Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB Minutes 2004-09-13 Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, September 13 , 2004 at 5 : 30 p . m . 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca , New York 1 . Call to Order 2 . Pledge of Allegiance 3 . Report of Tompkins County Legislature 4 . Report of Fire Commissioners 5. 6 : 00 p . m . - Persons to be Heard and Board Comments 6. Scenic Resources Committee presentation „I 7 . 6 : 30 p . m . — Public Hearing Regarding ; a Local Law to Amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to Rezone Cornell University Tax Parcel No . 63 . - 1 - 3 . 4 from Office Park Commercial and Multiple Residence to Low Density Residential 8 . SEQR regarding a Local Law to Amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning 9 9 , 9 Ordinance to Rezone Cornell University Tax Parcel No . 61 - 1 -3 .4 from Office Park Commercial and Multiple Residence to Low Density Residential i 9 . Consider Adoption of a Local Law to Amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to Rezone Cornell University Tax Parcel No . 61 - 1 -3 . 4 from Office Park Commercial and Multiple Residence to Low Density Residential 10 . Consider Adoption of an Order Setting : Public Hearing for SCLIWC East Hill Water Tank and Transmission Line Project 11 . Consider Adoption of an Order Setting a Public Hearing on Increasing the Costs and Bonding for the SCLIWC Plant Expansion Project 12 . Consider Award of Bid for the 2004 South Hill Transmission Main Project 13 . Consider Setting a Public Hearing for Kings Way Water Improvement Project 14 . Authorization to Apply for State Purchase of Development Rights Grant 15 . Consider Arrangements with Mr. Frandsen regarding Drainage Access Easement 16 . Consider Approval of an Increase Jn Membership on the Agricultural Committee 17 . Consent Agenda a . Town of Ithaca Minutes b . Town of Ithaca Abstract c . Bolton Point Abstract d . Attendance at New York Planning Federation Conference e . Work Study Intern for Court Office + f. Attendance at Magistrates Conference 18 . Report of Town Committees a . Agricultural Committee b . Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Committee c . Capital Projects and Fiscal Planning? Committee d . Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunic,ipal Organization e . City / Town Trail Committee f. Codes and Ordinances Committee '! g . Lake Source Data Sharing Committee h . Pegasys Oversight Committee i . Personnel Committee j . Public Works Committee k . Recreation and Human Services Committee I . Recreation Partnership m . Records Management Advisory Board n . Safety Committee o . Sewer Joint Committee p . Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission q . Supervisor's Advisory Committee r. Transportation Committee 19 . Report of Town Officials a . Town Clerk b . Highway Superintendent c. Director of Engineering 9 d . Director of Planning e . Director of Building nd Zoning 9 f. Budget Officer g . Manager of Human Resources h . Network/Records Specialist i . Recreation and Youth Coordinator j . Attorney for the Town 20 . Review of Correspondence a . Letter from Mr. Merritt regarding Overlook at West Hill b . SPCA Monthly Report c . Cayuga Heights Fire Department Monthly Report 21 . Executive Session to Consider Legal Advice on Possible Property Disposition 22 . Consider Adjournment i Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13 , 2004 AT 5 : 30 P . M . 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, NEW YORK THOSE PRESENT : Supervisor Valentino , Councilwoman Grigorov ; Councilman Lesser, Councilman Burbank , Councilman Engman , Councilman Stein EXCUSED : Councilwoman Gittelman ; Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning STAFF PRESENT : Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk ; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering ; Fred Noteboom , Highway Superintendent ; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning ; Al Carvill , Budget Officer; Judy Drake , Human Resources Manager OTHERS PRESENT : John Barney , Attorney for the Town ; Steve Williams , Code Enforcement Officer; Robin Korherr, City of Ithaca Common Council ; Bob Romanowski , Fire Commissioner; Greg Kirkpatrick , Fire Commissioner; Bill Gilligan , Volunteer Firefighter; Eva Hoffman , Planning Board and Scenic Resources Committee member; Diane Conneman , Conservation Board and Scenic Resources Committee member; Brent Katzmann , Conservation Board and Scenic Resources Committee member; Helen Lang , Conservation Board and Scenic Resources Committee member; Min Amundsen , Cornell University ; John Gutenberger, Cornell University . CALL TO ORDER : Supervisor Valentino called the meeting to order at 5 : 30 p . m . and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance . Employee Introduction — Steven Williams Supervisor Valentino introduced Steven Williams , newly hired Code Enforcement Officer, to the Board . City of Ithaca Liaison — Robin Korherr Ms . Korherr introduced herself to the board . She represents the Fifth Ward ( Fall Creek and Cornell Heights) and currently serves on the Community Services and Governance Committee . She will be serving as that committee' s liaison to the Town Board and as such plans to attend Town Board meetings on a monthly basis to report on City initiatives affecting the Town and report back to Community Services regarding Town activities . Agenda Item No . 3 — Report of County Legislature There was no one present from the County Legislature to address the Board . Agenda item No . 4 — Report of Fire Commissioners (Attachment #1 — written report) Mr. Romanowski and Mr. Kirkpatrick appeared before the Board with the Commission 's monthly report . Mr. Romanowski reported he would be serving as Chair of the Commission for another year and read his monthly report to the Board . 1 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 Mr. Kirkpatrick expressed his disappointment regarding budget cuts affecting the fire department' s volunteer and bunker program . He told the Board he felt these programs are the most cost effective method of maintaining and increasing the level of fire protection services . Mr. Romanowski told the Board that Fire Chief Wilbur has said if the department is limited to a 1 % increase he will have to lay off up to 5 or 6 career fire fighters and close a fire station . He told the Board when they say, "close a fire station " they usually mean West Hill . Mr. Romanowski reported having spoken of his concern regarding such a closure and subsequent lack of protection for an area that has nursing homes , a hospital , apartment complexes , as well as residential neighborhoods . Supervisor Valentino stated it would probably be a violation of the fire contract. Councilman Stein asked how many paid fire fighters there were . Mr. Kirkpatrick reported 64 on -duty personnel consisting of 1 chief, 1 deputy chief, 5 assistant chiefs , 8 lieutenants , and 49 firefighters . Mr. Stein then asked why a 1 % increase means they have to lay off 10 % of the force . Mr. Romanowski replied stating the budget of the fire department is over 3/4 salaries and benefits . Under the 1 % budget scenario all the particular programs they have cannot be fully funded ; maintenance on trucks , maintenance of buildings , needed supplies , equipment, uniforms , etc . Cutting back as much as they would do with a 1 % increase would mean that the retroactive contract, signed with the City of Ithaca and the paid Firefighters Association goes back to January 1 , 2003 , and it will having a huge impact on what the department has to outlay to catch up . Mr. Stein asked how much of an increase they would need to maintain the current level of services . Mr. Romanowski stated approximately 3 % to 3 '/2% will allow them to just about squeak through . Mr. Romanowski drew the Board ' s attention to the proposed "Optional " budget under which the department could possibly fund the volunteer services . The optional budget , however, is over and above the 3 '/2% increase ; it is somewhere around 4 or 5 % Councilman Burbank asked what had happened to the pool of volunteers as a result of eliminating the Bunker and Volunteer Coordinator position (a cut that was made two years ago) . Mr. Romanowski stated that , by attrition , as people have gotten older, burned out , moved away , the pool has become less and less . Mr. Romanowski defined the two categories of volunteers for the Board . Bunkers live in the stations and are under contract to the City to perform services . Volunteers are not compensated for their services ; they donate their time and effort for no advantage except giving back to the community . Mr. Romanowski told the Board that the $ 12 , 000+ for volunteer and bunker equipment and training that appeared in the 2003 and 2004 budgets was zero in the proposed budget 1 % and 3 . 5 % budgets . Mr. Romanowski did not yet know the date of Budget Hearings on the Fire Budget ; he will let Supervisor Valentino know when he knows the date . Agenda Item No. 5 — Persons to be Heard 2 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 Bill Gilligan and Ken Jupiter, Volunteer Fire Fighters Mr. Gilligan and Mr. Jupiter appeared before the Board to express their concern regarding budget cuts affecting the bunker and volunteer programs . They expressed particular concern that the Fire Chief has decided to " no longer carry the battle forward " in terms of requesting funds from the City for support of the volunteer programs . Mr. Jupiter told the Board the Fire Department needed between $20 , 000 and $25 , 000 for a bunker class . Typically each bunker class adds 8 to 10 people and bunkers tend to serve an average of 2 years . Mr. Stein asked if funding was being cut due to a lack of participation . Mr. Jupiter felt there has been a lack of effort in terms of recruitment . Over the last 2Y2 years there have been approximately 60 inquiries into the programs . They have not been able to tell people when they could train , if there would be training , and those people have "evaporated " . Mr. Jupiter felt any lack of participation was due to a lack in the ability to provide training . Mr. Jupiter felt the program was cost effective . Regarding volunteer training , Mr. Jupiter told the Board it is hard to get a critical number of people to run the training . They need 10 to 12 people to run volunteer training cost effectively. There have been talks with the Fire Chief and movement toward having the County provide the training . The County provides training to departments throughout the County and they would not have to reach the critical number if the department accepted the County training . Councilman Stein asked who the decision maker was regarding the training . Mr. Gilligan thought it was up to the City . Mr. Gilligan thought the volunteers should be able to piggyback on to the existing County training programs and have that accepted within the Fire Department . Bunkers receive a concentrated training sometime in August . That would need to remain a stand -alone program . Career fire department staff, working overtime , provide the training for bunkers . Bringing the career staff in for overtime to provide the training is essentially where the cost is incurred . There is not an external contract with someone to come in and provide the training . Mr. Gilligan told the Board another advantage of the volunteer and bunker program is that it provides a pool of trained and experienced personnel from which to hire career firefighters . Mr. Gilligan closed by saying he felt the volunteer and bunker programs were worthwhile for a numberlof reasons and should not be eliminated or allowed to dissolve . Sydney Merritt, 127 Woolf Lane Mr. Merritt appeared before the Board with the following comments regarding Overlook at West Hill . First of all let me express my appreciation for the ability to be heard this evening. When 1 put in the request, and the request is really predicated on concerns and questions 1 had regarding the Overlook project and it wasn 't on the agenda for the meeting tonight. So I'm doubly appreciative of this opportunity. 3 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 My concerns and questions arose when the judge ruled in favor of the rezoning which then made the construction of the Overlook project permissible. If I read correctly, maybe I 'm right or maybe I 'm wrong, but I understood that some members of this Town Board expressed great joy and jubilation over this particular decision. I found that troublesome. The reason I did was because 1 got the impression that the Town of Ithaca was about to hang out its mission accomplished when, to my way of thinking, Overlook was far from being accomplished at that particular point in time. I attended a great number of Planning Board meetings and Town Board meetings, the results of which you folks did approve the Overlook project and I believe two of the principal reasons were, number one because of the urgent need for affordable housing in the Town of Ithaca and also because there were a considerable number of poor and homeless people and low income people in need of this affordable housing. Is that correct? I believe it's correct so there 's no need to ask. The last word I heard with respect to the Overlook was from Town Attorney Barney who said to me that Overlook was in the best interests of the Town of Ithaca and I believe I'm quoting you correctly. Then 1 went back to the judge 's decision and 1 thought, well at this particular point in time, is that in the best interests of the Town of Ithaca or just in the best interests of the developer? I 'm thinking it was just in the best interests of the developer. I 'm also thinking what about the interests of those poor, low-income and homeless people. Who is looking out for their interests ? I don 't believe anyone is to be honest with you, because I don 't believe they are identifiable. But 1 do believe someone should be responsible for those poor, low- income, and homeless people. And 1 looked at it in this respect. I believe I 'm accurately stating that the Town Board has a responsibility for acting in the best interests of the Town of Ithaca. I also believe that you should have a continuing responsibility to these poor, low- income, and homeless people because until they move into their affordable housing then the best interests of the Town of Ithaca will not be accomplished. I am thinking, then, that you folks should have a continuing responsibility to these people of less means. How's this to be done ? Well, here we have an assembled group of intelligent, skilled, and experienced people and I should think with access to other departments in the Town of Ithaca as well as the fact that some of you folks are on the first name basis with the developer. You should be able to evolve a timetable or plan, or something, that would give these poor and low income and homeless people some hope for when they can occupy their affordable housing. Of course how that's to be done will be up to the people who assume that responsibility. But I did have a couple of suggestions. The first suggestion would be to get the names of these poor, low-income, and homeless people so that you 're addressing the concerns of real people, not just a category. Number two, that you issue these progress reports and status so that these people have some hope as to when they can occupy their affordable house. And number three, that you issue these progress reports to those of us residing in the Town of Ithaca so with respect to Overlook you let us know how you are acting in our best interests. I believe that's perfectly reasonable and plausible. I don 't know how you would react to it. I didn 't come here only to express opinions, but 1 will say this, that I know it must hurt your consciences terribly to realize that 4 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 with cold weather coming that there are going to be poor and homeless people sleeping in malls and in shelters. I believe you will make your best effort to see that isn 't necessary. That's about all I had with respect to say to what I believe should be done for these poor people who are in dire need and for whom you have approved the Overlook project. And there again, I think total dependence upon the developer is fallacious. One thing that's troubling me, 1 think, on one hand you approve the urgent need for affordable housing and on the other hand you give the developer 4 years in which to implement his plan: I don 't see how that works in the best interests of making this urgent need for housing available. That seems to me to be a contradiction. Looking at contradictions, since you 're addressing me, let me site an example if I may. Let's take a worst-case scenario. Let's suppose that the developer decides he doesn 't want to build Overlook? What then is the town of Ithaca going to do to see that these poor low income and homeless people are provided with affordable housing ? Supervisor Valentino told Mr. Merritt that the Town has it written in the agreement with the developer that the Town of Ithaca can step in and take responsibility if the other authorities and agencies do not . The Town does take responsibility for making sure that the people that are eligible for affordable housing do get into the housing . 0 Mr. Barney referred Mr. Merritt to the local law the Town passed on the Overlook development telling him it has some very stringent requirements that the developer must meet. The project is heavily regulated by the State' s Division of Housing and Community Renewal and the Town relies on them to do their job . Mr. Merritt asked if there was a timetable for the project . Mr. Barney told him there is a 4- year timeframe within which the project is to be up and operating or the developer loses the rezoning . Agenda Item No . 6 — Scenic Resources Committee Presentation (Attachment #2 — copy of PowerPoint presentation ) Conservation Board members Dianne Conneman and Bret Katzman appeared before the Board with a presentation on scenic views within the Town , the efforts made to-date to protect those views , and a plan for the work that still needs to be done . A copy of their presentation is attached to these minutes . Ms . Conneman invited questions from the Board and asked to hear from them whether or not they supported the project. Councilman Engman indicated that the County Comprehensive Plan being developed now also emphasizes scenic views . There has been talk of the County Cooperating with the Finger Lakes Land Trust to help work on scenic views for the entire county . Mr. Engman asked if the Scenic Resources Committee would ' be able to coordinate their work with the County and Land Trust. Ms . Conneman told him they would be delighted to cooperate with County and any of the surrounding towns . 5 0 g Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 Agenda Item No . 7 - Public Hearing Regarding a Local Law to Amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to Rezone Cornell University Tax Parcel No . 63 . -1 -3 .4 from Office Park Commercial and Multiple Residence to Low Density Residential Supervisor Valentino opened the public hearing at 6 : 30 p . m . The hearing was posted and published as required . Agenda Item No . 6 — Scenic Resources Committee Presentation (continued ) Councilwoman Grigorov commended the Board on putting their ideals into specifics that can be implemented . She hoped the Committee would undertake their work , cooperate with the County, but not allow themselves to be delayed by the County . Councilman Lesser voiced his support of the Committee's work stating much of what Ithaca is , the Town and the community , is the beautiful views and they are easily changed . He asked that the committee consider the various trade-offs of clustering . There are a number of benefits for clustering , it reduces the sprawl and occupies less land . On the other hand , from a greater distance , if you have a clustered developed it looks like quite a concentrated built out area , particularly the Deer Run area . He asked if the Committee could help the Town think through what the appropriate trade offs are . Ms . Conneman stated it was a challenge they would willingly accept . Supervisor Valentino commended the committee on their work . Councilman Stein felt the preservation of views should be incorporated into the planning process and asked if there was currently such a process in place in the Town . Mr. Kanter stated that there were informal ways of protecting views but what might come out of the Committee' s recommendations is a more formal process . Their work will also help the Planning Board by providing an inventory of where the views are . OTHER BUSINESS Richard Fisher Award Susan Ritter presented the plaque for the Richard Fisher award to the Board . Brent Katzman crafted the wood tablet from a naturally fallen cherry tree from within the Town of Ithaca . Agenda Item No . 7 - Public Hearing Regarding a Local Law to Amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to Rezone Cornell University Tax Parcel No . 63 . -1 -3 .4 from Office Park Commercial and Multiple Residence to Low Density Residential There was no one present to address the Board and Supervisor Valentino closed the public hearing at 6 : 38 p . m . Agenda Item No . 8 - SEQR , regarding a Local Law to Amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to Rezone Cornell Universitv Tax Parcel No . 63 . -1 -3 .4 from Office Park Commercial and Multiple Residence to Low Density Residential (Attachment #3 — SEQR) 6 6G- Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-133 : SEAR : ADOPTION OF A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY PARCEL AT 391 PINE TREE ROAD (TAX PARCEL NO . 63 . -1 -3 .4) FROM OFFICE PARK COMMERCIAL (OPC ) AND MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR)TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ( LDR) WHEREAS , this action is the adoption of a local law to amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to rezone the Cornell University parcel at 391 Pine Tree Road (Tax Parcel No . 63- 1 -3 . 4) from Office Park Commercial (OPC) and Multiple Residence ( MR) to Low Density Residential ( LDR) ; and WHEREAS , on December 8 , 2003 , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca enacted the comprehensive revision of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map , which included the rezoning of Tax Parcel No . 63- 1 -3 .4 , owned by Cornell University, located at 391 Pine Tree Road , from R-30 Residence to Office Park Commercial (OPC ) and Multiple Residence ( MR) ; and WHEREAS , Cornell University has requested that Tax Parcel No . 63- 1 -3 .4 , consisting of 25 . 8 +/- acres , be rezoned from OPC and MR to Low Density Residential ( LDR) for the following reasons : 1 . Neither the OPC nor the MR Zones permit educational uses , and 2 . Cornell University has no intent to develop the land for housing , and 3 . Cornell University presently uses the land for educational purposes , and future development of the parcel will likewise be for educational purposes , and WHEREAS , this is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead Agency , and is the only Involved Agency , in conducting the environmental review with respect to the adoption of the above-described local law; and WHEREAS , the Town Board , at a public hearing held on September 13 , 2004 , has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form , Parts I and II for this action ; RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and , therefore , an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required . MOVED : Councilwoman Grigorov SECONDED : Councilman Lesser 7 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Motion carried unanimously. Agenda Item No. 9 - Consider Adoption of a Local Law to Amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to Rezone Cornell University Tax Parcel No . 63 . -1 -3 .4 from Office Park Commercial and Multiple Residence to Low Density Residential (Attachment #4 — Local Law) TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004-134 : ADOPTING A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP (TOWN OF ITHACA CODE CHAPTERS 270 AND 271 ) REZONING THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY PARCEL AT 391 PINE TREE ROAD (TAX PARCEL NO . 63 . -01 -3 .4) FROM OFFICE PARK COMMERCIAL AND MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS , on December 8 , 2003 , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca enacted a comprehensive revision of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map , which included the rezoning of tax parcel no . 61 - 1 -3 . 4 owned by Cornell University , located at 391 Pine Tree Road , from R-30 Residence to Office Park Commercial and Multiple Residence ; and WHEREAS , Cornell University has requested that such tax parcel be rezoned to Low Density Residential for, among others , the following reasons : 1 . Neither the Office Park Commercial Zone nor the Multiple Residence Zone permit educational uses , and 2 . Cornell University has no intent to develop the land for housing , and 3 . Cornell University presently uses the parcel for educational purposes , and further development of the parcel will likewise be for educational purposes ; and WHEREAS , a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town Board on September 13 , 2004 , at 6 : 30 p . m . to hear all interested parties on a proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY PARCEL AT 391 PINE TREE ROAD (TAX PARCEL NO . 61 - 1 -3 . 4) FROM OFFICE PARK COMMERCIAL (OPC) AND MULTIPLE RESIDENCE ( MR) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ( LDR)11 ; 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 of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law , or any part thereof; and 8 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 WHEREAS , the adoption of this local law is , pursuant to Part 617 of the Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the New York State Conservation Law (which law and regulations thereunder, including the Town ' s local regulations , are collectively referred to as "SEAR") an Unlisted Action , and it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of said proposed local law would not have a significant effect upon the environment and could be processed without further regard to SEQR , and WHEREAS , the Town Planning Board , after due consideration has recommended adoption of such local law ; and WHEREAS , the matter was submitted for review to the Tompkins County Department of Planning pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law Sections 239- 1 and/or 239-m , and such Department issued its opinion that adoption of the proposed local law will not have a significant adverse impact on intercommunity , County , and State interests ; and WHEREAS , the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to adopt the local law; NOW , THEREFORE , be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY PARCEL AT 391 PINE TREE ROAD (TAX PARCEL NO . 63 . - 1 -3 . 4) FROM OFFICE PARK COMMERCIAL (OPC ) AND MULTIPLE RESIDENCE ( MR) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ( LDR) a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution ; and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to enter said local law in the minutes of this meeting and in the Local Law book of the Town of Ithaca , and to give due notice of the adoption of said local ` law by publication of such local law or an abstract or summary thereof in the Ithaca Journal and by filing a copy of said local law with the Secretary of State of the State of New York . Moved : Councilman Stein Seconded : Councilman Engman Vote : Supervisor Valentino Voting Ave Councilperson Grigorov Voting Ave Councilperson Lesser Voting Ave Councilperson Burbank Voting Ave Councilperson Engman Voting Ave Councilperson Stein Voting Ave Councilperson Gittelman Absent Agenda Item No . 6 — Persons to be Heard and Board Comments (continued ) 9 � 5 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 Recreation Partnership Councilman Engman noticed that discussion of the Recreation Partnership was not on the evening 's agenda and suggested the Board schedule a special meeting to discuss the issue . Councilman Stein concurred . Councilman Lesser told the Board that the Recreation Partnership was on the agenda for the upcoming Municipal Officers Association Meeting and thought that might be an opportunity to discuss the issue with other municipal officials . Setting a meeting time and date was tabled until later in the meeting . Agenda Item No. 10 - Consider Adoption of an Order Setting a Public Hearing for SCLIWC East Hill Water Tank and Transmission Line Project (Attachment # 5— Capital Project Budget Worksheet; Summary of Engineering Studies , proposals , meetings and discussion ) Dan Walker briefly described the project to the Board . Councilman Burbank asked that pictures of the proposed structure be made available for purposes of assessing its visual impact . Board members received materials for their review regarding the proposed project and were asked to bring them to the October 18th meeting . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004=135 : ORDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING : IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL COMMISSION EAST HILL WATER TANK AND WATER MAINS , THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSE , THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF JOINT AND SEVERAL SERIAL BONDS FOR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF SUCH PROJECT, AND THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT OF MUNICIPAL COOPERATION GOVERNING SUCH WATER TANK AND WATER MAINS . At a Regular Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , held at 215 North Tioga Street , Ithaca , New York , on the 13th day of September, 2004 , at 5 : 30 o'clock P . M . Prevailing Time . PRESENT : Supervisor Catherine Valentino Councilperson Carolyn Grigorov Councilperson William Lesser Councilperson Will Burbank Councilperson Herbert Engman Councilperson Peter Stein ABSENT : Councilperson Sandra Gittelman WHEREAS , a plan , report and map has been duly prepared in such manner and in such detail as this Board determines to be necessary , relating to the construction of a water 10 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 tank on Hungerford Hill in the Town of Ithaca and construction of additional water transmission mains in part in connection with such new water tank all to be a part of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission ("SCLIWC ") water system , and all pursuant to Article 5-G of the General Municipal Law and relevant provisions of the Town Law and Village Law, such project to be known and identified as the SCLIWC 2004 East Hill Tank and Water Main Project, and hereinafter also referred to as " Improvement" , to provide improved water storage capacity and water transmission capabilities for SCLIWC and the system owned in common by the Towns of Dryden , Ithaca and Lansing and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing (collectively the " Municipalities" and sometimes individually the " Municipality") , such Improvement to be constructed and owned by the Municipalities , and WHEREAS , the proposed SCLIWC 2004 East Hill Tank and Water Main Project consists of the improvements set forth below and as more particularly shown and described in said map , plan and report presently on file in the Office of the Municipality Clerk: Construction of a 3 , 000 , 000 gallon prestressed concrete water storage tank and appurtenant facilities on Hungerford Hill in the Town of Ithaca , construction of 3600 feet of sixteen inch diameter ductile iron pipe and appurtenances running from SCLIWC ' s existing transmission main on Ellis Hollow Road east of its Lintersection with Pine Tree Road easterly along Ellis Hollow Road to its intersection with Hungerford Hill Road then southerly along Hungerford Hill Road and then southeasterly across lots to the proposed new storage tank on Hungerford Hill , and construction of a twelve inch diameter ductile iron water distribution main and appurtenances running northerly from the ! intersection of Ellis Hollow Road and Hungerford Hill Road across lots approximately '' 1500 feet to the vicinity of the Cornell University Athletic Fields located off of Game Farm " Road ; and WHEREAS , the maximum proposed to be expended for the aforesaid improvement is $2 , 200 , 000 . 00 ; and WHEREAS , the proposed method of financing to be employed for the aforesaid improvement is issuance by the Municipalities of joint and several serial bonds not to exceed $ 1 , 500 , 000 and payment of the balance of the costs of said improvement by the expenditure of current revenues and surplus funds held by SCLIWC ; and WHEREAS , the area of said Town determined to be benefitted by said SCLIWC 2004 East Hill Tank and Water Main Project consists of the entire area of the Town excepting the Village of Cayuga Heights ; and WHEREAS , it is now desired to call a public hearing for the purpose of considering said plan , report and map , the providing of said SCLIWC 2004 East Hill Tank and Water Main Project , the authorization of serial bonds for payment of part of the costs of the Improvement , the expenditure of current revenues and surplus ,funds for the balance of the costs of the Improvement, and the amendment of the existing g'' Agreement of Intermunicipal Cooperation between the Municipalities in relation to such Improvement, and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof, all in accordance with applicable provisions of General Municipal Law, Local Finance Law, Town Law, and Village Law; 11 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 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 will be held at the Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street, in the City of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York , on the 18th day of October, 2004 , at 6 : 30 o'clock P . M . , to consider the aforesaid plan , report and map and the questions of the providing of said SCLIWC 2004 East Hill Tank and Water Main Project, the authorization of joint and several serial bonds for payment of part of the costs of the Improvement , the expenditure of current revenues and surplus funds for the balance of the costs of the Improvement , and the amendment of the existing Agreement of Intermunicipal Cooperation between the Municipalities to authorize such improvement , bonding , and other activities , to delegate to the Treasurer of SCLIWC certain authority to issue such bonds on behalf of the Municipalities , and to grant SCLIWC certain other powers and authority , and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof and concerning the same and to take such action thereon as is required by law. Section 2 . The Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , is hereby authorized and directed to cause a copy of this order to be published once in the official newspaper of the Municipality , and also to post a copy thereof on the Town signboard maintained by the Clerk , not less than ten nor more than twenty days before the day designated for the hearing as aforesaid . Section 3 . This order shall take effect immediately. The question of the adoption of the foregoing order was upon motion of Supervisor Catherine Valentino , seconded by Councilperson Herbert Engman , duly put to a vote on a roll call , which resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino Voting Ave Councilperson Grigorov Voting Ave Councilperson Lesser Voting Ave Councilperson Burbank Voting Ave Councilperson Engman Voting Ave Councilperson Stein Voting Ave The order was thereupon declared duly adopted . Agenda Item No . 11 - Consider Adoption of an Order Setting a Public Hearing on Increasing the Costs and Bonding for the SCLIWC Plant Expansion Project (Attachment #6 - memo , bid tabulation , and project budget) TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004 136 : ORDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING : IN THE MATTER OF THE INCREASE IN THE COSTS OF PROVIDING OF A PROPOSED TWO-STORY OFFICE AND WORK SPACE ADDITION TO THE SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN THE VILLAGE OF LANSING , TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK. 12 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 At a Regular Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , held at 215 North Tioga Street , Ithaca , New York , on the 13th day of September, 2004 , at 5 : 30 o'clock P . M . Prevailing Time . PRESENT : Supervisor Catherine Valentino Councilperson Carolyn Grigorov Councilperson William Lesser Councilperson Will Burbank Councilperson Herbert Engman Councilperson Peter Stein ABSENT : Councilperson Sandra Gittelman WHEREAS , a plan , report and map was duly prepared in such manner and in such detail as this Board determined to be necessary , relating to the construction and equipping of a two-story office and work space addition to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission ("SCLIWC ") water treatment plant, 'pursuant to Article 5-G of the General Municipal Law and relevant provisions of the Town Law and Village Law , such project to be known and identified as the SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expansion Improvement , and hereinafter also referred to as " Improvement" , to provide expanded space in the water treatment plant owned in common by the Towns of Dryden , Ithaca! and Lansing and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing (collectively the " Municipalities" and sometimes individually the " Municipality") , such improvement to be constructed and owned by the Municipalities , and WHEREAS , based upon said plan and report SCLIWC and the Municipalities authorized the expenditure of $2 , 310 , 835 for the Improvement and authorized the issuance of joint and several serial bonds in the amount of $ 1 , 0, 00 , 000 to pay for part of the costs of said Improvement ; and WHEREAS , the bids for the Improvement received from the lowest responsible bidders for each segment of the project were considerably higher than the estimates for same from the Engineers ; and WHEREAS , as a result the Engineers for SCLIWC and SCLIWC itself , have recommended that the amount to be authorized for expenditure for the Improvement be increased by $289 , 165 . 00 to cover the increased amounts of such bids and to provide a reasonable contingency for future unanticipated expenses ; and WHEREAS , SCLIWC has also recommended that because of the increased costs and the desire to possibly authorize other projects in the future that would utilize some of the surplus funds that had initially been proposed for the Improvement , the amount of the bonds to be issued in connection with the Improvement be increased by $ 500 , 000 ; and WHEREAS , the area of said Town determined to be benefitted by said SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expansion Improvement consists of the entirei area of the Town excepting therefrom the area contained within the Village of Cayuga Heights ; and 13 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 WHEREAS , the proposed SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expansion Improvement consists of the improvements set forth below, and as more particularly shown and described in said map , plan and report presently on file in the Office of the Municipality Clerk : Construction of a 7616 square foot, two story office and work space addition on the east end of the SCLIWC water treatment facility at 1402 East Shore Drive in the Village of Lansing and renovation of 4332 square feet of existing office space to provide increased office space for SCLIWC 's Administration and Distribution personnel , workshops for SCLIWC ' s electrical and mechanical technicians and production department personnel , handicapped accessibility , an archive room for long term storage of SCLIWC ' s files and documents , an expansion of the facilities laboratory to meet increased water quality monitoring requirements , and additional fire suppression systems in the new and renovated areas of the facility; upgrading the HVAC systems to bring them into compliance with current building codes ; upgrading the north entrance to the facility ; and adding four additional parking spaces to accommodate the public . WHEREAS , the maximum now proposed to be expended for the aforesaid improvement is $2 , 600 , 000 . 00 ; and WHEREAS , the proposed method of financing to be employed for the aforesaid improvement is issuance by the Municipalities of joint and several serial bonds not to exceed $ 1 , 500 , 000 and payment of the balance of the costs of said improvement by the expenditure of current revenues and surplus funds held by SCLIWC ; and WHEREAS , it is now desired to call a public hearing for the purpose of considering the increase in the maximum amount authorized to be expended for the Improvement , the authorization of an increase in the amount of serial bonds to be used for payment of part of the costs of the Improvement, and the amendment of the existing Agreement of Intermunicipal Cooperation between the Municipalities in relation to such increases related to the Improvement , and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof, all in accordance with applicable provisions of General Municipal Law, Local Finance Law, Town Law, and Village 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 will be held at the Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street , in the City of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York , on the 18th day of October, 2004 , at 6 : 45 o'clock P . M . , to consider the aforesaid increase in the maximum amount to be expended on the costs of the SCLIWC 2003 Plant Expansion Improvement, the authorization of an increase in the amount of joint and several serial bonds to be issued for payment of part of the costs of the Improvement, the expenditures of such additional amounts towards the costs of such Improvement , and the amendment of the existing Agreement of Intermunicipal Cooperation between the Municipalities to authorize such increase in costs , such increase in the amount of bonds to be issued , and other activities , to reaffirm the delegation to the Treasurer of SCLIWC certain authority to issue such bonds on behalf of the Municipalities , to reaffirm the grant to SCLIWC of certain other powers and authority , and to hear all persons 14 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 interested in the subject thereof and concerning the same and to take such action thereon as is required by law . Section 2 . The Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York, is hereby authorized and directed to cause a copy of this order to be published once in the official newspaper of the Municipality , and also to post a copy thereof on the Town signboard maintained by the Clerk , not less than ten nor more than twenty days before the day designated for the hearing as aforesaid . Section 3 . This order shall take effect immediately . The question of the adoption of the foregoing order was upon motion of Councilperson William Lesser , seconded by Councilperson Will Burbank , duly put to a vote on a roll call , which resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino Voting Ave Councilperson Grigorov Voting Ave Councilperson Lesser Voting Ave Councilperson Burbank Voting Ave Councilperson Engman Voting Ave Councilperson Stein Voting Ave The order was thereupon declared duly adopted . Agenda Item No . 12 = Consider Award of Contract t for the 2004 South Hill Transmission Main Project (Attachment #7 — Bid summary and Cost of Bond Borrowing )) Dan Walker reported that there was one very low bid of $345 , 000 . The bidder had made an error in the pipe prices and the Town allowed them to excuse themselves . The low bidder then was Randsco Pipeline . They came it at $415 , 765 and Dan Walker recommended award to Randsco . The second low bidder was LRS Excavating at $417 , 000 ; the third low bidder was Dean Calise at $440 , 000 . The Town Engineer' s estimate for the project was $433 . 000 . TB RESOLUTION NO. 2004-137 : Authorization for Award of Contract for the 2004 South Hill Transmission Main WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca on August 31 , 2004 received bids for the 2004 South Hill Transmission Main project , and ; WHEREAS , the Town Engineer has reviewed the bids and qualifications of the bidder and has recommended that the low bid of $415 , 765 . 00 for the total project made by Randsco Pipeline is a qualified low bid , now ; THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the award of the contract for the 2004 South Hill Transmission Main project to Randsco Pipeline , subject 15 09 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 to final approval of the contract documents by the Town Engineer and Town Attorney , and be it further RESOLVED , that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and requested to execute such contract upon such approval ; and be it further RESOLVED , that the Town Engineer be , and he hereby is , authorized to approve change orders to such contract upon receipt of appropriate justification provided that the maximum amount of such change orders shall not in the aggregate exceed $41 , 577 without prior authorization of this Board , and provided further that the total project cost , including the contract , engineering , legal and other expenses does not exceed the maximum authorized cost of the project of $ 500 , 000 . 00 . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Engman VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Motion carried unanimously . On the table for the information of the Board was information on bonding options for the project . Agenda Item No . 13 - Consider Setting a Public Hearing for Kings Way Water Improvement Proiect Councilman Lesser asked if there were properties that would now become developable that were previously infeasible . Mr. Walker told him they've all been zoned for development in either R15 or R30 . The properties on the east side of Danby Road as you go up the hill would have had low pressure . Schickel Road is where the development is ; there are four homes on Schickel Road now that have to have booster pumps because their pressure is too low. That is why this improvement has been planned for quite a while , to bring those properties up to our standards for water pressure . Also , La Tourelle has had some problems with fire flow and fluctuations because of the pressure regulating valve and this will stabilize their fire flow conditions . There's been some more development on Danby Road in the Sesame Street area , there 's a little bit more demand on the lines . This also is the area of the Auble subdivision , which is across from Danby Road , which actually had adequate water pressure , but this will stabilize the pressures for that are too . Mr. Engman asked if this would make more development feasible right along Danby Road . Mr. Walker told him there is a little bit of property available between Schickel Road and Compton Road , probably about 15 or 20 acres , maybe a little bit more , that would have adequate pressure now , and the Town might be able to serve Compton Road sometime in the future if there was a desire for water although residents in that area have not asked for water. Mr. Noteboom added that the property in the back that Tessa Flores owns actually could be fed from Chase Lane . 16 6b Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 Supervisor Valentino asked if Mr. Engamn was concerned about road cuts . Mr. Engman stated he was and wondered if the Town was getting into a situation where it' s becoming very dangerous because there are so many people trying to get in and off the road all the time . He wondered if the water opened up the opportunity for 8 or 10 new houses right along Danby Road . Mr. Walker told him the Town was not extending water all the way up Danby Road , it was only going as far as Schikel Road . Yes , the water could be extended further because the pressure would be adequate , but there would be a cost to do that and the Town Board would have to approve it or a developer would have to pay to have it done . Mr. Kanter told the Board that the whole strip along Danby Road is shown as suburban residential in the Comprehensive Plan , so the intention was that there would be adequate services for low-density residential growth in that area . There are a couple of other properties in the area north of the Westview Subdivision that are vacant . With regard to one of the properties , the town has heard an indication the Tibetan monks want to build a monastery across from Sesame Street. There' s 'a property owned by Ithaca College just north of Westview , which the Westview developer is possibly trying to acquire that could also be developed . That piece is medium density residential . It is basically zoned and planned for growth . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-138 : ORDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING : IN THE MATTER OF THE PROVIDING OF A PROPOSED WATER IMPROVEMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE TOWN OF ITHACA 2004 KINGS WAY WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY NEW YQRKIiPURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12-C OF THE TOWN LAW. At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County, New York, held at 215 North Tioga Street , in Ithaca , New York , on the 13th day of September, 2004 , at 5 : 30 o'clock P . M . Prevailing Time . PRESENT : Supervisor Catherine Valentino Councilperson Carolyn Grigorov Councilperson William Lesser Councilperson Will Burbank Councilperson Herbert Engman Councilperson Peter Stein ABSENT : Councilperson Sandra Gittelman WHEREAS , a plan , report and map has been duly prepared in such manner and in such detail as heretofore has been determined by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , relating to the creation 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 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement Project, and hereinafter also referred to as " improvement" , to provide such water system improvement , to the present Town water improvement, such Improvement to be constructed by Boris Simkin with certain materials to 17 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 be supplied by the Town of Ithaca , with the entire improvement to be owned by the Town of Ithaca upon completion , and WHEREAS , said plan , report and map have been prepared by Daniel Walker, P . E . , the Town Engineer, a competent engineer duly licensed by the State of New York and have been filed in the office of the Town Clerk where they are available for public inspection , and WHEREAS , the area of said Town determined to be benefitted by said Town of Ithaca 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement Project consists of the entire area of said Town excepting therefrom the area contained within the Village of Cayuga Heights , and WHEREAS , the proposed Town of Ithaca 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement Project consists of the water improvements set forth below , and in the areas of the Town as set forth below, and as more particularly shown and described in said map , plan and report presently on file in the Office of the Town Clerk : Construction of approximately 810 feet of 8 inch ductile iron pipe water main running from the Town ' s existing main on Danby Road along Kings Way and East King Road to a point just east of the existing pressure reducing valve on East King Road , together with related controls and other structures ; and WHEREAS the area in which the improvement is to be located is an area that needs to be upgraded to provide more appropriate levels of water service for a number of the Town ' s water customers ; and WHEREAS , the developer of the Westview Subdivision needs the improvement to be completed in order for there to be adequate water service and water pressure for a substantial portion of the proposed subdivision ; and WHEREAS , such developer has offered to construct the improvement if the Town agrees to supply the materials ; and WHEREAS , the maximum proposed to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for the aforesaid improvement is $20 , 000 , the maximum estimated cost of the materials for the improvement and the proposed method of financing to be employed by the Town of Ithaca for the aforesaid improvement is payment for said materials out of surplus funds at a cost not to exceed $20 , 000 ; and WHEREAS , it is now desired to call a public hearing for the purpose of considering said plan , report and map and the providing of said Town of Ithaca 2004 South Hill Water Transmission Main Improvement , and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof, 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 : 18 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 Section 1 . A public hearing will be held at the Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street , in the City of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , on the 18th day of October, 2004 at 7 : 00 o'clock P . M . , to consider the aforesaid plan , report and map and the question of providing of said Town of Ithaca 2004 Kings Way Water Improvement Project and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof and concerning the same and to take such action thereon as is required by law. Section 2 . The Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , is hereby authorized and directed to cause a copy of this order to be published once in The Ithaca Journal , and also to post a copy thereof on the Town signboard maintained by the Clerk , not less than ten nor more than twenty 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 ' upon motion of Supervisor Catherine Valentino., seconded by Councilperson Carolyn Grigorov , duly put to a vote on a roll call , which resulted as follows : Supervisor Valentino Voting Ave Councilperson Grigorov Voting Ave Councilperson Lesser Voting Ave Councilperson Burbank Voting Ave Councilperson Engman Voting Ave Councilperson Stein Voting Ave The order was thereupon declared duly adopted . Agenda Item No . 14 = Authorization to Apply for ",State Purchase of Development Rights Grant (Attachment #8 — Memo from M . Smith and map) Mr. Kanter told the Board that there is stiff competition for these funds . The Town of Dryden is submitting an application for quite a number of properties under this same program . Councilman Stein asked if the Town properties were ones the Town did not want to see developed . Mr. Kanter stated that these , as well as a number of others around the West Hill , have been targeted as important farmland . One of the properties is the Genex property , which is a very large property and has a research and development facility. Most of the parcel is undeveloped land for grazing and raising , crops . The other is a property owned by individuals who have already gotten Town approvals to open up a brandy and fruit distilling operation . They are going to be growing fruits for the operation on their farmland . Regarding both properties , Mr. Kanter thought they would be emphasizing the agri-business aspect of these properties in terms of economic development. Councilman Stein asked if it was in the Town Board ' s power to rescind an easement. Mr. Kanter stated they are supposed to be irrevocable easements . Attorney Barney told the Board that there is a provision in the Ferguson easement, taken right out of the tax law, that if the property reverts back the owners have to pay a hefty price to buy back the development rights and there is a formula to 19 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 calculate the amount including back taxes . Regarding the properties in the current grant application , the State would be another party to the agreement and another hurdle to " undoing " the easement. Councilman Burbank stated his support of the grant application . Councilman Engman was surprised by the difference in the estimated development rights of the Genex property at $2 , 050/acre and the Hanavan/Lung property at $ 500/acre and asked why there was such a difference . Mr. Kanter told him it was basically because of the amount of road frontage available in each of the properties . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004 139 : AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR STATE GRANT FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM WHEREAS , the Town Board has adopted a Park , Recreation and Open Space Plan ( December 1997) , and said plan identifies the preservation of farmland as an important priority for the Town , and WHEREAS , the Park , Recreation and Open Space Plan proposes a voluntary Purchase of Development Rights ( PDR) program to further the goal of preserving farmland , and the Town Board is actively pursuing the implementation of such a program , and WHEREAS , the Town Board has adopted a Policies and Procedures Manual (July 12 , 1999) with specific guidelines and criteria for implementation of the Agricultural Land Preservation Program , and WHEREAS , the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets has announced the availability of funding through the Farmland Protection Grant Program under the Environmental Protection Fund for the implementation of agricultural and farmland plans , and WHEREAS , the cost-share ratio for these funds has been established at 75 percent State and 25 percent local , and WHEREAS , the Town has received two applications from farm owners interested in participating in the Town 's PDR program , the parcels totaling approximately 167 acres , and WHEREAS , an estimated range of potential acquisition costs for the agricultural conservation easements on these two properties is up to $293 , 000 . 