Z �+ 3nLLowointl Himvvi o p A ov 9f'ZZ ng _ tld ual J «.4 d�., tl002 PC's NlIWa311f1@I ov 9- 9Z.e;. ^'.7?v OZ' 9'E 9' NNVtld�� - LL 9Z� 1' $d' INOdtlS B ' 0%25.4 >b 994 nO lEE4 , < ry � Z6� � - unoo b9 b - OV lE of z, ,4 z ti m ze'B IdWO1 - - OL Z - � oy 0<v ' 3 . . . e- - cb 7 E I 1338 VO 11 ere O u6ayW4 O E4l . � h' m '9 d• �- •,yaw 56'4L 9w �` Zb pv/��� T l0'4 90L i • E v4ul do w.nol � � G'8 �;d 8 oal `gP 9L g L'LZ a, �� • Navd49 ���smilNOanHOOOy Y c� Y �. m 11'9: �oOv _ ZLZ Z t OVZr'9 b'9 9'9 8'9 6'9� 'fl' � bZ�OOVB t4 a Z9 °.. •„� Le'f' - � .,a�g O — (30tlatl0 Sn01 °.• , LEL 31 Oj� 1. - © ° M ZL - v48 � OOV f6S OIa1SOloOH�S � � Ot1095 4 flAb - ,�y owa a: oav�se ';try, - � A2:313153�_. •Sw¢ °<464 LZ L � OB - jai. - rte— 919 823 : 1 e 1 . 705 702-704 658 654 653 v' — .>.. K 638 635 630 618 I T6 to-00,0-90V X .;� Let the Town Board know that You support Ithaca's Waterfront Parks t and Recreation Facilities The Town of Ithaca is considering deal with the full costs and challenges reducing it's contribution to the Water- of owning them. CONTACTING YOUR front Parks and Recreation Facilities of Continued funding in 2015 gives TOWN OFFICIALS Cass Park and Stewart Park.If you use municipal leaders in both these local resources,or your child communities time to work toward HERB ENGMAN-TOWN participates in Recreation programs,we finding an equitable way to support SUPERVISOR need you to contact your local officials these facilities and parks. and let them know how important they Accessibility is important. BILL GOODMAN-TOWN BOARD arc.There are many reasons to support Contributions to these centrally MEMBER these parks and facilities including: located,community parks and facilities keeps them accessible to all Town of Ithaca residents use, residents regardless of income. MEMBER value and enjoy the waterfront parks ' and facilities.Our data shows that Vibrant parks increase tourism in approximately 30%of our users are our area and are good for the TEE-ANN HUNTER-TOWN Town Residents.BOARD economy. • Parks and places to play help = . ;g........ ROD HOWE-TOWN BOARD keep all residents active and healthy. MEMBER Healthy communities spend less money on healthcare costs. Ni RICH DE PAOLO-TOWN BOARD • Recreation Programs would be MEMBER offered at a discounted rate.The City D' • ' ' is willing to offer the City Discount ERIC LEVINE-TOWN BOARD Rate for all Recreation Programs to 2 0 1 5 Town Budget MEMBER you as Town of Ithaca residents.The Public Hearin g current rate structure for Recreation Oct 2 0, 20 14 5:30 PM and Recreation Partnership programs would remain the same for other at the TOWN CLERK municipalities. Town Hall 215 N Tioga St • Access to waterfront parks,an This meeting will be focused on the Olympic size swimming pool,ice 2015 Town or Ithaca Budget.It is your Town of Ithaca Town Hall rink,fitness trail,tennis courts and chance to let your board members 215 N Tloga St Ithaca NY 0 more and supplements ifs to existing Town know what is important to you and parks and trails to complete a comprehensive parks and recreation why!Let them know that using Cass ,, experience for you. Park and Stewart Park is important to • Shared services are cost clfective you!Let them know your family and sustainable.You are able to enjoy participates in recreation programs and the benefits of these parks and events.If you can't attend this meeting, facilities without the Town having to send them an e-mail or give them a call. TOWN'S CURRENT CONTRIBUTION SUPPORTS GREAT FACIUTIES AND PROGRAMS Why should the Town maintain it's current contribution level for waterfront parks and recreation facilities Cass Park - f Cass Park is a regionally active park used heavily by residents " from all parts of Tompkins County. In addition to the ice rink and �l swimming pool,there are 4 tennis courts,20 athletic fields(4 of which are lighted),playground equipment, an exercise trail, a large picnic pavilion and the Ithaca Children's Garden. Residents enjoy 2,500 feet of waterfront along 6-Mile Creek, lessons, leagues, access to the Cayuga Waterfront Trail and plentiful free parking. What would be lost without Loss of this contribution would change the costs for Town users this contribution? of the facilities, reflected in higher non-resident fees. Recreation The Recreation Department provides a broad range of recreation and leisure programming for youth of all ages. Recreational sports leagues, lessons, day camps,theater classes, art classes, cheerleading, fencing, adventure programming,Tot Spot,Tae Kwan Do and much more is offered year round to Tompkins +, County youth. For 2015 the Youth Bureau is proposing to extend the City discount to Town residents for non-Recreation - F Partnership programs. What would be lost without Loss of this contribution would mean higher fees and eliminate this contribution? the City discount extension for Town residents. Stewart Park Stewart Park is a unique park with a unique history.A jewel at the southern tip of Cayuga Lake, this park offers playground equipment,tennis courts, a large pavilion, a small pavilion, open green spaces for larger group activities and events, a duck pond, — spray pool, bird sanctuary, a carousel, and historical buildings. Residents enjoy 1,400 feet of lakefront, access to the Cayuga Waterfront Trail and plentiful free parking. What would be lost without Loss of this contribution could mean the City would need to this contribution? charge for parking.Preliminary research has been conducted. i Paulette Terwilliger From: Wendy F. Kenigsberg <wfkl @cornell.edu> Sent: Friday, October 10,2014 3:49 