Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2009-02-23 Study Session Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, February 23, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY Aurora Room MINUTES 1. Call to Order 2. Discuss March 9, 2009 Town Board Agenda 3. Discuss Planning Committee recommendation of Ithaca College Wetland Mitigation Easement 4. Discuss Timelines for Northeast Solution 5. Report of Town Committees and Other Committees: a. Budget & Management b. Operations Committee c. Personnel Committee d. Planning Committee e. Public Works Committee f. Codes and Ordinances Committee 6. Discuss Government Efficiency Grant Application Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board - 5:30 p. m., Monday, February 23, 2009 Town Board Members Present: Supervisor Engman; Councilwoman Leary; Councilman Stein; Councilman Goodman; Councilman Levine; Councilwoman Hunter; Councilman DePaolo. Staff Present: Carrie Coates Whitmore (excused at 7 pm); Judy Drake; Dan Walker; Jonathan Kanter; Bruce Bates (excused at 7 pm). Public: Adrian Williams, Rachad Hollis, Stephen Wagner. Meeting Notes: Supervisor Engman brought the meeting to order and passed around several items for the Board to review including: correspondence, a list of the stimulus projects submitted to New York State by Tompkins County, and Larry Thayer’s resolution of appreciation for Town Board member signatures. Additions Supervisor Engman added an Executive Session to discuss real estate acquisition and the employment history of a particular person. TB 2-23-2009 Final Page 2 of 7 He noted that the Board would need to vote to add item number 6 to the agenda because it did not make the 7 day cutoff for additions to the agenda. Peter spoke about the importance of discussing the item that evening and moved that the item be added to the evening’s agenda for discussion. Councilman Goodman seconded. Vote—carried unanimously. Item added to agenda. Agenda Item #2 - March 9, 2009 Agenda Discussion: Agenda 7 – Local Advisory Board of Assessment Herb asked members to consider volunteering for the Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review. Bill suggested that an alternate member also be appointed and the agenda was changed to reflect the appointment of two board members and an alternate member. Supervisor Engman then encouraged the two new board members, Tee-Ann and Rich, to volunteer. Agenda 11 – Submission of financial report to State Tee-Ann questioned item number 11 and suggested changes “authorizing” to “acknowledging” because the Town Board could not prevent the Supervisor from submitting the annual financial report to the State. Board agreed to wording change. Agenda 16 – Report of Town Officials Rich suggested that time be given for board members to report on their trip to the Annual Association of Towns Meeting in New York City. Board members thought it was a good idea and added it to the agenda, under Report of Town Officials. Additions to Agenda: Jonathan asked that Appointment of Planning Board Alternate be added to the agenda. He said that interviews will be taking place later in the week and the Interview Committee would probably have a recommendation for the Board. Tee-Ann requested that the candidate’s resumes and letters of interest be included in the packet. Jonathan then briefly explained the proposed conservation easement in relation to Ithaca College’s Wetlands Mitigation project.Depending upon the discussion of item 3 on the evening’s agenda, Jon wanted to include a resolution of support for the project on the March 9th agenda. He asked if the Board would be interested in a presentation from Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation regarding stormwater. The Board expressed interest and Jon suggested setting a placeholder on the agenda for the item until he can confirm availability of the presenter. Agenda 8 – Lakefront Residential Zoning Peter noted that he has suggested changes, which he is taking to COC. Agenda 10 – Snow and Ice agreement Bill asked that copies of the agreement be provided in the packet. TB 2-23-2009 Final Page 3 of 7 Agenda Item #3: Planning Committee recommendation of Ithaca College Wetland Mitigation Easement Jonathan gave background information regarding the easement and board members were given a letter from the Finger Lakes Land Trust outlining the proposed conservation easements. The Board briefly discussed the project and expressed support for it. Jonathan suggested that a resolution supporting the concept of the project be placed on the March agenda. Board agreed. Agenda Item #4 Timelines for Northeast Solution Jonathan provided a possible timeline for the Northeast moratorium. The purpose of the timeline was to guide the Board in its decision making process. Tee-Ann knew Mr. Lucente was exploring other options and wondered about the status. Herb checked on it last week and the options were still being explored. Tee-Ann asked if the other municipality was aware of the option. Herb said that he spoke with Mary Ann Sumner and she was aware of what was happening. Agenda Item #5 Report of Town Committees and Other Committees Reports were given for the following committees: Operations Committee Personnel Committee Planning Committee Public Works Committee Codes and Ordinances Committee Comprehensive Plan Committee Please refer to the January and February minutes of each committee for details of committee discussion. Recommendations of Personnel Committee was added to the March 9th agenda during the Personnel Committee report. Joint Sewer Committee—Herb reported that the committee has some important decisions to make. The first is whether or not to