No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2006-10-05Budget Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Thursday, October 5, 2006 p.m. at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Presentation of draft Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan, and consideration of referring the draft Transportation Plan to the Planning Board for a recommendation 4. Consent Agenda a. Town of Ithaca Abstract b. Authorization for Conservation Board Member to Attend 2007 Conference on the Environment, October 13-15, 2007, Chautauqua, NY Town Board Budget Work Session 1. Supervisor's Presentation of Town of Ithaca 2007 Tentative Budget 2. Board Discussion of Town of Ithaca 2007 Tentative Budget 3. Consider Setting a Public Hearing to Consider 2007 Assessment Rolls for Special Benefit Districts and Special Benefit Areas 4. Discuss and Consider Approval of Bolton Point Wages for 2007 5. Presentation and Discussion of Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 2007 Tentative Budget 6. Discussion and Consider Adoption of Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 2007 Tentative Budget as 2007 Preliminary Budget 7. Consider Setting Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of 2007 Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Budget 8. Discussion and Consider Approval of Elected Officials' Salaries for 2007 9. Discussion and Consider Approval of Employee Wages for 2007 10. Discussion and Consider Adoption of Town of Ithaca 2007 Tentative Budget as the 2007 Town of Ithaca Preliminary Budget 11. Consider Setting a Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of 2007 Town of Ithaca Final Budget 12. Consider Adjournment Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 BUDGET MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2006 AT 5:30 P.M. 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, NY 14850 THOSE PRESENT: Supervisor Valentino, Councilman Burbank, Councilman Engman, Councilman Stein, Councilman Cowie, Councilwoman Leary STAFF PRESENT: Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Nicole Tedesco, Planner; EXCUSED: Councilwoman Gittelman OTHERS PRESENT: Nicole Tedesco, Planner CALL TO ORDER Supervisor Valentino called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3 - Presentation of draft Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan, and consideration of referring the draft Transportation Plan to the Planning Board for a recommendation (Attachment #1 - PowerPoint presentation. Transportation Plan Summary, and Draft Executive Summary: Transportation Plan. Town of Ithaca) Mr. Kanter told the Board planning staff wanted to give the Board a quick overview of the Transportation Plan with the hope that they would consider referring the plan onto the Planning Board for a recommendation, which would really start a more official process that the Town has been going through for several years with the plan development. The is something the Transportation Committee, under the current direction of Will Burbank, has been working on the Transportation Plan since 2003. The Plan stems from a recommendation from the Comprehensive Plan that had a lot of stated transportation related goals and objects but did not get into much detail about the transportation system. The Town Board assigned the responsibility of preparing a transportation plan to the committee. Mr. Kanter told the Board that Ms. Tedesco has been a great help in putting the plan together ad working with the committee. It has been a time and work intensive project. They have held three public meetings: the first one in 2004 on goals and objectives, in 2005 there was a public information meeting on the inventory and analysis and identification of possible problems with the transportation system, in 2006 a third meeting focusing on the recommendations that have become the focal point of the plan. The Board received a copy of the draft Plan, an executive summary, and a brochure that can be used for publicity purposes and to get the public interested in coming out to hear more about the plan. Information and Plan materials on also on the Town website. Mr. Kanter introduced Nicole Tedesco who gave a brief overview of the contents of the plan. Ms. Tedesco highlighted recommendations from various sections of the Plan as follows: 1 p Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 The Transportation Plan recommendation calls for the Town Board to adopt the Plan. Beyond that it calls for the plan to be updated as needed, and potentially amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the Transportation Plan as an element. The Roadway Issues recommendations call for the adoption of the updated Official Highway Map. It also recommends the adoption and use of design guidelines. The guidelines are not meant to pre-engineer a roadway; they're meant to be a toolbox of ideas that a Planning Board or departmental staff can use when they are working on, for example, a subdivision. The Roadway Issues recommendations also deal with speeding, calling for increased enforce and design changes to encourage drivers to drive safely even when law enforcement isn't present. The Biking and Walking recommendations call for expansion of biking and walking opportunities using the information provided by the design guidelines and the information provided by maps #13 and #14 in the Plan. Adoption of the Transportation Plan would effectively update the interim Sidewalk Policy of 2003. The biking and walking recommendations also include ideas on how the Town could education and encourage residents to take advantage of the biking and walking opportunities in the Town. Transit Issues recommendations call for improve transit in the Town and specifically to look at how Park and Ride could be expanded. Regional Cooperation recommendations call for the continued and improved coordinate between the Town and other municipalities, organizations, and agencies. j ! I ! The Capital Budget recommendations call for continued capital budgeting for transportation needs and they also suggest a few projects that could appear on the capital budget such as the walkways on Hanshaw Road, Honness Lane, and Coddington Road. The Land Use Planning recommendations call attention to subdivision, site plan, and zoning issues that could potentially be improved in order to support the goals and objectives of the Plan. Ms. Tedesco asked for questions or comments from the Board. Councilman Engman commented that he had not had a chance to sit down and really read every word. He has, however, glanced through it and made notes. He thought the plan was terrific, extremely well done. He noticed and was pleased that some of the suggestions he made about trail corridors were included. Councilman Engman stated there was just one thing that bothered him a bit. That is, in the list of potential new roadway corridors, the northeast connector road is listed. He recalls the study being done in 1982 and roundly rejected by the community. He would like to see it not included because it is so old and was rejected by the community. Or he would like the report to say that the Town has no priority for the issue. Mr. Engman reported having participated in the discussions back in 1982 and this northeast connector would destroy Monkey Run. Ms. Tedesco reiterated that Mr. Engman would like less emphasis on this northeast connector road and include a little bit more history about how it was discussed and basically discounted as an option. r Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November P, 2006 Councilman Stein asked why it was included in the plan. Ms. Tedesco explained that the section it is discussed in is "Related Plans and Policies". It is there partly for historical purposes because the NEST study was a major undertaking. Additionally, it was there at the insistent request of two residents of the Town. Mr. Kanter added that Mr. Engman is correct that the original idea of this northeast connector goes back to the 1980s, but the NEST study was done much more recently, completed in 2001. It had similar, but different concepts of possible locations for such a connector road. It basically, historically indicated why the 1980s version could not be done any more basically because of the way development has occurred in the Town. Secondly, it recommended that if regionally and at the State, County, and local level people were interested in a way to divert traffic out of existing neighborhoods then municipalities should get together on a regional basis to look further into the possibility of that kind of a road which would inevitably have to be farther east than was originally thought about in the 1982 study. As Nicole mentioned it is included primarily for reference to the NEST study so that idea of a connector road was not rejected officially by anyone, but on the other hand it never was decided to be pursued. So it really is just out there as something that was studied and could be pursued if people are interested in. Councilman Stein thought that the document should reflect what Mr. Kanter just explained so that people understand why it is included. Ms. Tedesco stated she would make that clarification. Mr. Kanter stated that there is a lot of time to read and review the plan, and to give comments and suggestions. He was hoping the board would give the direction to send the document to the Planning Board so that they could start the process of looking at it as well, understanding that the document is a draft. It is not a final. To get that process going they could start with a more formal public input process of public hearings. He asked for any questions, comments, or feedback from the Board. Councilman Engman commented that he looked at the bicycle and pedestrian improvement list and one connection is from Trumansburg Road - City to Hospital. He would like to see Overlook included in that because one of the original goals was to make sure there was a connection from the new neighborhoods to the City. Councilman Engman moved that the Transportation Plan be referred to the Planning Board for their recommendations. Supervisor Valentino seconded the motion. Councilman Stein thought that it all sounded fine, but stated he remained relatively unclear as to the significance of the vote the board is about to take, to send something on to the Planning Board. Mr. Stein recalled that some time ago he asked Mr. Kanter to schedule a meeting, which he acknowledges is happening, to address those things: what authority the Town Board has and how it interacts with the Planning Board. Mr. Stein asked if, in sending this on to the Planning Board, the Town Board is giving up whatever authority they have. Councilman Burbank stated his understanding that the Town Board is not giving up their authority, they will be the final decider. It is the Town Board's plan and it ultimately is the will of where the Town envisions it's going vis-a-vis transportation. But the Planning Board's recommendation and study is a critical part of the process, and they will be holding public hearings. Mr. Burbank strongly encouraged the Board to carefully review the document. The committee also wanted the careful review and comments of the Planning Board. Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 Mr. Stein confessed that he hadn't read the document stating it made him reluctant to vote for it, but he could understand what Mr. Burbank was saying regarding wanting to get other input. He wanted to make sure that a vote to send it on to the Planning Board was not irresponsible on his part. Mr. Kanter added that one of the things with rezoning issues is that a decision has to be made about the lead agency and typically that has been delegated to the Planning Board to do on those because there is an in depth review of site plan issues along with the rezoning. In this case, the Town Board is the only agency involved in adopting the plan and would take responsibility for all of it. He did not think a referral to the Planning Board was mandated in this situation, but the committee is asking the Board to do that as an addition step. Supervisor Valentino brought the board's attention back to the motion that had been made to send the Transportation Plan on to the Planning Board for their review, comments and recommendations. Mr. Carvill asked if there was any way they could encourage the rail industry to increase and expand passenger traffic between Ithaca and New York City. Ms. Tedesco did not know if there was anything that the Town itself could do, because of complex economic forces. She supposed that it could be included as a recommendation that the Town, in general, supports an expansion of passenger train. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-195: Refer the Transportation Plan to the Planning Board for a Recommendation BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca refer the draft Transportation Plan to the Planning Board for their review, comments, and recommendation. MOVED: Councilman Engman SECONDED: Supervisor Valentino VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. Motion carried unanimously. Supervisor Valentino thanked Ms. Tedesco, Planning staff, the Transportation Committee and it's Chair Will Burbank for their hard work. Ms. Gittelman wanted to thank whoever wrote the document for the clarity of the writing. Mr. Kanter told her it was largely Ms. Tedesco's work. Ms. Tedesco in turn thanked the committee for the clear direction they had given her. She also thanked George Conneman for his work. She invited board members to contact her with any questions. RECREATION PARTNERSHIP (Attachment #2 - Resolution in support of continuing Countv collaboration in the Recreation Partnership) Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 Supervisor Valentino stated that there were two resolutions, one prepared by Councilman Stein the other drafted by the Recreation Partnership folks, along with information from Councilwoman Gittelman for the board to review and she asked that they take a few minutes to read them. Councilman Burbank was unsure of the differences between the resolutions. Supervisor Valentino thought the proposed resolution from the Recreation Partnership had more background information in it. The Resolved also strongly encourages the Partnership Board to develop new funding streams and to try to find ways to reduce expenses. Councilman Burbank noted that the other resolution is specifically aimed at the County Legislature, asking for continued funding. Councilwoman Gittelman explained that County funding is continued through 2007 then it will be cut. At the Recreation Partnership Board meeting, they were hoping for a vote of confidence in the Recreation Partnership to add the Partnership expenses to the funding yearly and not have to make a special effort every year. Councilman Stein stated he did not realize another resolution was being prepared, but felt that the one he draft was better. His argument for it was: 1) it is a political documents and it's trying to ask the legislature to do something. In Mr. Stein's experience, when you write letters to your Congressmen, if you write an individual letter, it's a lot more effective. So his resolution is different, it's written by the Town of Ithaca, and is not a copy of what somebody else does. 2) it's shorter, which he thinks is always better. 3) the last Resolved in the "othef resolution contains a different issue, an issue that has been contentious in the past, the business of finding other providers. Councilwoman Gittelman commented that the last Resolved in Councilman Stein's motion is negative. She would rather it be a positive Resolved. She suggested the language be changed to read, "to restore full funding of the Recreation Partnership in the Tompkins County annual budget." Councilman Stein accepted the change. Councilwoman Leary agreed that the final resolved in the drafted by the Partnership people could be taken a lot of different ways, in ways that the Town Board might not necessarily support. Commenting on both resolutions, she stated that neither mentioned the decrease in funding from higher levels of government as part of the problem. The revenue stream to the County has been reduced for various reasons. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-196: Petition Tompkins Countv Legislature to restore full funding for the Recreation Partnership in the annual Countv budget WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Legislature, as all other governmental bodies, has been faced with dramatically escalating costs and mandates associated with the delivery of services, and WHEREAS, the Legislature is additionally faced with the dilemma of having to find ways of keeping property taxes as low as possible, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca understands those responsibilities of the Legislature, while at the same time shares their concern about cuts in social programs, and Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 WHEREAS cuts to recreational programs will result in a decrease of the quality of life for citizens of all of the municipalities within the County, including many residing in the Town of Ithaca, and ^ WHEREAS, access to recreational programs and facilities is by nature a countywide problem, and not easily addressed by individual municipalities, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca understands the difficulty of budget decisions and acknowledges the fact that the responsibility for County Budget decisions lies solely within the purview of the Tompkins County Legislature, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca respectfully petitions the Tompkins County Legislature to restore full funding for the Recreation Partnership in the annual County budget. Moved: Councilman Stein Seconded: Councilwoman Gittelman Vote: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye. COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Supervisor Valentino introduced a resolution in support of the Council of Governments grant application for New York State shared municipal service program, the health insurance initiative. The resolution came over from the County. The Council of Governments is putting together a grant to hire a consultant to help put health consortium together. The reason the resolution is in front of them is that it has to be out by October 23, 2006. Mr. Whicher needs letters of support to go with the grant. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-197: In Support of the Council of Governments' Grant Application for New York State Shared Municipal Services Program - Local Health Insurance Incentive Award WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has joined the Tompkins County Council of Governments, and WHEREAS, the Council of Governments has resolved to apply for an incentive award under the New York State Shared Services Program, and WHEREAS, the grant will assist the municipalities in Tompkins County to create a local health consortium, and WHEREAS, the health care consortium will seek to develop health care coverage for all municipalities with the intent to provide a net savings to taxpayers of Tompkins County, now, therefore, be it n Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 RESOLVED, that Supervisor Catherine Valentino is hereby authorized to act on behalf of the Town of Ithaca in all matters related to this grant, and be it further RESOLVED, that the County of Tompkins shall be designated as the Lead Applicant and that the County Administrator is authorized to act as the contact person for this grant. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Stein VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. SHARED SERVICES (Attachment #3 - names of proposed committee members) Supervisor Valentino brought the Board's attention to the resolution passed by the City of Ithaca the previous evening. Supervisor Valentino told the Board she had basically used their language in the resolution before the Board. The names of proposed committee members were provided to the board with the resolution. Supervisor Valentino told the Board they would need to appoint a liaison to the group. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-198: Appointnfient of Peter Stein as Town of Ithaca Liaison to the Joint Studv Group to Investigate Possible Shared Services and Possibie Consolidation between the Citv of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca appoints Peter Stein as their liaison to the City of Ithaca / Town of Ithaca Study Group to investigate possible shared services and possible consolidation between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca. MOVED: Councilman Engman SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittleman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. Motion carried. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-199: Approving a Joint Studv Group to Investigate Possible Shared Services and Possible Consolidation between the Citv of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council and the Town of Ithaca Town Board, desiring to examine the mutual benefits that could be achieved through possible shared services and possible consolidation measures, have agreed by votes at their respective meetings of May 3, 2006 and May 8, 2006, to pursue such investigation through the establishment of a joint study group, and Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca voted in favor of creating a study group to examine, among others, • the legal and regulatory aspects of shared services and possible consolidation • the pros and cons for both shared services and possible consolidation • the financial opportunities and liabilities of consolidation or shared services • an analysis of the property and sales tax scenarios for a single jurisdiction • the concept of a new jurisdiction • a unified comprehensive plan WHEREAS, the Town Board voted that the study group would be composed of eight members, mutually agreed upon by the City of Ithaca Common Council and the Ithaca Town Board, with representatives having knowledge of finance, law, planning, public works, police, or organizational culture, including one elected official liaison from each jurisdiction, making ten members, and WHEREAS, the Town Board directed that such a study group and its chair be nominated by a joint City-Town nomination committee consisting of the Mayor, the Supervisor, one Common Council member, and one Town Board member, and WHEREAS, the nominating committee, consisting of Mayor Peterson, Supervisor Valentino, Alderperson Tomlan, and Councilman Stein, has met three times, beginning June 26, 2006, and WHEREAS, the nominating committee has agreed to put fonward the names of eight study groups members, all of whom have agreed to serve, being Lois E. Chaplin, Paul R. Eberts, Nathan Fawcett, Randy Haus, Tom Niederkorn, Wendy Skinner, Stuart W. Stein, and Constance V. Thompson, with Wendy Skinner nominated and agreed to serve as chair, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has nominated Peter Stein to serve as the elected liaison from the Town Board; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca concurs in the naming of the above-cited individuals to the joint City-Town study group. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Stein VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. Motion carried. Agenda Item No. 4 - Consent Agenda IB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-200: Consent Agenda Items 8 r n Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following resolutions for Consent Agenda Items as presented; a. Town of Ithaca Abstract b. Approval for Conservation Board member to attend 2006 Conference on the Environment MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Supervisor Valentino VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Cowie, absent; Councilwoman Leary, aye. Motion carried TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-200a : Town of Ithaca Abstract WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 2682-2804 General Fund Townwide $ 68,364.83 General Fund Part Town $9,650.63 Highway Fund Part Town $ 21,060.51 Water Fund $11,365.46 Sewer Fund $5,106.74 William & Hannah Pew Bikeway $2,006.39 Risk Retention Fund $250.00 Forest Home Lighting District $160.47 Glenside Lighting District $62.06 Renwick Heights Lighting District $86.64 Eastwood Commons Lighting District $177.91 Clover Lane Lighting District $20.55 Winner's Circle Lighting District $60.02 Burleigh Drive Lighting District $71.83 Westhaven Rd Lighting District $236.41 Coddinaton Rd Liahtina District $139.57 TOTAL $ 118,820.02 MOVED: Councilman Stein n Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 SECONDED: Supervisor Valentino VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Cowie, absent; Councilwoman Leary, aye. Motion Carried. TOWN BOARD BUDGET WORK SESSION Agenda Item No, 1 - Supervisor's Presentation of Town of Ithaca 2007 Tentative Budget (Attachment #4 - Supervisor's PowerPoint presentation Tentative Proposed 2007 Budget) Supervisor Valentino gave a PowerPoint Presentation to the Board on the Town of Ithaca 2007 Tentative Budget (paper copy of presentation attached). In addition to the information contained in her slides, Ms. Valentino told the Board the budget she has put together has really no cuts in any of the services, has a couple of increases for equipment that the highway people needed. Funding to bring the part time Deputy Clerk to full time and bringing a person in the Planning Department that is full time up to full time are probably to only real increases that are in her budget for services. The Supervisor's Tentative Budget has a 4% increase for all the staff, board members, and supervisor. The actual change from 2006 to 2007 for all payroll and benefits is only a 2.6 increase in the total budget. That is because of the elimination of the Director of Building and Zoning position; responsibilities that have been assumed by Dan Walker and Jonathan Kanter without any increase in pay. i Agenda Item No. 2 - Board Discussion of Town of Ithaca 2007 Tentative Budget Supervisor Valentino offered to take questions from the board. Councilman Stein asked how much of the 2.1% increase in the tax levy was new construction and how much was additions to houses or re-evaluations, what fraction of the 2.1% is new properties that come onto the tax rolls this year where nothing was there before. Supervisor Valentino told him they nor the assessment department know the exact amount at this point. They will be able to lock onto that number closer this year since the County went to a 3-year assessment. Councilman Stein asked if they knew what the tax assessments were for new construction. Mr. Carvill explained that he has requested that information from County Assessment a number of times and been told that they do not have any way of breaking out with any degree of accuracy new construction, renovations or the merging or splitting of properties. Ms. Valentino stated they knew generally that it's probably over 22 million but explained that the County taxes things differently than the Town does. They tax some things that the Town does not tax and that's their number, based on the things that are taxable for the County and what is taxable for the Town is different than what's taxable for the County. Mr. Carvill added that the County Assessment Office at their discretion or lack of knowledge decides to split or merge properties without checking with the Town and how that will impact the Town's roll. Mr. Carvill reported having received notification from the County of properties they have made tax exempt without the prior knowledge of the Town. Mr. Carvill told the i Board these practices raise the larger question of the Town's roll in securing and stabilizing their tax roll. 10 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 Councilman Stein stated he did not really understand the "fund balance thing". He stated he gets the general idea, but this is the third budget he has been through and his memory is that in the last two budgets what he thought he understood was that the fund balance had been brought down to a point which was at the lower limit of what the Comptroller's office says is the right fund balance to have. In each of those two years, his expectation had been that in the next year the Town would be taking nothing out of the fund balance. He asked if he was mistaken in the previous two years, or is something funny? Supervisor Valentino told him that the State Controller's Office no longer tells towns how much of a fund balance to hold. They basically told the Town three or four years ago that the towns are on their own, whatever you think needs to be your fund balance. The model that Supervisor Valentino uses is called 20-10-20. In the General Town Fund, the safety net number is 20% of the total budget. In Part-Town it is 10%. The Highway Account is at 20%. Most of the fund balance is kept in the Townwide fund because by law they can move fund balance from Townwide into either Part-Town or Highway. It cannot be moved back to Townwide from those funds. She further explained that there is generally money left over in the budget from the year before. That money is rolled back into fund balance along with unanticipated revenues that boost up the fund balance. Councilman Stein felt that this was a big item and remembered talking last year about $20,000 items and how there could not be any additional expenses because the fund balance was at the safety net level. Councilman Stein wanted to know how the Town acquired, over the last year, $600,000 that they were not expecting at that time. Mr. Carvill explained that the Town's budget does not work on a cash flow basis. It is accrual budgetary funding, meaning they go back to last year and look at the expenditure and revenues and hope to end up with a surplus. At the end of each year they find a discovery of some place between 1.6 and 2.6% of the budgeted appropriations, which the Board has approved to spend, has not been spent. When Mr. Carvill closes the books at the end of the year, if the Town had a budget of $2 million and 2% was not spent, the additional $40,000 would be returned to fund balance. He is not able to ascertain what is unspent until December 31®*. Additionally, revenues can be higher than budgeted. As an example, there will be $71,000 of interest earnings in excess of what was budgeted in January. The reason being, the Federal Reserve increased the quarterly rates. Another example, the Highway Department received more money for equipment sold at an auction than had been budgeted. Mr. Can/ill told the Board he had been conservative in budgeting sales tax revenues for last year at 2.1 million, he is expecting that to fall around 2.3. Supervisor Valentino added that the County changed how they distribute sales tax revenue to the Town. They use to distribute it quarterly and are now distributing it monthly. This has given the Town more money to invest. Last year she was very concerned about the construction at Pyramid Mall and its impact on sales tax revenue. The construction is now almost complete and did not seem to deter shoppers as she had feared. There are so many indicators that you have to look at every year in estimating the fund balance. 