No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2019-04-22Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, April 22, 2019 Agenda 1. Report on Sustainability Efforts — Nick Goldsmith 2. Cayuga Lake Blue Way Trail — Presentation 3. Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization (IO) — Report 4. Update on Form Based Zoning 5. Discuss and consider a Bond Resolution for the Winthrop Drive Watermain Replacement Project 6. Discuss and consider award of the Winthrop Drive Watermain Replacement Project 7. Discuss proposals for the Forest Home Walkway Project 8. Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding the proposed purchase of property on Culver Rd for a preserve using Parks, Recreation and Open Space funds 9. Discuss the draft revisions to the Chapter 184 "Noise" 10. Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding a proposed a local law amending the yard and principal building requirements for publicly owned properties and private institutions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code 11. Committee Reports a. Planning b. Public Works c. Budget d. P&O and Employee Relations e. COC f. STR g. Other — Discuss NCRE Planning Board recommendations 12. Consent Agenda a. Approval of Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, April 22, 2019 Minutes Board Members Present: Bill Goodman, Supervisor; Pat Leary, Tee -Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, and Rod Howe Absent: Pamela Bleiwas Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town 1. Report on Sustainability Efforts — Nick Goldsmith (Attachment 1) Mr. Goldsmith went over his memo outlining accomplishments and grant status' in 2018. 2. Cayuga Lake Blue Way Trail — Presentation — Nick Helmholdt (Attachment 2) Mr. Helmholdt reviewed the Trail concept The idea is to establish a water trail along the lake and help paddlers enjoy our lake and encouraging longer paddling trips along the lake as well as novice paddlers to get out on the lake and water experiences throughout the State. The plan is to improve water access sites and install potential new ones as well as a consistent brand so visitors could easily recognize access sites. Mr. Helmholdt said the improvements are 100% grant funded and he was open for questions. Mr. DePaolo asked about the East Shore Park reference because he didn't think there was anything resembling access on the Town's portion and it might be on the Cornell Sailing Center land. Some discussion followed and it was thought that there would have to be coordination with Cornell and the parking restrictions with that location were discussed. Mr. Howe asked if other Finger Lakes are looking into to this. Mr. Helmholdt said we are slightly ahead of the curve in the Finger Lakes, but a few are established in NYS. The Board was in favor of pursuing this and have Public Works coordinate with Cornell and ask for access to the area. Mr. Weber said it is a constrained site with extremely limited parking. 3. Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization (IO) — Report Ms. Hunter gave an overview saying that this update is two parts; one is a report from Jennifer TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 1 Karius as part of the deliverables of her project and the other is an update on the grant. (Attachment 3) The highlight is to develop a plan to better manage the IO and collect ideas for projects which will be analyzed for ones to move forward with. Ms. Karius reviewed her report in which she canvassed and collected information on key stakeholders and departments in all of the watershed municipalities and projects they have done or would like to do. She said everyone had the same comments; we have limited staff, deteriorating infrastructure and need help to move forward in any meaningful way. Mr. DePaolo asked if there is a way to rank projects to get the biggest bang for the buck and Ms. Hunter responded that is what Kathy Bertuch is doing as part of the grant and she has done a wonderful job in getting the contacts and citizen involvement studying the lake. Ms. Hunter said we have the science, the problem is the administrative challenge. The policy makers throughout the watershed need to start thinking watershed -wide and collaborating to take care of the lake and get what we need from the State by working together. Mr. DePaolo wanted to acknowledge that Ms. Hunter has really revitalized this organization over the past several years and it is really good to see the fruits of those labors coming through. Ms. Ritter commented that many rural areas are getting huge grants and loans for installing municipal water and it is an issue the IO might want to look into because there is going to be a lot more development if it continues and what does that do to the lake. The sediment level is incredible. Ms. Hunter agreed. She said that Owasco Lake is in the process of reviewing and updating and trying to advance updated Watershed Rules and Regulations which is something that water purveyors are allowed to draft and adopt subject to State DOH review to help regulate their watersheds. That is something we are also looking at in the beginning stages. 4. Discuss proposals for the Forest Home Walkway Project A representative from Barton and Loguidice (B&L) was present. Mr. Goodman gave an overview saying that this was discussed at the Public Works Facility resulting from the RFP and subsequent interviews of those responding. The interview committee suggested Barton & Loguidice. Mr. Weber added that tonight is also to talk about the specific scope of the project because the true costs of the study are going to be tied to how many options are reviewed. We have identified three other than the default of "do nothing." TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 2 The community has identified that they would like to see something a little bit more and so the question is do we want to expand the scope to more options; do we want to look at adding additional meetings other than the public hearing for the board to get comments and the staff meetings and PWC meeting. More options increase costs. More meetings increase costs. Design and construction isn't even on the table yet because we don't know what we are designing. Mr. Howe thought three options would be fine because we have identified meetings with the adjacent land owners and the larger community. Mr. Goodman said we might want to look at having some of the staff meetings be joint meetings between staff and community rather than separate ones. He said we need to look at the current path which goes onto Cornell land simply by usage and we need to figure out if we are going to keep that alignment and need to get Cornell's permission and that would be one of the options. Mr. Goodman said to him, the big question is how to hold the community meeting; separately or at a Town Board or committee meeting? Mr. DePaolo said we are not constructing an elaborate thing here, and because it is in Forest Home, it is going to be subject to an unprecedented level of scrutiny anyway with a level of involvement that creates, in his mind, a semi -adversarial tone and it is important that we establish that input is important, but there is not veto power over the design. He thought the Town has enough meetings and this item could be added to any one of those without scheduling a separate meeting. Mr. Goodman added that because of the slope, it is going to be fairly expensive and he is talking about establishing a Park District to help pay for this by the people who use it. The Board was in favor of proceeding with negotiations with B&L. 5. Update on Form Based Zoning Mr. Ritter updated the Board saying that she has met seven or eight times with Building/Codes staff to review the language and also met two or three times with the Public Works Department. We captured all of their comments and went over them last Thursday with the Working Group and we will be editing the document based on those comments. The next action will be to meet with some of the property owners that are in those P&D zones where we would like to apply this law. After that, we would be ready to go public with this and get input from the public. Mr. Goodman commented that the Working Group has been working on this for almost two years and it's been almost five years since the Comprehensive Plan and his goal is to get this done by next year. TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 