Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2019-08-26Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, August 26, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. A�enda 1. Discuss Sidewalk Improvement Districts progress 2. Discuss draft Short Term Rental legislation 3. Discuss and consider a lease with the History Center for storage space and authorize execution by Town Supervisor 4. Committee Reports a. Budget b. Planning c. Public Works d. COC e. Personnel and Organization f. Other or Intermunicipal 5. Report of Town Officials 6. Consent Agenda a. Town of Ithaca Abstract 7. Adjournment Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, August 26, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. A�enda Board Members Present: Bill Goodman, Supervisor; Members Pamela Bleiwas, Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rod Howe and Rich DePaolo Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Mike Solvig, Director of Finance, Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town 1. Discuss Sidewalk Improvement Districts progress Mr. Goodman reviewed the handout he prepared. (Attachment 1) Mr. Goodman said he wanted to give an overview of how we got to where we are at and then pose a question to think about over the next few weeks. The history is that years ago the town did a transportation study that included pedestrian transportation facilities in it where a sidewalk in Forest Home was noted as one of the most import facilities to build soon and then a number of years later, around 2007, the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan was put together which also had sidewalks there as a main recommendation and then in 2013/14 the town applied for grants from the State to build sidewalks which were denied. The town then received comments about the S curve retaining wall and we hired a consultant to look at that and provide cost estimates and we began to talk about if we are going to spend town money on the wall, it would only be because we needed it to hold up a sidewalk in that area which lead to talking about should the town be paying for a sidewalk or residents. This lead to talking about sidewalk districts and the Sidewalk Committee was formed. The Sidewalk Committee met for over a year and started talking about individual sidewalk districts throughout the town and then town-wide districts and then each hill having a district. The Committee finally came back to having individual districts and began looking at one for Forest Home Mr. Goodman turned to the handout and explained the numbers which showed what the cost would be to homeowners and how it would be charged on the tax bills. The option shown is different than frontage or assessment and shows units. There is a small minimum charge for buildable parcels and then frontage and building mass. TBS 2019-08-26 Pg. 1 Mr. Goodman explained this would be a public hearing under permissive referendum and from the upstream bridge to the Chapel would be about $375K and the chart shows the costs under the different scenarios. Non-profits can be charged for the capital improvement but not maintenance. Cornell would then be responsible for about 50% of the cost with the remainder divided between the remaining 110 parcels, approximately, which is a little under $200K each and can be spread out under 5 years. Mr. Goodman wanted the Board's thoughts on the process because Maps, Plans and Reports would have to be produced and then start the permissive referendum process. If we want it done on this tax bill, we have to decide soon. Discussion followed. Mr. Howe asked about the calculations; are there parcels charged by their assessment or not? Mr. Goodman responded this is just for a rough estimate, the City does it by the three criteria at different levels but assessment doesn't play into it. Mr. Howe asked then how does it work with maintenance after the 5-years? Mr. Goodman said the current law requires the property owner to keep it clear or we can charge residents for town staff to do because it would require additional staff, but maintenance cannot be charged to non-profits. Mr. DePaolo asked if we cannot charge non-profits then do we still have to maintain the sidewalks in front of the non-profits? Mr. Goodman said he hadn't thought about that or looked into that. Mr. Levine asked if 5 years was the most we could stretch out the payment. Mr. Goodman responded we could possibly bond for it and stretch it out that length of time, but it makes it more difficult through the Comptroller's process. Mr. Levine thought