00 , and WHEREAS , grant applications are due on October 1 2004 ; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that Catherine Valentino , as Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca , is hereby authorized to file an application for funds from the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets in accordance with the provisions of the Farmland Protection Grant Program , in an amount not to exceed a total of $219 , 750 . 00 in State funds , which requires the commitment of a local share not to exceed $73 , 250 . 00 , and upon approval of said 20 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 request to enter into and execute an agreement with the State for such financial assistance to the Town of Ithaca for the Agricultural Land Preservation Program . MOVED : Councilman Burbank SECONDED : Councilman Engman VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman 'Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously . Agenda Item No . 15 - Consider Arrangements with Mr. Frandsen regarding Drainage Access Easement (Attachment #9 — letter from J. Barney with attachments) Supervisor Valentino told the Board that the Town lhas had negotiations back and forth with Mr. Frandsen , a developer up in Eastern Heights . Mr. Frandsen has had some interesting memories of what he thought he had negotiated with the Town . After having done a lot of research with staff and looking through what had actually happened and what the Town could really do , the bottom line is the Town had to tell Mr. Frandsen that we could not take some of our parkland out of parkland and allow him to have some more building lots . That just wasn 't possible , but we did have in our drawings that he ;could have a hammer head on one road which the highway department said would be fine and what they need also if he would allow us this easement so that we could go in and do some work on some very serious erosion that is happening behind the Ewing ' s house on 79 . It gets convoluted because the Ewings have to give us an easement for our Pew Trail and they've basically said they' ll sign the easment for the trail when we go in and take care of the erosion problem that we wanted to take care of anyway . So the bottom line is that after debating back and forth with Mr. Frandsen and hopefully he either recognized that he was wrong or he just plain gave up because he knew we weren 't going to move anywhere on it , he ' s finally agreed , and we thought we were maybe going to have to do some legal action to getthe easement . The good news is that Mr. Frandsen has come around and has decided to agree that we can go in at no cost and have the easement we need for doing the project. After 'all kinds of negotiations by many of us we finally got to that point. TB RESOLUTION NO , 2004-140 : AUTHORIZING THE TOWN TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH WILLIAM FRANDSEN FOR ACQUISITION OF DRAINAGE FACILITY ACCESS EASEMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR USE OF A TOWN PARCEL FOR A CUL-DE-SAC TURNAROUND WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca needs to acquire an access easement to construct and maintain drainage facilities related to property owned by Elmer and Marily Ewing off of Pine Tree Road in the Town ; and WHEREAS , the access easement runs across property owned by William Frandsen ; and 21 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 WHEREAS , Mr. Frandsen is willing to grant such easement if the Town consents to Mr. Frandsen utilizing a portion of land owned by the Town to create a turn-around at the end of a proposed new road to be constructed by Mr. Frandsen and offered for dedication to the Town ; and WHEREAS , the land owned by the Town had been reserved by the Town for use as a possible connector road in the future , and the proposed use of said parcel as a turn-around would not be inconsistent with such anticipated use , it being understood that upon completion of the construction of the turn -around and associated Brian Drive , that the Town would become the owner of both the road and the turn -around ; and WHEREAS , this arrangement allows the Town to obtain a needed easement without further cost or the use of eminent domain proceedings ; and WHEREAS , a draft of a proposed agreement implementing the above arrangements has been provided to the Town Board for review and consideration ; NOW, THEREFORE , be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board does hereby determine , pursuant to Part 617 of the Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (the State Environmental Quality Review Act [" SEQRA"] ) , that execution of said proposed agreement is a Type II action , constituting " routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment" and thus may be processed without further regard to SEQRA ; and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town Board finds that the exchange of the proposed easement from Mr. Frandsen for utilization of a portion of lands owned by the Town as a public highway turn -around is a fair and equitable exchange of interests ; and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town Board approves the above referenced agreement , a copy of which has been submitted to and reviewed at this meeting , and hereby authorizes and requests the Town Supervisor or Deputy Town Supervisor to execute such agreement on behalf of the Town with such changes therein as either of them may, with the advice of the Town Highway Superintendent , Town Engineer or Attorney for the Town , deem necessary or desirable in furtherance of the interests of the Town . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Lesser VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Agenda Item No . 16 — Consider Increasing Number of Members on the Agriculture Committee 22 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 TB RESOLUTION NO 2004-141 • Approve Increasing the Number of Members on the Agricultural Committee WHEREAS , members of the Town of Ithaca agricultural community have expressed an interest in serving on the Town Agricultural Committee WHEREAS , the Committee has asked that the Town Board extend membership to all interested Town of Ithaca agricultural community members ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca extends membership on the Agricultural Committee to all members of the Town of Ithaca agricultural community , and be it further RESOLVED , that 5 voting members constitute a quorum of the committee . MOVED : Councilman Engman SECONDED : Councilman Stein VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-142 : Consent Agenda Items . BE IT RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the resolutions for Consent Agenda Items as presented . MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO 2004-142a : Town Board Minutes of August 3 , 2004 WHEREAS , the Town Clerk has presented the minutes for the Regular Town Board Meeting held on August 3 , 2004 , to the governing: Town Board for their review and approval of filing ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , the governing Town Board does hereby approve for filing the minutes for the meeting held on August 3 , 2004 as presented at the September 13 , 2004 board meeting . MOVED : Councilman Lesser 23 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-142b : Town of Ithaca Warrants . 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 . 9062 -9200 General Fund Townwide $ 741154 . 57 General Fund Part Town $ 51821 . 01 Highway Fund Part Town $ 163 , 606 . 57 Water Fund $ 421729 . 60 Sewer Fund $ 185 , 928 . 66 2003 West Hill Water Tank Improvement $ 21982 . 70 Bostwick Rd Water Tank & Transmission Main $ 175 . 00 Coy Glen Pumpstation/Pipeline $ 501404 . 82 Risk Retention Fund $ 243 . 11 Fire Protection Fund $ 1663686 . 00 Forest Home Lighting District $ 172 . 92 Glenside Lighting District $ 62 . 59 Renwick Heights Lighting District $ 87 . 45 Eastwood Commons Lighting District $ 179 . 83 Clover Ln Lighting District $ 20 . 72 Winner' s Cir Lighting District $ 60 . 77 Burleigh Dr Lighting District $ 62 . 82 West Haven Rd Lighting District $ 238 . 60 Coddington Rd Lightinq District $ 140 . 91 TOTAL : $ 693 , 758 65 MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov 24 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-142c : Bolton Points Abstract. WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS , the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board ; now, therefore , be it RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers . Voucher Numbers : 482-491 , 496-565 Check Numbers : 7567-75767 7582-7651 Operating Fund $ 149 , 418 . 56 1998 SCADA Capital Project $ 117859 . 19 2002 Office Space Addition $ 310 , 159 . 77 2003 East Hill Tank Project $ 120 . 66 TOTAL $ 4714558 . 18 MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-142d : Approval for Planning Board Members to Attend New York Planning Federation Planning & Zoning Conference WHEREAS , there are many new developments impacting the Town regarding land use , zoning and other regulatory issues ; and WHEREAS , the New York Planning Federation ( NYPF) is holding its 2004 Planning & Zoning Conference from September 19th through September 22"d , 2004 , in Lake Placid , New York , which provides programs and workshops on a number of current planning and zoning topics , 25 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 basic training for planning and zoning board members , and continuing education credits for professional staff; and WHEREAS , it will be beneficial to the Town to send staff and a member of the Planning Board to this program ; and WHEREAS , the Planning Department budget includes sufficient funds for this purpose ; BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the attendance of Fred T. Wilcox III , Chair of the Town Planning Board , and Eva Hoffmann , Vice- Chair of the Town Planning Board , at the NYPF 2004 Planning & Zoning Conference from September 19th through September 22 "d , 2004 at a cost not to exceed $ 1500 . 00 , which includes registration , accommodations , meals , and other travel expenses , charged to Account B8020 . 403 . MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-142d ; Approval for Planning Board Members to Attend New York Planning Federation Planning & Zoning Conference WHEREAS , there are many new developments impacting the Town regarding land use , zoning and other regulatory issues ; and WHEREAS , the New York Planning Federation ( NYPF) is holding its 2004 Planning & Zoning Conference from September 19th through September 22 "d , 2004 , in Lake Placid , New York , which provides programs and workshops on a number of current planning and zoning topics , basic training for planning and zoning board members , and continuing education credits for professional staff; and WHEREAS , it will be beneficial to the Town to send staff and a member of the Planning Board to this program ; and WHEREAS , the Planning Department budget includes sufficient funds for this purpose ; BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the attendance of Fred T . Wilcox III , Chair of the Town Planning Board , and Eva Hoffmann , Vice- Chair of the Town Planning Board , at the NYPF 2004 Planning & Zoning Conference from September 19th through September 22 "d , 2004 at a cost not to exceed $ 1500 . 00 , which includes registration , accommodations , meals , and other travel expenses , charged to Account B8020 . 403 , 26 6C Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously . TB RESOLUTION NO 2004=142e • Approval to Hire Cornell University Work Study Student for Court Office . WHEREAS , the Town Board annually in May approves entering into an agreement with Cornell University to participate in the Federal Work Study Program , which offers valuable learning opportunities and job experience , to the students while providing the Town with valuable technical support ; and WHEREAS , the Engineering and Planning departments have annually hired students ; and WHEREAS , hiring a Work Study student for the Court Office would greatly benefit the Town by providing temporary assistance to the office during the fall semester of 2004 ; and WHEREAS , there are sufficient funds available within the Town Wide Fund for this program in account Al 430A 00 ; now therefore be it RESOLVED , the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve hiring a Cornell University Federal Work Study student for the Court Office , with the $500 funding for this program to be transferred from A1430 . 100 to Al 110 . 406 , MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO 2004=142f• Authorization for Attending NYS Magistrates Court Clerk Association 2004 Annual Conference . WHEREAS , the NYS Magistrates Court Clerk Association will be holding their 2004 Annual Conference on October 3 , 2004 through October 6 , 2004 , in Saratoga Springs , and WHEREAS , the attendance at the said conference , by Cindy Vicedomini , Court Clerk will benefit the Town of Ithaca by providing additional schooling from said training session ; now, therefore , be it 27 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 RESOLVED , that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby authorize Cindy Vicedomini , Court Clerk , to attend the NYS Magistrates Court Clerk Association 2004 Annual Conference , to be held in Saratoga Springs , NY, on October 3 , 2004 through October 6 , 2004 ; and be it further RESOLVED , the cost not to exceed $750 for registration , lodging , meals and travel is to be expended from All 110 . 410 . MOVED : Councilman Lesser SECONDED : Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously Report of Town Committees Agricultural Committee Councilman Engman reported the committee held another very successful meeting . Nine members were present . The minutes will be available for Board review and contain some committee recommendations . Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization Councilman Burbank attended an event done in cooperation with the Watershed Network at Myers Park in Lansing . Mr. Burbank rode on the "floating classroom " which is a project of the Intermunicipal Organization that takes groups of school student and others out on Cayuga Lake to do water quality test. Mr. Engman reported that the floating classroom had gotten so successful that the group was looking into a non-profit corporation to run the classroom . The group 's current chair is making a strong effort to increase the membership of the municipalities . City and Town Trail Committee Councilman Burbank reported a meeting on Thursday , September 16tH Codes and Ordinance Committee Did not meet during August . Lake Source Data Sharing Committee Councilman Engman attended his first meeting as representative for the Town Board . The big news is that Cornell is applying to the Department of Environmental Conservation to reduce the number of monitoring sites from 8 or 9 to 2 . Unfortunately two recommended sites are situated in places where Mr. Engman felt they would not provide much data . One is 8 miles up the lake and the other is very close to the end of the shelf at the south end of Cayuga Lake . Councilman Engman hoped the Town could work with the consultant and Jon Kanter to take a close look at that recommendation . Mr. Engman felt that more than two sites would be necessary for continued monitoring . There have only been three years of 28 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 monitoring since the lake source cooling went in . A couple of the sites are perfectly positioned to measure what the reduction in phosphorous will be from the improvements to the sewerage treatment plant . Mr. Engman hoped there would be a way to work with Cornell to continue those monitoring sites . Cornell will save about $ 30 , 000 by reducing to 2 sites . Councilman Stein asked what the argument was for 8 sites ? Mr. Engman stated there was an attempt to get some sites very near the outflow of the lake source cooling effluent . Also , the lake is very dynamic . Not only do you have water flowing north , but you also have counterclockwise circulation in the lake . The questions was , if something is going to happen , where is it going to happen ; is it going to happen at the effluent, or is the effluent going to be moved in a counterclockwise circulation and go clear across to the other side of the lake? So you needed all these sites , and you needed some control sites . Another argument from Cornell is that there is just so much variation , so many other things going on including outflows from two sewerage treatment plants , that trying to ascribe any factor to lake sources cooling is very difficult if not impossible . Mr. Kanter did not think all eight sites were required in the permit . There were several that Cornell decided to add in light of the public' s response to the project. The key question now is the DEC permit and whether that should be modified . Paul Werthman from Benchmark Consultants attended the data-sharing meeting with Mr. Kanter and Mr. Engman . Mr. Kanter recommended the Town have Mr. Werthman do some further review and analysis of the reports that Cornell has come up with . One is a 5-year summary from 1998 to 2003 ; there is also a statistical analysis report to come up with findings of whether any of the data shows any significance in terms of impacts of lake sources cooling . This is a good time for Benchmark to take a closer look at the data , as a follow-up to the report they did over a year ago to the Town Board , Mr. Werthman has volunteered to call DEC to find out what their timeframe is for their decision making process and to draft a letter for the Town to send to DEC saying we' d like time to review the material . Councilman Stein felt the request for a reduction in monitoring sites should follow the statistical analysis . Mr. Kanter told him a statistical analysis and report has been prepared by Cornell ' s consultant , Upstate Freshwater Institute . Their report has been submitted to DEC who is the ultimate permitting agency. It will be up to DEC to make the decision whether Cornell ' s decision to reduce the sites is valid . Councilman Engman told the board the five-year summary period is the point at which , if there were some overwhelming evidence that the effluent from lake source cooling were having a significant negative impact, DEC has the power to require Cornell to change that from the south end of Cayuga Lake to further up the lake , which would be enormously expensive . Mr. Engman had not heard anybody who thought there was that much negative effect or even any negative effect whatsoever. It' s not that anybody is saying there's a smoking gun here and it looks as though there 's some really bad stuff going on , but rather asking is 3-years enough to get a good picture of what' s happening in the lake and what's happening with lake source cooling and should there be several more years of intensive testing in order to get a good picture of exactly what is happening . 29 9 C . Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 Councilman Lesser asked how many more years of funding remain from the initial grant and is their any thought of what is going to happen when that is exhausted . Mr. Kanter told him we are in the fourth out of five years with the agreement with Cornell . This is probably the key time in terms of further use of Benchmark for the Town ' s satisfaction of what the significance of the statistics are . Mr. Kanter thought this is a time when the Town would want the investment of much of the remaining funds . How to handle this in future would be a Town Board decision . Whether the Town want sto continue it past when the funds run out . Pegasys Oversight Committee There is an amount of money generated every year that can be used to purchase equipment for public access . The Committee is working to set up a process for determining how to expend the money. The money can be used for Pegasys equipment and equipment that can go into the schools so that students can produce programs that can go on cable access . Councilman Burbank told the Board there had been cutbacks in Pegasys support staff and consequently in studio time . The Committee is investigating ways to have the studio manned . Supervisor Valentino suggested volunteers , but Mr . Burbank reported that Time Warner was concerned about volunteers having the responsibility of expensive equipment . Councilman Burbank will forward committee minutes to Ms . Hunter. Personnel Committee Did not meet in August. Recreation and Human Services Committee The recreation survey is ready to go to the printer. The Town has results from the summer survey at Cass Park pool . The Town is not getting the information from the City that we need . In order to analyze our survey results , we need to know what the attendance was at the pool each day that we surveyed . The city has not been forth coming with that information . We are hopeful after the time , energy , and expense that we've put into it that we will get from them the rest of the information we need to do an appropriate analysis . Going through the numbers we discovered that there 's a fair number of people that use Cass Park from outside of the County . We tried to figure that out . One of the suggestions we heard was that the people that more their boats at Cass Park marina . We pay the City $ 50 , 000 a year to reimburse them for the residents of the Town of Ithaca that are using the Cass Park facilities , including the pool . We don 't have a good handle on how many people from the Town of Ithaca are actually using that pool and is that $ 50 , 000 enough money , too much money , too little money , we don 't know until we can get a proper analysis of what the use is from the residents of the Town . Supervisor Valentino told the Board the real issues regarding the Recreation Partnership , from the partners other than the City , are what appear to be an excessively high overhead cost that the City charges , and a very high facilities cost . Trying to do the analysis program 30 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 by program for what each program actually costs and what the facilities actually cost has been an ongoing problem . A lot of the municipalities are very discouraged that we've had to up our contributions and keep decreasing programs . We've got to try to figure out a way to reduce those costs and have more of the money go directly to programming . This is the biggest dilemma facing the partnership . Councilman Stein stated that it was not clear to him that the overhead charges are excessive . Councilman Burbank distributed materials from Recreation Partnership secretary Janice Johnson . They included 1 ) Alternative directions for partnership board , 2 ) composite of Work plan . The County will be considering over target requests on Friday , September 15th . Funding for the Recreation Partnership is among those over target requests . Supervisor Valentino told the Board one of the messages she sent to the County today was that the bigger questions than the $ 38 , 000 is that if the County is going to make a commitment to Intermunicipal cooperation and the recreation Partnership they should make it clear that they are going to make that commitment and it is going to be a continuing commitment. Councilman Stein reported that he and Councilman Burbank had appeared before the County Legislature to tell them of the resolution passed by the Town at their July meeting . Councilman Stein stated he was disappointed that resolution never reached the County Board . Ms . Hunter stated that she had sent copies to the office of the clerk of the County Legislature . Councilman Engman asked that the Board schedule a special meeting to discuss the partnership . Councilman Lesser asked that the Board determine what they will talk about . Councilman Stein thought they needed to have a full and open discussion about what it is we want the Recreation Partnership to do and what are the Town ' s relationships with the City and County about recreation going to be ? Councilman Lesser agreed that the Intermunicipal relationships were important but it's not an abstract discussion . It has a lot to do with what the particular costs are and what the other members of the Partnership are interested in as well . That's what perplexes me , how we as a body can discuss those things in the absence of much detailed knowledge . Marnie Kirchgessner told the Board she had a good deal of budgetary information on the Recreation Partnership and offered her staff support in helping Board members access that information . Supervisor Valentino reminded the Board that there were other partners in the Recreation Partnership and no matter what the Town ' s goals and perspective are it will not mean anything if the other partners do no agree . One of the partners will be considering a resolution to withdraw from the partnership at their next municipal board meeting because 31 Ve Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 they do not get the answers the their questions . The bigger issue is to try to hold the whole partnership together and try to work with all the partners , not just the City, not just the County , but all the outlying areas . TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-143 : Set Date for Special Town Board Meeting BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca schedule a special informational meeting regarding the Recreation Partnership for Thursday , September 30 , 2004 at 7 : 00 p . m . at Ithaca Town Hall , 215 N . Tioga St, Ithaca NY 14850 . MOVED : Supervisor Valentino SECONDED : Councilman Stein VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ; Councilman Stein , aye ; Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye . Carried unanimously . The Board discussed who should be invited to the meeting . Councilman Stein and Supervisor Valentino agreed to work together to prepare an agenda for the meeting . Councilman Lesser asked that the agenda be emailed to the other Board members for their review. Supervisor Valentino proposed that she and Councilman Stein identify and request the information they will need before them at the meeting . OTHER BUSINESS Tompkins County Municipal Officers Association Presentation on Forms of County Government Supervisor Valentino told the Board that the Municipal Officers Association is sponsoring a forum on September 28 , 2004 at Town Hall regarding the different forms of county government. The speaker will be Professor Gerald Benjamin . Transportation Committee Councilman Lesser reported that the committee will be meeting on Thursday with John Lampman acting County Highway Superintendent regarding plans for reconstruction of Hanshaw and Coddington Roads . The initial plans for look as though they will increase the footprint of the roads by about 1 /3 . They are talking about commercial development and commercial traffic that seem to go way beyond the Town 's concept for the roads . The firms that are doing the design work have been identified and the funding will be released in the beginning of October. Agenda Item No . 19 — Report of Town Officials (Attachment #10 — monthly reports ) Town Clerk Councilman Burbank reiterated his request that members of the Town Clerk' s office identify themselves when they answer the telephone . Ms . Hunter explained that a receptionist is now answering the telephone for all but the Planning Department and felt it was an undue burden 32 Town Board Meeting of September 13 , 2004 Approved October 18, 2004 both for the receptionist and those around her to ask that she identify herself to some 200 daily callers . She assured Councilman Burbank that members of the Town Clerk's department readily identify themselves when dealing with callers . Councilman Burbank asked that Board members assess phone etiquette when then call Town Hall . Agenda Item No . 21 — Executive Session On motion by Councilman Stein , seconded by Supervisor Valentino , the Board entered executive session at 9 : 06 p . m . for discussion of possible real property disposition . On motion by Councilman Stein , seconded by Councilman Engman , the Board returned to regular session at 9 : 28 p . m . Adjournment On motion by Councilman Stein , the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 30 p . m . Respectfully submitted_ i� . a I � 0 Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk Special Meeting September 30, 2004, Next Regular Meeting October 7, 2004 33 Co��1 •, 5 . 