11 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 Councilman Stein stated that during the 2006 budget process, the Town was at a situation where there was no more room to make any other expenditures, they were up against what they considered to be the safe floor. In the previous year it was the same thing. Councilman i Stein asked if they are in the same situation this year. Mr. Carvill stated he did not think it was as austere as moving from 2005 to 2006 one of the reasons being that the Town fell $191,996 short in sales tax revenue in 2005. Councilman Stein asked how far the Town is from the floor of the safety net. Supervisor Valentino told him that if you look at the 20-10-20 she and Al are predicting that they will probably come in somewhere around $200,000 over the safety net they do not want to go under. Supervisor Valentino told the Board that when they look at spending fund balance money there are a couple of things that they need to look at carefully. One is, is this going to be a continuing expense. Or, is it something spend on a one time basis, something very important or which will have a long term effect. Mr. Stein asked, when you see the $652,000 or stuff taken from fund balance, whether Mr. Carvill and Ms. Valentino expect to see in next year's budget $650,000 that can be taken from fund balance. Because most of the expenses he sees taken as expenses, are continuing expenses. He asked what it will look like next year. Are they going to have to have a huge increase in taxes? Mr. Carvill told him the Town is at a critical point if the Board wants to continue building $350,000 parks. The Town is at a critical point if the Board wants to continue to build infrastructure at $750,000 in water and sewer. No monies of that amount coming out of fund balance are built into the proposed budget. In prior years $500,000 was appropriated out of the sewer fund for particular sewer projects; $500,000 for the j Trumansburg Road water main. These are projects for which money came directly out of fund balance. When the Board appropriated an additional $50,000 above what was budgeted for the Recreation Partnership that came out of the fund balance. The Town is not in a position where it can any longer continue to expand infrastructures without borrowing. We have fund balance to meet emergency needs on a day-to-day basis, we have fund adequately sustain ourselves in on-going budgets. In response to Mr. Stein's question of whether there would be an astronomical tax increase in 2008, Mr. Carvill thought he could say "no" to that. Will the Town have a "means" increase, Mr. Carvill would say economically that is feasible. What is built into the budget is Honness Lane walkway, the Hanshaw Road walkway, Coddington Road walkway, the completion of the Pew Train, two projects in the water fund. Those have all been budgeted for from bond borrowing, not in the tax rate. Councilman Stein asked again if he looks forward to what next year is going to look like a year from now, in the A, B, DB and R funds where he now sees $650,000 of stuff that is taken from fund balances is it Mr. Carvill's guess that the Town will be taking $650,000 from the fund balances in those 4 funds in the next year or that that won't be there, in which case the Town will either have to lower its operating expenses or raise taxes by $650,000. Mr. Carvill responded stating, will the Town have to raise taxes to point to where you have no fund balance, the answer is no. Supervisor Valentino told the Board if they look in their 2006 budget and go to the sheet that goes back to 1996, we had 9 straight years where we haven't had to raise taxes. We raised them last year, we had to raise them this year. Supervisor Valentino continue stating the fund balance Is what the County and other places call, in some | ' parts, roll over money. If you're asking if we are going to have enough fund balance money next year to maintain the same kind of stable budget that we have had this year, Ms. 12 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 ^ Valentino felt very comfortable that, yes, that will be the case. It has been the case historically, she thinks it will be the case going fonward. She and Mr. Carvill try to project out into the future at least 5 years, 10 years if you look at the debt service funds, you can see in 1996 the total debt for the Town was like 18 million dollars. It is like 7 million now. In the next couple of years there is debt that is going to fall off. If you're asking me if I feel comfortable that this budget will not create a huge big tax increase next year, yes I feel very comfortable (Mr. Stein interrupted). Mr. Stein stated he did not want to speak any more about this except to declare that he was still confused by this. He felt the evening's board meeting was not the place to discuss it. Mr. Cavill responded stating he guessed he did not understand the question completely because they are using $401,000 this year from fund balance in the General Fund. In 2006, the Town Board appropriated $444,000. For the Highway Fund you appropriated $392,000. This year you are appropriating $72,000. To take a wild guess, will I need $72,000 next year, will I need $391,000 next year? Those number change and they can change dramatically. What also changes here is how we shift the sales tax revenue. There's no hard, fast answer that I can give you to say will I need to have another $652,000 plus out of fund balance next year. Supervisor Valentino suggested bring auditors Sciarabba and Walker over and ask them what their analysis of our budget and how strong our position is. Ms. Valentino stated the Town's bond counsel looks at the Town of Ithaca and says we are in very strong financial shape and she feels confident if our auditors came before they board they would report that the Town of Ithaca is in very strong financial shape. Councilman Engman stated if they look at the September 30*^ monthly financial reports, for the three major categories: general, part-town and highway, fund balance comes out to about 1.6 million. So at the end of the year, the Town could expect to have $1.6 available. As Mr. Carvill mentioned, the Town could expect carry-over monies of another $300,000. It looked to him like there's about 1,9000,000 sitting there waiting to be spend. Deduct $600,000 for a 1.3 million. Mr. Engman's stated his assumption getting up to the $2.3 million figure mentioned for the coming year, that would come out of the increased sales tax and other increased monies in the coming year. He asked if that was a correct analysis. Mr. Carvill said that it was. Councilman Burbank mentioned that there used to be a chart giving the estimated sales tax and the history of it. He would find it useful. Mr. Carvill gave that information to Councilman Burbank. Councilman Burbank asked why the lighting district tax had decreased. Supervisor Valentino explained that the reduction is temporary. Each lighting district is set up separately. The people in the districts set up a formula that they want on how they are going to pay the ^ money in to pay the electric bills. The Town receives an electric bill monthly and has to estimate what the payment out will be. They try to estimate it close, but a little bit over. What has happened is that they have accumulated enough extra money that they have to return it to the taxpayers. This reduction is for one year and next year will go up to pay the electric 13 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 bill. Councilman Burbank wondered if there was a way to average it so that there was not a huge fall and then a huge increase. Supervisor Valentino thought that would be hard to do. ^ r Mr. Carvill asked Mr. Stein if he understood correctly what Mr. Stein was asking was, I have a million dollars in fund balance, case. I am going to take $600,000 of that away to help fund this year's budget and all I've got is $400,000 left going in 2008. Mr. Carvill stated that is exactly what is going to happen at the beginning of January. The projection is that at the close of this year we end up with 1.2 million dollars of cash sitting in our savings account, plus and minus accruals. We have got receivables on the books that we haven't received money for yet. We've got State grant monies that we are going to get. We haven't gotten them yet, but they are a part of fund balance. Out of that 1.2 million, we are going to take the $600,000. That is going to leave case on hand of $600,000. Now is when the red flag gets raised. The Board has appropriated 3.7 million times 20% as a reserve cushion, or $740,000. So once Mr. Carvill takes that $4000,000 away and it only leaves us $600,000 we're short 140,000. Should in the event something happen in an emergency situation through 2007, so when the Board starts discussing and saying they want to spend $25,000 here or $50,000 it is always cautioned to say you already are short going into 2008 $140,000. Mr. Carvill stated he did not know how that would rise again until they go through the cycle of 2007. That is where any excess revenue will flow back in bring that $400,00 up. Any under expenses will bring it back up. Mr. Stein stated he understood that, you make reserves and you can't calculate to the nearest penny or nearest $100,000 or the nearest quarter of a million, or what, but there's some error in it and that's clear. The question is that if you took 10 years of history and, at : the beginning of the year you said. Well, we're at the absolute minimum now so we better not ' spend another penny and then at the end of the year you said, no actually we had an additional $600,000. If that happened every year then I would say to you that you are underestimating, in your attempt to be conservative, you're underestimating what your revenues are going to be and in fact things were not at budget time as tight as you thought they would be. That's my question, (turn tape) Mr. Stein stated he hadn't seen 10 years, he'd only seen 3 years but has seen in that short time what appears to be a pattern of under estimating at budget time as to what the receipts are going to be, or something like. That's what he is getting at. Mr. Carvill told him his point was well taken. A budget should not be under inflated or over inflated. Supervisor Valentino thanked Mr. Carrier-Titti for her help with the Power Point presentation. Agenda Item No. 4 - Discuss and Consider Approval of Bolton Point Wages for 2007 Paul Tunison, Manager of Bolton Point, appeared before the Board to discuss the Southern Cayuga Lake Water Commission Tentative Budget. He explained that there are 19 employees, 11 of whom are in a union. Per the union contract their wage increase for 2007 is set at 3%. For the other 8 employees, which consist of the department managers and administration staff, they have proposed a wage increase of 4%. That is based upon an anticipated consumer price index in 2006 of 4% or greater. ] Supervisor Valentino added that the Commission has approved the wages. 14 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 Councilman Burbank asked for the rationale of the higher percent raise for non-unionized employees. Mr. Tunison explained it is based upon the projected consumer price index. The union members' wage increase was negotiated two years ago. Councilman Cowie asked which CPI figures were used. Mr. Tunison responded that he looked at some information independently, but most of his information came from Mrs. Drake. Councilman Engman referring to the sheet provided by Mr. Tunison stated that the total Commission salaries represent a 2.2% increase. He asked if that was because there were fewer employees. Mr. Tunison explained that they will be bringing in a new Account Clerk Typist at the hire rate, as opposed to the job rate the previous long-term employee was making. That represents a $10,000 decrease. Mr. Tunison also explained that one of the union employees would be receiving a 9% increase over the next 3 years in order to bring them up to job rate. The person is currently at the hire rate. Councilman Engman asked for confirmation that the percent increase does not include longevity or vacation buy back amounts. Mr. Tunison told him he was correct. Agenda Item No, 5 - Presentation and Discussion of Southern Cavuqa Lake Intermuniclpal Water Commission 2007 Tentative Budget (Attachment #5 - Southern Cavuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 2007 Tentative Budget) The Board received copies of the Commission' Tentative Budget in their Board packets. Mr. ^ Tunison told the Board that there is nothing unusual or outstanding in the Commission approved Tentative Budget. Mr. Tunison briefly reviewed the Commission's Tentative Budget for the Board. Comparing the 2006 modified budget to the proposed 2007, there is a decrease in appropriations of just over $200,000. The Commission allocated $200,000 in the 2006 budget for maintenance of the Commission's Sheldon Road tank and in 2007 the Commission has approved $155,800 for replacing approximate 1,000 feet of the Commission's rusting transmission main. In the 2006 budget, the Commission approved allocating $268,000 from the Commission's fund balance to maintain the 2006 Bolton Point water rate at $2.21 per thousand gallons. The fund balance in 2005, beginning of 2006, was 1.3 million and you can compare that to the 2007 Tentative Budget of 2.6 million. We're at 50% at the beginning of the year and the Commission is comfortable using that fund balance to stabilize the water rate. For the 2007 budget, in order to maintain the water rate at the same $2.21 per thousand gallons, approximately $79,000 is being allocated from the fund balance into the operating budget. Other major decreases in appropriations occur under debt service (2006 Budget $267,000; 2007 Tentative Budget $134,000). The reason for this being that the Commission secured two half a million dollar bond anticipation notes in 2005 for capital projects and in May of this year the two bond anticipation notes were converted to a 1 million dollar serial bond and at the time of the conversion, the Comission made interest payments only on the bond anticipation notes and not a principal payment. So they actually borrowed the full 1 million dollars, which was made up the two $500,000 bond anticipation notes. At the end of 2006 there will be funds remaining in the debt service funds and they do pm not need to allocate the full $267,000 in 2007. But in 2008 that will be back up to $267,000; so this is only a one-year decrease in the debt fund. On page 7 of 7, employee benefits, health insurance decrease from 2006 to 2007. When the 2006 budget was put together they did not know what the health insurance increase was going to be and they grossly overestimated what costs would be for 2006. Mr. Tunison said that while they don't know 15 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9. 2006 what the 2007 cost will be yet, they feel $207,000 is a good number for 2007. The funds that are remaining in the budget line for 2006 will be converted into a health insurance reserve fund to help offset unsuspected high increases in health insurance costs in the future. Mr. Tunison told the Board the debt service and health insurance costs that have resulted in the decrease in the appropriations for the 2007 budget as compared to the 2006 budget. Supervisor Valentino asked if there were questions for Mr. Tunison. Councilman Engman asked if the Commission follows the same fund balance formula of 20%. Mr. Tunison responded that is what they were projecting, stating they have had a strange history with the fund balance over the years. Back in the mid-90s the Commission had a list of many capital projects that it wanted to complete and so the water rate was raised to $2.55 per thousand gallons to build up a fund balance to complete the capital projects. In 1996 the Commission started negotiation with the City of Ithaca about them coming in as a partner in the Commission and so the capital projects were put on hold. They kept accumulating funds in the fund balance for those capital projects until the fund balance reached close to, if not over, 3 million dollars. The Commission drastically lowered the water rate because they were building up the fund balance so fast. The Commission has completed the majority of the projects on that list, although there are some remaining. It is now essentially giving that fund balance back to the customers to bring us down to closer to that 20%. Supervisor Valentino asked the Board if they were willing to approve the Bolton Point budget and employee wage scale. j Councilman Stein asked why the Town Board approved the budget and employee wage scale and weather the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission was an independent entity. Supervisor Valentino told him, no, the Commission did not have legal standing under the 5 partners to be an independent entity. The Town of Ithaca has to be their agent. They run the facility, they set up their budget, and the Town is the agent the State Comptroller's office sees as the official agent for them to have standing as an entity, it has to be a municipality. That is why the Town is the Treasurer and the employer of record. Councilman Stein asked what responsibility the Town has and how should he view the Board's approval of the budget. Supervisor Valentino told the Board it would be very good for the Town Board to go out and visit Bolton Point and the Commission have a tour of the facility. Supervisor Valentino told the Board that the 10 Commissoners have done an outstanding job of running Bolton Point. It is a model, state of the art, water facility that is meeting all the standards for producing safe water. They use the same auditors, Sciarrabba and Walker, that look at the Town's financial records. Supervisor Valentino stated that traditionally the way the Board has dealt with the approval is to vote a pass-through for those things, unless the Board sees something very wrong. Councilman Stein asked if the Board had a different relationship with this budget than with the Town budget. Ms. Brock stated her understanding that the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission is a joint service provided by the 5 municipalities. Under i General Municipal Law, Section 119-0, municipalities are allowed to join together to jointly provide services, water, and sewer, among other things. They can either all 5 of them 16 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 participate in providing the service or they can designate one municipality to do it for all the others. Her understanding is that all 5 municipalities are doing it together and the mechanisms they've used to carry that out are not that each town board every month makes every decision about every facet of the operations, but that the municipalities have named the Commissioners to make the day-to-day decisions, but the Town Board still has the obligation to approve the overall budget, to oversee the payment of invoices and other obligations that come in through the audit of claims process. Councilman Stein asked if the other 4 municipalities have delegated that responsibility to the Town of Ithaca. Supervisor Valentino stated the employer of record, the payment of claims, and the approval of the budget have been delegated to the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Tunison explained that any one of the five municipalities could act as the agent for the Commission. It doesn't have to be the Town of Ithaca; the Town of Ithaca has historically been the agent. Councilman Burbank asked if the Town was getting anything in return for doing that other than greater control. Mr. Walker explained the Town charges for services it provides to Bolton Point. Councilman Engman thought that the Commission budget was infinitely simpler and he could understand it. He had no objection to approving the Bolton Point agenda items. Agenda Item No. 6 - Discussion and Consider Adoption of Southern Cavuqa Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 2007 Tentative Budget as 2007 Preiiminarv Budget Councilman Engman moved approval of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission budget and Councilman Burbank seconded. Ms. Hunter stated the Board needs to have a resolution and she has a draft resolution she could read to the Board. Ms. Hunter read the draft resolution to the Board and Councilman Engman accepted the resolution as the motion made. Councilman Burbank seconded. Roll call, carried unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-201: Acceptance of the Southern Cavuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 2007 Tentative Budget as the Southern Cavuga Lake intermunicipal Water Commission 2007 Preiiminarv Budget WHEREAS, the 2007 Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Tentative Budget was filed with the Town Clerk on September 28, 2006 and distributed to the Town Board for their review; and WHEREAS the 2007 Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Tentative Budget was approved by the Commission at their September 8, 2006 meeting; and WHEREAS the Town Board has reviewed the Tentative Budget and has no recommended changes; ^ Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts the 2007 Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Tentative Budget as the 2007 Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Preliminary Budget. 17 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 MOVED: Councilman Engman I SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Drake brought the Board's attention to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission wage resolution provided to them in the board packet. She noted that September 7, 2006 needed to be corrected to September 8, 2006. Councilman Stein moved the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission wage resolution and Councilwoman Leary seconded. IB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-202: Approval of Year 2007 Southern Cavuqa Lake Intermunicipal Water Confimission Emplovee Wages WHEREAS, the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the proposed wages for Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission's (Commission) employees for the year 2007 as presented by the Town Supervisor and Human Resources Manager (see attached); and WHEREAS, the said wages presented have been approved by the Commission at their September 7, 2006 meeting; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the said wages for the Commission's employees for the year 2007 as presented by the Town Supervisor and Human Resources Manager, and as filed in the Human Resources Office. MOVED: Councilman Stein SECONDED: Councilwoman Leary VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. Motion carried unanimously. The Board discussed a field trip to Bolton Point and arrangements for meeting the Commissioners. Councilman Cowie asked if the Town has oversight over or approval power regarding union negotiations. Mr. Tunison told him all five-member municipalities have to approve the contract. All municipalities also have to approve bonding. The board discussed the start time for the November 9, 2006 budget meeting. They decided to start the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Hunter suggested the board pass a formal resolution changing the time of the meeting. Councilman Cowie moved to change the start time of the 18 n Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 November 9, 2006 meeting from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Councilman Burbank seconded the motion. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-203: Change the Time of the November 9. 2006 Town Board Meeting BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca change the start time of their November 9, 2006 Budget Meeting from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. MOVED: Councilman Cowie SECONDED: Councilman Stein VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye. Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary. Motion carried unanimously. Agenda Item No. 3 - Consider Setting a Public Hearing to Consider 2007 Assessment Rolls for Special Benefit Districts and Special Benefit Areas TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-204: Set Public Hearing Date for Special Benefit Districts and Special Benefit Areas. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hold a public hearing at 7:05 p.m. on November 9, 2006 at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY for the consideration of the following 2007 Assessment Rolls for Special Benefit Districts and Special Benefit Areas: Forest Home Lighting District Glenside Lighting District Renwick Heights Lighting District Eastwood Commons Lighting District Clover Lane Lighting District Winners Circle Lighting District Burleigh Drive Lighting District Westhaven Road Lighting District Coddington Road Lighting District Water Improvement Benefitted Area Sewer Improvement Benefitted Area MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Stein VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; ^ Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. Motion carried unanimously. Agenda Item No. 7 - Consider Setting Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of 2007 Southern Cavuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Budget 19 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 Supervisor Valentino brought the board's attention back to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission budget and proposed the board set the public hearing for 7:15 p.m. at the November 9, 2006 Town Board meeting. Supervisor Valentino moved setting the public hearing on the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission budget for November 9, 2006 at 7:15 p.m. Councilman Stein seconded. IB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-205: SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION PRELIMINARY BUDGET AS SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION FINAL 2007 BUDGET. BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hold a public hearing at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the 9**^ day of November 2006 at 7:15 p.m. for the purpose of considering the 2007 Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Preliminary Budget as the 2007 Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Final Budget; and it is further RESOLVED that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed budget may be heard concerning the same; and it is further n RESOLVED that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the City of Ithaca, New York and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town, said publication and posting to occur not less than 5 days before the day designated above for the public hearing. ! MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Stein, aye VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. Motion carried unanimously. Agenda Item No. 11 - Consider Setting a Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of 2007 Town of Ithaca Final Budget Supervisor Valentino told the Board they needed to set a public hearing on the adoption of the Town Budget. She thought the Board could set a public hearing in the expectation that there would be a preliminary budget before November 9, 2006. Supervisor Valentino moved setting the public hearing to consider the Town of Ithaca 2007 Preliminary Budget as the Town of Ithaca 2007 Final Budget for November 9, 2006 at 7:20 p.m. Councilman Cowie seconded. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-206: Set Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of 2007 Town of Ithaca Final Budget ! 20 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hold a public hearing at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the 9^*^ day of November 2006 at 7:20 p.m. for the purpose of considering the 2007 Town of Ithaca Preliminary Budget as the 2007 Town of Ithaca Final Budget; and it is further RESOLVED that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed budget may be heard concerning the same; and it is further RESOLVED that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the City of Ithaca, New York and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town, said publication and posting to occur not less than 5 days before the day designated above for the public hearing. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Cowie VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilman Cowie, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. Motion carried unanimously. Requests for Funding from Outside Agencies Supervisor Valentino told the Board that there are different agencies that come and request money from the Town every year. Some of them are regularly in the budget, some of them are new. Ithaca Downtown Partnership The Board received an email from Mr. Wetmore regarding their funding request. Ms. Valentino stated the Town used to given them $966; they are requesting $1,250. Last year the Board decided not to fund them feeling the Town was not in that benefit district or getting any real benefit from that. Supervisor Valentino asked the Board, since they have received a formal request, whether they would like to have somebody from that group come and give the Town Board a presentation. Mr. Engman commented that he had been unimpressed with a previous presentation but thought the Wetmore message was a lot more persuasive and would like to have them come again. Ms. Valentino thought it was a good idea. She thought one of the problems is that the Town Hall is not really in the district; the people that he talks about that come around and pick up the trash and do things, doesn't really happen. She thinks it has been a huge benefit to them that the Town of Ithaca located in their current location. If you look at how nice it looks around the building, and the benches that are out their for people ride the bus, it is all at the Town of Ithaca's expense, not the Downtown Partnership. The decorations on the building at Christmas time are done by the Town, not by the Downtown Partnership. We wouldn't have the post office next door if it weren't for the Town of Ithaca negotiating with them to have the facility at its current location. Ms. Valentino stated her take that the benefit that downtown Ithaca and their partnership are getting from the Town of Ithaca is substantial. She added that the Town does not have anybody on their board or any way of having input on how they should spend their money and what they do. 21 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 Ms. Valentino questioned whether there was something in place that would show us how to evaluate how they are spending the money and where is the Town of Ithaca's place in the ^ organization to be able to have representation. She thought it was two things the Town I should always consider. Mr. Stein thought we could certainly raise those issues but felt the question is whether the Board should allow them to come argue their case. He stated it was fine with him to have them come. Councilwoman Leary reported that she had not seen the email because she's been not on email and could not judge how persuasive Mr. Wetmore had been. Ms. Leary felt it was alright for them to come and make their case, but made the observation that just on the City block Town Hall is on, the way the street by the bus shelter is maintained is disgraceful. It is filthy. If they cannot even have that clean she did not know why they were coming to the Town asking for more money. She would like to see them at least clean up the Town Hall block. Ms. Brock stated she saw in the email that their main selling point was that they help to contribute to the vibrant downtown community, but the Board might remember that she had done some research before and found out that is not considered something that the Town could base its contribution on. Any contributions to private organizations, be they for profit or not for profit, need to further Town purposes. Ms. Brock reported that when she spoke with Mitch Morris, senior attorney with the State Comptroller's Office, and described this particular situation he thought that it would not be something on which a contribution could be based. It really needs to be based on actions that directly benefit Town residents. If the Town wanted to base it on the fact that they come and clean the sidewalk in front of Town Hall several times a day and things like that, that would be find. The Town would still need to, perhaps, solidify it with some type of agreement with them or funnel the money through the City that would be fine too. She wanted the Board to know that when they come and make their pitch, if it is really pitched the way their email ' was, the types of things talked about aren't really the types of things on which you could base ' . your contribution. Mr. Stein thought they should be informed of what form their request has to take before they make their pitch. Mr. Engman asked if for next time Ms. Brock would be able to identify in the email some things that would be fundable. Ms. Brock told him she could. Ms. Valentino thought if the Board really wanted to fund the Partnership her understanding is that the Town could make their contribution to the City, and the City could then funnel the money back through to them. She asked for confirmation from Ms. Brock that doing this was legal. Ms. Brock stated, yes, the business improvement district is part of the City and then the City contracts with the Ithaca Downtown Partnership to carry out the functions of the business improvement district. So, instead of giving a contribution to the Ithaca Downtown Partnership, which is a private not-for-profit corporation, the Town could make the contribution to the City. The New York State prohibition against gifts doesn't apply to a municipality's gifts to another municipality, but you have to do it by local law or you could under General Municipal Law section 119-0 you could consider it a joint service the Town is providing with the City and enter into some type of contractual agreement or memorandum of understanding. Mr. Cowie commented it seemed to be a waste of time to have the Partnership come; there is not enough political will and it is too technically difficult. Ms. Leary thought it was a bad precedent to allow this group to come to the Town and make a pitch. The Town could get pitches from everybody. She was not inclined, unless something dramatic has changed since they were last before the Board, to give them any money. She questioned why the City needed a private not-for-profit to clean their downtown. She stated p^ they should be doing that in the Department of Public Works instead of putting up decorative j grating on bridges. Mr. Stein felt they had spent enough time talking about $1,000. He thought it was better to let the people come, make their presentation, and then take a vote to 22 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 decide whether they wanted to do it or not. Supervisor Valentino took a straw vote to determine how many people would like to have the Downtown Partnership come to the October meeting. Councilmen Burbank, Engman, and Stein were in favor of asking the Partnership to come to the October 13^"^ meeting. Councilwoman Leary, Councilwoman Gittelman, Councilman Cowie, and Supervisor Valentino were not in favor of having the Partnership make a presentation requesting funding at the October 16*^ meeting. United States Geological Survev Supervisor Valentino told the Board she had received a letter from Dominic from Caroline regarding funding a gauging station in Brooktondale. Ms. Valentino called Kate Hackett who told her she was not sure they needed any money from the Town. They were just sending the letter because they think that some of the sources that they have might not work out. Ms. Valentino reported having asked, if the were to need money, how much it be. Ms. Hackett told her in the neighborhood of $2,000. Ms. Valentino thought she would put the request on the shelf, call Kate back, and tell her the Board didn't say yes and didn't say no; that they needed to better understand what the real needs are. Ms. Valentino thought it was an interesting project and thought they could pull up the $2,000 of requested funding when they get more information. Councilman Burbank thought they should formally respond to Dominic. Mr. Burbank reported having heard that they were fearful that the federal funding for the project was coming to an end. Supervisor Valentino said she would call Dominic and Kate. . SPCA Supervisor Valentino reported that the Town has been giving the SPCA $20,000 per year, and they are requesting $20,700 for 2007. After discussions with Ms. Hunter, it is Supervisor Valentino's understanding that the Town is receiving fewer services than what was being received in the past. Ms. Hunter added that the SPCA is considering no longer personally serving tickets issued for the Town. She is not sure whether or not the tickets need to be personally served. In limited conversations she has had with people it seems that a person runs the risk of being in contempt of court if they do not show up for their court date and may need to be personally served. Ms. Hunter thought it was important for the SPCA to come before the board to talk about the services they provided. The board agreed. Tomokins Countv Area Development Supervisor Valentino received a request from Tompkins County Area Development asking the Town to contribute towards their operational budget. Following discussion, the board was interested in having a presentation at their October 16, 2006 meeting. Joint Youth Commission The board discussed the youth services program and the associated funding. The programs covered are: Coddington Road Community Center, Learning Web, Cooperative Extension, Workforce New York, Town Student Work Initiative and the Town Work Corps. They determined that a presentation was not necessary. Human Services Coalition 23 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 Supervisor Valentino has budgeted $4,000 for the Human Services Coalition. The Coalition was more than happy with the amount the Town budgeted for them. i I Lifelong and Gadabout Supervisor Valentino stated Lifelong and Gadabout have not requested an increase in funding. The Town will need to put together contracts with these agencies. The money will have to be sent to the County and then the County will distribute the money because the agencies do not clearly do an\4hing specifically for the Town. Councilman Stein asked if the Town would need to do a local law for that. Ms. Brock thought that they might be able to set it up as a contract for services. The local law is only needed if it is a contribution. The board discussed with Ms. Brock the requirements for budgeting and giving money to other agencies for services. Supervisor Valentino raised the question of whether or not the Town wanted to continue funding the agencies since the County no longer reimburses the Town for the money given to the agencies. She thought the Town should continue to fund the agencies, but they need to work out how the agencies can be funded. Councilwoman Leary thought that it would be cleaner to fund the agencies through a contract for services. Councilman Stein argued that it is hard to separate out the services provided to the Town from those provided to the entire County. Ms. Brock thought that they would be able to figure out how to fund the agencies whether it is through a contract directly with the agency or an earmarked contribution to the County. Mr. Carvill brought up that the Town currently does _ have contracts with these agencies for services. He would be able to provide those contracts | j to Ms. Brock for her review. i Supervisor Valentino asked the board if they were interested in funding the agencies, would they be willing to delegate the authority of figuring out how to fund the agencies to Ms. Brock, Mr. Carvill and herself. Councilman Stein thought that sounded fine and the board agreed. Six Mile Creek and Fall Creek Monitoring Programs Supervisor Valentino has spoken with Steve Penningroth about coming to the October 16, 2006 board meeting. She has asked that he explain what has been accomplished, what the volunteers are doing, and what is important to continuing doing. The programs are currently funded in the 2007 budget with at a slight increase over the 2006 budgeted amount. Agenda Item No. 9 - Discussion and Consider Approval of Employee Wages for 2007 (Attachment #6 - Memo from J. Drake and 2007 wage and benefit information) Supervisor Valentino brought the board's attention to the employee wage information provided to them in their packet. She stated that the increase is 2.6% over the 2006 budget. Ms. Drake stated that the CPIU ending August 2006 put the cost of living increase at 3.8% for all cities, the urban northeast is 4.5%, and New York, northern New Jersey, Long Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania is 4.7%. Supervisor Valentino thought it seemed that a 4% increase is where the Town needed to be. i 24 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 Councilman Stein stated that everyone knows he has been trying to figure out the history of the 5-year salary budget. He made a presentation to the board at the July meeting and people questioned the numbers used. He has gone back and worked with Ms. Drake. Councilman Stein was planning to make a presentation based on data that both Ms. Drake and he agreed upon. He is unable to do that because there are still questions Ms. Drake has raised about his analysis. He thought that the conclusions he has made, assuming the data he has is correct, have a fair amount of implications for the budget. Councilman Stein preferred not to approve the wage scale until he has a chance to present the data he has analyzed to the board. He wanted to be able to discuss the broader implications of the 5- year history of the personnel budget and not discuss the validity of the numbers. Supervisor Valentino stated that the 5-year history of the 27^*^ pay period and the changes that the Town Board wanted made to bring the employees up to job rate are not good indicators of where the Town is now and how they are going to be moving forward. If the Board looks at this year's amount, last year's amount and looking forward, they will get a stronger indicator. Supervisor Valentino stated using the 21^^ pay period anomaly and bringing people up to job rate distorts the number over what the reality is and what the reality is going to be in the future. She thought it was interesting data to look at, but did not think it was a sound basis for the future. Councilman Stein agreed with what Supervisor Valentino said, but believed that the analysis he has made does have some implications for the future. He is reluctant to present it unless they can agree upon the facts. Supervisor Valentino asked the board if they wanted to wait on approving the wage scale. Councilman Cowie asked if there were any implications of waiting. Supervisor Valentino said that there were no implications for waiting, but did think the wage scale should be approved before the November 9, 2006 board meeting because it is a significant part of the budget. Councilman Stein did not have a problem with that because he was confident that he would be able to work out the numbers with Ms. Drake in a short time. Ms. Drake asked if the Board would be willing to move this agenda item to the October 16, 2006 board meeting. Supervisor Valentino thought that would be helpful if Councilman Stein and Ms. Drake were able to come to an agreement on their numbers. Ms. Hunter brought up that the tentative budget needs to be adopted as the preliminary budget before the November 9, 2006 Town Board meeting because it needs to be available to the public for their review. They also need to publish a public hearing notice on the budget. Supervisor Valentino thought that if there were serious implications with regard to salaries, it would be important to look at that going into 2008. She felt strongly that the budget she has presented to the board is a solid budget that will carry the Town through 2007 and several other years. Supervisor Valentino added that salaries might be something that a committee needs to look at, whether there is a serious flaw in what the Town is paying its employees, and the Town's ability to pay them at that level going fonward over the next 4, 5, or 6 years. She thought that would take more time to study. 25 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 Supervisor Valentino agreed that doing a thorough analysis of where the Town has been and where the Town is going is the responsibility of elected officials. She does not think that between now and October 16*^, the board can do that. She thinks that a very good budget has been put together. There are many components with regard to where the Town has been and where the Town is going and how it will affect the future. Supervisor Valentino would be happy to participate in long range planning in looking at trends. Councilman Stein suggested that they at least try. He would move that the board not vote on the employee wage scale at this meeting and that the board does the best it can to examine what the situation is. Mr. Walker commented that he has been with the Town since 1990 and there has been a tremendous increase in the availability of services to residents in the Town over the past 16 years. One example is the current Town Hall. There is more cost to maintaining a facility of that size. There are many new parks and trails, with Tutelo Park as the biggest example. He thought that if they were to look at the value added to the Town in the past 10 years and then the increase in the budget for those 10 years, the board would find that they got a good deal. Each time a new law is passed, more staff support is required. There are many things that add up in small increments. Looking at the bigger picture, one can say that costs have gone up by 15% or 24%, but the services to residents have increase greatly. Mr. Walker stated the question is how many complaints the board has received from its residents. He felt that the staff was taking care of them. Councilman Stein felt that it was an awkward discussion because 6 people are deciding what to pay the people sitting across the table from them. He has great respect for the work that is done and the services that are supplied, but thought that it should be understood that the Board has a responsibility to the taxpayers to mediate between what they pay for the services and what services are provided. It would be a dereliction of their duty if they did not try to understand the economics of the work that is done. He felt that it could not be looked at as hostility towards the work done by staff. Councilwoman Leary thought that part of the cynicism that people have built up about government is based on governments' reluctance to make the investment in some of the things that needs to be done because the taxpayer concern is always foremost. If there is going to be a government with government services, there should be a commitment to quality. That means making a commitment to the employees of the Town because that is what the Town runs on. She did not think the Town needed to hold back any more than any other organization in terms of the investment made in employees and the quality of services. Councilwoman Leary stated the Town is very proud of the services it provides. She thought it was fine to wait until they could agree on the facts, but thought the policy issues would be the same. She stated that there is pretty much agreement that the cost of living should be maintained. She thought it would be helpful to wait until the next meeting so that they could agree on the facts, but then they needed to decide. Councilman Cowie suggested that the Board continue its discussion on wages once it has all the facts. Councilman Engman added that the board has not started talking about the budget yet. He suggested that the board mention individual concerns that they have with the budget and then it would give people time to think about it and deal with it at the next meeting. Councilman Engman was concerned about the proposal to increase two part-time positions 26 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 to full-time positions and thought it was worth discussing. The Board should also realize that the sidewalk amounts of $175,000 are income and revenue neutral in the budget. In the coming year, if the Board wants the sidewalks then they are going to have pay for them somehow. They will need to be paid for out of bonding or reserves. Supervisor Valentino thought that the items raised by Councilman Engman were important to discuss. She reiterated that the proposed budget is pretty much the same budget that the Board has seen year after year. Supervisor Valentino stated that if the Board is locking in on salaries, they should compare the percentage of wages and benefits to the Town's costs and analyze them against other municipalities. They will find that the Town of Ithaca's wages and benefits, against the Town's expenses, are for the most part right on target or lower than all most any other municipality. Councilman Engman added that he wanted to discuss total legal costs because last year he thought the Board was going to try to work their way out of paying John Barney. He wanted make sure the Board had a clear understanding of exactly how much money they were going to spend on legal fees. He thought it would be helpful to have a solid figure and then indicate how it is being estimated for each legal person. Councilman Stein stated that the Board had talked about this. The Board was going to get an analysis of what that meant. Mr. Carvill provided the board with an analysis of legal expenses he had put together. Mr. Engman thought the Board could take the information home and study it. Supervisor Valentino stated that it is difficult to estimate legal expenses because there are unexpected costs such as lawsuits and additional work on local laws. As an example. Supervisor Valentino mentioned work on the Noise Ordinance. The Board Protocol and Procedures Manual ended up costing over $12,000. She felt the past year was an extraordinary year as far as legal costs go. Councilwoman Leary thought the other thing they needed to keep in mind was that they are lawmakers and they need a lawyer to make good laws. She also thought that it relates to the quality of life in the Town and what they are trying to do in the Town. Some of the laws they are looking at in Codes and Ordinances have been in committee for a decade or more. If the Town wants to get those things moving out of committee and actually turn them into law, they sometimes have to ramp up the involvement of the attorney. Ms. Valentino felt there were two ways for them to stay efficient with the use of attorneys. One is for the things they do in the Codes and Ordinances Committee where all of them are there asking the same questions and getting the same answers at the same time. It is not all individual phone calls. That is very efficient. The other place Supervisor Valentino thought it was very efficient for them to use the skills of the attorney is when the attorney is sitting with them at Board meetings and one Board member can ask as question and they can all hear the answer. She though the more the board could work in committees or in front of the Board, the healthier it will be for everyone and would also help in lowering attorney fees. Councilman Stein asked if the amount given on the worksheet provided was the estimate for all of 2006. Mr. Carvill explained that it was actual 2005 and actual 2006. Mr. Stein asked if 2006 has a lot more months to run. Mr. Carvill told him that was correct, three more months. Councilman Stein asked Ms. Brock if she thought the Town would be spending $130,000 27 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 instead of $107,000. She did not reply. Mr. Stein stated he was wondering what to make of the sheet; a simple analysis would say that the Town's legal fees from 2005 to 2006 have increased by 25%. He asked Mr. Carvill if that was the correct interpretation to make? Mr. Carvill told him, yes. Councilman Stein asked how much money was being budgeted for 2007. Mr. Carvill responded $51,420. Mr. Carvill stated they needed to look at the sheet's bottom line. He stated that Susan has served the Town in general counsel. She has also served the Town in specific counsel for Codes and Ordinances and she also serves the Town for specific sewer for the joint sewer relationship with the City. Those are monies that if removed from general counsel, what would be a reasonable thing to budget for just general counsel, ordinary, everyday things. As things arise, litigation arises, or there's some kind of action, or you put through a Noise Ordinance, that all escalates that. Mr. Carvill offered further explanation of the sheet. Mr. Stein asked what the bottom line was in 2005. Mr. Carvill told him the Town spent $105,000 in lawyer bills in 2005. The Town has spent $107,000 in 2006. Mr. Carvill and Mr. Stein agreed that they could expect to spend another $25,000 in 2006. Mr. Stein concluded that they would be spending $132,000 in 2006 and questioned why they were budgeting $51,000 in 2007. Mr. Carvill responded stating specific services that were requested were the Town's Noise Ordinance and the development of the Protocol Manual. Those were about 20 some thousand dollars of services. Mr. Carvill did not know how they would want to look at this in the budget. Does the Board want