PM To: Herb Engman; Bill Goodman; P Leary;T Hunter, Rod Howe; Eric Levine; Paulette Terwilliger Cc: Marisa Page;Sue Schwartz;Taiya Luce; Dina E. Maxwell Subject: Please Keep funding for Ithaca's Waterfront parks&Recreation facilities Attachments: Town Resident Flier(1).pdf,ATT00001.htm Hello, I'm a resident of Ithaca,and just saw the email about the proposed reduction in contributions to the waterfront parks and recreation facilities. As a mom of an active 5 year old son,we rely on the recreation opportunities in our community! Every winter we skate at the Cass Park Rink,we are learning to swim at the pool,and we play soccer on the fields at Cass Park. Stewart Park is a special destination for us,meeting friends,and enjoying the beauty of our town,lake,and playgrounds. We play,grow,and enjoy these facilities, it's one of the reason why we chose to live here! If Ithaca can't keep it's parks,open spaces,and active areas operating,then who will? Please vote to continue funding to these rich resources for our kids,our neighbors,and the health of our community. thank you, Wendy Kenigsberg Ithaca resident of 24 years. (friends,please write our Town Board Members how you feel about the proposed cuts!) lvance@cityofithaca.org The Ithaca Youth Bureau Parks and Facilities Need Your Help! Hello Town of Ithaca Family, We wanted to be sure you knew that the Town of Ithaca is considering reducing it's contribution to the waterfront parks and recreation facilities in Ithaca. For years the Town of Ithaca has made a contribution to help keep Stewart Park, Cass Park fields,rink and pool up and running for Town residents. If you use these local resources, or your child participates in Recreation programs,we urge you to contact your local eam-pfficials and let them know how important they are. A reduction in funding -nay mean increased cost for programs and admission to the pool and rink. Let them know by attending the public hearing on Monday October 20th at 5:30PM at Town Hall or by sending an email or making a phone call. Below 1 is some contact information. 1••�Herb Engman -Town Supervisor hengman(c_)town.ithaca.ny..u_s Bill Goodman -Town Baord Member Bgoodman(a)town.ithaca.ny.us Pat Leary -Town Board Member Pleary@town.ithaca.ny.us Tee-Ann Hunter Town Baord Member Thunter(c-)town.ithaca.ny.us Rod Howe -Town Board Member RHowe(@town.ithaca.ny.us Rich De Paolo -Town Board Member RDePaolo(@town.ithaca.nv.us Eric Levine -Town Board Member elevine(a-)town.ithaca.ny.us Paulette Terwilliger-Town Clerk PTerwilliger(ubtown.ithaca.ny.us Address: Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 N Tioga Street Ithaca NY 14850 (607)273-1721 Liz Vance,Acting Director Ithaca Youth Bureau 1 James L. Gibbs Dr. Ithaca, NY 14850 607-273-8364 �LVance(a�cityofithaca.org "Fear of the unknown and the other is the root of almost all hate. It is born of ignorance and fed by those who would keep us divided." Tinnekke Bebout(Poet and mystic) 2 Paulette Terwilliger From: Barb Bassette <barb.bassette @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 11,2014 9:00 AM To: Paulette Terwilliger Subject: loss of contribution I live in the town of Ithaca,and I use the trails and parks every day. Please continue to support these areas. I want to do my fair share to pay for what I use and believe in.As a citizen of this area, I have no desire to pay less so others pay more for what I use,enjoy and depend on. Thank you. Barb Bassette 839 Taughannock Blvd. 273.4998 1 Paulette Terwilliger From: Herb Engman Sent: Tuesday, October 14,2014 8:42 AM To: Bill Goodman; E Levine; Herb Engman; PLearyContact, RDepaoloContact; R Howe; THunterContact Cc: Paulette Terwilliger, Mike Solvig Subject: FW: Please continue Town's contribution to IYB &Cass Park, Stewart Park,and Rink; Town's poor handling of Farm issues. Herbert J. Engman Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273-1721 Ext. 125 From: Claire Forest [mailto:cnd3Ca�cornell.edul Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 11:26 AM To: Herb Engman Cc: Bill Goodman; Eric Levine Subject: Please continue Town's contribution to IYB&Cass Park, Stewart Park, and Rink; Town's poor handling of Farm issues. /O"1 Hello Herb, Bill, Eric, My family uses IYB,Cass Park,and the Rink. Cutting those services from the Town budget would be"penny wise yet pound foolish". Surely you can find other places to cut. For example,why do we need both a Town Supervisor and an Associate Town Supervisor)?Although both of the Town's Supervisors seem to lack direct experience with these services, most taxpayers currently or formerly had children who use these vital services. I pay enormous taxes to the Town, but get little for my money except fire protection and very rare public safety work from the Town highway dept. Mostly the Town spends my money wasting farmers' time asking for"input"you then ignore,such as reducing our rights by changing the zoning laws. You already lost one of the Town's most vigorous farmers who defected to his Town of Newfield land once it was clear that you had no intention of listening to our collective wisdom. We farmers are literally"shushed" by the Ag committee Chair who does not want to hear the truth.So farmers meet informally with each other on our farms,where we can actually talk about things. While you are busy patting`yourseIves on the back for the Comprehensive Plan you railroaded through against the farmers'advice, many farmers are making other plans now that it is clear you are hell-bent on making it impossible to farm in Ithaca. If you can't be on the right side of farming,the least you