3 Ms. Ritter commented that this Form Based Code has been incorporated into the Maplewood and Chainworks PDZs so we have been implementing the Comprehensive Plan in that way in that we are requiring certain types of development now and this would be completing the larger intent. Mr. Goodman added that after this passage the Group would start looking at Institutional zones and the Inlet Valley area so a lot more zoning coming up. 6. Discuss and consider a Bond Resolution for the Winthrop Drive Watermain Replacement Project TB RESOLUTION 2019-061: BOND RESOLUTION - In the Matter of the Proposed Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Replacement Water Improvement Area Improvements, in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, pursuant to Town Law and the Local Finance Law. At a regular meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, held at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, in Ithaca, New York, in said Town, on the 22nd day of April, 2019, at 4:30 o'clock P.M., Prevailing Time. The meeting was called to order by Bill Goodman, and upon roll being called, there were present: Supervisor Bill Goodman; Council Rich DePaolo, Rod Howe, Tee -Ann Hunter, Patricia Leary, and Eric Levine Absent: Pamela Bleiwas Moved by Tee -Ann Hunter, seconded by Rich DePaolo A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $700,000 SERIAL BONDS OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK, TO PAY THE COST OF WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE TOWN OF ITHACA WINTHROP DRIVE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT WATER IMPROVEMENT AREA, IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK. WHEREAS, pursuant to the proceedings heretofore duly had and taken in accordance with the provisions of Article 12-C of the Town Law, and more particularly a resolution dated March 11, 2019, said Town Board has determined it to be in the public interest to establish the Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Replacement Water Improvement Area (the "Area") and to make certain improvements therefore at a maximum estimated cost of $700,000; and WHEREAS, said improvements have been determined to be an Unlisted Action pursuant to the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, will not result in any significant adverse environmental effects; and WHEREAS, it is now desired to provide funding for such improvements for said Area; TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as follows: Section 1. For the specific object or purpose of paying the cost of water system improvements, for the Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Replacement Water Improvement Area consisting of the replacement of approximately 3,510 LF of an existing 6" water main with a new 8" water main under Winthrop Drive, from Warren Road to the Town border with the Village of Cayuga Heights, together with related ancillary facilities, as well as other original equipment, machinery, apparatus, appurtenances, furnishings, incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $700,000 there are hereby authorized to be issued $700,000 serial bonds of said Town pursuant to the provisions of the Local Finance Law. Section 2. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of said specific object or purpose is by the issuance of the $700,000 serial bonds of said Town authorized to be issued therefore pursuant to this bond resolution. Section 3. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is forty years, pursuant to subdivision 1 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law. It is hereby further determined that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized will exceed five years. Section 4. The faith and credit of said Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, are hereby irrevocably pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest on such bonds as the same respectively become due and payable. There shall be annually apportioned and assessed upon the several lots and parcels of land within said Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Water Improvement Area which the Town Board shall determine and specify to be especially benefited by the improvements, an amount sufficient to pay the principal and interest on said bonds as the same become due, but if not paid from such source, all the taxable real property in said Town shall be subject to the levy of ad valorem taxes without limitation as to rate or amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on said bonds as the same shall become due. Section 5. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the serial bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes, is hereby delegated to the Supervisor, the chief fiscal officer. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by said Supervisor, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law. Section 6. The powers and duties of advertising such bonds for sale, conducting the sale and awarding the bonds, are hereby delegated to the Supervisor, who shall advertise such bonds for sale, conduct the sale, and award the bonds in such manner as he or she shall deem best for the interests of said Town, including, but not limited to the power to sell said bonds to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation; provided, however, that in the exercise of these delegated powers, he or she shall comply fully with the provisions of the Local Finance Law and any order or rule of the State Comptroller applicable to the sale of municipal bonds. The receipt TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 5 of the Town shall be a full acquittance to the purchaser of such bonds, who shall not be obliged to see to the application of the purchase money. Section 7. All other matters, except as provided herein relating to such bonds, including determining whether to issue such bonds having substantially level or declining annual debt service and all matter related thereto, prescribing whether manual or facsimile signatures shall appear on said bonds, prescribing the method for the recording of ownership of said bonds, appointing the fiscal agent or agents for said bonds, providing for the printing and delivery of said bonds (and if said bonds are to be executed in the name of the Town by the facsimile signature of the Supervisor, providing for the manual countersignature of a fiscal agent or of a designated official of the Town), the date, denominations, maturities and interest payment dates, place or places of payment, and also including the consolidation with other issues, shall be determined by the Supervisor. It is hereby determined that it is to the financial advantage of the Town not to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial bonds any charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged by the fiscal agent, and accordingly, pursuant to paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent. Such bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and contain such recitals in addition to those required by section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law, as the Town shall determine. Section 8. The Supervisor is hereby further authorized, at his or her sole discretion, to execute an application, a project financing and/or loan agreement, and any other agreements with the New York State Department of Health/or the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, including amendments thereto, and including any instruments (or amendments thereto) in the effectuation thereof, in order to effect the financing or refinancing of the specific object or purpose described in Section 1 hereof, or a portion thereof, by a serial bond or note issue of said Town in the event of the sale of same to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation. Section 9. The power to issue and sell notes to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation pursuant to Section 169.00 of the Local Finance Law is hereby delegated to the Town Supervisor. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents as may be prescribed by said Town Supervisor consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law Section 10. The intent of this resolution is to give the Supervisor sufficient authority to execute those agreements, instruments or to do any similar acts necessary to effect the issuance of the aforesaid serial bonds or notes without resorting to further action of this Town Board. Section 11. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested only if: 1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said Town is not authorized to expend money, or 2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 6 validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of such publication, or 3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Section 12. This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for purposes of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150 - 2. Other than as specified in this resolution, no monies are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside with respect to the permanent funding of the object or purpose described herein. Section 13. This resolution which takes effect immediately shall be published in summary form in the official newspaper, together with a notice of the Town Clerk in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call, which resulted as follows: Supervisor Bill Goodman, aye; Councilperson Rich DePaolo, aye; Councilperson Rod Howe, aye; Councilperson Tee -Ann Hunter, aye; Councilperson Patricia Leary, aye; Councilperson Eric Levine, aye The resolution was thereupon declared duly adopted. 7. Discuss and consider award of the Winthrop Drive Watermain Replacement Project TB Resolution 2019 - 062: Authorization to Award Contract for Construction of the Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Replacement Water Improvement Project Whereas on April 8, 2019, the Town of Ithaca Director of Public Works/Highway Superintendent received bids for the Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Replacement Water Improvement (the "Improvement"), for the replacement of 3,510 feet of existing ductile iron main with new 8" water main made of Polywrapped Ductile Iron pipe, new valves, hydrant connections and related ancillary facilities, and Whereas the Director of Public Works has reviewed the bids and qualifications of the bidders and has determined that the lowest responsive bid of $693,000.00 for the total project was made by the lowest responsible bidder, Chicago Construction Co. Inc., 1788 Union Center Hwy., Endicott, NY 13760, and Whereas at the March 11, 2019 Town Board meeting, the Town Board adopted a Public Interest Order (Resolution No. 2019-033) authorizing the maximum amount of $700,000.00 be expended by the Town of Ithaca for this Improvement, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the award of the contract for the Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Replacement Water Improvement project to Chicago Construction Co. Inc., subject to final approval of the contract documents by the Town Engineer and Attorney for the Town, and be it further TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 7 Resolved that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute such contract upon such approval; and be it further Resolved that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve change orders to such contract upon receipt of appropriate justification provided that the maximum amount of such change orders shall not in the aggregate exceed $7,000.00 without prior authorization of this Board, and provided further that the total project cost, including the contract, engineering, legal and other expenses does not exceed the maximum authorized cost of the project, and be it further Resolved that the Town Finance Officer is directed and authorized to record all necessary and appropriate budgetary and cash transactions and transfer $693,000.00 bid amount plus a $7,000 contingency to the construction account, for a total capital project fund budget of $700,000.00. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: ayes — Howe, DePaolo, Hunter, Goodman, Levine and Leary 8. Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding the proposed purchase of property on Culver Rd for a preserve using Parks, Recreation and Open Space funds Mr. Goodman explained that this is the parcel we bought from and subsequently got a grant for and we need to hold a public hearing to expend the funds. TB Resolution 2019 - 063: Setting a public hearing regarding the proposed purchase of real property on Culver Rd for a preserve using Parks, Recreation and Open Space Funds Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby sets a public hearing to be held at its May 13, 2019 meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m. local time at 215 N. Tioga St, Ithaca regarding the proposed purchase of real property on Culver Rd for a preserve using Parks, Recreation and Open Space Funds. All persons interested in the proposed purchase will be heard at that time. Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Tee -Ann Hunter Vote: ayes — DePaolo, Hunter, Levine, Leary, DePaolo and Goodman 9. Discuss the draft revisions to the Chapter 184 "Noise" Mr. Goodman began the discussion by referring to the results of calls to trash and recycling companies because the two issues he wants to discuss are garbage collection and authorization for permits. Mr. Goodman started with the garbage collection issue saying the Committee had suggested changing the start time for commercial collection in residential areas from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. The Committee had long discussions about this and eventually they were pretty much in favor of making it a blanket time for commercial and residential zones beginning no earlier than 7:00 a.m. The Committee thought we should check in with the companies and Ms. Balestra made the TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 8 calls and there is a print out of those results here tonight. Mr. Goodman said he wanted to check in with the Board about that change. Mr. DePaolo said he isn't disturbed by garbage pickup, they are there for 30 seconds so it's a transient noise and he doesn't have a problem one way or the other. Ms. Hunter said she would let them go out at 6am due to traffic. Traffic starts to get bad at 7:30 a.m. and it's a noise we are all used to. They are out early probably to avoid traffic. Mr. Howe asked if the Town is pretty evenly divided amongst the companies because Doug's says they don't have a problem with the later time. He said he doesn't have a problem with the earlier time. Mr. Weber said Casella is the County's default and they are contracted to do the recycling and as he is going into work he is passing their trucks. Ms. Ritter added that on Rte 89 they are out early and people trying to go around them and busses trying to get around them at the later time would not be safe. Mr. Bates said Pennsylvania Ave has lodged a lot of complaints about the early noise and Casella changed their route in response to come later. He thought the 4:30-5:00 am start times they sometimes do is not good. Mr. Levine said the Committee didn't have this information and it didn't seem like a big deal but now knowing how it would affect the business' he was in favor of having 6:00 a.m. and working with the companies regarding the few localized areas that have complained. The discussion turned to the current law which calls out specific types of trucks and the Board seemed to be in favor of removing those and making it 6:00 a.m. for all types in all zones. Mr. Goodman turned to the next question which was the Authorization for Permits, Article 3. The question is the current law states "such waiver shall be granted only in those circumstances where the applicant demonstrates that the waiver is necessary for a valid purpose, that the proposed waiver is the minimal intrusion needed, that on balance the need for and benefits of the waiver outweigh the needs and rights of the surrounding neighbors to a peaceable and quiet environment." The COC discussed adding the next sentence "In determining whether to grant the permit, the Town Board shall consider factors, including ..." and it lists the factors that we would consider. Ms. Brock's question is do we keep the prior sentence where we have the "... only where these factors are met." Because what does it mean to say that the waiver is necessary for a "valid" purpose. The thought of the COC was to take out the first sentence and leave the second sentence that details the factors that would be considered and he wanted to check with the full Board before finalizing the draft. TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 9 Mr. DePaolo thought he term "valid purpose" is very subjective and