20 �t ��rlorv�k; September 7 , 2004 Town Board Mtg ATTACHMENT # 1 4trIA16 AW6- 67 oN T 9 moo >' ,eo (:�c, uiTH d PKO° Ty l G iEF �d5l �, .�9 ae �J ®s� 77a �0 �,�c��IS � �ysr•Qfr1��s; �- " T. j.� , ii✓� pciT-i 4 � s�T� Ta .� os .y �y' T s JO C4 �ot /vo � �v�J"f6,�e_ a"tce�s 1�/ dP/S/e�tl _ ate. .. 771%5 !9 1� ANl� l�. fjvatJ � S 7WW, 43lG SST IMA— S •!� Ta�r.� LCrs T�F _ Y 73 To DUB Vo � c� NTGf �@2a �''� � s T/fE_ �r- Bi< �r- dP� .4 � 4i✓r_nrG �POC�e !� 7sT_�f 7� fac_. IJetu VoAv�T � r2 T _ _ �_. Cv_7 -his ��CS � N _ ® .4/x _5 if.4? ,✓ e� 4040 - T. Acr7". Th. ,eo ✓/ D6 Tf� i°poc.•� p�s h.4w•��.��.r/T ,JIOAVaer 7Hk4r 7H4iE V A * pAoa,c Iof IIZAC S_-X _ v rfc o�cv 4el' 'c7 i.VA. /"lUCe� Tv T/fL 4 7X41AIfVc - , a��1c qua GxT, ✓'�� aD�� T �Ctr�sTiaTo iM�ooS . �}� C' Ty dF,eic �A�S TlV�? Zoos l3 �UG, T /��°�' ® sac (,o s 6e N6W � /WG��- 'D�$ �/TTC2 a!Z /✓o hb�Y doe y�_ . �.,eo�.�.�ss e .� � ��o,©o.�'. .Z.�o�u �c� ct y � /MS CiV.ivaG� �� 4 ('Tb !4 c� icS_ �d �'d� th�ocT oc1 saJSve.� � X4 3 : rAE � OlV#) t/earl, r; O)r� Cd�jOo- R� •� 7' �►'T/ dT� v Td Tide �'Jvsiiid� e�tNc . rAl TyS 61 d acv AM _ _. , � �AA1 �, ico3 � �c . 3r� 2t� cS• 1q�1�r� - cacl�a, 0 tlf'AL+J952 Ng k) !5 .: P 1 60 4SevV. �% • ��cc ��sy �-��Tu�ss P 6r September 139 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 2 Why ? Scenic views Scenc Vreuvs t enhance our lives I, I#� 6v�r 'gf tfaca y Scenic views enhance our lives Scenic views enhance our lives Encourage appreciation of natural surroundings Give a sense of place and belonging 4 Scenic views enhance our lives Scenic views enhance our lives , ^? r „ f(f Provide economic value through tourism and increasing property values Existing views are under threat from development Ir 1 Threats to Scenic Views Examples of lost views • Insensitively placed residential or commercial development • Uncontrolled growth of vegetation - - • Poorly placed utility poles, communication oor towers and similar structures Once gone, these views are lost forever Examples of lost views Examples of lost views Once gone, these views are lost forever Once gone , these views are lost forever Examples of lost views ,Actions to Date - - Scenic View preservation began in the early 1990' s i E Local Residents identified favorite views Photos were taken and legal research done. • The Town endorsed the value of views • We can and should do more Once gone, these views are lost forever 2 Plan ofgActton = The;,next steps Plan of Action Finalize criteria for evaluatingsscenic resources: _ Use a gnd.to , w I 7L Unique Natural Resources Culturaltdentlty. ' ca talOgUe tOwll vI6WS-,' Hsto�is elevance 7 L l Recreational Sighs icance Entry�Points to�the=Gty Of Ithaca �� _ ; �'; .� If r Importance to Tounsth Scope of Exposure Y ). }- If ff Iff ff If If 4 — a If II F ° Z Plan ofActlon Plan o`f. Actlo°ns 3 If SystemaUcallyexpand" picture files Evaluate and' rank views with pubhc` mput ff Milli M If- 11 fI • y � l f1 �� nfi 4 g s v If 4 Plan of-Action Plan" of ActioniTmetable "', Develop ,methods Ao protect"most-valued" e a. Finalize criteria- for views = Ocfober, 2004 evaluating scernc" resources '4 Use a grid to catalogue 4 rr town views Systematically �take pictures Evaluate and rank views May 2005", Develop recommended September, 2005- " protection methods for If most- a, lued :views III 3 The direction is clear. . , . . . . . . The, NYS Constitution delegates to local municipalities ; the:'power to preserve scenic views • The Town endorsed the value of views in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan , , Than l'o • The 2004 Zoning Ordinance reflects the importance of f° ` scenic views. We ask for your support. 4 II. September 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 3 617. 20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . FORM N Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determines' in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer, Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may, not:b& technically expert in environmental analysis, In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not belaware' of'the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. ° The full EAF is intended;to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can: be assured that' the:determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action . Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts : Part 1 : Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data , it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in , Parts. 2 and 3 .': Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from :a projeci:, or action . It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to'moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced, „` Part 3 : If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY r •DETERMINATION° 'OF' SIGNIFICANCE =- Tripe 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions, of EAF completed for this project: ID Part 1 1 ®X Par[ 2 Part 3 Upon review of the ' infoimation recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate) , and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ®X A . The project will not result in any large and important impllact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. B . Although the project could have, a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect •for this ° Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described" in`'PAlkV3 have been required, therefore ) a CONDITIONED negative, declaration will be prepared, * C ., The, project. may result in one :or ' more •large and importantl�impacts that may have a significant impact 'on the . R environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared . „ . ;., d 10 * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions ` Local ?,Law .: to . Amend ,, the Town of Ithaca., IoZoning ,Ordinance to Rezone the "Cornell University Parcel at 391 Pine . T'ree Road From OPC and MR to 'IDR . r ' Nam'e•of Action Tdwri of Ithaca Taan ' Board ' n . Name of Lead Agency! ., _ ; ; - 1 16 : v Or : r ,Catherine Valentina Supervisor " Print, or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency ; ;Title of Responsible Officer C jn�ature' of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency SignatuVe of Preparer (If 'different from responsible 'officer) September 13 , 2004 Date Page 1 of, 21 . r PART 1 --PROJECT INFORMATION _ Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requin such additional work is unavailable , so indicate and specify each instance. Lo CA ( Jaw YD AwK ZJ �TeWk of /f&Aaa 74KXI atJ Ao*A *L fo tre = es lr#�x ror**4L// Name of Action UKJVt rf POM Ot 34 ( Aywt Try. R®I • �ra,r, Ofd 44 HA Ito YA . Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) 391 P;H Q '0M%;L Raad (74 x Pare V1 No • Name of Applicant/Sponsor Tpw K f/kacw Teyw 8Qq Address oZ lar ( Yr Too 9A S8WtMQ .- City / PO f AQ C0. State N Y Zip Code ?S�40 Business Telephone � 60�, V7 .3 " 1# 7 X Name of Owner (if different) Gr"ha It UH 1`VQrr 9N ]� C o ( t s% a. 14 it A m N Address S Sirveopm. 8K e r ? City / PO It�o►� State N Zip Code Business TelephoneQ^] Description of Action: P E'h ac rMaht 6 y �Tawti 8m � o'r at to aot �j w fo a Na Q k of tk ;u. ► &P Pro, a Tike , Rol (Tw< Pte. t A& 63 — /-� 3 , V) �, •rtc j orF , g t(` 0.0 tmat, f�,.. Off-Atc, Pa 1, k Co &" i%Qrc tLat. l C� ) asAof Mtf R&541 &*�C . (MR) 121 LOW 44A'r#rf7 R 'ta 1 (Lbx) . T7 & ar,� aka zeh '` o:P fAX pa rcq.1 wu A —3o XAS d0ftl lia I K� war r4- 2LoM br tip+& Te*wh 1* GPCgPJ MR oar 1 Sol X003 ar pat- ` of 114- To. ,, 's cow.pr� �.w.r�� zeh 1 '6�3 rgV' 1rtw 1V . Carte// G1c;wRm7�7 has rAt ,.o tO4 7IAqt ttk pa rtJXJ 111A. i T' O H Ad " `kc.k ' 7$ L J <c" rgi A 70 t*a ,artjw A " 3 o das �• '�� 'e, `Q ca.o .m fAt op c. Ap%J /1't /k z VVW+tr do ao7``pr*r i4* J u c&" r vvy A ( k= Gr►at 11 ;�a,c No iwodkv to 4xog .lo? 7 li0. VW ter AoKa4j I A h� CarNQ1t "s f`1-, K.ros ..'1`�a /&4 4r andh cq 'h4ZOO. � � osas, � P YU f0, o� vQ /o t+, � 01�' t �► a �► i lr ��rw �1 bnr Qol uat7�br.a lr�ossts' • Page 2 of 21 (ease Complete Each Question== Indicate N . A . if not applicable . SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1 . Present Land Use: El Urban © Industrial © Commercial ! 0 Residential (suburban) Rural (non-farm) Forest KAgriculture Mpther P.*. Lt ih9. K % C e% �w h 0 IhN(�. I�IISAa 2 . Total acreage of project area : Ss8 acres. &t/— APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc .) +lam . 2- acres +� ' ' acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) �!1"" 0s7 acres +k o � acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres /-�Z acres Other (Indicate type) +I ��Ih —�ohs.b�. lOow2t /� '►� ¢lam Ti 3 acres +/-7. 3 acres dfij�lr �.awti , /a.�s� a.ena1 wr�a� +l—,�Q•�, acrars fJ- D r .oer�s 3 . What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? q1t Asoh ' % 1 ' [147 L@AtM, a . Soil drainage : Well drained % of site Moderately well drained 040 % of site. ® Poorly drained % of site b . If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1,'through 4 of the"NYS Land Classification System? V acres (see 1 NYCRR 370) . ` 4 . Are there bedrock outcroppings on p oject site? © Yes O No a. What is depth to bedrock fall (in feet) 5 . Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: , 10% .L4 0% E] 10- 15% % ® 15% or greater .% 6 . Is project substantial) contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers , of Historic Places? Yes No Is project substantially. contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National. Natural Landmarks? Yes %0 What is the depth of the water, table? % � r(in feet) Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? Yes & No 10 . Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes JgNo Page 3 of 21 11 . Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? E] Yes KNO According to: Identi each s ecies: 12 . ' Are there any unique or, unusual land, forms on- the project.- site? (i .e. , cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? OYes 9lo Describe: 13 . Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Yes JNo If yes, explain : 14 . Does the present site` include scenic views. known to be important to the community? E] Yes No 15 . Streams within or conttiig�u-ousrr to project area : �0. � 0. K �`s coxt erg * 07C prr)SorsJ MO;Ld a . Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary Cis �d �� I (� G-m. k �l� rhfi► �;y K�qa La �� . 16 . Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area : NlA b . Size (in acres) : /V 1A , 1. Page 4of21 Is the site served by existing public utilities? KYes No a . If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ,Yes No b . If YES , will improvements be necessary to allow connection? © Yes RNo 18 . Is the site located in UYes gricultural di trict certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304 ? JR No 19 . Is the site located in or substantial) c ntiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? Yes MNo Ip, l 20 . Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? El Yes 11 No C k�pwin J Be Project Description ; 1 . Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) . a . Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: OSill acres. alr4coF fro 6I>- llow�s� b . Project acreage to be developed: acres initially; acres ultimately: A( 4 hi 6rfL _ zft jk ( c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped : acres. IYM d . Length of project, in miles: (if appropriate) n/IA e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed . % Nln f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing proposed q� t— ( h0 C g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: 41 (upon completion of project)? 6, h% 6 �rwk 40%kr " RkrY�•' LLL tltlL h . If residential : Number and type of housing units: N/A 9.7100 0 ,8 R , *Fps I. One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately L Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure : height; width; length . /'//A j . Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 6� 0 21 How much natural material (i .e. rock, earth, - etc.) will be removed from the site? tons/cubic yards. N/A 3 . Will disturbed areas be reclaimed Yes No /A a . If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ® Yes © No N1A c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? 11 Yes El No AIIA 4 . How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? acres. N1A Page 5 of 21 51 Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Yes %No 6 . If single phase project : Anticipated period of construction : months, (including demolition) n//A 7 . If multi-phased: n/�A a . Total number of phases anticipated (number) b . Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 : month year, (including demolition) c . Approximate completion date of final phase: month year. d . Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? El Yes ❑ No 8 . Will blasting occur during construction? © Yes 0 No /V/�.11 9 . 4 Number of jobs generated: during construction ; after project is complete 10 . Number of jobs eliminated by this project A11 11 . Will project require relocation of,any projects or facilities? El Yes 0 No N/A if yes, explain: 12 . Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? El Yes No NIr l a . If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage,' industrial, etc) and amount b .' ' Name of,wat6r bb'iy into; which -effluent will be discharged 13 . Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? 11 Yes El NOMPType 14 . Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Yes ® No /v1%9 If yes, explain: V 15 . Is project or any: portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Yes ONo 16 . Will the project generate solid waste? El Yes 0 No IV104 a . If yes, what is the amount per month? tons b . If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? © Yes 17 No c. If yes, give name location d . Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? E] Yes El No Page 6of21 a Cif , explain : ue k I �I 1 17 . Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ® Yes nNo Y. . a . If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month . b . If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18 . Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes No 19 . Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? El IYes El No Al 20 . Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? El Yes E] No /V�A U ect result in an increase in energy use? Yes � No Ail ndicate type(s) i . II , 22 . If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute . N14 23 . Total anticipated water usage per day . gallons/day. Al 24 . Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? © Yes E] No MA If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 25 . Approvals Required: Type .t I Submittal Date LOC4L 4W �b A O City Tow Village Board 9 Yes No Q City, Town, Village Planning Board Yes KNo City, Town Zoning Board Yes No City, County Health Department Yes No ' Other Local Agencies El Yes No Other Regional Agencies Yes No State Agencies El Yes No Federal Agencies El Yes EgNo C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? KYes F No If Yes, indicate decision required : oning amendment Zoning variance M New/revision of master plan © Subdivision ElSite plan Special use permit Resource management plan © Other Page 8 of 21 What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? of�'•'cA Park C•��e�'a 1 oPc - I `F, g�cci-es t/— aw.� M� �� /Q Rstis;�v.cst. (M A10 3) war 40., . r 3 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Cs'�� 'I,,,.a, s do �o� oa, "`,k - oPC ZreA ! 4�.�?Vt ac.ar) Ak A tA' h f& OF So+/- * /oot/- ayoot1^� O';*eet r'fr �h tAPL M R !1 tl^ acrQS'� . �Saa affa► c�opl obscrp7�� !z*. Pr. Part" � � � l S 4 . What is the proposed zoning of the site? jl LoO w bCoKrt ' =fJ Par t'V 144 tfl`a I AR A U 245"* S 4c rqr i 5 . What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? A>h es"f7ira �d sc rya wou Id ►-�sN l7` r h tcc/ o�ow►o 'of 7'�e _ k W IYA gyp 7 4831500" M a� w VJKCAhr�/ Ks" PA VP GX� �l ws .'doK�i'a� st�o,,,'M* �K r U- -['F .'►. � ' 42 dw¢/[+ 11h1 lit', o. • ?S .h � ;21 # /s' . 6 . Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Yes No What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a : % mile radius of proposed action? y Mat kl ai4IdA.50^M . &v%d I pr : A"6 6., hR2oAaoQ 101b 4DR aL,ow 6004�s,'?�7 Rtts�'�►,r��i'b► l CRIK I JO �1 �& tk tslv:otts R~ 30 I�asi'a6+1m �:r7rr►c?f' •0~ �0 ?�- �n c , S ,Zoo 2 Y //►� � // .yam / / 3 0 h / V >�Yi r,'Ch S ,. %SOS/ O� / � 5�,) �"h! N NG I•h4 al1'A01 Ik' "C� tSb 20'Y�.A R ;ac� �di Gr�ir��r ll o� r� If taV, gsam" A% �-MS t 7 JJ 00ff � Cash` LA6vh �e � v� . TA4- alf4q �C . Ivvc' hOf".� h . 1tr .'Z _ ° P1^ kKdd �b'Q ZVV-9.. C9 ) ;�%CWSr 11\0 aCCAd,IN Qr� k11: VA14Y ►, 14MO0 � �� tHo, ca A&c rkAfe o,,, wa71 al"A Cerl%Q If 0lr". 4.r tWA Oh tls -q%*kt k ,'s zo,, Cep, w► w tA 1Y1 Gw,.wt &r a4t / r a.r, d 1'a�O/u d4.s ►s-F PA Mk s6►opp,'v J / 1 -1 a ear w4A, M lam "WOV r'?l 1AOS & wl..l, cam " C�y*rl C sul s r ' ka k r � �hQSY' �Otit J1 '� . T .�y w�. tv%" arg fia sewtvL, � srt' ow.o1 a ra so,,�1 MR . . . Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a '/a mile? Yes No If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? /A a . What is the minimum lot size proposed? Page 9 of 21 10 . Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? Yes No 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? a . If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes ® No 12 . Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic, significantly above present levels? ® YesNo rd . . . . . ,, , , �• - a . If yes; is the ezisting' road network adequate to' handle 'the additional traffic. ' ' r` Yes No D . Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E , Verification certify that the information provided above is true to the best,of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name �OWA .. dT l 'f' A / Ow{�' DOQf�I Date ; 7 , B 4f r Signature Title D:�'r" ( "h • i" w , k If the action is in the .Coastal Area, andr you are a •state ,agency, complete the .Coastal Assessment form,before proceeding with this assessment. > Page 10 of 21 PART 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) I In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. I The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples rare generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations . But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. The number of examples per question does not indicate the importan of each question. ! In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative e ce ffects. Instructions (Read carefully) a . Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b . Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. C. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box(column', 1 or 2)to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1 . d. Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance._ Iildentifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by c`hange(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 31 {' , 1 2 3 . Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Impact on Land 1 . Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? NO X YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • An construction on slopes of ° Any pes 15 /° or greater, (15 foot Yes No rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table El r © Yes No is less than 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1 ,000 or more Yes No vehicles . El El • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or © Yes 0 No generally within .3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or El El El Yes E] No involve more than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove Yes No more than 1 ,000 tons of natural material (Le, , rock or El soil) per year. Page 11 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Construction or expansion of a santary landfill. © ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No SSiSL. q �C 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e. , cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) WO []YES • Specific land forms: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes [:] No Impact on Water 3 . Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? ( Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) %N O ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ® ❑ Yes ❑ No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No a protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes © No body. • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland . © ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ® Yes ❑ No 4 . Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface ® ® ❑ Yes ❑ No area. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑ No Page 12 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 5 . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or qu ntitWO 9 ❑ YES Proposed Action will require a discharge permit, El ❑ Yes El No Examples that would a to column i i • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 No have approval to serve proposed (project) action, • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity, • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ 0 Yes [] No 'No supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity, • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ' per day. • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into ❑ ® ❑ Yes ❑ No an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No chemical products greater than 1 , 100 gallons, • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without ❑ ❑ [:] Yes ❑ No water and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: ® ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Page 13 of 21 i 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 6, Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change floodwater flows ❑ ❑ ❑Yes No • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ® ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ®Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated ❑ ® ❑ Yes ❑ No floodway. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AIR 7 . Will Proposed Action affect air quality? JKNO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1 ,000 or more vehicle trips in any ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No given hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No of refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs, per hour D ❑ Yes © No or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No committed to industrial use. • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No industrial development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 , Wil Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? 5 rNO ® YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Federal list, using the site, over or near the site , or found on the site. Page 14 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ® Yes rl No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, El E ® Yes ® No other than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: E D Yes 0 No g . Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? JgNO YES OP Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident El E] [] Yes 0 No or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of D n ® Yes r7 No . mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. Other impacts: ® ® Yes © No IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will Prqposed Action affect agricultural land resources? NO © YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to Q Q Yes 0 No agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of M ❑ Yes © No agricultural land. • The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 1:1 E] Yes E1 No acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land . Page 15 of 21 ii 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of © © ❑ Yes ❑ No agricultural land management systems (e. g. , subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches , strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e. g . cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 , Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the`Vis�1 EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) 1�(il NO ® YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different ❑ ® ❑ Yes ® No from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses , or project components visible to users of ® 0 Yes ® No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes © No significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ © Yes ❑ Nod, IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 . Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehisto is or paleontological importance? NO ❑ YES 0 Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or © ® [] Yes El No substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within ❑ ❑ ® Yes No the project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No for.archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Page 16 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Other impacts: El 1:1 E] Yes No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION l 13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future opens aces or recreational opportunities? ' NO ® YES i Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. El El Yes No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. 0 El El Yes 0 No • Other impacts: �� ® Yes © No IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursua to subdivision 6NYCRR 617. 14(g)? NNO ® YES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? E 1:1 ® Yes © No Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the Yes No resource? • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the F ❑ [] Yes [:] No resource? • Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the ® E3 Yes El No resource? • Other impacts: ® [] Yes [:] No i Page 17 of 21 1 2 3 .. Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? XNO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or © ® [:] Yes ❑ No goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ® ® [] Yes ❑ No • Other impacts: ❑ ® [] Yes Q No sue. a '�otc IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? XN 0 ® YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No use of any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No= energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 u single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17 . Will there be objectionable odors , noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? NO E] YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1 ,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). ❑ ® ❑ Yes ❑ No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the © © ❑ Yes . [] No local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures . • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No noise screen . • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑ No F� Page 18 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Prqposed Action affect public health and safety? NO © YES • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of © E] E]Yes No hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation , etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. z • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" © []Yes E] No in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied El 13 []Yes 0 No natural gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other ® 13 0Yes E] No disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts: 1:1 0Yes EI No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19, Will Pr osed Action affect the character of the existing community? WNO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the © ©Yes E] No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating © ® []Yes © No services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or r riYes © No goals. • Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. []Yes E] No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, ® 0Yes 0 No structures or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community © ©Yes © No services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc. ) Page 19 of 21 State Environmental Quality Review Part II - Description of Project Impacts and Their Magnitude Action : Local law to amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to rezone the Cornell University Parcel (Tax Parcel No . 