can do is continue to give a pittance so young people have a place to play sports and skate. If you continue on your current track,you will be remembered as the curmudgeons who 'killed farming and sent the Town's young people into the streets. Claire Forest 1 Paulette Terwilliger From: Jessica Hoff<mjihoff @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 9:06 AM To: Herb Engman; Bill Goodman; P Leary;T Hunter; Rod Howe; Rich DePaolo; Eric Levine; Paulette Terwilliger Subject: Town of Ithaca considering decreased contributions to Cass Park Hello, It's been brought to my attention that the town of Ithaca is considering decreasing their contribution to the services provided by Cass Park and the Ithaca Youth Bureau. I am writing to you today in hopes that you would not decrease this contribution. Cass Park has been a wonderful place for us to go as a family for the last 8 years. Our children participate in their swimming programs as well as their ice skating programs. The town of Ithaca helps to make this an affordable activity for our family. I sincerely hope that the board would continue to support this very important, family and community project. Thank you for your time, Jessica Hoff 1 Paulette Terwilliger From: Herb Engman Sent: Tuesday, October 14,20141:27 PM To: Bill Goodman; E Levine; Herb Engman; PLearyContact; RDepaoloContact; R Howe; THunterContact Cc: Paulette Terwilliger; Mike Solvig Subject: FW:2015 Budget-Youth and Rec services for Town Residents Herbert J. Engman Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607) 273-1721 Ext. 125 From: Duncan Ames Bell [mailto:dabl2@cornell.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 11:58 AM To:T Hunter; Rich DePaolo; Eric Levine; Herb Engman Subject: 2015 Budget-Youth and Rec services for Town Residents Dear Town Board Members, As you are discussing budget issues for 2015 1 want to let you know that I strongly support Town involvement with the City of Ithaca Park/Recreation partnership. I'm sure there are challenges to figuring out real equity between municipalities,but nevertheless my family uses the Cass Park facilities quite often year-round and many programs offered by the Ithaca Youth Bureau. We already pay the partnership rate for many of these programs and paying higher non-partnership fees would be quite expensive. I also feel that *upporting at some level the two large parks in the area-Cass Park and Stewart Park-is important for all residents in the area. Best, Duncan Bell Duncan A.Bell Registrar,College of Engineering Cornell University 158 Olin Hall 607-255-7140 dab12 @cornell.edu 1 Paulette Terwilliger From: Herb Engman Sent: Tuesday, October 14,2014 2:01 PM To: Bill Goodman; E Levine; Herb Engman; PLearyContact; RDepaoloContact; R Howe; THunterContact Cc: Paulette Terwilliger, Mike Solvig Subject: FW: Do not cut funding to Waterfront park and recreation Herbert J. Engman Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273-1721 Ext. 125 From: Elaine Chiu [mailto:elaine1220@)yahoo.coml Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:46 PM To: Herb Engman Subject: Do not cut funding to Waterfront park and recreation Hi, mks every Ithacan knows how important Steward park, Cass park, the rink and the pool mean to everyone's daily life in Ithaca. our children have good places to run, skate, swim and enjoy the fantastic lake and inlet view,and have great recreation programs to go to cause Town of Ithaca support and contribute. On the same token, all the residents in Town of Ithaca contribute taxes to town diligently every year. So,please DO NOT CUT FUNDING TO WATERFRONT PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS. Support your town residents and we will support you. Many Thanks.... Town Resident, Elaine i Paulette Terwilliger 1^\ From: Lois C. Levitan <lcl3 @cornell.edu> Sent: Tuesday, October 14,2014 4:30 PM To: Herb Engman; Bill Goodman; Rod Howe Cc: Lois C. Levitan; Paulette Terwilliger Subject: Support for City Parks Dear Rod, Bill and Herb As someone who identifies as an Ithacan, and wonders why we have both a Town of Ithaca and a City of Ithaca, I am writing to those of you I know who are on the Ithaca Town Board to urge you to reconsider the proposal to withhold support for the parks and recreational facilities located in the City. The City that is also the heart of the Town. I think these facilities should be under County auspices, funded by County dollars generated from taxes and other sources. But until that more level playing field is put in place, I would hate to see the Town abandon the City to fund these beloved facilities on their own. Thanks for your consideration, Lois Levitan ---------------------------------------- Lois Levitan 120 Homestead Circle Ithaca NY 14850 Phones: cell 607-592-0356 office 607-255-4765 Email: LCL3 @cornell.edu 1 . Friends yd � tewart Park October 20, 2014 Dear Town of Ithaca Board Members, The Friends of Stewart is passionately committed to revitalizing Ithaca's historic waterfront park, and we encourage the Town of Ithaca to continue funding for all of Ithaca's waterfront parks and recreation facilities. Acknowledging that all of our municipalities are struggling with tight budgets and difficult choices, we believe that Stewart Park is every resident's park-and we are inspired by investments being made in Stewart Park improvements, not only by the city of Ithaca, but also by the Tompkins County Legislature and the State of New York. Stewart Park, Cass Park and the Waterfront Trail are used extensively by Town of Ithaca residents..... * walking and biking the Waterfront