The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB Minutes 2015-11-09Meeting of the Ithaca Town Hoard Monday, November 9, at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Agenda 1) Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2) Report of Tompkins County Legislature and Ithaca Common Council 3) Board of Fire Commissioner's Quarterly Report 4) Persons to be Heard and Board Comments • Form Ithaca Update 5) Presentation on the Municipal Health Consortium -Don Barber, Executive Director 6) 5:30 Public hearing regarding entering into a fire protection contract with the City of Ithaca Fire Department • Consider approval 7) Discuss and consider approval of 2016 Water and Sewer re-Levy of Delinquent 2014/2015 Water and Sewer Rents 8) Discllss responses from the Request for Proposals -Forest Home Drive Wall Repair Study 9) Discuss and consider award of emergency generator bid 10) Acceptance of easement with Cornell for the Freese Road pressure regulating valve 11) Discuss town acceptance of sewer pump stations and force lnains 12) Discuss and consider approval of wages for non-collective bargaining employees 13) Discuss and consider setting public hearings regarding: • Trumansburg Road Water Tank Replacement Water Improvement • Pine Tree Road Water Tank Replacement Water Improvement 14) Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes of October 19, 2015 b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract d. Approval of Floating Holiday e. Ratify appointlnent of Motor Equipment Operator -Stevens f. Ratify appointment of Laborer -Mills 15) Report of Town Officials 16) Report of Town Committees/IntermunicipaI Organizations 17) Review of Correspondence 18) Consider Adjournment TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Paul ette 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 Ith aca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: o ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE o NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS o NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL o NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ORDER Town-City Fire Contract Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Town website at www .tow n.ith ac a .n y .u s Date of Posting: Date of Publication: 10/30/2015 Paul e tt e Terwilliger Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this -..::)~ day of ~M.J_O ) ,2015. (Jj ,.tJ;JlL§ ; Not ~lic D ebra DeA u glsl lne N ota ry Pu b li c -St ate of New Yo rk No. 01 D ES 148035 Qu al ifi ed i n Tom pk in s Co un ty I ? My Comm ission Expires June 19, 20 __ e 1\,Ill". lUl,)\j,l~I" • I TOWN OF ITHACA .. Publ ic Huring Notice ~ The Ithaca Town Board wi! • ::I hold 8 public hearing at TO'WTl IW. 215 North Tq;!I St .. on l me 9d1 day 01 NoYember t I 20' 5 at 5:30 pm for !he pur-Ii ,poseol~apro--l k poled fue CCItItrlICt between 1 the T OMI of hhaca 8'ld the d ( QIy of lIhaes Are Depart. \\ • men! At tueh ~ a'Id l r pIaoa. aI peqonl II'1lerested .. \ If! !he propoeed topic may be m ! heatd TI Paolella T etW\lIIgef " , TOWI'l Clerk 1( '0/30/2015 11 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, N ovember 9 , at 5:30 p.m. Minutes Bo a rd Members Present: He rb En gma n, S u pe r v iso r; Bill Good m a n, De put y Town S u pe rviso r ; P at Lea ry, Tee-A nn Hunt e r, Eri c Levin e, Ri c h D eP ao lo, a nd Ro d Howe S taff Prese nt: S usan Ritt er, Direc to r of Pl a nnin g, Bru ce Bates, Dir ecto r of Code Enforcem e nt; Ju dy Dr ake, Director of Hum a n R eso ur ces ; Pa ul e tte Te rw illi ger, Town C lerk ; Jim Webe r, Hi gh way Sup erint e nde nt a nd S usa n Brock, A tt o m ey fo r th e T ow n I ) C all to Order and Pledge of A lle g iance -Meetin g call ed to o rd e r at 5:3 1 p .m . 2) R e port of Tompkins C ounty Legi s lature and Ithaca Common Council -No ne 3) Boa r d of Fire C ommiss ion er 's Quarterly R e port (A tt ac hm e nt I) Mr. G illi ga n rev iewed hi s submi tted report. A n item of imp ort an ce is th e need fo r reco mm e nd at io n(s) fo r me mb e rs fo r th e Town o f It haca's re present at io n fo r th e Co mmi ss io n . Mr. Engm a n as ked ab o ut th e Eas t Hill Fir e St a ti o n eva lu ati o n in th e C it y's Bud ge t and re it e rate d th at as far as t h e Town is co nce m ed , a new fi re s t at io n is not necessa ry; re s po nse t im es fro m the G reen Street stati o n a re th e sa m e a nd that m oney co uld be used fo r o pe rat io ns. Th e Tow n w ill no t b e p m1ic ip a tin g o r fundin g a ny eva lu ati ons o r feas ibili ty s tudi es r ega rdin g th e n ew sta ti o n . 4) Persons to be Heard and Board Comments • F orm Ithaca Update Da v id Wes t, and Ro b e rt Steutev ill e went throu gh a Powerp o int presenta ti o n (A ttac hment 2) Mr. W es t stm1e d by ta lk in g abo ut th e v is io n of the Town 's Co mpreh e ns ive P lan (Pl a n) w hi c h e nv is ions grow th to be m ore s usta in a bl e a n d coo rdin at ed a n d foc used in a reas w ith a pp ro priate serv ices a re ava il abl e a nd tr affi c e n v iro nm e nta ll y se ns iti ve . W o rk sh op and pl ay w ith pr eserva ti o n of n at ura l a reas a nd reso urces w ith a ch o ice of ho us in g a nd tran spo rt atio n o pti o n s a nd corUl ec ts ne ig hb orh oo ds a nd th e la rger co mmunity. T h ese a re the go al s o f th e Pl an a nd th e Fo n n -B ased Co d e th ey a re wo rk in g o n the se ar e th e ty pes of t hin gs th at can 't h a pp en w ith th e co n ve ntio n a l co d e the tow n h as now. It re quires a m o re mi xed-u se ap pr oac h in th e k ey areas wh e re th e tow n wa nts to see develo pm e nt a nd that is w h at th e n ew co d e w ill a ll ow a nd e nco urage. Mr. S teut ev ill e we nt thro ugh t he a reas a nd types of b uild-o ut sh ow n o n th e prese nt atio n s li des . Ith aca h as a st ro ng sense of p lace and m akes it o n ma ny li sts o f "bes t pl aces" fo r vari o us reaso ns, and p eo pl e are aware o f Ithaca and th e ir im press io ns a re us ua ll y good . TB 11-09-2015 pg 1 There is a regional sense of place which is shown by the picture on our Plan which shows the beautiful natural area and the images of the universities on the hill and the neighborhood sense of place and the walkable neighborhoods that people think of as attractive and there is a very strong demand for that such as the Fall Creek area. The Town of Ithaca is growing at about a 6% rate and would probably be growing faster if there were more housing available. Mr. Steuteville had slides with overlay showing the growth over the past 75 years along Slaterville Rd. which is not what you want to encourage now but would happen if the code is not changed. Nodal development is in both the Town and City'S Comprehensive Plans and 3 are entirely in the Town and 1 split between the two. In looking at this, the nodes don't affect most of the town and these nodes could handle all of the development in the City and the Town over the next 3 decades without changing either much. These nodes will allow for a variety of housing types with sustainability addressed. The question is how do you do it and how difficult would it be. The codes, policies and infrastructure will not support it now so strategic changes need to happen to make those nodes come about. (Different slides of types of nodal development) Mr. Steuteville went on to explain the different options for a "village green" at the King Rd intersection area node, one being set back the other being right off Route 96. Having a good node there will alleviate some traffic etc. and he showed the different options for changing that section of highway to allow pedestrian and cyclists and the NYS DOT is not opposed to this type of change. Mr. West took over, stating that they started with the charettes and public outreach and new regulations for the vision that came out of those meetings and outreach. The two options are to create the full zoning that designs an entire community in this location and other locations where you want to see development, or the town can leave it open and set the parameters defined for each neighborhood defining how much of each zone should exist and leave some flexibility for the developer who comes in first to layout how those zones are allocated and to meet the different housing needs and demand within the location but within the parameters set out. They are working through the first option and showed different images of what that could look like and they are drafting specific regulations for each of the different types of buildings that are shown while making sure that very efficient buildings and mixed uses are done. Ms. Hunter asked about the "village green" concept and how it could happen right on a busy street and her desire would be to have it protected from traffic. Mr. Steuteville responded that some is market driven by what developers are willing to do commercially, and we would show you how that would or wouldn't work. Ms. Hunter asked if the idea is for the village green to be owned by the developer or the town and he responded that could go many ways. Ms. Hunter used the Cass Park Children's Community Garden layout and she has always thOUght it would have been nice if there was more of a buffer from the highway and she would like to keep that in mind. TB 11-09-2015 pg 2 Ms. Hunter also talked about the Belle Shennan Cottages which were presented as a type of Fall Creek neighborhood and although they are nice, you couldn't throw a ball in the backyard of any of them; they are much denser, and she would like to ~ake sure that the green space required are not small, unusable spaces like that. Mr. Steuteville agreed but said the Cottages were more of an infill and there are other places where you can go and playa couple of blocks away and Fall Creek itself really doesn't have a lot of parks and there is more green space in the types of neighborhoods depicted than in Fall Creek. Mr. Engman asked about the 96B node and he thought the redesign looks great, but wondered what happens when it hits the City line and that would be useful to talk about because there doesn't appear to be room to continue it that far. He also asked if anyone had calculated what the full build-out would be of Chain Works, the East Hill Plaza and the East King Rd area and the City having their development in the West End where the DOT depot is and the INHS plan in the Fall Creek area; would we then be caught up with the current. demand for the next 20 years and anything else would be meeting 20-30 years from now. Mr. West responded that it depends what happens over the next 20 years but he does know that there is a lot of potential for new housing and there is plenty of demand for new housing compared to how we are growing now. Mr. Steuteville responded that they did look at the average of what you can fit in these types of nodes and we are still behind about 1,500 in housing. Mr. DePaolo asked if these numbers are based on the assumption that our economy is going to become an entrepreneurial economy no longer driven by the education industry because he hasn't heard any growth expectations from the colleges that could support the kind of aggregate numbers being discussed and so it the philosophy that if you build it they will come and make business along with residential? Mr. DePaolo did not think that if you build residential the business will come and thought it actually happens the other way around. Mr. Steuteville responded that the demand is already there and Mr. DePaolo responded that then this is predicated on the idea that if there were more housing people traveling in would live in Ithaca, so it's based on commuter studies? Mr. Steuteville responded that it was but also that people living in Ithaca would compete for jobs that become available so that eventually you would have more people both living and working in Ithaca as opposed to traveling and he thought the area has an entrepreneurial economy and Mr. West added that the area has had the fastest job growth in the state from large industries to start-ups and small companies. Ms. Hunter asked about the financing for the road reconfiguration since it is a state road and would the town have to convince the state and take on the cost? Mr. West responded that he thought it would be a combination of looking for grants, waiting for when the road needed to be redone anyway, and some contributions. Mr. Howe would like a more in-depth conversation; possibly at the Planning Committee and the presenters agreed. Mr. Goodman agreed and also thought a longer discussion at a study session might be good also. TB 11-09-2015 pg 3 Mr. Goodman asked what the next steps are and Mr. Steuteville responded that they are preparing draft zoning regulations the town would review and think about using or adapting for use. 5) Presentation on the Municipal Health Consortium -Don Barber, Executive Director Mr. Barber went through a Powerpoint presentation (Attachment 3) Mr. Barber explained the history of the Consortium and the excellent cost savings we have received by forming it. The Consortium started with 13 municipalities and is up to 19 now with Mr. Barber fielding questions and meeting with other municipalities and counties interested in achieving the same savings, both in joining our Consortium or starting their own. Ms. Drake added they are looking at having larger presentations for others in a centralized location to help. Mr. Barber distributed the handbook to board members as owners of the Consortium and noted that there is a website with training and FAQs that members would find very informative and helpful and explains in detail the ins and outs of the Consortium. Soon there may be over 100 representatives on the Board of the Consortium. Mr. Engman noted that this has been a wonderful but intensive endeavor and he thanked Mr. Barber for all of his efforts and representation, stating that we are very fortunate to have his continued services with the Consortium and it is a magnificent accomplishment. Mr. Barber responded that the board should pat themselves on the back also, because without the intermunicipal cooperation it couldn't have happened and some other counties and municipalities are astounded that Tompkins County was and is able to work so well together. 6) 5:30 Public hearing regarding entering into a fIre protection contract with the City of Ithaca Fire Department Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m.; there was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Mr. Engman explained that the town had a committee working on the negotiations but they had very little leverage in effecting changes. One of the minor changes was the possibility of redrawing our fire district and coverage so no one was surprised and on page 19 we added a soft cap on the number of staff with a requirement to have any additional staff countered by having 5 volunteers added with the intent to have 2 as interior certified and another condition to explore the possibility of having the state do college inspections. Mr. Engman added that they suggested other cost-saving changes but were rebuffed. Mr. Goodman added that they were told the bargaining committee had no authorization to do anything that would affect the level of service and they interpreted that as, for example, a few seconds more in response time if the Collegetown were closed as a decrease in level of service. Mr. Engman added that we made it clear we would not be involved in financing of any new fire house or any evaluation of doing it such as the $500K mentioned in the Fire Commissioners' report for a feasibility study so we may have a few bumps in the road as they go through the process with the fire station adding that in his opinion, even if they move the fire house, they are not going to get away from the problem of TB 11-09-2015 pg 4 maneuvering around Collegetown. He added that from what he has heard, the sale of the fire house will not bring in near enough money to pay for a new one. TB Resolution 2015-127: Authorizing the Town Board to Enter into a Fire Contract with the City of Ithaca for Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services for Part of the Town of Ithaca Fire Protection District Whereas, the Town of Ithaca, New York (the "Town") on behalf of the Town Fire Protection District has negotiated with the City of Ithaca, New York (the "City") regarding a new fire contract for the provision of fire protection services and emergency medical services in virtually all of the Town except for the Village of Cayuga Heights, New York and part of the northeast portion of the Town, pursuant to New York Town Law § 184, and Whereas, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board for a public hearing to be held by the Town on November 9,2015, at 5:30 p.m. to hear all interested parties in connection with such proposed fire contract, and Whereas, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in The Ithaca Journal, and Whereas, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed fire contract, or any part thereof, and Whereas, the Town Board believes it to be in the best interests of the Town to enter into such fire contract negotiated by Town and City representatives, 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 approval of the fire contract is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment," and thus approval of the contract is not subject to review under SEQRA, now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Ithaca Town Board approves the above-referenced fire contract and hereby authorizes the Town Board members to execute such contract on behalf of the Town of Ithaca Fire Protection District. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe Vote: Ayes -Goodman, Howe, Hunter, DePaolo, Leary, Levine and Engman 7) Discuss and consider approval of 2016 Water and Sewer re-Levy of Delinquent 2014/2015 Water and Sewer Rents TB Resolution 2015-128: Authorization for 2016 Water & Sewer Re-Ievy Delinquent 2014/2015 Water & Sewer Rents. TB 11-09-2015 pg 5 ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 Delinquent Re-levies 2 Carry Over Bills 3 Billing Credits Account Receivable Balance: TOWN OF ITHACA Reconciliation of Receivables WATER SEWER $ 122,369.42 $ 72,617.59 $ 00.00 $ 00.00 $ (9,136.78) $ 908.23 $ 113,232.64 $ 73,525.82 TOTALS $194,987.01 $ 00.00 $ (8,228.55) $ 186,758.46 Whereas, (Item No.1 above) $194,987.01 of delinquent water and sewer charges inclusive of penalties and related surcharges for the billing period 12/1/14, 3/1/15, 6/1115, and 9/1/15 remain unpaid and due to the Town as of October 15, 2015 to be re-Ievied onto the 2016 Town and County Tax Bills; and Whereas, (Item No.2 above) $ 00.00 of delinquent water and sewer charges to be carried over to the December 2015 billing; and Whereas, Town Code Chapter 261 and Town Code Chapter 210 provides for all delinquent accounts for payment of water and sewer rents and related charges to be placed on the ensuing years tax roll as a re-Ievy; now therefore be it Resolved, that this governing Town Board approves delinquent water and sewer charges of $ 122,369.42 and $ 72,617.59, respectively, for re-Ievy to the 2016 Town and County Tax Roll; and be it further Resolved, that a certified copy of this resolution along with a listing of those re-Ievied water and sewer charges are to be delivered to Tompkins County Assessment Department by the Town Receiver of Taxes for the purpose of adding these delinquent charges to the 2016 Town and County Tax Roll, the Finance Officer for accounting purposes, and to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intennunicipal Water Commission for the purpose of reconciling and account billing purposes. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine Vote: Ayes -Goodman, Levine, Howe, Hunter, Leary, DePaolo, and Engman 8) Discuss responses from the Request for Proposals -Forest Home Drive Wall Repair Study Mr. Engman explained that the town received one proposal. Mr. Howe moved to authorize the Supervisor to sign a contract with LaBella to do the study as indicated, Mr. DePaolo seconded. Unanimous. 9) Discuss and consider award of emergency generator bid TO Resolution 2015-129: Authorization to Award the Contract for the Town of Ithaca Emergency Generator Installation Project TB 11-09-2015 pg 6 Whereas: The adopted 2015 Ithaca Town Budget included monies for an Emergency Generator Installation at the Public Works facility, with a maximum amount of $1 00,000.00, 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 detennined by the Town Board that approval, construction and implementation of the Town of Ithaca Emergency generator Installation Project (the "Improvement" or "project") are a Type II Action because the Action constitutes "construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, non-residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consistent with local land use controls, but not radio communication or microwave transmission facilities," and thus approval, construction and implementation of the Improvement are not subject to review under SEQRA, and Whereas: On November 5, 2015, the Director of Public Works/Highway Superintendent (Director) received bids for the Project; and Whereas: The Director of Public Works has reviewed the bids and qualifications of the bidders and has detennined that the lowest responsive bid of $68,761.00 for the project made by Matco Electric Corporation, 3913 Gates Road Vestal, NY 13850 was made by the lowest responsible bidder; now, therefore, be it Resolved: That the Town Board hereby authorizes the award of the contract for the Town of Ithaca Emergency Generator Installation Project to Matco Electrical Corporation, and be it further Resolved: that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute such contract subject to approval of the final contract documents by the Town Engineer and Attorney for the Town; and be it further Resolved: that the Director is authorized to approve change orders to such contract upon receipt of appropriate justification provided the maximum amount of such change orders shaII not in the aggregate exceed $10,000.00 without prior authorization of this Board, and provided further that the total project cost, including contract, engineering, legal, inspection, concrete, conduit instaIIation and utility connection, site restoration and gravel purchase completed by Town forces, and other expenses, does not exceed the maximum authorized cost of $1 00,000.00 for the project. Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Rod Howe Vote: Ayes -Levine, Howe, Goodman, Hunter, Leary, Engman and DePaolo 10) Acceptance of easement with Cornell for the Freese Road pressure regulating valve TB Resolution 2015 -130: Authorization for Supervisor to sign an easement and right-of- way with Cornell University for access to a parcel of land associated with the Sapsucker Woods Water Tank Replacement Project's pressure regulating valve Whereas a pressure regulating valve was identified in the Maps, Plans and Report for the Sapsucker Woods Water Tank Replacement Project which necessitates signing an easement and TB 11-09-2015 pg 7 TB 11-09-2015 pg 8 right-of-way with Cornell University for a property located in the Town of Dryden, TP 53.