difficult to enforce so this does lay out some criteria. Ms. Hunter thought that as it is currently written it is similar to getting a variance by having a bit of a test and she likes the existing language. She said she didn't know how she felt about the word "valid" but thought the questions the Board would be looking at were also subjective. There is no criteria for level of noise or proximity to sleeping or time of day etc. Mr. Howe thought it was possible to leave both sentences but change it to "may' be granted instead of "shall be" and then keep the new sentence also. Ms. Leary said they were trying to make it less subjective by suggesting some standards but not make it so narrow that it ties your hands. We were trying to find some more reasoning to apply rather than just saying "a valid purpose." She thought the second sentence suggests what the valid purpose would be. Mr. Goodman thought the second sentence was to get into more items to consider and it is up to each board member to decide how to weigh each but removed the valid and also the minimal intrusion because how do you determine that? Saying that the waivers can only be granted if the applicant met all of those items was to restrictive but by listing the different factors that the board would consider gives a better indication of what criteria we can use. Mr. DePaolo thought a reference to 184-5 which already lists the criteria would work; he didn't know why they were reiterated here. It is the same criteria cleanly stated as what to use to determine unreasonable noise. Mr. Goodman said the Committee thought that it would be helpful to those just looking at the permit process. Mr. DePaolo said the list in 184-5 is more exhaustive than the criteria in the permit section so you may want to put in a reference to that section so you are not making the provisions weaker. Mr. DePaolo said the permit section is saying that you may be allowed to create unreasonable noise under some circumstances if the benefit outweighs the rights of the residents, etc. That is why the permit exists; we are going to allow you to make what would otherwise be considered unreasonable noise, provided that you can show there is a need to do so that outweighs the needs of others. We aren't saying unreasonable noise can never be made, we are saying we are allowing you to make it. Mr. DePaolo said he hasn't perceived a huge problem other than Ithaca Beer and he is fine either way. Ms. Hunter asked if the Committee's recommendation was to leave the language as shown here and Mr. Goodman said they didn't decide this but they were leaning towards getting rid of the TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 10 first sentence with the "... such waivers shall only be granted...." and putting in the new sentence. Mr. Goodman stated that he didn't want to bring this back to committee and Mr. DePaolo then suggested that the language be modified to eliminate the reference to "valid purpose" and say something like "Such waivers shall be granted only in those circumstances where the applicant demonstrates that the waiver is the minimal intrusion necessary" which suggests we want them to use some mitigations if possible so eliminate "is necessary for a valid purpose" and he wasn't sure the balancing test was needed, it could be finished with a period. Mr. Goodman turned back to Mr. Howe's suggestion of changing "shall be" to "may" and deleting "only". Ms. Hunter said "Such waiver shall be granted only in those circumstances where the applicant demonstrates that the waiver is needed for a specified purpose" because don't we want to know why someone wants the waiver? Such as they are getting married in their backyard, they are having a band at the restaurant on a given day, etc. Mr. DePaolo said that is all on the application. Ms. Hunter thought it should be stated in the law but Mr. Goodman says they have to tell us in the application but as currently written it says we can "only" grant it if it's for a valid purpose and to him, that doesn't give us any direction on whether we should grant it or not. Ms. Hunter agreed with the removal of "valid purpose" but thought adding "stated purpose", you are getting it because you want to do this XXX. She thought we shouldn't be asking for things on the application that aren't in the law. Ms. Leary suggested "Such waivers may be granted in those circumstances where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed waiver is the minimal intrusion needed; that on balance the need for and benefits of the waiver outweigh the needs and the rights...." She liked keeping the "on balance" then continue "of the surrounding neighborhood to a peaceable and quiet environment." Take out "shall" and "only" and put "may" and then the next sentence lists the criteria the Town may use in weighing the request, but we maintain the spirit of the first sentence but it's not so restrictive. Mr. Bates said his notes removed the first sentence and left the balancing of the criteria. Mr. Goodman tried to summarize by saying the suggestion seems to be "Such waivers may be granted in those circumstances where the applicant demonstrates that on balance the need for and benefits for the waiver outweigh the needs and rights of the neighbors." And then the next sentence gives us the factors that the Board uses to determine that balance. Mr. DePaolo asked for the reference to section 184-5 and Mr. Bates said the COC eliminated the first sentence of that section that read "Where the enforcement of this Chapter would create TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 11 unnecessary hardship.." and started it with "The Town Board, in its discretion, is authorized to grant... " Mr. Goodman said Ms. Brock didn't have that here and Ms. Rosa said she also remembered that because we were trying to make it clear that in this particular instance you don't have to show everything to get the waiver, because that is what everyone has been hanging their hat on; that you have to prove a hardship instead of doing it as a balancing act. That would allow the Board to say this is what is making the unreasonable noise, but this is what we are going to use to decide if you can have the unreasonable noise. This was supposed to allow the Board to say you don't have to prove all five, it is a balance. The Board agreed. 10. Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding a proposed a local law amending the yard and principal building requirements for publicly owned properties and private institutions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code Mr. Goodman explained that this was brought to light due to the North Campus Residential Expansion project where the building is going to cross municipal lines so there will not be setbacks from the property lines and technically that is not allowed. Codes and Ordinances discussed this and it is a minor change that was actually in place back in the 90's for these types of instances but somehow got left off in a subsequent iteration. Some discussion followed and this really applies to educational properties given that they apply to very limited situations such as the hospital and the colleges where there are multiple buildings on large parcels of 6+ acres in size. This accommodates what educational institutes generally do. Ms. Ritter added that is was interesting that Mr. Mosely, who is relatively new, came across this with his "fresh" eyes where staff never gave it a thought. Some discussion followed and the Board was comfortable moving forward, especially given the anticipated rezoning coming up where the intent is to make Educational/Institutional zones. Mr. Goodman added that the colleges' properties are quite often in low and medium density zones that don't fit with the requirements there. Ms. Ritter added that Cornell seems to be very hesitant to come in for height variances because of that and will instead build out instead of up and she hopes the new zoning will address that also. TB Resolution 2019 - 064: Setting a public hearing regarding a proposed local law amending the yard and principal building requirements for publicly owned properties and private institutions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 12 Whereas the Codes and Ordinances discussed the proposed change at its April 10, 2019 meeting and recommended same to the Town Board, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby sets a public hearing to be held at its May 13, 2019 meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m. local time at 215 N. Tioga St, Ithaca regarding a proposed local law amending the yard and principal building requirements for publicly owned properties and private institutions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code. All persons interested in the proposed local law will be heard at that time. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Tee -Ann Hunter Vote: ayes — Howe, Hunter, Goodman, Levine, Leary and DePaolo 11. Committee Reports Planning — Mr. DePaolo reported that they began looking at the finding statement for Chainworks PDZ. The City has adopted a Finding Statement that the Town has used as a framework and they got about half way through. As an involved agency, the Town has to adopt a Statement of Findings to pave the way for consideration of the zoning change. Mr. DePaolo noted that the amended record of decision or ROD by the DEC remains to be seen so a lot of the circumstances that are being discussed in the Statement are contingent on what the DEC requires so his personal preference would be to see that document to make more accurate findings. b. Public Works — Mr. Howe reported that they discussed the Forest Home Walkway RFPs as discussed earlier and about the guardrail and gave feedback to PW about what we wanted to explore more fully in terms of determining what to do. Also started to look at the capital improvement projects or CIP and fleet discussions for the next few years. Mr. Weber added that there was a quick presentation on the Bundy Rd project and we have received minimal comments back from DOT so we are planning on advertising that this week with a bid opening and award end of May which might require a special meeting because there is not study session in May. He added that we will be using the variable message board as discussed to identify to the users that the road will be closed during construction except for emergency vehicles. c. Budget — Mr. Levine reported that they touched on the idea of Park Districts but Mr. Franklin from TC Assessment was scheduled to be there but was out sick so that was postponed. Talked about the proposed budget amendment to pay some compensatory overtime for some civil engineers because they have earned comp time but the department is to busy to allow that time to be taken in the foreseeable future. TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 13 Also briefly discussed the voluntary payments we make every year and the consensus was we would not seek to change anything Also discussed the CD investments recently authorized. d. P&O and Employee Relations — Mr. Goodman reported for Ms. Bleiwas saying they talked a bit about the Post Office because he hadn't heard from anyone but since that time he has received an email saying they are interested in signing a lease with us but they are trying to figure out alternate parking. Also started talking about future staffing needs as we do each year in preparation for budget discussions. e. Code & Ordinances (COC) — Noise law discussed above f. Short Term Rentals (STR) — Mr. Goodman reported on the interactive meeting with Renwick Heights people and hosts. Mr. DePaolo said the main points were possibilities for waivers for those people in certain zones that have extenuating circumstances that would allow them to operate for more days where they wouldn't disturb their neighbors; one person had 10 acres in MDR with a highway in front and cows on one side where no one is being affected except him if he is limited. Mr. Goodman added that he was surprised at how many days some are hosting and he gave another example which was Hayts Chapel where there is no one around and another gentleman that has his house he lives in and the house next door he rents. Mr. DePaolo thought that was an interesting one because even though it isn't his primary residence, there would be greater oversight with him living next door. Mr. Goodman said that there were hosts who wanted more days and Renwick Heights who wanted less and maybe there is a way to structure it where those that do not affect others can do more days. Ms. Leary said the Renwick Heights group talked a lot about an overlay zone for them and others talked a lot about the 3-month gap that is common in this area due to students who rent 9-months. She thought that was reasonable and protected the long-term rental stock. Ms. Hunter said the State is also looking at regulations, but we have two neighborhoods that seem to be especially affected and she isn't sure how to take care of both sides. She said there were people there that it was clear this was a relied upon source of income and they had no complaints against them and she doesn't want to deprive people of income that they have relied upon. That said, she wants to help the two areas that are experiencing issues. TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 14 Mr. DePaolo added that there was one person who suggested that a variance process involve asking the neighbors and if there are no complaints from them, you could get a variance. Mr. Goodman responded that the Committee hasn't met since the meeting to talk about which direction to go. g. Other — Ms. Ritter reported that the Planning Board was considering Site Plan Approval for the NCRE subsequent to SEQR and there were a number of people from Forest Home come in and they thought there would be a lot of pedestrians walking down on Pleasant Grove Rd and stated that that wasn't safe and provided detail. Mr. Ritter said the Planning Board addressed two conditions to the Town Board: That the Town, County and Cornell explore adding a pedestrian walkway and bicycle climbing lane on Pleasant Grove Rd hill between Forest Home downstream bridge and the project. The other was the mitigation in the plan to realign Craddit Farm Rd to move traffic towards Craddit Farm rather than Forest Home, the residents think the traffic calming feature should be relocated somewhere on Pleasant Grove Rd. Some discussion followed and the Board will keep the comments in mind. Forest Home Drive Ms. Hunter asked what happened to the idea of closing Forest Home Dr and having Cornell take it over if they wanted it open. Mr. Weber responded that he had forgotten hat it was Mr. Engman that had removed this particular CIP project from consideration because of the cost and he did not feel it was appropriate for the Town to be spending and investing this kind of money in what is basically a driveway for Cornell. Once we get past Judd Falls Rd., there are no Town of Ithaca residents that access their properties off of Forest Home Drive. That is why it was in the budget in the CIP and then it disappeared. We have put it back in and we had a little of this conversation with the PWC, but it was after that meeting that he remembered this was off at Mr. Engman's directive years ago. We do have to put a guiderail up, but this is only a bandaid on a bigger issue and the question is, how far does the Board really want to take this work. Mr. Goodman responded that PWC started looking at the CIP and when the Budget Committee looks at the CIP in May, he believes, as Mr. Engman did, he doesn't think we should spend that much money on that road. We can get some estimates, but we agreed in the past that we spend $850K a year on road work and this would blow two years of that budget just on that stretch of road, which as Jim says, primarily serves Cornell TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 15 Campus. When the City closed it's portion of Forest Home Dr., Cornell said they would not take it over but they would contribute money to have it fixed. Cornell might think that segment is more important than this one, but he doesn't think we should be spending that much money and, in his mind, that discussion is very much still an open question. 