Trail enjoying picnics and special events * running thru the Stewart Park spray pad or jumping into the Cass Park pool * sitting on a park bench watching the sun set through the willow trees Our waterfront parks create a healthier lifestyle for all residents, provide much appreciated green space for a growing population, and allow access to the natural beauty, flora and fauna that surround Cayuga Lake. Friends of Stewart Park is working hard to raise money and awareness for important park improvement projects — many projects have already been completed -- that will enhance the enjoyment and use of the park for all residents. We have as our goal a revitalized park by its 1001" birthday in July 2021. Town of Ithaca residents are active users of Stewart Park, and supporting these community gems is everyone's responsibility. We respectfully request that the Town of Ithaca continues historical funding for waterfront parks and recreation facilities in 2015. It is the right thing to do for the parks and for all of Ithaca's residents who use and enjoy the parks. ,A Sincerely, Scott Wiggins Chair— and on behalf of the Board Friends of Stewart Park 101 E. State St. #222,Ithaca,NY 14850 friendsofstewartpark.org In • • Times, We Need To Together 1 Top 10 Reasons to support Ithaca's Waterfront Parks & Recreation Facilities There are many reasons finding an equitable way to support these �- to support these parks facilities and parks for the benefit of the y' and facilities. The Town residents, families and youth of Tompkins g of Ithaca has a long County. history of supporting 4. Town of Ithaca residents use, value and enjoy the inter-municipal waterfront parks and facilities. Our data shows cooperation for many of that approximately 30% of our users are Town the reasons listed below. Residents. 10. Parks and places to play help keep all residents 3. Accessibility is important. Contributions to these active and healthy. Healthy communities spend centrally located, community parks and facilities less money on healthcare costs. keeps them accessible to all residents. 9. Maintaining the Town's contribution helps in the 2. Well managed parks and facilities attract new push to get other municipalities to share the costs businesses which brings more jobs. of maintaining these community resources. 1. Recreation Programs would be offered at a 8. Vibrant parks increase tourism in our area and discounted rate. The City is willing to offer the are good for the economy. City Discount Rate for all Recreation Programs 7. Access to water front parks, an Olympic size to Town Residents. The current rate structure for swimming pool, ice rink,fitness trail,tennis Recreation and Recreation Partnership programs courts and more supplement existing pocket would remain the same for other municipalities. parks and trails to complete a comprehensive This is a value of approximately $38,000. parks and recreation experience for your residents. 6. Shared services are cost effective and f sustainable. Town residents enjoy the benefits of = ' these parks and facilities without the Town 1 having to deal with the full costs and challenges of owning them. ,! 5. Continued funding in 2015 gives municipal leaders in both communities time to work toward - - October 2014 Town Contribution supports great facilities and programs What does the Town get for it's $ 1 1 1 ,240 contribution? What benefits do Town Residents enjoy? What would be lost without this contribution? Cass Park Cass Park is a regionally active park used heavily by residents from all parts of Tompkins County. In addition to the ice rink and swimming e, pool, there are 4 tennis courts, 20 athletic fields(4 of which are lighted), playground equipment, an exercise trail, a large picnic pavilion and the Ithaca Children's Garden. Residents enjoy 2,500 feet of waterfront along 6-Mile Creek, lessons, leagues, access to the Cayuga Waterfront Trail and plentiful free parking. Loss of this contribution would change the costs for Town users of the facilities,reflected in higher non-resident fees. Recreation The Recreation Department provides a broad range of recreation and leisure programming for youth of all ages. Recreational sports leagues, lessons, day camps,theater classes, art classes, cheerleading, fencing, adventure programming, Tot Spot,Tae Kwan Do and much more is offered year round to Tompkins County youth. For 2015 the Youth Bureau is proposing to extend the City discount to Town residents for non-Recreation Partnership programs. Loss of this contribution would mean higher fees and eliminate the City discount extension for Town residents. Stewart Park Stewart Park is a unique park with a unique history.A jewel at the southern tip of Cayuga Lake,this park offers playground equipment, tennis courts, a large pavilion,a small pavilion, open green spaces for larger group activities and events, a duck pond, spray pool, bird sanctuary, a carousel, and historical buildings. Residents enjoy 1,400 feet of lakefront,access to the Cayuga Waterfront Trail and plentiful M. ._ free parking. Loss of this contribution could mean the City would need to charge for parking. Preliminary research has been conducted. October 2014 10/7/2014Town of Ithaca215 North Tioga StreetIthaca, NY 14850Permit Application Report - TotalsFrom: 9/1/2014Permit TypeTo: 9/30/2014CountACCESSORY STRUCTURE6COMMERCIAL RENOVATION/ALTERATION3ELECTRICAL ONLY6ELECTRICAL WITH BP8HEATING AND COOLING UNIT2OPERATING PERMIT2ROOFING15SINGLE FAMILY RENOVATION/ALTERATION5SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NEW1SOLAR1TEMPORARY MEMBRANE STRUCTURE22TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE RENOVATION/ALT1Total:72((( ccTown of Ithaca215 North Tioga StreetIthaca, NY 14850Permits Issued - Totals10/7/2014cFrom: 9/1/2014Permit TypeTo: 9/30/2014CountACCESSORY STRUCTURECOMMERCIAL RENOVATION/ALTERATIONDECKELECTRICAL ONLYELECTRICAL WITH BPHEATING AND COOLING UNITINSTITUTIONAL NEWPOOL AND SPAROOFINGSINGLE FAMILY RENOVATION/ALTERATIONSINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NEWSOLARTEMPORARY MEMBRANE STRUCTURETWO FAMILY RESIDENCE NEW34341611115647251Total:91 Town of Ithaca215 North Tioga StreetIthaca, NY 14850Permits Issued10/7/2014Perm # DateTypeSBLLegal AddressInpector Status Cnst. Cost2014-0352 9/30/2014 ELECTRICAL WITH BPDesc: Put up new lights, wire and switches40.