it might be worth it since the annual cost would go way down. Ms. Leary asked if we have talked to the Forest Home residents. Mr. Goodman said he has mentioned it at the FHIA meeting but they haven't seen these numbers yet and they are not generally in favor of this and ask why it shouldn't be a town-wide expense. Ms. Leary said that the answer is they directly benefit from it and until we have enough sidewalks throughout the town we can't. She added that she did like the idea of the maintenance cost of the town being assessed the same way to the sidewalk district. Mr. Goodman said he would like to focus on the construction part first. TBS 2019-08-26 Pg. 2 Ms. Leary said this was the easiest, most focused area to begin with and had the most need. Ms. Hunter asked if we would be pursuing them on Rte 96 on both hills and would this set a precedent? Mr. Goodman responded that we got a grant for the two right now, but eventually, additional sidewalks in that area would be a sidewalk district. We also have had requests from the school off Warren Rd and we can try for a grant, but if we don't get it, yes we would establish a sidewalk district. Mr. DePaolo asked if the numbers are based on standard sidewalk widths and materials? Mr. Weber said he would guess that is what the numbers were based on. He added that the original grant included a large cost for ROW easements. Mr. DePaolo said there are alternative widths that could be done that could bring down the cost. Mr. Goodman said that may be possible, but he has been surprised through the other grants just how expensive sidewalks are. Mr. Weber added that if you narrow them down, you then have to get specialized equipment to clear them of snow if the Town is going to do it. Mr. DePaolo said that his recollection from Forest Home neighbors is that they don't want large sidewalks. Some discussion followed on sidewalk standards and DOT requirements if they build it. Mr. DePaolo asked if the difference between a walkway and a sidewalk would preclude this type of funding mechanism. Mr. Goodman didn't know. He added that the motivation is to get the educationaVnon-profits help pay for sidewalks they or their users use. Mr. Howe said there will be a lot of public sticker shock and especially Judd Falls Rd residents who will ask why am I paying for this when it is hard to walk on Judd Fall Rd. Mr. Goodman said because it is a permissive referendum, 5% can petition to make it a question on the ballot. Mr. Howe thought that was a distinct possibility. Mr. Goodman said that is why he wants to start this process, because if they do vote against it, they will take the chance that the Town Board would not appropriate town-wide money to this proj ect. TBS 2019-08-26 Pg. 3 Mr. Howe thought it was worth going through the process to see what happens. Mr. Goodman said he would move forward and asked for board thoughts as it moves along. 2. Discuss draft Short Term Rental legislation Mr. Goodman wanted to update the full board about the concept right now. The main points are that this is for un-hosted rental where the owner is not present. It does not deal with hosted rentals and it is just not in HDR, Lakefront, Conservation or Ag zones. The basic concept is to do a short-term rental operating permit system like the recent long-term rentals and you will be limited to 29 days in a calendar year. Other items include off-street parking, and some other minor things. Once this concept went out, we heard a lot of comments from the neighborhoods that ha�e been overrun with STRs and then all the hosts and short-term rental landlords. We held meetings with representatives of both and continued to meet at the committee level and developed some exceptions to the 29-day limit. Generally if it is your primary residence and you are not causing problems for your neighbors because your house is not that close to your neighbor (Section 3F) the guidelines would be 3acres or more, LDR or MDR and the house is more than 40 feet from the side property line or if you own the property next to yours, then you can get more days. This was in response to snowbirds or people who rent to academic years and have 3 months to fill or "I am on a big lot" and similar. At the last Committee meeting, what we could not decide is what number of days should we allow in these exception situations. We are trying to discourage people from buying up the houses and taking them out of the general housing stock to use just as short-term rentals and not give so many days that it is more lucrative to use as STR than regular