12. Consent Agenda TB Resolution 2019 - 065: Adopt Consent Agenda Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda items: a. Town Board Minutes Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Tee -Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes — DePaolo, Hunter, Leary, Goodman, Levine and Howe b. Town of Ithaca Abstract Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: ayes — Howe, DePaolo, Hunter, Leary, Goodman and Levine TB Resolution 2019-065a: Approval of Minutes of April 8, 2019 Whereas, the draft Minutes of the April 8, 2019 meeting of the Town Board have been submitted for review and approval, now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes, with changes, as the final minutes of the meeting on April 8, 2019 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. TB Resolution 2019 -065b: Town of Ithaca Abstract No. 8 for FY-2019 Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and Whereas said vouchers have been audited for payment by the Town Board; now therefore be it Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 452 — 526 General Fund Town Wide 125,118.95 General Fund Part -Town 9,569.98 Highway Fund Town Wide DA 2,417.49 Highway Fund Part Town DB 40,323.14 Water Fund 24,697.58 Sewer Fund 275,474.91 TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 16 ............ - -- ---- State Route 96b Sidewalk 1,17 7.065.92 Hire Protecticn-i F"LITILI 4 6,6 2 6.4 1 Trust and Aoency 2,00�0,00 .. ...­ ­­.... ............ -TOTAL 533,294.38 AqjOUrntnent Meeting was adJOUrned upon a ino(ton and a second at 7:03 p.tn, Unaniluk)LIS, SUt,M) trd by, Paulette Rosa Town Clerk TBS 2019-04-22 flg17 Attac,hi,nent 1 �L..II': Il%IlUtes 04 22 2019 Town of Ithaca 2018 Sustainabilily Report Prej-)ared by Nick Goldsirdtli, StistainabilltNr Manner Apri 1 -4., 2 0 9 Secured $70,000 in grant funding, managed existing grants • Completed grant summary that shows shared SUstainability Planner has secured and/or managed 13 grants with a total value over $675,000 over 7 years • Awarded $50,000 grant for Town under NYSERDA Clean Energy Communities program • Awarded $20,000 of NYSERDA funding via Energetics, Inc., for incorporating electric vehicles into Town and City of Ithaca fleets • Administered two existing grants (Park Found- ation, Funders' Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities) Achieved Clean Energy Communities designation from NYSERDA • Worked across departments to coordinate completion of four "high impact actions" to achieve designation • $50,000 grant award from designation will be used for purchasing electric vehicle and charger for Town fleet and for achieving Green Building Policy standard with the Public Works office addition Completed Green Building Policy report and began drafting code language • Worked with joint Town/City steering committee, consultants, and community advisory committee to draft GBP report and code language • Town and City unanimously approved GBP report, which provides recommendations for requirements and incentives to substantially reduce carbon emissions in all new buildings, while emphasizing and supporting affordability • Performed extensive outreach and education • Planned for Phase Two - drafting legislation: Defined scope of work and process; Set budget and acquired funding; Contracted with consultant team Leveraged Town funding through internship program • Hired four interns between Town and City; two used Federal Work Study funding • Coordinated with organizations at Cornell to increase the racial diversity of applicants Page I of 2 111 IIIIIIIIIcIIIIIIIII q � III Analyzed potential LED streetlight upgrade 0 Provided research and analysis to evaluate feasibility Represented Town in Tompkins Streetlight Collaborative Retrofits would annually save about $40,000 and reduce GHG emissions by 50%-60% Published Ithaca Sustainability Newsletter 0 Engages local, regional and national community with local news and events Over 615 newsletter subscribers. Facebook page now has over 575 likes new buidngs rr�'Ibffi instit,ite V11111!"1111 Developed and strengthened relationships with regional, and national partners * Urban Sustainability Directors Network - Sat on selection committee for the Equity Diversity Inclusion Fellows program * Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships - Participated in task force to guide the creation of the Community Action Planning for Energy Efficiency tool * EcoVillage at Ithaca - Helped develop Asking the Right Questions workshop on green building for municipal boards and staff * Also: NYC Department of Buildings; Energize NY; Northeast; New Buildings Institute Supported local initiatives through participation and promotion EV Tompkins; Tompkins County Energy Task Force; Ithaca 2030 District; Tompkins County Climate Protection Initiative; Sustainability Center; Energy Smart Community Page 2 of 2 BluewayTrail Plar December,, Cayuga Lake BluewayTrail Plan Committee alta im °tea DII'A['UMFNf 1 a PL APJCt1ING + rJP�S3flP' N Olz s.rKri: ��. i(.0 tQ,�,CS"" This Plan was prepared for the New York State Department of State with funds provided under Title 11 of the Environmental Protection Fund. Executive Summary There are many opportunities along Cayuga Lake to create a safe environment for people who use non - motorized paddle craft to access local businesses, recreation areas, and to enjoy the beauty of the Finger Lakes region, The Cayuga Lake Blueway Trail Plan identifies the existing conditions along the lakeshore for paddle boaters; provides an assessment of the regional assets; identifies gaps in access areas along the lakeshore; includes proposed locations and preliminary concepts for future access points and launch sites; aswell asamarketing and outreach strategy. Blueways or water trails are designated small boat and paddling routes that promote and facilitate water -based recreation and transportation. Awell-planned b|uewayincludes thoughtfully designed "put -ins" and "take-outs" at designated locations along the route, for rest, overnight stays, and for providing access to nearby land -based attractions. Cayuga Lake is bounded by waterfront hamlets and villages that have a history of depending on their lake location for transportation, industry, housing and recreation. These settlements can provide needed services and amenities for the trail. Some elements ofab|uewayinclude: * Launch and Landing Sites w Parking w Lock -up facilities for paddle craft • Small boat rental and storage facilities + VVayfndin8and interpretive signs, brochures and aweb presence 0 Places to visit and stay overnight Not all B|oewayTrail skescanprmvWeaUomenitiesorevencartopacces .Ahierauhyofsiteshasbeen developed to describe the types of sites that exist or can be developed. A mix of these site types should be provided around the lake. 1. Land -based Launch Sites (would also provide emergency access points) 2. Overnight Sites l Temporary Use Sites Paddlers of kayaks, paddleboards and canoes typically move between 1 — 5 mph, depending on wind, waves, experience level, the type ofpaddle craft and whether solo o/tandem. Beginners onaday trip will normally paddle 2-3 miles before they get tired and seek to take a break if an accesspoint is available. The plan analyzed the existing edge conditions of Cayuga Lake and identifies portions of the lake shore that are more than two miles from any existing private or public access point. The same analysis was performed after potential future access points were identified. There are currently fourteen (14) sites that make up the Cayuga Lake Blueway Trail: a N1: Montezuma National 0 VV5: Dean's[ove a 5I:Stewart Park Wildlife Refuge (K4NVVR) * N2:Mud Lock 0 EI Harris Park • VVl: Cayuga Lake State Perk • E6:FnontenacPark Executive Surnmary 0 Ell: 3he|drakePark a E14: Myers Point Park 0 S2:AJ|an H. Treman State Marine Park (Lansing Town Park) w SICass Park ° VVl6:TaughannockFalls State Park 0 E17: East Shore Park An additional twenty nine (29) potential future sites were identified. Some of these are undeveloped public properties, while others are under private ownership. w NlSeneca Canal * VV7:Finger Lakes Land Trust's e VV13:Kidders Landing • El: LockviewMarina (FLU)VVhNock/VanPipep Restaurant • EZ: Beacon Bay Marina Muoo Preserve w E14: Bell Station • E4: Twin Oaks Campground e VV8:Thirsty Owl Winery w E16:Finger Lakes Marina w VV2:VVn|ffy/sGrill and Marina m VV8:Dock near Hosmer w EI7:Portland Point w E5: Hibiscus Harbor Marina Winery m E19: Bolton Point • E7:FrontenacMarina 0 E9:Village »fAurora w VV14:Kingston Cottages ~ E8:YavvgerCreek a E1O:Aurora Steam Grist Mill p yy15:Camp Barton m VV3: Lakeshore Winery Dock E12: Bet the Farm Winery ° VV17: Ithaca Yacht Club * VV4:Goose Watch Winery w E13: Oon's Marina w S4: Ithaca Farmers' Market m VV6:Button Grove Winery w VV1O:Driftwood Inn B&B * SS:Boatyard Grill Docks w VV12:She|drekePoint Winery Together, these sites would serve as the foundation of the Cayuga Lake Blueway Trail, and would allow paddlers to enter and exit the lake at numerous convenient locations creating