him to budget an additional $50,000 for perchance or something that would be representative of general legal counsel. Mr. Stein stated that in the Tentative Budget they are assuming the Town will only spend $50,000 for legal counsel compared to the $132,000. He asked if that was right. Mr. Carvill told him there were some very heavy lawsuits in 2005 in which John Barney represented the Town. Supervisor Valentino stated that trying to get a handle on legal fees is like a crap shoot. The Town has always, pretty much always, under budgeted for legal fees because we are always thinking, oh well, we won't get sued next year. Mr. Stein asked what the Town budgeted in 2006. Mr. Carvill told him that in 2006 they had budgeted $58,000 and that they had already exceeded budget. Supervisor Valentino thought that it was important to have reserves set aside for legal fees. She did not want to see the Town in a position of not doing something they needed to because they didn't have the money. Whether or not money for extraordinary legal costs should be up in the budget, she thought it was a policy thing and told the Board they could do it that way or the way she had done it. Councilwoman Leary thought that $51,000 was a little unrealistic in light of what was in line in the Codes and Ordinances Committee. The board discussed the cost of legal fees further and Councilman Engman brought up the point that they should take time to think about budgeting for legal fees. He would not be in favor of putting $100,000 into the budget because it takes money out of the Town's reserves and then they cannot spend it on anything else. He encouraged the Board to think it through more and not to rush to decisions the first time they are handed a piece of paper. He recommended coming back to the issue at the next meeting. Supervisor Valentino agreed with Mr. Engman stating she thought the reserves and how you can shift them around to where you need them are very important. She did think it was reasonable to adjust it up to $80,000 for legal fees. Mr. Kanter asked if he could comment on Councilman Engman's concern about a proposal to make a part-time planner position a full-time position. He stated that it goes back to the recommendation of the Building and Zoning Reorganization Committee to pickup the services that were dropped by the reorganization. It is additional work that has come to the Planning 28 n Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 staff. Mr. Kanter stated that. Bottom line, this is what is necessary to continue functioning as recommended by the Reorganization Committee. The position was a full-time position about 4 years ago and then went to part-time, which is 30 hours per week. Councilman Stein stated that he would like to see, for the next meeting, the numbers for new positions expressed as a percentage increase in the personnel budget. Noise Ordinance Court Cases Councilman Burbank asked Supervisor Valentino if there was a report from the court cases dealing with Noise Ordinance violations. Supervisor Valentino reported having sat through the hearings and spoken with Attorney Guy Krogh afterwards. She thought that it went quite well. There were 9 students that pleaded guilty. Ms. Brock added that three of the students were from smaller parties and the judge imposed fines of $100 each. Six were from a very large party of several hundred students and the judge fined them $175 each. Mr. Krogh had asked for greater fines, but that is what the judge imposed. Four cases were dismissed because there was something wrong with the information in the supporting documentation. Those problems can be corrected and the actions can be brought again. Three individuals are going to trial on November 1, 2006. They did not tell Mr. Krogh about one case that had been set for 7 p.m., rather than 4 p.m., and he left before that came up. He was trying to find out what the status of that was. In response to questions from Councilman Stein regarding what fines Mr. Krogh recommended, Ms. Brock reported that for the smaller parties where they ended up getting fines of $100 each, he had asked for $200 each. For the six from the large party he had asked for a fine of $250 each. Councilman Stein thought that it would be good to keep track of the tickets and their results so the Board could determine if the law needs to be changed. The Board agreed. Continuation of Discussion on 2007 Tentative Budget Mr. Kanter brought up two items not in the budget, which they wanted to put before the Board. One was a planner position held by Nicole Tedesco. The position has been authorized through December 31, 2006. The Town has asked Cornell for additional funds for the TGEIS project, which is now going to go well into 2007. They are asking the Board to consider extending Ms. Tedesco's position through March 31, 2007. It would be a revenue neutral item with the money coming in from Cornell. This would also allow for the flexibility in making sure the Transportation Plan is completed in a good way, to actually start some of the implementation on the Plan, and to work with the committee through March 31®^ The second item is a transportation related study that has to do with the Route 96 Corridor. Ed Marx has recommended a look at the Route 96 corridor from the Town of Ulysses into the City of Ithaca. There is fairly significant future growth potential in the Town of Ulysses and their zoning is kind of up in the air at this point in terms of what they are going to be looking at. Within the Town of Ithaca portion there is fairly good growth potential with affordable housing one of the issues we are dealing with. There are some opportunities to provide affordable housing up in that area and the City itself has some things going on such as the Cliff Street condo project that is going before the City. The proposed study would take a look 29 Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 at the growth potential In that corridor. It would look at the traffic Impacts If things continue as they are now. It would be able to look at several alternate scenarios of growth. For Instance, concentrated development within certain core areas, providing transit and better pedestrian 1 and bicycle facilities. It would look at these things on an overall corridor basis. The County has some left over money from their Comprehensive Plan Implementation funds and they would be willing to pay a significant portion of the project. They are trying to get an Indication from the City of Ithaca, Town of Ulysses, and Town of Ithaca whether or not they are Interested In participating. Mr. Kanter wanted to bring It up to the Board for a conceptual understanding of whether the Town would be Interested In doing that and then to consider It as a 2007 budget addition. The total project cost Is estimated at $50,000. The estimate for each participating municipality Is between $6,000 and $8,000. Mr. Kanter asked If the Board thought the study would be something they would consider funding. Councilman Engman thought that It was a great Idea and other Board members agreed. Supervisor Valentino asked the Board for their general perception Is of the overall budget. Councilman Stein stated that his experience In the other two budget cycles that he has been through Is that the Board was never presented with alternatives; what were the trade off that were made; what possible other numbers could have gone Into the budget. He had hoped that the new committee, the Capital Projects and Fiscal Affairs committee, would have gone through some of that. It did not. When you are not making the budget and just looking at what the final budget Is, then you do not see how It was made and what people decided to do and not to do, or other possible budgets that could have come out of the process. Councilman Stein felt that without having that kind of an analysis. It Is difficult to say anything except, yes, because you don't see any other possibilities. He thinks that should be part of a municipal budget making process and he has seen In both the County and the City very active discussions of what different paths they might choose. Councilman Stein hoped that they could somehow get that Into the Town budget making procedure. Supervisor Valentino explained that Carolyn Peterson puts her budget together the same way she does. The County Legislature gave the Administrator an ultimatum of what they wanted the budget to be and the Administrator completed the budget based on the ultimatum and stated he could not recommend It because they had cut too many things. Supervisor Valentino did not think that was a good process to go through. Ms. Valentino stated that the way you have to do municipal budgets Is laid pretty out clearly by law. Supervisor Valentino felt that as they go through the year, It Is Important for the Town Board to have a major role In determining what Is funded. Councilman Stein reiterated his feeling that the Board should have a greater role In making these kinds of decisions. Councilman Engman stated that the budget looked good to him and It was much easier this year because of the Increase last year. He did not disagree with Councilman Stein and thought that some of the concern over the salary Issue could have been alleviated had the budget committee been able to talk about that since last January. It Is a policy Issue and talking about things In a committee helps everyone on the committee understand It, but also gives some confidence to other members not on the committee that someone has been thinking and learning about these things. Councilman Engman was not terribly uncomfortable with the budget, but thought the board needed to be cautious. Overall, he 30 n Budget Meeting October 5,2006 Approved November 9, 2006 thought it was a good budget, but would like the Town Board to become involved earlier via the committee system. Councilwoman Gittelman stated that she was pretty impressed with the budget. Councilman Burbank stated that in any budget there are trade-offs and decisions, which Supervisor Valentino deals with on a day-to-day basis. The Town Board deals with them on a more abstract basis. The Town Board would like a role much earlier on in the process regarding the bigger decisions. Once the budget is presented to the Board and the press, it has momentum. The Board can pick at the edges but are not going to really with the substantive issues unless there is something glaring. Councilman Burbank's first read is that the budget looks like it works. The Board may tweak it but he thought it was basically going to go. He did think that the board needed to be involved with trade-off questions. He called upon the Board and Supervisor to work in the coming to try to set a process that is collaborative, that does not pit Board against staff, and deals with the difficult questions. Supervisor Valentino stated she appreciated the board's comments on the budget and thought they could work to find ways to address the concerns raised. Adjournment On motion by Supervisor Valentino, seconded by Councilman Stein, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk Next meeting November 9, 2006 31 Town Board Meeting, October 5, 2006 Attachment 1 The Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan Town of Ithaca - Town Board October 5,2006 History of the Transportation Plan Recommendation of Comprehensive Plan of 1993 Began work - 2003 Public meetings in 2004,2005, 2006 I \ Section One: Transportation Plan Goals Overall mission: To foster a transportation system that enhances the quality of life in the Town of Ithaca Access & mobility Livability Safety Transportation System Management • Coordination • Land Use Planning • Environment Section Two: Background Conditions Introduction - History - Geography Related policies and plans Population statistics - Demographics - Transportation profile n ' ! / ^ Section Three: Inventory and Analysis • Roadways • Auto Alternatives • Other Modes • Other Issues Section Three: Findings Impacts on Livabilitv: • Lack of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations • High traffic volumes & congestion • Speeding • Truck traffic • Pavement maintenance needs • Crashes & safety hazards I \ Section Four: Alternatives Issue/Problem & Location Mitigation Strategy 1 Advantages Disadvantages Mitigation Strategy 2 Advantages Disadvantages I I 1 Section Five: Recom mendations • Transportation Plan • Regional Cooperation • Roadway Issues • Capital Budget • Biking and Walking • Land Use Planning Issues • Transit Issues 4 Future of the Transportation Plan Town Board refers to Planning Board for recommendation (10/5/06) Planning Board hears Introductory presentation (10/17/06) Planning Board holds public hearing, makes recommendation Town Board holds public hearing, makes SEQR determination Town Board approves Transportation Plan Implementation & Updates Contact Nicole Tedesco, Planner (607)273-1747 ntedesco@town.lthaca.ny.us j and Analysis:The Town......is shaped like a doughnut with the City ofIthaca, the county's employment and culturalcenter, located in the middle. Post-World War I!development has been mostly diffuse and low-density suburban land-use patterns; this is onereason why the privately-owned motor vehicle isthe most popular mode in the Town. Studentsfrom the two major institutions of higherlearning—Ithaca College and Cornell University-make up a significant portion of the population.The Road System......is functioning well overall, although neighborhood livability is negatively affected by trafficvolumes and speeds in some areas. Problemsarise when roads are classified for one function,designed for another purpose, and employed foryet another use. Fortunately, roads owned by theTown have good safety records; clusters ofcrashes are on County- or State-owned roads.Because many problems occur outside theTown's jurisdiction, it is very important for theTown to work with other municipalities,organizations, and agencies to implement theRecommendations of this Plan. It is important tonote that the Town does not anticipate theconstruction of new roads outside of subdivisions,with the exception of one connector on West Hill.Biking c Jfking......Is popular In the Town, even though there aren'tthat many dedicated bicyclist or pedestrianfacilities. Currently, pedestrian facilities in theTown are mostly multi-use trails and walkways,although there are sidewalks in a fewdevelopments. Facilities for bicyclists areprimarily road lanes and shoulders, althoughbicyclists are permitted to ride on multi-use trails.Recommendr^'^nTCAT......is the transit provider for the Town of Ithaca.Most of TCAT's routes are concentrated in the Cityand Cornell's campus, but routes extend out tothe Town and beyond. Development on Southand West Hills in the Town will lead to increasedneed for transit in those areas.Other Modes......discussed in the Plan include air travel andfreight. The Plan concludes that there is little theTown can actively do to Improve air travel, but theTown can work to protect neighborhoods fromexcessive truck traffic.yMoving Beyond the BottomLine......means that the Town needs to expand the system of auto alternatives to offer a real choice toresidents and visitors while maintaining the existing roadway network.The RoadwaysRecommendations......cover issues such as the Official Highway Map,engineering and design, maintenance, trafficcalming, and enforcement. Part of these Recommendations is a set of best practices DesignGuidelines for streetscape design, traffic calming,and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.Continued...The Bottom Line......there a fundamental imbalance in the current transportation system: It favors low-occupancy, privately ownedmotor vehicles at the expense of other modes. Negative environmental effects from over-dependency on lowoccupancy motor vehicles are felt on scenic, air, water, and energy resources, as well as via light, heat, andnoise impacts. The feedback loop between land use patterns and transportation perpetuates auto dependence,because dispersed development requires motor vehicles, and roadways and parking for motor vehicles fuel additional dispersed development. A transportation system that Is overly dependent on privately-owned motor vehicles leaves out the young, old, poor and disabled. -^^-^^mendationsuontinued:The Biking & WalkingRecommendations......include a revised Sidewalk Policy, expansion offacilities across the Town, design recommendations, connections between transit andnon-motorized modes, multi-use trails, safetyeducation and evaluation, enforcement of bicycleand pedestrian laws, and an encouragementstrategy.The Capital Budget ProjectsRecommendations......outline the role of a Capital Budget In a localgovernment's long-term planning. TheRecommendations deal with the role of capitalbudgeting and the capital budget horizon, budgetappropriations, other funding sources, andspecific projects.The Land UseRecommendations......suggest that the Town should examine theZoning Code and Subdivision Regulations todetermine how they can be improved to support abalanced transportation system. They offerguidelines on topics including mixing land uses,density, setbacks, parking requirements,pedestrian circulation, and transit access.mThe Re( CooperationRecommendations......emphasize that working together and sharingresources will help to create a transportation system that is seamless across municipal boundaries. The Recommendations discuss the ITCTC,Cornell's t-GEIS and TIMS, the Town Transportation Committee, multi-use trails in the County,Park-and-Ride, design issues, and traffic demandmanagement.The Appendices......include a large collection of maps, a section ofsupplementary tables, results from the Town-wide Transportation Survey, intersection and roadsegment safety analyses, sidewalk ordinancesand polities, methodology for identifying and prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian needs, best practice design guidelines, public participationthroughout the planning process, works cited andfurther Information, and a listing of acronyms anda glossary.For More Information...This summary is an extremely brief overview ofthe contents and conclusions of theTransportation Plan. For more Information,please consult the Transportation Pian itself(copies are available at Town Hall) or visit thePlan on the web atwww.town.ithaca.nv.us/trans.Contact Nicole Tedesco, Planner, at (607)273-1747 or via email at ntedescoOtown.Ithaca.ny.uswith questions or comments.The Town of iC.c..—TransportationPlan:SummaryThe Purpose...From gas prices to the bus ride to school, airpollution to neighborhood livability, transportationtouches nearly every aspect of our world.Because transportation is so important, the Townof Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan recommendedthe creation of a separate Transportation Plan.The Transportation Plan was created by the TownTransportation Committee, with technicalassistance from the Town Planning Department.The Goal......of this Transportation Plan is to foster atransportation system that enhances the qualityof life in the Town.The Plan outlinesseven goals organizedaround the themes ofAccess & Mobility,Livability, Safety,Transportation SystemManagementCoordination, LandUse Planning, and theEnvironment. rs f ^ Town Board Meeting, October 5, 2006, Attachment 2 Adopted September 14, 2006 by the Town Board of the Town of Caroline Resolution in support of continuing County collaboration in the Recreation Partnership f Whereas, the Tompkins County Recreation Partnership is a unique collaboration among 11 Tompkins County municipalities which allows youth from Caroline and other municipalities to participate in recreational programs to meet new friends, learn new skills, and have positive new experiences in well-supervised appropriate activities at an affordable price, and Whereas, by collaborating and pooling resources, the Partnership offers a wider and more affordable array of recreational programs than any single local government could offer on its own, according to a cost-sharing formula wherein the Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca, and Tompkins County each contribute one-quarter, enabling eight smaller municipalities to share the remaining one-quarter, and Whereas, the Tompkins County Administrator recently requested the Tompkins County Youth Services Department to describe the impact of withdrawing full County financial support from the Recreation Partnerships, and Whereas, withdrawal of County support for the Recreational Partnership would create a funding gap that increased user fees could not fill, and i ^ Whereas, a partial cut in County funding to the Recreation Partnership contributed to a reduction in the number of Recreation programs from 39 to 30, and Whereas, withdrawal of County support for the Recreational Partnership would dramatically reduce the number of recreational programs offered to youth by the Recreation Partnership, and Whereas, withdrawal of County support for the Recreational Partnership could ultimately jeopardize the existence of the partnership, and Whereas, continuing full County support for the Recreation Partnership will encourage intermunicipal cooperation with 10 other municipal partners, Therefore, be it resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Caroline affirms the importance of providing well-supervised recreational programming for youth, and also Be it resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Caroline strongly encourage the Tompkins County Legislature to continue its support for the Recreation Partnership, and also Be it resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Caroline strongly encourage the Board of the Recreation Partnership to develop funding streams in addition to municipal ^ ^ ^ contributions to reduce the strain on its municipal partners. V Town Board Meeting, October 5, 2006, Attachment 3 Nominees to City of Ithaca-Town of Ithaca joint study group October 4, 2006 • Lois E. Chaplin, Extension Associate, Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University; Bicycle and Pedestrian Specialist, Cornell Local Roads Program • Paul R. Eberts, Professor, Department of Development Sociology, and Director of Graduate Studies for the Field of Community and Rural Development, Cornell University • Nathan Fawcett, Special Assistant to the Provost for State-Related Issues, Cornell University; Tompkins Public Library Treasurer and Trustee; formerly served with New York State Division of Budget • Randy Haus, Trumansburg Police Department; former Deputy Police Chief, City of Ithaca; former Tompkins County Undersheriff /■ Tom Niederkorn, Principal, Planning & Environmental Research Consultants; former City of Ithaca Planning Director Wendy Skinner, Marketing and Communications Manager, Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit; active in Sustainable Tompkins; former Tompkins County Public Information Officer Stuart W. Stein, former Member and Chair, Tompkins County Board of Representatives; Professor Emeritus, Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University Constance V. Thompson, Manager, Recruitment and Diversity Recruitment, Recruitment and Employment Center, Cornell University; Steering Committee Member, Alliance for Community Empowerment (ACE) uQ)O■PooSupervisor's TentativeProposed2007 Budget Tax Levy and Tax Rate Compared 2006-20071 ❖Model of $200,000 Homeowner's Real Property Tax BillOverview❖Fiscal Budget Summary By Fund 2007(Tentative) TAXING PURPOSESTAXABLE VALUE2006 2007TAX RATE/$10002006 2007ITHACA TOWN TAX$ 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ 1.68$ 1.68$336.BTll$ITHACA FIRE$200,$ 200,$ 3.74$ 3.74$748.(iQ$FOREST HOME LIGHTING$200,$ 200,$ 0.13$ 0.01$26.$ITHACA WATER11$ 80.dEI$ 80.[33$80.[13$ITHACA SEWER11$ 30.$ 30.E3$30.$TAX AMOUNT2006 2007336.748.2.80.0030.•QiINCREASE%(DECREASE)$0.0%$0.0%$ (24.00)-92.3%$0.0%$0.0% FUNDDESCRIPTIONGENERAL TOWNWIDEGENERAL PARTTOWNGENERAL PARTTOWN HIGHWAYWATERSEWERRISK RETENTIONDEBT SERVICEFIRE PROTECTIONFOREST HOME LIGHTINGGLENSIDE LIGHTINGRENWICK LIGHTINGEASTWOOD COMMONS LIGHTINGCLOVER LANE LIGHTINGWINNERS CIRCLE LIGHTINGBURLEIGH DR LIGHTINGWESTHAVEN RD LIGHTINGCODDINGTON RD LIGHTINGREAL PROPERTY TAX LEVYINCREASE PERCENT(DECREASE)TAX LEVY20062007$ 1,712,903$ 1,749,283$$$$$ 607,243$ 605,225$ 215,810$ 215,475$$$$$ 2,749,923$ 2,816,864$ 3,425$ 384$ 1,189$ 559$ 1,759$ 200$ 3,558$ 442$ 336$ 182$ 1,034$ 418$ 896$ 300$ 3,176$ 2,061$ 36,380.002.1%$$$ (2,018.00)-0.3%$ (335.00)-0.2%$ - i$ - ;$ 66,941.002.4%$ (3,041.00)-88.8%$ (630.00):-53.0%$ (1,559.00)-88.6%$ (3,116.00)-87.6%$ (154.00)^5.8%$ (616.00)-59.6%$ (596.00)-66.5%$ (1,115.00)-35.1%$ (1,075.00)-57.9% TAX RATES COMPARED 2006-2007REAL PROPERTY TAX RATESINCREASE PERCENT(DECREASE)GENERAL TOWNWIDE$1.68$1.68GENERAL PARTTOWN$$GENERAL PARTTOWN HIGHWAY$-$-WATER$80.00$80.00SEWER$30.00$30.00RISK RETENTION$$DEBT SERVICE$$-FIRE PROTECTION$3.74$3.74FOREST HOME LIGHTING$0.13$0.01GLENSIDE LIGHTING$0.32$0.15RENWICK LIGHTING$0.17$0.02EASTWOOD COMMONS LIGHTING$0.37$0.05CLOVER LANE LIGHTING$0.20$0.11WINNER'S CIRCLE LIGHTING$0.47$0.19BURLEIGH DR LIGHTING$0.24$0.08WEST HAVEN RD LIGHTING$0.47$0.31CODDINGTON RD LIGHTING$0.11$0.0%$$$0.0%$0.0%$$$0.0%$ (0.12)-92.3%$ (0.17)-53.1%$ (0.15)1-88.2%$ (0.32)-86.5%$ (0.09)^5.0%$ (0.28)1-59.6%$ (0.16)-66.7%$ (0.16)-34.0%$ (0.15)-57.7%JL FISCAL TENTATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND 2007FUNDPREFIXFUNDESTIMATEDEXPENSESESTIMATEDOTHERREVENUESESTIMATED AMOUNTFROM OR (TO)FUND BALANCEAMOUNT RAISEDBYREAL PROPERTY TAXESOPERATINGGENERAL TOWNWIDEGENERAL PART TOWNGENERAL PART TOWN HIGHWAYRISK RETENTION401,690.00 $173,581.0072.691.004,300.003,764,583.00770,328.001,941,580.0010,000.001,613,610.00 $596,747.001,868,889.005,700.001,749,283.00TOTAL6,486,491.00 $4,084,946.00 $652,262.00 $1,749,283.00SPECIAL DISTRICTSSFSL1SL2SL3SL4SL5SL6SL7SL8; SL92,756,000.00 $2,384.00859.001,200.002,442.00282.00818.00777.003,261.001,925.00FIRE PROTECTIONFOREST HOME LIGHTINGGLENSIDE LIGHTINGRENWiCK HEIGHTS LIGHTINGEASTWOOD COMMONS LIGHTINGCLOVER LANE LIGHTINGWINNER'S CIRCLE LIGHTINGBURLEIGH DRIVE LIGHTINGWEST HAVEN RD LIGHTINGCODDINGTON RD LIGHTING53,500.00 $(114,364.00) $2,000.00300.001,000.002,000.00100.00400.00477.001,200.001,144.002,816,864.00384.00559.00200.00442.00182.00418.00300.002.061.00781.00TOTAL2.769,948.00 $53,500.00 $(105,743.00) $2,822,191.00WATERSEWER3,216,524.00 $2,021,010.002,809,700.00 $1,482,000.00(204,401.00) $316,835.00611,225.00222,175.005,237,534.00 $TOTAL4,291,700.00 $112,434.00 $833,400.00DEBT OBLIGATIONSDEBT SERVICE$ 979,946.00 $ 979,946.00 $$ 979,946.00 $ 979,946.00 $TOTAL Total EstimatedExpensesAmount RaisedBy Real PropertyTaxes &AssessmentsTotal Town Budget - 2007 $15,473,919.00 $ 9,410,092.00 $ 658,953.00 $ 5,404,874.00Total Town Budget - 2006 $ 15,400,671.00 $ 8,033,962.00 $ 2,050,902.00 $ 5,315,807.00Total Dollar Change $ 73,248.00 $ 1,376,130.00 $ (1,391,949.00) $89,067.00Between 2006-2007Total Percent of ChangeBetween 2006-20070.5%14.6%-211.2%1.6% >A^termung^%<D3^'BOLTON POINTWATERSYSTEM^ACA,^"olpLLI iJll 8EP 28 2006»CA TOWN CLFRKATTEST I j,ITH^A TOWN CLERKThe Southern Cayuga LakeIntermunicipal Water CommissionTOWNS OF DRYDEN, ITHACA, LANSINGVILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTSVILLAGE OF LANSING1402 East Shore DriveIthaca, NY 14850Oowopo-(Da>r+H-t3CPqOOc+OO'CD4CntoOOa>ctc+jcOtr3CD13ctcn Printed 9/28/2006 11:27 AM)SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKEINTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION2007 OPERATING BUDGET)2007 Budget2006 BudgetActual 1/1/06Estimate for Dec.2007 DepartmentCommittee2005 Achjal2006 ApprovedAs Modifiedto 6/30/0631,2006RecommendedRecommended2007 TentativeREVENUES2,136,047.252,136,047.252390 SHARE/JOINT ACTIVITY2,516.723.822,119,217.462,119,217.46538,696.072,118,038.772,136,047.252144 WATER SERVICE CHARGE11.265.0011,250.0011,250.0014,430.0014,430.0014,430.0014,430.0014,430.002378 SERVICE TO OTH. GOVT73.201.1860,000.0060,000.0028.806.6460,000.0060,000.0060,000,0060,000.002401 INTEREST-TIME DEPOSITS76,513.8734.000.d034,000.0030,008.6935,000.0035,000.0035;000.0035,000.002590 PLUMB. PERMIT FEES61,160.6152,500.0052,500.0031,229.9950,000.0052,500.0052,500.0052,500.002144C CROSS CONNECTION FEES7,424.006,500.006,500.004,754.006,500.006,500.006,500.006,500.002665 SALES OF EQUIPMENT9,082.1412,500.0012,500.000.0011,000.0012,500.0012,500.0012,500.002770 MISC. REFUNDS ETC.19.904.0925,000.0025,000.0010,722.3025,000.0025,390.2625,390.2625,390.262701 REFUNDS OF PRIOR YRS EXPENSES6,735.323,250.003,250.000.003,100.003,250.003,250.003,250.00599 APPROPRIATED FROM FUND BALANCE257,127.25439,367.33468,367.330.00292,832.66235,052.24235,052.24235.052.24TOTAL REVENUES3,039,137.282,763.584.792,792,584.79658,647.692,615.901.432,580,669.752,580,669.752,580,669.75APPROPRIATIONS134,024.00134,024.009901 BOND PRIN. & INTEREST106,700.00267,000.00267,000.00267,000.00267,000.00134,024.008310 ADMINISTRATION556,704.40578,153.93578,153.93285,647.68566,493.31593,531.51593,531.51593,531.518320 SOURCE OF SUPPLY254,806.12234,351.69234,351.69104,123.87232,026.69238,566.70238,566.70238,566.708330 PURIRCATION606,929.41550,383.43579,383.43264,033.13538,688.43583,517.35583,517.35583,517.358340 TRANSMISSiON/DISTRIB.461,701.13450,840.44450,840.44188,659.55431,785.00468,217.39468,217.39468,217.399000 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS402,296.22482,855.30482,855.30212,289.88379,908.00407,012.80407,012.80407,012.801990 CONTINGENCY0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.009950 CAPITAL PROJECTS1,947,910.00200,000.00200,000.000.00200.000.00155,800.00155,800.00155,800.00TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS4.337.047.28 2.763.584.79 2.792.584.79 1.321.754.11 2.615.901.432,580.669.752.580.669.752.580.669.75FUND BALANCE(resulting from year-end closeout) 1.297,910.00 ^Notes1. Operating Fund Balance for 2005 as reported by Sciarabba & Walker CPAs2. The Actual to 6/30/06 includes payables for 7^06.Page 1 of 7 Printed on 9/28/2006, at 11:27 AMSOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKEINTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION2007 OPERATING BUDGET2008 Budget AsActual 1/1/06 to2005 Actual2006 ApprovedModified6/30/0611,265.0011,250.0011,250.0014,430.0073,201.1860,000.0060,000.0028,806.642,516,723.822,119,217.462,119,217.46538,696.0776,513.8734,000.0034,000.0030.008.6961,160.6152,500.0052,500.0031,229.997,424.006,500.006,500.004,754.009,082.1412,500.0012,500.000.0019,904.0925,000.0025,000.0010,722.306,735.323,250.003,250.000.000.000.000.000.002.782,010.032,324,217.462.324,217.46658,647.69Estimate forDec. 