rental. The break-even point seems to be around 80-90 days based on Tom Knipe data from a couple of years ago but some hosts are saying that is outdated. With that background, he asked if any Committee members wanted to add anything. Ms. Leary said that one of the owners not only suggested more than 80 days but wanted 120 days for everyone and originally when we came up with 29 is because 30 days becomes something subj ect to our regular rental registry. TBS 2019-08-26 Pg. 4 Mr. Goodman added that the 29 is the major college weekends plus a few. Ms. Hunter said her only point, in regard to the days, is that she looks at it as the number of weekends that they can be rented, and it could conceivably be every weekend given the exemption number but that wouldn't be in the areas that have had the most complaints. Mr. Howe asked if this means there will be legislation for host STRs and Mr. Goodman said we haven't gotten many complaints for that type so he is fine leaving those alone. Mr. Howe said 60-90 range is comfortable for him. Discussion followed and Mr. DePaolo went on the Air B&B site to get figures. He said it is hard to pin numbers down because you can manipulate them one way or the other. Mr. Bleiwas thought 60-90 days sounds fine but what is a day? Is it noon to noon? Is it 24 hours? Is it overnight? That should be defined. The members thought it was overnight. Mr. Levine thought 60-90 is fine with him. Mr. Goodman stated that we will get all the hosts in once this is finalized, so he would like to have a good idea on the feel of the board now. Some discussion followed on the amount charged a night on a weekend. Mr. DePaolo looked at weekends farther out and the prices were a bit lower. Ms. Leary thought the 90 days would cover the 3-months which is what people were saying about having trouble finding someone on a long-term basis. Mr. Goodman said then it would be your primary residence and not near anyone then. Ms. Hunter asked if the objective is to keep it under a certain level to make it untenable. Mr. DePaolo said his personal opinion is being able to earn some income to offset taxes and find a way to make homes more affordable for people and just having people run rental businesses for profit. Mr. Goodman said the Committee looked at maps where the parcels are that are 3+ acres are and a lot of neighborhoods do not have that size so a lot of people would be limited to the basic 29 days and the outer areas would have the larger parcels where you wouldn't necessarily be disturbing neighbors. Discussion followed on the 90 days option which seemed favorable to most. TBS 2019-08-26 Pg. 5 Mr. DePaolo said his only problem with that is there is such a gap between the baseline and this other number that you may live next to someone who is governed by the lower number and yet your neighbor can get this exemption just because the parcel is larger. The distance apart may be the same, but yet the one parcel is larger and he/she gets more. Ms. Hunter said she leans toward 60 days. More discussion followed and the feeling was to start with that, 60 days. Mr. Goodman said at this point it is time to send it to counsel and get her detailed comments and a final draft for a public hearing. 3. Discuss and consider a lease with the History Center for storage space and authorize execution by Town Supervisor Mr. Goodman asked Mr. DePaolo if he had any thoughts on the contract and he asked about the hours of operation which were very limited. Mr. Goodman responded that that is what they asked for and that is due to the Consortium office location and reducing the disruption to them. In the beginning they have to do some analysis and cataloging but after that, the limited hours should be fine and then the Consortium staff will have an idea of when they can expect traffic through their office. Mr. DePaolo left at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Goodman asked for any additional comments and noted that the room has been cleared out and the Center is interested in additional room in the inactive area. Ms. Brock is looking at the draft contract. There were no other comments. TB Resolution 2019 -119: Authorization for the Town Supervisor to si�n a�reement with the Historv Center for rental of Town Hall stora�e snace Whereas the Town Board and various committees have discussed the proposed rental of storage space for the Tompkins County History Center, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign an agreement substantially as drafted with the History Center for storage space subject to the review of the Attorney for the Town. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas Vote: ayes — Goodman, Leary, Levine, Hunter, and Bleiwas Abstained — Howe Absent — DePaolo TBS 2019-08-26 Pg. 6 4. Committee Reports a. Budget Mr. Levine reported that we are at 107.6% of sales tax collections from the same period in 2018. The committee did the initial review of the tentative 2020 budget and he reviewed the highlights sent out by Mr. Solvig. The "typical house" has been changed to $300K and the Town tax will decrease about $30 with a 5% increase to water and sewer. Request by Tompkins County Library to increase the contribution by over 25%; $12k in 2019 and tentative had $12,500. Up for discussion by the full board. Discussed the costs of converting the lights to LED which will fall on the light districts. Light districts are where lights were installed upon request of the residents which they paid for and continue to pay for. Mr. Solvig presented options spreading the cost over different spans of time but could be as much as $300 a year to some. Questions — The median house is what has been used in the past, but the real is MODE, which is the most; if there are 100 house and 51 of them were at $190k and 49 were at $300K it would be $190 so all you need are a few to go over the edge and it goes up. It seemed like a big increase but it is in the way you look at it and we changed it to the MODE because the State wants the MODE not the average. He added that he has made that change throughout the budget this year. What is the most common or "typical" rather than the median or average. b. Planning Ms. Ritter reported that they looked at allowing tree-care services/landscape services as an allowed use in the residential and Ag zones and requirements such as a 10 acre site and sound controls. The Committee seemed comfortable with it and it was prompted by a tree-care service provider in operation and a call a year or so ago about a small landscaping company and we don't allow it right now. Will be coming in September or October. Discussion regarding what is "rent" as it pertains to the Rental Registry. Mr. Bates gave a brief overview but still a work in progress. Some discussion on Ag District 1 changes by the County which is over near Six Mile Creek. c. Public Works Mr. Howe reported that they looked at the 3 options for the Forest Home Walkway; one stayed in the current configuration and the costs ranged from $263K to $468K. Steps added a lot so we have to talk about how many steps, if any and retaining walls added quite a bit. There are more discussion to have and a presentation to the full board. d. COC Mr. Goodman reported they had a presentation on the Green Building Policy which is now being called the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement because it is supplementing the NYS Energy Code and will be given to the full board next meeting. This is the big push TBS 2019-08-26 Pg. 7 to have the City and the Town pass the same or very similar regulations for new buildings. Also talked about the telecommunications law due to Federal law changes and a presentation from Ms. Balestra and comments from Ms. Brock. e. Personnel and Organization Ms. Bleiwas reported that they have focused on the possible restructuring of the Town's Public Works and Engineering departments and meetings with different groups/stakeholders in the process and decision. Also continue to review the Employee Handbook/Manual f. Other or Intermunicipal — Mr. Goodman reported on the City Harbor proj ect and possible heating options using waste energy. More to come. Ms. Hunter reported that the Project Advisory Committee or PAC will be holding their kick-off ineeting Thursday here at Town Hall. Associated with that is a resolution that was presented to the County Legislature urging a staff person to assist with water projects and grant administration which is a huge stumbling block for smaller municipalities and we need the county to coordinate and assist with this. The resolution passed TCCOG but wasn't warmly received at the legislative committee. Mr. Howe reported that the Economic Committee is working on getting a consultant to draft zoning recommendations for the area. Mr. Goodman reported that TCCOG has requested a presentation on our draft STR legislation. 5. Report of Town Officials — Ms. Ritter reported that two speed monitors have been purchased with the money set aside by Maplewood for traffic calming. Mr. Goodman noted that the proposed public hearing regarding the Culver Rd property which was tentatively on the agenda had already been held and has been removed. Mr. Bates reported that the NYS Code has been changed regarding retaining walls to require anything over four feet needs a permit so our Code will need to be updated. 