opportunities for both short and longer 8|uewayTrail trips. The Implementation Plan highlights the critical "next -steps" that should be taken to advance the vision of the Blueway Trail. Both Short Term and Long Term Action Items have been identified so that the Blueway Trail can be developed in the short term while longer term goals are being pursued. These goals include: • Marketing the Blueway through informational materials, an interactive website,and promotional materials ; w Install 8|ummayTrai| Signage; * Implement Physical Improvements at the priority pilot sites; • Develop agreements and partnerships with private businesses and landowners and support their development oflaunch site improvements; m Work with stakeholders to create an ongoing Blueway Trail Steering Committee to: a. Provide basic coordination for things like stewardship and promotion of the water trail, and b. Advance the kinds of best management practices that provide for a high -quality water trail experience, and that are therefore recognized under the National Water Trail System guidelines. Additionally, site design guidelines for new launch sites are discussed and illustrated. Three sites that are ready for implementation are then described at a higher level of detail. Specific improvements that would help make the sites more accessible for Blueway Trail Users are identified, and costestimates and illustrations for the improvements are provided as well. These sites will serve as a template for the development of the other potential launch sites and their development will help to advance the Executive Summary Ap ,0N 1: MNWR at Rt. 20 QN2: Mud Lock N3: Seneca Canal 0 El: Lockvjeyi Marina Jt2 Beacon Bay Marina WO:De`erheacl %E�': Harris Park "'-Restaurantg OE4: Twin Oaks Campground 'W'l : Ca buga Lake ;state Park \A/2: Wolffy's Grill 0 Land Marina s. Hibiscus Harbor Marina Fr'0jntenacPark E7: Frontenac Marina e--8: Yawger Creek W3: Lakeshore Winery Dock W4: Goose Watch E9: Village of Aurora Winery Dock W5: Deans Cove $E'10: Aurora Stearn Grist Mill W6- Buttonwood', G"rove Winery W7:Wh!tlock/VanPi er-(D Moran Preserve (FILT) d'B'11 :'Long Point State Park �,,9: DoUear mewl Y" o5mer, inery 4,11 W'1'0: Driftwood Inn and B&B Wl 1: Sfieldi'akp,eark Wl 2: Sheldrake Point Winex, W1 3: Kidders Landin,g GE1 2: Dmi's Marina Restaura6t j NI; (6E'l 3.'Oell Station WI 4: Kingston Cottagese WI 5: Camp Barton W1 6; T I aug iannoc Pr Ils; State Park W1 7: lthaca� Yacht CluC) S2: Treman State Marine P 53: Cass Pa �5ill ; Qat VOmfq since Town Park f9e 11 r ''Lakes Marina ,Portland Point 7: Bolton Point Poison Ivy Point) Shore rt Par Cayuga Lake Blueway Trail dm 0 2.5 5 10 alta Existing and Proposed Blueway Sites Miles 7W ttac,l imeiit Explanation of Cayuga Lake Watershed -Wide Water Quality Projects Overview Purpose of project (`services performed') and project summary: This is a summary of the water quality projects overview undertaken by the contractor to create 'a catalogue of current and recently completed water -quality - related projects undertaken by municipalities and county agencies... by communicating with officials.' At the inception of the contract, a survey was created to jumpstart conversations with government leaders in order to gather project -specific data to help identify potential grant -eligible water quality projects. Besides creating the contractually -specified watershed -wide 'snapshot' of water quality -related projects, this data collection process has promoted relationships that foster regional planning perspectives, and encourage participation with the Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipa) Organization (10). Because not all requested survey responses and related data have been received, this overview should be seen as a snapshot catalogue that can be shared and updated as data become available. The survey: The survey used to collect water quality project data was developed in consultation with Tee Ann Hunter, the 10-chair, and three recommended 10 members. It was then reviewed and 'tested' with local officials before going 'live.' The question set was intended to ease government leaders into a general conversation about water quality issues before asking them for project -specific details. The survey outlined general parameters by identifying water quality 'categories/ before requesting specific information about their projects. One question asked for a staff referral (see the survey for town officials and survey for county officials, below). Method of data collection: Surveys were emailed to all municipal, county department, and Soil & Water District heads based on an initial contact list provided by and in subsequent consultation with the 10 Chair. Emails were followed by direct phone contact. Many of the surveys were conducted by telephone. Often, conversations led to staff referrals which required another round of contacts. A series of follow-up conversations and emails with staff and officials led to the submission of project information via Google Form, Excel, and/or email. Otherwise, verbal interviews were transcribed into Excel spreadsheets. All project -specific data was compiled into three Excel spreadsheet 'catalogues' with uniform formats (see Cayuga Lake Watershed -Wide Water Quality Projects Overview tabs: 1. Towns, Villages, City; 2. County Planning, Health, Water; 3. Soil & Water Districts). Participation: Relationship -building was critical to achieving survey participation. This intangible benefit could be useful in the continuation of this cataloguing process and to growing 10 membership and related collaborative efforts. For each of the 57 entities that were approached by email and/or phone, at least two persons were contacted on average, with multiple attempts needed to garner actual contact and response. Thorough notes were made regarding contacts established in order to understand the chain -of -command and decision -making structure around water quality work within each entity in order to retrieve the needed data. In addition to the towns, villages, and City (Ithaca) in the watershed who were contacted (Figure 1-2), Cayuga, Cortland, Schuyler, Seneca, and Tompkins County Soil & Water Districts; Cayuga, Seneca, and Tompkins County Planning Department staff; watershed -relevant Cayuga, Schuyler, and Seneca County Public Health and Water and Sewer Authority officials; the Seneca County Board of Supervisors Agriculture and Environmental Affairs Committee Chair; and the Finger Lakes Institute Director were interviewed and/or submitted their past and current water -quality projects data. There was a 95% response rate for all the county departments and municipalities approached and a 80% rate for submission of project data. A few participants who did not submit data felt they did not have water projects to report at the time - possibly based on their lack of understanding of what was meant by 'water quality projects' for the purposes of this initiative. Perhaps they would participate after seeing the submissions of their peers. Explanation of project status & gaps in data: Despite the high participation rate, this report should by no means be seen as complete. It is being delivered as preliminary for the purposes of creating an initial 'snapshot' overview for the IO as described by the Chair. This data set should be seen as evolving, informal, and incomplete until, 1), project information in the draft catalogue overview is carefully reviewed and 'approved' by all participants, which was not possible given the time constraints of the contract, and, 2) water quality projects are more narrowly defined in advance of final submissions. Any existing data gaps represent information not received from or given by the survey participants after repeated efforts to solicit it within the time constraints of the project. No assumptions can be made about any missing data fields other than the fact that no data was submitted nor received for that field. The high participation rate made it somewhat more difficult to receive all requested pieces of data within the approximated timeframe for this contract and given that survey participation was strictly voluntary. The approximate timeline for the independent contractor to complete this project was estimated as three months. Including the two weeks of survey development / approval and two weeks of Christmas time vacation, 175+ hours have been dedicated over approximately 15 weeks averaging over 10 hours of