-1-2, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board does hereby authorize the Town Supervisor to sign said easement to facilitate the Sapsucker Woods Water Tank Replacement Project. Moved: Tee Ann Hunter Seconded: Pat Leary Vote: Ayes – Hunter, Leary, Howe, DePaolo, Levine, Engman and Goodman 11) Discuss town acceptance of sewer pump stations and force mains (Attachment 4) Mr. Engman explained the new regulation and interpretations that involve any development that would involve a pumping station in which the law allows for the initial installation of the pump station and maintenance for 5 years but then the municipality might have to pick up those costs and since this is new, if we approve one now, it might set precedent so we have to think this through very carefully and see what our options are. Mr. Weber added that the costs can be upwards of $25k a year for each of these if they fail plus the routine maintenance. The regulation requires one owner and does not consider a homeowners association to be a single owner and an entity has to be formed called a transportation corporation under transportation law and they would have to put money aside for the maintenance of the pump but after 5 years, it can be abandoned and the municipality would have to take it over. Mr. Weber noted that there is also the question of whether to think about this long-term and do an assessment of what is needed throughout the town instead of reacting to each development as it comes and if the town were to take these over, putting conditions on them to be built to town standards instead of minimum standards. Mr. Goodman thought the sewer corporation would act as its own sewer district and be able to charge for the costs associated with it and if it came to the town after 5 years, the corporation would be intact and able to charge for costs. The question is how this affects development and our Comprehensive Plan in that it would make development difficult in the areas identified in the Plan. Mr. Goodman stated that it would be helpful to see what areas of the town this would prohibit development in that we have been thinking under the Plan we would like to see more dense development in along with the ones we already have responsibility for to get a sense of the scope of the issue and potential expenses we are talking about. Ms. Hunter asked Ms. Brock if we could create special sewer districts defined by these pump stations and she responded that she needs to research that more before answering. Mr. Engman stated that one of the bigger issues is that the developer would have to know up front that we would only accept infrastructure built to our standards if we are going to have to take over the maintenance of them and some outreach and education would have to happen so they know that. Ms. Leary stated that the other alternative would be to incorporate this area into our sewer system and simply have it be part of the benefit district and the sewer rents go up for everybody as a town-wide benefit instead of charging little pieces here or there and everyone's rates would go up but not as much as for one area. Ms. Ritter responded that if that were the case, using the Amabel project area as an example, there are some large parcels near that that could be developed so would the pump station put in for Amabel, which they are paying for, be just for Amabel or is it to scale that would serve the other parcels to the City line and how do you deal with that fairly, both there and other parts of the town. In some cases it might be better to have one larger pump station for ease of monitoring and maintenance by the town but how do you spread those costs fairly when some are not developed yet. Mr. Weber agreed, saying it goes back to the wholesale restructuring of the systems we currently have because there are a lot of deficiencies we have as the town has piecemealed things together and Mr. Howe responded that goes back to Mr. Goodman's request for more information in order to make an informed decision but there is also the current project and what the pressure is for that. Mr. Engman asked if the town were to do this and voluntarily accept the infrastructure and maintenance, would we then be obligated, legally, to take on those individual systems such as the ones along Rte. 89 because of precedent? Ms. Brock responded that the town would not because this is only due to the Transportation Corporation(s) and that legal framework sets the stage for the town to take them over so it does not set a precedent and it is only because the DEC is considering these as a sewer extension and under the regulations it has to be a Corporation as triggered by the "multiple owners" of an Amabel-type development. Mr. Engman was concerned about having that specifically spelt out since someone could demolish a cottage and build a new house and say they have multiple owners and the town is responsible so we have to keep that in mind. Mr. Levine thought the town should look at each development and determine at that time whether we are willing to accept the liability and associated costs and Mr. Engman responded that we would need to know if that is a legal criteria to reject a development/acceptance of an infrastructure and he thought that would be arbitrary and litigated. The Board asked Ms. Brock to research options such as being able to assess costs to the homeowners through some sort of tax or fee through a sewer district or redrawing sewer benefit areas or keeping it one as one and spreading the cost. The board decided to discuss this further at the Study Session and asked Ms. Brock to attend and report what she has found as well as additional information from Mr. Weber. Mr. Engman stated that as far as the Amabel project and the Planning Board, they could proceed with conditions that the town board approves the arrangement for the transportation corporation and that the components be built to town specifications. 12) Discuss and consider approval of wages for non-collective bargaining employees TB Resolution 2015-131: Approval of Non-Collective Bargaining Employees' Wages and Stipend for 2016 TB 11-09-2015 pg 9 Whereas, the collective bargaining agreement with the Public Works unit represented by Teamsters Local 317 is in the process of being negotiated; and Whereas, the Town Board approved the 2016 Wage Scale, which increased the Job Rate by 2% over the 2014 Job Rates, on October 19,2015; and Whereas, the Personnel and Organization Committee and Budget Committee has reviewed and recommend the proposed wages for the Town of Ithaca non-collective bargaining employees for the year 2016, utilizing the 2016 wage scales approved by the Town Board October 19, 2015; now, therefore, be it Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the proposed wages for the Town of Ithaca non-collective bargaining employees for the year 2016, utilizing the 2016 wage scales approved by the Town Board on October 19, 2015, as detailed on the attached sheets; and be it further Resolved, the collective bargaining unit employees' wages for 2016 will remain at the 2014 rate until a collective bargaining agreement with Teamsters Local 317 has been ratified by the bargaining unit employees and the Town Board. Moved: Tee Ann Hunter Seconded: Bill Goodman Vote: Ayes -Hunter, Goodman, Engman, DePaolo, Howe, Leary and Levine 13) Discuss and consider setting public hearings: TB Resolution 2015 -132: Order Setting a Public Hearing Regarding a Proposed Water Improvement for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, to be known as the Town of Ithaca Trumansburg Water Tank Water Improvement, and establishing the Town of Ithaca Trumansburg Water Tank Water Improvement Area Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Members Tee Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman, Pat Leary and Rod Howe Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe 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 Town of Itha~a Trumansburg Water Tank Water Improvement, (the "Improvement"), to provide such water Improvement to the present Town water system, such water system Improvement to be constructed and owned by the Town of Ithaca; to serve a benefitted area in said Town to be known as the Town of Ithaca Trumansburg Water Tank Water Improvement Area (the "Water Improvement Area"); and T8 11-09-2015 pg 10 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 Town of Ithaca Trumansburg Water Tank 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 replacing an existing 500,000 gallon steel water tank with a 500,000 gallon water tank, on the same site located on Trumansburg Road, Valve and all other related ancillary facilities, at an initially determined maximum estimated cost to said Water Improvement Area of $900,000; and Whereas, said $900,000 maximum estimated cost, which is the cost of the project, shall be authorized to be financed, at the option of the Town, by temporary financing under use of available reserves or a bond anticipation note, and upon maturity of a bond anticipation note, the issuance of serial bonds with a maximum maturity not in excess of the forty (40) year period prescribed by the Local Finance Law, or directly by the issuance of such bonds; and Whereas, it is proposed that the cost of the aforesaid improvements shall be borne by the real property in said Water Improvement Area by assessing, levying upon and collecting from the several lots and parcels of land within such Water Improvement Area, outside of any village, which the Town Board shall determine and specify to be especially benefited by the improvements, an amount sufficient to pay the principal and interest on serial bonds and bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of serial bonds, as the same become due and payable; and 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, 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 7th day of December, 2015, 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 subj ect 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, TB 11-09-2015 pg 11 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: Engman, aye; Hunter, aye; Howe, aye; Levine, aye; Leary, aye; DePaolo, aye; and Goodman, aye. Unanimous. The Order was thereupon declared duly adopted. TB Resolution 2015-133: Order Setting a Public Hearing Regarding a Proposed Water Improvement for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, to be known as the Town of Ithaca Pine Tree Water Tank Water Improvement, and establishing the Town of Ithaca Pine Tree Water Tank Water Improvement Area Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Members Tee Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman, Pat Leary and Rod Howe Moved: Tee Ann Hunter Seconded: Rich DePaolo 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 Town of Ithaca Pine Tree Water Tank Water Improvement, (the "Improvement"), to provide such water Improvement to the present Town water system, such water system Improvement to be constructed and owned by the Town of Ithaca; to serve a benefitted area in said Town to be known as the Town of Ithaca Pine Tree Water Tank 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 Town of Ithaca Pine Tree Water Tank 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 replacing an existing 200,000 gallon steel water tank with a 200,000 gallon water tank, on the same site located on Regency Lane, and all other related ancillary facilities, at an initially determined maximum estimated cost to said Water Improvement Area of $600,000; and TB 11-09-2015 pg 12 Whereas, said $600,000 maximum estimated cost, which is the cost of the project, shall be authorized to be financed, at the option of the Town, by temporary financing under use of available reserves or a bond anticipation note, and upon maturity of a bond anticipation note, the issuance of serial bonds with a maximum maturity not in excess of the forty (40) year period prescribed by the Local Finance Law, or directly by the issuance of such bonds; and Whereas, it is proposed that the cost of the aforesaid improvements shall be borne by the real property in said Water Improvement Area by assessing, levying upon and collecting from the several lots and parcels of land within such Water Improvement Area, outside of any village, which the Town Board shall determine and specify to be especially benefited by the improvements, an amount sufficient to pay the principal and interest on serial bonds and bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of serial bonds, as the same become due and payable; and 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, 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 7th day of December, 2015, 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: Engman, aye; Hunter, aye; Howe, aye; Levine, aye; Leary, aye; DePaolo, aye; and Goodman, aye. Unanimous. The Order was thereupon declared duly adopted. 14) Consider Consent Agenda Items TB Resolution 2015 -134: Adopt Consent Agenda TB 11-09-2015 pg 13 Resolved, that the Town Board ofthe·Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda items: a. Approval of Town Board Meeting Minutes of October 19,2015 Pulled b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract d. Approval of Floating Holiday e. Ratify appointment of Motor Equipment Operator -Stevens f. Ratify appointment of Laborer -Mills Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Eric Levine Vote: Ayes -Leary, Levine, Hunter, Howe, DePaolo, Engman and Goodman TB Resolution 2015-134b: Town of Ithaca Abstract Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 1306 -1408 General Fund Town wide 105,564.35 General Fund Part Town 14,490.59 Highway Fund Part Town 173,116.40 Water Fund 64,218.01 Sewer Fund 8,508.59 Gateway Trail 1,952.13 Christopher Circle Water Tank 13,025.38 Sapsucker Water Tank Replace 3,699.67 Risk Retention Fund 3,350.00 Fire Protection Fund 38,885.19 Forest Home Lighting District 158.22 Glenside Lighting District 58.14 Renwick Heights Lighting District 63.66 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 147.96 Clover Lane Lighting District 17.21 Winner's Circle Lighting District 57.368 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 58.34 West Haven Road Lighting District 176.82 Coddington Road Lighting District 105.37 Trust and Agency 718.43 TB 11-09-2015 pg 14 I Debt Service TOTAL I 350.00 I 428 ,72 1.84 TB Resolution 2015-134c: Bolton Point Abstract Whereas, the following numbered vo uch ers for th e Southern Cayug a Lake Int e nnunicip a l Water Commi ss io n ha ve been pre sented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment; a nd Whereas , th e said vo uchers ha ve bee n audited for pa yment b y the sa id Town Board ; now , th e refore , be it Re so lved , that the governing Town Board hereby authori z es the payment of the sa id vouchers . Voucher Numbers: C he ck N umber s: 493-535 16211-16253 Cap ital Imprf Repl Proj ect Operating Fund TOTAL Less Prepaid TOTAL $ 0 $ 53.235.16 $ 53 ,235 .1 6 $ 1,298.43 $ 51 ,936.73 TB Resolution 2015-134d: Approval of Floatin g Holidays for 2016 Whereas, there is an annual poll conducted of all town and SCLIWC employees to determine their preference for the next year's floating holiday for each location ; now, therefore, be it Reso lved , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the Floating Holiday for 2016 for Town Hall staff as Friday. December 23. 2016 as requested by the majorit y of the employees of Town Hall ; and be it further Re s o lve d, the Town Board doe s hereb y approve the Floating Holida y for 2016 for Public Works staff as Friday. July I. 2016 as requested by the majority of the employees of Public Works ; and be it further Reso lve d , the Town Board doe s hereb y ap prove the Floating Holiday for 2016 for SCLIWC staff as Friday, July I. 2016 as requested by the m ajo rit y of the e mployees ofSCLIWC. TB Resolution 2015-134e: Ratify Promotional Appointment to Motor Equipment Operator Whereas, there is pre se ntly a vacancy in th e full tim e pos iti on of Motor Equipment Operator in the Public Works Department ; and Whe reas , the Highwa y Superintendent ha s d etermined through interv iews and evaluation that Jami e Stevens , Laborer, posses ses the necessary knowledge, skills and ability to satisfactorily pe rforn1 th e duties of the Motor Equipment Operator ; and TB 11-09-2015 pg 15 Whereas, the Highway Superintendent promotionally appointed Jamie Stevens to the Motor Equipment Operator position, effective November 1,2015; now, therefore, be it Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby ratify the Highway Superintendent's regular promotional appointment of Jamie Stevens as a full time Motor Equipment Operator for the Public Works Department, effective November 1, 2015; and be it further Resolved, this is a 40 hours a week position, at the hourly wage of$23.27, which is an estimated annual salary of $48,401.60, in Job Classification "III", with full time benefits; and be it further Resolved, if the said successfully completes the mandatory eight (8) week probationary period, ending December 28, 2015, there will be no further action required by the Town Board. TB Resolution 2015-134f: Ratification of Highway Superintendent's Appointment of Laborer Whereas, there is a vacancy in the full time position of Laborer for the Public Works Department; and Whereas, the Interview Committee interviewed two seasonal candidates where this year was their second year working for the Town; and Whereas, the Committee has determined that Travis Mills possesses the necessary knowledge and skills to satisfactorily perform the duties of Laborer; and Whereas, Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works, appointed Travis Mills as Laborer, effective November 9,2015; now, therefore be it Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby ratify the appointment made by the Highway SuperintendentlDirector of Public Works, of Travis Mills as Laborer, effective November 9,2015; and be it further Resolved, this is a 40 hours a week positions, at the hourly wage of $18.1 0, which is an estimated annual salary of$37,648 from Public Works account numbers, in Job Classification "I", with full time benefits; and be it further Resolved, a mandatory twenty-six (26) week probationary period applies with no further action by the Town Board if there is successful completion of the probationary period as determined by the Highway SuperintendentlDirector of Public Works. 15) Report of Town Officials Ms. Ritter reported that the Greenways project has been withdrawn; they could not make the figures work to make it affordable. The representative stated that it wasn't one single thing but a number of things. TB 11-09-2015 pg 16 16) Report of Town Committees/Intermunicipal Organizations Mr. Weber reported that the Public Works Committee will be talking about the Towerview Rd neighborhood's request for no parking at intersections and an issue with a piece of equipment that has not performed to standard and it has been four years of trying to get satisfaction from the company. 17) Revie\v of Correspondence -None 18) Consider Adjournment Meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second at 8:20 p.m. TB 11-09-2015 pg 17 Board of Fire Commissioners Report to Ithaca Town Board November 9,2015 The following is a summary of the Board of Fire Commissioners quarterly report to the Ithaca Town Board for the third quarter of 2015. Included with this report are: • The Fire Chiefs Report given at the October 13, 2015 BFC meeting. This includes the Fire Marshal's Report & Fire Prevention Bureau activity. • The department call activity reports for January 1- September 30,2015. Total calls 3,874 (total through 9-30-14 was 3,908). • The financial operations summary through September 30,2015. Fire Department Operational Staffing (September 30. 2015). • As of September 30, 2015 the active Fire Fighting staffing totaled 63 (uniform staffing-1 Chief, 6 Assistant Chiefs, 8 lieutenants, & 47 Fire Fighters plus 1 Deputy Chief on per diem. In addition there is 1 Administrative Coordinator for a total of 64 personnel. • The two individuals hired to replace the firefighters who recently retired, completed training at the NYS Fire Academy and our currently undergoing in-house training. They are expected to complete this training and be assigned to shift duty by December. 2015 Fire Department Budget The Department operating budget for 2015 is approximately 4% under the adjusted budget for 2015 at the end of the 3'^'' quarter. Total department expenditures (excludes benefits & debt service) through the third quarter are 71 % ($4,352,796) of the total program budgeted amounts. 2016 Budget - was approved by Common Council Nov. 4,2015. The total 2016 operating budget approved (including benefits and debt service) is $9,874,646. The largest decrease in the budget compared to the 2015 total adjusted budget of $10,028,078 occurred in the debt service category — which is approximately $136K less in 2016 due to the retirement of debt on older apparatus. SCBA Equipment-The department was awarded a Federal grant of $413,000 to replace its 15 year old SCBA equipment. There is a 10% local match requirement for this award. Bids will be requested for this equipment. Specifications for the equipment are being developed. Wildland FireFigthing Skid - A $24,000 award was received from the Triad Foundation earlier in the year to replace the department's current skid. This equipment was shipped and should be available for use in the near future. Station 9 (Collegetownl - the report from Kingsbury Architects on the feasibility of relocating the Collegetown Fire station to another location on East Hill has been received by the city and is under review by the Director of Planning, the Mayor, and the City Attorney. Board of Fire Commissioners The BFC meeting agendas/minutes (dating back to October 1987) are posted on the City Website. The link is : https://lfweb.tompkinsco.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=393135 There are currently two openings on the Board of Fire Commissioners. A city position has been vacant since January of 2014. One of the town designated positions is also open as of June 30, Board of Fire Commissioners Report to Ithaca Town Board November 9, 2015 2015. Commissioner Ellsworth has indicated that he is no longer able to serve on the Board pending appointment of his replacement. As noted previously, given the Board's role in overseeing the operation of the department £ind the effort to increase the effective use of volunteer's in the department it would strengthen the Board if the individuals appointed had experience/knowledge/skills in one or more of the following areas - human resources/workforce/volunteer recruitment/ working with volunteers/ organizational uses of social media/website development/organizational development/Marketing/previous experience with the fire service. A priority for both positions would be to seek individuals with the aforementioned skills, who would also enhance the diversity of the Board and reflect the community served by the fire department. The time commitment for a board member is approximately 1-3 hours per month. The Board meets monthly on the second Tuesday of the month at 4 pm at Central Fire Station. day of the month at 4 pm at Central Fire Station. Volunteer Program Development There are currently 16 active members of Volunteer Company No. 9 who serve the department. There are two pending applications. One individual submitted his resignation in September as he was planning on moving out of the area. The draft volunteer handbook will be reviewed and revised in 2015. Other Items & Items in progress: 1 Upgraded software in 2015 for the 911 system, may allow changes in the dispatch protocols used for dispatching the fire department to EMS calls. The upgrade is also expected to enhance emergency communication capability between agencies. 