-1-5226 STONE QUARRY RD CBRUNER OPENTotal 91(Pac(of 9( 10/7/2014 Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Certificate Report Totals by Type and Status From: 9/1/2014 To: 9/30/2014 Certificate Type Certificate Status Count CO 43 CO 17 TOO 2 Total: 62 ISSUED 62 Page 4 of 4 10/7/2014 Town of Ithaca ^ 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Complaints Report From: 9/1/2014 To: 9/30/2014 Totals by Complaint Type & Status ComplaintType Complaint Status Count BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT 7 FIRE SAFETY VIOLATIONS 1 GRASS 1 LOCAL LAW 2 NYS BUILDING CODE 4 OCCUPANCY 3 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 4 Total;22 CLOSED 3 OPEN 19 Page 4 of 4 Roads: TOWN OF ITHACA Public Works Department Months of August/September Board Report October 20,2014 Town Board Meeting Completed final paving, shoulder installation and guiderails on Sand Bank Road. Road was re opened on Friday, October 3^^. Completed culvert installations on Pinewood Drive, Westview Drive, Kendall Avenue, Maplewood Drive, Cleaned ditches and reseeded along several roads on West Hill. Repaired catch basins on Honness Lane and Winston Court. Began hot-patching and pavement repairs throughout Town in preparation for "Oil and Stone". 3.87 miles of roads were oil and stoned. Assisted other municipalities with paving, trucking, jet rodding, milling, and equipment transport. Began cutting brush at intersections to improve site distance. Continued pavement striping and symbols. Continued the project to reconstruct Hopkins Place and the Town's portion of Campbell Avenue. Final pavement work was completed when NYSEG completed gas main replacement. Milling and repaving on Roat Street, Orchard Drive, and the south end of Blackstone Drive. Repaired minor flooding wash-out damage due to rainfall events on South Hill. Continued roadside and utility easement mowing and mowing of storm water detention ponds at Dewitt Middle School, Southwoods and Troy Park. Took delivery of the following equipment: Crack fill machine and Compact Loader. Delivered surplus trucks and equipment to the Lansing municipal auction. Worked with DMV for the exchange/replacement of all vehicle registrations and license plates. Replaced boiler at Town Hall. Welcomed one new Laborer. Parks, Trails, and Preserves: Weekly site inspections were performed at all parks and trails. Continued mowing, grounds maintenance, trail trimming, and tree removals. Continued clearing brush along trails and parks throughout Town. Assisted at Lakeview Cemetery with debris removal from drainage imder driveway. Oil and stone re-surfacing at Game Farm section of East Ithaca Rec Way and Pew Trail parking lot. Installed two new culverts on South Hill Trail. Cleared brush on inlet and outlet sides of all trail crossing culverts. Graded for a drainage swale to deal with a ponding area along the base of a section of the trail, removed invasive shrubs, hydro seeded the disturbed area and re planted with a mixture of native trees and shrubs. Also planted natives at Juniper Drive trailhead culvert project. Maintenance of the West Hill Community Garden. Water tanks were refilled. Compost, horse manure and mulch stockpiles were replenished. Access paths and the field surrounding the deer fence were mowed. Coordinated Pavilion rentals at Tutelo Park. Assisted with Swallow Wart removal at East Ithaca Preserve coordinated by the Town's Conservation Board. We initiated an aggressive mowing regimen at highly infected field areap-ii^^ within the Preserve to weaken the Swallow Wart plants and improve the habitat for native flowering plants and forbs. Coordinated work by a volunteer master gardener at Town Hall planting beds. Bike racks were installed at East Shore Park. Formalized Adopt-a-Trail agreement with Finger Lakes Runners Club to help maintain South Hill and East Hill Recreation Ways. Water: Repaired four water main breaks on Coddington Road and one on Roat Street; valve repairs on Briarwood Drive, Stone Quarry Road and Penny Lane. Coordinated with contractors on various construction projects to protect Town infrastructure, including Forest Home Bridge and Hanshaw Road. Concrete roof repairs at Coy Glen Pump Station and Stone Quarry and Pine Tree PRV buildings. Interior painting at Woolf Lane Pump Station. Easement and back lot mowing of water and sewer mains. Sewer: A total of 273 Dig Safely New York mark-outs were completed. Inspections of sewer mains with video camera on Slaterville Road. Addressed sewer backup on Mecklenburg Road, cleaned with sewer jet. Reconditioned backup pumps at Southwoods sewer pump station. Weekly sewer pump station checks. Responded to power outage alarm, due to electrical storm, at 855 five mile drive pump station. Cleaned sewers on Roat St., Blackstone Ave., Orchard St. with sewer jet and raised