6. Town of Ithaca Abstract TB Resolution 2019 - 120: Town of Ithaca Abstract No. 16 for FY-2019 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 TBS 2019-08-26 Pg. 8 I��:�c�lvecl tla��t tQac, �c�vc�����in� �'c��un ]�����G•cl l��;r��by ��uti�c���i;r;�� tltc� �ay�a�u�nt c�fl tt�� �aic� v�����1-�cr� iiti tr�tt�� f��• tl�c� tzn�c�����t:� irl�iicatc�cl. �"(O��'H�R �6��. 1�)i3 - 1 E2�� ���Ze��a1 T�u�7� TI"�aw��t� '�v'ide ......_____.__.......__ 6�,���.�� __... ........ ..... .__._..._ . ___......_ ..... �e���,p�al �"u���� F"4ur�-T�wr� 1,�C�9.2�-� �-�i�;hw��y I'�XncB....Tc�w1.�_..W i�ie �A __�___..._ 1�().:i 9 d.. .. ...� �___� �.._.._.. [ ti hw���r P�N��c�:..:T'�ar t"�"�w��� I3�3 2,�i3i. l 5 . � _._._._.._...____. _ .__ W�te�° F��a�� 1C�,�7�2.d)� acwe� F�a��cl __.._.._.____..._._ ..... ...m ............... i?„i��i.�� Fir-c� 1�r-�lc���i�:��3 C��"���r��i —� ,..,....� _,��,�,��1(�.�)��.. �.� .��,._. ..� �"c�r�est IH�ac7l� L��,tnt��7 L�i�Ci-ia:,Q _......._. .._....m._. '_....._ 1.�r3.� ll +Cl�u�s��i� I.�i�l�ii��� �G�tl�ict ................_.................... ..... 6(� �i�. ...m ._. �����^ick �-����1�1�, 1..,i�htin �itii�'ci... 77.77 ..... _ �a�tw�c�ci �.`'��n��nc��1�; L.i h� tin� �u�;ti��,t . 16�.�?l _...... _ �"Icav�;r:Larw� M,a�k�t'x�� Di����ict l�) SC-i . ..... ... ...... _ _.... �'it�t���a'":� C"���.I_�.. Lo�l�tt��, L3�i5�t t�.t _____.. �._ �7 I Ci �,�1�c�fi�1�..I7aiv�....T L�l�t���� ➢Ji�t�-��t �f�,�(1. ''�cw� �-i�vc�� E�����cl I.icr��°n� L�i��r�ic:;t 1��,5:� �'c��r���lii��a���r� }���ac� 1,i�Y��at��, �iM��-i�i 11i�.S 1 T� ���� �u��l A��.r�c y � __.��..w �� �___.. � � l ,��?'0.[)�! "�,�J'I'�L. �_ 3`7(�,��4.(��' �1�7���f: �c�ci ��c�w� S+�,c:c����6�:ci: �'�at L�e��r'y Vc�t�: ����� — Hc:�w�,�, I�c�.s��-y, I.�evirne, �9La��tcr•, �N�i�F�� a�r�c� �wr����cl��iaar� "�. ("�ar�•�spa�m�ct���� P'�a. Lc:��c-y° �a�k�cl �������pk C17� �ac���la�ic1t ��P,r.r��t c�f'9`en�i�,�� tii�r�„� ��i�� ��•. �ate:� ���4pcazac.icc� t��r�xi 1�� �Yha;t with �I�� c�w���r� �iu�cl we �:�r��7c�t c�c�,a:�l<�te c�����t���1� �i��t 11� wa� c�vc�� the a��rc�����: �i;c�. �i. �d,�r��ar��r��r��e�i�t N9����t�ic�� �r��; �acijt��ic���c� u.ip�,�r �� ��ca������a ��r���� �� ��e�cr��� at �a:(�� �a.t���. 5�.a1����at��d"�� � ��" � ^� � ��. "� � �--�';�` � , � �C� , .';� , ��,�, ,�C'��r -''�,._._ �'���.���.t�� R:c-�5�t„ T���°r� C"Icrk _ TB � 2� 9 c;�-C��-2� P�. �) ���������'�w,,� � � �'"j'�� �; ` � `4 ���:��� r �, � � �����/��..�« ���J��i��T �.�i��kT��� •� � • . ;, � - ,� � � � � • ! . "� • +� �. By Petitiorr of r�sid�n� cr�r�ers �f pr��e�ti�5 67avi�rg �Jne Nal��f� A��essec� Val�ratic�n (Secti�n �.9�� �. By �a�r�� �a�rd (S�ctiaals 2�9, �t�.} �. �ased u���rr� Map, �lan and '�ep�rt "'prepared in such rnar�ner �r�d in s�sch detaul �s d��errruined by the Tea�rrr �a��rd°' 3. After filing c�f M�p, Plan and �eport wui�h Cl�rk, T� ad�pts �7�de� sett�rq� frarth: a. P�c�p�s��' dastr�ct ��undary descrip�u�r� �. P��pased Nrrwproveur��rt�t� c. Cc�st �f tl�� distri�ct tc, typic�l pr�{aerty d, Ccrst r�f �he district ta typic�l � ar � farrrily ���ar�e �if differ-��t� e. P�r���s�rl'� financirrog meth�c3 f. °�°huat II���R are in �I�rk:"s t�f�ice faar i���p�ct�c�ru �. P��Qic hearin� N��i�� �4. Fule �1rd�r e�py wikh NY5 Cc�r�nptrcaller (nq permissi�an ne�d�� i� ruc�t t��nd�r�g, �tc.} a. After P��lic He�ring, TB det�rrmuru�� �undorags: a. H��rir�� N�ti�� w�s prQperly publish�d 6. Alll �re�p�erties iiru tN7e �istric� a�re �re�e�i�ed �. �II prc�p�erties �er�efik�d ar� r,�i�hi�� t�� district d. Es���lishrrnent of th� �istri�� As in th� public inter�s4 6. TB ac�a�ats Res�al�tican apprauing �istrict �st�bli��rm�r�t ��rd apprc�vi�g ce�nstruc�i��an, t�f th� i�nprc�vemen� �sr praviding of the s�ervoc� �- suby�ct tcr Perrt�nis�ive Ref��-�rroa�tam F�rr�st hi�r�n� �"r�hnkin� Ciistrict - 110 Parc�l� (� �ar-�1�Iu: � taxakal�, � h�lf-��x�bl�, �. mt�u�-��x�bl�j - $ 41,8C�f�,�e�l� t�at�l ��x�bl� a�sessrr���t - � z.�� p�r ��,ac�� �� ��wse � �a�ao��.ao - $ 724�.f1Q� for a�ouse as�ess�d a� � 3��b,�J�l�i�.0C1 SIDEWAIK pISTRICT PROCESS as of August 26, 2019 Town Board Meetings: September 9, 2019 - Discuss funding structure of "units" September 23, 2019 - Map, Plan & report filed October 3, 2019 - Set Public Hearing October 21, 2019 - Hold Public Hearing Navember 18, 2019 - Permissive Referendum Deadline on Nov. 20 $200,Q00.00 split between 110 parcels =$1,818.18, divided by 5 years = 3fi3.63 per year