2 Charter Review- the Board will be discussing its role at the November BFC meeting. 3 Resource recovery/False Alarm Policy - Currently on hold pending review with the City Attorney. 4 County Fire-Disaster - EMS Advisory Board- no new action on this issue. 5 Training Center Facility Project -no construction has been authorized due to the training site being located on land designated as City Park land. 6 City-Town Fire Service Contract - Approved by City/action pending by Town. Respectfully Submitted, Bill Gilligan, Chair, Board of Fire Commissioners CITY OF ITHACA 310 West Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5497 OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF Telephone: 607/272-1234 Fax: 607/272-2793 MEMORANDUM To: Board of Fire Commissioners From: Tom Parsons, Fire Chief Date: October 13th, 2015 Re: Fire Chiefs Monthly Report to the Board of Fire Commissioners ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION Administration 1) Career Personnel Report ^ PERSONNEL STAFFING LEVELS 1 Chief 1 Deputy Chief (per diem) 6 Assistant Chiefs 8 Lieutenants 47 Fire Fighters 63 Uniform Personnel 1 Administrative Coordinator Total employees as of September 30th, 2015-64 a) Vacancies • None b) Retirements: • Firefighter Martin Gessini retired on September 21 2015 c) Hiring/Promotions • Griselda Velado was hired on July 20^^, 2015; and Richard Cacciotti was hired on July 25^^ 2015. Since July 25^'', 2015, both members have been attending Page 2 of5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report October 13th, 2015 the NYS Academy of Fire Science's Career Firefighter Training Program. FF Velado and Cacciotti graduated last week from the Academy and have ^ returned to complete about ten more weeks of in-house training before being ready to go on shift. 2) Budget Report a) 2015 Budget: Budget Summary - see accompanying report b) On October V\ the Mayor presented his budget to Common Council. I've attached a copy of the Fire Department Budget as proposed by the Mayor. There were no changes in career staffing. The operating budget included in adjustments in some accounts, but there was slight change from the 2015 operating budget. There was a decrease in debt service as some of the bonds for apparatus purchased 15 years ago have been paid off. Included in the Capital Projects is $455,000 for Heavy Rescue Replacement/Refurbishment, and $500,000 for the design of a new Fire Station. 3) County Communications and 911 Programs: a) No Report 4) Grants and Donations a) On April 23^'', 2015, the City of Ithaca receiving a grant to fund the replacement of our 15-year-old Self Contained Breathing Apparatus. The grant award was for $413,000, with the City required to provide a 10% match. Assistant Chief Tier is reviewing different brands of SCBA on the market, 2ind will be developing bid specifications. b) On Thursday, May 7^' 2015,1 was notified by the Triad Foundation that we will be receiving a grant for $24,000. The money will be used to replace the department's firefighting skid unit that is used for wildland firefighting, and for fighting fires in remote areas which are hard to reach with a fire department pumper. The unit has been shipped and should be arriving any day. 5) Collegetown Fire Station a) Kingsbury Architects has completed their study on relocating the Collegetown Fire Station to another location on East Hill, as well as the cost of repair work that is needed for the current fire station. The study is being reviewed of the Director of Planning and Development, the City Attorney, and the Mayor. Page 3 of5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report October 13th, 2015 LIFE SAFETY DIVISION Fire Prevention Bureau 1) Code Enforcement Division: The folio wing is a list of March Activities- Complaints Received: 21 Referred to the City Building Division 14 Referred to the Town of Ithaca 2 Investigated by the Fire Prevention Bureau 5 Inspections: 89 City Fire Safety & Property Maintenance 61 Town Fire Safety & Property Maintenance 7 City - Sprinkler Inspections 6 City - Alternative Fire Protection Systems 2 City - Fire Alarm Inspection 13 City - Standpipe Flow Test 0 City - Fire Pump Flow Test 0 Permits or Certificates: 39 Operating Permit - Assembly Occupancy 14 Operating Permit - Hazardous Occupancy 1 Operating Permit - Lumber Yard 0 Operating Permit - Elevator 0 Operating Permit - Fireworks 1 Certificate of Compliance - Occupancy 6 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Alarm 13 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Sprinkler 2 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Pump 0 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Standpipe 0 Certificate of Compliance - Alternative Suppression 2 2) Fire Investigation Unit: There were no fire investigations performed by the Fire Investigation Unit in September. 3) Public Education and Special Events Public Education Events: 5 Fire Drills Witnessed: 0 Page 4 of5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report October 13th, 2015 Child Safety Seat Inspections: OPERATIONS DIVISION Response 1) January through September 2015 Responses - 3873 Incidents (see attached charts') City of Ithaca: Town of Ithaca: Mutual Aid: 2630 Incidents (67.91%) Fires: Overpressure/Rupture EMS/Rescue: Hazardous Conditions: Service Calls: Good Intent: Alarms/No Fires: Severe Weather: 1215 Incidents (31,37%) Fires: Overpressure/Rupture EMS/Rescue: Heizardous Conditions: Service Calls: Good Intent: Alarms/No Fires: Severe Weather: 28 Incidents (0.72%) Fires: Overpressure/Rupture EMS/Rescue: Hazardous Conditions: Service Calls: Good Intent: Alarms/No Fires: Severe Weather: 67 7 1038 160 174 410 773 1 18 0 704 45 45 181 221 1 11 0 4 2 4 6 0 1 Simultaneous Incidents: 853 Incidents (22%) 2) Emergency Management: No Report 3) Mutual Aid Calls: Quarterly Report Page 5 of 5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report October 13th, 2015 Support 1) Training Quarterly Report 2) Training Center Quarterly Report 3) Apparatus and Facilities No Report Volunteer Recruitment and Retention 1) Summaries of Service Hours: Quarterly Report 2) There are currently 15 Active Volunteer Firefighters and Fire Police 3) Requests firom Company Members to become active: None 2015 REVENUE SUMAAARY BY ACCOUNTSEPTEMBER 2015RevisedREVENUEYTD REVENUEPCT CollectedRemainingREVENUEAverageMthlyProjectedFire Code Inspection11565,$59,000$46,295.0078%$12,705$5,144$61,727Home & Comm Services$100$0^0%$100"$o$0Public Safety Services^2260"^,500$00%$3,500$0Fire Protective Services2262$3,135,000$1,853,54459%$1,281,456$205,949$2,471,392Rental of Real Property2410$11,000$3,20029%$7,800:$356$4,267Rental of Equipment2414$0$00%$0$0$0Public Safety Permits2550$10,000$11,495115%-$1,495$1,277$15,327Fines & Forfeited Bail2^10$2,000$1800%$1,820$20$240Minor Sales2655$100$9999%$11$132Sale of Equipment2665$0$00%$0$0$0Insurance Recoveries2680$10,000$14,417144%-$4,417$1,602$19,223Otfier Compensation for Loss 2690$50$00%$50$0$0Refund Prior Year Expense2701$200$00%$200$0Gifts & Donations2705$774,377$798,377103%$0$99,797$1,197,566Unclassified Revenue2770'$600$00%$0$0$0Home & Community Service3989$00%$0$0$0$4,005,927$2,727,60768.1% ^$1,301,720$314,156$3,769,872( s 5 aQ -? ;?(□ 1 g3 i M iO o^ I fn 9 A5 -I o o ?I:t if ;f' I Ol g a 6 :S) — — {O —u» ; S {s : s s I ls>CO N Cn 1 o ;o-VI o CO 'vj )0 >o 8j OS — — cH Cn Cr»toO B s^a 5^ Is? 5?p ^ a a N Budget Account Numbers Administration & Planning 12050 Fire Prevention Bureau 12100 Satety Section 12150 Response Section 12200 Support Section 12250 Emergency Management 12300 Training Bureau O) 12350 Expended Percent Remaining Balance CD C a (Q CD o (Q s 3 > o o o c 3 CD QJ (X> 3 O CD (/> ro o en Ithaca FD Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2015} and {09/30/2015} Incident Type 01/01/2015 01/01/201 01/01/2013 01/01/2012 to 4 to to to 09/30/2015 09/30/201 A 09/30/2013 09/30/2012 1 4 0 0 0 100 Fire, Other 6 8 5 4 111 Building fire 32 29 17 28 112 Fires in structure other than in a building 1 1 0 0 113 Cooking fire, confined to container 17 17 19 24 114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 3 2 0 0 116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined 1 0 1 0 118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 1 4 5 3 130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire. Other 0 1 2 1 131 Passenger vehicle fire 9 9 10 8 132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 1 2 2 1 134 Water vehicle fire 1 0 1 0 138 Off-road vehicle or heavy equipment fire 0 2 0 2 140 Natural vegetation fire. Other 4 3 2 9 142 Brush or brush-and-grass mixture fire 1 0 2 2 1/^^Grass fire 2 1 0 3 lOvj Outside rubbish fire. Other 3 5 4 5 151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 6 10 8 11 154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 3 4 4 4 160 Special outside fire. Other 5 0 4 3 161 Outside storage fire 0 1 1 0 170 Cultivated vegetation, crop fire. Other 0 1 1 0 200 Overpressure rupture, explosion, overheat other 1 0 0 0 212 Overpressure rupture of steam boiler 0 0 1 0 240 Explosion (no fire), Other 0 1 1 0 251 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no ignition 6 1 0 3 300 Rescue, EMS incident, other 8 8 12 7 3001Gorge Rescue, EMS incident. Ground Evacuation 2 1 1 1 3002Gorge Rescue, EMS incident. Low Angle Rope Assist 0 2 1 0 311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 18 18 18 20 320 Emergency medical service, other 40 63 44 8 321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 1559 1525 1439 1511 322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 55 78 80 78 323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Bed)12 12 14 26 324 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 27 25 24 21 331 Lock-in (if lock out , use 511 )4 0 0 0 3311Lock-in / Knox Box Access Required 1 1 0 3 3^,i5i^Lock-in / Force Entry Required 1 0 1 2 3 Search for person on land 0 0 1 2 342 Search for person in water 1 1 0 0 350 Extrication, rescue. Other 2 2 0 2 10/07/2015 14:30 Page 1 I'bhaca FD Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2015} and {09/30/2015} Incident Type 01/01/2015 01/01/201 01/01/2013 01/01/2012 to 4 to to to 09/30/2015 09/30/201 4 0 09/30/2013 09/30/2012 351 Extrication of victiin(s) from building/structure 1 0 0 352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 0 0 3 3 353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 8 12 9 6 3561Gorge Rescue, High-angle Extrication 2 0 3 0 360 Water & ice-related rescue, other 1 0 1 1 361 Swimming/recreational water areas rescue 0 0 3 3 363 Swift water rescue 1 0 1 0 365 Watercraft rescue 2 0 1 0 381 Rescue or EMS standby 1 7 4 3 400 Hazardous condition. Other 37 56 39 49 410 Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition, other 1 7 6 4 411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 10 14 7 2 412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG)50 63 55 40 413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 6 3 3 2 420 Toxic condition. Other 0 1 0 0 421 Chemical hazard (no spill or leak)2 2 2 422 Chemical spill or leak 3 2 1 3 424 Carbon monoxide incident 21 16 17 7 440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem. Other 10 11 14 11 441 Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn 5 3 4 1 442 Overheated motor 7 6 4 4 443 Breakdown of light ballast 0 1 2 1 444 Power line down 35 30 18 23 445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 14 17 12 19 451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 0 1 0 0 460 Accident, potential accident. Other 2 1 2 1 461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed 1 1 0 1 463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 2 4 6 8 471 Explosive, bomb removal (for bomb scare, use 721)1 0 0 0 480 Attempted burning, illegal action. Other 0 0 1 3 481 Attempt to burn 0 1 0 0 500 Service Call, other 95 141 118 107 510 Person in distress. Other 16 11 9 9 511 Lock-out 10 6 7 3 512 Ring or jewelry removal 0 1 0 0 520 Water problem. Other 17 25 8 7 521 Water evacuation 3 20 7 0 522 Water or steam leak 531 Smoke or odor removal 16 4 26 2 10 6 i 540 Animal problem. Other 2 1 0 1 541 Animal problem 1 1 0 0 10/07/2015 14:30 Page 2 Ithaca FD Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2015} and {09/30/2015} Incident Type 01/01/2015 to 01/01/201 4 to 01/01/2013 to 01/01/2012 to 09/30/2015 09/30/201 il 09/30/2013 09/30/2012 542 Animal rescue 1 4 2 1 0 550 Public service assistance. Other 17 13 16 11 551 Assist police or other governmental agency 10 18 19 18 552 Police matter 3 6 3 1 553 Public service 5 6 4 4 554 Assist invalid 9 5 12 2 555 Defective elevator, no occupants 1 1 1 0 561 Unauthorized burning 12 6 12 7 571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 1 1 0 2 600 Good intent call. Other 40 49 52 50 611 Dispatched & cancelled en route 8 6 4 6 6111Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Dispatcher 9 16 7 9 6112Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Bangs 200 157 180 126 6113Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CUEMS 45 44 47 49 6114Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CU EH&S 126 109 77 42 C'^^Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IC Safety 73 50 57 34 61i7Dispatched & cancelled en route - By MA Dept 4 8 1 4 6118Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IPD 9 8 12 4 6119Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Other Police 0 1 0 0 621 Wrong location 3 2 0 1 622 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch address 31 25 16 15 631 Authorized controlled burning 0 2 4 5 641 Vicinity alarm (incident in other location)1 0 0 0 650 Steam, Other gas mistaken for smoke. Other 1 1 0 0 651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 10 9 11 7 652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke 4 3 4 7 653 Smoke from barbecue, tar kettle 0 1 2 3 661 EMS call, party transported by non-fire agency 1 2 1 1 671 HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat 32 29 19 25 700 False alarm or false call. Other 16 9 8 10 7001False alarm or false call. Other - Medical Alarm 61 45 40 16 710 Malicious, mischievous false call. Other 9 3 10 4 711 Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm 2 0 4 1 713 Telephone, malicious false alarm 1 1 1 2 714 Central station, malicious false alarm 25 23 38 23 715 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 4 4 1 0 721 Bomb scare - no bomb 0 1 0 2 7^^<t>^System malfunction. Other 22 13 22 39 7 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 11 12 8 5 732 Extinguishing system activation due to malfunction 1 0 2 0 733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 78 43 41 32 10/07/2015 14:30 Page 3 Ithaca FD Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2015}and {09/30/2015} Incident Type 01/01/2015 01/01/201 01/01/2013 01/01/2012 to 4 to to to 09/30/2015 09/30/201 A 09/30/2013 09/30/2012 734 Heat detector activation due to malfunction 6 4 6 11 3 735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 109 71 80 93 736 CO detector activation due to malfunction 28 16 14 21 740 Unintentional transmission of alarm. Other 18 42 85 73 741 Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional 22 9 18 14 742 Extinguishing system activation 0 0 0 2 743 Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 365 381 372 362 744 Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 72 172 188 172 745 Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 135 114 123 113 746 Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 9 14 13 19 800 Severe weather or natural disaster. Other 0 8 3 2 812 Flood assessment 2 0 5 0 813 Wind storm, tornado/hurricane assessment 1 9 0 1 900 Special type of incident. Other 0 1 1 0 911 Citizen complaint 0 0 0 1 Totals 3874 3908 3758 10/07/2015 14:30 Page 4 Ithr \Fire DepartmentJanuary through September <.015 Responses - Incident Type by DistrictI Overpressure/RuptureOtherSevere WeatherAlarms/No FireGood ntent GalService Call□ Hazardous ConditionEMS/Rescue800 -District Ithaca Fire DepartmentJanuary through September 2015 Responses - Incident Type by Municipality30002500200015001000500n Othern Severe Weather■Alarms/No Fire■ Good Intent Call■ Service Call□ Hazardous Condition■ EMS/Rescue■ Overpressure/Rupture■ FireTotal CityTotal TownMunicipalityOutside Ithaca) )Ithaca Fire DepartmentJanuary through September 2015 Responses by Municipality100%70% -n Outside Ithacan Town of Ithacan City of IthacaMunicipality FORM ITHACA PART 1: Character Preferences and Focus Areas May 2015 iL: " '>'■^^'1m. formithaca.org Consultant Team: Better! Cities & Towns Robert Steuteville CNU-A Katie Stoner Randall+West Planners CJ Randall LEED ND David West LEED AP STREAM Collaborative Noah Demarest AIA, RLA, LEED AP Key Advisors: Seth Harry and Associates This report summarizes the Form Ithaca Workshop hosted January 16, 2015, at the Tompkins County Library — plus field research, meetings, and design and planning work that occurred both before and after the Workshop. Form Ithaca is an initiative to help support the ongoing efforts of the City and Town of Ithaca, New York, to update land use regulations to meet the goals and objectives of their comprehensive plans. The project supports a full range of housing and lifestyle options within a framework that facilitates transportation choice, a reduction in greenhous^^ gas emissions, and a strong economy for the region. This report delves into the character of Ithaca's neighborhoods, what aspects resonate with Workshop participants, and how they could be supported with land use regulations. In addition, the report explores focus areas for development and places that could use special attention from a new code. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority is funding Form Ithaca with matching resources from the Park Foundation, the City, and the Town. Because Ithaca's success will come, partly, from how land use regulations and development shape the community, this project offers exciting opportunities for the City and Town. I feel privileged to be part of the Form Ithaca team and I look forward to more community comments and participation as we move forward Sandy Sorlien Jessica Millman Chuck Banas Chris Hawley Why character is important to Ithaca The "character" of Ithaca's neighborhoods are key to their appeal. Character shapes people's activities and daily lives—such as how often they walk or ride a bike to destinations, and how often they use car-share or transit. Zoning and land use regulations shape the physical components of neighborhoods that contribute to character. Understanding how ^i^ning affects character is therefore critical to quality of life and the future of Ithaca. The character of a place is often equated with specific architectural elements, a particular historical style, or the manner in which a single use predominates an area. While these elements are important, character is also shaped by the relationship of buildings to streets. Most importantly, the way buildings, yards, sidewalks, street trees and street widths create public space and "outdoor rooms" defines character and creates places where people live, work, and play. Placemaklng and Local DNA Placemaklng is the art and craft of making people-centered public spaces. Creating unique places based on local l^story community assets, culture and f ^terprise has measurable positive iinpacts on social interaction, public health, and economic stability. Ithaca has a rich urban fabric and our neighborhoods have a strong sense of pride and place. Buildings, sidewalks, street trees, roadways and blocks work together to create a public realm that is pleasant and inviting. Understanding exactly how these elements work together in Ithaca is important in considering how to preserve the uniqueness of existing neighborhoods and shape future neighborhoods. large swaths of homes at the same time. As a result, these neighborhoods are walkable and compact. Diverse residential buildings are located near shops, restaurants, and other businesses. In cooperation with the city and town of Ithaca, Form Ithaca hosted a Community Character Workshop on January 16. At this event, Ithacans worked together Ithaca has a rich urban fabric and our neighborhoods have a strong sense of pride and place. Most of the City of Ithaca's neighborhoods were developed prior to the proliferation of cars, and the dramatic changes in planning that came into fashion in the mid-20th century. Most of our neighborhoods also predate zoning and were built before the financial Industry made it easy for developers to build to understand the past, present, and future of their neighborhoods. The purpose was to gather community input to help write a code for the city and town based on community character. We are using the SmartCode, the most frequently used "form-based code." as a basis. The SmartCode is calibrated :^- '•:' n ..V,' -r V''?'