manhole covers for paving. Engineering: • Inspected 20 simple SWPPPs • Current Development Inspections Underway: o Ecovillage TREE - SWPPP o Belle Sherman Estates - SWPPP o Holly Creek Townhouses - SWPPP o Westview Subdivision - SWPPP • Maps and Plans Prepared for: • Construction Started o Slaterville Rd Sewer Main (rebid) o Christopher Tank Construction o Coddington Road Water Main Replacement • Projects Finished: o Winner's Circle Storm Water System Rehabilitation o Winner's Circle Road Reconstruction • Development Review: o Green Way Project o Ithaca Beer o Cayuga Trails Attended Bolton Point Engineering and Operation Meetings Attended Storm Water Coalition Meeting Attended Planning Board meetings Attended Municity Meetings Attended Gateway Trail Public Meetings Said goodbye to our Engineering Technician October/November Projects: Fall brush and leaf pick up: brush week of 10/20/14 and leaves starting 11/3/14. Park, trail, and other grounds maintenance. Leaf blowing and removal at parks and trails. Prepare equipment for winter operations. Close up of West Hill Community Garden for the season. Continue water valve repairs and hydrant replacements. Ditching, sign replacements, and shoulder maintenance. ^4^ • Continue tree and brush trimming in road rights-of-way. Submit expenditures for Forest Home Park community beautification grant reimbursement and coordinate with Cornell University on their donation of the Hasbrouck Memorial bench. TOWN OF ITHACA FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 REPORTS: BALANCE SHEET REVENUE & EXPENSE SUMMARY and CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS DETAILED CASH LISTING FOR FIDUCIARY FUNDS SUMMARY OF BANK COLLATERAL TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 GENERAL GENERAL HIGHWAY WATER FUND SEWER FUND CAPITAL DESCRIPTION TOWNWIDE PART-TOWN PART-TOWN PROJECTS FUND FUND FUND FUNDS ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH $2,898,399 $703,376 $1,136,133 $1,260,070 $2,118,970 $613,135 INVESTMENTS n --.-_ PETTY CASH 700 n 200 -._ TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH $2,899,099 $703,376 $1,136,333 $1,260,070 $2,118,970 $613,135 RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN $735,368 $.$.$.$.$ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT 180,358 63,536 99,857 14,217 8,001 _ HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT --212,068 .-_ PRESERVE MAINTENANCE 40,029 ..._ LAND STEWARDSHIP 10,000 ..-._ INVESTMENTS ....._ FIDUCIARY FUNDS ------ TOTAL - RESERVED CASH $965,755 $63,536 $311,925 $14,217 $8,001 $- OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $272 $-$-$-$.$. 'ATER & SEWER RECEIVABLES --n 118,931 98,332 . jUE from other FUNDS -n .. STATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE ..... DUE FROM OTHER GOVTS 34,223 ._ PREPAID EXPENSES 11,'696 .... TAXES RECEIVABLE - CURRENT ----. TOTAL - OTHER ASSETS $46,191 $-$-$118,931 $98,332 $- TOTAL ASSETS $3.911.045 $766.912 $1.448.258 ?1.393.218 $2.225.303 $613.135 LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $43,336 $3,007 S 39,303 $176,481 $282,604 $. ACCRUED LIABILITIES 41,890 47,368 125,036 8,827 80,000 10,000 DUE TO OTHER FUNDS ..... BAN PAYABLE ....._ DEFERRED REVENUE ------ RESERVED FUND BALANCE 965,755 63,536 311,925 14,217 8,001 - UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 2,860,064 653,001 971,994 1,193,694 1,854,699 603,135 TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $3.911.045 766.912 $1,448.258 $1,393.218 $2.225.303 $613.135 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2014 Add: REVENUE Less: EXPENSE BALANCE-09/30/2014 2,769,575 4,223,799 3,167,555 787,884 767,088 838,435 1,641,079 1,968,838 2,325,997 1,633,344 2,983,922 3,409,355 1,629,389 $ 1,862,717 1,629,406 617,587 352 14,804 $ 3.825.819 $ 716.537 $ 1.283.919 $ 1.207.911 $ 1.862.699 $ 603.136 Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30. 2014 RISK FIRE LIGHTING DEBT TRUST &INLET DESCRIPTION RETENTION PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE AGENCY VALLEY FUND FUND FUNDS FUND FUND CEMETERY ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH $ 142,152 $ 2,027,352 $ 11,203 $ 396,580 $$ INVESTMENTS .. PETTY CASH n .• TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH $142,152 $2,027,352 $11,203 $396,580 $-$- RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN $- $- $- $- $$ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT . HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT . PRESERVE MAINTENANCE . LAND STEWARDSHIP _ INVESTMENTS . FIDUCIARY FUNDS --107,356 9,074 TOTAL - RESERVED CASH $- $- $- $- $107,356 $9,074 OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $. $- $_ $- $$ :USTOMER RECEIVABLE DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS . STATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE DUE FROM OTHER GOVTS •. PREPAID EXPENSES _ TAXES RECEIVABLE - CURRENT -•__ TOTAL - OTHER ASSETS $- $- $- $- $$- TOTAL ASSETS $ 142.152 $ 2.027.352 S 11.203 $ 396.580 S 107.356 $9.074 LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ACCRUED LIABILITIES DUE TO OTHER FUNDS BAN PAYABLE DEFERRED REVENUE RESERVED FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 193 $ 141,959 - $ 2,027,352 839 $ 10,364 - $ 396,580 107,356 9,074 TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $ 142.152 $ 2.027.352 S 11.203 $ 396.580 $ 107.356 $ 9.074 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2014 Add: REVENUE Less: EXPENSE JND BALANCE - 09/30/2014 122,227 $ 25,081 5,349 774,434 $ 3,530,092 2,277,174 8,202 $ 12,633 10,471 425,799 $ 780,575 809,794 $ 141.959 $ 