63 - 1 -3 . 4) from OPC and MR to LDR Location : 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca, N. Y . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Town Board 1 . Will proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? a. Briefly describe the above impact(s) : The proposed action is the enactment by the Town Board of a local law to amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone the Cornell University-owned parcel at 391 Pine Tree Road from Office Park Commercial (OPC) and Multiple Residence (MR) to Low Density Residential (LDR) . The site is currently developed with an office building, which contains the Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research (CISER), parking lot, barns and agricultural field. It formerly housed offices of Genex Cooperative Inc . Cornell University has no current plans to develop the parcel . The development potential under the current zoning (OPC and MR) is for additional office development and multiple-residence housing (refer to transportation section 15 below) . Cornell has indicated that it does not intend to develop the site with either of those uses, and intends to continue using the property for educational purposes . No physical impacts or changes to the site will result from the proposed rezoning . The proposed Low Density Residential (LDR) designation is comparable to the former R-30 Residential (prior to December 8 , 2003 ), which allows agriculture, residential and educational uses . Based on the information above and in the EAF Part 1 , no significant impacts have been identified. 15 . Will there be an effect to existing transportation ,systems? a. Briefly describe the impact : The subject site is a 25 . 8 acre parcel owned by Cornell University . Approximately 14 . 8 +/- acres is zoned OPC Office Park Commercial, and 11 . 0 +/- acres is zoned MR Multiple Residence . The MR zoned area is currently undeveloped, and the OPC zoned area is partially developed with the former Genex Cooperative office building; which currently houses the Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research. It is difficult to estimate the potential impacts of rezoning the site from OPC Office Park Commercial and MR Multiple Residence to LDR Low "Density Residential . One way of looking at this is that the site is being rezoned back to a zone comparable to what it was (R-30 Residence) prior to the December 8 , 2003 Zoning Revisions . Both the previous R-30 and the proposed LDR classifications allow one and two-family dwellings, schools and institutions of higher learning (educational uses), churches, farms, public parks, cemeteries, and a number of other uses typically allowed in residential zones . Cornell University has no current plans for additional development on this site . The current office' building contains approximately 27 , 000 square feet of floor space . According to the Institute ; of Transportation Engineers (ITE), trip generation estimates for a 27,000 square foot single-occupancy office building would be 312 average weekday trips, or 48 morning peak hour trips and 46 afternoon peak hour trips. For comparison purposes, alternate scenarios under current and proposed zoning are provided, if using ITE trip generation estimates. These are modified versions of the traffic analysis that was provided in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement ment for the Town of Ithaca Zoning Revisions (Sept. 8 , 2003 ) , Proposed LDR (formerly R-30) Zone — Potential Development Several possible scenarios are given because it is not known what Cornell might use the property for. In Scenario 1 it was assumed that the entire parcel' (25 . 8 acres) would be re-developed with residential use and that the former Genex Complex would be removed. This is not a likely scenario because Cornell indicates that it intends to use the property for educational purposes, and would probably happen only if Cornell sells the land to another owner. Scenario 2 assumes redevelopment of the entire site for educational use, and estimates are generated based on a "research and development" type of facility, using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) traffic generation estimates . Other educational uses, such as classrooms, could be built, but ITE trip generation estimates vary widely, and are not as accurate for this type of projected use . In both scenarios, the area of the power line easement is ' subtracted because it is not available for development. Scenario 1 — Estimated Traffic generated by LDR (R-30) Residential Development : Developed and vacant land available for LDR/R-30 development, minus 20 %, divided by 30,000 . (805 , 860 SF x . 80) / 30,000 = 21 lots x 2 dwellings/lot = 42 max possible LDR units . Future Potential Traffic Volume Generation for entire redeveloped parcel under proposed LDR Zone : Weekday 42 dwelling units x 9 . 57 = 402 vehicle trips Peak AM 42 dwelling units x 0 . 77 = 32 vehicle trips Peak PM 42 dwelling units x 1 .02 = 43 vehicle trips Scenario 2 — Estimated Traffic generated by "Research & Development Center" on entire parcel : Vacant land available for Research and Development Center x 30% max building area: 805 , 860 SF x . 30 — 241 ,758 SF(footprint) ; Maximum Potential Building Size = Maximum Potential Building Footprint Size x 2 story (max. height limit might allow up to 3 stories, but it is assumed that a third floor would be used for storage, utilities, etc .) : 241 ,758 SF x 2 = 483 , 516 SF 2 Potential Traffic Volume Generation for Research & Development facility on entire parcel : Weekday 483 . 5 ( 1000 SF) x 8 . 11 = 3 ,921 vehicle trips Peak AM 483 . 5 ( 1000 SF) x 1 . 24 = 600 vehicle trips Peak PM 483 . 5 ( 1000 SF) x 1 . 08 = 522 vehicle trips Existing OPC and MR Zoning - Future Condition : Existing OPC Zone — Potential Development Total Parcel Size available for development in existing OPC Zone (assuming the current Genex complex of buildings is removed and redeveloping the site, subtracting the area of the power line easement) : Useable Parcel size is 466 ,092 SF . Maximum Potential Building Footprint Size = vacant land available for OPC Zone x 30% max building area: 466,092 SF x . 30 = 139, 828 SF . Maximum Potential Building Size in OPC Zone = Maximum Potential Building Footprint Size x 2 story (max . height limit might allow up to 3 stories, but it is assumed that a third floor would be used for storage, utilities, etc . ) : 139, 828 SF x 2 - 279,656 SF Potential Traffic Volume Generation for New OPC Zone : Weekday 279 . 6 ( 1000 SF) x 11 .42 = 3 , 193 vehicle trips Peak PM 279 . 6 ( 1000 SF) x 1 . 74 = 487 vehicle trips Peak AM 279 . 6 ( 1000 SF) x 1 . 50 = 419 vehicle trips Existing MR Zone — Potential Development Total area of MR zone available for development (subtracting area of power line easement) is : 7 . 8 +/- acres — 20% (for roads, utilities, etc.) = 6 . 24 acres . Maximum number of dwelling units per acre in MR Zone is 12 .4 : 12 .4 x 6 .24 = 77 dwelling units . Potential Traffic Volume Generation for Existing MR Zone : Using "Low-Rise Apartments" trip generation estimates in ITE Trip Generation Manual Weekday 77 x 6 . 59 = 507 vehicle trips Peak AM 77 x 0 . 51 = 39 vehicle trips Peak PM 77 x 0 . 62 = 48 vehicle trips Total Traffic Volume estimated for existing OPC Zone + existing MR Zone Weekday Total 3 , 193 + 507 — 3 , 700 vehicle trips Peak AM Total 487 + 39 = 526 vehicle trips Peak PM Total 419 + 48 = 467 vehicle trips 3 In summary, the potential traffic generated by the above scenarios under existing and proposed zoning is comparable . An educational research and development facility under the proposed LDR Zone could generate up to 3 ,921 vehicle trips on a weekday (600 vehicle trips in the morning peak hour and 522 vehicle trips in the afternoon peak hour) . Under the existing OPC and MR Zones, office and apartment development could generate up to 3 , 700 vehicle trips (526 vehicle trips in the morning peak hour and 467 vehicle trips in the afternoon peak hour). The difference in traffic generation estimates between existing and proposed zoning is negligible. Based on the information above and in the EAF Part 1 , no significant impacts have been identified. 19 . Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? a. Briefly describe the impact : The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 1993 ) designates the project site and surrounding area as a mixture of "Commercial/General Business" and "Agricultural' . The "Agricultural" designation as applied to the former Genex Cooperative facility does not reflect that Genex moved out of the complex several years ago, and Cornell now utilizes the facility for educational purposes. The continuation of educational use on the subject site would be consistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan . Residential development under the proposed LDR Zone would also be compatible with the LDR zoning on much of the surrounding land also owned by Cornell University . The LDR Zone is comparable to the former R-30 District that preceded the Zoning Revisions adopted by the Town Board in December 2003 . Cornell has indicated that the MR zoning on the eastern portion of the site is not compatible with the power line easement that traverses the site, and that they have no intention to develop housing on the site . The Town Board has indicated to Cornell that the provision of affordable housing is a high priority for the Town, in particular so that Cornell employees who choose to live close to campus have that opportunity . Cornell representatives are working with the Town to address this issue . Based on the information above and in the EAF Part 1 , no significant impacts have been identified . Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed. Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Town Board Reviewer: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning Review Date : August 5 , 2004 HeName : Xanteron Ithaca I /Active/TownBoard/CorneI Rum ing-391 PineTreeRdEafPartII 4 September 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 4 LOCAL LAW NO , 8 FOR THE YEAR 2004 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY PARCEL AT 391 PINE TREE ROAD (TAX PARCEL NO , 61 - 1 -3 . 4) FROM OFFICE PARK COMMERCIAL (OPC) AND MULTIPLE RESIDENCE ( MR) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ( LDR) Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows : Section 1 . Rezoning . The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted , amended and revised on December, 8 , 2003 , effective April 1 , 2004 , and subsequently amended , all as incorporated into the Code of the Town of Ithaca as Chapters 270 and 271 , be and the same is further amended as follows : 1 . Tax Parcel No . 61 - 1 -3 . 4 located at 391 Pine Tree Road consisting of 25 . 8 +/- acres , is hereby rezoned from Office Park Commercial (OPC) and Multiple Residence ( MR) to Low Density Residential ( LDR) . 2 . The official zoning map of the Town of Ithaca is hereby amended to show the rezoning of the premises at 391 Pine Tree Road described above . Section 2 . Partial Invalidity . In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction , the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration . Section 3 . Effective Date . Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law, this local law shall take effect ten days after its publication (or publication of a summary or abstract as permitted by law) in the Ithaca Journal , or upon its filing with the Secretary of State , whichever is later. i L ocal L aw Fil ing NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 41 STATE STREET, ALBANY , NY 12231 (Use this form to file a local law with the Secretary of State.) Text of law should be given as amended . Do not include matter being eliminated and do not use italics or underlining to indicate new matter. County Cityof- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I . . . . - - - Town - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Village Local Law No- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - li - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - of the year 20.04- _ Alocallaw - - to Amend the Town. - of . . Ithaca- - Zoning - -Ordinance- - - -to Rezone Merl Tie) - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - (]Merl d the Cornell University Parcel at 391 Pine Tree Road ( Tax Parcel No . 63 . - 1 - 3 . 4 ) from Office Park Commerical ( OPC ) and - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - Multiple Residence ( MR ) to Low Denisty Residential ( LDR ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - Beit enacted by the - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . of the (Nm eofLegir/ofrve Body) County City of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ithaca Town - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - as follows : Village ( attached 1 page ) (if additional space is needed , attach pages the same size as this sheet, and number each.) DOS -239 (Rev. 1 1/99) ( 1 ) (Complete the certification in the paragraph that applies to the filing of this local law and strike out that which is not applicable.) t 1 . (Final adoption by local legislative body only.) I hereby certify that the local law .annexed hereto, designated as local law No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of 20. 04 ( Y)( Y)( ) ( g ) Ithaca of the Count Cit Town Villa e of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ was duly passed by the - _ _ . TOiv_uL _ _hoard _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ on _ Se. t - 13 20 04, in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. (Name of Legislative Body) 2. (Passage by local legislative body with approval , no disapproval or repassage after disapproval by the Elective Chief Executive Officer *.) I hereby certify the local annexed hereto designated as local law No. - - - - - - _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . _ . . . . . . . . . of 20- _ _ __ _ Y Y , of the 'Count -` Cit own Villa a of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - was duly passed by the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ . . . . . . . on _ - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 20 - - - , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after (Name of Legislative Body) disapproval) by the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - and was deemed duly adopted on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20_ (Elective Chief Executive Officer') - ' - - - - s in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 3. (Final adoption by referendum .) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of 20_ _ _ _ _ _ of the (County)(City)(Town) (Village) of - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - was duly passed by the - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - on - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - 20- - - - , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after (Name of Legislative Body) disapproval ) by the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ on- - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - _ 20_ Such local law was submitted (Elective Chief Executive Officer') to the people by reason of a (mandatory)(permissive) referendum, and received the affirmative vote of a majority of the cordanc with qualified e the applicable law, electors voting of al)( special)(annual) election Geld on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 2Q _ _ _ , in a 4. (Subject to permissive referendum and final adoption because no valid petition was filed requesting referendum .) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. . . . . . . ._ _ _ __ . . . . . . of 20_ _ - _ _ _ of the ( County)(City)(Town)(ViIIage) of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ was duly passed by the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - on - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20_ _ _ _ , and was (approved)(not approved)(repassed after (Name of Legislative Body) disapproval) by the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 20 _ _ _ , Such local law was subject to (Elective Chief Executive Officer *) permissive referendum and no valid petition requesting such referendum was filed as of - - - - - _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ accordance with the applicable provisions of law. I Elective Chief Executive Officer means or includes the chief executive officer of a county elected on a county - wide basis or, if there be none, the chairperson of the county legislative body, the mayor of a city or village , or I the supervisor of a town where such officer is vested with the power to approve or veto local laws or ordinances. j (2) I _ i 5. (City local law concerning Charter revision proposed by petition .) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . of 20 of the City of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - having been submitted to referendum pursuant to the provisio section (36)(37) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of such city voting thereon at the (special)(general) election held on __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 _ _ _ _ , became operative . 6. (County local law concerning adoption of Charter.) I hereby certify that the local law annexed hereto, designated as local law No. . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . of 20_ _ _ _ _ _ of the County of _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . . . . . . . . . . . . State of New York , having been submitted to the electors at the General Election of November _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20_ _ _ _ , pursuant to subdivisions 5 and 7 of section 33 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the qualified electors of the cit- ies of said county as a unit and a majority of the qualified electors of the towns of said county considered as a unit voting at said general election, became operative . (If any other authorized form of final adoption has been followed , please provide an appropriate certification .) I further certify that I have compared the preceding local law with the original on file in this office and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original local law and was finally adopted in the manner in- dicated in paragraph - - - - - - - - - - - , above. Clerk of the County legislative body, City, Town or Village Clerk or officer designated by local le 'slative body (Seal) Date,: (Certification to be executed by County Attorney, Corporation Counsel , Town Attorney, Village Attorney or other authorized attorney of locality.) STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF Mb !nA I, the undersigned , hereby certify that the foregoing local law contains the correct text and that ,all proper proceedings have been had or taken for the enactment of the local law ann ,a 4dr eto . Signature Tull— C"" `] Gky" of Town V fltrg'e Date : J� gel , ( 3) 8 - 16 - 04 ; 2 : 31PM ; TOWN OF ITHACA BOLTON POINT ; 607 273 5854 # 1 / 2 0-1 r September 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting D ATTACHMENT # 5 4 Introd SEP e 9 The SoWwwC Lake Intermunicital Water Commission (SCLIWC) supplies water from C T c WN CLEb cipalities. Commission facilities include a raw water pump station (Source of Supply), the Bolton Point Water Treatment Plant, and the water Transmission System, The Transmission system currently consists of the transmission pipeline from the Water Plant to the 1 .5 million gallon Burdick Hill Water Storage Tank, continues to the Oak Crest Pump Station, and then carries pumped water through the Village of Lansing, the Village of Cayuga Heights and the Town of Ithaca ending at the Pearsall Place Pump Station. The East Hill tank project will provide an additional 3 million gallons of water storage on the transmission system. Current Conditions SCLIWC currently produces approximately 3 million gallons of water per day to serve the demands of its customers. Water is produced during an average I &hour production day, which utilizes off peak power as much as possible. Finished water is pumped to the Burdick Hill tank, which has a capacity of 50% of the daily demand, and the distribution storage tanks are kept filled to the operational levels . The Transmission system currently cannot store a full day demand, which requires the plant to produce water throughout the day to meet peak demands. To be able to produce water more cost effectively and provide additional reserve capacity additional storage is needed. Proposed Improvements The Demand Side Management Study completed in 1990 identified the need for a 1 .5 MG tank was based on demand in 1990 and indicated that a second 1 .5 MG tank would be required in the future as demand grew. With the addition of the Inlet Valley and West Hill areas to the SCLIWC service area, along with the increased demand on the South Hill, the future is here. Based on these demands a 3 MG tank is recommended. The East Hill location for the Transmission storage improvement has been selected as it is in the geographical center of a major portion of the service area, which includes the Northeast Ithaca area, East Hill Ithaca and Dryden. The Location on Hungerford Hill will also serve the South Hill, Inlet Valley and West Hill areas of the Town of Ithaca. I The attached Capital Project Budget worksheet provides an estimated cost summary for the Project. 0 - 10 - U4 ; Z : 31PM : IUWN Uh- IIHAGA BOLTON POINT ; 607 27 $ 5864 r. CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET WORKSHEET Project: SCLIWC East Hill Tank and 16" Transmission Main DRW 8/16/2004 Design Auth: Design Complete: Design Approval: Bid Dater Construction Start: Final Acceptance: APPROPRIATIONS ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ENGINEERS CONTRACT ESTIMATE 7/1 /2002 LEGAL $ 10,000.00 SURVEY $ 11000.00 GEOTECHNICAL $ 69000.00 R .O.W. ACQUISITION $ 30,000.00 ENGINEERING DESIGN $ 10,000.00 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS $ 3,000.00 BIDDING PROCESS $ 2,500.00 TRANSMISSION MAIN CONSTRUCTION $ 500,000.00 3 MILLION GALLON TANK CONSTRUCTION $ 1 ,620,000.00 CONTRACT ADMIN $ 2,500.00 INSPECTION $ 10,000.00 TESTING $ 5,000000 TOTAL COST $ - $ 2,200,000.00 ' September 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting D p�� ATTACHMENT # 5 SEP - 9 2004 East Hill Tank hiformatiolli is a summary of engineering studies , proposals , meetings , and discuss ons ova sr� two yearl concerning the East Hill tank. Additional System Storage Although included in the original scope of the Commission' s transmission system, a proposal for an East Hill tank was first documented in 1983 . The primary advantage noted for the tank was backup storage in the system downstream of the Oakcrest pump station. The flood event of October 1981 that washed out a section of the transmission main where it crosses Six Mile Creek near the Giles Street Bridge was noted as an example of the vulnerability of the transmission main. This washout of the transmission line isolated the Danby Road tank from the transmission supply line. Due to the proposed location of the interconnection of the East Hill tank to the transmission line, the backup supply in an East Hill tank would not have been available as a backup supply to the Danby Road tank. However, it would have been an assist in keeping the majority of the transmission line pressurized until the washed out section of the transmission line was valved off. Since 1981 , there have been a few breaks that have occurred on the transmission line where the transmission main has had to be valved off to complete repairs . An East Hill tank would have provided no benefit for the breaks that occurred south of Route 79 , but would have been able to supply the four base tanks that were cut off from the Oakcrest pump station supply during the repair of the transmission line break along Triphammer Road in 2001 . Pressure Stabilization Another advantage associated with the East Hill tank is the equalization of pressures in the transmission line. Six base water storage tanks and tank grids are supplied with water from the Oakcrest pump station via the transmission main. Airport Ground tank, Village of Lansing ; Christopher Circle tank, Pine tree tank, Danby Road tank, Sapsucker tank, Town of Ithaca; and I Sheldon Road tank, Commission. Although the Commission owns the Sheldon Road tank, it primarily serves the Village of Cayuga Heights , and secondarily, the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Lansing. Pressure reducing control valves are located at the six take-off points from the transmission line and control the flow of water and water pressure into the six tank grids . The six base tanks are at varying elevations and the ''upstream pressures and flows through the control valves that supply these tanks vary. The six base tanks and their relative elevations are shown on Attachment #1 . The proposed East Hill tank is also shown on this attachment. With six take-off points from the transmission line, there are 63 possible combinations of flow and pressure at various points in the line . This results in a large variation of pressure in the transmission line. Attachment #2 illustrates these fluctuations at one point in the system . This pressure recording was taken at Cornell 9s Life Safety Building in the Apple Orchard area off of Route 366 . This recording shows normal operating pressures at this point on the transmission line from approximately 35 psi to 125 psi and surges from 5 psi to over 150 psi . With the Oakcrest pumps discharging into an open East Hill tank connected to the transmission main, pressures in the transmission main would be stabilized, mainly varying dependent upon the level in the East Hill tank and whether or not an Oakcrest pump was on. Surges in the transmission line would also be greatly reduced since the tanks filled by the transmission line would be filled by gravity through their respective control valves from the East hill tank as opposed to the current condition of 1 being filled by the Oakcrest pumps pumping into a closed system. The opening and closing of the valves would not cause the extreme surges that are currently experienced. The connection off the transmission line to Cornell ' s North Campus Residence Initiative (NCRI) would also be more reliable and provide consistent flows with an East Hill tank. Currently, the pressure and flow available to the NCRI connection varies depending on whether or not an Oakcrest pump is on, and if a pump is on, how many of the six control valves off the transmission main are open at any given time . Off-peak Pumping The Commission ' s 1990 Demand Side Management proposal to NYSEG included the construction of an East Hill tank, among other tanks . The advantage an East Hill tank provided for demand side electrical management was to increase the volume of water that could be pumped by the Oakcrest pump station during off-peak electrical use hours . The East Hill tank would be filled by the Oakcrest pumps during off peak periods , and the water stored in the tank would be used during on-peak periods to fill the six base tanks that are supplied from the transmission line. This would take advantage of the lower kwh electrical charges during off- peak periods , and if the East Hill tank were sized appropriately, could allow for all the water pumped through Oakcrest to be pumped during off-peak periods , thus eliminating the electrical demand charges . If this could be accomplished, the electrical cost savings at Oakcrest would be substantial . Pumping Efficiency With the addition of an East Hill tank connected to the transmission line, the efficiency of the Oakcrest pumps would be increased, as the pumps would be pumping to a consistent head, which would be developed by the elevation of the water in the East Hill tank. Currently, the flow through an Oakcrest pump varies from 300 gallons per minute (gpm) to over 2100 gpm. At this range of flow rates and associated heads, the operating efficiency of the pumps ranges from 40 percent to the maximum efficiency of 83 percent. Attachment #3 is the pump curve for the three Oakcrest pumps . Constructing the East Hill tank at an elevation where the pumping head on the Oakcrest pumps was near the point of maximum efficiency would significantly reduce the electrical energy costs for the pump station. Transmission Line as Distribution Line The transmission line has been historically utilized only as a transmission line and not a distribution line serving water supply grids directly from it. This is due to their being no storage on the transmission line. The transmission line could only be used as a distribution line if an Oakcrest pump was operated continually. If this