-"''V':-;" ' ■^-(^reating"^op;!no^j^ each uniqtie development pati^rn will protect &nd . pr#erve neighborhdcrd'-cfjaracter. ) U : •X-. to local conditions based on physical surveys of Ithaca' neighborhoods, paying special attention to places that Ithacans find most appealing. Surveys document residential densities, block sizes, lot widths, thoroughfares (including posted speed limit), civic spaces, lot occupation, setbacks, public and private frontages, and building shape, size, function, and disposition. The measurements help to define Ithaca's DNA; which in turn can shape a zoning code that allows the built environment to reflect both historic character and shared aspirations. Ithaca Is made up of neighborhoods Ithaca is a collection of neighborhoods: places with their own character and culture. Neighborhoods have changed in character over the years. Many of the small shops that used to be scattered throughout the neighborhoods have disappeared, replaced by national chains along Route 13 and other locations. Manufacturing in neighborhoods, such as Morse Chain, Ithaca Gun. and Ithaca Calendar Clocks, has declined as well. However, many small businesses still thrive in the community and other forms of mixed-use, such as schools and churches, thrive. Neighborhoods are coming back in many ways. As technology increasingly allows people to work remotely from or near their homes, the market for a car-free or "car-lite" lifestyle is growing. Mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods typically measure a quarter mile from center to edge, a distance that is called a "pedshed." The map above shows pedsheds in Ithaca's walkable areas, color-coded by type. Studying and understanding Ithaca from a neighborhood perspective allows a nuanced approach to guiding future development and redevelopment. We can identify key opportunities to reintegrate amenities and housing choices into appropriate locations with sensitivity to the unique context of each place. Impact of zoning on character, community, and performance Zoning regulates what kinds of buildings can be built in a particular area, how tall they can be, the sizes of lots that are allowed, what parts of a lot can be covered and what uses are allowed. Since Ithaca has great neighborhoods, one may assume that the zoning that shaped those neighborhoods is great, but that is not necessarily the case. Most of Ithaca's neighborhoods and the features that make up their unique character were designed and built before zoning. When zoning was developed, starting in the 1920s but really taking hold in the mid-20th Century, city leaders sought to retrofit the historic neighborhoods with more "modern," car-oriented development. Zoning was enacted to remove commercial and industrial uses from neighborhoods. Diverse amenities within walking distance were not prioritized because automotive transportation was viewed as the inevitable wave of the future. Zoning was also used to separate housing types and classes in a hierarchy. Single-family homes are allowed almost everywhere, duplexes are allowed in fewer places, and multifamily buildings are limited to fewer areas still—with added restrictions. Commercial and business development is separated from most neighborhoods, though many people are unaware of this because there is so much that has been "grandfathered" into existing locations. Because current zoning was originally intended to make neighborhoods more car-friendly, it includes provisions that negatively affect walkability and character when new development does occur. Setbacks are one example. Historic development of walkable human scale streetscapes has very small setbacks; yet, zoning in Fall Creek, Southslde and Northside requires that new development be set back from the FORM ITHACA street significantly more than the surrounding historic buildings. Imposing deeper setbacks weakens the sense of an "outdoor room" as new-buildings replace the old. Minimum lot sizes are also problematic. Most City and all Town residential zones require lots that are much larger than the fabric of the community's historic neighborhoods. Traditional neighborhoods have a variety of lot sizes, creating different housing opportunities for people with different needs. When large, uniform lot sizes are required, infill sites become more difficult to develop and new greenfield development lacks the diversity and character that makes historic neighborhoods attractive. Reflecting community values The SmartCode helps address the community goals of a reduction in GHG emissions and vehicle miles traveled, preservation of farmland and nature, and increased tax base. Consultant engagement with the city's comprehensive plan committee allows for a holistic, integrated, and value-added approach. At the January 16, 2015 workshop, the consultant team used interactive tools like brainwriting, pedestrian shed delineation, and zoning character "trading cards' to enable participants to visualize and respond to how the community is changing. The interactive tools helped the participants understand metrics- like density, housing and transportation costs and diversity, and GHG emissions per household — of various forms of growth. The City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan draft Future Population Scenarios forecasts the current 2010 city population rising from 30.014 to 46,240 by 2035. an increase in the city's share of the county's population from 29.6 percent to 40 percent. This corresponds with the Regional Sustainabitity Plan's Land Use target of increasing the proportion of Southern Tier residents who live in existing cities and villages. The Town of Ithaca adopted a new Comprehensive Plan in September. 2014. The plan calls for preservation of the Town's rural character through compact, mixed-use growth in three areas—one each on East Hill, South Hill, and West Hill. Ithaca Building Footprints - Lot Coverage Violations Most of Ithaca's neighborhoods would not be allowed under current zoning. Tu' - • - * j 5' . ^ - , Buildings in red could not have been built under today's zoning code. • r; r il" . * 'i .f *7. » Jj;/ ' .i V 0- ' .^-1 This map represents buildings that exceed the allowed lot coverage in residential zones, this is just one of man"y zoning parameters that conflict with the built environment that Ithacan's love. I • •» 4 O »r H *• ♦' ? XV. . I ^ " i- "s 1;. Randall-West 2013 - NY Central State Plane 0 25 0 5 Miles ■ ■ I I '""'7^^" I -'•' • „ > T^yds^?'-: •--""■ - -rf .MTi" \-_^'j;'-^,-,-■ . '• Iff . -.. rsfo SiffiSs .-^v.V--;- .^1 :: . M. »- -.-J.- '-/■ FORM ITHACA Workshop The SmartCode is a tool for preserving existing character and directing the new growth in a way that enhances community character. One of the SmartCode's strengths as an open-source zoning tool is its ability to be adjusted to reflect and respond to local character. The SmartCode is based on the Transect, a system to analyze and code land use patterns on a rural-to-urban continuum. A prototypical American rural-to-urban transect has been divided into six Transect Zones, or T-zones. This zoning system replaces conventional separated-use zoning systems that have encouraged a car-dependent culture and land-consuming sprawl. Parking lots and garages are placed away from the street and the mix of housing styles, types, and sizes allows for walkability and connectivity. The overall goal of the workshop was for participants to gain a thorough understanding of the project and how they can be involved. O ]/\forking together, O participants weigh in on which development types contribute positively to Ithaca's unique character and sort cards by development intensity n Pre-Workshop Activities We invited the planning, zoning, and sustainability staff from the City and Town of Ithaca to a pre-workshop staff retreat in downtown Ithaca on December 12. The retreat was well-attended by the respective City and Town departments, and offered a chance for staff to interact and discuss big-picture planning ideas in an organized but informal atmosphere. After a bus tour around the city and town to examine local examples of development patterns and building types, staff gathered around a large combined zoning map to consider focus areas for SmartCode implementation, SmartCode author Sandy Sorlien of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, presented examples of how the SmartCode has been implemented across a variety of locales nationwide. Earlier in November, SmartCode retail module author Seth Harry visited Ithaca for a meeting with the Form Ithaca team to evaluate Ithaca's retail landscape and potential future development. City and Town of Ithoco Legend Building Types AGk'CUituef POOD AND ilVESTOCr BANKING AND FiNANCe BUILDING CENTRAL COMMEftClAl ANO BEtAK !■ IDUCATION 1^1 bMEKGENCT VISPONSE AND LAW ENfOBCEMENt ENEPGt [ GOVERNMENT ANOMHITART [ HEA;TN ANOMEDCAk j INDUSTB' INFORMATION AND COMMUNCAION I MAil AND $HtP^NG PUfilC ATTRACTIONS AND IANDmARK BWIDtNGS TRANSPOBIATION FAClUTlES WATER AND iBfeATWENT 10 I FORM ITHACA Workshop Participation We used many methods of participation during the workshop, including a process where participants were asked to become familiar with the characteristics of existing Ithaca neighborhoods and building types. Another process asked participants to reply to a series of three placemaking questions using "brainwriting." Brainwriting builds on the brainstorming process by removing fear of evaluation through eliminating the step by which participants publicly state ideas one at a time. Participants are focused on the questions presented rather than extraneous chat. Workshop attendees were asked to quickly (within two minutes) write down their ideas on three separate index cards about three pre-selected questions: 1) What are your favorite places in the community and why?; 2} What's missing from Ithaca? - Draw on some of your favorite places around the country and world; 3) What are areas in the community you feel need some work? (Participants turned their answers in and we compiled feedback from these questions; that information is available below under the section 'Lessons Learned.') A brief discussion followed, based on what the participants wrote on the cards. Planning and development ^trading card' activities We created two sets of planning and development trading cards: a set of building typology trading cards and a set of neighborhood unit trading cards. Building typology trading cards illustrated the characteristics of building types common in Ithaca. Each 3V2" X 5" building type trading card included the name of the neighborhood prominently placed at the top left hand corner along with a plan view map with amenities and diverse uses highlighted. Statistics included lot size; lot coverage; frontage length; front setback; stories; and housing units. To create an interactive planning and zoning experience for practitioners and the public, we asked participants to first decide whether the character of the development was inherently compatible with Ithaca neighborhood characteristics; after eliminating the building types not deemed representative of Ithaca, the participants were asked to assign the remaining trading cards a Transect zone, following the local T-2 through T-6 nomenclature. We have documented this process in the following photos; 11 DEVELOPMENT TYPES What types would you l ike to see more of in Ithaca? 12 I FORM ITHACA Place-basGd trading cards illustrated the characteristics of four neighborhoods centered around a pedestrian shed in and around Ithaca; Deer Run, Northeast Ithaca, Southside, and the Village of Dryden. Each 8V7" x 11" neighborhood trading card included the name of the neighborhood at the top left corner along with a plan view map with amenities and diverse uses highlighted. Running along the right side of the trading card are four 'action shots," character photo examples from that neighborhood that illustrate the building types of the community. Statistics included population; amenities; dwelling units/acre; Walk Score; housing and transportation as a percentage of income; housing diversity; and carbon emissions in tons per household. To create an interactive planning and zoning experience for both practitioners and the public, we then clipped the pedestrian shed from the neighborhood trading cards for workshop participants to use as hypothetical overlays on areas of Ithaca targeted for redevelopment. We documented this process; Both the neighborhood and building type "trading cards' engaged the participants, who were split up into four large (8+ person) tables, for about an hour and a half. We received helpful verbal and written feedback from these activities. Participants followed up with suggestions, like the following example, that inform our plans for expanded and targeted participation: "When we looked at the different building types, we were only shown examples already within Ithaca. I suggest that you consider inclusion of types that we currently don't have, or have in just small supply, such as: townhouses/row houses; low-rise 4-plex or 6-plex styles; "woonerf" styles where the "road" is more like a shared driveway." Dryden .e^ -EfSW*. . Wi js\r.q ;0t^/ wsm ipp He,.. Tr,jn shipping r'U/.irrc 275 See. 57 .f.^e fS' n 13 Lessons Learned Feedback Participants provided comrhents and questions after tlie workshop via email, such as the comment in the previous paragraph. The next event will be a "charrette" or intense multi-day planning workshop to be held in early June of 2015. During this event we plan to identify missing development forms and include measured character examples from other places. The following Is participant feedback collected from the "brainwriting" index cards: The Route 13 corridor is both a problem and opportunity, according to citizens and stakeholders. The waterfront. Stewart Park, Cass Park, the Waterfront Trail, the Ithaca Farmer's Market, and important stores like Wegman's are located on the west side of the highway. Most residents live on the east side. "Barriers like Route 13 need to be overcome." says one resident, "Better crossings could weave communities together." In our informal survey, Route 13 was frequently cited as a problem and an opportunity for growth. "The Route 13 corridor doesn't have to be suburban form—it could be more urban, pedestrian-oriented." and "Route 13 shopping could be more mixed-use and walkable," are typical comments. By making the road more pedestrian friendly, residents would be connected to the city's greatest natural asset, the take. Residents call for "lakefront access," an "urban waterfront," "restaurants on the water," "waterfront neighborhoods," and a "waterfront district with cafes/ bookstores/mixed-use, and the density to make that happen." Says one resident, "I miss having a good connection to the lake." The West End, where Route 13 is split into Meadow and Fulton streets, "could be cool some day. It has a ton of potential but is so pedestrian unfriendly." Inlet Island is underutilized. The coordination, and quantity, of traffic lights may add to automobile congestion. One resident of West Hill notes that "when the signals are out, traffic flows better." Downtown is a favorite place for many Ithacans. The Commons. Restaurant Row, and the area around Dewitt Park were singled out as places of particular importance. Downtown is the community's chief gathering place. It's a primary recreational spot. Much of the day-to-day businesses is transacted theie. But vacant buildings like the old Tompkins County Library and the Masonic Temple, and vacant storefronts on The Commons rob the downtown of vibrancy, many residents feel. The downtown could be improved with more general retail, more residents, and more liveliness at night. Ithaca's neighborhoods are tremendous assets, particularly their diverse character, historic homes, small-scale gathering spots, and walkable scale. More "third places" and corner stores could improve these neighborhoods in many cases, residents feel. "There's no smalt commercial gathering place on West Hill—it needs a Gimme Coffee equivalent," says one resident. "South Hill needs a grocery store," notes another. Many residents appreciate easy access to small-scale retail and mixed use. in neighborhoods like Fall Creek and Northside, and downtown. Connections on foot and by bicycle are valued in Ithaca. Residents would like more of these connections in places like the Southwest, the West End, and across Route 13. Most comments relate in some way to walkability in neighborhoods, downtown, across corridors, and connecting to nature. The waterfalls and gorges are huge assets—particularly Ithaca Falls. Cascadilla. and Six Mile Creek, which residents can easily reach in a few minutes on foot. In the Town of Ithaca, Forest Home is singled out as 14 I FORM ITHACA Favorite Places rt 3 5 FallCreelc SixMHeCreck ^^roraSc =f I ithacaralis V WV-t_ WV^ Knr 1 iBeautifuKSS!/^-Ucd a LliUl views So^aiuiJ.' Uommons ^^5:iidowntqwn RescauraiuRovv J architecture^ TS ^^1 cat ^ rt J—I O g o Hundreds of responses to the brain writing activity have been archived digitally. To briefly understand the most significant responses we have created word cioud^^ of the top 50 responses for Favorite Places and Places That Need Work. Text size is relative to how frequently each word or phrase was repeated by multiple respondents. Responses were minimally edited to use consistent language when referring to the same location, for example Restaurant Row was inserted whenever a respondent mentioned the block of Aurora St. between State and Seneca. Places That Need Work Sidewalks,uiUL-wditva connect i ' a land 1^"^ ^ income shopping VjltVneedLvv^,p..k walkabilicy SouthHiU^^^^^^^ cirCcL TT 7 ^T7 1areas So^h J PoHceComm^.yRclati^s ^ \\/ eSt jTHd Arroraablehlousmg At'riousing Bikelnrrastructure Commons ^AJorStateSt "".WestHill empty -pv jDiiceiiiri dSLiU' Kouteij 1 5 j striking, appealing community. Many cite the natural assets of the town—the farms. The Plantations, and farm stands— as important. Problems noted include sprawl and limited public access to the lake. East Hill Plaza is an opportunity for mixed-use development. The universities are assets to many—particularly East Hill with its intellectual life and adjacent neighborhoods like the 1920s Belle Sherman area. Collegetown, and gathering places like the Chapter House. Many residents call for more affordable housing—in particular housing that is integrated into existing neighborhoods and amenities. Transit access to West Village is problematic, one resident notes. More diversity in housing is missed. Residents mentioned condominiums, townhouses and rowhouses. bungalows, duplexes and other multiplexes, stacked flats, and apartments in short supply. More frequent transit and better connections to outlying areas is desired. Examples of Positive Character Workshop participants rated places highly when they had: Shallow Setbacks Small Lots High Lot Coverage Pedestrian Scale Detail Neighborhood Retail Walkable Streets Relatively Dense and Diverse Housing Workshop participants rated places poorly when they had: Off street parking along the sidewalk Deep Setbacks Large Lots Low Lot Coverage Monoculture Development Auto-Dependent Strip Retail 16 I FORM ITHACA Mixed-use development focus areas The project team used a multifaceted approach to create the map of development focus areas. These are the areas of the City and the Town where mixed-use development is desired and most likely to occur—and therefore are places of special attention for code reform. In this report, the mixed-use development focus areas map is a draft—subject to refinement, if necessary, based upon further input from citizens and community leaders. The city's draft Comprehensive Plan and the Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan are the documents that set the parameters for this work. The city's plan calls for significant mixed-use growth in its existing mixed-use centers of downtown (including the State Street corridor), and Collegetown. Additional mixed-use growth is called for along the Route 13 corridor from Southwest to the waterfront area. The town's plan calls for areas of higher density on East Hill near Cornell University and South Hill near Ithaca College, and medium density walkable development on West Hill, some adjacent to Cayuga Medical Center, the county's fifth largest employer. The team conducted field research with mixed-use development expert Seth Harry, who was active in the January 16 workshop. In addition, a bus tour on December 12 with City and Town planning staff toured potential areas of growth and focus areas for SmartCode implementation. During the January Workshop, participants placed hypothetical overlays of four different development patterns, two mixed-use and two single-use. Participants overwhelmingly preferred the mixed-use patterns, one lower intensity and one higher intensity. In the map at right we see the outcome of this process. The gray areas are the existing urban centers of downtown and Collegetown. The black concentric circles are eight potential mixed-use focus areas—four are in the city, three are in the town, and one is shared between the city and the town. downtown and Tompkins County's second largest employer. Ithaca College. 3) Danby Road and King Road. This lower-intensity focus area is centered on an important gateway to the community near Ithaca College. 4} Cayuga Medical Center. This lower-intensity mixed-use focus area is adjacent to the county's fifth-largest employer. 5) Waterfront District. This higher-intensity mixed-use area is among the most promising sites for development in the city, centered along the waterfront and Route 13. The attention of Workshop participants gravitated to this area. 6) Inlet Island/West End. This area already has significant mixed-use and is becoming more diverse. Workshop participants viewed this area as having tremendous potential for higher-intensity mixed-use development. 7) Meadow Street/Old Elmira Road. This commercial area is beginning to attract new development and is an area where the city's draft Comprehensive Plan calls for more residential. The city recently invested in streetscape infrastructure along Old Elmira Road. 8) Southwest Development Area. This area behind Walmart and Lowe's has long been slated for development. This map provides a framework for the SmartCode process but also, potentially, clarifies future development patterns in Ithaca's urbanized area in a way that could guide infrastructure investment that boosts quality of life. n 1) East Hill Plaza. This high-intensity mixed-use focus area is adjacent to Tompkins County's major employer, Cornell University. Cornell has located some of its facilities in this shopping area that includes a supermarket and other neighborhood-serving shops, businesses, and restaurants, and a hotel. This area could be transformed into a walkable urban center with a significant residential component. 2) Chain Works District. This lower-intensity mixed-use focus area is centered on the redevelopment of Ithaca's largest former industrial site, a prime location between n 'f'i ~i •^^4?t:v-i'- «-K<.-jJii • i^. >, ,.»,v .'fr * v-rvi n Town of Ithaca 1. East Hill Plaza 2. Chain Works District City of Ithaca 2- Chain Works District 5. Waterfront District 3. Danby/KIng Road Intersection 6. Inlet IslandWest End 4. Cayuga Medical Center 7, Meadow Street/Old Elmira Road 8. Southwest Development Area ^ 1/2 1/2 j/ip i t W m iP 0 MILES I n n m ^0 MILES LOWER INTENSITY HIGHER INTENSITY MIXED-USE FOCUS ARE A MIXED-USE FOCUS AREA 18 1 FORM ITHACA Next Steps Plans for expanded and targeted participation The next major event in the development of a better zoning code for the City and Town of Ithaca will be a 4-day long intensive "charrette" focused on key areas for the new mixed-use centers that were identified in the January 16th Community Workshop. The charrette is a dynamic collaborative process that brings together representatives from a mix of established planning, architecture, engineering, and development disciplines. This process is open to all members of the community, regardless of expertise. It helps to bring out the generalist in practitioners, and gives the public the benefit of expert opinion in an open, inclusive forum. A charrette is divided into two phases: creative phase and the production phase. The creative phase includes a host of community engagement techniques including a welcome message from the city mayor and town supervisor, respectively, prior to presentations giving an overview of the entire project process and important existing conditions. We anticipate that the charrette will be held at a highly visible public location refashioned as a 'studio.' In the lead up to the charrette. the Form Ithaca Team will be meeting frequently with neighborhood groups and other local organizations. These meetings are an opportunity to build support for better zoning and a chance for the team to hear concerns and new ideas that can be incorporated into the code. Form Ithaca will be working closely with city and town staff to develop draft definitions of each zone based on the historic fabric of Ithaca's neighborhoods. These definitions will be the starting point for more specific urban design and planning work for new and existing neighborhoods during the charrette process. Once we have a draft code. Form Ithaca is planning a 'Crack the Code' event, where the public and planning design practitioners are invited to a public event to test the worst development possible under the proposed guidelines. Participants will be encouraged to 'crack the code' - to find gaps in the existing and proposed zoning code that permit undesirable community character. This participation helps further the production of a feasible, working code developed in an engaging, transparent, interactive, and even fun environment. It allows for the public review of the zoning code's strengths and weaknesses and promotes the assessment of the code in relation to the respective comprehensive plans. Presentation of character examples alongside the code increases confidence that the renderings are representative examples of what may actually get built. Examination of the proposed zoning on a constrained site, balanced alongside factors such as market conditions, is essential in a project that seeks to connect sustainability metrics to fundamental aspects in design of the built environment. iliiil IILLIMm05 Share your thoughts There are a number of ways you can ask questions and share your thoughts about the Form Ithaca project, including sending us a message or contacting your local municipal planning staff and representatives. Better Cities & Towns Robert Steutevllle, Executive Director (607) 275-3087 mail@newurbannews.com Better Cities & Towns 218Utica St. Ithaca. NY 14850 You can also call or write your local planning staff and/or representatives: Town of Ithaca Susan Ritter, Director of Planning (607) 273-1736 x120 Town Hall 215 North Tioga St Ithaca. NY 14850 Citv of Ithaca JoAnn Cornish. Director of Planning & Economic Develooment (607) 274-6550 City Hall 108 E. Green Street Ithaca. NY 14850 edule: June 3-6, 2015 Focus Area Planning Charrette September 2015 Consultant Presentations to City and Town December 2015 Anticipated City Common Council and Town Board formal acceptance of draft zoning report Early 2016 Formal municipal review process of re-zoning gets underway EF formithaca.org FORM ITHACA PART 2: Applying the Character Code September 2015 ( Fi formithaca.org rrrrn. I Jr'4 i||a« . Consultant Team: Better! Cities & Towns Robert Steuteville, CNU-A Katie Stoner Randall + West Planners CJ. Randall, LEED AP ND David West, LEED AP STREAM Collaborative Noah Demarest, AIA, RLA, LEED AP Rob Morache Chris Parker Jennifer Demarest Kate Chesebrough Charrette designers and Artists: Seth Harry and Associates Alta Planning + Design Barry Mahaffey, BSB Design This report summarizes the Form Ithaca Charrette hosted June 3-6,2015, at the Unitarian Church of Ithaca—plus field research, meetings, design, and planning work that occurred both before and after the event Form Ithaca is an initiative to help support the ongoing efforts of the City and Town of Ithaca, New York, to update land use regulations to meet the goals and objectives of their comprehensive plans. The project supports a full range of housing and lifestyle options within a framework that facilitates transportation choice, a reduction in greenhous^ gas emissions, and a strong economy for the region. ^ This report delves into how the Character Code could be applied, particularly in development focus areas of the City and Town, what ideas resonate with charrette participants, and critical issues that could be addressed through form-based planning and zoning. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority is funding Form Ithaca with matching resources from the Park Foundation, the City, and the Town. Because Ithaca's success will come, partly, from how land use regulations and development shape the community, this project offers exciting opportunities for the City and Town. I feel privileged to be part of the Form Ithaca team and I look forward to more community comments and participation as we move forward with the Character Code. Key Advisors: Sandy Sorlien Jessica Millman, LEED AP ND Chuck Banas Cover illustration: View of Third Street crossing North Meadow Street: Ithaca extends to the water with the help of the Character Code. Applying the Character Code to Ithaca Through the city's and the town's adopted comprehensive plans, Ithaca citizens and leaders are calling for complete, compact neighborhoods. The only way to build new neighborhoods like Downtown, Fall Creek, Northside, Southside, or Belle Sherman under the current system is through obtaining a large number of variances or seeking "planned unit development." The Planned Unit Development system is highly unpredictable, because it puts everything up for negotiation in a lengthy, costly, uncertain process. Meanwhile, the market is growing for compact neighborhoods. "The market demand in Fall Creek and other neigh borhoods exceeds supply, and we need to find alternatives," notes Nels Bohn, director of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency. The rental vacancy rate is effectively zero—which contributes to an affordable housing shortage. The Town of Ithaca surrounds the city and historically consisted of farmland and stunning natural features including gorges and Cayuga Lake. Since the middle of the last century, about half of the 30-square-mile Town has developed with suburban- yle houses, a college campus and medical center, and commercial uses. The Town's 2014 Comprehensive Plan calls for development In three nodes to preserve as much remaining farmland and nature as possible. Form Ithaca is working with the town and city to craft the Character Code to shape future development in a way that is consistent with recent comprehensive planning efforts. Form Ithaca held a design charrette in early June to demonstrate how the Character Code could work together with smart transportation and land use planning decisions. The Character Code is a form- certainty, the character of place—while emphasizing separation of use less. The Character Code also requires thinking on different scales than are typical in day-to-day land use planning, which zeroes in on buildings, parcels, and subdivisions. Big picture ideas are addressed in comprehensive plans, which are necessarily vague— with details to be worked out later. Comprehensive plans also end at the municipal line. In Ithaca, the Town and A design charrette is an excellent tool for thinking about neighborhoods, where all elements of daily life come together. based code (FBC), which differs from conventional zoning that focuses more on separation of use rather than the character of neighborhoods. FBCs allow communities to code, with more the City comprise one community and the patterns of development in one jurisdiction affects residents in both municipalities. Most people are not aware of the moment they cross the 4 I FORM ITHACA 1 Draft growth and preservation sectors for Ithaca: The dark green are natural areas for permanent preservation. The light green is countryside where preservation is desirable through policy and zoning. Gray areas have existing development. New growth areas are yellow and orange. Legend I I Municipal Boundaries 01 Preserved Land [[•jiijlll,' 02 Reserved Rural IB G1 Reslricled Growth Sector L G2 Controlled Growth Sector 1^1 G3 Intended Growth Sector Areas not covered by Giowth Sectors are existining neighborhoods and require calibrated zoning lor inliU and character preservation 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 1 I n n I I I I I A N ' Pedestrian Watkshed r\ n ne from the Town to the City or vice- versa. Form Ithaca is simultaneously examining both municipalities' zoning, trying to resolve border issues and bring land use regulations closer into alignment. Between big-picture comprehensive plans and individual developments, the neighborhood is a crucial scale of planning that impacts lives in a community. A design charrette is an excellent tool for thinking about neighborhoods, where ail elements of daily life come together. The Character Code brings together regional, neighborhood, and building scale issues, while reconciling ideas with recent Town and City comprehensive planning efforts. The principles imbedded in the Character Code address all scales. n a regional scale, one place to begin is preservation of natural areas and countryside. On page 4 Is a map showing permanent natural (dark green) and rural (light green) areas in Ithaca. Open space could be preserved through policies such as transfer of development rights and compact development. With the Character Code, future growth is encouraged in Growth Sectors, based on the City and Town comprehensive plans. Form Ithaca created a map of new development focus areas in the City and Town- see below. Four areas in the City, three in the Town, and one shared between both municipalities, along with Downtown/State Street and Collegetown. are where development is desired and likely to occur in the next quarter century. These areas could accommodate nearly all of the anticipated growth in Ithaca. A charrette is ideal for examining issues in development focus areas, which are planned as neighborhoods. Form Ithaca looked in detail at two F 13 focus areas: The Waterfront, (number 5 on the map on this page), and the area around Danby and King roads (number 3). Development focus areas provide a framework for alternative transportation like transit and carshare. Representatives of Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) attended the Form Ithaca event and discussed how focus areas could provide a framework for transit-oriented development and improvements in service. While TCAT provides frequent service between Downtown and Cornell, buses usually operate hourly on other routes. TCAT recently experimented with more frequent (half- hour) service on weekend evenings between Downtown and Ithaca College. Typically, such a rise in service would result in 50 percent increases in usage. TCAT found that ridership skyrocketed more than 300 percent, pointing to significant latent demand. The 'missing middle* and the little guy Conventional codes tend to favor single- family dwellings and substantial apartment buildings in specific areas. Other housing types—such as townhouses, accessory dweilings, multiplexes, small apartment buildings, cottage courts, and stacked flats—tend to be difficult to build in many areas. These building types are known as the "missing middle," and they can provide more affordability, varied living arrangements, and density in a way that is compatible with the character of a diverse neighborhood, A system that requires variances for these types stacks the regulatory deck against variety, because the public sees these kinds of buildings as "breaking the rules," Residents may associate density with larger buildings only. "We are trying to illustrate the missing middle in a way that is more palatable to the public by combining placemaking, neighborhood structure, and community building in a way that shows real benefits of compact development." says urban designer Seth Harry, a leader of the Form Ithaca charrette. FORM ITHACA These "missing middle" types—two, four, six-unit buildings or clusters—also enable small developers and builders. Missing middle housing types can be financed and built on small lots, incrementally. A growing number of off-the-shelf building plans meet the standards of a form-based code—but also reduce costs and are designed for easier financing. This small-scale density is appropriate for infill sites and also can be incorporated into new villages or neighborhoods. With a FBC, any number of independent small developers can help to build a coherent neighborhood—that's how cities and towns used to be built. Small-scale retail also can be enabled through a FBC, because the process identifies centers where neighborhood-scale retail is appropriate. The code ensures that the physical form is compatible. A typical convenience mart with parking in front becomes a corner store. A commercial strip shopping center can be built as a village square. "Allowing small-scale retail In neighborhoods has real benefits," Harry says. "It takes car trips off the network—it's convenient for households." Build a better 'burb Although Ithaca is a walkable small city, it also has drive-only suburbs, both in the City and Town, Some of these single-use areas could be more diverse and walkable—this change is envisioned in Ithaca's new comprehensive planning efforts. A FBC is essential for retrofit because it allows for a mix of uses and uses the urban-rural Transect as a tool to encourage development that is appropriately mixed at a fine grain. In cases where a community would like to see a commercial strip or car-oriented shopping center transition to a neighborhood, a FBC is the typical regulatory tool employed. Other critical aspects of the Character Code and Form Ithaca's charrette: Streets are not just conduits for traffic, but are critical public spaces and form the framework of neighborhoods. With the help of a top "complete streets" planning and engineering firm, the Character Code Includes "street sections" for the City and Town that encourage multi-modal transportation. The code is based on the urban-rural Transect, a system to analyze and code land use patterns on a rural-to-urban continuum. A prototypical American Transect has been divided into six zones, which can be used in a similar way to zones in a conventional code {which can have 30 or 40 zones). The Transect is based on observation of traditional neighborhoods, and can be used to support new walkable neighborhoods. Connections are key to the Character Code. Neighborhoods, amenities, and critical destinations are often divided from one another. Form Ithaca examines how these can be connected in practical ways through alternative transportation and street networks. Connections to nature are critical to quality of life. For example. Route 13 is a barrier between residential neighborhoods and one of Ithaca's greatest assets—Cayuga Lake. Form Ithaca addressed that and other related issues. Shared spaces—be they parks, main streets, neighborhood centers, squares, plazas, or other gathering areas—are important to the character and identity of a community. The charrette and code address how these spaces can be created and Improved. The Character Code addresses how industry and jobs can be connected to and incorporated into neighborhoods. The missing middle. Duplex Mid-Rise Triplex & Fourplex .• /... .CourtyardLive/Work Townhouse Apartment Bungalow Court Single Unit Detached Missing Housing O Source: Opticos Design Study Area 1 Danby & King Roads A neighborhood plan combines big picture thinking and details in a way that deepens a community conversation on place, in the Town of Ithaca, we studied the area around the intersection of Route 96B (Danby Road), and King Road, identified in the comprehensive plan as a nodal growth area. The area currently has automobile-oriented development patterns (north is to the right). The circle is a quarter-mile from center to edge—a five-minute walk that is comfortable for most people. Form Ithaca laid out two plans—any number of layouts are possible the Character Code. A village center is created at the crossroads, bottom left. The second plan, bottom right, includes a village square. Some 600 homes could be built within, or close to, a quarter- mile radius, or pedestrian walkshed. / ' .tit-, / /I }m%7 ^ri V: 'As , • J h fw:t- •"a I , ii -T-ii' *• •1— v'" fii' 8 I FORM ITHACA 1 viu/ee fiQUApe. The village square would transform the character of the intersection, which is currently a "big asphalt" place. The square could include commercial uses typically found in a neighborhood-serving shopping center—perhaps 20.000 to 25,000 square feet of retail. Parking could be accommodated around the square itself, with the remainder behind the buildings. Some of the customers for the shops could live on the square. This is an example of how the Character Code could allow neighborhood shops. The village center would not compete with downtown Ithaca, two miles away, but could take some automobile trips off the regional network—perhaps replacing some shopping trips to big box stores in the valley. A rendering of how the village center would look is at the top of this article. We show how "missing middle" housing types, such as courtyard cottages, townhouses, and small mixed-use buildings could be built in the village. At right is an image of courtyard cottages by Seth Harry. The cottages are lined up on a mid- block green space that allows pedestrian passage. € a- ^ Seth Harry and Associates -i- rd.f ^ - F Farmer^ Market II ' >•*- w. J *•jg*^ 'JZFjH J % ' '|WW treatmente« - /"N ^■\ Warehouses -Gardens? ^ mm DPW A Northside / »4 Study Area 2 The Waterfront Throughout Form Ithaca's project, citizens have told us that the waterfront represents a significant opportunity for mixed-use growth. A barrier, many agree, is Route 13, which could be remade into a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly boulevard. With that change, land adjacent to Cayuga Inlet opens for redevelopment—creating the potential for a spectacular transformation that includes; • A series of public spaces on the water that would allow people to live, work, and play in a water- related place. An expansion of the Ithaca's Farmers Market, one of the best farmers markets anywhere— but currently hemmed in by power lines and a transportation facility. Possible preservation of the city's 2.2-acre community gardens, already occupying a site near the water. Use of the Ithaca Wastewater Treatment Facility to create alternative energy for new and existing development. • A new "innovation district" in warehouses owned by Cornell University to allow light manufacturing and office space for entrepreneurs and "makers." Up to 3.5 million square feet of new compact, neighborhood-style development, mostly residential—but also with significant workplace and some water-related retail. The area currently includes a variety of uses, some of which could realistically move. The New York State Department of Transportation stores snow plows 10 I FORM ITHACA and road maintenance materials on a prime piece of waterfront real estate (see map above). Likewise, Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) is exploring a new home for its bus depot—the facility is at or over capacity. The city's Department of Public Works and Cornell-owned warehouses are other facilities with the potential to move, and a marina has been slated for redevelopment. Across Route 13, the Northside neighborhood has significant surface parking where infill development could take place. The Form Ithaca waterfront plan (see below), illuminates issues facing the city while it explores form-based coding. The circle is a quarter-mile radius. The city's 2015 adopted comprehensive plan calls for significant growth in the city population (now 30,000+). Ithaca has the fastest job growth in New York State and has attracted national attention as an entrepreneurial hub with roughly 100 startup companies. But housing is in severe shortage. The waterfront is an opportunity to build housing. The plan represents up to 2,700 new housing units, some of which could be affordable. The illustrative plan at least addresses the question: Is there room for a significant population growth in Ithaca? Given that the waterfront is one of a half dozen potential growth areas, the answer is clearly yes. The waterfront has economic development potential. Upstate New York is noticeably lacking in mixed-use urban waterfront areas, which tend to draw tourists, local users, and investors. Think of any seaside community, or, on a larger scale. Baltimore's Inner Harbor or Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. Skaneateles village, about an hour away from Ithaca, is a popular destination because of its waterfront. The illustration at right shows how the Ithaca waterfront might look. Five-story buildings are shown. The soils in the area are alluvial, requiring pilings drilled down approximately 100 feet. A minimum number of stories is needed to make development profitable. Island Fitness, on the Inlet about a half-mile away, is also five stories. •J ^ - -i'-/ & o w ''wy-v;?' ■m'V. . f~"inirnu'fT'rin t— ifK m 'J^ BmnNaaowr!) Serb Harry and Associates The design hits the marks of proven waterfront revitalization. It provides continuous public access through a series of plazas and open spaces, some of which could feature outdoor dining. The plazas and parks act like windows on the water. It connects to a larger natural trail network, the Cayuga Waterfront Trail, currently 17 miles long and eventually 6 miles long, It features a boulevard as a spine for new development—the current Route 13 between Fall Creek bridge and Fulton Street. « The buildings are designed to respond to the water, and the public space adds value to the land. Farmers market The Farmers Market in Ithaca is a spectacle—its the place that everyone brings visitors. It connects local residents with regional growers, who successfully market their goods. Open seasonally and on weekends, it is one of the best public spaces in the city. The market is often too crowded and the managers would like to expand-but they can't build due to constraints with overhead power lines. A waterfront development should deal with this issue—the Form Ithaca plan is an example that accommodates almost unlimited growth of the market through tents in the plentiful envisioned, adjacent, open spaces. One of the new buildings could be a multiuse space that accommodates winter market operation. With thousands of new families within walking distance, the farmers market is bound to draw more customers year-round. Gardens The 2,2-acre community gardens are a potentially contentious issue with development of the waterfront. They occupy prime real estate and could be moved to another site or sites, but not without controversy. Our analysis shows that plenty of development can take place without moving the gardens. In a densely developed area, they could provide an agrarian oasis where residents could watch the gardeners at work, admire the flowers and tomatoes, and do gardening themselves. The Wastewater Treatment Facility could be viewed as a development deterrent—but in our analysis its an asset. Concerns are raised about odors, but doesn't seem to bother the adjacent Farmers Market patrons. People who moved into the waterfront neighborhood would do so with the awareness of 12 I FORM ITHACA the treatment plant as a neighbor. The plant is a potential energy producer for the city, according to Dan Ramer. plant operator. Methane from the plant and solar panel on roofs could provide power to 3.5 million square feet of development on the waterfront and existing buildings in adjacent neighborhoods, a recent report says. Constraints and connectivity By turning a part of Route 13 into a boulevard, the plan allows for more connections to the site and a network of streets. Connectivity is now restricted by Norfolk Southern railroad tracks and two waterways. Development of the waterfront would require at least secondary access for emergency vehicles. This could be accomplished in many ways, include street access over the tracks—but that may require a court order. The plan also shows two optional bridges—an all-vehicle bridge over Cascadilla Creek and a bike- ped bridge with emergency vehicle access over Cayuga Inlet. The Inlet bridge would likely have to be a drawbridge to allow sailboat navigation. This "big picture" idea may be controversial, but the amount of development could justify the cost. The direct connections over to Cass Park across the Inlet—its pool, theater, children's garden, playgrounds, trails, ballfields, and other facilities—would be tremendous. Thousands of city residents that currently drive to Cass Park would be minutes away by bicycle. West Hill residents could bicycle or walk to the farmers market and the new waterfront. When our ancestors built the historic city, they didn't just build neighborhoods—they built bridges. And thankfully they did. A waterfront redevelopment could be designed in countless ways according to a form-based code, which would be geared to ensure walkability and a human-scale public realm. The most important elements to keep intact would be changing the character of Route 13 to connect the city to the water, creating compelling waterfront public spaces, and providing housing and places for businesses to thrive. Exploring big issues ahead of time helps to avoid piecemeal development. Connecting jobs to a neighborhood Theeconomic development potential for Ithaca's Water front includes housing, connecting the city with the water, public spaces with tourism potential, agriculture goods marketing, alternative energy, and jobs. An "innovation district" is a particularly interesting part of the plan. Ithaca had manufacturing scattered throughout its neighborhoods at one time with Emerson/Morse Chain, Ithaca Gun. and the Ithaca Calendar Clock Company. Those industries have left Ithaca's neighborhoods, but the time is right to connect a modern version of light manufacturing and other production to neighborhoods. The Cornell warehouses now, with the Palisade software company on the far left. HimMI iflgmj Innovation District Concept Design Rendering (Above), Plan (below) This city with a population just over 30,000 has the highest job growth rate in New York State. It is home to Cornell, dubbed "Silicon Ivy" by Forbes, and Ithaca has lately attracted attention from national media as a center of entrepreneurshlp. The community has the culture and talent that attracts companies today. A survey in 2014 by the NAIOP, the national commercial real estate association, showed that 83 percent of firms want to locate in a mixed- use walkable place—either downtown or in the suburbs. A survey 30 years ago would have found a strong preference for industrial and office parks. The dramatic shift has to do with talent — young and educated people now favor mixed-use places. Ithaca's strong economy has no immediate limit except for its capacity to hold people and businesses in the kinds of places the market favors. For Ithaca's job production and economic growth to continue, the community needs more people, housing, and places for this creative energy to express itself. Cornell University owns cinder block warehouses in the waterfront area and Cornell representatives said the institution might consider moving the operations closer to campus if a better use is found for the buildings. The buildings would be ideal "maker space" as part of a new waterfront neighborhood. The Form Ithaca plan includes nearly 600,000 ... , square feet of workplace, and the coolest part is the reuse of the warehouses. The "maker" movement includes coffee roasters and beer crafters, value-added food processors, robot designers, software programmers and the like. Light manufacturing, technology, and creative production plays to Ithaca's strengths. The warehouse area already has one successful tech company called Palisade. The walkabitity and nearby amenities are positive attributes to this kind of district. 