2.027.352 S 10.364 $ 396.580 S 9,069 5 1.07/^ Page 2 of 4 )TOWN. >THACABALANCE SHEET for CAPITAL PROJECTSFOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTSDESCRIPTIONFUND H4Hanshaw RoadWalkwayFUND H5Pine Tree RoadWalkway/BridgeFUNDH6Gateway Trail(Grant Funding)FUND H14Forest Home DrUpstrm BridgeFUND H17Salt StorageBuildingFUND HISWhitetail DriveImprovementsFUNDH19Forest Home DrimprovementsFUND H20Danby RoadWater MainTOTALCAPiTALPROJECTSASSETSUNRESERVED CASH:CASHINVESTMENTSTOTAL • UNRESERVED CASHOTHER ASSETS:ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLECUSTOMER RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER FUNDSSTATE/FEDERAL RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER GOVTSPREPAID EXPENSESBAN LOANSTOTAL - OTHER ASSETS$ 100,507 $$ 100,507 $- $35,090 $66,661 $ 102,740 $ 143,313 S 14,552 $ 127,786 $ 22,486 $ 613.13535,090 $66,661 $ 102,740 $ 143,313 $ 14,552 $ 127,786 $ 22,486 $ 613,135TOTAL ASSETS$ 100,507 $ 35.090 $ 66.661 $ 102,740 $ 143,313 $ 14,552 $ 127,786 $ 22,486 $ 613,135LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCEACCOUNTS PAYABLEACCRUED LIABiLllTESDUE TO OTHER FUNDSRETAINAGEBAN PAYABLERESERVED FUND BALANCEUNRESERVED FUND BALANCE[TOTAL LIAB & FUND BALANCE- $100,50735,09066,66- $102,740 143,31310,0004,552 127,78610,00022,486 603,135$ 100.507 $ 35,090 $ 66.661 $ 102.740 $ 143.313 $ 14,552 $ 127.786 $ 22.486 $ 613,135ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE n 01/01/2014add: REVENUELess: EXPENSEFUND BALANCE • 09/30/2014$ 100,450 $ 35,070 $ 81,424 $ 102,682 $ 143,231 $ 4,545 $ 127,714 $ 22,473 $ 617,58757 20 41 58 81 8 73 14 35214,804 ..... 14,804$ 100.507 $ 35,090 $ 68.661 $ 102,740 $ 143,313 $ 4,553 $ 127.786 $ 22,486 $ 603.136Page 3 of 4 TOWN Oi .THACABALANCE SHEET for LIGHT DISTRICTSFOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014FUND SL-1FUND SL-2FUND SL-3FUND SL-4FUND SL-5FUND SL-6FUND SL.7FUND SL-SFUND SL-9TOTALDESCRIPTIONForestGlensideRenwickEastwoodClover LaneWinner'sBurleighWesthavenCoddingtonLIGHTHomeHeightsCommonsCircleDriveRoadRoadDISTRICTSASSETSUNRESERVED CASH:CASHINVESTMENTSTOTAL • UNRESERVED CASHOTHER ASSETS:ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLECUSTOMER RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER FUNDSSTATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLEPREPAID EXPENSESTAXES RECEIVABLE - CURRENTTOTAL - OTHER ASSETS1,254 $1,254 $775 $1,501 $ 2,086 $352 $797 $782 $ 2,321 $ 1,335 $ 11,203775 $- $1,501 $ 2,086 $- $352 $$797 $782 $ 2,321 $1,335 $ 11,203$$$$TOTAL ASSETSS 1.254 $775 $1.501 $2.086 $352 S797 $782 $2.321 S1.335 $ 11.203LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCEACCOUNTS PAYABLEACCRUED LIABILIITESDUE TO OTHER FUNDSDEFERRED REVENUERESERVED FUND BALANCEUNRESERVED FUND BALANCEITOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALAN^$ 150 $1,10458 $71764 $1,437149 $1,93817 $33557 $73959 $723178 $2,143106 $1,22983910,3641.254 $775 $1.501 $2.086 $352 $797 $782 $2.321 $1.335 $ 11.203ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE - 01/01/2014Add: REVENUELess: EXPENSE499 $3,4002,796670 $6516041,241 $9517561,632 $1,9021,596299 $225190608 $701569571 $8016481,721 $2,5022,0799611,5011,2338,20212,63310,471FUND BALANCE -09/30/20141.104 S717 $1.437 $1.938 $335 $739 $723 $2A43 $1,229 $10,3643Paae 4 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 DESCRIPTION GENERAL TOWNWIDE FUND GENERAL PART-TOWN FUND HIGHWAY PART-TOWN FUND WATER FUND em«/i=D CAPITAL fTnd projects FUNDS REVENUE BUDGETED REVENUE ACTUALS. ACCRUED $ 4,441,800 4,223,799 $ 1,328,350 767,088 $ 3,536,500 $ 1,968,838 5,861,924 2,983,922 $ 2,309,669 $ 1,862,717 352 REVENUE OVER (UNDER)$ (218,001)$ (561,262)$ (1,567,662) $(2,878,002)$ (446,952) $352 % OF BUDGET EARNED 95.1%57.7%55.7%50.9%80.6%0.0% EXPENSE BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL & ACCRUED $ 4,884,003 $ 1,608,475 $ 3,650,300 3,167,555 838,435 2,325,997 5,444,650 $ 2,592,370 $ 3,409,355 1,629,406 $14,804 EXPENSE OVER (UNDER)$ (1.716.448) $ (770,040) $ (1.324,303) $ (2,035,295) $ (962.964) $ 14,804 % OF BUDGET EXPENDED 64.9%52.1%63.7%62.6%62.9%0.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2014 $2,769.575 $787,884 $1,641,079 $1,633,344 $1,629,389 $617,587 Actual & Accrued Add:-REVENUE 4,223,799 767,088 1;968,838 2,983,922 1,862,717 $352 Less: EXPENSE 3,167,555 838,435 2,325,997 3,409,355 1,629,406 $14,804 FUND BALANCE - 09/30/2014 $3,825,819 $716,537 $1,283,919 $1,207,911 $1,862,699 $603,136 CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS)$2,898,399 $703,376 $1,136,133 S 1,260,070 $1,813,722 $613,135 CASH-SJC OPERATING ---•305,249 - INVESTMENTS -•... PETTY CASH 700 .200 --- TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH $2,899,099 $703,376 $1,136,333 $1,260,070 $2,118,970 $613,135 RESERVED CASH PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN $735,368 $-$.$.$.$ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT 180,358 63,536 99,857 14,217 8,001 HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT --212,068 - PRESERVE MAINTENANCE 40,029 -•. LAND STEWARDSHIP 10,000 .-. INVESTMENTS -.._ FIDUCIARY FUNDS n --. TOTAL - RESERVED CASH $965,755 $63,536 $311,925 $14,217 $8,001 $ rOTAL CASH-09/30/2014 $ 3.864.854 $ 766.912 $ 1.448.258 S 1.274.287 S 2.126.971 S 613.135 Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 RISK FIRE LIGHTING DEBT TRUST &INLET DESCRIPTION RETENTION PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE AGENCY VALLEY FUND FUND FUNDS FUND FUND CEMETERY REVENUE BUDGETED REVENUE $ 25,000 $3,535,000 $12,625 $780,383 $.