accept the hydrosolate from the Cornell Vet School digester, rather than burning carcasses. The digester creates slurry and the Vet School has to find a way to dispose of the slurry. One possibility is to dispose of it at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. Cornell has approached the wastewater treatment plant for disposal and has a backup agreement with another wastewater treatment plant in case the committee votes not to accept the slurry. The wastewater treatment plant has also been approached by the gas drilling industry and asked to accept the water pumped out of the ground after the fracking process. The water pumped out contains chemicals, bacteria, etc. The problem being, what to do with the water? One option is for the water to sit in a pond to evaporate and then the material left behind is taken to a secure landfill. Another option is to take the water to a sewage TB 2-23-2009 Final Page 4 of 7 treatment plant and run it through the process, which is what has been asked of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant. Peter asked what are the pluses and minuses of accepting the water. Herb explained that it is an extraordinary amount of water and the plant could probably make money off it. The negative—the brine could upset the digesters because the sewage treatment plant depends on digestion of microbes, bacteria, etc. Dan further explained that the treatment plant is a biological process. The process does not remove chlorides because it is not a chemical process plant. There would be the risk of harming the bacteria that treats the sewage. It could then pass through and impact the treatment plant’s discharge permit into the lake. Herb noted that it is a long way off and there is plenty of time for discussion. Government Efficiency Grant Application Peter explained that the Board had established a committee to complete an analysis of the pros and cons of consolidation and/or shared services. The committee worked for 2 years on the report and distributed it for comment. The committee recently became aware of a $50,000 State grant opportunity, with a deadline of March 11th. Committee members thought there was a good chance their application would be funded because it is not a competitive grant. Herb brought the issue back to the task at hand—does the board want to put the item on the March 9th agenda? Pat did not feel comfortable giving the go-ahead to apply for the grant. She did not have enough time to review the report and educate herself. Pat thought that the Board was pretty much debating whether or not it wanted to merge with the City. Peter did not think that was the case—he was asking permission to continue with the original charge of the committee, which was to conduct a study. Herb opened the floor to debate. Pat read excerpts from a December 31, 2008 Ithaca Journal article regarding the consolidation study. She then made the following arguments/statements: • The Town has open space because the City has not been able to acquire the open space; it is the reason the political firewall separating the Town and the City needs to remain; • The Commons is deteriorating and the retail stores available are outdated. The City contributed to the demise of the Commons by allowing Big Box stores on Route 13; • The Town has, with encouragement of the County, proceeded with its own mixed commercial and residential developments. The planning concept of one central commercial area is becoming obsolete. Nodal development provides a better sense of community and provides for walking and other non-car forms of transportation; • The character of the City is different from the character of the Town; the character of downtown is very different from the character of the three hills even within the City. TB 2-23-2009 Final Page 5 of 7 The culture of City government has been focused for years on downtown and there is nothing in its current environment that suggests change; • Consolidation means the mistakes and judgment by a central City government would be magnified across the region. The Council of Governments, the County and the Town’s Comprehensive Plan provides for a regional outlook. The Town, not the City, has led the way in taking a broader outlook; • Why pursue consolidation of the Town and City when it has already been conceded that the overall financial benefits are negligible? Tee-Ann thanked Pat for her thoughtful comments. She provided the Board with a copy of the State Task Force on Government Efficiencies recommendations. She noted that many of the recommendations are already done in Tompkins County. Tee-Ann supported looking further into fire protection because of its cost. She suggested the Town pursue consolidation grant money to research fire protection cost and consolidation of fire districts. Bill had not read the City/Town Shared Services report, but he was open to discussion and learning about shared services and possible consolidation. He supported spending up to $2,500 of Town money to investigate the possibility. Brief discussion took place regarding Peter’s suggested resolution of support. He recognized the language leaned strongly toward consolidation. Peter stated that consolidation is being talked about a lot and the Attorney General is a strong supporter of it. Urban cores are struggling throughout the country; they’re surrounded by more affluent areas that do not have the same demand for services on its tax base. He argued that it is important to him as a resident of the Town that downtown remain healthy and viable. He asked if the Board was willing to investigate the question further in order to assess residents’ opinions, the financial reality, and