31,20062007 DepartmentRecommended2007 BudgetCommitteeRecommended2007 TentativeREVENUES2144 Water Service Charges2378 Service to Other Gvmmts2390 Share/Joint Activity2401 Interest-Time Deposits2590 Permit Fees21440 Cross-Connection Fees2665 Sales of Equipment2770 Misc., refunds, etc.2701 Refunds of Prior Years Expenses5031 Transfer From Other Funds14,430.0060,000.002,118,038.7735,000.0050,000.006,500.0011,000.0025,000.003,100.000.0014,430.0014,430.0014,430.0060,000.0060,000.0060,000.002,136,047.252,136,047.252,136,047.2535,000.0035,000.0035,000.0052,500.0052,500.0052,500.006,500.006,500.006,500.0012,500.0012,500.0012,500.0025,390.2625,390.2625,390.263,250.003,250.003,250.000.000.000.002,345,617.512,345,617.512,345,617.51Total Revenue2,323,068.77OTHER SOURCES599 Appropriated From Fund Balance257,127.25439,367.33468,367.330.00 292,832.66235,052.24235,052.24235,052.24Total Other Sources257,127.25439,367.33468,367.330.00 292,832.66235,052.24235,052.24TOTAL REVENUE & OTHER SOURCES 3.039,137.28 2,763,584.79 2.792,584.79 658,647.69 2,615,901.43 2,580,669.752,580,669.75235,052.242,580,669.75NOTES1. 2390 Share Joint Activity represents metered water sales revenue.The Commission approved keeeping the water rate at $2.21/1,000 gallons and using $79,252.24 from the fund balance to support the operating budget.Page 2 of 7 >Printed 9/28/2006 11:27 AMSOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKEINTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION2007 OPERATING BUDGET2008 Budget Actual 1/1/06 Estimate for2005 Actual 2006 Approved As Modified to 6/30/06 Dec. 31.20062007 DepartmentRecommended2007 BudgetCommitteeRecommended2007 TentativeDebt Service:9710.630 2004 SIB Principle9710.730 2004 SIB Interest9901.900 Transfer to V Fund35,000.0071,700.000.000.00267.000.000.000.00267,000.000.000.00267.000.000.000.00267.000.000.000.00134.024.000.000.00134,024.00134,024.000.000.00134.024.00134.024.00Total Principle & Interest106.700.00 267.000.00 267,000.00 267,000.00 267,000.00134,024.00Total Debt Retfrement106.700.00 267.000.00 267.000.00 267.000.00 267.000.00134.024.00134.024.00134.024.00Administration:0.000.000.008310.100 Personnel Development0.000.000.000.000.008310.101 Personnel Senrices298,363.89311,156.93311,156.93109,589.40311,156.93310,567.53310,567.53310,567.538310.102 Admin Overtime0.00500.00500.000.00500.00500.00500.00500.00Total Personnel Services298.363.89311.656.93311,656.93109,589.40311,656.93311,067.53311,067.53311,067.538310.201 Equipment4,074.994,400.004,400.002,507.984,400.001,900.001,900.001,900.008310.202 Vehicles43,243.6247,500.0047,500.0041,038.7645,000.0054,000.0054,000.0054,000.00Total Equip47,318.6151,900.0051,900.0043,546.7449,400.0055,900.0055,900.0055,900.008310.401 Phone/Telemeter25,901.3214,591.0014,591.0010,133.71i20,000.009,881.509,881.509,881.508310.403 Natural Gas18,786.0324,600.0024,600.0013,179.2324,600.0025,000.0025,000.0025,000.008310.404 Gas & Oil18,866.5022,000.0022,000.005,903.6322,000.0021,600.0021,600.0021,600.008310.405 Auditor & Attorney20,069.7518,000.0018,000.0017,416.6218,000.0021,250.0021,250.0021,250.008310.406 Consultants0.003,700.003,700.000.000.003,000.003,000.003,000.008310.410 Office Supplies5,711.255,330.005,330.003,014.985,330.005,413.005,413.005,413.008310.411 Printing & Post41,898.1536,850.0036,850.0022,689.2336,850.0038,852.0038,852.0038,852.008310.418 Equipment Maint.6,780.335,936.005,936.004,009.835,936.007,664.007,664.007,664.008310.419 Custodial Services9,804.9711,960.0011,960.004,510.618,000.0013,760.0013,760.0013,760.008310.433 Travel Schools773.761,850.001,850.00442.871,200.002,200.002,200.002,200.008310.435 Advertising668.521,750.001,750.00188.921,000.00770.00770.00770.008310.436 Dues & Publications1,529.742,140.002,140.00616.842,140.002,512.002,512.002,512.008310.437 Data Processing8,917.069,400.009,400.002,128.609,000.009,751.489,751.489,751.488310.438 Insurance44,890.3850,000.0050,000.0044,890.3844,890.3850,000.0050,000.0050,000.008310.440 Miscellaneous2,267.253,210.003,210.002,006.943,210.003,210.003,210.003,210.008310 460 In-house Training0.00500.00500.000.00500.00500.00500.00500.008310.461 Safety Program4,156.892,780.002,780.001,379.152,780.0011,200.0011,200.0011,200.00Total Contractual211,021.90214,597.00214,597.00132,511.54205,436.38226,563.98226,563.98226,563.98Total Admin 8310556,704.40578,153.93578,153.93285,647.68566,493.31593,531.51593,531.51593,531.51Page 3 of 7 Printed 9/28/2006 11:27 AMSOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKEINTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION2007 OPERATING BUDGET2006 Budget Actual 1/1/06 Estimate for2005 Actual 2006 Approved As Modified to 6/30/06 Dec. 31,20062007 DepartmentRecommended2007 BudgetCommitteeRecommended2007 TentativeSource of Supply:8320.101 Personnel Services74,579.4374,936.5074,936.5027,374.2574,936.5077,183.7077,183.7077,183.708320.102 Overtime13,045.9210,500.1910,500.194,800.0210,500.1910,818.0010,818.0010,818.00Total Personal Services87,625.3585.436.6985,436.6932,174.2785.436.6988,001.7088,001.7088,001.708320.201 Equipment1,891.500.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Total Equip & Maint1,891.500.000.000.000.000.000.000.008320.402 Electric Power141,781.87129,900.00129,900.0060,698.36129,000.00130,800.00130,800.00130,800.008320.408 Clothing, Boots601.06725.00725.00293.55625.00680.00680.00680.008320.410 Office Supplies164.32160.00160.0065.0065.00170.00170.00170.008320.412 Tools, Equip. P5,396.205,760.005,760.002,904.055,500.004,870.004,870.004,870.008320.421 MaInt B. P Systems1,890.382,570.002,570.00538.111,600.002,600.002,600.002,600.008320.422 Malnt. T&V System15,345.869,300.009,300.007,350.539,300.0010,945.0010,945.0010,945.008320.433 Travel & School109.58500.00500.00100.00500.00500.00500.00500.00Total Source Contractual165.289.27148,915.00148,915.0071,949.60146,590.00150,565.00150,565.00150,565.00Total Source 8320254,806.12234,351.69234,351.69104,123.87232,026.69238,566.70238,566.70238,566.70Page 4 of 7 >3Printed 9/28/2006 11:27 AMSOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKEINTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION2007 OPERATING BUDGET2006 Budget Actual 1/1/06 Estimate for 2007 Department2007 BudgetCommitteeRecommended2007 TentativePurification:235,606.13235,606.138330.101 Personnel Services229,093.80227,992.40227,992.4083,101.05227,992.40235,606.138330.102 Overtime8.928.798.446.038.446.031,700.028,446.038.161.228,161.228,161.22Total Personal Services238.022.59236.438.43236.438.4384.801.07236.438.43243.767.35243,767.35243,767.358330.201 Equipment25,000.9515,000.0015,000.0016,774.000.0014,980.0014,980.0014,980.008330.202 Research/Development30.334.180.0029.000.004,386.2229,000.0043,810.0043,810.0043,810.00Total Equip & Supplies55.335.1315.000.0044.000.0021.160.2229.000.0058,790.0058,790.0058,790.008330.402 Sectric Power203,351.40183,300.00183,300.0084,470.78176,000.00180,900.00180,900.00180,900.008330.408 Clothing Boot110.43950.00950.000.00600.00840.00840.00840.008330.410 Office Supplies784.81760.00760.00305.78700.00780.00780.00780.008330.412 Tools/Equip Par4,970.153,775.003,775.006,307.890.004,140.004,140.004,140.008330.413 Meter Charts1,306.17750.00750.00939.790.000.000.000.008330.415 Treatment Supplies29,613.6036,800.0036,800.0017,432.9831,000.0032,200.0032,200.0032,200.008330.416 Lab Suppllies14,738.1015,725.0015,725.007,347.4411,500.0014,740.0014,740.0014,740.008330.418 Equipment Maint.50,908.6348,250.0048,250.0037,817.8346,000.0037,900.0037,900.0037,900.008330.419 Buildings & Grounds6,747.387,435.007,435.002,793.896,500.008,660.008,660.008,660.008330.433 Travel & Schools1.041.021,200.001,200.00655.46950.00800.00800.00800.00Total Contractual313,571.69298,945.00298.945.00158,071.84273,250.00280,960.00280,960.00280,960.00Total Purification 8330606.929.41550.383.43579.383.43264,033.13538,688.43583,517.35583,517.35583,517.35Page 5 of 7 >Printed 9/28/2008 11:27 AM)SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKEINTERMUNiCIPAL WATER COMMISSION2007 OPERATING BUDGET2006 Budget Actual 1/1/06 Estimate for 2007 Department2005 Actual 2006 Approved As Modified to 6/30/06 Dec. 31.2006 Recommended2007 BudgetCommitteeRecommended2007 TentativeTransmission & Distribution:239,964.53239,964.53239,964.538340.101 Personnel Services230,828.62236,900.80236,900.8086,643.60229,281.008340.102 Overtime13,816.1514,894.6414,894.644,964.6913,154.0017,477.8617,477.8617,477.86Total Personal Services244.644.77251,795.44251,795.4491,608.29242,435.00257,442.39257,442.39257,442.398340.201 Equipment11,300.667,050.007,050.0010,003.660.005,700.005,700.005,700.00Total Equip & Maint11.300.667,050.007,050.0010.003.660.005,700.005,700.005,700.008340.402 Electric Power121,073.43105,800.00105,800.0050,820.23104,000.00115,000.00115,000.00115,000.008340.403 Natural Gas4,542.133,300.003,300.001,540.564,800.005,000.005,000.005,000.008340.408 Clothing, Boots2,238.291,700.001,700.00595.691,700.001,425.001,425.001,425.008340.410 Office Supplies378.79530.00530.00177.61320.00495.00495.00495.008340.412 Tools/Equip Parts4,781.814,785.004,785.001,468.423,800.004,825.004,825.004,825.008340.418 Vehicle Equip Maint7,133.607,680.007,680.005,047.827,680.006,510.006,510.006,510.008340.421 Maint B.P. System14,217.4613,200.0013,200.007,362.7613,200.0024,520.0024,520.0024,520.008340.422 Maint T&V Systems33,221.9418,400.0018,400.0012,938.6418,400.0022,000.0022,000.0022,000.008340.424 Meters15,508.1926,120.0026,120.006,295.9826,120.0022,000.0022,000.0022,000.008340.433 Travel & School847.792,350.002,350.00133.361,200.001,325.001,325.001,325.008340.442 Mapping1,812.278,130.008,130.00666.538,130.001,975.001,975.001,975.00Total Contractual205,755.70191,995.00191,995.0087,047.60189,350.00205,075.00205,075.00205,075.00Total Distribution 8340461,701.13450,840.44450,840.44188,659.55431,785.00468,217.39468,217.39468,217.39NOTESSW8340.442 will likely spend an additional $6,000 over budget to cover cost of GPS.Page 6 of 7 Printed 9/28/2006 11:27 AMSOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKEINTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION2007 OPERATING BUDGET2006 Budget As Actual 1/1/06 Estimate for2005 Actual 2006 Approved Modified to 6/30/06 Dec. 31.20062007DepartmentRecommended2007 BudgetCommitteeRecommended2007 TentativeEmployee Benefits:9010.800 State Retirement9030.800 Social Security9040.800 Workers Comp9045.800 Life Insurance9050.800 Unemployment Ins9055.800 Disability Insurance9060.800 Health Insurance9089.800 Wellness Reimbursement9089.801 Wellness Direct Expenses94,723.00105,000.00105,000.0094,723.0094,723.0087,000.0087,000.0087,000.0064,275.8767,750.0067,750.0023,866.3867,750.0069,000.0069,000.0069,000.0028,716.1130,815.3030,815.3010,576.2032,235.0034,502.8034,502.8034,502.802,013.962,100.002,100.00839.142,100.001,944.001,944.001,944.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.004.872.345,600.005,600.002,055.585,600.005,216.005,216.005,216.00207,038.66270,140.00270,140.0080,229.58176,000.00207,000.00207,000.00207,000.00255.001,000.001,000.000.001,000.001,000.001,000.001,000.00401.28450.00450.000.00500.001,350.001,350.001,350.00402.296.22482.855.30482.855.30212.289.88379.908.00407.012.80407,012.80407,012.80Total Employee Ben. 90001990.400 ContingencyTotal AppropriationsTotal Debt Retirement Expense0.002,282,437.28106.700.000.002,296,584.79267.000.000.002,325,584.79267.000.000.001,054,754.11267.000.000.002,148,901.43267,000.000.002,290,845.75134,024.000.002,290,845.75134,024.000.002,290,845.75134,024.00Total Appropriations & Debt Ret2.389.137.282.563.584.792.592,584.791.321,754.112,415,901.432,424,869.752,424,869.752,424,869.75Other Uses:9950.900(630 Transfer to Other Funds)Capital Projects Funds:HG-East Hill TankSheldron Rd Tank Maint. & RecoatingTransmission Main Replacement (Rt. 79)650,000.00200,000.00200,000.00200,000.00155,800.00155,800.00155,800.00Total Capital Projects1.947.910.00200.000.00200,000.000.00200,000.00155.800.00155,800.00155,800.00TOTAL OTHER USES1,947,910.00200.000.00200.000.000.00200.000.00155,800.00155,800.00155.800.00TOTAL APPROPRIATIONSAND OTHER USES4.230.347.282.763.584.792,792,584.791,054,754.112,348,901.432,580,669.752,580,669.752,580,669.75Page 7 of 7 , Town Board Meeting, October 5, 2006, Attachment 6 TOWN OF ITHACA rS 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 ' « www.town.ithaca.ny.us f ^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 or (607) 273-5854 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Board Members and Department Heads FROM: Judith C. Draka, PHR, Human Resources Manager DATE: September 26, 2006 SUBJECT: 2007 wages and benefits for Tentative Budget As you are considering and discussing the 2007 Tentative Budget as the Preliminary Budget, I wanted to give you the Information that makes up the Personnel and Benefit lines of that budget. Enclosed are the wage resolutions and sheets detailing the 2007 wages for the elected and appointed officials and the employees. The detailed sheets break out the salaries in two different ways. The first set of sheets show all the employees grouped by classification and the elected and appointed officials. The second set of sheets show the break out of the personnel lines as they appear in the Tentative Budget (.100, .101, .102.) are a few things that i wanted to bring to your attention as you review the detail. ^ j 4.0% raise Is proposed for the Town Board Members, Justices and appointed officials (the same as employees). j Employees received a 4% Increase in their hourly wage or salary per the Wage Scale proposed by the Town Supervisor for the Tentative Budget. o The Receiver of Taxes pay was reduced to a flat $5,000 without COLA increases planned In the future. o There are a few hourly employees that will receive an amount more than the 4%, and they are as follows: o There are three (3) employees that will move to Job Rate in January. Therefore, their % Increase Is higher than the others in the same job classification whom are already at Job Rate, (see pink color) o There are five (5) employees that have not reached Job Rate yet. New hires reach Job Rate the January following their second anniversary, (see purple color) o One Planner position is proposed to Increase from 30 hours per week to 37.5 hours per week. o One Deputy Town Clerk position proposed to increase from 30 hours to 37.5 hours per week. o The additional Planner position for 2006 was not funded for 2007. o The overall Increase for those employees already at Job Rate is 4%. o The total Increase for employee wages from '06 budget to '07 budget is 2.6%. o The total increase for all compared to the 2006 Final Budget is 2.6%. Also attached is a summary comparison of the salaries and benefits, per fund, for 2007 tentative budget versus the 2006 final budget. F \e contact me if you have any questions prior to the October 5, 2006 Town Board meeting. Page 1 of I TOWN OF ITHACA 2007 BUDGET .V2e/3006'"■'^LQYEES DRAPTTB Res:Approved %;EMPLuVbi- 2006 BUDGET2007 Budget% increaseTown Justices (Paid bi weeklviNew Justice$ 14,906.16$ 15,502.414.0%Klein, David$ 14,906.16$ 15,502.414.0%4.0%Town Board I Per memtjer for year $ 7.797.10$ 8,108.98Elected Ofticlals (6 members Paid 4x year)Town Supervisor/Fiscal Officer (bgt= 40%)Administrator function for Town (bgt = 60%)Deputy Town Supervisor$ 46,782.60$ 48,653.90$ 17,200.00$ 17,888.004.0%$ 25,800.00$ 26,832.004.0%$$0.0%Receiver of Taxes$ 5,627.42$ 5,000.00-11,1%Plannino Board Members4.0%j Per Meeting: $ 70.63$ 73.46Per meeting x 24 meetingsx 6 members I $ 10,170.72$ 10,577.554.0%Per Meeting: $ 76.54$ 79.60Planning Chairman (24meetlngs)$ 1,836.96$ 1,910.44Zonlna Board Members1 Per Meeting; $ 70.63$ 73.464.0%Per meeting x 15 meetings x 5 members & 1 Alt.$ 6,356.70$ 6,610.97i Total Non-Classified: $ 143,586.72$ 148,477.673.4%Actual 2006 Budgetperson not accountper2007 Budget/ bypersonDifference % CHANGENon-Classified (electe $143,586.02$ 148,477.67$4,891.653.4%Personnel w^ong.$2,436,365.69$ 2,500,766.43$64,400.742.6%includes longevity1 TOTAL$2,579,951.71$ 2,649,244.10$69,292,39 I 2.69% I1$ 25,866.901 people V9. budgetAdopted Budget6.89%= 10 YR AVGSalary Budgets forfor.100 &.101 & .103&.110% bdgt increase$ Increase2007$2,675,111.002,63%$68,641.00-pinr-dir b/z2006$2,606,470.003,16%$79,925.00+Plnr-lemp2005$2,526,545.006,42%$152,345.00-•-Cocte Enfc+Labr+2 seasl labr+er>g Intn2004$2,374,200.008.23%$180,580.0027 paychecks+Rec Cord -Sr Typ2003s2,193,620.007.12%$145,770.00BAdmin asst 40 hrs/ prin acct 37.62002$2.047,850.0016.37%$288,040.63■•■pd RecTax + 4 seasonal labors-*- Plan intern7/1/2001$68,556.23*7/01 reclass -^Sr Eng tech & Maint Wik & Ctr Clk Fit2001$1,691,253.146,75%$106,947.56-i-pd Dept IS -•-1 HEO2000$1,584,305.583,96%$60,318.621999$1,523,986.967.50%$106,345.563/90 Restructed Hwy work crewa/ night shift/ -*-A8st Mech1,417,641.406.78%$90,053.40-►Ntwk/Rec 6pec \CA 2007 BUD'^JTTIT1 F Date of Hire1 _TB Re?75 hours x 26pays => 1950'80 hours 126 pays => 20t»u ^2006 Hourlywage2006 SALARY2007 hourlywage2007 Gross for26 btwkly pays$ Raiseincrease inactual GrossWages% Increase11/07LongevitySDirector of Engineering 4/9/1990Director of Planning 5/31/1994Highway Superintendent 6/27/1988i 34.49 $ 71,739.20$ 35.87 $ 74,609.60$ 3,224.00$ 3,178.50$ 2,870.404.0%4.0%4.0%$ 650.00$ 450.00$ 750.00RBudget Officer 12/5/1996$ 33.35 $ 65,032.50$ 34.68 $ 87,626.00$ 2,593.504.0%$ 360.00QHuman Resources Manager 12/4/1996Town Clerk 1/23/2001$ 30.50 $ 59,475.00$ 30.50 $ 59,475.00$ 31.72 $ 61,854.00$ 31.72 $ 61,854.00$ 2,379.00$ 2,379.004.0%4.0%$ 350.00PNetwork/Records Specialist 9/14/1998Assistant Director of Planning 1/12/1998Sr. Code Enforcement Officer 6/15/1998Assistant Director of Engineering 9/14/1998Deputy Highway Superintendent 5/30/1984Parks Maintenance Manager 6/8/1982Water/Sewer Mntc Supen/isor 11/26/1990$ 25.91 $ 50,524.50$ 25.91 $ 50,524.50$ 25.91 $ 53,892.80$ 25.91 $ . 53,862.80$ 25.91 $ 53,892.80$ 25.91 $ 53,892.80$ 25.91 $ 53,892.80$ 26.95 $ 52,552.50$ 26.95 $ 52,552.50$ 26.95 $ 56,056.00$ 26.95 $ 56,056.00$ 26.95 $ 56,056.00$ 26.95 $ 56,056.00$ 26.95 $ 56,056.00$ 2,028.00$ 2,028.00$ 2,163.20$ 2,163.20$ 2,163.20$ 2,163.20$ 2,163.204.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%$ 950.00$ 1,050.00$ 650.00Environmental Planner6/7/1999NPlanner C06=30) ('07=37,5hrs) 1/29/2001Planner (not filling In 2007) 8/1/2005Code Enforcement Officer 7/26/2004Civil Engineer 3/20/2006Senior Engineering Technician 2/19/1998Heavy Equipment Medianic 7/11/1994Working Supervisor 4/18/1995Working Supervisor 7/7/1986Working Supervisor 7/6/1993MPrincipal Account Clerk9/24/2001$Bookkeeper to the Supervisor3/18/1996$Deputy Town Cierk/Dty R of Tax5/4/1998$Court Cleik (salary @ 37.5 hrs)7/24/1989$Court Clerk (salary @ 37.5 hrs)10/3/2005$Administrative Assistant1/25/1993$Engineering Technician i 8/20/2001Heavy Equipment Operator 7/7/1986Heavy Equipment Operator 6/24/19852007 4% use Tent BdgtBudget wages 200723.51 $ 45,844.5022.3321.5822.0821.0822.3322.3322.3322.3322.3334.834.8042,081.0045,926.4043,846.4046,446.4046,446.4046,448.4046,446.4046,446.4021.5421.5421.5421.5420.2921.5442,003.0042,003.0042,003.0042,003.0039,565.5044,803.2020.73 $20.73 $20.73 $43,118.4043,118.4043,118.40$ 24.45 $ 47,677.5023.22 $$23.22 $22.47 $23.22 $23.22 $23.22 $23.22 $23.22 $45,279.0048,297.6046,737.6048,297.6048,297.6048,297.6048,297.6048,297.6022.4022.4022.4022.4021.9022.4043,680.0043,880.0043,680.0043,680.0042,705.0046,592.0021.56 $ 44,844.8021.56 $ 44,844.8021.56 $ 44,844.80Prepared by Drtkt$ 1,833.0010,444.20(42,081.00)2,371.202,891.201,851.201,851.201,851.201,851.201,851.201,677.001,677.001,677.001,677.003,139.501,788.801,726.401,726.401,726.404.0%30.0%-100.0%5.2%6.6%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%7.9%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%13450.00400.00850.00500.00$ 350.00$ 700.00$ 500.00850.00900.00 ^CA 20C' Bl in'".jTITLEDate of HireHeavy Equipment OperatorHeavy Equipment OperatorMaintenance Worker12/20/19934/8/19966/25/2001KDeputy Town Clerk (wk«30 bgt 37,6) 8/14/2006Senior Typist - Building/Zoning 10/9/1989Senior Typist - Pianning 4/12/1999Recreation and Youth Coord. 5/3/2004Motor Equipment Operator 7/1/1996Motor Equipment Operator 7/29/1996Motor Equipment Operator 7/7/1997Motor Equipment Operator 4/12/1999Motor Equipment Operator 6/7/1999Motor Equipment Operator 3/24/2003Automotive Mechanic Assistant 4/15^002ILaborer (TH-p/t hrs)Laborer {37.5hrs/wk)LaborerLaborerLaborerLaborerLaborer(temp}(25wks@40hrs)Laborer(temp)(25wks@40hrs)Labor6f(temp}(25wks@40hrs)Laborer(temp}(25wks@40hrs)Laborer(temp)(25wk8@40hrs)Laborer(temp)(25wks@40hrs)9/28/19845/1/20008/21/20044/3/20066/19/20062nd yr returning2nd yr returning1 St yr working1st yr workinglet yr workingIstyr workingNotClaeetfled;Planning Intern (25 Viks@37.5hrs =937.5 hrs)Project Assistant-Eng. ('07=10wks@40hrs)$/cro8Sing x 9/day for 5 days/v\k for 42 weeksTown Historian (Stipend paid out Quarteriy)2006 Actual Budget salary not including longevity =75 hours X 26pays =>19502006 Hourlywage2006 SALARY20.73 $ 43,118.4020.73 $ 43,118.4020.73 $ 43,118.4017.61 $18.66 $18.86 $18.61 $18.86 $18.86 $18.86 $18.86 $18.86 $18.86 $18.86 $27,471.6036,777.0036,777.0036,289.5039,228.8039,228.8039,228.8039,228.8039,228.8039,228.8039,228.806.75 $15.69 $15.69 $15.44 $14.44 $14.44 $10.75 $10.75 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $6,000.0030,595.5032,635.2032,115.2030,035.2030,035.2010,750.0010,750.0010,500.0010,500.0010,500.0010,500.00$10.50$s10.75$$9.75$$9,843.754,300.0016,380.001,000.00$ 2,423,165.692006 Actual Budget Salary including longevity =$ 2,436,365.69*80 hours26 pays => 20802007 hourlywage2007 Gross for26 biwkly pays21.56 $21.56 $21.56 $44,844.8044,844.8044,844.8018.66 $19.61 $19.61 $19.61 $19.61 $19.61 $19.61 $19.61 $19.61 $19.61 $19.61 $36,777.0038,239.5038,239.5038,239.5040,788.8040,788.8040,788.8040,788.8040,788.8040,788.8040,788.807.1516.3216.3216.3215.5715.5711.0011.0010.7510.7510.7510.756,000.0031,824.0033,945.6033,945.6032,385.6032,385.6011,000.0011,000.0010,750.0010,750.0010,750.0010,750.0010,078.13••i.ruu.i'lj18,522.001.000.00Total; $ 2,466,566.43$10.76$$10.75$9.80$$;Tpfo!-%'-'/n^l^Q|'3/aB'S,v '08 gioss =:Total % incr '07igross:vs ^06 g);os5 (long) -TotaKLgrlS 2,500,766.43$ RaiseIncrease inactual GrossWages1,726.401,726.401,726.409,305.401,462.501,462.501,950.001,560.001,560,001,560.001,560.001,560.001,560.001,560.001,228.501,310.401,830.402,350.402,350.40250.00250.00250.00250.00250.00250.00234.382,142.00$ 76,252.58% Inaease4.0%4.0%4.0%33.9%4.0%4,0%5.4%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%4.0%0,0%4.0%4.0%5,7%7,8%7,8%2,3%2.3%2.4%2.4%2.4%2.4%2.4%0.0%13.1%0.0%::nOG vc: /.(KlVTB Res.::311/07Longevity500.00350.00$ 700.00350.00350.00300.00$ 950.00$ 14,200.00GO,100. 74 - (Ki vs U7 S" w/j Qllii':! tlllliti. 1 n;4.00% = Avg% incr gross wages:staff been @ Job Rate5.41 % = Avg% Incr gross wagesistaff now @ Job Rate12.81 % = Avg% IhCT gross wagesistaff not @ Job Rate_7j41%^Avg%,of3con^^31.93% = Avg to Increase Planner & Dept TC to f/t13.54% g Avg% of 4 comMned,2007 4% use Tent BdgtBudget wagw 2007below Job Ratenow job RateSeasonal/xgrdNormal$Represents whatI $2,486,566,43 j % of 2007 Total$ 166,268,70 6,69%190,990.80 7,68%120,482.70 4,85%104,900,13 4.22%1,903,924,10 76.57%$0.00 0.00% JOWM OF ITHACA 2007 BUDGET)TENTATIVETENTATl lllNARYADOPTEDFINAL AdoptedPay Biweekly orAFi .nOHRIATION account AND POSITION TITLEBase RateBUDGE1 ' bdDGETBUDGETBase RateQrtlyA1620.101 BLDG/TOWN HALL-PWD EMPLOYEESLine Total:$4,200.00Percentage of PWD Employees0.50%$4,200,00A1620.102 BLDGn"0WNHALL-0/TLine Total:$2,000,00SueKA3120.100 POLICE/ CROSSING GUARDSLine Total:$18,600,00Dan. Jeanette9 crossing per day for 5 days/wk for 42 weeks$ 9.60$18,522.00A5010.100 SUPERINTENDENT HIGHWAYSLine Total:$122,500,00FredHighway Superintendent$ 74,609.60$75,359,60GailAdministrative Assistant$ 22.40$47,092,00S722,467.60A5010,102 SUPERINTENDENT HIGHWAYS O/TS200,00A5132.100 HIGHWAY GARAGELine Total:$27,000,00JoeHMaintenance Worker (35% or 728hr9)$ 21.66$15,695,68StanLaborer (35% or 662 hrs)$ 16.32$11,130.24s26,826.92A5132.101 HIGHWAY GARAGE-PWD EMPLOYEESLine Total:1$$8,400.00 1Percentage of PWD Employees1.0%6,400.00A5132.102 HIGHWAY GARAGE-O/TLine Total:$200.00A7020.100 RECREATION ADMINISTRATIONLine Total:$38,300.00MamieRecreation and Youth Coordinator$ ^ 19.61$36,239.50A7110.100 TOWN PARKSUne Total:$61,800.00Rich S(house)Parks Maintenance Manager$ 26.95$57,106.00Joe HMaintenance Worker (10% or 208 hrs)$ 21.56$4,484.46s61,690.48A7110.101 PARKS (PWD EMPLOYEES)Line Total:1$172,000.00 1Percentage of PWD Employees19.50%$163,800.00StanLaborer (24% or 468 hrs)$ 16.32$7,637.76s171,437.76A7110.102 PARKS O/TUne Total:$9,000.001A7610.100 TOWN HISTORIANUne Total;$1,000.00fLauraTown Historian (pd quarterly stipend)$1,000.00A8540.101 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT -PWDUne Total:$16,800.00Percentage of PWD Employees2.0%$16,800.00,A8540.110 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT -InternLine Total:$4,300.00?Project Assistant-Eng. ('07=10wks@40hr8)$ 10.75$4,300.00VACANT POSITIONS NOT BUDGETED TO FILL: Senior Account Clerk Typist, Seaetary to the Supervisor, Typist. Sr. Typist Admin AsstGENERAL TOWN WIDE FUND (A) TOTAL .100 Personal$1,077,661.00 $$2006 Budget =GENERAL TOWN WIDE FUND (A) TOTAL .101 Personal$201,400.00 $$1.226,370.00GENERAL TOWN WIDE FUND (A) TOTAL .102 Personal$11,400.00 $$95,241.00GENERAL TOWN WIDE FUND (A) TOTAL .103 Personal$26,850.00 $$7.8%GENERAL TOWN WIDE FUND (A) TOTAL .110 Personal$4,300.00 $$|A FUND TOTAL$1,321,611.00 $$ - 1people vs. dept$1,318,907.60 $ 2,703.402007 4K use Ten! BdotBudoel wsqm 2007PrepttM by MyOrakeJ TOWM^OF ITHACA 2007 BUDGET•<>)TENTATIVETENTAT'llNARY ADOPTEDFINAL AdoptedPay Biweekly orrtPi .xUPRIATION ACCOUNT AND POSITION TITLEBase RateBUDGEi 'DciDGET BUDGETBase RateQrtlyGENERAL TOWN WIDE FUNDPeter, HerbA1010.100 TOWN BOARDLine Totel:$48,700.00Sandy, WillTown Board Members (6)$ 8,108.98$48,653.90Jeff. PatA1110.100 JUSTICESLine Total;$118,100.00David, JimJustices (2)$ 15,502.41$31,004.81BettyCourt Clerk (37.5 hours week/ Salary)$ 43,680.00$44,380.00LindaCourt Clerk (37.5 hours week/ Salary)$ 42,705.00S42,705.00A1220.100 TOWN SUPERVISORLine Total:s$118.089.8117,900.00CathyTown Supervisor/Fiscal Officer (bgt= 40%)$ 17,888.00$17,888.00A1220.101 DEPUTY SUPERVISORLine Total:$?Deputy Town Supervisor$$-A1220.103 ADMIN FUNCTION SUPERVISORLine Total:$26,850.00CathyAdministrator function for Town (bgt = 60%)$ 26,832.00$26,832.00A1316.100 ACCOUNTING/BOOKKEEPINGLine Total:$44,100.00DebBookkeeper to the Supervisor$ 22.40$44,030.00A1330,100 TAX COLLECTIONUr^e Total:$7,061.00DebReceiver of Taxes (Salary)$ 5,000.00$5,000.00CarrieDeputy Receiver of Taxes (2 hrs/pay =52 hrs)$ 22.40$1,164.80ConniePrincipal Account Clerk (=40 hrs)$ 22.40$896.00$7,060.80A1340.100 BUDGETLine Total:$68,000.00A1Budget Officer$ 67,626.00$67,976.00A141Q.100 TOWN CLERKLine Total:$124,000.00Tee-AnnTown Clerk$ 61.854.00$61,854.00CarrieDeputy Town Cierk/Dty Rec (50 hrs/pay =1300)$ 22.40$29,120.00PauletteDeputy Town Clerk (53 hrs/pay =1378)$ 16.86$25,989.06vacantLaborer P/T (-800 hrs)$ 7.15$6,000.00s122,963.08A1430.100 HUMAN RESOURCESLine Total:$113,000.00JudyHuman Resources Manager$ 61,854.00$62,204.00ConniePrincipal Account Clerk (=1910 hrs)$ 22.40$42,784.00Vacation Buyback for Afund$8,000.00$112,988.00A1440.100 ENGINEERLine Total:$187,500.00DanDirector of Engineering (Town Engineer)$ 83,803.20$84,453.20CreigAssistant Director of Engineering$ 26.95$56,056.00Kristin T.Civil Engineer$ 22.47$46,737.60$187.246.80A1460.100 RECORDS MANAGEMENTUne Totel;$52,600.00LisaNetwork / Records Specialist$ 26.95$52,552.50A1620.100 BUILDINGS/TOWN HALLUne Total;$27,500.00Joe (house)Maintenance Worker (30% or 624hr8)$ 21.56s13,453.44Stan (house)Laborer (41 % or 800 hrs)$ 16.32$14,006.00s27,469.442007 4% U89 Tent BdgtSudget wagn 2007Prapin4 6yA«rO*** OF ITHACA 2007 BUDGET1\7TENTAENTATIVEPRELIMINARY ADOPTEDFINAL Adop. ^. biweekly orAPPROPRIATION ACCOUNT AND POSITION TITLEBase RateBUDGETBUDGET BUDGETBase RateQrtlyGENERAL FUND PART TOWN88010.100 ZONINGLine Total:$155,000.00KristleSenior Code Enforcement Officer$26.95$56,056.00SteveCode Enforcement Officer$23.22$48,297.60DaniSenior Typist$19.61$38,939.50PauletteDeputy Town Clerk (12 hrs/pay =312)$18.86$5,884.32CarrieDeputy Town Clerk/ Dep Rec. (8 hrs/pay =208 hrs)$22.40$4,659.20$153,836.6288010.101 ZONING BOARDLine Total:$6,600.00Zoning Board Members (6 members for 15 mtgs/yr)$73.46$6,610.9788020.100 PLANNINGLine Total:$282,000.00JonDirector of Planning (Town Planner)$82,465.50$82,915.50SusanAssistant Director of Planning$26.95$52,552.50MikeEnvironmental Planner$24.45$47,677.50ChrisPlanner$23.22$45,279.00SandySenior Typist$19.61$38,239.50PauletteDeputy Town Clerk (10 hrs/pay =260)$18.86$4,903.60CarrieDeputy Town Clerk/ Dep Rec. (15 hrs/pay =390 hrs)$22.40$8,736.00$280,303,6088020.101 PLANNING BOARDLine Total:$12,500.00Planning Board Chairman (24 meetings per year)$79.60$1,910.44Planning Board Members (6 members for 24 mtgs yr.)