14 I FORM ITHACA TmnafpuiiiMiiiBFi htimWli'i Ithaca Calendar Clock building in the Fall Creek neighborhood. Google Street View One can imagine that with Ithaca's extraordinary farmers market in the area—with room to expand— the Innovation District would include food processing with locally growth ingredients. The Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility has a vision for creating an "energy district" that could offer shared heating and alternative energy from methane produced at the plant along with solar panels. It could serve the district in addition to new and existing housing. The buildings themselves wouldn't have to change much. They would need windows, landscaping, and the central asphalt area would be converted to a "shared space" plaza. To see what the Innovation District could look like, see the drawing at the top of the previous page- showing the same buildings modified. Some of the old factories in and around Ithaca are already being used for entrepreneurship and business activity. One example is the South Hill Business Campus in the Town of Ithaca, the reuse of the defunct National Cash Register factory a little over a mile south of downtown—now with 43 business tenants. On a smaller scale, the historic Ithaca Calendar Clock building—very close to the waterfront area—includes a large music supplier, doctor's offices, home inspectors. Ithaca Festival offices, studios for yoga/dance, photography, and cello, a bait & tackle shop, and gunsmithing. No other city in upstate New York, large or small, is better prepared to attract educated talent for entrepreneurship and business. Nurturing the maker movement in the Waterfront area is one of Ithaca's best opportunities to build on its economic strengths. The Character Code could offer the framework to connect jobs to neighborhoods in a compact, accessible region. Great streets The bones of great neighborhoods Street design is critical to mixed-use. walkable neighborhoods—and therefore to the Character Code. With the help of transportation consultant Alta Planning + Design, we created a full menu of street sections for Ithaca designed for various capacity, purpose, and character, The latter quality is important for multimodal thoroughfares that attract pedestrians. Two thoroughfares are key to development of the study areas. In the Town, the thoroughfare is Route 96B—Danby Road—a state highway that connects the proposed village with the city. Along the highway is Ithaca's second largest employer, Ithaca College, a liberal arts school with approximately 6,000 students. The students frequently walk or bike up and down the highway with fast-moving traffic and no sidewalks or bike facilities. This stretch of road also includes a 271,000 square foot business complex, with 43 firms, that occupies a former factory across from the college. Below is an image of that stretch of highway, with the factory on the left, the college on the right. Route 96B - Google Street View 15 n Planting strip SidewalkBufferDrive lane Planting strip Drive ane Route 96B - Boulevard Option Form llhaca brought together transportation experts and stakeholders, including state DOT engineers, to solve problems like those on Route 96B. That highway does not have the traffic to justify four lanes. It could be narrowed to two 10-foot lanes with a boulevard strip in the middle. The road is wide enough to also accommodate a two-way cycle track and sidewalk. Above is the street section that we proposed which could better connect a new village. Ithaca College, and the business facility to Downtown. Threshold strategy In the City, Route 13, or North Meadow Street, is a highway that cuts neighborhoods off from the water. Ourteam explored howthecitycouldturn the barrier into a boulevard. The broad strokes of this idea are outlined in the city's Comprehensive Plan, which will soon be considered for adoption. Currently, a driver entering Ithaca from the north doesn't know they are in a city until the highway divides into one-way couplets—Fulton and Meadow streets—one block apart. Up to that point vehicles sail past neighborhoods at speeds well in excess of posted speed limits. Design speeds are much higher than posted speed limits of 40 and 30 miles per hour. After consulting with the state DOT and other transportation stakeholders, our team proposed moving the place where motorists sense they are entering a city back about 8/10ths of a mile. That would create an new threshold into the city—so we call it the North Meadow Street Threshold Strategy. Iconic Bridge Gateway P *'J / i''' --*•'^•1 ' n '-.tMedian Possible bicycle and pedestrian undercrossings Enhance Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Streetscape Median Enhance Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Median Potential New Access/Crossing Ceremonial I ^ City Gateway 16 i FORM ITHACA Bridge character crossing over Fall Creek on Route 13. (left) vs Plain Street over Six Mile Creek (right). The concept involves landscaping, lane narrowing, intersection improvements, buildings facing the street, sidewalks, and other improvements. The first step involves changes to a bridge over Fall Creek, which is now nearly unnoticeable. A small guardrail is the only visible element (see above left). Wade Walker of Alta Planning proposes making a statement, structurally or artistically, to let drivers know they are crossing a bridge, better demarcating the threshold into an urban place. It could be lampposts and masonry guardrails, such as on the Plain Street bridge (upper right) or sculptures. After the bridge, the strategy calls for narrowing lane widths to 11 feet to slow traffic and creating a central boulevard planting strip—with trees. (See section at right.) After the first intersection, Dey Street, a slip lane is added to the section for slow local traffic and bicycles (see section at bottom). A slip lane is provided at an intersection to allow vehicles to turn at the intersection without actually entering it and interfering with through traffic. On-street parking would serve urban commercial frontages with sidewalks and more street trees. Additional street connections would make the blocks shorter: A photographic simulation on page 17 shows how the character of the corridor could dramatically change. Planting trees that grow tall would be key to the transformation. For decades, 11' Drive iane 16'11' Drive lar* 11' Drive lane 10 flaming strip ir Drive lane icr Planlingstrip n IV Driin: lane 16 stro n- DrivclancOnvelanellrnclanc PUntitw stns Pan.,ml. 17 avoided trees near major thoroughfare under the mistaken belief that they are hazards. Research shows the opposite is true. Intelligent signal system Route 13 is the busiest highway in Ithaca, with 35,000 vehicles a day including many trucks. Where the highway connects with routes 79,89. and 96 in the city, congestion occurs at times during the day. Intelligent signal systems with real-time adjustments could make this area work better and coincide with changes in the character of the thoroughfare. DOT officials at the Form Ithaca charrette said they are open to the idea of a pilot intelligent signal project in Ithaca—it would be the first use of such technology In upstate New York. The traffic signals are currently set on a timer. Intelligent signals perform significantly better, Walker says. A transformed Route 13 into a boulevard—North Meadow Street—would allow new development to occur, making possible one of the first urban waterfronts in this part of Upstate. Here's an image that shows how the city could connect to the water with the help of a new boulevard that takes the place of the highway. Adding a "slip lane," a slow-speed separated lane for local traffic with parking, sidewalks and street oriented development creates a walkable neighborhood feel while preserving Route 13's capacity and throughput. 18 I FORM ITHACA Policy and technical applications Here's a deal that could come with a form-based code: The community gets walkable neighborhoods with affordable housing—developers get a streamlined approval process. During the charrette, Form Ithaca convened local developers who discussed, among many topics, the idea of adopting "inclusionary zoning" with a FBC- Inclusionary zoning typically works this way; With projects of a certain size (e.g. 10 or more units) a percentage of units {e.g. 10 percent) must be affordable to households that earn 80 percent or less of the area median income. These numbers can be adjusted to suit a particular community. A higher percentage of affordability can be incentivized with a bonus. Developers may meet inclusionary zoning require ments through: Design and construction (e.g. less expensive features v^ithout dramatically changing the building appearance); Smaller units or alternative types such as accessory units or cottages; Subsidy; Or a combination of those three. Requirements are clear and consistent. "Inclusionary zoning is something that people see as a tangible benefit," notes Jeremy Thomas, senior director of Real Estate in Facility Services at Cornell University in Ithaca. "There's a clear value to the public, which becomes more comfortable with development. It can be a very predictable process." The known formula takes away project-by-project bargaining—which makes entitlement consistent and predictable. That's important to developers. The cost of uncertainty Approximately 80 percent of building projects in the City of Ithaca go to the Board of Zoning Appeals, it was reported to Form Ithaca. That indicates the system needs fixing. The great majority of these requests are granted--but not before significant time and money is spent. "Uncertainty has a cost." says Ithaca developer Frost Travis. "You can't get financing until you know if you are going to be able to do 28 or 36 units, and that could make the difference in whether you get loan approval at all. I'm intrigued by the idea of taking a 1,000-page code into a much shorter, visual, user-friendly document." In writing a FBC for the city and the town, one of Form Ithaca's goals is user friendliness. A landowner should be able to tell, quickly and without aid of a consultant, generally what is permitted by right on any parcel. Ideally, a form-based code allows administrative, by-right approval if the code is met. The reasoning goes like this; The vision comes from the comprehensive plan, which is expressed in the code. If the project meets the code and therefore the -. .> .. jrmte 19 community's vision, a system that does not require too much negotiation is more efficient and fair. Zoning appeals are so prevalent in Ithaca for two reasons. First, most properties in the city currently don't conform to the existing zoning. The historic buildings mostly predate zoning, and the zoning imposes requirements such as lot sizes and setbacks that are inconsistent with the older neighborhoods. Noncomforming lots and buildings seeking substantial changes need variances. Second, the zoning requires something other than what the market wants to build. A FBC could bring the code into alignment with the character of historic neighborhoods and with the current market. Parking requirements also emerged as an issue at the charrette. Parking requirements make infill development more costly and difficult and subsidize driving. The city currently has no parking requirements downtown, in the West End, and in the core area of Collegetown. Off-street parking is required in other areas of the city and town. A FBC is an opportunity to examine whether and how parking requirements could be reduced or eliminated with a new code. The Transect and Calibration A form-based code uses the urban-rural Transect. Unlike conventional zoning that may have 30 or 40 zones, the Transect has only six zones—four of which promote development at various intensities. These zones, in order of intensity, are: Core, Center, Neighborhood General, and Sub-Urban. The other zones are Rural, where development is allowed but not encouraged, and Natural, where no development can occur. The Transect zones are applied regulating plans (see example regulating plans created by Form Ithaca for the Waterfront on page 18 and South Hill on page 19). These regulating plans can be created by developers according to rules set up in the Character Code, or by municipalities. Creating a FBC involves local calibration of the development zones. A neighborhood like Fall Creek in Ithaca is different in design and density than a residential street In Greenwich Village—both of which are examples of Neighborhood General in different places. Form Ithaca held a workshop during the charrette and produced images to explore local calibration. The image below shows a mostly residential Ithaca neighborhood (Neighborhood General zone). Participation Feedback and participation from the public guided the design during the charrette, and will continue to inform the form based code over the coming months. Eighty-eight members of the public came out to share ideas, respond to drawings, and pose questions, which the charrette team used to create visualiza tions of development possibilities. The high-quality input and conversation was invaluable to the char rette. This turnout signaled a high degree of engage ment among community members, and helped the charrette team lay the foundation for a code that will meet the needs of the community. Themes emerged around the importance of preserv ing neighborhood character and historical integrity: creating a safe, attractive, and accessible connection between the City and the Waterfront, starting with im provements to Route. 13; making the Waterfront a true 20 I FORM ITHACA destination by enhancing connections and creating places where people want to be; improving streetscapes and road conditions in favor of pro moting walking and biking; creat ing real places along the Waterfront so that the people are connected to one of the most important assets in the community—the lake; placing en ergy considerations at the forefront of planning and development decisions; and the desire to create smart urban development that fosters vibrancy in areas of the City that are languishing. Here's what people told us: Use form based/character zon ing to establish a street level "lan guage" of form and materials that create comfortable human scale, authenticity, timelessness, texture, depth, alcoves ... a pattern that invites pedestrian/human connec tions and space for time to linger. • How will form-based zoning im pact what's already there? How will it Impact historic preservation? Will a form-based code allow for more commercial/retail in walk- able neighborhoods? Ask the question: Will children feel at home in the form-based neigh borhood? A handsome pedestrian bridge over Route. 13 to Willow Avenue would make visits to the Farmers' Market, the Haunt, and Waterfront less harrowing. Consider connecting the water front at MLK St./State Street. This would connect the Commons with the waterfront, revitalizing com merce. The waterfront could be a boardwalk. Build a bridge over Route. 13 to better connect neighborhoods to waterfront. Create small pockets of gathering places along waterfront, spaces that encourage people to get together and be together, "third places," a mix of uses should surround this public space. Energy generation and use in the built environment needs to be considered and integrated into the code. Sites well suited for solar should require orientation and roof types to support photovoltaics. Energy efficiency is key with new development. Remember energy! When planning for new devel opment. energy considerations should be of paramount impor-^^ tance. All new buildings need tcx^ be oriented to allow, at a minimum, y r. . .vs laM'jiU-' n rooftop solar and ideally, passive solar gain. While community solar may be desirable for some exist ing development, photovoltaics on buildings is a much better so lution. Use code to enhance connections between people and the natural assets of the community. In rethinking traffic corridor de sign. consider bringing back trolley/cable car transportation on Route. 96B, Route. 13, 96. Green Street, Cayuga Street (see New Orleans streetcar expansion as example). Re-brand the highway as an urban street, make Meadow Street safe for walking and biking, make it more accessible and reclaim shoul ders for street trees. Things that make places more ac cessible for people with disabili ties make them more accessible for everyone. I really like the focus on pedestri ans and biking. Everything I don't like about Ithaca is related to ar eas where it is less pleasant to walk. I would like to see better pe destrian connections and access to Wegmans. where I shop often. Make Route. 13/Meadow Street a boulevard and build up the corners at Third and Meadow streets to nar row the street and give a more pe destrian-friendly feel. Creating a two-way cycle track on Route. 13 makes a statement! Cre ating physical barriers and plant ing strip in median is crucial for safe crossing. People appreciate the addition of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail (which is expanding), but the area still feels very car-oriented, the water feels hard to get to. How could zoning change the shape of Route. 13? Can we have a boulevard? We need to tip the culture towards more walking and less driving. Barriers between biking and driv ing lanes along Route. 13 are es sential—planters. medians, etc.— otherwise no one will really feel safe riding along there on a bike (painted lanes do not really make people feel safe). We need greater density along Third Street leading down to waterfront. We need infill development for the DMV plaza, Franklin Market. ICC Roasters, All Tile areas—there's so much parking that's never full. Improve these areas with re tail, commercial amenities for the neighborhood; it could be a great gateway to the waterfront. 22 I FORM ITHACA Next Steps Drafting and Adoption Strategies in coming months Form Ithaca will work closely with City and Town staff to share ideas, feedback, and recommendations that were developed during the charrette and move toward specific policy development supporting complete, compact and connected neighborhoods. Form Ithaca is drafting Character Codes for both the City and Town of Ithaca. The draft codes are based on a public process beginning last fall with a kick-off meeting, presentations to neighborhood groups and organizations, a day-long meeting with both municipal staffs, walking tours, a public workshop in January of 2015, and the four-day public charrette in June of 2015. The process will continue with the draft code. After more meetings, feedback, and adjustments. Form Ithaca will present codes for consideration by the City and Town in early 2016. Implementing zoning reform could follow a number of scenarios in the Town and the City. We anticipate that each municipality will take Form Ithaca's work and mold it through their unique political and administrative processes. The Town of Ithaca passed a comprehensive plan in 2014 that includes a recommendation to adopt a new unified development ordinance to replace the existing zoning. This is an opportunity to adopt town-wide code reform, allowing village-scale or town center development in locations where complete communities are desired and strictly limiting development in other areas to protect open space and agricultural uses and prevent further environmental impacts from sprawl. A second option would be to adopt form-based code regulations exclusively in areas where village scale development is desired why retaining the existing or similar zoning in other locations. Phase two of the City's comprehensive planning process will look more closely at individual neighborhoods. Code reform will be a necessary implementation step. The city could opt to replace existing zoning in full, covering every parcel, or In-part. focusing on particular neighborhoods or districts, similar to the way the City recently adopted the Collegetown Form Area Districts. The City could also choose to adopt a Character Code as an optional overlay district in all of or particular parts of the city. An overlay would give property owners a choice between following the existing code or the Character Code. As Ithaca's building boom continues, we expect that the importance of zoning reform will continue to drive this community conversation. With your support and that of your neighbors, the City and Town of Ithaca can improve the quality of new development so that new projects truly fit our community. ^Vs % Share your thoughts There are a number of ways you can ask questions and share your thoughts about the Form Ithaca project, Including sending us a message or contacting your local municipal planning staff and representatives. Better Cities & Towns Robert Steuteville, Executive Director (607) 275-3087 mail@newurbannews.com Better Cities & Towns 218 Utica St. Ithaca. NY 14850 You can also call or write your local planning staff and/or representatives: Town of Ithaca Susan Ritter, Director of Planning (607) 273-1736 x120 Town Hall 215 North Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850 City of Ithaca JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning & Economic Development (607) 274-6550 City Hall 108 E. Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 9dule: October-November 2015 Consultant Presentations to City and Town December 2015 Anticipated City Common Council and Town Board formal acceptance of draft zoning report Early 2016 Forma! municipal review process of re-zoning gets underway formithaca.org INTRODUCING:GREATER TOMPKINS COUNTY MUNICIPALHEALTH INSURANCE CONSORTIUMTOWN OF ITHACANOVEMBER 9,2015By: Don Barber - Executive Directoredconsortium@tompkins-co.org Why was the GTCMHIC Started?❖Due to limited revenue from property taxes, local governments formedTCCOG to find ways of sharing services.❖At TCCOG meetings, health insurance became a focus as premiumswere outpacing the growth in revenue.v Article 47 of the New York State Insurance Law allowed even smallmunicipalities to belong to a self-funded risk pool.❖Article 47 identified as pathway yet not one had been created since thelegislation passed in 1993❖TCCOG was awarded a Shared Municipal Services Incentive (SMSI)grant of nearly $250,000 to assist in the development, approval, andimplementation of the GTCMHIC. GTCMHIC Structure' Foundation document is Article 47- providing structure andminimum requirements of:» Municipal Cooperative Agreement (MCA): between municipalowners of the Insurance Company❖The MCA provides the operational framework of the GTCMHIC by;v Affirming the shared fiscal responsibility for covering all eligible incurred claims. Eachmunicipalities financial stake is based on total premiums contributed;v Establishes the Board of Directors which consists of one representative for each municipalmember and a number of labor representatives who each have equal voting power.However, weighted voting can be invoked in certain instances, but has not been to date;v Defines role of Labor as Directors and the Joint Committee on Plan Structure and Designv Defines geographic boundaries of coverage area.v Describing how municipalities may join and leave the Consortium,, settle disputes , andhow the Consortium would be dissolved. Municipal PartnersBoard of DirectorsCommitteesBenefit DesignAudit & FinanceOwn Your Own HealthProfessional SupportPlan ConsultantAttorneyActuarialCPAThird Party AdministratorsMedicalPharmaceutical Who is in the Consortium?:7mConsortium membership was initiallyoffered to eaeh municipality within™™the geographical boundaries ofTompkins County which included theCounty, City of Ithaca, and thirteenTowns and Villages.TRUMGROTON.ANSBURGUNSINGLakeGROTONFREEVILLEULYSSES \\Northwest Ithaca\ENRELDCAYUGAHEIGHTSHEIGHTS_^ANSrNG—\ NorthciistOFT^~j-Forest Home^^TEnst ItluK'JNEWFIELdTT""''' CAROLINE',„,4;.;t1ompi<insHamlet i DANBY I^ LmJThis has now expanded to any municipality inTompkins County and the Counties contiguous toTompkins County which includes any municipality inCayuga, Chemung, Cortland, Schuyler, Seneca, andTioga Counties. Working Collaboratively to Provide CostEffective Health CareBenefit Plan Health Insurance Costs Increase Faster thanCPIHealth Insurance cost increases are a function of manyfactors including, but not limited to:❖Medical Care Inflation❖Advancements in Medical Technology❖Advancements in Pharmaceuticals❖Federal and State Mandated Benefiis❖Federal and State Taxes and pees>N. ' A'❖Medical Malpractice Costs (Insurdice & Litigation)jJ ))Greater Tompkins County Municipal Health Ins. Consortium2011-2014 RevenueMedical Plan Premiums96.43%Ancillary Benefit PlanPremiums0.33%n Interest0.02%n Rx Rebates0.75%n Stop-Loss ClaimReimbursements0.87%L = Other0.64%- ^Capitalization0.95%I Medical Plan Premiums n Ancillary Benefit Plan Premiums n Interest » Rx Rebates » Stop-Loss Claim Rei mbursements n Other )>Greater Tompkins County Municipal Health Ins. Consortium2011-2014 ExpensesPaid Claims92.29%Admin. Fees3.07%Ancillary Benejits0.38%n Stop-Loss1.80%n Taxes1.05%Professional Services0.35%n Insurance/Internal Fees0.26%c\ Paid Claims m Admin. Fees m Stop-Loss m Ta.xes and Fees m Professional Services n Insurance/Internal Fet- a Ancillary Benefits 10Financial Impact of ConsortiumThe Consortium reduced overall health insurance spending ofOwners by:❖Pooling Resources and Increasing Efficiencies❖Increasing Buying Power ("Economies of Scale)❖Reducing Administrative Expenses❖Spreading Risk Over a Larger Population❖Creating Predictable Annual Premium and Owner BudgetSetting Process❖2016 premiums increase is 3%, projected increase for '17 -4% Greater Tompkins County Mmiicipal Health Ins Consoitimii2011-2015 Monthly Paid Claims v Budgeted ClaimsJanmy 1,2011 to July 31,2015■Bud^ted Clsffis iMavAauil Paid Gaims 2014 Operations Numbers• Premium Revenue:• Claims Expense:• Admin Expense:• Other Expense:• Total Expense:$36.0 M$29.8 M$ 1.0 M$0.6M$32.0 MChange in Net Position: $ 4.0 MUnappropriated Fund Balanee: $ 8.7MFund Balance/ Premium 24% Beginning 2015 Reserves & AssetsStatutory Reserves:® Surplus: $1,803,280• Incurred But Not Reported: $3,641,390GTCMHIC created Reserves• Catastrophic Claims: $1,050,000• Rate Stabilization: $1,650,775• Unencumbered Fund Balance: $8,719,850• Total Assets: $16.86 M• Total Member Assets $ 13.22 M Challenges and OpportunitiesOperational;- Actuarially sound claims predictionEstablishing premium rates that provide adequate revenue andstatutory reserves• Balancing Stop-Loss Insurance with Risk retention• Finding pathways for both the Consortium and its partners toeffectively respond to increasing cost of health eare. www,to§Ti^^ IKS nscounyoy.gov/VrHap Cornelus roiL siumpiirw_ .hg&Learmng ,.f in TompWiis^Countyl >4^^LIVINGiVfTompkinsLEARNINGixTonipkinsYISITINGTompkinsBUSINESSin Tompkinsonline SorvtcM t ^ DeparUiienU » Tompkins A10 Z t ? How Do 1... »Yjnir«i«»'. Horn* - stMt«TcnFiassCctxn «ucicipjI H«l±:cjiiiite»C«035rticir.Health Insurance Con^oiiunAAonbble Osre ActSaanI oi DMWsSpecs'CofflOiMeesResouices and OtlierlnfoContact Informatkni■" *OHWTmTCeiBWSCtXJKTVUOWOBPLheU-TM naufWMCE CflHSORTKMi2SEadCaurtatee<■ucLHTieaM<$07)274-6590Adrraniatnrtne CietfcDon Barber, ExectSive DirectorFill Cliixic IiifoiniationConsortium Retreat - 9/1 5/14; 'Aolth or \1ew PoweiPor't presentationei'Tjirr^s'^sr: nr -ruti-ji'yft ri.Tii'ij o 5« •'irsrWelcome!Tee Greater TompWrts County Municipal Health Iniurance Consortium s a- s-t-y :r«j:ec sy t-eTonpki-s Co-.-iy si Gewer-mems 1-CC03: jsj! o?Csrssn-um s te o-ov^t aHetscH-eanr '•sutjrce ts tt empisyees jrc ei';®* te;!r»e« pfess'ictor cn/j snie'Jje j'3. v/'-e'- atroiuahte.ar-siii»ry tenslsi ts si memsei % wefssAs si Mat" 2Z'Z. :J sli-.eCsL-ty » 'T mcr«;»•■:« t-e Cs-ss'.iiim. C Se«*moer 27,ri-rfeScansof D.-ecisi aKroyeO ti-e accewaroe ol ife a- aoc'cator oy :-e Ciy si Csn'e-ciopmCo"fon>'-m elfesive Jjs;.iry t, il'J iro aps'sves sr Geseneefi:. ZZ'Z aorrsves the aeseewcesi !"e Tsm" sf !s oj- tre Cs-ion:sm eHectrye Jii-ka-y ii'l. B-ir?in; tr« ncmper atmunieipal participanta in the Consortium to 15Tre o/Uws 0l t-e Csrs«n..i-n a't si-t i-e; Sy a r-.n^aai soooeratwe ajreenen a-o :re S-sa-S olSifects's iwefs fe Corjot^umT»« J5.m Commflee S" Pa' Strusitie o-o Desks'. mJSe ss ®l mtr..;.psl 'eoisfmstrues IM Ba-safeinas-t feB*esem»t«ei, #«a-n--«s seyeissmem of ire rei".r benefts sonsofim. imcug" wc" :-eCss-ty s mii'C'Oa: empttye'S. t i-ey ses»e. cote ow iren eric<jyee "eaif tenefss pi^itmsVien Or^rcstional ChartPtivaey Neiee'mCOUNTYGovernment Agenda lluiii #11 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO To: Town Board Members From: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning Date: November 4, 2015 Re: DEC requirements for new private sewage pump stations and implications for the Town - Amabel project Tompkins County Health Department has informed the Town that because the proposed Amabel housing project intends to utilize a private pump station and associated lines for transmission of sewage it must form a sewage-works corporation as outlined in NYS Transportation Corporations Law. The Health Department is following a mandate issued from NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). DEC views the private distribution elements of Amabel as a "sewer extension" and per 6 NYCRR 750-1.6(f), if the sewer extension serves more than one separately-owned property, the entity being given approval for the sewer extension needs to be a governmental agency, municipality, or sewage disposal corporation under the Transportation Corps Law. The reason they give for this requirement is to insure that there is a viable legal entity responsible for maintenance of the collection system. This appears to be a relatively new DEC mandate. As recent as 2012 the Health Department granted approval for a "realty subdivision" in the Town without requiring a sewage-works corporation be formed. The Town Public Works Committee reviewed the sanitary sewer concept for Amabel last spring and determined that due to the long term maintenance costs associated with the pump station, the Town would not take dedication of Amabel's onsite sewage collection system. Subsequent to that determination, the Town and developer were contacted by the Health Department (an involved agency in the SEQR review) regarding the DEC requirements. While the Amabel project intends to include a homeowner's association, it is not considered a viable entity for taking responsibility of the sewage collection system. The formation of a sewage-works corporation requires the consent of the Town Board. Under Transportation Law, the corporation must furnish construction and performance bonds to assure that at least 5 years of operation and maintenance are covered. According to the law, and an opinion from the NY Attorney General's office, after 5 years, in the event of abandonment of the maintenance and operation of the system, the only entity that may succeed ownership of the sewage system is the municipality. The law describes the mechanism that would come into play if abandonment occurs as follows: n .the local governing body shall have the right to continue the maintenance and operation ^ ofthe system affhe establisKHTates, with the costs assessed against the users, and it may levy taxes, or sewer rents for such purposes in the same manner as if such facilities were owned by a city, town or village, as the case may be. The local governing body shall have such powers until such time as another corporation or agency may undertake to maintain and operate the sewer system, or until such time as it becomes a part of a municipal or sewer district system". The Town Board will need to consider how to handle Amabel's and other future requests for sewage- works corporations in light of the Town potentially assuming responsibility for the facilities should abandonment by the corporation occur. The Board may also want to consider this in terms of i—^ broader aspects of land use development and provision of municipal utility service to residents of the Town. Attached is the NYS Transportation Corporations Law. Page 1 McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated Currentness frarisportotlffl^Coi^drafitfns La Chapter 63. Of the Consolidated Laws (Refs & Annos) -♦ Article 10. Sewage-Works Corporations (Refs & Annos) ->§115. Definitions As used in this article, the term: 1. "Sewage-works corporation" means a corporation heretofore or hereafter organized to provide a sewer system as hereinafter defined for the disposal of sewage, through an established system of pipe lines, treatment plants and other means of disposal, and which erects, operates, maintains and performs other necessary acts incidental thereto, disposal systems for sewer areas formed within towns or villages and other municipal areas of the state. 2. "Sewer system" means all sewer pipes and other appurtenances which are used or useful in whole or in part in connection with the collection, treatment or disposal of sewage, and other waste, including sewage pumping stations and sewage treatment and disposal plants and sites. 3. "Local governing body" means the legislative body of a city, town or village authorized by law to establish a sewer district or otherwise to provide sewage-works facilities in such city, town or village wherein is located the area to be served by the sewage-works corporation. 4. "Sewer district" means a county sewer district established pursuant to article five-A of the county law or a town sewer district established pursuant to article twelve or article twelve-A of the town law. -^§116. Consent to incorporation 1. No certificate of incorporation of a sewage-works corporation shall be filed unless there be annexed thereto a certificate or certificates duly executed in behalf of the local governing bodies of the city, town or village, as the case may be, in which any part of a sewer system provided by such corporation is situate and, in the county of Suffolk, an additional certificate duly executed in behalf of the county sewer agency, consenting to the information of the corporation for the area described in such certificate. 2. Upon receipt of a request for consent to incorporation, the local governing body shall grant or deny such request within sixty days thereafter or within sixty days after notice to it of the approval of maps and specifications of the proposed system filed with the department of health having jurisdiction pursuant to section one hundred seventeen of this article, whichever is later. -»§ 117. Approval by department of health A local governing body shall not consent to the establishment of a sewage-works corporation in any municipality unless there shall first be fi led with the department of health, or city, county, or part-county department of health 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 2 having jurisdiction, maps and specifications of the proposed system and such department shall have given its ap proval thereof. -fr§ 118. Inspection; cost certification 1. The local governing body, except in the county of Suffolk, the county sewer agency shall utilize any licensed professional engineer in its own personnel staff, or retain a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm to cause the following to be undertaken and completed: (a) Initial examinations of the plans and specifications and a report to the local governing body and in Suffolk county also to the county sewer agency on the feasibility and adequacy thereof including recommended modifica tion and changes, if any; (b) Inspections at reasonable intervals during and after the construction of the sewage-works systems and a report to the local governing body and in Suffolk county also to the county sewer agency on the progress thereof; (c) A report to the local governing body and in Suffolk county also to the county sewer agency on the cost of con struction of the sewage-works system and appurtenances thereto and acquisition of all lands and rights in land therefor, which, in turn, shall apprise the corporation of such cost report. As a part of his report, the licensed en gineer or engineering firm shall have the right and duty to examine or have examined the books and records, in cluding all underlying documentation, of the corporation as well as all reports submitted by the corporation to governmental agencies or authorities to ascertain and verify the costs of construction and acquisition. The services of a licensed certified public accountant or licensed public accountant may be utilized, where in the judgment of the engineer, they may be required to properly ascertain and verify the fiscal information to be included in the engineer's report. (d) A report to the local governing body and in Suffolk county also to the county sewer agency that construction has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications filed with and approved by the department of health having jurisdiction. 2. The cost of any such retained licensed professional engineering services shall be reimbursed to the local gov erning body or sewer agency by the corporation, in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into be tween such local governing body or sewer agency and such corporation stating the cost of such services and the iiztemisTbEpapBentThgregf. ~ -»§ 119. Guaranties 1. The local governing body shall require the posting of a performance bond for the completion of the construction of the sewage-works system, and may require the posting of an additional bond or other guaranty for the payment of labor and material furnished in the course of such construction, and for the cost of retained engineering services to the local governing body or sewer agency. 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 3 2. The local governing body shall require a reasonable guaranty from the corporation that said corporation will continue to maintain and operate the system for a period of at least five years, in the form of a bond or other security acceptable to the local governing body in the amount of the estimated cost of the operation and maintenance of the sewage-works project, less the estimated revenues which are received from properties served, and to be utilized to defray such operation and maintenance costs, as reported by the licensed professional engineer or consulting en gineering firm to the local governing body. The local governing body may, and on petition of the corporation shall, at any time review the adequacy of such bond or other security, to ascertain whether it should be modified on the basis of fiscal performance or other conditions. 3. (a) In addition to the guaranty, the stock of the corporation shall be placed in escrow and title thereto shall pass to the local governing body in the event of failure to complete the construction thereof, or in the event of abandonment or discontinuance of the maintenance and operation of the system by the corporation. (b) In the county of Suffolk said stock placed in escrow may pass, with the consent of the local governing body and the board of supervisors to a county sewer agency in the event of failure to complete the construction of said sewer system, or in the event of abandonment or discontinuance of the maintenance and operation of said system by the corporation. 4. In the event of such abandonment or discontinuance of the maintenance and operation of the system, the local governing body shall have the right to continue the maintenance and operation of the system at the established rates, with the cost assessed against the users, and it may levy taxes, or sewer rents for such purposes in the same manner as if such facilities were owned by a city, town or village, as the case may be. The local governing body shall have such powers until such time as another corporation or agency may undertake to maintain and operate the sewer system, or until such time as it becomes a part of a municipal or sewer district system. 5. In Suffolk county in the event of an abandonment or discontinuance of the maintenance and operation of the sewer system, the county agency shall have the right to undertake to maintain and operate such sewer system, and it shall do so at the established rates, or such other rates as it may deem necessary, with the costs, including delinquent accounts, assessed against all of the users until such time as the sewer system is included in a sewer district which shall maintain and operate the sewer system. 120. Option (a) The local governing body may, at the time of granting the consent to incorporation, require an option to purchase the system from the corporation or at any time shall have the right to purchase or acquire it by condemnation. The local governing body may exercise this option by serving written notice on the corporation, not less than ninety nor more than one hundred eighty days before the date of the taking. (b) In Suffolk county and Saratoga county, the county sewer agency having the prior consent of the local governing body and the county legislature or a county district shall have an option to purchase the sewer system from the corporation by paying the cost thereof and for all additions and improvements as certified by the engineer as of the © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 4 date of completion thereof pursuant to section one hundred eighteen, less depreciation on a schedule initially agreed upon but not to exceed thirty years, together with the cost of the land and other costs thereof as of the date of completion. The said county agency or county district may exercise its option by serving written notice on the corporation not less than ninety nor more than one hundred eighty days before the date of taking. The county agency or county district may, instead of making any cash payment agreed or required to be made to the corporation as compensation for such sewer system and land, elect to agree to pay the principal of and interest on outstanding bonds and mortgages issued by or on behalf of such corporation, having a principal amount not exceeding the amount of such cash payment, as such principal and interest shall become due and payable. In the event the county agency does undertake to purchase, maintain and operate such sewer system, it shall do so at the rates established from time to time and agreed to between the county agency and the local governing body, with the costs, including delinquent accounts, assessed against the users until such time as the sewer system is included in a sewer district which shall maintain and operate the sewer system. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, in Suffolk county and Saratoga county a county district may elect to acquire the sewer system, including any and all plant sites and other real property pursuant to the provisions of the eminent domain procedure law and in such event the provisions of such law shall apply. ■♦§121. Duty to supply sewage-works facilities A sewage-works corporation shall supply each city, town, village or other municipal area or district wherein such corporation operates, and the inhabitants therein, with facilities or make provision for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage at fair, reasonable and adequate rates agreed to between the corporation and the local governing body or bodies, and, in addition, in the county of Suffolk, the county sewer agency, notwithstanding the provisions of any general, special or local law. Rates shall be reviewable at intervals of not more than five years or at any time by petition of the corporation or motion by the local governing body on written notice afler a period of ninety days. The petition of a corporation shall be determined within ninety days of its filing, and in the event a determination is not rendered within such period of time, the petition shall be deemed approved. The local governing body of a city or village, or of a county or town on behalf of a sewer district or for a special sewer improvement shall have the power to contract with a sewage-works corporation for collection, treatment or disposal of sewage. No contract for such services shall be executed for a period greater than ten years. ■♦§ 122. Powers Every sewage-works corporation shall have the power: 1. To lay, maintain, repair and operate its pipes, conduits and sewers in any street, highway or public place of any city, town, village or other municipal area, in which it has obtained the consent required by section one hundred sixteen for the disposal, treatment and removal of sewage, and to operate and maintain and keep in repair its sewage disposal plant.s, and prescribe the manner in which sewer connections shall be made. No pipes, sewers or conduits shall be laid or repaired under any highway, road, street or avenue by such corporation, without the consent of the local governing body or its official in charge of highways or streets or if such highway be a state highway, or a highway constructed pursuant to section one hundred ninety-four or [FNl] of the highway law, the consent of the state commissioner of transportation nor in any street, highway, road, avenue or public place in Suffolk county 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 5 without the prior written consent of the county sewer agency or the county department of environmental control. 