how such an entity would be governed. Peter thought it was possible because the Town and the City are both progressive governments, politically. Pat did not think the health of downtown could be maintained because it has been lost. She thought downtown could be more than just a shopping center; it could be a business center. Many of the problems in the Town are a result of the forced funneling of traffic to downtown. Nodal develop spreads the traffic out. Downtown does not have to be a crumbling shopping center—it has other uses. The ultimate goal should not be to keep downtown as a shopping center. Cornell is a cultural center, but is not all located downtown. Tee-Ann did not think that the City was surrounded by a wealthy community. She thought City residents were wealthier because she knew she would not be able to afford to live in the City. Tee-Ann doubted that Town residents had the money bolster up the City. TB 2-23-2009 Final Page 6 of 7 Herb brought the discussion back to whether or not the Board would like to place the item on the March 9th agenda. Tee-Ann noted that Peter had a consultant in mind and would like to be able to see a consultant’s report because she was not sure what the Town and City would be getting for $50,000 should they receive the grant.(Insert instead of first sentence below?) Tee-Ann wanted to be able to see a consultant’s report because she was not sure what the Town and City would be getting for $50,000 to hire a consultant. She needed that information to make her decision. Peter said that he would forward a copy of the report to each of the Town Board Members. Peter said that he would be happy to forward a coy of the report to Board Members if he had such a report. He stated he has as much experience with this as other Board Members do. Peter noted that this particular consultant was the same consultant used in the Batavia consolidation study. (I think this should go in place of Peter’s response—there is not an “actual” report) Rich noted that he has read the report and found some of its conclusions subjective, arbitrary and written with an agenda in mind. It was also clear to him that there was not a sufficient level of expertise to determine whether or not shared services or consolidation is a viable option. His biggest problem with supporting the resolution was that it presupposed support for consolidation. It would be hard for the Board to pass a resolution without also creating support for concept of consolidation. He would be more likely to support the study if it moved forward with a clean slate. Rich thought the report would be used to bolster the case for furthering a process that he is not sure needs to be furthered at all, based upon what he read in the report. Pat noted that the biggest problem of poverty is in the rural areas of the County. She is tired of people hearing how the City is poor child and the Town is affluent. Rural areas could be better served by more dispersal of service centers to rural areas. Rich said that he took personal umbrage to the concept that Town residents, as a single block, have a moral obligation to rush to the support of the City. People volunteer and contribute to the community in many ways and it does not always have to happen in the form of tax subsidy. Tee-Ann reiterated the importance of going after money for researching fire protection. Eric agreed that efficiencies could be gained in fire protection. He supported consolidation of services and efficiencies and thought $50,000 would be great to put towards that effort. Eric doubted that there would be consolidation of governments, but he would be happy to see where efficiencies could be gained. Pat did not think it sounded as if the majority of the Board was in favor of moving forward with the consolidation grant. Herb said he was skeptical of any consolidation; he doubted Town residents would agree to it. He was supportive of shared services and increasing efficiencies. Peter asked if TB 2-23-2009 Final Page 7 of 7 Herb objected to looking into the possibility. Peter expressed that he did not necessarily disagree with Herb, but thought it was worth looking into. Herb was concerned about rushing the process in order to obtain grant money. He said that he was hearing that the Town Board does not really want to merge and by passing a resolution in support of the grant, the Board would be sending a message of support for consolidation to the State. Pat said that she did not think it was in the best interest of Town residents to pursue consolidation with the City. Bill suggested a grant to study shared services. Tee-Ann asked Bill to clarify what shared services, stating that the Town already has shared fire protection, sewer and water. Peter did not think there was much to be gained by shared services. Pat noted that they are already sharing a lot and the question is, do we want to maintain political distinction? There was plenty of evidence where consolidation was tried and it was a disaster. She felt that the current arrangement is appropriate. Herb thought Peter had enough information regarding whether or not to put the item on the March 9th agenda. Peter said he would talk to Board members privately and decide. Executive Session Bill moved to enter Executive Session to discuss the acquisition of real estate and the employment history of a particular person. Rich seconded. The Board entered Executive Session at 7:30 p.m. Bill moved to exit Executive Session, Tee-Ann seconded. The Board resumed regular session at 8:42 p.m. Adjournment There being no further business, Peter moved and Bill seconded to adjourn. Herb adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m.