$73.46$10,577.55%12,487.9988020.110 PLANNING INTERNLine Total:$10,100.00STUDENTPlanning Intern (25 wks@37.5hrs =937.5 hrs)$10.75$10,078.13PART TOWN WIDE FUND (B) TOTAL .100 Personal$437,000.00$ - $2006 Budget =PART TOWN WIDE FUND (8) TOTAL .101 Personal$19,100.00$ - $485,300.00PART TOWN WIDE FUND (8) TOTAL .110 Personal$10,100.00$ - $(19,100.00)IB Fund Total:$466,200.00$ . $-3.9%people vs. dept $ 463,317.30 $ 2,882.70 vac buyback2007 4% use Tent BdgtBudget wages 2007PrapirM by JuOy Draked/26/200e OF ITHACA 2007 BUDGETjdf"ifi: 1 (3A..a%^ \>7TENTATIV ,JtativePRELIMINARYADOPTEDFINAL Adopted^ MyAPPROPRIATION ACCOUNT AND POSITION TITLEBase RateBUDGETBUDGETBUDGETBase Rateor QrtlyHIGHWAY FUND PART TOWNGene (house)Deputy Highway Superintendent$26.95$57,006.00JeffH.Working Supervisor$23.22$48,697.60Don T.Working Supervisor$23.22$49,147.60Rich T.Working Supervisor$23.22$48,797.60John W.Heavy Equipment Mechanic$23.22$48,747.60RayHeavy Equipment Operator$21.56$45,694.80LarryHeavy Equipment Operator$21.56$45,744.80Scott DHeavy Equipment Operator$21.56$45,344.80John 8.Heavy Equipment Operator$21.56$45,194.80DavidMotor Equipment Operator$19.61$41,138.80EricMotor Equipment Operator$19.61$41,138.80MontyMotor Equipment Operator$19.61$41,088.80MIkeBMotor Equipment Operator$19.61$40,788.80MattMotor Equipment Operator$19.61$40,788.80TobyMotor Equipment Operator$19.61$40,788.80BemieAutomotive Mechanic Assistant$19.61$40,788.80HenryLaborer$16.32$33,945.60JonLaborer$16.32$33,945.60JamieLaborer$15.57$32,385.60HankLaborer$15.57$32,385.60SeasonalLaborer (40 hrs X 25 wks)$11.00$11,000.00SeasonalLaborer (40 hrs X 25 wks)$11.00$11,000.00SeasonalLaborer (40 hrs X 25 wks)$10.75$10,750.00SeasonalLaborer (40 hrs X 25 wks)$10.75$10,750.00SeasonalLaborer (40hiaX25wks)$10.75$10,750.00SeasonalLaborer (40 hrs X 25 wks)$10.75$10,750.00CraigSr. Engineering Technician (420 hrs)$23.22$9,752.40Joe S.Engineering Technician 1 (200 hrs)$21.56$4,312.00Shift Differential (26 wks (Si 40 hrs)$1.00$2,080.00Total of all Emplovees;$934,704.00$ - $-% of $840,000RECHECKHIGHWAY PERSONNEL BREAKOUT;$840,000.00Line Total:A1620.101 0.5%$ 4,200DB5110.100 GENERAL REPAIRS25,50% 1$214,200.00 1A5132.101 1%$ 8,400DB5110.102 GENERAL REPAIRS 0/T$5,500.00A7110.101 19.5%$ 163,800DB5112.100 PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS7.00% ^73,300.00A8540.101 2%$ 16,800DB5112.102 PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS 0/T+%ofCB&JS-^$5.000.00F8340.101 10%$ 84,000DB5130.100 MACHINERYJW& BM$90,000.00G8120.101 2.5%$ 21,000DB5130.102 MACHINERY OfT$89,536.40$1,500.00DB5110.100 25.5%$ 214,200DB5140.100 BRUSH / WEEDS7.00%$58.800.00DB5112.100 7%$ 73,300DB5140.110 BRUSH / WEEDS (non-work time)15.00%$126,000.00D85140.100 7%$ 58,800DB5140.102 BRUSH/WEEDS 0/T$2.000.00DB5140.110 15%$ 126,000DB5142.100 SNOW REMOVAL10.00%$84,000.00OBS142.100 10%$ 84,0002006 Budget =DB5142.102 SNOW REMOVAL OfT$57.000.00subtotal:$ 854.500746,550.00HIGHWAY FUND (DB) TOTAL .100 Personal$520,300.00$ - $-DB5130.100$ 90,000(29,260.00)HIGHWAY FUND (DB) TOTAL .110 Personal$126,000.00$ - $-Total$ 944.500-3.9%HIGHWAY FUND (DB) TOTAL .102 Personal$71,000.00$ - $-$ 831,103.20$ 9,796.002007 4% use Tent BcigtBudget wages 2007 |DB Fund Total: ^. 717,300.00$ - $- TO»«|J OF ITHACA 2007 BUDGET)TENTATIVEV )u6doetPRELIMINARYADOPTEDFINAL AdoptedPay Biweekl ^APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT AND POSITION TITLEBase RateBUDGETBUDGETBase RateQrtlyWATER FUNDF8310.100 WATER; ADMINISTRATIONLine Total:$34,000.00WayneWater/Sewer Maintenance Supervisor (24 hrsAA4()$ 26.95$33,958.60F8340.100 WATER; DISTRIBUTIONLine Total:$53,800.00Joe H.Maintenance Worker (15% or312 hrs)$ 21.56$6,726.72Craig (house)Sr. Engineering Technician (1240 hrs)$ 23.22$28,792.80Joe 8.Engineering Technician 1 (840 hrs)$ 21.56$18,110.40$53,629.92F8340.101 WATER; PWD EMPLOYEESLine Total:$84,000.00Percentage of PWD Employees10.00%$84,000.00F834a.102 WATER: OVERTIMELine Total:$9,000.002006 Budget =WATER FUND ( F ) TOTAL .100 Personal$87,800.00$.$_174,200.00WATER FUND ( F) TOTAL .101 Persona!$84,000.00$.$_6,600.00WATER FUND (F)TOTAL .102 Personal$9,000.00$-$.3.8%|F Fund Total:i180.800.00i-ipeople vs. dept$180,588.52$211.48SEWER FUNDG8110.100 SEWER: ADMINISTRATIONLine Total;$22,800.00WayneWater/Sewer Maintenance Supervisor (16 hrs/wk)$ 26.95$22,747.40G8120.100 SEWER; SANITARY SEWERSLine Total;$36,800.00Joe HMaintenance Worker (10% or 208 hrs)$ 21.56$4,484.48CraigSr. Engineering Technician (420 hrs)$ 23.22$9,752.40Joe S. (house)Engineering Technician 1 (1040 hrs)$ 21.56$22,422.40{36,659.28G8120.101 SEWER: PWD EMPLOYEESLine Total:$21,000.00Perr^ntage of PWD Employees2.50%$21,000.00G8120.102 SEWER: OVERTIMELine Total:$3,000.00SEWER FUND (G ) TOTAL .100 Personal$59,600.00$.$.2006 Budget =SEWER FUND (G ) TOTAL .101 Personal$21,000.00$-$.68,450.00SEWER FUND (G) TOTAL .102 Personal$3,000.00$-$.15.150.00|G Fund Total:$83.600.00$•i.22.1%people vs. dept$83,406.68$193.32GRAND TOTALS AS BUDGETED:GRAND TOTAL FOR .100 Personal Service (DB .110)$2,308,361.00$.$GRAND TOTAL FOR .101 Personal Service$325,500.00$-$12006 Budget =GRAND TOTAL FOR .102 Personal Service$94,400.00$-$_1 2,700,870.00GRAND TOTAL FOR .103 Personal Service$26.850,00$.$_68,641.00GRAND TOTAL FOR .110 Personal Service$14,400.00s.$.1 2.5%GRAND TOTAL$ 2,769,611.00$-■ '■(-.102)$2,675,111.00$-$-use Tsnt BdgtBudget wages 2007bdgt vs. actual$15,786.902007 4%PnptredbyJudrDraki 9/26/200bSUMMARY OF INCREASES OVER PRECEEDING YEAR'S BUDGET2007 SALARIES AND BENEFITS ^ ^)i11111LONG111iSOCIAL jSTATE ITERM 1HEALTHWORKERS j1111FUND 11SALARIES 1SECURITY 11DBL I1DBL 11LIFE INS 1INS.COMP. 1UNEMPLOY 11NYS&LR 1Flex Plan i1TOTALA 200711,322,350 1102,000 11,000 i7,400 13,000 i292,00026,000 15,100 i136,000 1830 i1,895,6802008'1,226,370 j94.300 j1.000!6,300 j2.600 j244.00019.125 j4.000 j137.000 j800 j1.735.495DIFF.|95,980 17,700 111,100 1400 148,0006,875 11,100 j(1.000)|30 [160,185% Incr.i7.8%i8.2%i0.0%i17.5%i15.4%i19.7%35.9%i27.5%i-0.7%|3.8%i9.2%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1B 20071466,200 I36,000 1300 12,600 11,000 178,5004,000 1500 I42,000 1250 B631,350 12006'485.300 j42.000 j3503.000 j"ooo102.0005.000 j500 !55.500 j250 !694.900DIFF.|(19,100)|(6,000)|(50)|(400)jj(23,500)(1.000)|1(13,500)|i—(63,550)% Incr.i-3.9%i-14.3%i-14.3%i-13.3%i0.0%i-23.0%-20.0%i0.0%i-24.3%i0.0%i-9.1%i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ill08 2007717,30055,000 i500j3,500 j1,600 j195,00064,000 115,000 j62,000 1200 j1,114,1002006!746,550 j59.000 j500 !3,300 !1,600200.00070.000 !16.00063.500 j200 !1,160,650DIFF.|(29,250)|(4.000)j200 11(5,000)(6,000)|(1,000)j(1.500)j1—(46,550)% Incr.i-3.9%i-6.8%i0.0%i6,1%i0.0%i-2.5%-8.6%i-6.3%i-2.4%i0.0%|-4.0%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 illF 2007180,80013,900 j1501,000350 j50,00013,000 j2,200 j19,000 j60 B280,4602006!174,20013,500 j130 !900 !35046.0005.0002.200 !17.50060 !259.840DIFF.|6,600 I400 120 IMOO 114,0008,000 I11,500 1-1—20,620% Incr.i3.8%i3.0%!15.4%|11.1%|0.0%i8.7%160.0%i0.0%i8.6%i0.0%I7.9%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i litG 200783,6006,40070600150 j21,0009,000 j550 [11,000 j60 j132,4302006!68,4505,300100450150 [16.0008,000250 !10.00060 !108.760DIFF.|15,150 I1,100 I(30),150 115,0001,000 I300 11,000 I- 1 -23,670% Incr.i22.1%i20.8%|-30.0%|33.3%|0.0%|31.3%12.5%|120.0%i10.0%i0.0%|21.8%1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 ill 1TOTAL 2007'2,770,250 j213,300 j2,020 j15,100 j6,100 [636,500116,000 j23,350 [270,000 j1,400 j4,054,020 12006!2.700,870214.1002.08013.9505.700 1608.000107,12522.950 I283.5001.370 !3.959.645DIFF.|69,380 1(800)1(60)11,150 1400 128,5008,875 1400 1(13,500)130 194,375% Incr.i2.6%i-0.4%|-2.9%i8.2%|7.0%|4.7%8.3%|1.7%|-4.8%|2.2%|2.4%% of salaries & n111111benefits !68.33%!5.26%!0.05%!0.37%!0.15%!15.70%2.86%!0.58%!6.66%!0.03%!% of Total TownApprop:23.66%1.82%0.02%0.13%0.05%5.44%0.99%0.20%2.31%0.01%34.62%% OfFundfor SalaryFunds Tital &Expenditures Benefits3,764,583767,3081,941,5803,216,5242,021,01011,711,00550.4%82.3%57.4%8.7%6.6%34.6% Draft Executive Summary: Transportation Plan, Town of Ithaca September 29, 2006 Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee & Town of Ithaca Planning Department Contact: ntedesco@town.ithaca.ny.us Table of Contents Introduction Outreach 1 Goals & Objectives 1 Background Conditions 3 The Town of Ithaca 3 Policy. Planning, and Funding 3 Demographic & Transportation Profile 4 Inventory AND Analysis 5 State Highway and County and Town Roadways 5 The Road Network and Rights-of-Way Error! Bookmark not defined. Functional Classification Error! Bookmark not defined. Geometries: Road & Network Design Error! Bookmark not defined. Traffic Data: Volumes, Speeds, and Crashes 7 Maintenance 9 Auto Alternatives 10 Bus Transit and Paratransit 10 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities 12 Additional Transportation Options 13 Other Transportation System Issues 14 The Natural Environment 14 Regional Development 15 Public Health 16 Alternatives 17 Recommendations 17 Roadway & Road Network Issues 18 Bicycle & Pedestrian Issues 18 Transit Issues 19 Regional Cooperation 20 Capital Budget Projects 20 Zoning. Subdivision. & Site Plan Review 21 Credits & Works Cited 22 ' This Transportation Plan grew out of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan of 1993, which recognized a need for a close look at the transportation system to Identify needs and to guide decision-making. The Town Transportation Committee, a committee of Town Board, Planning Board, and Cornell representatives, began working on the Transportation Plan in 2003. The writing of the Plan was performed by Planning Department staff, with technical assistance from the Town Engineering and Public Works Departments. The Transportation Plan is a long-range plan (with a general horizon of 20 years) that defines a community vision of how the transportation system should develop and what It should become. The Inventory Chapter examines every aspect of the transportation system, from the anatomy of a typical right-of-way to the relationship between transportation and the natural environment. Every inventory section concludes with an identification of needs. The Alternatives Chapter outlines alternative solutions to meet each need, gives the advantages and disadvantages of each, and provides the rationale for the direction of the Plan's recommendations. The Recommendations outline actions that will meet the needs identified in the Inventory, based on the vision set forth at the beginning of the Plan. The Plan concludes with a thorough set of Appendices, which include maps, design guidelines, and other supplemental information. Outreach Public participation has been an important part of the creation of this Transportation Plan. In the fall of 2003, the Town Transportation Committee initiated a survey to gauge Town residents' travel habits and attitudes. The survey focused on residents' opinions concerning the current transportation system and hopes for a future system. The data obtained from the survey guided the creation of the Goals and Objectives and, hence, the Plan as a whole. Over the course of the development of the Plan, the Transportation Committee hosted a series of three public informational meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to keep the public informed on the progress of the Plan and to obtain feedback on specific sections of the Plan as they were completed. In addition to these three meetings, two formal public hearings were held as part of the environmental review of the Plan. Finally, a comment form on the Plan's website {http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/trans) allowed stakeholders to submit their comments directly to the Planning Department. Goals & Objectives The overall mission of the Transportation Plan is to foster a transportation system that enhances the quality of life in the Town. The Plan envisions a multi-modal transportation system that is compatible with the Town's growth objectives as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, sensitive to the built and natural environments, and accessible to all. The Plan has seven main goals. Each of the goals has a set of objectives, which describe what must happen to achieve the goal. The Goals & Objectives Objectives: —' theme of this Plan. • Develop a transportation system that serves the mobility Interests of Town residents and businesses, while recognizing the interests of through traffic. • Develop a multi-modal transportation system that includes appropriate public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Livabilitv Goal: Develop and maintain a transportation system that promotes safe, healthy, and attractive neighborhoods. Objectives: • Employ road design guidelines that encourage compliance with posted speed limits and protect neighborhoods from undue traffic burdens, such as noise and air pollution. • When modifying or rebuilding roads In residential areas, work to beautify streetscapes, restore roadways to a human scale, and Improve the character and llvabilityofthe neighborhoods through which they pass. Safety Goal: Strive to provide a safe transportation system, and prioritize safety and security in the implementation of every goal for both motorized and non-motorized modes of transportation. Obiectives: • Monitor the transportation system using crash, speed, sight distance data, etc. to identify and mitigate safety problems. • Work to lower 85^ percentile speeds on certain roads through design changes, and continue to request NYSDOT to lower speed limits on certain roads. • Implement a transportation safety program, including elements of education, enforcement, and engineering. Transportation System Management Goal: Preserve and maintain the transportation system. Objectives: • Work to ensure that sufficient capital resources are available to maintain the transportation system. • Preserve current and planned rights-of-way for the transportation system. • Periodically update the Town Transportation Plan to reflect changes within the transportation system and the consequent evolution of transportation-related problems, needs, and solutions. Coordination Goal: Work with other local and regional organizations to ensure a regionally coordinated transportation system. Obiectives: Transportation issues don't end at the municipal boundary. sharing of Trai , ... . the municipal boundary. T3CIIIXI6Sf * equipment, labor, knowledge, and expertise. • Support the establishment of community and regional pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the County. Land Use Planning Goal: Ensure that future development minimizes adverse impacts on the current and future transportation system by promoting development patterns that reduce the need for and use of automobiles and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation. Obiectives: • Consider transportation impacts when making land use decisions, and consider land use impacts (in terms of land use patterns, densities, and designated uses) when making transportation-related decisions. • Relate the scale and concentration of development to what can be supported by the transportation system, according to the Town Comprehensive Plan. Environment Goal: Protect the environment, including the significant natural, agricultural, scenic, and historic resources of the Town of Ithaca. Obiectives: • Consider the environmental consequences of transportation decisions and minimize negative impacts on the natural environment whenever reasonable and to the greatest possible degree. • Work to reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle over-dependence, including detriments to open space and air quality, by reducing the number of vehicles on the road and the average distance and duration of trips. Background Conditions Many non-transportation related factors affect the transportation system, including the history and geography of an area, policies at the national, state, regional, and local level, and demographic characteristics. The Background Conditions Chapter of the Plan discusses these factors, among others, to understand the context within which the local and regional transportation system operates. A transportation system Includes physical infrastructure-like roads and the buses that travel on them—as well as the government's policies and the public's personal choices relating to transportation. A transportation network refers to physical infrastructure, like roadways and sidewalks. The Town of Ithaca The Town of Ithaca encircles the City of Ithaca in Tompklns County in the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. The region's glacial topography is marked by long, narrow lakes formed when the glaciers retreated and deep gorges cut down by the creeks that flow to the lakes, often forming spectacular waterfalls. The steep slopes throughout the Town influenced historical settlement patterns, which in turn affected the location of transportation routes that are still in use today. The Town of Ithaca was established in 1821. Historically, the Town was a rural, agricultural place. Between World War II and today, the Town's population grew dramatically, and suburban development increasingly took the place of farms. The low-density residential development contributes to the prominence of the privately-owned motor vehicle, as in many suburban areas throughout the country. Ithaca is famous for its natural beauty. The academic, research, commercial, and real estate activities of the institutions of higher education in the area {Cornell University and Ithaca College) contributes to the area's vibrant, yet small town feel, its economy, and the diversity of its residents. Policy. Planning, and Funding Policies and programs at the federal, state, regional, and local level affect the Town's transportation system. The current federal transportation bill, renewed during the summer of 2005, is called SAFE- TEA ("Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act"). This legislation focuses on the safety and security of the nation's highway system, but it also offers opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian programs, including Safe Routes to School programs, funding for the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program, including the conversion of diesel buses to cleaner fuels, and funding to improve transit in small cities (with populations of fewer than 200,000 people). New York State allocates federal transportation funds via programs such as the Transportation Enhancement Programs (TEP), the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and the Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS). In addition to these programs, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), which established a process to examine the environmental impact of certain actions, affects transportation decisions. Regional and local transportation policies generally originate with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the area, the Ithaca- Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). The ITCTC is responsible for three main activities: the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Local policies that affect transportation include the Comprehensive Plan of 1993, the Subdivision and Zoning Chapters of the General Code, and the Interim Sidewalk Policy of 2003. Please see the complete Plan for more information on transportation policy and other related regional transportation plans. 1 muMANseyR©- ' ' TOWN QP^JLYettSl - I- ^ ' ^viiFi^'Cfrou \ vitLfcoe^cf \ s C ^ viLuS^oR. \ yr^':§ ' ' FREetftiite S - ^"vfiSg&etoyS • r' — TOWNOF^I^EH *^1*^ TOWN OF CAROLME t Demographic & Transportation Profile Demographics, such as population distribution, household sizes, and age distribution, affect the transportation system. According to the 2000 Census, the Town of Ithaca is home to around 18,710 residents. The majority of residents live on East Hill, but population growth on South Hill has accelerated while the population on East Hill has actually declined over the past ten years. As of 2000, about 43% of Town residents lived on East Hill, 42% lived on South Hill, and 16% lived on West Hill. Also, many workers in the City and Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County do not live in the area. Many of the commuters travel through the Town to reach their Jobs in the City, affecting traffic patterns, transit demand, and so on. Household sizes in the Town decreased from 2.40 to 2.25 persons between 1990 and 2000. Trip rates are related to the number of persons per household, because small households tend to generate more trips per person than larger households. This translates to more vehicle trips with lower vehicle occupancy. Residents between the ages of 18 and 24 account for nearly 40% of the Town's population-not surprising, given the presence of Ithaca College and Cornell University. According to statistics from the Census Bureau, students are more likely to walk and less likely to drive to work or to school. Area residents take the greatest number of trips for family or personal business, social or recreational business, and shopping purposes. In that order. Residents traveled the farthest for family or personal business, shopping, and social or recreational business, in that order. Finally, residents traveled for the longest amount of time for work or business trips. The privately-owned motor vehicle is the most popular mode choice for area residents, followed by walking. Between 1995 and 2001, however, the percentage of trips made in a private vehicle dropped from nearly 90% to 86.5%, while the percentage of trips made on foot increased from 5.6% to 8.6%. For more information about the demographic and transportation profile of Town residents, please see the complete Transportation Plan, as well as the first section of Appendix II {Supplementary Tables). Inventory AND Analysis The purpose of the Inventory & Analysis Chapter is to examine the Town of Ithaca's transportation system by taking a thorough Inventory of the system as It exists today and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current system. A transportation system includes physical Infrastructure—like roads and the buses that travel on them—as well as the government's policies and the public's personal choices relating to transportation. Once an Inventory of the system Is complete, It is necessary to analyze the Inventory to Identify ways In which the system could be Improved to meet the previously outlined goals. State Highway and County and Town Roadways The Official Highway Map and Road Network Design The Town of Ithaca uniquely shaped as a square with a hole in it. The City of Ithaca in the center and the remainder of the County surrounds the perimeter. This means that much of the traffic in the Town is traveling Into or out of the City. Furthermore, the Town is segmented like a pie cut into slices by the creeks and gorges that converge In the Inlet of Cayuga Lake. This unique geography and hydrology means that many roads In the Town radiate outward from the City of Ithaca, while circulation In the Town is restricted because of the gorges. The current road network of the Town of Ithaca is shown in the Town's Official Highway Map, included In Appendix I of the Transportation Plan. The purpose of an Official Highway Map is to state in the public record the specific locations of existing and proposed streets, highways, parks, and sometimes drainage systems. By fixing the location of both existing and proposed Infrastructure, the Map intends to prevent development within the right-of- way. Roads owned and maintained by the Town are mostly low to moderate-speed, two-lane roads serving residential land uses. The driveways on Town roads generally do not have access controls, and existing Town roadways do not have sidewalks or bike lanes. Notable exceptions to this generalization are Seven Mile Drive and Forest Home Drive. Seven Mile Drive runs through an area zoned for low-density residential development and has a speed limit of 55 mph. Forest Home Drive winds through a historic residential district. The road Is narrow, with two one-lane bridges to discourage speeding, and a speed limit of 30 mph. Please see Table A-11 in Appendix 11 of the Transportation Plan fora complete listing of the geometric factors for arterials In the Town. The Town does not anticipate major new roads outside subdivisions within the Town, with the exception of three new roads. Roads that have been approved but not yet built Include the extension of Conifer Drive from Mecklenburg Road through the remaining lands of Conifer LLC through the Perry property up to Bundy Road and the future road shown on the Overlook at West Hill Subdivision map, which loops from Trumansburg Road to Hayts Road. On the Town's Official Highway Map, these roads are shown with a dashed line. The Official Highway Map indicate the location of a potential future roadway corridor that connects the extension of Conifer Drive to Overlook using a cross-hatched strip. This right-of- way has not been formally proposed or approved. This section of the Plan identified the following as needs: • Adoption of an updated Official Highway Map; • Design guidelines to ensure that adequate right- of-way is reserved; • Continued cooperation with Tompkins County Highway Department and NYSDOT; • A Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Map to serve the function of a non-motorized Official <-Ad]9ceift land osn Adjacent land uMe-> Above is a sample right-of-way. Functional Oasslflcatton of Roads In the Town of Ithaca Roadway Function and Right-of-Way Design Functional classification Is the system by which roadways are categorized into categories based on their function within the road network. Functional classification describes how small, iow-votume roads carry