was practiced, and the pump at Oakcrest failed, water supply to the customers supplied via the transmission line would immediately be lost. Water can be supplied through the Cornell University North Campus Residence Initiative (NCRI) connection when the Oakcrest pumps are off due to the Oakcrest pump station bypass , which was constructed as part of the 1996 Control Valve building project that allows the transmission line to be pressurized by the Burdick Hill tank when the Oakcrest pumps are off. The NCRI connection is at a lower elevation than the Burdick Hill tank and is only activated when the pressure on the Cornell side of the connection is substantially lower than normal . At this lower downstream pressure, the pressure differential is sufficient to flow water from the transmission line into the NCRI distribution grid. 2 With the transmission main riding off an East Hill tank, it would be feasible to further utilize the transmission main as a distribution main. Three such distribution grid supplies have been proposed over the years . One proposal was to increase pressure and flow in the Town of Ithaca in the area of the East Hill Plaza by connecting this section of the Pine Tree tank grid to the transmission line. This would also allow for the extension of the water main further east along Ellis Hollow Road . A second proposed connection to the transmission line once an East Hill tank was constructed was in the Cornell Apple Orchard area along Route 366 . This connection would relieve the chronic problems of low pressure and supply in the Apple Orchard area. When the transmission main was originally constructed, a connection to Cornell ' s Library Storage Annex building was made of the line to supply the building ' s fire suppression system. To assure adequate pressure and flow to this connection, telemetry was installed to automatically call on an Oakcrest pump if the fire suppression system was activated. In 1993 , the Apple Orchard Control Valve station was constructed as an interim, relatively inexpensive solution to the pressure and flow problems in this area, until an East Hill tank was constructed. Concurrently, the distribution grid in this area was permanently connected to the Sapsucker tank grid . Due to the length and size of the distribution lines supplying this area from the Sapsucker tank, and varying flow and pressure available through the Apple Orchard Control valve, the water supply to this area is somewhat limited. Dependent upon the number of other control valves off the transmission line open at any given time, the flow through the Apple Orchard Control valve ranges from 0 to 300 gallons per minute. There is also a pressure switch I incorporated into the controls for this Control Valve that will activate an Oakcrest pump if the downstream pressure of the control valve drops to a predetermined low point. An East Hill tank would provide for consistent flow and pressure into this distribution grid. The third proposed connection to the transmission line was to the Oakcrest tank grid. This would allow the Village of Lansing to decommission this tank. A more likely connection to the Oakcrest tank grid would be to the Burdick Hill tank. Sections of this grid are currently supplied from the Burdick Hill tank. It appears that an Oakcrest tank grid connection was proposed as an interim measure until a Burdick Hill companion tank was constructed, whereby a source of water would be available when the original Burdick Hill tank was taken of line for painting. However, problems could arise if the transmission main was to be utilized as a distribution line. A break or other problem with the line could cut off the supply of water to the distribution grids being supplied by the transmission line and the East Hill tank. Also, as happens with most tank systems, commercial and residential growth would eventually, unless prohibited, encroach into the marginal pressures zones of the East Hill tank grid, begin to limit the amount of variability allowed in the water level of the tank, and restrict its use in taking advantage of off-peak pumping. Pumping From Cornell The addition of an East Hill tank would provide a means of pumping water from Cornell University' s ground tank system into the Commission ' s system. This would take advantage of lower pumping costs associated with supplying water to the six base tanks that is provided by Cornell ' s upland source of water. In addition, by taking advantage of Cornell ' s excess capacity to routinely supply water to an East Hill tank, all pumping from Oakcrest could be performed during off-peak hours with a lower volume East Hill tank. 3 This connection would also provide for an emergency supply of water to the Commission' s system. If the Oakcrest pump station became inoperable or there was a problem with the transmission line between the Oakcrest pump station and the connection to Cornell Is system, water could be supplied to the base tanks off the transmission line from water supplied to the East Hill tank via the Cornell connection to the transmission line. There are emergency connections to the Cornell and City of Ithaca water systems directly off the Commission' s transmission line that can supply the daily demand of these two systems , but current emergency connections from these water systems to the Commission' s system are very limited . A pump station and transmission line to the Commission' s transmission line would have to be constructed to take advantage of the benefits such a connection would provide. Regency Lane Pump Station Replacement The Town of Ithaca ' s Hungerford tank is supplied with water from the Town ' s Regency Lane pump station. The source of water for the Regency Lane pumps is the Town' s Pine Tree tank. The centerline of the Regency Lane pumps !is 13 feet above the base of the 30-foot high Pine tree tank. When the water level of the Pine Tree tank drops lower than normal , the Regency Lane pumps loose their prime. An East Hill tank would provide an opportunity for the Town of Ithaca to replace the Regency Lane pump station an eliminate the shortcomings of that pump station. The original proposal was for the East Hill tank to be located on Hungerford Hill , at a lower elevation, but in the vicinity of the Town ' s Hungerford tank. Attachment #4 , from the Demand Side Management proposal documents, shows the proposed location of an East Hill tank and the connection to the transmission line. The Town. would build a pump station near the base of an East Hill tank and pump into the Hungerford tank. The Town would realize a savings in pumping costs since the lift to the Hungerford tank would be reduced. This would also relieve the demand off the 200,00 gallon Pine Tree tank. The Town of Ithaca has held off on any reconstruction or major upgrades of the Regency Lane pump station in anticipation of an East Hill tank being constructed. Painting Base Tanks Historically, when the six base water storage tanks that are supplied directly from the transmission main have been painted, an Oakcrest pump has had to be locked on 24 hours a day during the painting process to supply water to the grid of the tank being painted . If the Oakcrest pump were to fail, there would be an immediate: loss of water in that grid. Fortunately, this has never occurred, but the consequences of that happening would be eliminated if the transmission line were riding off the water supply in an East Hill tank. Gravity Flow to Sheldon Road Tank The Oakcrest pump station bypass is currently used to supply water to the Commission ' s Sheldon Road tank by gravity flow from the Burdick Hill tank. When the Oakcrest pumps are off, the Sheldon Road tank control valve opens to take advantage of this gravity flow thus reducing the cost of supplying water to the Sheldon Road tank. The Sheldon Road tank is the only base tank that is at a lower elevation than the Burdick Hill tank. If the transmission main were to ride off an East Hill tank, the ability to take advantage of this gravity flow would be lost. i r 4 5 a s I A 4. e 00 4 Sol F U � -Iv ti m cc P 9 rr pp 4> G 1 v v ICI 4 Ail a g I� J Nyyy� O r C O }p p r� — jxj . A - 2 A Rig --� i D tt r T1 z ✓ /�✓ �/ \^' i . i'/ � ,// �� J ! � I- � . . ._ 1`' ' 11 / _ r 1., � . -. ✓ _ / ✓� \ �' G +{310 �y \ • X120 \ \ \\\ \ \ \ / ' O!: '.7S k � 1 ! � t r 1 . r � '�. . >� �'.� � � r � : F''\ ; \ \ � 1 1 , •1 , � , ��/. j �� / / r ✓ ' n0 t .Y t t ) y �/ � y < � t \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ ; 1 � \ ' i� C \ , 14 ' '� 11 � °af" 9 m = _ /`° _ `c tar < c , "' cr,; "':: ' • , , 0 . , 1 '1 I two i ;' l It IN or MIA �`\�G\ �\ ` .. - � \ \ . \ .\ ,fit \\... \ \, � . t � FIYl �L7 C ' \ 4 .:^ �Y v� v� / - /i �� • / r� // /�/r� ti/ �� 1� : ��r /�� \.L�t. L `- , \ . , ` \ \ \� •�<� >< .,~ ' yX.. �> � � ,j. Y.- O\'� , ✓Y ry;, .._ /';` !�;/, �//i./ �/ � /// ///, r, o / i � / / 1 \ .� \ I \ ,, \ . , Of .f 'J �- 1 y ! " </,> >✓Y.!/ / / �// / `;' , l f / i ' U /wr l � r 4 \\`` \` \ ') e` ♦. \ \. s ,.� - - Ob ` t ' ✓✓ i i \ - ' // ./ I // , // b /. O l rte„ ' /! ` �`J \ ` \ .♦ .♦. Y � . 4 ' J 1 _ _ O� r ,\�// yr//<X;/ / / �/ / f . / 1 �� / / _ 1 r. . Q NOON / � � l - 011/x73 TOTAL HEAD r . .R .... . � •; > = .tea. - . 1 : _ . . . . . . : . . ..: r.. IT P i r t(� r .L . i 1 ".. 1 - r : : 1 61 I , - - .. - i d. _ I f T — ._ .. - Itr . :: . . . _ . . . . . . . .. . . I . c . . . .. .. .. . : . . I ..: . . . . . . . � � Ili-- �• .. . . . . . . . � . r . r . -- I . . - - - _ _- f U rm rn Ln _ _ . r -- , r . - - . r . I r . . r . r „ - — r r . ------ ' - , it I , . 1 I 44 1 prig ;LIP r rn . , IF e ,- • O m jj}//1� / m � I ( — • r J- AC 1`-' •I _ y .r"�- �'• �\��l T`, � / � ) • / may / V / a l /� `_ l ' J O� _ - . jr IDA 1 / 1 , l < \ \ i CD VIA rrrr a m /: ,1 ti � , zi40 co offIto z co z r' It n D E. �I m DRAWN DESIGNED CHECKED REFERENCE REVISIONS mpr• m *MF*44'6�'��C m® • Z T W S C L I : w C O D,eATJE�R SCAU PROJEC NO DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT CrTgo T-S i5g7 -o s No oESCnirrlp+ c BOLTON POINT WATER SYSTEM PROPOSED EAST HILL TANK & D ARCHITECTS I ENGINEERS September 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 6 ,,�� uumoaiepyAa� BOLTON POIPIT��°P� ATER SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERI'MUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION YS , A .° TOWNS OF DRYDEN • ITHACA • LANSING VILLAGES OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS • LANSING HAC N (607) 277-0660 — FAX (607) 277-3056 — E-MAIL SCLIWC @boltonpoint.org G ADDRESS: ox 178 Ithaca, N.Y. 14851 SHIPPING ADDRESS: 1402 East Shore Drive Office Addition and Renovation Project Budget and Bonding Increase Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www. boltonpoint.org In 2003 , the Commission and the Towns of Dryden, Ithaca, and Lansing, and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing approved the Commission' s Office Addition and Renovation Project with a maximum project cost of $21310, 835 . The bids for the Commission' s Office Addition and Renovation Project were received and opened on March 30. ' The bidders and their respective bids are COMMISSIONERS: listed in Tables 1 through 4 on the spreadsheets included with this report. Response to the bid was good, and most of the bids were fairly close. A listing of H. MICHAEL NEWMAN the low bidders for each of the four trades , along with the project bid total , is Chairperson provided in Table 5 . The total project bid if amount is $2 ,012,923 . Although a 25 % WALTER R. LYNN contingency was added to the engineers project estimate, the total bid amount is Vice Chairperson just under the amount budgeted for total construction costs . A copy of the CATHERINE VALENTINO original project budget is also included with this report. Table 6 provides a Treasurer comparison of the bid amount and the project budget. $60 ,000 for furniture and t L D ANDERSON fixtures is added to the bid amount, since furniture and fixtures were not included N FARKAS in the bid specifications . Furniture and fixtures will be purchased separately through New York State Contract. As " can be seen from Table 6, total project D HARTILL costs are more than originally budgeted. STEPHEN C . LIPINSKI Five bid alternates were included, in the bid specifications . Descriptions of MARY RUSSELL these alternates are provided in Table 1 . In order to bring construction costs STEVE TRUMBULL below the amount originally budgeted, three of the alternates are not being included in the construction project. These are the sunscreens , security camera CONNIE WILCOX system, and the replacement of the north chain link fence gate. Staff recently installed a security camera system and it is not critical that the width of the north PAUL TUNISON gate be increased from 20 feet to 24 feet. It was determined that the sunscreens General Manager were mostly ornamental, and would not be very effective in shading the windows . Also , window curtains for all windows in the new addition and renovated areas LAWRENCE PARLETT Administration are included in the construction contract. Table 7 shows the low bids and bid total with the alternates removed. Table 8 shows the amount that would be available Distribuution tion JACK EIM for construction contingency with the three alternates removed from the bids . This represents approximately 2 .4% of the bid amount. The engineers are KENNETH BUTLER recommending a minimum of 10% and an ideal contingency of 15 % , Production As shown on the original project budget document, there is a contingency of $55,955 for incidental costs . These funds will not be available for construction ency since most of this contingency has already been spent on the site Qs> v tormwater detention design, investigation of lake water cooling, etc. It is i led that the remaining contingency will be spent on items such as bonding fee ie engineering fees will also increase since total construction costs have SSP ' 9 V4 inc ATTEST ITHACA OWN LEAK In order to have sufficient funding to complete the project as bid and to provide for a 15 % contingency for construction and incidentals , !,the Commission has approved and is requesting the member municipalities approve an increase in the maximum project cost from $2 ,310, 835 to $2,600 ,000. A revised project budget is included with this report. The Commission has approved and is requesting the member municipalities approve increasing the bonding for the project from $ 1 ,000,000 to $ 1 , 500,000 . In addition to covering the increased cost of the project, the Commission has determined a need to increase the bonding due to an increase in costs for the Commission' s East Hill Tank Project, which will require more of the Commission' s fund balance being used for the project than originally estimated. BOLTON POINT WATER SYSTEM OFFICE SPACE ADDITION PROJECT BID TABULATIONS MARCH 30, 2004 d sera/ Construction Work Alt.#E-2 Alt.#G- 1 Prod . Security Alt. #G-3 Alt. #G-4 Off ice016 and Alt. #G-2 Camera Exterior Replace North Contractor Base Bid Office017 SunscreensV System Painting Gate in Fence TOTAL Paul Yaman Construction 11505,000 45 , 105 619850 4,020 7,660 1 ,623,635 Streeter Associates , Inc. 1 ,384,500 28,200 64,500 3,800 61200 114879200 Christa Construction 11387,700 42,000 709000 3,500 41700 1 ,507, 900 Keuka Construction Corp. 11348,300 33,800 71 ,000 1 ,900 6,400 19461 ,400 Massa Construction , Inc. 11356,700 459000 65,500 31600 5,900 1 ,476,700 LeChase Construction 1 11369,000 1 710000 1 70,000 1 1 10,000 I 6,500 1 1 ,526,500 Table 1 HVAC Work Contractor Base Bid TOTAL Evans Mechanical , Inc. 2569200 26, 184 282,384 Postler & Jaeckle 274,900 24,000 298,900 Louis N . Picciano & Son 275,000 25,700 1j 300,700 Fre & Campbell , Inc. 292,200 24,000 I I 1 1 316,200 Kimble, Inc. 288; 000 26,500 3114 500 King & King Mechanical 247,000 21 ,700 268,700 Piccirilli-Slavik & Vincent 267,000 31 ,000 298,000 Table 2 Plumbing Work ontractor Base Bid TOTAL ns Mechanical , Inc. 148,910 a 148,910 Dot, Inc. 140,700 140,700 t iler & Jaeckle 138,000 138,000 is N . Picciano & Son 151 ,500 151 500 e & C ampbell , Inc. 162,900 162,900 Kimble , Inc. 128,800 1289800 King & King Mechanical 124, 100 124, 100 Piccirilli-Slavik & Vincent 142,000 142 000 Table 3 Electrical Work Contractor Base Bid TOTAL John Mills Electric, Inc. 143, 770 5, 600 12,870 162,240 G .O. Wick, Inc. 192,000 6,450 12,800 211 ,250 Matco Electric Corp. 158,300 10, 100 10, 950 1799350 Schuler-Haas Electric 139,468 6, 826 12,429 1 1580723 Knapp Electric, Inc. 214,450 81450 tl 17,800 Blandin 2400700 Electric, Inc. 146, 750 6,500 14,900 168, 150 Nelcorp 1489900 61600 151200 1709700 Table 4 Low Bidders Keuka Construction Corp. 113489300 33 ,800 71 ,000, 19900 61400 1 ,461 ,400 King & King Mechanical 247,000 21 , 700 268, 700 King & King Mechanical 124, 100 124, 100 Schuler-Haas Electric 139,468 6,826 12,429 158, 723 Table 5 Total 2,012,9231 1 BOLTON POINT WATER SYSTEM OFFICE SPACE ADDITION PROJECT BID TABULATIONS MARCH 30, 2004 '' Vtal ount 2,012,923 ixtures 60,000 Total with Furniture 290729923 Construction Budget 21031 ,060 Total with Furniture 2,072,923 Construction Contingency -41 ,863 -2.02% Table 6 Alt.#E-2 Alt.#G- 1 Prod . Security Alt. #G-3 Alt. #G-4 Low Bidders (less alt G-2, E- Office016 and Alt. #G-2 Camera Exterior Replace North 25 & G-4) Base Bid Office017 Sunscreensj', System Paintin4 Gate in Fence TOTAL Keuka Construction Corp. 1 ,348,300 33,800 1 ,900 113847000 King & King Mechanical 2479000 21 ,700 2689700 King & King Mechanical 1249100 „ 124, 100 Schuler-Haas Electric 139,468 6,826 146,294 Table 7 Total 1 ,923,094 Total bid Amount w/o alt. 11923,094 Furniture & Fixtures 60,000 Total with Furniture 1 ,983,094 Construction Budget 2,0319060 Total with Furniture 199839094 nstruction Contingency 47,966 2.42% le 8 2 T 2 fi ' y m ,�,'b`*{ yrk1 ® vk d rw I H c ", , , , , .', . . " , , ""r > ENQINEERS �ARG�IITECTS0' WND SURVEYE)RS,= P C- AIRPORT CORPORATE PARK TEL: 607-358-1000 100 HUNT CENTER FAX: 607-358-1800 HORSEHEADS, NEW YORK 14845 June 3, 2003 Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Bolton Point Water System 1402 East Shore Drive, Ithaca, New York 14850 PROJECT BUDGET ALTERATION NEW TOTAL GROSS EXISTING BUILDING AREA TO BE ALTERED FOR PROGRAM ELEMENTS Upper level stairway + 3 bay along east 21 ft x 61 ft = 11288 sf x 'I, $65 /sf = $83,729 2 bays along west 21 ft x 40 ft = 846 sf x 'I $65 /sf = $55,010 lab: minor changes 21 It x 21 ft = 441 sf x " $65 /sf = $28,665 Lower level stairway + 1 bay along east 21 ft x 26 ft = 546 sf x Pi $65 /sf = $359490 one bay in southwest corner 21 ft x 21 ft = 441 sf x !' $65 /sf = $28,665 Lower level operations room 11 ft x 70 ft = 770 sf x $ 100 /sf = $775000 (new exterior windows, new interior windows, new hvac, new finishes) SUBTOTAL 4,332 sf x $3085559 $308,559 ADDITION Upper level 3,731 sf x $ 129 /sf = $481 ,299 Lower level mechanical space 228 sf x iii $75 /sf = $ 17, 100 remaining addition 3,503 sf x $ 100 /sf = $350,300 SUBTOTAL 7,462 sf $8485699 $848,699 ALLOWANCES : elevator base cost $50,000 $50,000 additional stop $5,000 $5,000 two speed doors $ 18,000 $ 183000 90 degree doors $ 15,000 $ 159000 technology $29,478 $50,772 $809250 site work $ 15411280 $ 154,280 storm water management $25,000 $25,000 ff&e $5,510 $9,490 $1511000 rock excavation $4,500 $4,500 interior stairs/sidewalk/entry roof $20,000 $20,000 asbestos abatement $ 15,000 $ 15,000 sun breaks & entry roofs on addition 148 If x $220 /If = $32,560 $32,560 sun breaks on existing 150 If x $220 /If = $33,000 $339000 SUBTOTAL $82,988 $3845602 $467,590 SUBTOTAL $391 ,547 $17233,301 $ 1 ,6242848 CONTINGENCY 25 % $97,887 $308,325 $406,212 INCIDENTAL COSTS legal fees 511000 insurance 159000 HUNT clerk of the works 40,000 a/e fees $ 1 ,541 ,626 new construction 5.71 % 8811002 $489,433 alterations 9.36% 45,818 $2,031 ,060 total testing: soil boring, survey, concrete, compaction, etc 30,000 SUBTOTAL 223,820 CONTINGENCY 25 % $55,955 6 , 3 10 83 w , i Revised Building Addition Project Budget August 9, 2004 Southern Cayuga L keln Inter a to municipal Water Commission Bolton Point Water System 1402 East Shore Drive, Ithaca, New York 14850 PROJECT BUDGET ALTERATION: NEW TOTAL Alterations 3,562 sf x $81 , /sf = $288,318 $2883318 Addition I R $1 ,570,550 $1 ,5703550 SUBTOTAL $288,318 $1 ,570,550 $1 ,858,868 ALTERNATIVES Alt G-111-1-1 , E-1 Production office 11 ft x 70 ft = 770 sf x $811; /sf = $62,326 $62,326 Alt G2 Sunscreens not awarded $0 $0 Alt G-3 Exterior Painting $13900 $1 ,900 Alt G-4 South Gate not awarded $0 $0 Alt E-2 Security Camera not awarded $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $64,226 $0 $649226 FF&E $57000 $55,000 $60,000 SUBTOTAL $357,544 $1 ,625,550 $1 ,983,094 CONTINGENCY 15 % $53,632 $2432832 $297,464 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $4119176 $198699382 $2,280,558 INCIDENTAL COSTS Building permit $3,644 legal fees (To Date) $77907 legal fees (Additonal) $3,000 insurance $2,573 clerk of the works $209000 2257-001 ale fees basic services $1 ,814,382 new construction 5.44% $98,623 $406, 176 alterations 9.65% $39, 180 additional fee for Alt G-2 Sunscreens (not awarded) $2,528 additional fee for Alt E-2 Security Cameras (not awarded) $442 additional fee for Alt G-4 South Gate (not awarded) $309 Total $141 ,082 ale fees additional services 2257-003 lake source cooling $9,777 2257-005 backf low prevention $3,300 2257-006 storm water design $8,800 2257-007 photometrics $800 2257-008 peer review $282 survey $43700 Novelli Review $23400 Total a/e fees additional services $30,059 Miscellaneous additonal services printing/reimbursables $303000 Empire Geo Geotechnical $2,060 ENSR Asbestos/lead testing $2,068 ENSR Asbestos abagement design $39400 ENSR Additonal asbestos testing $583 CME Constr. testing & monitoring $20,000 ENSR Asbestos Abatement monitoring $4,900 BondinaCosts bond counsel $2,000 Legal Ads $1 ,500 Miscellaneous/Contingency $3,000 SUBTOTAL $277,775 CONTINGENCY 15 % $41 ,666 TOTAL INCIDENTAL COSTS $3199441 TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,600,000 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $2,310,835 V DEVIATION $2899165 M ,-{ � ` 000000000000000 000000000000000 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c�i o 0 0 o Lri r� 'I Ei y 0 0 0 0 Lo N N N I� O O v o r M INC) Z 0 C4 N N o N L6 Lp M I� M ('O N (6 (o O r M r r 00 (� N N M r Q) A r +-) x a GO E-1 F, � 6fl (fl (fl 69 69 69 6F} 69 (A 69 69 (9 69 64 fA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O up 0 0 0 9 0 q q 9 9 9 9 9 9 o 0o00oMo0000000o0 V OOO to N 00000 oOOOOI� (p U O o O r M M o o N o U N N N, M M M � TS a) 16F> b4 Eg 69 V> E9 U> E9 E9 69 E9 E9 E9 ER . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 Cl O O 01 0 Cl a 0 0 0 N 00 0 0 (0 0 0 0 0 (0 0LnorN V NNNO) 000` O � N01 (� N (n N .- O Ln 0 (o TNN: L6 � N � (D O N r N Lo 00 N N M r r O " . 613 69 1 69 69 64 VY 1 69 6"I? 69 1 (h} 6s 69 69 69 fR C 00000000000000 m ,Woo000MOOOOOOOO N 0 Lf) N r L() 0 0 0 0 a3> O' 0 0 O rOMCOOOOOOO U v' to O r � (0 0o I� O Co x N Ln N V-: Ln M M C' N N U � J 69 1 69 69 16C 69 69E96A696969) 1V 6 6-T Cl O O Cl O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 tD 0 0 0 0 0 0 N (4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ,qt O O O O O (0 ,O O O O O 00 O O r 00 O O Ln O LA h (�. O N q 00 r O N o M o N q (o r L �- N Co 00 N N cO N q R r � r I 0 F- N 611, 1141U> 1 611, 161:1 (t? 164> 69 1 69 1 6A 69 6% 69 69 6A c 0 0 0 Cl O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` Q , 4c) 0000000000000 N00000000Lri000000 d 0 0 OOVr0 0 (o (o25 0000 00 o 0 o r N M O O Lo O r. IN CO N V N N (!M � CID 69696969696H69E9E96916969E9E9 w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 06 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 N6000O00 CID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo I� O N O O to O " O O O O N O O r O O Lf) O O O O ag; O N N O M M N II 00 6H 9 LC) L (6 F, 69 69 69 69 Eg r 69 69 69 69 M C 69 6f? O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl U y; 000O000000o 000 U' 0 0 0 Lo r N N I� v O N O o I� U O O O M M O to O o N C O N N 00 N M >41� = r r U .. 69 Eg 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6H Eg 69 69 M r r r O 0 0 0 N (D r r I� 0) � N r 0) M N CY O O O O .O W W W O O LL lL LL_ LL W W W W C II U � C C c C J J J J lr C c O a) 70 a) a) O N N O C CL > + U a) 0 (D U O (1) (1) U N > C No "O L f- O U) 3 7 E a) J No O C O C_ C O U U f6 f0 d Q O) U C 0 C O 0 O ` ` y Y a) o c c CD Y ` m U o 'er o o 0 c d L O a O O fl LJJ c -� E 0 = C C C C C C (d x c a3 � > U m m O O O O N (06 H U C U m m (—emu C C C > O (a C a) x C c N (0 LLJ u 0 0 7 7 0 0 C (U f9 NNNNN E Y U N IN � (7 LLUE0 �� _ _ 'O c N a) 0 9 fnI' (n22 (r° 02 (r° O r O r N (M � N M LO O 00 d7 r r r r r a) Y NNINNIN i September 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 7 TOWN OF ITHACA COST OF BOND BORROWING FOR SOUTH HILL WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN IMPROVEMENT 5 YEAR BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE YEAR PRINCIPAL VARIABLE PAYMENTS TOTAL RATE PRIN INT 2005 $ 500 ,000 1 . 52 % $ 100 ,000 $ 71600 $ 107 ,600 2006 $ 400, 000 1 .65% $ 100 ,000 $ 61600 $ 106 , 600 2007 $ 300 , 000 1 . 75 % $ 1007000 $ 51250 $ 105 ,250 2008 $ 200 ,000 1 . 90% $ 100 ,000 $ 37800 $ 103 ,800 2009 $ 100 ,000 2 . 10% $ 1100 , 000 $ 21100 $ 102 , 100 TOTAL ESTIMATED DEBT OBLIGATION $ 525,350 5 YEAR BOND SERIAL BOND YEAR PRINCIPAL FIXED PAYMENTS TOTAL RATE PRIN INT 2005 $ 500 ,000 2 . 14 % $ 100 ,000 $ 10, 700 $ 110 , 700 2006 $ 4007000 2 . 14 % $ 1001000 $ 81560 $ 108, 560 2007 $ 300 ,000 2 . 14% $ 100 , 000 $ 61420 $ 106 ,420 2008 $ 200 , 000 2 . 14% $ 100 ,000 $ 4 ,280 $ 104 ,280 2009 $ 100 ,000 2 . 14 % $ 100,000 $ 21140 $ 102 , 140 TOTAL ESTIMATED DEBT OBLIGATION $ 532, 100 10 YEAR BOND SERIAL BOND YEAR PRINCIPAL FIXED PAYMENTS TOTAL RATE 'PRIN INT 2005 $ 500,000 3 . 34% $ 50 ,000 $ 16 , 700 $ 66 , 700 2006 $ 450 ,000 3 . 34% $ 50 ,000 $ 15,030 $ 65 ,030 2007 $ 400 ,000 3 . 34% $ Ij 50 ,000 $ 139360 $ 63 , 360 2008 $ 3509000 3 . 34% $ ° 50 ,000 $ 11 ,690 $ 61 ,690 2009 $ 300 ,000 3 . 34% $ 50,000 $ 109020 $ 60 , 020 2010 $ 250 ,000 3 . 34% $ " 50,000 $ 81350 $ 58 , 350 2011 $ 2009000 3 . 34% $ 'I 50 ,000 $ 61680 $ 569680 2012 $ 150 ,000 3 .34% $ 50 ,000 $ 5 ,010 $ 55 ,010 2013 $ 100 ,000 3 . 34% $ 50 ,000 $ 31340 $ 539340 2014 $ 50 ,000 3 . 34% $ ! 