work per week in order to accumulate the 275 project entries presented in the 3 spreadsheets. In addition, a PowerPoint and presentation about the project were offered in person by the contractor on February 271", 2019. There were several subsequent conversations and meetings with the project supervisor (10 Chair), and revisions were made following three rounds of emails and phone outreach to the government survey participants, seeking review and final approvals of their submissions to the catalogue. Value of initial stage of data collection / overall observations: Informal conversations with local leaders and staff yielded insight into how water quality issues are perceived and prioritized. The catalogue entries aim to reflect how each government leader and their staff view their own water quality work. The overview highlights many approaches to managing water issues, and underscores the nexuses between staff capacity, resources, and outcomes throughout the watershed. Project submissions were often gained through conversations that struggled to identify the lines between distinct 'projects' and the day-to-day roles and responsibilities of governments, such as managing compliance and regular operations associated with water -related public works, and including emergency flood and hazard planning and management. Additional potential future deliverables include a draft government 'wish list' (based on responses to the survey question, 'Are there water -related projects you would undertake if you had funding or other assistance?') as well as an updated watershed -wide contact list and descriptions of each listed entity, among others. K Dear (town official], 1 am contacting you on behalf of The Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization (10) to gather information about current and recently completed water quality projects*. This information will give the 10 a snapshot of what's going on across the watershed to help them target outreach with municipalities, as a part of their contract for the New York State Department of State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) grant. The goal is to get your input to help prioritize the 1O's next steps concerning health of the lake, and to assist local governments in the watershed with the planning and funding of identified projects. The below questionnaire can be completed online, in -person, or by telephone. 1 will reach out to you shortly by telephone to find out your preferences for completing the survey within the next two weeks, if possible, as follows: *(Some key categories concerning water quality: roads, ditches, and other infrastructure, drinking water, wastewater, health issues, streams and wetland issues, development and land use issues, agricultural activities, boating, fishing and swimming/recreational water uses, safety, fees, and public access issues). Also consider projects in the above categories in terms of sediment, erosion, nutrients (e.g. phosphorus and nitrogen) and contaminants. 1) Are there problem areas concerning water and its uses in your town? 2). Do you have a list of priorities for work that needs to be accomplished concerning water quality? Are water quality projects part of ongoing discussion and capital project planning in your community? 3). Are there others within your staff or community who I should contact for further information on water quality projects recently completed or being planned? 4). Are there water -related projects you would undertake if you had funding or other assistance? 5). Please use this link to note your current, planned and recently completed water quality projects, including description, cost, funding source(s), partners, timelines, and objectives. (Fill in one (1) form per project.) Thank you so much for taking the time to complete this survey. For an in -person or phone meeting to replace this online survey, please contact me, at 607-269-5104 or jenlcarius@gmail.com, and/or let me know the best staff person to reach out to. In early 2019, you will receive an overview report of all the water quality projects happening throughout the Cayuga Lake watershed. You will be invited to an 10 presentation of the report around that time. For more information about the Intermunicipal Organization and participating in meetings, contact Chair Tee -Ann Hunter, Town of Ithaca, at tdh123442hotmoi1.com. With appreciation, Jennifer Karius Independent Contractor for Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization 607-269-51041jenkcirius@gmciil.com 3 Dear (county official], 1 am contacting you on behalf of The Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization (10) to gather information about current and recently completed water quality projects. This information will give the 10 a snapshot of what's going on across the watershed to help them target outreach with municipalities, as a part of their contract for the New York State Department of State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) grant. The goal is to get your input to help prioritize the 1O's next steps concerning lake health, and to assist local governments in the watershed with the planning and funding of identified projects. The below questionnaire can be completed online, in -person, or by telephone. 1 will reach out to you shortly by telephone to find out your preferences for completing the survey within the next two weeks, if possible, as follows. *(Some key categories concerning water quality: infrastructure, drinking water; wastewater; health issues, streams and wetland issues, development and land use issues, agricultural activities, boating, fishing and swimming/ recreational water uses, safety, fees, and public access issues). Also consider projects in the above categories in terms of sediment, erosion, nutrients (e.g. phosphorus and nitrogen), and contaminants. 1). What are the recently completed (in the last 3-5 years) and currently planned water quality projects in your county? (Please enter projects using the Google form link in #7.) 2). To what degree have flooding and storm water run-off been an issue in your county? What are the challenges and how have you addressed them? 3). What are your water -related projects being planned for the future? * (Please use Google form link in #7.) 4). Do you have a list of priorities for the work that needs to be accomplished? Are water quality projects part of ongoing discussion and capital project planning in your community? 5). Are there others within your staff or community who I should contact for further information on water quality projects? 6). Are there water quality projects you would undertake if you had funding or other assistance? 7). Please use this link to note your current, planned and recently completed water quality projects, including description, cost, partners, funding sources, timelines, and objectives. (Fill in one (1) form per project Thank you so much for taking the time to complete this survey. For an in -person or phone meeting to replace this online survey, please contact me, at 607-269-5104 or jenkarius@pmail.com, and/or let me know the best staff person to reach out to. In early 2019, you will receive an overview report of all the water quality projects happening throughout the Cayuga Lake watershed. You will be invited to an 10 presentation of the report around that time. For more information about the Intermunicipal Organization and participating in meetings, contact Chair Tee -Ann Hunter, Town of Ithaca, at tdh123442hotmoi1.com. C! 1,'iaury 1-2 0 Lake 'Watershed 'Fom p ki ns Ca u My ViOage, of Aurora lab is Of Cllri itIC villac of tin ion Spri ngs Town Of Danby wriltlul c of('ayuga Fown of'Newfidd Tow n of Dryden Sch uyler ("ou R t y 'lown ofiffiaca ''Fown of I Iwor Town of Enfield ''Town adlarilv' 'I'mn of Lansing Town of[Aysses rioga county, TOWTI OfGroton Tbw n of S pencer Oly ("O"Illimm VdIage ofDryden Cortland C ounty Vfflagc ol"Trurnansburg �Idwn oH fartbrd Wlage OfLanw.qing Towl of Virgil Whage ofCayuga I leights Town ofCorflandvilk Vfllagc of FrCeville -Town ofscoO Town ofHomer Cayuga County 'Iown ol'Su En nierh i I I Seneca County Town of(pawa 16wo of( as'waw'rn 'frown of' sempron ilus Town W'Lodi lb"'n of'Locke* Town of0vid Town ofVvnice 'f'(IW n of R o mu I ij, Town ofLe,dyard Tow n of Fayel te Town ofSdpio Town o(VariQk Town of Fleming ''Town of seiwa Falk Town ofAurchus Vfflage of lrutcrlakem Town of'Springpmt *Munkipalities wItb %mall porflon in wate,",Wi A