traffic from neighborhoods to larger, higher- volume roads, which channel traffic onto the largest roads. There are three main categories of roadway: local roads, collectors, and arterials. Local roads have the greatest access {to individual residences and business) and the lowest ease of mobility (due to curb cuts, intersections, and often low speed limits). Arterials have the least access (often major intersections only) but the greatest ease of mobility (few stopping points, often higher speed limits). Collectors fall somewhere in between. The functional classification system is not perfect. Roadways do not always fit neatly Into one classification. Many roadways that are classified in one way may be used for more than one purpose and may be designed for yet another purpose. For example, a street with a design appropriate for local residential traffic may be used as a collector road to channel traffic from a shopping mall to a large residential area. Thus, drivers traveling through the area are using the road as a collector road to travel from one place to another place, while neighborhood residents are using the road as a local road to access their homes (as on Judd Falls Road, a Town- owned road, or Pine Tree Road, a County-owned road). This decreases the quality of life for residents of the street and frustrates motorists who find it difficult to get to their destination. Furthermore, many roads through the Town change character and functional classification as they transition from rural to urban areas. In fact, most of the roads that connect the urbanized City with the rural parts of the County (outside the Town) change character from urban to rural within the predominantly suburban Town. The design of the right-of-way, or its geometries, is influenced by the roadway's functional classification. Design parameters, such as the design speed, the I %K- j n i j Lwftd I ^Urban PrindpalArterial—Rural PiincipalArtttial — Rural Mnor Calaetar I —Urban Minor Aitetlal —Rural Minor Artailal LocalRoads Urban Collector —Rural MajorCodector —Unclassified (Privata/Propo&ad> maximum curvature of the road, and lane widths, are associated with each functional classification. Because of Ithaca's hilly terrain, sight distance problems are common. Sight distance at an intersection is dependent on the configuration of the intersection, the topography of the intersecting roadway, and any obstacles (like fences or bushes) that obstruct the motorists' view of the road. By factoring in the speed limit of the intersecting roadway, one can determine the sight distance necessary for safe entry Into the intersecting roadway. The obvious solution—that is, removal of roadside vegetation and cutting back hillsides—is not always the correct solution, as many transportation problems have their roots In poor designs that do not adequately address the trade-offs inherent in each transportation decision. Increasing sight distances at an intersection by completely clearing an intersection and widening the curb radius (the "sharpness" of the curve) can encourage motorists to roll through stop signs and to speed. Instead, the speed limit on the through-road could be lowered or traffic calming could be installed, for example, decreasing the amount of time that vehicles need to turn onto the through-road by decreasing the speed of vehicles on the through road. In the Town of Ithaca, the lack of sidewalks, bicycle lanes or adequate shoulders, and other infrastructure for non-motorized travel sets a dangerous precedent for the long-term development of the Town's transportation system. Many existing neighborhoods have no bike or pedestrian infrastructure {not even for circulation within a subdivision). Often the size of the right-of-way reserved by the Town at the time of the subdivision approval is inadequate for the provision of facilities beyond a two-lane road. As the number of subdivisions and commercial centers across the Town Increases, it will be difficult to link nodes of activity with facilities for non-motorized travel if the basic physical and policy infrastructure for non- motorized transportation is not in place. For more detail, please see the Bicycle and Pedestrian Section in this summary and in the complete Plan. This section of the Plan identified the following as needs: • Design guidelines that match the physical design of the road to its function in the roadway network, and vice versa, and are flexible enough to reflect changing needs and to provide for anticipated future needs; • Consideration of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as normal, expected aspects of a roadway; • Continued cooperation with the ITCTC and NYSDOT to ensure that roads are classified correctly; • Identification of opportunities where it may make sense for the Town and the County to "swap" responsibility for certain roads (the Town giving higher classified roads to the County, and the County giving lower classified roads to the Town). Traffic Data: Volumes, Speeds, and Crashes Th is section of the Plan examines crash data to problems. This Plan The promtnence of single- uses several types occupant vehicles is one of the Of data from several major causes of congestion. sources. Most of the data is collected using automatic traffic recorders (ATRs), which record the number, speed, classification (type), and time of vehicles passing a point on a roadway. Volume & Congestion Traffic volume and congestion is measured in several ways. Transportation engineers collect volume data by determining the number of vehicles that pass the date collection site in one day (the Average DailyTraffic, or ADT). Seasonal, climactic, and other variables can be factored into volume counts to determine the average daily traffic passing a data collection site over the course of a year, or the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). It is impossible to use ADT or AADT to compare congestion on different roads, though, because they are absolute measures of volume. Vehicle Capacity Ratio (VOC), on the other hand, considers both the volume of traffic and the capacity of the road. It is a relative measure of congestion that can be used for different types of roads with different volumes. Intersection capacity is measured via LOS, or level of service, which is defined in terms of delay (a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time). There are six defined levels of service, "A" to "F"; "A" describes little to no delay, and "F" describes long, unacceptable delays. In general, a LOS of "D" or below is considered failing. Please see the Plan for a listing of available ADT, VOC, and LOS data. This section of the Plan Identified the following as needs: • Greater number and variety of multi-modal options In the area to keep cars off the road, specifically in sensitive residential areas; • Working together with City, County, and other municipal planners to address both the origin and destination of traffic (both of which are often outside the Town); • Design criteria that connect the design of roads and their desired function within the road network, balancing the needs of through-traffic and neighborhoods, without unfairly favoring through-traffic; Continued collection of volume data to monitor changes and develop mitigation measures for problems. Like traffic volume and congestion, speeding is measured In several ways. First, the percentage of motorists speeding is an absolute measure, like ADT or AADT. Second, the 85^ percentlle speed is the speed that 15% of drivers exceed (stated another way, 85% of drivers go slower than the 85^ percentlle speed). To compare speeding problems between two roads, calculate the ratio of the 85^ percentlle speed to the speed limit, a value that is comparable across different speed limits and indicates the distribution and extent of speeding. A ratio higher than one means that there is both a relatively high i ^ ^ Speeding is common In somemargin. residential areas of the Town. The Plan makes a distinction between the extent and severity of speeding. The extent of speeding refers to the number of motorists exceeding the speed limit. The severity of speeding is based on the number of motorists exceeding the speed limit, but it also considers the characteristics of the adjacent land uses. Therefore, prioritizing locations for speed mitigation needs is not as simple as determining the location with the highest ratio of the 85^ percentlle speed to the speed limit. Based on the data collected for the Plan, some areas that may need speed mitigation include the Northeast, the southern part of Pine Tree Road, Forest Home, and Coddington Road near Ithaca College. All of these areas are in neighborhoods of medium-density with significant pedestrian activity. Please see the Plan itself for more information. This section of the Plan identified the following as needs: • Speed mitigation program that would identify locations with a great severity of speeding, determine the cause of the speeding, and devise a mitigation strategy; • Continued, and perhaps increased, enforcement to catch intentional speeders; • Exploration of traffic calming to discourage excessive speed in residential areas; • Continued collection of speed data at the same and new locations at regular intervals. Crashes In 2003, the Town Planning Department created a database of crash information. The information was extracted from NYSDOT crash reports from 1999 to 2001 and was restricted to serious crashes, that is, those causing injury or more than $1,000 in property damage. Based on the information in this database, forty- eight percent of crashes involved another vehicle, while thirty-four percent involved an animal (probably a deer). The remainder involved roadway elements such as guardrails or utility posts. Fortunately, only five crashes over three years involved bicyclists or pedestrians (less than 1%). Still, bicyclists and pedestrians involved in motor vehicle accidents are easily injured or even killed. Fully one third of the crashes in the database were caused by animal actions. The second most common causes of crashes are failure to yield and driver error (including Inattention, inexperience, distraction, falling asleep, or losing consciousness), causing 11% of crashes each. Environmental factors (such as slippery pavement, glare, or a tire blowout) and following too closely account for 9% of crashes each. Locations of Serious Crashes: 1999-2001 '/ ^ aiy««IBiKa Locations of crash clusters In the Town are fairly predictable; the vast majority occur on State routes where volumes and speed limits are highest. Small clusters of crashes on County roads occur on Coddington Road, East King Road, Pine Tree Road, Warren Road, and Hanshaw Road. Very few crashes occur on roads owned by the Town; most were one- vehicle crashes Involving an animal or a road object. In the fall of 2005, the Transportation Committee worked with Fisher Associates, a consulting firm from Rochester, to analyze safety at several intersections and along several road segments In the Town. Based on their conclusions. Town Planning staff examined every crash at the location to determine If there was a pattern. Please see Appendix IV for Fisher Associates' final report and the Town's Crash Screening Report. This section of the Plan Identified the following as needs: • Partnership with other municipalities, organizations, and agencies in order to Improve transportation safety In and beyond the Town; • Exploration of ways to attempt to keep deer off rural roads or to make motorists more aware of their presence; • Roadway design that Is as safe as possible for all roadway users. Including bicyclists, pedestrian, and the disabled, and that promotes safe driver behavior; • Expanded traffic law enforcement and education as part of a safety strategy; • Continuation of data collection and analysis. Maintenance During the summer of 2004, the Town of Ithaca Highway Department conducted an inventory of the condition of every Town-owned road. Each road or road segment received a pavement condition Index (PCI), which Is a measure of several signs of pavement deterioration. Including several types of cracking, patching/potholes, drainage, and roughness. The goal of this project Is to prioritize Town roads in direst need of maintenance, to create a regular maintenance schedule, and to assist the budgeting of Town resources. The Information In the PCI shows that most of the Town-owned roads are In good to excellent condition. It is fortunate that the Town's roads are In p" — mostly good condition, \ because the most cost- %■- , ^ effective pavement management plan is a E L system of preventative Preventative maintenance maintenance. According saves a lot of money in the r> jr. j-*- long term,to a Road Condition I Study conducted by the Town of Petersborough In New Hampshire, pavement quality drops only 40% over the first 75% of the pavement llfespan (I.e. after 10-12 years, the pavement Is still In acceptable or "good' quality). Over the next four yeare, however, pavement quality drops another 40% from "fair" to "very poor." More Importantly, allowing pavement to degrade from "fair" to "very poor" Increases repair costs at least five-fold.^ Thus, a reasonable amount of short-term cost produces a great degree of long- term benefit. This section of the Plan Identified the following as needs: • Prioritization of preventative maintenance while continuing to plan for larger repaving and reconstruction projects; • Regular formal or Informal data collection; 1 sterling, 2003, p. 6-7 Preventative maintenance saves a lot of money in the long term. • Flexibility in funding and scheduling for the Town Public Works Department to address future needs. Auto Alternatives The State Highway and County and Town Roadways Chapter introduced the need to reduce the number of low-occupancy motor vehicles on the road. Besides providing choice, protecting safety and health, and reducing congestion, there are many peripheral benefits to reducing the number of vehicles on the road. Some of these include providing reasonable transportation options for the young, old, disabled, and low Income and protecting the natural environment (keeping air clean, conserving fossil fuels, reducing wear-and-tear on the roads which can negatively affect water quality due to increased run-off, preserving open space by avoiding the need to build new roads, and so on). The Auto Alternatives Chapter focuses on the two most common alternatives to the low-occupancy motor vehicle: public transit and non-motorized transportation (bicycling and walking). Bus Transit and Paratransit TCAT is the primary supplier of public transit in the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County as a whole. In 1996, the New York State legislature authorized the formation of Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit from the three independent but cooperative agencies, the City of Ithaca (Ithaca Transit, founded 1962), Tompkins County (TomTran, founded 1981), and Cornell University (CU Transit, founded 1966). By 1998, these agencies reorganized into Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, or TCAT. In 2004, TCAT reorganized again into a non-profit 501(c)3 service provider. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires public transit operators to offer equal services for those with disabilities. Paratransit is "more flexible than conventional fixed-route transit but more structured than the use of private automobiles... [the term paratransit] most often refers to wheelchair-accessible, demand-response van service.2 Gadabout, a not-for-profit private service, is the primary paratransit provider for the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County. Gadabout serves this population by providing vans specially equipped for wheelchairs and volunteer drivers who are sensitive to the needs of the disabled. Gadabout also serves the senior population of Tompkins County (aged sixty and over) by providing on-demand service In a comfortable atmosphere. This Indispensable service provides opportunities for education, employment, personal and health care, and social interaction for vulnerable populations.T^IAT mtegrates ^ TCAT is the local transit provider. bus Stations and airports. In 1996, TCAT purchased 64 bike racks for installation on the front of buses, a project known as BobCat ("Bob" stands for "bikes on buses"). The bike racks hold two bicycles each and are easy to operate. Because of Ithaca's hilly terrain, the racks capture rides from bikers who otherwise wouldn't consider the bus. The racks are very popular—they now sit on the front of every TCAT bus—and the program has become the most successful Intermodal effort In the county. Park and Ride lots across the County capture commuters to Ithaca from outlying rural areas. As of summer 2004, TCAT has routes running past fourteen formal park and ride lots. Finally, TCAT offers routes that serve the airport (Route 31) and the bus station in the City of Ithaca (Routes 14,19, 20, and 21). In addition to local service by TCAT and Gadabout, three private companies, Shortline, Greyhound, and Trailways, provide bus service between the Ithaca metropolitan area and other metropolitan areas. The greatest concentration and frequency of public transit service is in the City of Ithaca. Many Town residents expressed a desire for greater transit 2 CTAA, "Public and Community Transportation..." coverage in the Town in the Town transportation survey. Transit provision for many parts of the Town—especially West and South Hills—is difficult; because of low residential densities, buses must travel long distances to pick up few persons at each stop. This can make routes prohibitively long for riders and prohibitively costly for the transit provider. Also, routes through West Hill and South Hill only run on major state and county roads. This puts bus stops too far away from many residential homes to be convenient. Unfortunately, of the fourteen Park-and-Rides In the County, none are located within the Town of Ithaca. Many residents who would like to travel to the downtown of the City of Ithaca must drive because no route stops close enough to their home. Service to outlying communities in Tompkins County runs infrequently—every few hours—and service stops early in the evening. In short, since residents in outlaying areas must travel through the Town of Ithaca to get to the City of Ithaca, the lack of County Park-and-Rides may be creating more traffic than necessary in the Town. Transit is also missing out on Increased ridership, which could help to make expanded coverage on West Hill more economically viable forTCAT. Expansion of transit opportunities can play a part in congestion reduction. In the demonstration to the right, forty drivers parked their automobiles in the street (photograph 1). Next, they traded their automobiles for chairs (photograph 2). Finally, they moved their chairs to simulate sitting on a bus together (photograph 3). Photograph four shows the same number of people, but this time they are engaged in non-motorized modes of transportation. This demonstration shows the dramatic impact that a transition to transit, bicycling, and walking (non- motorized modes discussed in the next section) can have on congestion levels.^ This section of the Plan identified the following as needs: • Continuation of transit as a vital part of the region's multi-modal transportation system; 3 Beamguard, 1999. From top: forty automobiles; forty drivers; forty transit passengers; forty assorted street users. Which is the least congested? Working together with TCAT to ensure that the locations and residents most in need of transit are well-served; Improvements in service for certain population segments, like young people, the elderly, bicyclists & pedestrians, commuters, rural residents, etc; Regional land-use patterns that do not preclude future transportation options, such as transit; Recommendations that meet the above needs while allowing TCAT to remain economically solvent. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Before there were cars, before there Biking and walking are popular among all age groups in the Town. Biking and walking are popular among all age groups in the Town. the simplest ' ' means of travel—walking. Even during an age where personal helicopters are a possibility, many still choose to walk to close destinations, instead of driving, or to walk as a recreational activity. Besides serving as a mode of transportation, biking and walking offer personal and societal benefits. Biking and walking improve personal physical fitness and well-being. Promoting walking and biking will play an important role in protecting public health (in fact, exercise is a component of the FDA's revised food pyramid).^ Walking or biking instead of driving for short trips conserves fossil fuels, saves money (it's free!), alleviates traffic burdens, promotes the health of the natural environment (thereby protecting human health), and protects the integrity of neighborhoods. Walking and biking foster healthy communities by encouraging social interactions on the street and by getting motorists out of their cars and onto the sidewalks, next to shopping and social opportunities. The option of using a non-motorized mode provides a real choice for residents and visitors. The three main types of non-motorized transportation infrastructure are: dedicated pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian bridges and paths; dedicated bicycle facilities such as bike lanes and bike racks; and multi-use trails and parks for pedestrians, bicyclists. The Northeast Ithaca Recreation Way in the Town of Ithaca inline skaters, parents with children in strollers, and so on. In many rural areas, it is impractical to provide dedicated bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Paved roadway shoulders take the place of sidewalks and bike lanes, although multi-use recreation trails are often found in rural areas. as Linderman l^g Northeast Ithaca Recreation Creek, in which Way in the Town of Ithaca property owners own sidewalks and are responsible for their upkeep and maintenance. There are no bicycle-only facilities in the Town, although some state routes have sufficient shoulder area to permit bicycle use. Two of the most popular multi-use trails (for pedestrians, bicycles, and horse riders) owned and maintained by the Town are the East Ithaca and South Hill Recreation Ways. The 2003 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan calls for the creation of a multi-use trail system. The Town is already in the process of implementing that Plan. In fact, off-road multi-use trails in the Town are more extensive than walkways or sidewalks that run next to roadways. Non-Town owned walkways and paths "include the Plantations Path, a seven mile network of self- guided walkways, roads, and paths through Cornell Plantations; the Circle Greenway or Walk Ithaca path which passes through both the Town and City; the trail systems in Buttermilk Falls and Robert H. Treman State Parks; and the 500 mile long Finger Lakes Trail hiking path which passes through the southern portion of the Town.''^ These paths generally serve recreational, and not transportation, needs. ^ USDA, undated 5 Town of Ithaca, 1997 Pedest^^ns atter^^^ r- „ .. ^ r, . - For example, theTree Road in the Town of Ithaca. 1 2000 Census calculates that more than one in five Town residents get to work by walking (many of these residents are students, professors, and staff traveling to one of the institutes of higher education in the area). Yet there are relatively few bicycling and walking opportunities in the Town that are accessible to everyone. The East Hill Recreation Way and the South Hill Recreation Way are the only facilities open to bicyclists. As previously mentioned, shoulders are available to bicyclists on some state and county roads. Unfortunately, the roads with shoulders are generally roads with high volumes and speeds; this creates the potential for conflict between bicyclists and motorists. On all other roadways, bicyclists share lanes with motorists, which is generally the least desirable arrangement for both bicyclists and motorists. Furthermore, a 2002 study examined 4.75 miles of Town-owned walkways and found that sixty percent do not meet ADA standards. Thus, over half of the few walkways provided by the Town are inaccessible to the disabled.® The Plan clearly indicates that infrastructure for non- motorized travel in the Town of Ithaca is not adequate for the current extent of development in the Town. As development continues, the lack will worsen from an annoyance to a very serious problem; residents will either be captive to the automobile or be put into an unsafe situation as a pedestrian or bicyclist. For more information, please see the full version of the Plan. This section of the Plan identified the following as needs: 6 Varricchione, 2003, p. 12 • A revised Sidewalk Policy, perhaps expanded to include bicycle issues, to guide the development of an appropriate, cost-effective non-motorized travel network that meets all standards; • A strategy to provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities, such as selection criteria or a map showing prioritized locations; • A work plan that shows where improved road shoulders are needed, and which areas are priorities for provision; • A set of design guidelines to ensure that facilities are designed appropriately for their context and are ADA compliant; • Continued participation in the efforts to expand the multi-use trail network in the Town. Additional Transportation Options There are no airports within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Ithaca or airports managed at the Town level. The closest airport to the Town of Ithaca is the Ithaca-Tompklns Regional Airport, located in the Village of Lansing, which provides regional passenger air travel. One hour from Ithaca by car are the Syracuse Hancock International Airport, the Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, and the Greater Binghamton Airport. The Greater Rochester International Airport Is two hours away by car. This section of the Plan realistically concludes that there is little the Town can do to affect directly the air travel options In the area. The Town will continue to support regional efforts to make the Ithaca- Tompkins Regional Airport a safe, attractive, efficient, and useful mode of travel for regional residents and visitors. Beyond the movement of people, the Town and regional transportation system supports the movement of freight via rail, air, and trucks. The Norfolk Southern Railroad provides rail freight transport In Tompkins County. Rail freight can carry much larger quantities of freight than a truck. For example, one freight car can carry 100 tons, while a truck can only carry 20-25; thus one train of 20 care carries the freight of 80-100 trucks. Besides carrying more freight, rail uses less fuel than trucks to carry any given amount. That is, one gallon of fuel will carry one ton of freight 59 miles via truck and 202 miles via rail (and 514 miles by barge!)/ Even though rail freight Is more efficient than shipping by truck, rail transport is prohibitively expensive for most shipping, except for things shipped in extremely large quantities of bulk. Thus, the rail freight In Tompkins County primarily transports coal to the Milliken Point Power Plant in Lansing or salt from the Carglll Corporation. Airfreight comes into and out of the county via the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport. In 2001, the airport handled over 45,000 pounds of freight and mail. Still, trucks carry the majority of freight in the County, often to or from destinations within the City of Ithaca. Thus, much of the truck freight traffic Is merely passing through the Town, which means that most of it is limited to State highways. Yet there are many trucks that travel on non-truck routes and local roads to take shortcuts, avoid traffic, or make local deliveries. This negatively affects livability and safety in residential areas. This section of the Plan Identified the following as needs: • Support for continued efforts by County officials to ensure that the airport remains a viable option for long-distance transportation for Town and County residents; • Continued protection of residential areas from excessive truck traffic burdens via design elements or prevention of designation as a truck route. Other Transportation System Issues This section explores strengths and weaknesses of the transportation system that transcend Individual categories and affect several of the Plan's goals, including the natural environment, regional development, and public health. The Natural Environment "Ithaca is Gorges": a scenic example from Buttermilk Fails State Park. - ^ Some of the most the Pacific"Ithaca is Gorges": a scenic example from Buttermilk Fails State Park. Northwest region were paved over to create roads (the size of 4.5 Manhattan Islands).