501000 $ 11670 $ 51 ,670 : TOTAL ESTIMATED DEBT OBLIGATION 1 $ 591 ,850 t Town Board Meeting September 13 , 2004 AIT, Q �MEEN� �T #�84 PLANNING DEPARTMENT °MEMORANDUM TO : TOWN BOARD MEMBERS FROM: MICHAEL SMITH, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER��s DATE: SEPTEMBER 7 , 2004 RE : FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION Attached are materials related to the Town applying for funding through the State Farmland Protection Program under the Environmental Protection Fund. The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets has recently released a request for proposals to help protect farmland through the purchase of development rights, with the application being due October 1 , 2004 (see attached press release) . The Town has received two applications from farmland owners who are interested in the Town ' s Purchase of Developments Rights program and are willing to participate in the State grant program . The two properties total approximately 167 acres and are both currently being farmed. The Eastern Artificial property on Sheffield Road was included in an application in 2000 that did not receive any funding from the State. Both properties are located on West Hill within the Town ' s target area and are near the Ferguson property which the Town obtained a conservation easement on in 2003 (see attached map) . Included is a draft resolution for the Boards consideration authorizing the Town to apply for funding for these two properties and to commit a local share amount (25 % local share required) . I am putting together a preliminary budget for each property and anticipate having a total cost amount that can be inserted into the resolution at the Town Board meeting. I am waiting to hear back from T. G . Miller on the estimated costs of the surveys , Ken Gardner from North East Appraisals on the estimated cost for the appraisals and for a preliminary estimate of the costs of the development rights , and from the Town attorney on the anticipated legal fees . Please contact me at 273 - 1747 or email me at msmith @town. ithaca.ny.us if you have any questions . Enc. REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD September 13, 2004 TB RESOLUTION NO, - AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR STATE GRANT FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM WHEREAS , the Town Board has adopted a Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan (December 1997) , and said plan identifies the preservation of farmland as an important priority for the Town, and WHEREAS , the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan proposes a voluntary Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program to further the goal of preserving farmland, and the Town Board is actively pursuing the implementation of such a program, and WHEREAS , the Town Board has adopted a Policies and Procedures Manual (July 12 , 1999) with specific guidelines and criteria for implementation of the Agricultural Land Preservation Program, and WHEREAS , the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets has announced the availability of funding through the Farmland Protection Grant Program under the Environmental Protection Fund for the implementation of agricultural and farmland plans , and WHEREAS , the cost-share ratio for these funds has been established at 75 percent State and 25 percent local , and WHEREAS , the Town has received two applications from farm owners interested in participating in the Town ' s PDR program, the parcels totaling approximately 167 acres, and WHEREAS , an estimated range of potential acquisition costs for the agricultural conservation easements on these two properties is up to $., and WHEREAS , grant applications are due on October 1 , 2004 ; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that Catherine Valentino, as Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca, is hereby authorized to file an application for funds from the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets in accordance with the provisions of the Farmland Protection Grant Program, in an amount not to exceed a total of $ in State funds , which requires the commitment of a local share not to exceed $ , and upon approval of said request to enter into and execute an agreement with the State for such financial assistance to the Town of Ithaca for the Agricultural Land Preservation Program. Department of Agriculture & Markets News Monday, July 26, 2004 Contact: Jessica A. Chittenden 518-457-3136 jessica.chittenden@ agmkt.state.ny.us FARMLAND PROTECTION GRANT APPLICATIONS BEING ACCEPTED 75-25 State Local Match ; Requests for Proposals Due October 1 , 2004 State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers today announced the release of the Governor's Farmland Protection Program Request for Proposals (RFP) . The Farmland Protection Program provides financial assistance to counties and towns to help protect economically viable farmland from development through the purchase of development rights. "New York State 's farmland is productive, beautiful and irreplaceable," the Commissioner said. "Governor Pataki has recognized that the land dedicated to agriculture in New York State is precious and he is committed to protecting it. Through his Farmland Protection Program , the Governor has helped purchase the development rights on 28,000 acres of productive farmland that will ensure a prosperous agricultural future and the preservation of these picturesque open spaces for generations to come ." "I encourage county and local governments that have a farmland protection plan in place to consider applying for the funds provided through this RFP. We must be too proactive in protecting viable farmland in New York State from future development." The Farmland Protection Program provides financial assistance to counties and towns to support local farmland protection plans. Once the State provides the requested funds, the municipality purchases the development rights on the farmland, which allows farm owners to utilize their equity in the land without selling the farm. The Farmland Protection Program is open to all counties and municipalities that have approved agricultural and farmland protection plans in place. There is no cap on the amount of funding that may be requested and the cost- share ratio is 75 percent state and 25 percent local . Applications must be received (not postmarked) by the Department of Agriculture and Markets no later than 4:30 pm on October 1 , 2004. Proposed projects must preserve viable agricultural land, be located in areas facing significant development pressure and serve as a buffer to a natural public resource with a significant ecosystem or habitat. Consideration is also given to the number of acres preserved , the quality of the soil resources, the percentage of the farm available for production agriculture, whether or not bordering properties are protected by a conservation easement, the cost effectiveness of the proposal and the likelihood of the property's succession as a farm. Currently, New York State has 7.6 million acres of farmland with 37,000 farms. The Governor's Farmland Protection Program has helped protect 28,000 acres from development in perpetuity by devoting a total of $68 million since 1996. A copy of the Farmland Protection RFP can be obtained by contacting the Department at 518-457-2713 or by downloading the application off the Department's website at www. agmkt.state . ny. us/RFPS. htm1 . http ://www . agmkt. state .ny.us/AD/release. asp?ReleaseID= 1365 9/2/2004 Parcels to be Included in State Farmland Protection Grant Application Town of Ithaca September 2 , 2004 ° >. 500 0 500 Feet 0 ° o N / Q ° _ p o O Fit d ° Q o p b a d P Hayts Rd o � :o 0 X00 � .o a Eastern Artificial Insemination Coop . Inc . Tax Parcel No . 24-5- 1 .C: 128 acres ° ° O M o o a Bundy Rd a � P o ' o ° o o ' o O (D o C: O W 0 o ° 0 O 0 0 n Mec nbu Q O to ❑ O O P °o. o O 9 • 0 r p Existing �° 0 Agricultural Easement (Ferguson) 40 Acres m� a p o ° o Jeffrey Hanavan & Kate Lunde Q Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 10 . 42 e 39 acres o A o ° ° °a o ? o a 4 o- September 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 9 BARNEY , GROSSMAN , DUBOW & MARCUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW SENECA BUILDING WEST IN C. BARNEY SUITE 400 FACSIMILE PETER G . GROSSMAN 119 EAST SENECA STREET (eon ) 272 - 8806 DAVID A. DUBOW ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 ( NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS) RANDALL B . MARCUS JONATHAN A . ORKIN ( 607 ) 273 - 6841 KEVIN A. JONES Town Board Meeting 9/13/04 Agenda Item 15 CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE--ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY INTEREST To : Honorable Supervisor Catherine Valentino and Members of the Town of Ithaca Town Board Date : September 7, 2004 Re : William Frandsen and Ewing drainage work Ladies and Gentlemen : The Town, in connection with the acquisition of lands for the William and Hannah Pew Trail, has agreed to do some corrective drainage work on property owned by Elmer and Marilyn Ewing to cure some long-standing drainage issues adversely affecting the Ewings. This work has been a pre-condition to the Ewings conveying to the Town rights over a strip of land needed to complete the Pew Trail. In order to do the corrective work, it is necessary to gain access to the area in which the work is to be accomplished over lands owned by William Frandsen. Mr. Frandsen is willing, at the moment, to give the Town the easement if the Town allows him to use some lands owned by the Town at the end of proposed "Brian Drive" which the Town reserved out of Eastern Heights Park for a possible connector road from Brian Drive to property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Blanpied . If you are completely confused by the above, hopefully the attached correspondence (which gives the history of the dealings with Mr. Frandsen) and proposed agreement with associated maps will help clarify the issues. Exhibit B-2 to the agreement shows both the access easement area the Town needs, and the hammerhead area to be made available to Mr. Frandsen. The action requested at the Town Board meeting is consideration of whether to enter into the agreement with Mr. Frandsen, to enable all of the dominoes to thereby fall into place, resulting in the possible completion of the Pew Trail project . Obviously, the Town Supervisor, Town Engineer, Town Highway Superintendent, and I will be more than happy to try and explain the matter further and to answer any questions you might have, either at the meeting on September 13 , or prior to the meeting if you wish. John Barney BARNEY , GROSSMAN , DUBOW & MARCUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW SENECA BUILDING WEST C . BARNEY SUITE 400 FACSIMILE PETER G . GROSSMAN 119 EAST SENECA STREET ( 607 ) 272 - BB06 DAVID A . Dueow ITHACA , NEW YORK 14850 ( NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS ) RANDALL B . MARCUS JONATHAN A. ORKIN ( 607 ) 273 - 6841 KEVIN A. JONES April 30, 2004 Charles Guttman, Esq. Guttman & Wallace 411 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: William Frandsen Dear Chuck: Last week I was able' to meet with Supervisor Catherine Valentino, Town Engineer Dan Walker, Town Planner Jon Kanter, and Town Highway Superintendent Fred Noteboom on the Frandsen situation. We were able to review the materials in the Town' s file and that information placed a somewhat different light on the situation than suggested in your letter of April 13 ,2004 . The history, as gleaned from these materials, appears to be as follows : In July of 1986 Mr. Frandsen was granted preliminary subdivision approval for the overall subdivision of 60 lots adjacent to Eastern Heights. Apparently prior to that overall preliminary subdivision approval, a smaller segment which I will denominate as "Section 1 representing approximately 7 lots along Park Lane at the corner of John Street, was given final approval in 1983 and reaffirmed in 1984 . The balance of the lots on John Street were given final subdivision approval in 1986 . An additional three lots along Park Lane adjacent to the intersec- tion with Brian Drive were given final approval in 1993 . In 1997 two additional lots, consoli- dated into one lot along Park Lane were given final approval . There has never been final subdivision approval of the Brian Drive lots other than as mentioned above. After the John Street lots were given final approval in 1986, it was a condition of any future final subdivision approvals that Park Lane was to be extended to Slaterville Road and completed at Mr. Frandsen' s expense. At some during the course of the design and construction of Park Lane extension it became apparent that the boundaries of Park Lane, in order to make the deep cuts necessitated by topography, extended well beyond the 80 foot right- of-way that had been obtained for the road, and encroached substantially on property owned by ir the Quicks . To resolve this issue a series of negotiations ensued looking to the possibility that. Mrs . Quick would be given two lots by Mr. Frandsen, Mr. Frandsen would be granted four lots by the Town out of land then held for general purposes, and the Town would be given an expanded easement over the Quick property to encompass the entire area needed for construc- BARNEY , GROSSMAN , DUBOW & MARCUS Charles Guttman, Esq. April 30, 2004 Page 2 tion, drainage and operation of Park Lane. The negotiations became more complicated when survey errors were discovered indicating that the Quicks actually owned some of the property incorrectly shown on earlier surveys as reputedly owned by Mr. Frandsen. In any event, a proposed agreement was prepared but apparently never signed. In addition to the survey error issue, Mr. Frandsen had some concerns about the cost to him of the extension of Park Lane (for example, there was a rather substantial expense to lower a NYSEG gas pipeline below the new grade of Park Lane) and was looking for compensation for these expenses . The Town did contribute time, engineering services , and, I believe, some materials to the cost of completing Park Lane, a situation which is not the normal case with developers of subdivisions, but which was done in this case in recognition of the need to complete the road and the substantial expense that all parties were incurring to effect such completion. However, when Mr. Frandsen did not receive all the compensation he was looking for, he did not sign the agreement with the Quicks and the Town. Accordingly, the Town then paid for the easements it needed from the Quicks directly in cash. At that point, there no longer was a need to exchange lots with Mr. Frandsen. In 1995 , and at the behest of many of the Eastern Heights neighbors, the lands that had been considered for possible transfer to Mr. Frandsen, along with other lands held by the Town as general purpose lands in the vicinity of the Eastern Heights Park, were converted by Town Board resolution to park lands . At that time there was reserved from the park land conversion a strip approximately 60 feet wide and 210 feet deep adjacent to the easterly boundary of Mr. Frandsen' land at the end of Brian Lane (as shown on the then latest subdivision map) running southerly to the north line of premises reputedly owned by Blanpieds . This reserved strip was to be used as a possible future road should the Blanpieds ever develop their property and need a connection. Thus, that reserved parcel may be available for use as a turnaround at the end of Brian Drive assuming a mutually satisfactory agreement between all parties can be reached and thz Town Board approves the agreement. The Town officials mentioned above and I would be happy to meet with you at any time to go over any of the materials contained in this letter and to provide additional details as you might request. If you would like such a meeting, please give me a call . With best regards. Sinc ,ely ours , JCB : sls xc : Honorable Catherine Valentino Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made the _ day of , 2004 between the Town of Ithaca, with its principal office at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York 14850, hereinafter referred to as "the Town" and William Frandsen of 19 Orchard Street, Spencer, New York 14883 , hereinafter referred to as "Frandsen" . WHEREAS Frandsen is the owner of certain property located in the Town of Ithaca, located northeast of Slaterville Road (NYS Route 79) and south of the Eastern Heights subdivision. Frandsen has previously applied to the Town of Ithaca and received final subdivision approval for a portion of this property. The property has been improved by roads known as Park Lane, John Street and Edwin Drive which roads have been constructed and dedicated to the Town. Frandsen has previously submitted to the Town plans for an extension of Edwin Drive to run in a northwesterly direction and a new road to be known as Brian Drive to run in an easterly direction from Park Lane; and WHEREAS there have previously been discussions between the Town and Frandsen regarding Brian Drive ending, at its eastern point, in a hammerhead turnaround which would be located on property now owned by the Town of Ithaca, which plan is more particularly set forth on a map and sketch annexed hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS the Town wishes to obtain from Frandsen an easement and a right of way to pass over property owned by Frandsen in the northwest corner of the property currently owned by Frandsen for the purpose of obtaining access to, and, constructing and maintaining necessary improvements including certain drainage facilities as more particularly shown on a map annexed as Exhibit B= 1 and B-2; NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein it is agreed as follows : 1 . Frandsen shall convey to the Town of Ithaca an easement and right of way over property currently owned by him in the Town of Ithaca as more particularly set forth on Exhibit B4 and B-2 attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Town shall indemnify and hold Frandsen harmless from any liability or damages Frandsen may suffer as the result of claims, demands, costs or judgments against Frandsen arising out of the use by the Town of this right of way and easement. Such right of way shall be for purposes of access to Town constructed and/or maintained drainage ways, facilities and improvements, whether now in existence or hereinafter constructed by the Town. Said easement shall be a permanent 20 foot easement and a temporary 50 foot easement . Frandsen agrees to execute, simultaneously with this agreement, the Town' s usual drainage easement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C. 2 . Town shall grant to Frandsen a right of way over property owned by the Town of Ithaca as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto . Frandsen shall be entitled to improve the property to a condition adequate for it to be conveyed to the Town as a public highway. It is the intention Frandsen-Town Easement exchanges; wp& 0; Hal; JCB Ithaca General; September 7, 2004 (5:31PM) and understanding of the parties that Frandsen shall apply to the Town of Ithaca for preliminary and final subdivision for lots to be located on the proposed Brian Drive and, upon obtaining such subdivision approval shall construct Brian Drive to meet all Town highway specifications and thereafter convey Brian Drive to the Town of Ithaca. Simultaneously Frandsen shall make the necessary improvements on the hammerhead turnaround so that Brian Drive will end in a hammerhead turnaround. When the hammerhead is completed to Town highway specifications and when Brian Drive is completed to Town specifications and conveyed to the Town, the Town agrees to dedicate the hammerhead of the eastern end of Brian Drive as a public street . Frandsen shall indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any liability or damages the Town may suffer as the result of claims, demands, costs or judgments against the Town arising out of the use by Frandsen of this right of way and easement. In the event Frandsen has not completed the necessary improvements to the hammerhead within three years from the date of this agreement, this right of way and agreement granted to Frandsen shall cease. 3 . Prior to commencing any work on the hammerhead area owned by the Town, Frandsen shall obtain, and maintain for the duration of any time work is being performed on the hammerhead lands, general liability insurance, workers' compensation insurance, and employers ' liability insurance. The general liability insurance shall name the Town as an additional insured. The policy limits of the general liability insurance and employers ' liability insurance shall not be less than $2, 000, 000 per occurrence and not less than $3 , 000, 000 aggregate. Such policies shall be written by insurers licensed in the State of New York with a Best ' s rating of B+ or better, and shall be written on policy forms reasonably acceptable to the Town or the Town' s insurance consultant . Proof satisfactory to the Town of the existence and continued validity of such policies shall be provided prior to the commencement of any work on the hammerhead area. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have put their hands and seals the day and year first above stated . TOWN OF ITHACA By WILLIAM FRANDSEN Frandsen-Town Easement exchanges; wp& 0; Hal; JCB Ithaca General; September 7, 2004 (5:31PM) STATE OF NEW YORK ss. . COUNTY OF TOMPKINS On the day of in the year 200_ before me, the undersigned, personally appeared personally ' known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument . Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK ss. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS On the day of in the year 200_ before me, the undersigned, personally appeared personally, known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument . Notary Public A. - � - _ _ la �, oD tom ,lie . Gw Nor OT f3 ' 13 ' E + o� p� ° rrrr trQOp � o �ao NF '� . C 440 rD O 5 ,. ::a;;y� t„;:;ti ... v m — G7 %A 0 r . • ,S p O -� m w2 �° > �. OQw _ -f 1`�F�'u k T 0 �1Sv OD • • O ��lB 5 trl � 000 vom • NN ♦ + n (� 1 2 '. CIDI ' . W •� NNNm . � b 7.. Wr 2 •L 'M p 4` OQ \ � • 0 wmD cw' _ oN r, o :`; fia + 53 E. lri .t J • . ., .. « " S u m N a C+, ”. N aD • Di P N s {s i m yvl. A, - . . , • 4 CD a ' 8 k s w . ys . ��N m • V w v. } yaks• ISSO . p_p0 '•'. , ra G Su NOT• '� i 13 r o Iii O Vo0 ° r waoo p t In _ 2 / ` r.. Q{{ CD All go A _ an m T v o ISO • 00 ' m N — 700 N 06. 394747 E w ?? 000 � ; w. '� � _ 1 o n o �g n fO u cd o `7 3 a h m + �O 1 0 cm z D _ . .. rS .. .. .ce ClAt _ ._ . .. . ...:._ . .. . . d. . $ 06E S - 'r . ti • cb 150 00 h6 I 1 N 06. 39 ' 4 E - _ !ti :.,, a , ! • v o rm ClAll O 00 8om orN ° { ,• N 12 0�1 Y� o " ; ; • � � PRO . Vy�' _' `• �� _ _ 246 . 97 lOC CAI m 8 NO -4 tf V i50 r ., •Oki CSe � _ N O8 3 47 - � ,'. i ' . . a co I E t" Q Q � T D - f- C 4. A 7C CSI S r o �.r _ .f 66 N CD oom /��lO sill - - - - 244 3�' _ _ CA •18 •h Id . t v r v, S 07C"' ' 56 ' 0 ��- - - 150 . 00 • n o n r NN O O �a N " ®• 39 4T E ' _ -`y r � v - v/w Nw a a :, + ow N m ro 0 oS _ o r o� ►''. woo m �3 . pg . NN ou i® 13' 28 : :; T N CAW ^' a° 213 . 7_4_ .� ± m ` i _ vr v, r ® CA Off` - iSO . LOT NOoi � � - omca q�9, Lq° - � OO ' m w No o m � 0 40 PIN 09. 41 '-� _ _ m iu a° N o ° + - u C'. s rpIV (A ® � 33 •E , o m o Tmvu cnfoo ' . VNNU y�p�, BBS o . :.r r N N ��.>. • q�0b .`�6� , ailm — or . - v N X44 . 27 • � s/ • � w m o -� .r d . ep w o o ._r „ m fY - _ 0 wow O r � 4� .: .. � �0 t7 ' S0 • q� wm 4 O•i v m o O� _ ;' m v m � 4 o o _. r !��{ C► o A or a *v I co $ � o ° P al ` r 'CP ` N O of oo O iV 9 0 . qCv ® 4�C'O > s (5O . s m m w ^ 9 O v d� < VII . GO .•. 7A � per• d� • 00 Y y C3 ' CRI +ej 3s 'r O • •S 14A41114 rri s��t . 8 47 ' 5® ' ch 94 10 , 00 0 m i / i f OF oe so �(Wb 'Q / / Zr mmm m � / Cr) — cn Do caw m I til� o fa I w � o �no g 10, I 2 � — wa I m 3Nd] - ., _ V / N / O Cy � s N O� Co . 9 w D .+ CP a CY S 66L s e zee y . a 85 s f yam` r Lp �y b�O`'�� N '�P s ! 'a NO s L `" W m e L CC D ti a � wee 9s 96 s 4\ CIO a roNo Qp � 99�2a s a� do ` W Ts s EGO S. ye L6G W 06 `$ s � �" p 8• E � N / V 6'(i�. �� 0 i W s S _ �� / / ,�`• N /� 0°9 W 'a i �m 6Z•EL �o .T2!�I..1 sBSI �+ b P-•t D / �yO6 \ Yn W a'' a s 4LZ R-tt � N pia s9sL r sozZ U6 •Et• � a _ 1615 9 m �' N 4ti 'a ° m L7i• E {• ° rt1 N sssl a N 5 tzz BtgZ s yoL P,LV'SL 9Z 0 7 ` � N " S9 CO ;Z•E6 t N sL OD V cD N s ocz Ul C7 D Ln W c bZ•EL N s951 N C ) n N Dt° W i n o D N N Sscz j b6 E4 49 L EZ• EL g i I b S 69 N f m 9 E6 � b c° ZZ• E6 � I � ssLl s 69Z 77ga Sooz s ZEZ i N i N s Lzl ( S ZOZ W W 0 m i N W Op _i �• ,� N 0 n S O5l S ZS S ZYL N S OOZ ^ S 1 8l S l9L s 6ZL PL VIA DRAINAGE EASEMENT TOWN OF ITHACA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT ROPERTY LOCATION : TOMPKINS COUNTY : TOWN OF ITHACA roperty Address: Park Lane Ithaca, NY 14850 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Number: 56.-3- 13 .36 THIS INDENTURE made as of the day of 20 BETWEEN : William P. Frandsen 265 Van Etten Rd Spencer, New York 14883 referred to herein as the GRANTOR, and the TOWN OF ITHACA, a municipal corporation with offices at 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, hereinafter called GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, GRANTEE has a proposed project for the rehabilitation and maintenance of a drainage way on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels 56.-3 .4, 56.-3-5 and 56.-3-27. To gain access to these parcels an access easement across Tax Parcel 56.-3- 13 .36 is required. WHEREAS, the GRANTOR is the owner or has an interest in real property in the Town of Ithaca where access easement must cross. NOW, THEREFORE, said GRANTOR in consideration of the benefits to accrue both community wide and to said GRANTOR as a result of stabilization of property values and protection of the general health, benefit and welfare of the community, and otherwise, and in further consideration of the covenants herein contained and other good and sufficient consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant and convey to said GRANTEE, its successors and assigns forever: A permanent easement to enter upon for the purpose of maintenance and locepair of such drainage way across or upon the lands of the GRANTOR in the Town of Ithaca. The width of the easement and the approximate ation are shown on the attached map; the temporary easement is 50 feet; the width of the permanent easement shall be 20 feet; unless otherwise own on said map or unless otherwise stated herein. The Location of the Permanent easement may be adjusted with the approval of the RANTEE to coincide with future road Rights of Way or to minimize impact on future uses by the GRANTOR. The execution of this instrument by a party holding the following lien(s) on the above premises shall constitute a release from any such lien(s) of the easement granted hereby: lien All equipment, materials, and other property belonging to the GRANTEE, its agents or contractors, stored on or located on the easement areas or any other facilities constructed on said premises shall remain the property of and shall be under the control and supervision of the GRANTEE, but the GRANTOR ( 1 ) reserves the underlying fee title to said property covered by said easement, subject to the rights and privileges herein granted to the GRANTEE, and (2) GRANTOR reserves the right to use and enjoy said premises provided that such use shall not interfere with the rights granted to the GRANTEE hereunder or the construction, maintenance, operation or repair of, or cause injury or damage to drainage or water discharge services or other facilities. Whenever any work is done on the GRANTOR 'S premises, it is agreed that, without expense to the owner, all debris will be removed, the premises will be restored to substantially the same condition it was in before any such work was done insofar as such restoration is reasonably possible. GRANTEE shall not be required to restore or replace any improvements, other than pavement or other driveway surfaces, that may have been placed on the easement area by GRANTOR, GRANTOR ' S heirs, successors, or assigns. If any damage is caused to the GRANTOR'S property, or if such property has not been properly restored by the GRANTEE, the GRANTOR shall give prompt and due notice in writing to the GRANTEE at the Town of Ithaca Offices at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, immediately following any such damage or failure to restore the property. Such notice must be in writing and must be given promptly in order to enable the Town of Ithaca to notify the Town Engineer and the Contractor, if any who performed the work on the Project. Any action against the Town must be commenced within two years from the happening of the event upon which GRANTOR'S claim is based or within such shorter statutory period as may be applicable: EASEMENT -- Town of Ithaca Drainage Easement This instrument shall bind the parties hereto, their distributes, personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns.. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instruments has been duly executed by the GRANTOR(S) and/or the holders of this lien. OWNER(s) NAME OWNER(s) SIGNATURE L.S. L.S. L.S. State of New York, County of SS : ' On the day of in the year before me, the undersigned, personally appeared personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose names(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and. that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument. TOWN OF ITHACA BY Signature State of New York, County of SS : On the day of in the year bet"ore me, the undersigned, personally appeared personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose names(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument. TOWN OF ITHACA BY Signature an © 0 5 L ➢ q Z . 74 � r fn < *K r4 Irl my� p Z ➢ dop ' Z N 4 N �i 0 9 a - c - s Wi it Q r a � bD to x If ..� r. Z �o � VIA a Ci 13 4 � � -{ .� � ' oil cp 70- Ila lit y � q 51 W — P- '� c�� ' 1 A �`�'� �' if 1 __ �• 1 _` -- r o xyp Of fo 1 .J Q 154 , PC- f l September 13 , 2004 Town Board : Meeting ATTACHMENT # 10 TOWN CLERK' S MONTHLY REPORT � �,� + J TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK AUGUST, 2004 THE SUPERVISOR: PAGE ] uant to Section 27, Subd 1 of the Town Law, I hereby make the following statement of all fees and moneys received e in connection with my office during the month stated above, excepting only such fees and moneys the application Ilitpayment of which are otherwise provided for by Law : A1255 17 MARRIAGE LICENSES NO. 04090 TO 04108 297. 50 5 MISC. COPIES 11 .25 4 TAX SEARCH 20 . 00 1 RETURNED CHECK - CLERK 5 .00 1 RETURNED CHECK- W&S 5 .00 2 MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 20 . 00 TOTAL TOWN CLERK FEES 358.75 A1557 1 SPCA IMPOUND FEES 40.00 TOTAL A1557 40.00 A2540 8 BINGO PROCEEDS 38 . 50 TOTAL A2540 38.50 4 DOG LICENSES 695 . 10 TOTAL A2544 695. 10 B 10 12 BUILDING PERMIT 1 ,635 . 00 1 FOUNDATION PERMITS 100. 00 3 TEMP. CERT. OF OCCUPANCY 800.00 1 FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS 50.00 3 ZBA AREA & USE VARIANCES 300.00 1 ZBA SPECIAL APPROVALS 100.00 TOTAL B2110 25985.00 B2115 1 SUBDV. REV. INITIAL APL. 100.00 1 SUBDV. REV. PRELIM. PLAT 180.00 1 SUBDV. REV. FINAL PLAT 20.00 3 SITE PLAN PRELIM. PLAN 23300 .00 TOTAL B2115 29600.00 TOWN CLERK' S MONTHLY REPORT AUGUST, 2004 page 2 DISBURSEMENTS PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR GENERAL FUND 1 , 132 . 35 PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR PART TOWN FUND 5 ,585 .00 PAID TO COUNTY TREASURER FOR DOG LICENSES 131 .40 PAID TO AG & MARKETS FOR DOG LICENSES 24 . 00 PAID TO NYS HEALTH DEPT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSES 382 . 50 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 79255.25 SEPTEMBER 8 , 2004 SUPERVISOR STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, TOWN OF ITHACA I, TEE-ANN HUNTER, being duly sworn, says that I am the Clerk of the TOWN OF ITHACA that the foregoing is a full and true statement of all Fees and moneys received by me during the month above stated, excepting only such Fees the application and payment of which are otherwise provided for by law. Subscribed and sworn to before me this Town Clerk day of 20 Notary Public AGENDA # 19 TOWN OF ITHACA Highway Department's Monthly Board Report September 13, 2004 Administration We have had a challenging summer. It has been exceedingly wet with no end in sight. The extra rain has put a strain on our resources and has made planning our projects difficult. We have had a dramatic increase in our calls from the public . The extra water is finding all the weaknesses in everyone's drainage systems . We have been able to work on all our major projects except the project on Winston Court. We were able to get a lot of work done in spite of the rain. The item we are having trouble getting to is preventative maintenance . The contractors we deal with are in the same leaky boat that we are . They have been delayed many times because of the rains . The bright side of all of this is the many plantings we did this year were all watered well . Road Work I e were able to surface treat some roads in August with oil and stone, namely Juniper Drive, newood Terrace, Hickory Place, Orchard Hill Road, Burns Road, Happy Lane, Indian Creek Road, well as Coddington Road Community Center 's parking lot. This will extend the life of these roads r another five (5) years. We opened Caldwell Road early in August—in time for the students' return. We are hoping that Caldwell Road will be a much safer road for all the traveling public . We were able to observe Caldwell Road during a torrential downpour and the drainage functioned as we had planned . With the opening of Caldwell Road, we were able to repair the surface of Judd Falls Road by putting on a topcoat of asphalt . We have continued our roadside mowing and culvert installations around Town. We have repainted many crosswalks and are looking at contracting out that job . Signs have been installed and replaced throughout the Town . We worked with the Town of Newfield, Town of Danby, Tompkins County, the Village of Cayuga Heights, as well as New York State DOT helping them when they needed it. We had cleanups after several major storms, as well as completing the restoration work on Rich Road and Pineview Terrace. We cleaned up a large tree that came down in the Bostwick Cemetery breaking several headstones, which we repaired , Ie put out traffic counters on Judd Falls Road, and then we painted a crosswalk at Plantations and am put out counters . We will be striping Judd Falls Road and will again put out counters . We are ttempting to see what affects they have on the behavior of traffic on that road . Parks Work Tutelo Park has really begun to shape up . The sub-grade was established for the ball field and parking lot. The drainage was installed . The concrete pads were poured for the installation of the dugouts—the structures have been ordered . We will continue to work on this park in September . Welcome to Ithaca sign plantings were installed on Route 13 South and Route 79 West . The regular park maintenance was continued throughout the month with cleanups after several major storm events . A community service project with Cornell Post Program was completed at Winners Circle with plantings and fencing installed on the Winners Circle trail . The lay out for the initial phase of the William and Hannah Pew Trail (section of the East Ithaca Recreation Way) and parking lot have been accomplished . We have cleared out the area for the parking lot to start drying it out so that we will be able to get the hydro-axe in and clear the trail this fall . Water and Sewer Work In August we worked on installing power and antennas to our tanks and pump stations for the system telemetry. The telemetry will allow us to operate the system so that we do not need to physically go and turn the pumps on and off. Plantings and landscaping at Coy Glen pump station, Woolf Lane pump station, and Eco Village water tank site were accomplished . We also installed a valve at the hospital so that the new additi (to the Cayuga Medical Center) could move forward . Water and sewer inspections for various projects were ongoing as well as mowing and maintaining the water and sewer easements around Town. September Projects 1 . Continue ditching, hot patching, roadside mowing, and sign work . 2 . Play structure maintenance and sealing . 3. Continue inspection of utility installation at Southwoods . 4 . Continue working on Tutelo Park site . 5 . Continue working on William and Hannah Pew Trail . 6 . Complete shrub trimming at park and trail sites . 74 Surface treat water tank access roads at Bostwick Road and Northview Road . 8 . Fall lawn repairs. 9 . Inspections for South Hill Water Transmission Main. ghk Town Engineer' s Report for 9/13/2004 Town Board Meeting GENERAL Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan The plan is posted on the County Planning Department website at http ://www.tompkins-co.org/planning. Paper copies are available at the County Planning Department and the Tompkins County Public Library, 101 East Green Street. The final draft of our Plan was submitted to SEMO and FEMA the week of August 16`s and, after a review meeting with SEMO, the Plan should be close to winning federal approval : We should know in the next two to three weeks if we need to make any additional changes to the Plan. If SEMO and FEMA approve the final draft of our Plan, we' ll be ready to begin the process of formal Plan adoption. From SEMO' s and FEMA' s perspective, this will entail passing a resolution of Plan adoption and signing the plan adoption page of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. To facilitate the Plan adoption process, the county staff has prepared a draft resolution of adoption that the Town can adapt to meet the needs of the Board . SEMO' s and FEMA's comments are expected in mid- September, which should allow time to update the plan and review the Plan updates prior to the November Town Board Meeting. The Town should adopt the plan by November 2004 to meet the FEMA "requirements. EARTH FILL PERMITS One earth fill permit was issued for 138 Westhaven Road for placement of clean fill to improve grading for a single family home. The source of fill material was an excavation at the City of Ithaca Elm Street water storage tank which is being repaired. WATER PROJECTS SCLIWC Office Addition Construction is continuing to progress slowly on the office addition at the Bolton Point Water Plant. Structural steel is completed. Floors have been poured, the roof constructed and exterior framing is underway. Water SCADA System The Town Engineering staff has been working with Bolton Point staff to develop a wireless Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to improve operation of the SCLIWC water system, which includes the Town of Ithaca water system. The Town has installed equipment at the Hungerford Hill Tank, the Bostwick Road Tank, The new West Hill Tank, the Oakwood Lane control building and the Stone Quarry Road ,Control valve building as part of the wireless control system. Bolton Point staff are programming the system it should be operational by the end of September. East Hill Transmission Main and Storage Tank The Town Engineering staff has completed the Final Design for a proposed transmission main on Ellis Hollow Road from Summerhill Lane to the proposed SCLIWC 3 million-gallon tank on Cornell University Hungerford Hill Road property. The Town Engineer is continuing to work with the Bolton Point General Manager to acquire a permanent easement for the tank site. The appraisal for the site has been completed and negotiations with Cornell are moving ahead. The project will be constructed under two contracts, one for the water main construction, and one for the Tank construction. The Commission is in the process of authorizing the capital project, which will be provided to the member municipalities for approval . South Hill Transmission Main Favorable bids have been received for the second phase of the South Hill Transmission Main and a recommendation of as award of contract will be on the Town Board Agenda. a TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 9/ 13/2004 West Hill Water Tank and Water Main Town forces have completed the site landscaping and the control system has been ordered for installation in August. All punch list items have been completed and the project will be closed out with final payment in September. Coy Glen Pump Station and Water Main The Pump station is operational . Full utilization of the pump station will not be possible until the remainder of the South Hill Transmission main is completed. Emergency Power Supply The staff is in the process of installing the appropriate transfer switchgear and generator connections at the Pearsall Place, Coddington Road, Troy Road, Coy Glen Road, Oakwood Lane and Christopher Lane pump stations. The Woolf Lane pump station was installed with the appropriate switchgear. The portable generators will be used in the event of major power outages affecting the pump stations . SEWER PROJECTS South woods Subdivision Force Main The Developer is continuing construction the high lift pump station and 4" DIP force main to the existing sewer on Troy Road . The Existing gravity sewer on Troy Road will be extended approximately 300 feet to the south side of Troy Road as part of this project. IAWWTF Phosphorus Removal Project The contract for construction has been awarded and foundation construction has started with pile installation. Problems bearing capacity of the designed Piling system have resulted in redesign of the piles and an expected cost increase of approximately $250,000. Joint Interceptor Sewer Projects The Town Engineering staff is working on a capital improvement plan with the City Water and Sewer Division for improving the interceptor sewers that are jointly used by the Town and City. No major construction is planned before 2005 . STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Northeast The engineering staff and engineering interns have been surveying drainage systems in the northeast area of the Town to prepare a watershed evaluation and Stormwater management plan for the area. Development of the drainage plan is scheduled for this winter. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LINDERMAN CREEK PHASE THREE • Linderman Creek Phase Three is nearing completion. The Town Engineering staff is inspecting the site periodically ensure compliance with the approved site plan . Town Engineer's Report September 13, 2004 Daniel R. Walker Page 2 9/ 13/2004 TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 9/13/2004 CAYUGA MEDICAL CENTER Site work for the Emergency Room addition has begun with construction of storm water management facilities, utility relocation and new parking lot construction. Engineering staff are inspecting the water and sewer relocation work and are monitoring the sediment and erosion control practices. WEIDERMEIR SUBDIVISION Construction of the driveway improvements and water and sewer facilities has been started on this five-lot subdivision at the intersection of Slaterville Road and Burns Road. Sediment and erosion controls are being monitored. SOUTHWOODS Construction of phase II improvements is underway with Town staff inspecting water main, sewer main and road construction and also monitoring storm water management practices. Town Engineer's Report September 13, 2004 Daniel R. Walker Page 3 9/13/2004 ( %Wnp o oty OFIp a TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT is zi 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N .Y . 14850 '( o� Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. (607) 273-1747 Director of Planning FAX (607) 273-1704 Planning Director' s Report for September 13 , 2004 Town Board Meeting DEVELOPMENT REVIEW July 27 , 2004 Special Meeting (replacing August 3 , 2004 Meeting): Verizon Wireless Telecommunication Facility, 756 Dryden Road : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Special Permit for the proposed Verizon Wireless telecommunication facility located on the existing water tank at the McConville Barn of Cornell University, 756 Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65 - 1 -5 . 2, Low Density Residential zone. The project involves installing 12 panel antennas on the existing water tank and a +/- 12 ' x 30 ' equipment shelter on a concrete pad near the base of the tank. Cornell University, Owner, Upstate Cellular Network d/b/a Verizon Wireless , Applicant, Robert W. Burgdorf, Agent. Tompkins County South Hill Communication Tower, Ithaca College Campus : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval and a Special Permit for the proposed Tompkins County South Hill communication tower located on the Ithaca College campus , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Medium Density Residential zone. The project involves construction of a 180-foot self- supporting monopole tower and a 300 square foot ( 12 ' x 25 ' ) building located adjacent to the existing Ithaca College ' s 150 ' guyed tower for the County' s Public Safety Communication System . The existing Ithaca College tower will be removed once the existing transmitters are relocated to the new structure. Ithaca College, Owner; Tompkins County, Applicant; Mikel Shakarjian, Agent. August 17 , 2004 Meeting: Cortright Subdivision — Modification of Condition, 653 Elmira Road : The Planning Board granted approval for the modification of previous conditions of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 35 - 1 - 18 , on Elmira Road (divided into 45 . 141 and 2 . 617 acre parcels) , Neighborhood Commercial and Conservation Zones . The original subdivision approval was granted on August 22 , 2000, and required consolidation of the 45 . 141 -acre parcel with adjacent Tax Parcel No . 35 - 1 -5 . 2 within six months . ' The applicant (NYS Office of Parks is negotiating to acquire the large parcel for the Black Diamond Trail) received two extensions of the consolidation timeframe requirement, which most recently will expire on August 31 , 2004 . The applicant is requesting an open-ended extension. Sally A ': Cortright, Owner; NYS Office of Parks - Finger Lakes Region, Applicant; Sue A. Poelvoorde, Agent, Westview 32 Lot Subdivision, Schickel Road : The Planning Board granted Final Subdivision Approval for Phase 1 of the proposed Westview 32-Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of T�otiun of�Itha�a�Atanrt�n D�rect'��'�Report �' ' . Septemberl3�ZDQ4 To►vn�B©aid M�n '" Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road) , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 36-2-3 .2, Low Density Residential Zone. Phase 1 consists of 7 lots . The overall proposal includes extending Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 31 residential lots and one 1 '/z +/- acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Albern, Agent. Cornell University Arthropod Facility, Game Farm Road : The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Arthropod Facility located off Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 64- 1 -2 , Planned Development Zone No . 9 . The project involves construction of a +/- 3 ,600 square foot one story arthropod research building containing laboratories , rearing rooms, greenhouses , and support space. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant ; Jeffrey Lallas , Agent, Cornell University East Campus Research Facility, Tower and Campus Roads: The Planning Board considered a sketch plan for the proposed Cornell University East Campus Research Facility located on the northeast corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos . 63 - 1 - 2 . 2 and 67- 1 - 10 . 3 , Low Density Residential Zone. Phase I of the proposal involves construction of an approximately 80,000 square foot multi-story building, with a possible Phase II 4- story addition consisting of 24 ,000 square feet. The facility will house animals used for research and teaching, and will be directly connected to the College of Veterinary Medicine. The project will require demolition of the existing one-story building that currently occupies the proposed site. Cornell University, Owner; John M . Keefe, Applicant/Agent, CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECTS/FUNCTIONS The following are accomplishments or issues that have been dealt with over the past month . SEQR Reviews for Zoning Board : One SEQR review for the Zoning Board was done since the August report : request for variances and special approval to convert an accessory building (barn) into a dwelling unit (or guest house) , located at 915 Coddington Road, Low Density Residential Zone, Constance and Thomas Bruce, Appellants . Codes and Ordinances Committee : The August 18`h meeting was cancelled , and the next meeting is scheduled for September 15 , 2004 , where the agenda will include continuation of discussions regarding possible amendments to the telecommunications facility provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and a proposed draft stream buffer ordinance, and possibly suggested Zoning Ordinance amendments to address concerns raised by the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets . Transportation Committee: The August 19 , 2004 meeting was cancelled. The next meeting is scheduled for September 16 , 2004 . Conservation Board : The Board met on August 5 , 2004 . Discussion items included reports of the various committees, a progress report on research regarding the impacts of the large deer population (as requested by the Town Board) , continuation of discussion of the draft revised Environmental Review Law , and a report on a field trip to the Six Mile Creek area with Dan Karig (Town of Caroline Conservation Advisory Council) . The next meeting is scheduled for September 2 , 2004 . 2 �Septemb��13, ZQQ4 �wrt,8oar�� t�txg � MOA Planning Coalition : The next meeting of the Coalition is scheduled for September 29, 2004 . Inter-municipal Trail Committee: The next meeting is scheduled for September 20, 2004. Lake Source Cooling Monitoring : Cornell University has distributed materials, including a draft Five-Year Summary Report, a draft Statistical Analysis , and a letter from Cornell to NYSDEC requesting modification of the LSC In-Lake Monitoring Plan. A meeting of the Lake Source Cooling Data Sharing Group is scheduled for Wednesday,September 8 , 2004 at 3 : 00 p .m. to discuss the above-referenced documents . These materials were sent to the Town ' s consultant, Benchmark Environmental Engineering & Science (letter from J . Kanter to Paul Werthman, dated August 5 , 2004) , with a request for Benchmark to review the materials and advise the Town Board on their completeness and accuracy, and on Cornell ' s request to modify the monitoring plan. 2005 Budget Proposal : The Planning Department' s proposed 2005 Budget was prepared and submitted to the Supervisor and Budget Officer. Agreement with Tompkins County Regarding Referral of Planning and Zoning Actions Pursuant to General Municipal Law : The inter-municipal agreement between the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County excluding certain planning and zoning actions from review under General Municipal Law was signed by both parties and is now on file in Town Hall . This agreement was approved by the Town Board in Resolution No . 2004-032 on February 9 , 2004 . Meeting with City of Ithaca and Tompkins County Officials Regarding West Hill Development : Representatives from the Town and City of Ithaca and Tompkins County met to discuss recent and pending development proposals on West Hill . Discussions focused on ways to promote ongoing discussions among these parties to coordinate approaches to development. It was agreed that the Tompkins County Planning Commissioner would coordinate a meeting with County, City and Town planners to have additional (and possibly ongoing) discussions on such topics . This follow- up meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 23 , 2004 . Overlook at West Hill Lawsuit: Justice Mulvey of the Supreme Court of Tompkins County dismissed the petition of neighbors against the Town of Ithaca and Aris Investments regarding the Overlook at West Hill development in a decision issued on August 10, 2004. Fall Newsletter: The deadline for submission of articles for the Fall Newsletter was September 1 , 2004 . This issue will feature the activities of the new Recreation and Human Services Committee, and will include a survey of Town residents regarding their views on recreation and human services . The Planning Department is coordinating the preparation of the Newsletter, which is scheduled to be delivered to Town residents during the first week of October. 3 II Agenda No : 19 Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board , September 13 , 2004 Human Resources Report for August , 2004 Personnel Committee : Committee did not meet in August . Safety Committee : Committee does not meet in August . Training and Development : The schedule for the fall Friday Brainteasers Series has been confirmed . Attached is a copy of the series schedule . This series is offered to County , City, Workforce NY members and all town and villages free of charge . Payroll : Norma , Williamson Law Book has completed al, second conversion of the data in our current payroll system . Many of the problems that have been found have been worked out and we will be ready to run the program live for the first payroll in October. Employees will be notified in September about the upcoming move in payroll systems . Personnel — Civil Service : Jon Munson converted from Seasonal Laborer to regular full time Laborer on August 23rd. Glenn Miller began as a seasonal Laborer on August 30th for a seven -week period . Advertising was done for crossing guards p uards to replace the guard for Dewitt Middle School on Warren Road . A press release was sent out in conjunction with the City of Ithaca that was ran several times . A press release was also submitted to promote the youth employment program through the Joint Youth Commission . The youth that have been working at Town Hall left in August to go to college or to participate in fall sports . We are currently working with Carissa Mann , Youth Coordinator, ;toflll the open positions . Commercial Insurance ( Ithaca Agency — Selective Insurance Company) : The new pieces of equipment ordered and received have been added for insurance coverage . Workers' Compensation ( Public Employers Risk Management Assoc — PERMA) • There was one injury in August , which did not cause loss time . The injury was a strained lower back . Disability Insurance : IL There was one employee out on disability in August . They are anticipated to return to work the first week in September. Unemployment Insurance : There continues to be one past employee collecting unemployment. Submitted By: Judith C . Drake , PHR , Human Resources Manager o � OFIT� TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 46 1 www . town . ithacamy .us TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water &Sewer) 273- 1656 ENGINEERING 273- 1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 ZONING 273- 1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 AGENDA # 19 To : Cathy Valentino, Supervisor Town Of Ithaca Sandy Gittelman, Chair Recreation & Human Services Committee Will Burbank, Councilperson Peter Stein, Councilperson Carolyn Grigorov, Councilperson William Lesser, Councilperson Herb Engman, Councilperson From : Mamie Kirchgessner, Recreation and Youth Coordinator August 2004 This month the questionnaire component of the Cass Park Survey Project was completed . The Town in conjunction with the City completed random 'interviewing of 196 users of the pool . The primary interviewer for the undertaking is student intern Jessica Myers . Jessica will be completing analysis of the data after we gain access to a statistical analysis program. The more comprehensive survey instrument for the Towns Recreation & Human Service Committee was completed and was transmitted to The Newsletter Editor Chris Balestra with a cover article for Fall publication. Town Clerk' s staff John Coakley was critical in layout with most of the Town staff providing input. Carrie Whitmore along with John has offered to assist with data entry as surveys are returned . The goal of this project is to assist the committee implement a process to determine funding priorities based on identified community concerns . Lisa Carrier-Titti will have the document available for down load on the Town' s Website when the Newsletter goes to publication. On Sunday, September 26, at 1 : 00 p .m. , members of the public are invited to gather with representatives of the Tutelo Indian nation to commemorate the Native American tribe's historical presence in the Inlet Valley, and Coreorgonel, a Tutelo community that was destroyed by an American army under General John Sullivan in September 1779 . The event will take place at the undeveloped Town of Ithaca Tutelo Park on Bostwick Road. The ceremony will be followed by a tour highlighting the variety of nut and other trees significant in Tutelo and Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) life located within the future park site. Weather permitting, those who would like to are also welcome to bring along a picnic lunch and share their thoughts and ideas about enhancing local knowledge of the Tutelo and their history. At the request of a constituent Senior Citizen Recreational softball league is being actualized . After an event to ascertain if there was interest to support such an endeavor a weekly turn out has occurred at the Coddington Road Community Center. Lifelong is cosponsoring with the town. Page 2 On Saturday August 28 , 2004 the Ithaca Journal published a story about the venture . As a result more individuals contacted me to sign up . The Boy Scout representative, Jay True met with Doug Austic (Ulysses Town Supervisor), Cathy Valentino, Fred Noteboom, Rich Schoch, Dan Walker, and myself to discuss possibilities of expanded utilization of the facility to prevent the need to sell the property to probable private developers . A site visit to Camp Barton occurred on July 29, 2004 . The Boy Scout Camp only operates 5 weeks in the summer but could be made available for public programming . A rental price list was requested to consider development of programs for Tompkins County Youth. Possible public and private fund sources are being researched for any possible collaborative effort to create more recreational opportunities and choice . Additional program options are being explored with the Coddington Road Community Center and other potential providers . On August 11 , 20041 attended training offered by the Council of Community Services of New York State on program evaluation. The information will be useful as the Town determines criterion for programs we offer. On August 19 , 20041 also attended a meeting sponsored by the Tompkins County Coalition for Families featuring Steve Hamilton, Associate Provost for Outreach for Cornell . As a result I have been in contact with him about accessing Cornell resources to benefit Town Recreation planning . Additionally I continue my observation of activities funded by the Town. I attended a meeting of the Joint Youth Commission as a regular part of my job responsibilities . Information obtained at that meeting resulted in an expansion of the procedure to obtain a range of program options for youth of the Town, Cayuga Heights and the Village of Lansing by giving funders an extended opportunity to submit proposals. I have been contacted by a number of service providers with some expanded program opportunities . Proposals are now due September 30 directly to the Town for transmittal to the Joint Youth Commission.