2. To cause examinations and surveys to be made for the purpose of determining the proper location of its disposal system, and, for such purpose by its officers, agents or servants, to enter upon any lands or waters, subject to liability for all damages done. 3. To enter into appropriate agreements with the secretary of agriculture of the United States department of agri culture to operate without profit for the term specified therein for the purpose of qualifying to receive federal as sistance pursuant to the consolidated farmers home administration act of nineteen hundred sixty-one [FN2] and any federal laws amendatory and supplementary thereto. Any such agreement to operate without profit shall be subject to the approval of a majority of the stockholders entitled to vote thereat at any regular or special stockholders' meeting. Any stockholder so entitled to vote who does not vote for or consent in writing to the taking of this action, shall, subject to and by complying with the provisions of section six hundred twenty-three of the business corpo ration law, have the right to receive payment of the fair value of his stock and the other rights and benefits provided by such section. [FNl] So in original. Probably should be "article 8". [FN2] 7 USCA § 1921 et seq. -♦§ 123. Survey and map Before taking or using any land, for its corporate purposes such corporation shall cause a survey and map to be made of the lands intended to be taken designating the land of the several owners or occupants thereof, which map shall be signed by the president and the secretary, and filed in the office of the clerk of the county in which such lands are situated. 124. Condemnation of real property Any such corporation shall have the right to acquire real estate, or any interest therein, necessary for the purposes of its incorporation, and the right to lay, repair and maintain conduits and sewer pipes with connections and fixtures, and other necessary portions of the system, in, through or over the lands of others. If any such corporation, au thorized by this article shall be unable to agree upon the terms of purchase of any such property or rights, it may acquire the same by condemnation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in Suffolk county such corporation shall not have the right to condemn or use the land of others without first obtaining the prior written consent of the county sewer agency and the department of environmental control. END OF DOCUMENT 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Town of Ithaca Seer Pump and Meter Stations EAST SHORE Holochuck /'V" CLIFF ST MS ^ \ ^TAUGH BLVO MS\ KLINE RD MS THURSTONAVE MS PLEASANT GROVE FH PS #5j^ //- MCINTYRE' CALDWELL ^StiUNIVERSlTYAVEMSaS^'FH PS #2 HECTOR ST MS.. V « \ MITCHELL ST MS;^-^ i-s ELM ST MS 4 CRESCENT P^MS^^ g-^ f^g DANBY RD MS^ HUDSON ST MSi V " LPENNYLNJli- ■jFLORALAVE MS .-...•BO //'■ Amabel fr^ ?r*'J WALDORF SCHOOL" N j-hf. •. Clevland BURNS WAY WONDERLAND MOTEL ^ , SOUTHWOODSPS^J ' ^ I I r .i-rr TOWN OF ITHACA FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015 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 MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015 GENERAL GENERAL HIGHWAY WATER FUND SEWER FUND CAPITAL DESCRIPTION TOWNWIDE PART-TOWN PART-TOWN PROJECTS FUND FUND FUND FUNDS ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH INVESTMENTS PETTY CASH $ 3,438,205 $ 904,821 S 1,015,885 $ 504,104 S 2,246,515 $ 1,040,256 700 - 200 TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH $3,438,905 $904,821 $1,016,085 $504,104 $2,246,515 $1,040,256 RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN $811,132 $$.$$_$ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT 180,500 63,587 99,941 14,232 8,010 _ HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT --249,956 ._. PRESERVE MAINTENANCE 40,062 -.... 10,009 -._. INVESTMENTS --._ FIDUCIARY FUNDS ---n -. TOTAL - RESERVED CASH $1,041,702 $63,587 S 349,897 $14,232 S 8,010 $- OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $$.S $$S ^^VATER & SEWER RECEIVABLES -.-114,049 73,963 . JUEFROM OTHER FUNDS --550,000 1,625,000 . STATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE --.- DUE FROM OTHER GOVTS ._.24,737 PREPAID EXPENSES 9,577 ... TAXES RECEIVABLE - CURRENT ----_ TOTAL - OTHER ASSETS $9,577 S -$550,000 $1,763,786 $73,963 $- TOTAL ASSETS $4,490,184 s 968.408 s 1.915.983 5 2.282.121 9 2.328.488 s 1.040.256 LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $.$.$.$$_$ ACCRUED LIABILITIES 46,487 52,935 121,955 -48,000 . DUE TO OTHER FUNDS -..--2,445,510 RETAINAGE ...._ DEFERRED REVENUE ------ RESERVED FUND BALANCE 1,041,702 63,587 349,897 14,232 8,010 . UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 3,401,995 851,886 1,444,130 2,267,889 2,272,478 (1,405,253) TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE S 4.490.184 s 968.408 s 1.915.983 s 2.282.121 s 2.328.488 s 1.040.256 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2015 s 3,117,429 $833,740 s 1,709,669 $2,091,325 s 2,184,797 s 842,774 ADD: REVENUE 4,404,798 1,012,066 2,119,522 3,218,833 1,935,566 62,660 Less: expense 3,078,530 930,333 2,035,164 3,028,037 1,829,929 2,040,177 JEUND BALANCE -10/31/2015 s 4.443.697 s 915.473 s 1.794.027 s 2.282.121 s 2.290.435 s 11.134.744) Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET FOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015 RISK FIRE LIGHTING DEBT TRUST &INLET DESCRIPTION RETENTION PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE AGENCY VALLEY FUND FUND FUNDS FUND FUND CEMETERY ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH $ 163,839 $ 2,212,988 s 9,211 S 577,378 S $ INVESTMENTS .• PETTY CASH ---•-- TOTAL. UNRESERVED CASH S 163,839 S 2,212,988 s 9,211 $577,378 $-S - RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN S $$$$$. GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT ._ HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT ._ PRESERVE MAINTENANCE -_ LAND STEWARDSHIP -.. FUNDS FOR BOND REFUNDING -_20 FIDUCIARY FUNDS -n .-116,559 9,082 TOTAL - RESERVED CASH $$$-$20 $116,559 $9,082 OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $$$$$$ CUSTOMER RECEIVABLE -.. DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS ._. f STATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE ._. DUE FROM OTHER GOVTS -.._ PREPAID EXPENSES .._ TAXES RECEIVABLE - CURRENT ---•. TOTAL - OTHER ASSETS $$$-s •$-$ TOTAL ASSETS S 163.839 S 2.212.988 S 9.211 S 577.398 S 116.559 S 9,082 LIABIUTIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ACCRUED LIABILITIES DUE TO OTHER FUNDS RETAINAGE DEFERRED REVENUE RESERVED FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE - $ 163,839 2,212,988 9,211 20 577,378 116,559 9,082 TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE S 163.839 $ 2.212.988 $9.211 $ 577.398 S 116.559 S 9.082 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE n 01/01/2015 Add: REVENUE Less; expense 141,875 $ 1,038,139 $ 28,577 3,608,680 6,613 2,433,832 5,565 $ 1,427,187 $ 13,208 989,820 9,562 1,839,609 9,076 6 FUND BALANCE -10/31/2015 S 163.839 S 2.212.988 S 9.211 $ 577.398 S S 9.082i^ Page 2 of 4 TOWN 0.IHACABALANCE SHEET for CAPITAL PROJECTSFOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015CLOSED CAPITAL PROJECTSACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTSFUND H14FUNDH18FUND H4FUND H5FUND H8FUND H21FUND H22FUND H23FUNDH24FUND H2SFUND H26FUND H27TOTALDESCRIPTIONForest Home OrWhilolail DriveHanshaw RoadPine Tree RoadGateway TrailSand Bank RdWinners CircleChristopher CrICoddington RdSapsuekarHonnoss LaneMarcy CourtCAPITALUpsirm BridgeImprovemerttsWalkwayWalkway/Bridge(Grant Funding)ImprovementsImprovementsWater TankWater MainWater TankImprovementsImprovementsPROJEtrrSASSETSUNRESERVED CASH:CASHINVESTMENTSSSS 100,590S 69,896S 72,447S 359,861S 40,757S 85,121S 25,803S 32,034S 250,001S 3,748S 1,040,256TOTAL • UNRESERVED CASHOTHER ASSETS:ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLECUSTOMER RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER FUNDSSTATE/FEDERAL RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER GOVTSPREPAID EXPENSESBAN LOANSTOTAL - OTHER ASSETSITOTAL ASSETS100,590 S- S69,896 S- S72,447 5 359,861 S- S- S40,757 S- S85,121 S- S- S- S• s25,803 S270,51032,034 S 250,001 S- S- s270,510 S- S- s3,748 S 1,040,255270,510- S270,510• s100,590 S69.696 S72,447 S 359.861 S40.757 S85,12296,313 S32.034 S250,001 S3,748 S 1,310.766LIABILinES & FUND BALANCEACCOUNTS PAYABLEACCRUED LIABILIITESDUE TO OTHER FUNDSRETAINAGEBAN PAYABLERESERVED FUND BALANCEUNRESERVED FUND BALANCE- S• 5- S100,590- S69,896• S72,447- S359,861- S40,757- S85,121- S775,000- S1,120,510(478,688) (1,088,476)- S250,000- S300,000 2,445,510(296,252) (1,134,744)TOTAL LIAB & FUND BALANCEESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE - 01/01/2015Add: REVENUELess: EXPENSE- S- s100.590 S69.896 S72.447 S 359.861 S40,757 S85.121 S 296,313 S32.034 S 250,001 S93,045 S 155 S 100,526 S 35,096 S 64,344 S 359,632 S 40,731 S 117,895 S 124,394 S - S23 4 64 34,799 27,321 228 26 63 81 2193,068 160 - • 19,218 • - 32,838 603,162 1,088,497- S - S 842,77449 4 62,66048 296,256 2,040,1771 S (296.252) S (1,134,744)1FUND BALANCE -10/31/2015- S100,590 S 69,896 S 72,447 S 359,861 S 40.757 S 85.121 S (478.688) S (1,088.476) SPage 3 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACABALANCE SHEET for LIGHT DISTRICTSFOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015FUND SL-1FUNDSL-2FUND SL-3FUND SL-4FUNDSL-5FUNDSL-6FUND SL-7FUND SL-8FUND RL-9TOTALDESCRIPTIONForestRenwickEastwoodClover LaneWinner'sBurleighWesthavenCoddingtonLIGHTHomeHeightsCommonsCircleDriveRoadRoadDISTRICTSASSETSUNRESERVED CASH:CASHINVESTMENTSTOTAL - UNRESERVED CASHOTHER ASSETS:ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLECUSTOMER RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER FUNDSSTATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLEPREPAID EXPENSESTAXES RECEIVABLE - CURRENTTOTAL n OTHER ASSETS2,343 S2,343 S- S- s424 S 1,196 S1,491 S252 S637 $556 S1,463 S424 S 1,196 S 1,491 S- S- S- s252 S- $637 S• S556 S 1,463 S- s- s- s- s• s- s- s849 S849 S- S• s9,2119,211TOTAL ASSETS2.343 S424 S1.196 S1.491 S252 S637 S556 S1.463 S849 S 9.211LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCEACCOUNTS PAYABLEACCRUED LIABILIITESDUE TO OTHER FUNDSDEFERRED REVENUERESERVED FUND BALANCEUNRESERVED FUND BALANCE- S2,343- s424- s1,196- S1,491- $252- s637- S5561,463- S8499,211ITOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE2.343 S424 S1.196 S1.491 S252 S637 S556 S1.463 S849 SESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE n 01/01/2015ADO: REVENUELess; EXPENSE143 $4,0001,8004046516311,043 S9517971,160 $1,9021,571241 $200189473 S7015364038016471,092 S2,5022,130607 S1,5011,2595,56513,2089,562FUND BALANCE -10/31/20152.343 S424 S1.196 S1.491 S252 S637 S556 S1.463 S849 S9.211)Page 4 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015 DESCRIPTION GENERAL TOWNWIDE FUND GENERAL PART-TOWN FUND HIGHWAY PART-TOWN FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS REVENUE BUDGETED REVENUE S 4,590,245 S 1,394,050 S 2,391,500 S 3,999,658 S 2,453,582 S 2,984,775 ACTUAL & ACCRUED 4,404,798 1,012,066 2,119,522 3,218,833 1,935,566 62,683 REVENUE OVER (UNDER)$(185,447) S (381,984) $(271,978) $(780,825)s (518,016) $(2,922,092)1 % OF BUDGET EARNED 96.0%72.6%88.6%80.5%78.9%2.1% EXPENSE BUDGETED EXPENSE S 5,224,833 S 1,601,305 S 2,776,211 S 3,910,463 s 2,795,520 S 3,060,160 ACTUAL & ACCRUED 3,078,530 930,333 2,035,164 3,028,037 1,829,929 S 2,133,245 EXPENSE OVER (UNDER)S (2,146,303)S (670,972)S (741,047) S (882.426)s (965.591)S (926,914) % OF BUDGET EXPENDED 58.9%58.1%73.3%77.4%65.5%69.7% ^ ESTIMA TED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2015 $3,117,429 $833,740 S 1,709,669 S 2,091,325 s 2,184,797 S 935,818 Actual & Accrued Add: REVENUE 4,404,798 1,012,066 2,119,522 3,218,833 1,935,566 S 62,683 Less: EXPENSE 3,078,530 930,333 2,035,164 3,028,037 1,829,929 S 2,133,245 FUND BALANCE - 10/31/2015 s 4,443,697 S 915,473 $1^794,027 S 2.282.121 s 2,290,435 S (1,134,744)1 CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) CASH - SJC OPERATING INVESTMENTS PETTY CASH $ 3,438,205 $ 904,821 $ 1,015,885 $ 504,104 $ 940,512 $ 1,040,256 1,306,003 700 200 TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH S 3,438,905 $904,821 $1,016,085 $504,104 $2,246,515 $ 1,040,256 RESERVED CASH PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN s 811,132 $-$.$•$$ general PURPOSE BENEFIT 180,500 63,587 99,941 14,232 8,010 HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT ..249,956 PRESERVE MAINTENANCE 40,062 . LAND STEWARDSHIP 10,009 . INVESTMENTS ..• FIDUCIARY FUNDS -•..• TOTAL - RESERVED CASH $1,041,702 $63,587 $349,897 $14,232 $8,010 $ TOTAL CASH S-10/31/2015 4.480.607 $ 968.408 S 1.365.983 S 518.335 $ 2.254.525 $ 1.040.256 Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015 RISK FIRE LIGHTING DEBT TRUST &INLET DESCRIPTION RETENTION PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE AGENCY VALLEY FUND FUND FUNDS FUND FUND CEMETERY REVENUE BUDGETED REVENUE S 25,000 $3,605,000 S 13,200 S 988,984 S -$. ACTUAL & ACCRUED 28,577 3,608,680 13,208 989,820 -6 REVENUE OVER (UNDER)S 3.577 S 3.680 S 8 S 836 S -$6 % OF BUDGET EARNED 114.3%100.1%100.1%100.1%0.0% EXPENSE BUDGETED EXPENSE s 15,500 s 3,405,000 s 14,120 s 1,236,400 S .S 1,500 ACTUAL & ACCRUED 6,613 2,433,832 9,562 1,839,609 -- EXPENSE OVER (UNDER)$(8.887)s (971,168)s (4,558)s 603.209 $.s (1,500) % OF BUDGET EXPENDED 42.7%71.5%67.7%148.8%0.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2015 S 141,875 S 1,038,139 5 5,565 s 1,427,187 $-$9,076 Actual & Accrued Add: REVENUE 28,577 3,608,680 13,208 989,820 .6 Less: EXPENSE 6,613 2,433,832 9,562 1,839,609 -- FUND BALANCE -10/31/2015 $163,839 $2j212^8 S 9,211 s 577,398 $-$9,082 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 FUNDS FOR BOND REFUNDING FIDUCIARY FUNDS TOTAL - RESERVED CASH 163,839 $ 2,212,988 $ 9,211 $ 577,378 - $ $163,839 $ 2,212,988 $9,211 $577,378 $ - S - S - $ - $- S w 1 11 1 •1 - - 20.00 - --116,559 9,082 - $- S - S 20.00 $ 116,559 $9,082 TOTAL CASH -10/31/2015 $ 163.839 S 2.212.988 S 9,211 $ 577,398 $ 116.559 S 9.082 i Page 2 of 4 TOWN O.HACAREVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for CAPITAL PROJECTSFOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015CLOSED CAPITAL PROJECTSACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTSFUND H14FUND HI 8FUND H4FUNDH5FUND H8FUND H21FUND H22FUND H23FUND H24FUNnH?5 j FUNDH26FUND H?7TOTALDESCRIPTIONForest Home OrWhitetail DriveHanshaw RoadPine Tree RoadGateway TrailSand Bank RdWinners CircleChristopher CrICoddington RdSapsucker 1 Honness LaneMarcy CourtCAPITALUpstrm BridqeImprovementsWalkwayWalkway^ridqe(Grant Funding)ImprovementsImprovementsWater TankWater MainWater Tank I ImprovementsimprovementsPROJECTSREVENUEBUDGETED REVENUE$SSS 34,775SSSSS 650,000S 1,500,000 S 500,000S 300,000S 2,984,775ACTUAL & ACCRUED2346434,79927,32122826638121 49462,683REVENUE OVER (UNDER)$ 23S 4$ 64S 24S 27.321S 228S 26S 63$ (649,919)S (1.499.979) S (499.951)S (299.996)S (2.922.092)% OF BUDGET EARNED0.0%0.0%0.0%100.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% 0.0%0.0%2.1%EXPENSEBUDGETED EXPENSE$$ 1605SsSSsS 760,000S 1,500,000 S 500,000S 300,000S 3,060,160ACTUAL & ACCRUED93,068160n-19,218--32,838603,1621,088,497 48296,2562,133.245lEXPENSE OVER (UNDER)% OF BUDGET EXPENDED93.06B S• S- s• s19.218 S• S• S32.838 S (156,838) S (411.5031 S (499,952) S (3.744) S (926.914110.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0,0%0.0%79.4%72.6%0.0%98.8%69.7%ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE-01/01/2015Actual & AccruedAdd: REVENUEless: expense93,045 S2393.068155 S 100,526 S 35,096 S4 84 34,79916064,344 S 359,632 S27,321 22819,21840,731 S 117,895 S 124,394 S266332,83881603,162- S211,088,4974948• S 935,8184296,25662,6832,133,245FUND BALANCE • 10/31/2015- S- S 100.590 s 69.896 S 72,447 S 359,861 S 40.757 S 85.121 S (478.688) S <1.088.4761 S1 S (296.252) S (1.134.74411CASH andCASH EQUIVALENTSCASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS)INVESTMENTS100,590 S 69,896 S 72,447 S 359,861 S 40,757 S 85,121 S 25,803 S 32,034 S 250,001 S 3,748 S 1,040,256TOTAL CASH -10/31/2015- S 100,590 S 69.896 S 72.447 S 359,861 S 40,757 S 85,121 S 25,803 S 32.034 S 250,001 S 3.748 S 1.040,256 IPage 3 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACAREVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for LIGHT DISTRICTSFOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015FUND SL.1FUND SL.2FUND SL-3FUND SL.4FUND SL-5FUND SL-6FUND SL.7FUND SL-8FUNDSL-9TOTALDESCRIPTIONForestRenwickEastwoodClover LaneWinner'sBurleighWesthavenCoddingtonLIGHTHomeHeiqhtsCommonsCircleDriveRoadRoadDISTRICTSREVENUEBUDGETED REVENUES 4,000S 650S 950S 1,900S 200S 700$ 800S 2,500S 1,500S 13,200ACTUAL & ACCRUED4,0006519511,9022007018012,5021,50113,208REVENUE OVER (UNDER)S 0S 1$ 1CMWo</>S 1S 1$ 2S 1S 8% OF BUDGET EARNED100.0%100.1%100.1%100.1%100.2%100.1%100.1%100.1%100.1%100.1%EXPENSEBUDGETED EXPENSES 3,500S 750S 1,100S 2,200S 270S 800S 900S 2,900$ 1,700S 14,120ACTUAL & ACCRUED1,8006317971,5711895366472,1301,2599,562[EXPENSE OVER fUNDERI0.700) Sf119) Sf303) S(629) S(81) S(264) S% OF BUDGET EXPENDED51.4%84.1%72.5%71.4%70.0%67.1%71.9%73.4%74.1%67.7%ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE - 01/01/2015$ 143 S404 S; 1,043 s1,160 S241 S473 $403 S1,092 S607 S5,565Actual & Accruedadd: REVENUE4,0006519511,9022007018012,5021,50113,208Less: EXPENSE1,8006317971,5711895366472,1301,2599,562I FUND BALANCE242- 10/31/2015.343 S4 S 1.196 S1.491 S252 S637 S556 S1.463 S849 S 9.211CASH andCASH EOUfVALENTSCASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 2,343 $ 424 $ 1,196 S 1,491 S 252 S 637 $ 556 S 1,463 S 849 S 9,211INVESTMENTS ..........ITOTAL CASH-10/31/2015 S 2.343 $ 424 S 1.196 S 1.491 S 252 S 637 S 556 S 1.463 S 849 S 9.211)Page 4 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA DETAILED CASH LISTING - FIDUCIARY FUNDS FOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TRUST & AGENCY FUND TA200C DISBURSEMENTS CHECKING $ TA200P PAYROLL CHECKING 9,562.72 TA202 ON-LINE COLLECTIONS 9.59 TA205 NEXTEL SITE LEASE DEPOSIT 4,505.42 TA206 ITHACA TOWERS OPTION ESCROW 11,853.35 TA207 WIRELESS ONE 4,597.17 TA209 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING 11,116.46 TA210 STORMWATER COALITION 44,161.25 TA211 VERIZON WIRELESS ESCROW 271.55 TA212 CAYUGA LAKE WATERSHED INTERMUNICIPAL ORG 25,426.12 TA214 LAKE VIEW CEMETERY - PERPETUAL MAINT FUND 3,055.47 TA215 LAKE VIEW CEMETERY - FERRIS MEMORIAL FUND 2,000.39 TOTAL CASH: TRUST & AGENCY FUND $116,559.49 INLET VALLEY CEMETERY FUND TE202 INLET VALLEY CEMETERY - EXPENDABLE TRUST $ 9,081.60 TOTAL CASH: FIDUCIARY FUNDS $ 125,641.09 TOWN OF ITHACA SUMMARY OF BANK COLLATERAL FOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2015 TOMPKINS TRUST COMPANY: CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS $13,717,191 INVESTMENTS - TOTAL CASH ON DEPOSIT $13,717,191 LESS: FDIC INSURANCE $250,000 LESS: FMV OF COLLATERAL ON DEPOSIT @ 10/31/2015 U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS $17,157,500 OVER (UNDER) COLLATERALIZED $3,690,310 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 10/31/2015 127% 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 Tompkins Trust Company. NOTE: r\ CAYUGA LAKE WATERSHED INTERMUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION FINANCIAL REPORT - FISCAL YEAR 2015 /As of October 31, 2015 MONTH BEGINNING BALANCE REVENUES EXPENSES ENDING BALANCEINTERESTDUESOTHER FLOATING CLASSROOM OTHER January $ 22,312.84 $ 1.42 $$$ 2,000.00 $$ 20,314.26 February 20,314.26 1.18 ----20,315.44 March 20,315.44 1.31 ----20,316.75 April 20,316.75 1.27 ----20,318.02 May 20,318.02 1.18 ---2,000.00 18,319.20 June 18,319.20 1.03 --7,000.00 -11,320.23 July 11,320.23 0.73 _ --11,320.96 August 11,320.96 1.03 11,700.00 ---23,021.99 September 23,021.99 1.46 900.00 --298.91 23,624.54 October 23,624.54 1.58 1,800.00 ---25,426.12 November ------- December --- ---- Revenue: Interest - 1/01/15-10/31/15 Membership Dues - 2015 Total Revenue: $ 12.19 14,400.00 $14,412.19 Expense: Tiohero Tours, LLC - Floating Classroom 2014 Additional Fall 2014 Programming Catchafire, Inc. - Creation of 1-0 Website CTA / Floating Classroom - Spring 2015 Tee-Ann Hunter - Reimburse Expenses Total Expense: $ 2,000.00 2,000.00 7,000.00 298.91 $11,298.91 2015 Membership Dues received from: Town of Aurelius $ 900.00 Village of Aurora 900.00 Town of Caroline 900.00 Village of Cayuga Heights 900.00 Village of Cayuga 900.00 Town of Danby 300.00 Town of Dryden 900.00 Town of Enfield 300.00 Town of Genoa 900.00 Village of Interlaken 900.00 City of Ithaca 900.00 Town of Ithaca 900.00 Town of Lansing 900.00 Village of Lansing 900.00 Town of Scipio - Town of Seneca Falls 900.00 Tompkins County - Village of Trumansburg 900.00 Town of Ulysses 900.00 Town of Waterloo 300.00 Total Membership Dues:$14,400.00 CAYUGA LAKE WATERSHED INTERWIUNICIPAL ORGANIZATIONRECEIVED MONIES FROM:$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.002009201020112012201320142015Aurelius, Town ofYES$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00Aurora, Village ofIt"^$"■'$■'$$ -$900.00Caroline. Town ofYES$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00Cayuga Heights, Village ofYES$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00Cayuga, Village of$100.00$-$-$900.00$_$900.00$900.00Dan by, Town of$-$-$-$-$ -$300.00Dryden, Town ofYES$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00Enfield, Town of. $-$-$-$-$ -$300.00Freeville, Village ofNO$-$-$-$_$ -$ -Genoa, Town of$-$-$-$_$900.00$900.00Interlaken, Village ofYES$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00Ithaca, City ofYES$900.00.$-$1,800.00$900.00$900.00$900.00Ithaca, Town ofYES$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00Lansing, Town ofYES$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00Lansing, Village ofYES$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00Ledyard, Town ofYES$900.00^ $-$_$_$ -$ -$ -Newfieid, Town ofYES$900.00$_$900.00$_$ -Romulus, Town ofNO$-$-$_$_$ -$ -Scipio, Town ofYES$600.00$-$900.00$900.00$900.00$ -Seneca Falls, Town ofYES$900.00$-$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00Seneca, County ofNO$-$-$-$_$$Tompkins, County ofYES^$-$900.00$900.00$_$900.00- ..Trumansburg, Village ofNO$" 900.00$-$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00Ulysses, Town ofYES$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00$900.00Waterloo, Town of$$-$300.00Lansing, Town of$ 4,511.36TRIAD FOUNDATIONTOMPKINS COUNTY$10,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 18,000.00$ 15,000.00 2ND PYMT OF^EAR$ 2,500.00CAYUGA ECO CRUISE PILOT