® Yet in other cases, the development of a transportation network in a scenic area can attract tourists and generate revenue for protecting the environment. Since many residents of the Town of Ithaca choose to live in the Town because of the natural beauty of the region. It Is important that the development of the transportation system minimizes Its impact on the splendor of the area. The transportation system affects water resources in a variety of ways, including increased run-off and increased contamination. Vegetated, uncovered areas produce less runoff than paved, covered areas. Widening a lane two feet (from 12' to 14') increases the impervious cover by 15%; Just one mile of a 32' road (3' shoulders, 13' travel lanes) Is the equivalent of four acres of pavement.® Roads alone contribute 54% to the total amount of runoff in residential areas; in commercial areas, roads and parking combined account for 80% of runoff.^® In addition, streets create the highest levels of pollutants In runoff, nearly all of which drains directly into the nearest water body—not a water treatment plant. In the Santa Clara Valley in California, vehicles are estimated to produce 67% of zinc, 50% of copper, and 50% of cadmium found in runoff. Transportation affects air, water, energy, and scenic resources, as well as creating noise, light, and heat. 7 Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 8 Transportation Choices Coalition, 2003 8 Center for GiS, "Natural Resources..." 10 Milwaukee River Basin Partnership, 2003 11 Data in this paragraph is from: U.S. EPA, 1996 1 Transportation consumes road transportation uses travel consumes so much This is one example of , .. poor connectivity. fuel because of the amount of driving and also the inefficiency of the average Internal combustion engine. Only 12% of the fuel used by a car actually provides momentum.^3 Emissions from internal fuel combustion vehicles are a major contributor to the degradation of air quality. According to , transportation-related sources are the greatest contributor to air pollution In Tompkins County. Fourof the major components in combustion exhaust are carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and fine particulate matter. Vehicle emissions are the main source of carbon monoxide in the air (up to 95% in some cities); toxic carbon monoxide reduces the oxygen available for the body's organs. On-road mobile sources account for 29% of hydrocarbon emissions, which are a precursor to ground-level ozone, a major contributor to the formation of smog. A third of nitrogen oxides come from road emissions. Nitrogen emissions are precursors to smog and ozone, which both degrade air quality. Fine particulate matter- especially from diesel-burning trucks—can reach the deepest areas of the lung. It contributes to the development of lung cancer, bronchitis, and asthma.i^ Transportation sources are a major contributor to air pollution in Tomokins Countv. Noise levels due to transportation systems are not always considered as a significant environmental impact, although the noise from high traffic volumes, truck traffic, rail, and airplane can have a significant negative impact on the llvabillty of a neighborhood. Excessive noise disrupts sleep, distracts from activities, impedes learning, and can contribute to stress. The Federal Highway Administration notes that transportation noise is the most pervasive and difficult to avoid source of unwanted noise.^s Light pollution is common in parking lots, because there are many light poles that are taller than necessary with unshielded bulbs that are brighter than necessary. The Town of Ithaca is in the process of passing a lighting ordinance that would reduce the amount of light spillage, trespass, and glare in the Town. Urban heat islands are caused by dark surfaces that absorb the sun's energy and a lack of vegetation to provide shade, absorb sunlight, and cool the air. Parking lots and roads contribute significantly to the heat island effect, and the heat island effect seems to have a negative effect on the durability of pavement. Light colored and porous pavements can reduce the heat island effect by reflecting light, instead of absorbing It, and by allowing rainfall to percolate through the pavement, thereby cooling It. This section of the Plan identified the following as a need: • Provision of attractive, feasible, and cost- effective alternatives to the low-occupancy, privately-operated motor vehicle. Regional Development Land uses and travel patterns operate in a feedback loop. Roads allow access to and development of land, while development of land generates traffic. Land use and modal choice also are related. Segregated land uses-for example, separating residential and commercial areas—lead residents to drive because everyday goods and services are far away. 12 EERE, 2005 13 Rodrigue, 2005 1" Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2005 IS FHWA, April 2006 It is important to provide many connections within the transportation network, in order to provide a greater number of route options and more direct routes. A common type of connectivity is the grid system of streets found in urban areas. Connectivity is Important for non-motorized travel, because bicyclists and pedestrians are unlikely to travel far out of the way to get to their destination. The transportation system in the Town does not operate independently of the regional system. Transportation trends in the Finger Lakes, Tompkins County, and the City of Ithaca affect transportation In the Town. In the City, developments around the Commons at Cayuga Green and Seneca Place will attract more employees, visitors, and shoppers to downtown. If those people come from outside the City, they will have to travel through the Town at some point. This is one example of how development patterns In one municipality can indirectly affect traffic In another. The Ithaca-Tompklns County Transportation Council (ITCTC) has developed a model of the Tompkins County road network, which is useful when considering the effects of various development plans and projects on the road traffic network. The ITCTC used the model to compare a trend-based development scenario, which continues the current development trends across the County, to a plan- based development scenario, which channels development Into nodes of housing and employment across the County. The model predicts a greater overall increase in traffic patterns In the trend scenario than in the plan scenario. This section of the Plan identified the following as needs: • Review and potential revision of the Town's subdivision and zoning ordinance to determine whether there are ways to use the regulations to encourage land use patterns that are friendly to alternative modes. Public Health The World Health Organization {WHO) defines health as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not Just the absence of disease or infirmity." Given this definition by the premier health organization in the world, it is easy to understand ^ that transportation issues affect public health * issues. * The Plan focuses on four public health-related Issues: respiratory health, health problems related to inactivity, physical harm due to crashes, and decreased social well-being among disadvantaged populations. Although motor vehicles individually pollute less than thirty years ago, collectively they are pumping more toxins and partlculate matter into the atmosphere as a result of increases In vehicle miles and time behind the wheel. In a telling example, when city authorities limited vehicle volumes in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympic Games to 77.5% of the normal peak morning count, daily ozone concentrations dropped 27.9% and asthma emergency events dropped 41.6%. Physical inactivity is linked to 200,000 deaths per year in America; physical inactivity is a large component of the obesity crisis poised to strike the American public health system. Un-walkable and un- bikable neighborhoods are directly linked to low rates of physical activity. "People who live in neighborhoods with a mix of shops and businesses within easy walking distance have a 35% lower risk of obesity."!® Even the simple act of bicycling to work—without any more vigorous form of exercise—is associated with a lower weight and less weight gain over time.!^ Injuries and fatalities due to traffic crashes are also a public health issue. Thirteen percent of traffic- related fatalities occur among pedestrians (10,696 deaths over two —, share of the Biking without a helmet is very unsafe. " Frank et. al, 2004 Ducimetiere, et al, 2001 deaths was among the elderly. / 1 Partof an accessible transportation system, as f * outlined in the Goals and Objectives section of this plan, is that the system is accessible for everyone, regardless of age or ability. Youthful, low-income, elderly, and disabled populations are particularly vulnerable in a car-centered transportation system. Why care about the connection between transportation and public health? Besides the issue of basic human rights, deteriorating public health is costly for those who remain healthy. The estimated direct health care cost of obesity in America was $70 billion (1995), and the estimated direct health care costs of physical inactivity was $24 billion.^® The cost to the fabric of society when disadvantaged populations continue to be systematically marginalized is not calculable in a region that values livability and community. For more information, please see the full version of the Transportation Plan. Alternatives The Alternatives Chapter of the Plan summarizes the problems identified throughout the Inventory and Analysis, along with specific locations that these problems are particularly prevalent. For each problem, several alternative strategies are identified, along with the pros and cons of each. Some of the specific problems identified in the Plan are a lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, large amounts of traffic congestion (and the impact on neighborhoods), crashes in some locations, speeding, especially in residential areas, and poor pavement condition or sight distances in some areas. Please see the full Plan for more information. Recommendations The previous chapters of this Plan have established a vision of transportation in the Town and have identified categories of problems in the town, the locations where they occur, and potential solutions for each category. This Chapter recommends specific actions to address the problems. Since the transportation system involves many Jurisdictions and agencies, some recommendations cannot be implemented by the Town of Ithaca alone. Many programs require collaboration with several different entities—some public, some private. It is important to remember that this plan cannot examine everything related to transportation in the Town. This document is a living document that will be updated to reflect changes in "best practices," acquisition of new information or data, or other changes to the transportation system in the Town. In addition, these recommendations address solutions that will occur over various time frames, including the five-year (short term), ten-year (mid term), and twenty-year (long term) visions. Thus, some recommendations that would take twenty-five years to generations to implement have not been included. Finally, there is not an appropriate resolution for every transportation problem. Some resolutions may be too expensive, too disruptive, or otherwise infeasible, and therefore are not included here. The full version of the Plan's Recommendations Chapter highlights the recommendations that involve non-Town entities (see Attachment A in the full version). It also indicates the Goals that each recommendation fulfills (see Attachment B). In addition, it explains how the Recommendations fulfill the charge set forth in the Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment C). Please see the full version of the Plan for more information. The following is a summary of the Plan's recommendations: The TRANSPORTATION PlAN The Town Board should adopt the Transportation Plan as a long-term vision and policy guide and should amend the 1993 Comprehensive Plan to include the Transportation Plan as an element. 18 Colditz, 1999 17 Roadway & Road Network Issues 2.A. Official Highway Mao: The Town Board should adopt the Official Highway Map and should update it as needed. 2.B. Engineering & Design: 2.B.I. The Town should use the Best Practices Design Guidelines in Appendix VII of the Plan to guide the development of the physical transportation network. 2.B.2. The Town should continue to evaluate intersections with poor sight distances. Vegetation removal to improve sight distances should be the last resort option. 2.B.3. The Town should regularly request crash information from the DMVto update the crash database, identify hazardous iocations, and take steps to mitigate the problems (Including notification to the owner of the road, if not the Town). 2.B.4. The Town should explore design responses to excessive speeds and cut-through traffic in residential areas, as well as continue to petition the County & State for speed limit reductions in certain locations. 2.B.5. The Town should explore ways to reduce the frequency and severity of deer-related crashes. 2.B.6. The Town should encourage developers to limit the number of Individual driveway access points onto major roads. 2.0. Maintenance: 2.0.1. The Public Works Department should continue to have the flexibility to set their own schedule of roadway improvements. 2.0.2. The Town should continue to practice preventative maintenance wherever possible in order to save money over the long term. 2.0.3. The Town should address the minor improvements recommended In the Crash Screenings (see full version of Excerpt: Streetscape Design Guidelines GeloutjCLT niign., Tte linmVuitynBnDtf ^iddlOpn. tJinMAi'outioiynxrn.' THpreweeefpediMnin»6W»fcl6m6iBfl»ii irhiBltad ml cautM MM. Above Is an excerpt from the Design Guidelines in Appendix VII of the Plan. the Recommendations and the Capital Budget section). 2.0.4. The Public Works Department should continue to operate in an environmentally sensitive manner (see full version of the Plan for more information). 2.0.5. The Town should continue to work with the County Highway Department and NYSDOT for maintenance and should consider swapping responsibility for certain roads. 2.D. Traffic Calming: The Town should explore traffic calming measures as one strategy to protect neighborhoods from excessive negative effects of motor vehicle traffic. 2.E. Enforcement The Town should support law enforcement agencies and campaigns that aim to reduce motor vehicle infractions and discourage reckless, careless, or inattentive behavior. Please see the full version of the Plan for more information. Bicycle & Pedestrian Issues 3.A. Revised Interim Sidewalk Poiicv: The Town Board should revise the Interim Town Sidewalk Policy of 2003, using the Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Maps in Appendix I as the general development strategy (i.e. locations and priorities) for facilities in the Town. 3.B. Bicvcle & Pedestrian Facilities: 3.B.I. The Town should use the Design Guidelines and the aforementioned Maps to guide the development of Speed cushions—a traffic calming measure—slow passenger cars, but allow emergency vehicles to pass unimpeded. bicycle and pedestrian facilities In the Town. 3.B.2. The Town should assume the cost of construction and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that serve a broader population beyond the adjacent neighborhoods. 3.B.3. The Town should participate in the execution and implementation of the Northeast Walkabllily Study by the County Planning Department. 3.B.4. The Town should implement pedestrian improvements in the Forest Home neighborhood, as appropriate. 3.0. Bicycle & Pedestrian Design; 3.0.1. The Town should use the guidelines in Appendix VII and the principles of Context Sensitive Design when designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 3.0.2. Facilities should be ADA compliant, wherever possible. 3.0.3. The Town should encourage bicycle and pedestrian accommodations as normal aspects of a right-of-way. 3.D. BIcvcle. Pedestrian. & Transit Connections: The Town should work with TOAT, Cornell, and other stakeholders to enhance the connections between walking, biking, and taking transit. Potential projects include: implementing a Bike & Ride, cross- promoting transit and walking or biking, Improving bike parking, and using non- motorized links where It is infeaslble to expand a transit route (see also 3.D.1-3.D.4 In the full Plan). 3.E. Multi-Use Trails: The Town should continue to expand and improve the multi-use trail network In the Town and should help the County and the ITOTC to expand the county- wide network {see also 3.E.1-3.E.4 In the full Plan). 3.F. Safety Education & Evaluation: The Town should work with other stakeholders to devise a bicycle and pedestrian safety education strategy for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. See Attachment D in the full Plan for more information. 3.G. Enforcement The Town should encourage law enforcement agencies to enforce bicycle-related laws whenever and wherever possible. 3.H. Encouragement The Town should work with other municipalities and advocacy groups to devise a bicycle and pedestrian encouragement strategy; see Attachment E In the full Plan for more information. 3.1. Bicvcle Equipment The Town should explore how adequate, safe bicycle equipment relates to safety, enforcement, and encouragement Issues. A crossing guard escorts students across the street. Transit Issues 4.A. Park & Ride: The Town should with TCAT, the ITCTC, and major employers, such as Cornell, to develop a Park-and-Ride system, using the findings of the recent origin- destination and park-and-ride studies by Cornell and the ITCTC. 4.B. Ease of Use: The Town should encourage and work with TCAT to make transit service easy to understand and use. Please see the full Plan for more information. 4.C. Funding: The Town Board should consider funding for TCAT to ensure adequate levels of service in the Town. The Town Board should also consider funding for Gadabout to ensure continued service for senior citizens and the disabled in the Town. 4.D. Transit In Existing & New Development: The Town Planning Department should continue to work with TCAT to ensure that new development in the Town is served by transit, in terms of the site plan and route extensions (or other enhancements). Areas that may need expansion include Ithaca College and West Hill (including Linderman Creek and Overlook). 4.E. Other High Occupancy Vehicle Strategies: The Town should support carpool and carshare initiatives from the public and private sector (Including educational institutions, such as Cornell and Ithaca College). A TCAT rider checks the schedule. Regional Cooperation 5.A. ITCTC: The Town should continue to participate In the Ithaca-Tompklns County Transportation Council (ITCTC). 5.B. t-GEIS &TIMS: Thet-GEIS Is a Transportation-Focused Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Cornell University that examines Cornell's transportation impacts on the surrounding community. TIMS, or Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies, outline ways for Cornell to alleviate the transportation impacts. The Town should support the findings of the t-GEIS and TIMS, where appropriate. The recommendations of this Plan should inform the development of the TIMS, and updates to this Plan should be receptive to the progress made by TIMS. 5.C. Town Transportation Committee: The Town Transportation Committee should continue to Invite representatives from Cornell and the ITCTC to their meetings and should consider inviting representatives from Dryden, Lansing, the City of Ithaca, and the County, when relevant topics arise. 5.D. County Trails: The Town should work with other agencies & stakeholders to implement a county-wide system of trails, including the Black Diamond Trail. 5.E. Park-and-Ride: The Town should work with TCAT, the ITCTC, and major employers, such as Cornell, to develop a Park-and-Ride system. 5.F. Design Issues: The Town to work with the City, Cornell, and the County to ensure that transportation design Is consistent and predictable throughout the area. 5.G. Traffic Demand Management The Town should work with other organizations and agencies In the public and private sectors to devise traffic demand management strategies to reduce peak-hour demand on roadway capacity and to provide Incentives, such as greater flexibility or reduced-cost bus passes for employees. Capital Budget Projects A Capital Budget is a tool for governments to strategically plan for major projects, including acquisition of long-term assets and construction of facilities. The goal of capital budgeting is to maximize the benefits of the expenditure of public resources while minimizing negative effects on the municipality's finances. 6.A. Capital Budget & Horizon: The Town should continue to budget for capital needs related to transportation projects, and the Town may want to consider budgeting for ten years in advance (instead of five). 6.B. Budget Appropriations: The Town should consider annual appropriations as part of the yearly operating budget for less costly transportation projects, such as segments of walkways or crosswalks. 6.C. Other Funding Sources: The Town should apply for additional funds for transportation projects and should explore funds not strictly associated with transportation. 6.D. Specific Projects: Suggestions for potential projects to Include In updates to the Capital Budget Include: 6.D.I. Bicycle and pedestrian Improvements, as Indicated on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Corridor Needs Maps. 6.D.2. Implementation of Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan 6.D.3. Traffic calming In other locations 6.D.4. The Gateway Trail 6.D.5. Snyderhlll Road Walkway (already included In 2006 Capital Budget) Zoning. Subdivision. & Site Plan Review The cumulative negative effects of development on the transportation network should be minimized. The Town should consider altering subdivision and zoning regulations to lessen dependence on the privately owned and operated motor vehicle and to lessen the strain on the motorized transportation network. Furthermore, the Town should support the findings of ITCTC's LRTP and the County's Comprehensive Plan, that Is, to encourage node- based development. Above is the parking lot at East Mill Plaza in the Town of Ithaca. 7.A. Zoning Recommendations: The full version of the Plan's Recommendations Includes details on topics such as: 7.A.I. Mixed-Uses 7.A.2. Neighborhood Commercial Zones 7.A.3. Residential Setbacks 7.A.4. Commercial Setbacks 7.A.5. Garages 7.A.6. Parking Requirements 7.B. Subdivision Regulations & Review: The full version of the Plan's Recommendations Includes details on topics such as: 7.B.I. Cluster Subdivisions 7.B.2. Connectivity 7.B.3. Cul-de-Sacs 7.C. Site Plan Regulations & Review: The full version of the Plan's Recommendations Includes details on topics such as: 7.C.I. Transit 7.C.2. Pedestrian Enhancements 7.C.3. Bicycle & Pedestrian Circulation 7.C.4. Impact Evaluation 7.C.5. Shared Access 7,C.6. Auto & Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking should be considered wherever automobile parking is. Credits & Works Cited Works Cited: Beamguard, Jim. Images published July 18,1999. Tampa Tribune. Cited by Points, Rich and Evan Ravitz. Bike for Peace. <httD://bikeforDeace.org/Dacklng oavementhtmO. Center for GiS. 'Natural Resources: Comprehensive Water Resources Planning.' Towson University. Undated. <httD://chesaDeake.towson.edu/landscaDe/imDervious/all comowa ter.asD>. September 15,2005. Colditz, GA "Economic costs of obesity and inactivity." Med/c/ne& Science In Sports & Exercise 31(11), Supplement pp. S663-S3667. November 1999. Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA). 'Public and Community Transportation Glossary." Undated. <http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc/glossarv.asp?Drintview=ves>. September 13,2005. Ducimetiere, Simon, Wagner et al. 'Leisure-time physical activity and regular walking or cycling to work are associated with adiposity and 5y weight gain in middle-aged men: The PRIME Study." International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 2, (2001): 940- 948. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), United States Department of Energy. Transportation Topics." September 13, 2005. <http://www.eere.energv.gov/EE/transDortation.html>. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Energy, September 15,2005. Rodriguez, Dr. Jean-Paul. 'Chapters: Transport and Environment" The Geography of Transportation Systems. Hempstead, New York ^ Hofstra University, Department of Economics & Geography, 2005. Sterling, George, Planning Board Chairman. 'Chapter 6: TrafRc & ^ Transportation." Master Plan Update. Town of Peterborough, New Hampshire: Office of Community Development November 2003. Town of Ithaca. Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Executive Summary. Ithaca, N.Y: Town of Ithaca, December, 1997. Transportation Choices Coalition. The Environmental Threat Sprawl, Air and Water Pollution, Global Warming." Washington, D.C: Transportation Choices Coalition, 2003. <http://www.transportationchoices.org/facts-environmental.asp>. September 15,2005. United States Department of Agriculture. 'Steps to a Healthier You." Mypyramid.gov. Undated. <http://www.mvpvramid.gov/> June 28,2006. United States Environmental Protection Agenry. 'Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation: Highway, Rail, Aviation, and Maritime Transport" Washington, D.C: Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (2126), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication 230-R-96-009, Government Printing Office, October 1996. Varricchione, Brian J. 'Enhancing Pedestrian Access in Tompkins County: A Guidebook on Sidewalk Improvements." A Professional Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University. May 2003. \ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation. 'HighwayTraffic Noise in the United States: Problem & Response." United States Department of Transportation. April 2006. <http://www.fhwa.dotgov/environment/probresp.htm> June 19,2006. Frank, Andresen, and Schmid. (2004). 'Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars." Am&lcan Journal of Preventatlve Medicine, 18 (2004): 47-57. Milwaukee River Basin Partnership. 'Protecting Our Waters: Streets and Roads." September 11,2003. <http://clean- water.uwex.edu/plan/streetsroads.htm>. September 15,2005. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 'Mobile Source Emissions - Past, Present and Future." Washington, D.C: United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 11.2005. <http://www.epa.gov/otaa/invntorv/overview/pollut8nts/index.htm> . September 15,2005. Photo Credits: Photos on cover page, pages 1,2,19,20 (crosswalk) by Dan Burden/www.pedbikeimages.org Photos on pages 3,9,10,12 (both), 13,15 (waterfell), 17,20 (bus schedule), 21, & 22 by Nicole Tedesco. Photo on page 7 by http://en.wikipedia.0rg/wiki/lmage:TrafficJam.jpg Photo on page 8 by http://www.showpoppers.com/images/speeding_l.jpg Photo on page 15 by http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/2000090^a3681^1977.jpg Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 'Inland Waterway Navigation Value to the Nation." 2004. Rock Island, Illinois: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. <www.mvr.usace.armv.mil/Brochures/ lnlandWaterwavNavigation.asp>. September 15,2004. 22