$ ACTUAL & ACCRUED 25,081 3,530,092 12,633 780,575 -5 REVENUE OVER (UNDER) 1 CO $(4,908)$8 $192 $ 5 % OF BUDGET EARNED 100.3%99.9%100.1%100.0%0.0% EXPENSE BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUALS ACCRUED 15,500 $ 5,349 3,435,000 $ 2,277,174 14,020 $ 10,471 994,700 $ 809,794 - S 1,500 EXPENSE OVER (UNDER)$ f10.151) $ (1.157,826) $ (3.549) $ (184,906) $- $ (1.500) % OF BUDGET EXPENDED 34.5%66.3%74.7%81.4%0.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE-01/01/2014 Actual & Accrued Add: REVENUE Less: EXPENSE $ 122,227 $ 774,434 $ 25,081 5,349 3,530,092 2,277,174 8,202 $ 425,799 $ 12,633 10,471 780,575 809,794 - S 9,069 5 FUND BALANCE -09/30/2014 $ 141,959 $ 2.027.352 $ 10.364 $ 396,580 $- $ 9.074 CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) CASH - SJC OPERATING INVESTMENTS PETTY CASH TOTAL. UNRESERVED CASH RESERVED CASH PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT PRESERVE MAINTENANCE LAND STEWARDSHIP INVESTMENTS FIDUCIARY FUNDS TOTAL - RESERVED CASH $ 142,152 $ 2,027,352 $ 11,203 $ 396,580 $ $ 142,152 $ 2,027,352 $ 11,203 $ 396,580 $ - $ $- $$- $ - $ - $ $ 107,356 $ 107,356 $ 9,074 9,074 .TOTAL CASH - 09/30/2014 $ 142,152 $ 2.027.352 $ 11.203 $ 396.580 $ 107.356 $9.074 Page 2 of 4 )TOWN V ITHACA),1REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for CAPITAL PROJECTSFOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTSFUND H4.FUND H5FUND H8FUND H14FUND H17FUNDH18FUND H19FUND H20TOTALDESCRIPTIONHanshaw RoadPine Tree RoadGateway TrailForest Home OrSalt StorageWhitetall DriveForest Home DrDanby RoadCAPITALWalkwayWalkwav/Brldqe(Grant Fundlno)Upstrm BridgeBuildingImprovementsImprovementsWater MainPROJECTSREVENUEBUDGETED REVENUE$$$$$$$$$ACTUAL & ACCRUED572041588187314352REVENUE OVER (UNDER)$ 57S 20S 41$ 58$ 81$ 8$ 73$ 14$ 352% OF BUDGET EARNED0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%EXPENSEBUDGETED EXPENSE$$$$$$$$$ACTUAL & ACCRUED--14,804-----14,804EXPENSE OVER (UNDER)$$$ 14.804$$$$$$ 14.804% OF BUDGET EXPENDED0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE 01/01/2014$ 100,450$ 35,070$ 81,424$ 102,682$ 143,231$ 4,545$ 127,714$ 22,473$ 617,587Actual & accruedadd: REVENUE572041588187314352Less: EXPENSE••14,804-----14,804FUND BALANCE • 09/30/2014$ 100.507$ 35.090$ 66.661$ 102.740$ 143,313$ 4.553$ 127,786$ 22,486$ 603.136CASH andCASH EQUIVALENTSCASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 100,507 $ 35,090 $ 66,661 $ 102,740 $ 143,313 $ 14,552 $ 127,786 $ 22,486 $ 613,135INVESTMENTS .........ITOTAL CASH • 09/30/2014 $ 100.507 $ 35.090 $ 66.661 $ 102,740 $ 143,313 $ 14.552 $ 127,786 $ 22.486 $ 6137i^Page 3 of 4 TOWN 0 (THACAREVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for LIGHT DISTRICTSFOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014FUND SL-IFUND SL-2FUND SL-3FUND SL-4FUND SL-5FUND SL-6FUND SL.7FUND SL-6FUND SL-9TOTALDESCRIPTIONForestGlensldeRenwickEastwoodClover LaneWinner'sBurieighWesthavenCoddlngtonLIGHTHomeHeiflhtsCommonsCircleDriveRoadRoadDISTRICTSREVENUEBUDGETED REVENUEACTUAL & ACCRUED3,400 $3,400650 $6519509511,9001,902225 $225700 $7018008012,5002,5021.500 $1.50112,62512,633[REVENUE OVER fUNDERI0 $111 $2 $0 $1 $1 $2 $1 $% OF BUDGET EARNED100.0%100.1%100.1%100.1%100.2%100.1%100.1%100.1%100.1%100.1%EXPENSEBUDGETED EXPENSE$ 3,400$ 750$ 1,100$ 2,200 15 270 1S 800 :i 900 1S 2,900$ 1,700 i% 14,020ACTUAL & ACCRUED2,7966047561,5961905696482,0791,23310,471[EXPENSE OVER (UNDER)(6041 $(146) $(604) $(80) $ (231) S (252) S (821) $ (467) $ (3.549)[% OF BUDGET EXPENDED82.2%80.6%68.7%72.5%70.3%71.2%72.0%71.7%72.5%74.7%ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE - 01/01/2014$ 499 $670 $1,241 $1,632$ 299 $608$ 571 $1,721 $961 $8,202Actual & Accruedadd: revenue3,4006519511,9022257018012,5021,50112,633LESS: EXPENSE2,796604756 n1,5961905696482,0791,23310,471[FUND BALANCE - 09/30/20141.104 $717 $1.437 $1.938 $335 $739 $ 723 $ 2.143 $ 1.229 $ 10.364CASH andCASH EQUIVALENTSCASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 1,254 $ 775 $ 1,501 $ 2,086 $ 352 $ 797 $ 782 $ 2,321 $ 1,335 $ 11,203INVESTMENTS ..........[TOTAL CASH • 09/30(20141.254 S 775 5 1.501 S 2.086 S797 $ 782 $ 2,321 $ 1.335 $ 11,203Page 4 of 43 e TOWN OF ITHACA DETAILED CASH LISTING - FIDUCIARY FUNDS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TRUST & AGENCY FUND TA200C DISBURSEMENTS CHECKING $ TA200P PAYROLL CHECKING 6,548.77 TA202 ON-LINE COLLECTIONS 9.59 TA205 NEXTEL SITE LEASE DEPOSIT 4,501.72 TA206 ITHACA TOWERS OPTION ESCROW 11,843.61 TA207 WIRELESS ONE 4,593.34 TA209 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING 10,905.83 TA210 STORMWATER COALITION 58,772.22 TA211 VERIZON WIRELESS ESCROW 271.29 TA212 CAYUGA LAKE WATERSHED INTERMUNICIPAL ORG 9,909.14 TOTAL CASH: TRUST & AGENCY FUND $ 107,355.51 INLET VALLEY CEMETERY FUND TE202 INLET VALLEY CEMETERY-EXPENDABLE TRUST $ 9,074.07 TOTAL CASH: FIDUCIARY FUNDS $ 116,429.58 TOWN OF ITHACA SUMMARY OF BANK COLLATERAL FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 TOMPKINS TRUST COMPANY: CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS $ 12,788,134 INVESTMENTS TOTAL CASH ON DEPOSIT LESS: FDIC INSURANCE $12,788,134 $250,000 LESS: FMV OF COLLATERAL ON DEPOSIT @ 9/30/2014 U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS OVER (UNDER) COLLATERALIZED $16,695,565 $4,157,431 For deposits in excess of FDIC coverage, General Municipal Law, section 10 requires that the excess amounts are to be secured by eligible collateral. CASH ASSETS COLLATERALIZED @ FMV 9/30/2014 133% Collateral is held by the Bank of New York, pledged for the Town of Ithaca, New York, for all deposits and/or repurchase agreements of Tompklns Trust Company. NOTE: