Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TB Minutes 2019-09-23
Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. Agenda 1. Laserfische presentation a. Consider additional disposition list 2. Discuss Green New Deal —Nick Goldsmith 3. Presentation and discussion of Forest Home Walkway options 4. Discuss and consider approval for the supervisor to sign an agreement with Behan Planning and Design for new zoning and design standards for the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road corridor 5. Discuss and consider setting a PH for a draft local law adding Landscaping Service Provider and Tree-Care Service Provider provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town or Ithaca Code 6. Discuss and consider authorization for the Town Supervisor to sign an amendment to the Agreement with HOLT Architects to revise and produce bid document for the Public Works Facility Renovation Project and go to bid 7. Discuss and consider approval of purchase of two vehicles and amend the 2019 General Part-Town Fund budget 8. Acknowledge receipt of the SCLIWC (Bolton Point) Independent Audit for 2018 9. Discuss and consider authorization for the abandonment of a section of Town Road— Winston Court, subject to permissive referendum 10. Committee Reports Budget Planning Public Works Personnel and Organization Codes and Ordinances Other or Intermunicipal 11. Report of Town Officials 12. Consent Agenda a. Approval of Town Board Minutes b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Ratify promotional appointment of HEO —Munson 13. Adjourn The Ithaca Journal Classified Ad Receipt (For Info Only-NOTA BILL) Customer: TOWN OF ITHACA Ad No.: 0003809931 Address: 215 N TIOGA ST Pymt Method Invoice ITHACA NY 14850 Net Amt: $102.70 USA Run Times: 1 No.of Affidavits: 0 Run Dates: 09/26/19 Text of Ad: Town of Ithaca Permissive Referendum Resolution of Adoption MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD September 23,2019 TB Resolution 2019-134: Authorizing Transfer of Aban- doned Terminuses of Winston Drive, Salem Drive,and Winston Court,Subject to Permissive Referendum Whereas, by a quitclaim deed from Rocco Lucenti dated September 12, 1960, which deed was filed on September 13, 1960 in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office at Liber 432 Page 15, the Town of Ithaca was conveyed Winston Court and the portions of Winston Drive and Salem Drive shown on the maps attached to the deed, and Whereas, the terminuses of Winston Drive, Salem Drive andWinston Court serve only the apartment complex now known as the Winston Square Apartments, with these road terminuses functioning as circulation through the Winston Square Apartments' parking lots, and Whereas, pursuant to New York Highway Law §207 and upon receipt of a petition from the owners of the land on both sides of the road terminus to be discontinued, the Town Highway Superintendent may discontinue and abandon for public purposes a road terminus that is lo- cated outside of a village, is no more than 1,000 feet long, and is unnecessary for highway purposes,and Whereas, pursuant to New York Highway Law §207, Winston Square Apartments LLC ("Winston"), the owner of Winston Square Apartments, sent the Town Highway Superintendent a September 13, 2019 petition requesting the Town begin the process to abandon the following road terminuses ("Road Terminuses") and transfer them to Winston: 1. WinstonDrive from the intersection of Winston Court to the terminus at the intersection of Salem Drive; 2. Salem Drive from the intersection of Winston Court to the terminus at the intersection of Winston Drive;and 3. Winston Court from the intersection of its east-west portion and its north-south portion to Winston Court's termination at the intersection of Winston Drive, and Whereas, Cornell University is the only other owner abut- ting these Road Terminuses, and the Town Highway Su- perintendent is waiting receipt of a petition from Cornell University requesting their abandonment pursuant to New York Highway Law §207, and Whereas, the Road Terminuses are outside the Village of Cayuga Heights and are each less than 1,000 feet long, and the Town Highway Superintendent has informed the Town Board that he believes these Road Terminuses are unnecessary for highway purposes,and Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing reg- ulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, the discontinuance, aban- donment and transfer of the Road Terminuses is an Un- listed Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting in an environmental review with respect to this matter, has, on September 23, 2019, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after hav- ing reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Envi- ronmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3, now there- fore, be it Resolved, that subject to the conditions below, the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute a quit- claim deed to Winston quitclaiming any rights the Town may have in and to the title to the Road Terminuses, as shown on the map titled "Winston Ct, Winston Dr & SalemDr Road Abandonment" dated 9/23/2019 and l pre- . _ 3600 Highway 66, Neptune, NJ 07753 pared by the Town of Ithaca Engineering Dept and to ex- ecute the easements described below and other necessary documents, and be it further Resolved, that this authorization is subject to the Town Highway Superintendent's receipt of a petition from Cor- nell University requesting the abandonment of the Road Terminuses, and to the Town Highway Superintendent's issuance and filing of an order discontinuing and aban- doning the Road Terminuses for public purposes pursuant to New York Highway ILaw §207, and be it further Resolved, that this authorization is subject to the nego- tiation of appropriate easement(s) from Winston grant- ing to the Town the right to access, inspect, maintain, re- pair, alter and replace: 1. the Town's water and sewer infrastructure located within the property to be transferred,and 2. the Town stormwater facilities that the Town will con- tinue to own and operate and that are located within the property to be transferred, and be it further Resolved, that the form of the deed and easements be approved by the Town Supervisor, Town Highway Super- intendent and Attorney for the Town before final execu- tion, and be it further Resolved, that this resolution and the execution and de- livery of said documents by the Town are contingent upon either: 1. No permissive referendum being requested as permit- ted by law, or 2. If such a referendum is requested, such referendum is held and this resolution is approved at same, and be it further Resolved, that the Town Clerk, within ten days of the adoption of this resolution, post and publish a notice and abstract or a copy of this resolution in the manner re- quired by Town Law §90, specifying this resolution was adopted subject to a permissive referendum. Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes — Hunter, Bleiwas, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Levine and Howe Paulette Rosa Town Clerk 9/26/2019 0003809931-01 3600 Highway 66, Neptune, NJ 07753 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. Minutes 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; Marty Mosely, 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 Mr. Goodman called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m. 1. Laserfische presentation Ms. Rosa gave a presentation on the Laserfische repository. Ms. Hunter asked if board members would have to come into Town Hall to access records and Ms. Rosa explained the online access. Ms. Hunter asked how a record, such as a legal opinion, would be accessed. Ms. Rosa responded that a legal opinion that was not confidential would be searched by key word; attorney-client privileged documents would be in the departmental folder with access restricted. Ms. Hunter asked about packets and whether those materials were indexed. Ms. Rosa responded that she did not; the ability of OCR searchability replaces the older subject index. That said, there are categories in the file structure, such as Town Board—Presentations — where you could look for something specific without searching the whole repository. Ms. Rosa used the program to show how a topic or word or words can be entered in the search field for a word, or a word within 10 words of another word etc. etc. A few sample searches were conducted, and Ms. Rosa showed the layout which mirrors what staff currently uses on the town's server known as LegDrive. Mr. Levine moved a draft resolution to dispose of post-1950 records as they are scanned and approved by department head. Seconded by Ms. Bleiwas. Discussion. Ms. Hunter asked whether Ms. Rosa had talked to the archivist about bound records about whether there was any historical significance to the bound records as they exist as an example of how things were stored at different times. TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 1 Ms. Rosa responded that she had talked to the director of the History Center and he was not interested in the binder type documents but would be in the actual bound books which are pre- 1950. Mr. DePaolo asked for the impetus behind this; are we just trying to free up space? Ms. Rosa responded that the impetus is that we are saying the digital record is the official record, and if there is a paper copy downstairs, that raises questions about which one to look at and she is looking for buy-in for the move to digital and lastly, those records downstairs are not being kept up. For example, if something is added to a record that has been archived and digitized, the addition would be put in the digital file only. Ms. Rosa added that since 2016, the hard copy type of storage hasn't been happening. For example, Town Board minutes are produced on the computer and saved to the repository; we don't print out minutes any longer. Mr. DePaolo asked if the question of redundancy had been discussed and Ms. Rosa responded that it had been when we adopted the policy in 2016 to move to digital. Ms. Rosa added that there is a legal consideration in that if there is a paper version held, it can be demanded because any record, in any form, must be produced in discovery. Some discussion followed on the FOIL process and likelihood of someone asking for the backup copies. Mr. Bates said Ithaca College had something like that about five years ago. Ms. Leary asked if the system was hacked, how would we know? What if someone changes a record? Could we tell? And what about the threat of ransomware? Ms. Rosa responded that this is actually a protection to ransomware because the repository is backed up in three places. Ms. Rosa explained that if someone did a FOIL for X document and we produced it, either in paper or digital, a person could scan that themselves, convert to word, and change it. That is something that cannot be controlled. Ms. Leary asked if someone could reach into the system and make a change and Ms. Rosa responded that this program meets State and Federal security levels and although no one can protect against that 100%, it is certified to be as safe as possible. Ms. Hunter asked about the NYS Archives guidelines about the policies and systems we had to have in place prior to being able to do this; it had specifics relative to an indexing system and in- house systems. She said she is not aware that we have that. TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 2 Discussion followed and Ms. Rosa said she is working on an in-house policy, but the process is simply that they are reviewed and checked for quality control. She said she talked to the State back in 2016 and indexing is an older term and the scanning is in essence the indexing. Ms. Hunter said she is not trying to be a nuisance, but she doesn't see the policies and procedures in place and we should do that first. Ms. Rosa responded that the State representative said our policy was fine and met the requirements. She said she could add words to the existing policy, but the concept was the same; everything is scanned, verified,put in the repository and then the back-up copy disposed of. Mr. Goodman called for a vote on the resolution and added that another RMAB will be scheduled to review the guideline from the State. Mr. DePaolo asked if this was a time-sensitive action; are we doing this to avoid a discovery initiative that would take a lot of staff time shifting through the paper? Why couldn't we wait and see if there is compliance with these suggestions from the State? Ms. Rosa said she did move this along because she thought there would be a FOIL, or discovery regarding the Maplewood project because she expected a massive FOIL due to the issues there and if it got complicated. That didn't come about, but she said the thought process started and she thought why not just move forward and as each series is digitized and verified, dispose of them. She said she just wanted to move forward. Some discussion followed and the motion was withdrawn until the RMAB could meet and approve a policy and procedure to meet the guidelines. 2. Discuss Green New Deal—Nick Goldsmith Mr. Terry Carroll, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Clean Energy Community Coordinator gave a presentation and overview of what a REC is. (Attachment 1) Never submited Questions Mr. DePaolo asked if the market for RECs is a speculative market? Can someone outbid someone for a REC? Mr. Carroll said it is possible, but it is regulated in that there is a price ceiling that you cannot go above. Mr. DePaolo noted that Mr. Carroll was saying the carbon offset has to be "additional projects" so what if the ability to claim a carbon offset in conjunction with a project that has other financial or other benefits sort of tips the balance on not doing it at all? You are not saying that that project can't have any other benefits, correct? TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 3 Mr. Carroll responded that he is not, but the reason for doing the project has to be because it is a carbon offset. Mr. DePaolo said, ok, you could say that, even though the real driver could be a financial one, but it happens to be a carbon offset, so you can get the offset? It is measured in carbon reduction and it's not a project that was previously planned before you made that determination or proclamation then you could claim the offset, technically? Mr. Carroll responded yes. Ms. Leary said then it can have an additional value? It doesn't have to be completely extraneous? Mr. Carroll said, no, it doesn't. You don't have to say, ok, we weren't planning on doing this and there is no other benefit to doing this, but suddenly we will do Project A purely for this. If there are other good reasons for doing it, you do it. If you look at other carbon offset programs that exist right now, they are being used not only as carbon offsets but as economic development tools, especially in developing countries. That is an example of a pure co-beneficial project that you want to encourage. It has the benefit of being a carbon offset, but it is also developing resources in an area that desperately needs it. Mr. DePaolo asked for an example. Mr. Carroll said there are a lot of carbon offsets that revolve around rainforests int eh developing world. There are a lot of issues in being able to verify them and make sure they are practicing what they preach, but the concept behind them is that if we preserve this nut grove in Brazil, the people that live around that nut grove are going to be able to collect he nuts, they are going to be able to use those nuts for sustenance, they are going to be able to sell them in a market, develop a sustainable business from them as well and in that way develop economically as well as preserve those trees that are going to sequester the carbons. Mr. DePaolo said then preservation of something that is preexisting is an offset? One could say "I would have destroyed this nut grove if I didn't get this offset?" Mr. Carroll said more what you are going to see is we are going to plant this nut grove....it comes down to how you are going to verify it and manage it. A fully developed nut grove tree is pretty much sequestered with limited growth that is going to occur, so the potential offset is limited. What you would say is that we are going to plant this 100 acres with nut trees to get the offset. Ms. Hunter asked for an example of how an offset can be incorporated into a housing development, for example, the effluent project for the new housing development through the wastewater treatment plant. That project would go ahead regardless, but would it get an offset? Mr. Carroll responded that that is something they planned on doing anyways, so that would not meet the criteria of doing something additional. TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 4 Ms. Hunter said she didn't understand the selling of RECs; say I am a business and I buy renewable energy; how would I sell that? Mr. Carroll said the RECs have different market places and essentially the idea is, for instance, you could develop a solar farm, and you know you are able to sell the energy produced for X amount to Business A. Business A says great, that's cheaper energy and we're really happy. Then you say, do you want to be able to claim that it's renewable as well? It will cost you this amount more. They may say, nope, don't really care about that. You can then turn to Business B who is getting their energy from any old source and say do you want to be able to say your energy is coming from renewable energy sources? You can buy these RECs. Your energy that you are producing on the farm is going to anyone; what you are saying is that Company A is buying energy from you, but that's it. Company B is buying the certificate so they can say they are. They can be together but they don't have to be. Mr. Carroll said the important thing to remember is that when a solar farm is selling its electrons, those are not going straight from the farm to your house, they are going into a grid and the grid is distributing it every which way. Mr. Carroll used the example of Broome County. Broome County just entered into an agreement to buy all of the energy from two farms and the RECs. They could have said, we just want the cheaper electricity and sell the credits, but they wanted the rights to say they are using renewable energy, so they bought both. It is a marketing mechanism which exists to allow these projects to be built. Mr. Howe asked, say a community sets some goals, and it sounds like an equation; they might meet their goal through a variety of means —they might find ways to reduce energy usage, they might buy some RECs and they might do some carbon offset with the goal that the carbon offset would be a smaller percentage than the other two? Mr. Carroll responded that to play out the example; say you had a community that was at 100 units of carbon and they said we are setting a goal to get to 25 units. They might reduce that 100 by 20 by efficiency and another move everyone over to electricity; we can get the other 60 units through electricity and from that electricity we will buy RECs to say it is coming from renewable resources, that remainder is what needs to be met by RECs. Mr. Goldsmith said NYS is going for carbon neutrality by 2050 and 85%would be greenhouse gas emission reductions and the remaining, up to 15%, could be taken care of through offsets. Ms. Bleiwas said she had some nuts and bolts questions, saying the Mr. Goldsmith had made a proposal that we buy RECs and so her question is, what will we actually get for the money we spend? Mr. Carroll said you will get the ability to claim that however much you were planning on buying, that all came from renewable energy and for that renewable energy it is zero emissions. TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 5 Let's say you were buying enough to cover all of the electricity you use; you would be able to say the electricity that we use is emissions free. Mr. Goldsmith said for our own operations, we can say we are going to have all renewable energy or we are just going to purchase RECs. Ms. Bleiwas said then it is essentially walking the walk. So if we do make this purchase, we are basically investing in producers of renewable energy? That is where the money is going? Mr. Carroll said you are paying them for a service that they are providing and they are putting the energy into the grid. Ms. Bleiwas asked; Aren't they putting the energy into the grid anyway? Then what is the purpose of buying the certificates? Mr. Carroll said the purpose is you can claim that you are buying renewable electricity. Ms. Bleiwas said then that means we can't claim that without the RECs even though we are buying solar energy? Mr. Carroll said the Department of Energy says you can't say it without the RECs. If you just buy energy from the grid, you are only as clean as the grid is. Once that grid gets to 100% renewable, then maybe you could, but we aren't at that point. Ms. Bleiwas asked if they put more electricity into the grid based on what we have purchased? Mr. Carroll, no, the certificates are tied to existing electricity. Mr. Carroll said the way it works is the farm produces a certain amount of electricity and on that NYGET system it will say you produced 1MW hours of electricity and you get those certificates. You can keep them, you can transfer them, you can retire them... it's up to you. And with that system you can track them and it gets to the 100%. You can't sell 30%to someone and 60%to someone else and then 40%to another. Ms. Bleiwas asked how we would purchase them, and Mr. Carroll explained the options. Ms. Leary asked if the point of buying the RECs is to help them make more renewable energy? The more money they get the more they will be able to build the infrastructure that creates the renewable energy? Isn't that the point? Mr. Carroll responded that it is a point, but he felt bound by honesty to say that there are folks out there that are going to build one project and collect the earnings and not build another one. We can't pretend that every single renewable developer that is doing this is in it to reduce climate change and reducing emissions. There are a lot of them in it to make money. Ms. Leary then said, but there is a limit to what they can make, and Mr. Carroll said yes, it is limited to what they produce. TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 6 Ms. Hunter stated that if she heard correctly, there is any way to buy renewable energy and not get the RECs, so why would a fiscally responsible municipality pay extra for a certificate? Mr. Carroll responded that that is the only way to claim that it is actually renewable energy, otherwise you are just buying electricity. What you are basically saying is Company A, you sell electricity, I am buying electricity from you. You are not saying Company A, you are selling renewable energy and I am buying renewable energy from you. It is a really a nuanced distinction. Ms. Hunter said then you cannot be certain yourself that you are receiving renewable energy, because you can't, because it is all intermingled in the grid with non-renewable energy. The only way you can do this is to purchase a piece of what a renewable energy provider produces, and that is what you are doing, until they sell out. Mr. Carroll responded yes. Mr. DePaolo said it is fairly clear that the more people that engage in this marketplace, it makes that marketplace more healthy and more likely to flourish, so in that general sense, it is an investment. Mr. Carroll said he works very closely with NYSERDA and they truly believe in RECs and working on the premise that the more RECs that are being purchased, the more solar and wind development that is going to happen in NYS. Mr. DePaolo said then why, if the ultimate goal is carbon reduction, or offsets, why is there not one standard unit of measurement? Why are carbon offsets measured in CO2 and RECs measured in kilowatt hours? And why are we not equally prioritizing carbon offsets? Is it because it is harder to prove over a period of time than it is to say, here's a certificate, it is tied to a specific facility that can be proven to generate X over a period of time? Mr. Carroll said that is more of a philosophical question, but what it really comes down to is; could a municipality decide forgo the RECs, we're going to focus on the carbon offsets (we're going to plant a bunch of trees everywhere)... and what is going to happen the following year when you have no more land to plant trees... That is where the RECs come in, because the RECs, year after year after year are going to be constantly zero emissions, whereas with carbon offsets, you are going to have to do a new project every time you want to offset that amount of carbon. Mr. Levine commented that the hurdle with him has always been—taxpayer money—we are taking taxes and we are proposing to spend it on RECs and so we say we have a goal of reducing our carbon footprint by X by year Y, not because we are going to do anything differently than we are doing now, but because we are going to throw a bunch of money at it that we are collecting from taxpayers. Why is this ok? It's ok because it's encouraging the development of solar and wind energy and our taxpayers know that their taxes didn't go to create a bigger carbon footprint TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 7 and it is going to be a better world because of it. Is that why we are going to be spending taxpayer money on not changing anything that we are doing? Mr. Carroll responded, let's be clear, there is certainly a benefit to doing some actions over others. He would never say to a community,just buy a bunch of RECs and you'll be fine. I would say, have you considered installing your own solar facilities so you know you would be owning both and be sure that money is going into local renewable resources. I would say rather than spend that money on offsets, wouldn't it be better to get an electric vehicle, or make this building more efficient. Where these come in is that you are always going to hit a level where you can't throw money at it to fix it directly. There are no snowplows that runs on electricity. What you are then saying is that you are using taxpayer money because we recognize that offsetting the emissions that come from those is important to combat climate change and that combating climate change is an existential crisis and we want to make sure our residents are going to survive. Mr. Goldsmith stated that he supports that strategy. Our long-term goal should be to invest in several renewable energy projects and keep the RECs on them as opposed to buying them and on the other side, do as much greenhouse gas reduction as possible. Mr. Goodman said it seems that there is a lot of interest in this topic and maybe we can discuss it again in November. He added that it is timely as we are reviewing and implementing our Green Building Energy Code. Mr. Carroll will send Mr. Goldsmith some websites for reference and review. 3. Presentation and discussion of Forest Home Walkway options Mr. Weber gave an update on the presentation by the consultants and discussion at the Public Works Committee (PWC). Concept D was chosen for further discussion. Mr. Weber reviewed the presentation given at the PWC and the request for a hybrid option and changing the materials for the rails and steps and then also eliminating a number of steps in certain areas. The determination at the last meeting was to go with Concept D which keeps the walkway within the current alignment and not impacting any additional properties than are currently impacted. There was a significant reduction in cost going from a metal railing to a timber railing and minimizing the number of steps. With those alternatives, the construction cost is estimated at$118-$120K and that is the recommendation from the PWC to the Town Board. TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 8 The next steps are taking the concept and formalizing that into construction drawings; industry rule of thumb is approximately 10-20% of the estimated cost is the design and administration. Given that, $24K is for the construction documents. Mr. Weber noted that part of the costs will also be centering the walkway within the 10-foot parcel that the town owns; currently it is shifted towards the Blakely-Armitage's property. Mr. Goodman reported on the letter he received from CU Botanic Gardens stating that Cornell does not like the options that contain the existing alignment of the walkway and he showed on the diagram where the easement for the walkway is and the actual currently used path it has taken. Mr. Goodman said they would prefer it stay on town property and that would entail a big change and drop off and back up in grade. That is one of the reasons the users of the walkway have used the current path, it is flatter. Mr. Goodman said he has set up a meeting with Mr. Bitner from the Gardens and other Cornell representatives to find out why they are saying this now and whether there is something we can work out to maintain the current usage path because the costs to shift it back would be significant. Mr. Weber added that one of the properties is right on the line of town property and there is a barn, trees and a wall that have been added there and costs would increase if the walkway had to stay on town property. Mr. Levine said if we comply with what Cornell wants,people are still going to walk where they prefer, regardless. Mr. Goodman responded that the college could try and block that from happening. Ms. Leary said it seemed odd that they are saying this now; they were fine with people using the walkway the way they have and suddenly they are concerned. She asked for the reasons stated. Mr. Goodman responded that they said the cost and time to work out easements and documents to implement a formal right to have people walk there was an issue. Mr. DePaolo said his first thought was that since the use has been going on for decades, we should investigate a prescriptive easement or something to that effect before the meeting. Not that we want to be adversarial, but without a lot of consequence to Cornell to maintain the current alignment and with considerable consequence to the town, it is something worth considering. Mr. Weber added that the letter also says the town will accept responsibility for future tree removal and expenses for Cornell trees and any subsequently identified by Cornell for public safety and liability. He said there are a significant number of trees that are just up-grade from TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 9 the walkway that could be compromised that could cause a concern and it seems they are saying, we can tell you to remove them. Mr. Goodman responded that there are a number or other demands in the letter and they say that Option B would eliminate the project's complexity and avoiding additional real estate easements etc. Ms. Bleiwas said she didn't see the letter, but Cornell is a huge bureaucracy and maybe Mr. Bitner doesn't have that much say in the matter and the conversation is necessary to determine what their position really is. Mr. Howe added that Mr. Bitner is the Director of Natural Areas, not the overall director. Mr. Goodman said he was happy to see that the board agrees with the recommendation to leave the walkway in the current Concept D layout which shows the current actual usage pattern. He said the next step would be to deal with the Cornell issue before spending any more money moving forward. Mr. Levine added that this is a walkway used by a lot of people going to Cornell, and employees of Cornell so he was confused what the problem was. Mr. Weber added that there is still the option to do nothing and either leave it as is, or close it in the winter. Mr. Goodman said that ultimately, how are we going to fund this and he has mentioned in the past the option of a Park District and charge the property owners for the fees and improvements, especially if Cornell is going to be doing things that are increasing the costs, which would allow us to get funds from Cornell for the walkway, especially since most of the users are associated with Cornell. Ms. Leary stated that she couldn't see why we would spend more money to relocate the path to an area that people don't want or won't use. If a compromise can be worked out except for the downward sloped area, maybe, but not that area. Ms. Bleiwas stated that the cost of doing the option Cornell wants is absurd. Mr. Goodman will report at the next meeting on the discussions with the Cornell group. Added item—Amend the History Center lease Ms. Hunter asked if the space is currently available or is it dependent on shredding documents. Mr. Goodman responded that town records would have to be moved from one side of the room to the other. They are also interested in possibly more space in the interior rooms for larger items. TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 10 TB Resolution 2019 - 127: Authorization for the Town Supervisor to sign agreement with the History Center for rental of Town Hall storage space 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 amended agreement with the History Center for additional storage space subject to the review of the Attorney for the Town. Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Pat Leary Vote: Ayes —Hunter, Bleiwas, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, and Levine Abstained: Howe 4. Discuss and consider approval for the supervisor to sign an agreement with Behan Planning and Design for new zoning and design standards for the Inlet Valley/ Elmira Road corridor Mr. DePaolo had some questions about the initial contract and this amendment and the controls over the "allowance" line. Some discussion followed and the board felt the control mechanism was there that the additional funds would only be paid at our discretion, not theirs. TB Resolution 2019 - 128: Authorization to enter into contract with Behan Planning and Design to develop new zoning regulations and design standards for the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road corridor Attachment 2 Whereas, Behan Planning and Design worked in association with ConsultEcon to conduct an economic development feasibility study and strategic plan for the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road corridor, starting in 2016, and Whereas, Behan Planning and Design continued to work in association with ConsultEcon, Inc. on subsequent efforts for developing new zoning and design standards for the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road corridor, with Behan Planning and Design being largely responsible for the initiation of ideas and proposals, and Whereas, Behan Planning and Design has the professional expertise to advance and complete work on developing zoning and design standards with oversight and coordination from the Town Economic Development Committee, therefore be it Resolved, that the Ithaca Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute a contract with Behan Planning and Design to provide professional services pertaining to the development of new zoning and design standards for the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road corridor in an amount not to exceed $25,000 (allocated from B8020.403), subject to approval by the Attorney for the Town, TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 11 Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes —Hunter, Bleiwas, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Levine and Howe 5. Discuss and consider setting a PH for a draft local law adding Landscaping Service Provider and Tree-Care Service Provider provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town or Ithaca Code Ms. Hunter asked about the 10-acre size limit. Ms. Ritter explained that the Planning Committee thought it was a good place to start and this would at least make it an allowed use and a smaller lot could get a variance. Ms. Hunter thought it might be stopping smaller businesses that have smaller lots and if we are making this law to allow the use, why not make smaller businesses allowed also. Mr. DePaolo thought the buffer requirements were more important than the acreage, so he sees the point. Mr. Bates noted that this is not a home-business. They do not live on the site so the question was how to allow this since there have been no complaints or issues and it cannot meet the difficult thresholds of a Use Permit. TB Resolution 2019 - 129: setting a PH for a draft local law adding Landscaping Service Provider and Tree-Care Service Provider provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town or Ithaca Code Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the 21" day of October, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering a proposed local law adding Landscaping Service Provider and Tree- Care Service Provider provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town or Ithaca Code, and be it further Resolved, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed local law may be heard concerning the same; and it is further Resolved, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca. Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas Vote: Ayes —Hunter, Bleiwas, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Levine and Howe TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 12 6. Discuss and consider authorization for the Town Supervisor to sign an amendment to the Agreement with HOLT Architects to revise and produce bid document for the Public Works Facility Renovation Project and go to bid Mr. Goodman noted that the draft did not have an amount and turned to the memo which identified $8,000 has been submitted. Mr. Weber reviewed the planned design changes. TB Resolution 2019 —130: Authorization for the Supervisor to sign an amendment to the Agreement between the Town of Ithaca and HOLT to produce revised drawings and bid specifications for the Public Works Facility(PWF) Renovation and authorization to 20 to bid Whereas the Town Board entered into an agreement with HOLT Architects to design and produce bid documents for the PWF renovation project, and Whereas the bid results came in significantly overbudget, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign an amendment to the Agreement for revised bid documents not to exceed $8,000, subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town, and be it further Resolved that the Town Board authorizes the Town to go to bid on the project. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas Vote: Ayes —Hunter, Bleiwas, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Levine and Howe 7. Discuss and consider approval of purchase of two vehicles and amend the 2019 General Part-Town Fund budget TB Resolution 2019-131: Approval to Purchase Two(2)Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles and Amend the 2019 General Part-Town Fund Budget Whereas, the Code Enforcement and Zoning Department submitted requests in the 2018 Ithaca Town Budget to purchase a new model year 2018 or 2019 plug-in hybrid vehicle at an estimated cost of$32,000, and in the 2019 Ithaca Town Budget to purchase a new model year 2019 or 2020 plug-in hybrid vehicle at an estimated cost of$33,000.00, and Whereas, as there was no state contract or other available cooperative purchasing agreement available for purchasing the recommended plug-in hybrid vehicles, the procurement process for said vehicles was managed by the NYS Office of General Services - Procurement Services, through the NYS Vehicle Marketplace Mini-Bid process (Mini-Bid No. 19090009), from which was received one (1) responsive and responsible bid from Northstar Mitsubishi, bidding on two TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 13 (2) 2019 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV/otev-h at the unit price of $37,889.25 plus $660.00 for delivery, for a total cost of$77,098.50; and Whereas, the Town Finance Officer recommends to this governing Board the approval of an amendment to the 2019 Ithaca Town Budget, increasing appropriations to the General Part-Town Fund, account B8020.270, in the amount of $44,098.50 to provide adequate funding for said purchase, with such increase to be funded from the fund balance of the General Part-Town Fund; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town Board approves the purchase of Two (2) New 2019 Model Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV/otev-h for the total delivered amount of$77,098.50 from Lic Motor Group LLC, dba Northstar Mitsubishi, 46-05 Northern Blvd., Long Island City New York 11101, and be it further Resolved, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to record the appropriate budgetary amendment in the amount of $44,098.50 to provide adequate funding to meet this expense. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine Vote: Ayes —Hunter, Bleiwas, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Levine and Howe 8. Acknowledge receipt of the SCLIWC (Bolton Point) Independent Audit for 2018 TB Resolution 2019-132: Acknowled2in2 receipt of SCLIWC (Bolton Point) Independent Audit for Year 2018 Resolved, that the Ithaca Town Board acknowledges receipt of the SCLIWC or Bolton Point Independent Audit for the year ending December 31, 2018. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes —Hunter, Bleiwas, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Levine and Howe 9. Discuss and consider authorization for the abandonment of a section of Town Road— Winston Court, subject to permissive referendum Attachment 3 Mr. Weber explained that the roads really serve as internal circulation to an apartment complex and parking for all the units are really on and adjacent to the roadway within the ROW and it does become a little bit of an issue in the winter during plowing. There is a new owner and they are moving forward with improvements to all of the buildings and they would like to address the parking area. This seemed like a really good opportunity to abandon public roadways that do not function as public roadways. TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 14 Easements and water and sewer infrastructure have been addressed and we are waiting on Cornell agreement to finish the transfer. TB Resolution 2019 - 133: SEAR: Winston Drive, Salem Drive, and Winston Court Road Terminuses Abandonment and Transfer Whereas, this action is the discontinuance and abandonment of the following road terminuses ("Road Terminuses") and their transfer to Winston Square Apartments LLC: 1. Winston Drive from the intersection of Winston Court to the terminus at the intersection of Salem Drive; 2. Salem Drive from the intersection of Winston Court to the terminus at the intersection of Winston Drive; and 3. Winston Court from the intersection of its east-west portion and its north-south portion to Winston Court's termination at the intersection of Winston Drive, and Whereas, this is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca is acting in an environmental review with respect to this matter; and Whereas, the Town Board, at its meeting held on September 23, 2019, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Parts 1, 2 and 3, for this action, prepared by the Town Highway Superintendent; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review, and Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above-referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes —Hunter, Bleiwas, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Levine and Howe TB Resolution 2019-134: Authorizing Transfer of Abandoned Terminuses of Winston Drive, Salem Drive, and Winston Court, Subiect to Permissive Referendum Whereas, by a quitclaim deed from Rocco Lucenti dated September 12, 1960, which deed was filed on September 13, 1960 in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office at Liber 432 Page 15, the Town of Ithaca was conveyed Winston Court and the portions of Winston Drive and Salem Drive shown on the maps attached to the deed, and Whereas, the terminuses of Winston Drive, Salem Drive and Winston Court serve only the apartment complex now known as the Winston Square Apartments, with these road terminuses functioning as circulation through the Winston Square Apartments' parking lots, and TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 15 Whereas,pursuant to New York Highway Law §207 and upon receipt of a petition from the owners of the land on both sides of the road terminus to be discontinued, the Town Highway Superintendent may discontinue and abandon for public purposes a road terminus that is located outside of a village, is no more than 1,000 feet long, and is unnecessary for highway purposes, and Whereas,pursuant to New York Highway Law §207, Winston Square Apartments LLC ("Winston"), the owner of Winston Square Apartments, sent the Town Highway Superintendent a September 13, 2019 petition requesting the Town begin the process to abandon the following road terminuses ("Road Terminuses") and transfer them to Winston: 1. Winston Drive from the intersection of Winston Court to the terminus at the intersection of Salem Drive; 2. Salem Drive from the intersection of Winston Court to the terminus at the intersection of Winston Drive; and 3. Winston Court from the intersection of its east-west portion and its north-south portion to Winston Court's termination at the intersection of Winston Drive, and Whereas, Cornell University is the only other owner abutting these Road Terminuses, and the Town Highway Superintendent is waiting receipt of a petition from Cornell University requesting their abandonment pursuant to New York Highway Law §207, and Whereas, the Road Terminuses are outside the Village of Cayuga Heights and are each less than 1,000 feet long, and the Town Highway Superintendent has informed the Town Board that he believes these Road Terminuses are unnecessary for highway purposes, and Whereas,pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, the discontinuance, abandonment and transfer of the Road Terminuses is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting in an environmental review with respect to this matter, has, on September 23, 2019, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3, now therefore, be it Resolved, that subject to the conditions below, the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute a quitclaim deed to Winston quitclaiming any rights the Town may have in and to the title to the Road Terminuses, as shown on the map titled "Winston Ct, Winston Dr& Salem Dr Road Abandonment" dated 9/23/2019 and prepared by the Town of Ithaca Engineering Dept and to execute the easements described below and other necessary documents, and be it further Resolved, that this authorization is subject to the Town Highway Superintendent's receipt of a petition from Cornell University requesting the abandonment of the Road Terminuses, and to the Town Highway Superintendent's issuance and filing of an order discontinuing and abandoning the Road Terminuses for public purposes pursuant to New York Highway Law §207, and be it further TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 16 Resolved, that this authorization is subject to the negotiation of appropriate easement(s) from Winston granting to the Town the right to access, inspect, maintain, repair, alter and replace: 1. the Town's water and sewer infrastructure located within the property to be transferred, and 2. the Town stormwater facilities that the Town will continue to own and operate and that are located within the property to be transferred, and be it further Resolved, that the form of the deed and easements be approved by the Town Supervisor, Town Highway Superintendent and Attorney for the Town before final execution, and be it further Resolved, that this resolution and the execution and delivery of said documents by the Town are contingent upon either: 1. No permissive referendum being requested as permitted by law, or 2. If such a referendum is requested, such referendum is held and this resolution is approved at same, and be it further Resolved, that the Town Clerk, within ten days of the adoption of this resolution,post and publish a notice and abstract or a copy of this resolution in the manner required by Town Law §90, specifying this resolution was adopted subject to a permissive referendum. Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes —Hunter, Bleiwas, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Levine and Howe 10. Committee Reports — Budget—Mr. Levine reported that typical property taxes will go down a bit. They also talked about sidewalk districts and how to spread out the costs. Planning—Mr. DePaolo reported that they looked at the County Ag District 1 changes in the southeast part of town and discussed the definition of rent to reconcile the barter arrangements when people housesit etc. and if that trips the wire for a rental registry operating permit. Pubic Works —Mr. Howe reported that the walkway was the big topic but they also started to look at a spreadsheet from Dan Thaete about water sewer projects and assigning priority to the different aspects. Personnel and Organization —Ms. Bleiwas reported that they have not met since the last meeting which she has reported on—Engineering Department and associated topics. TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 17 Codes and Ordinances —Mr. Goodman reported that they talked about the Energy Code Supplement and changes to the telecommunications law to update it to meet current federal regulations. 11. Report of Town Officials Mr. Weber reported on the status of Bundy Rd and the Forest Home guiderail. Ms. Ritter reported that the New Neighborhood Zoning Code is ready for the public and a website and newsletter will be going up and out soon. The Planning Board is getting a first look at it at its next meeting and a public information meeting is scheduled for October 22na 12. Consent Agenda TB Resolution 2019 - 135: Adopt Consent Agenda Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda items: a) Approval of Town Board Minutes Pulled b) Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract c) Ratify promotional appointment of HEO—Munson Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes —Hunter, Bleiwas, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Levine and Howe TB Resolution 2019 -135a: Approval of Minutes —Pulled TB Resolution 2019 - 135b: Town of Ithaca Abstract No. 18 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 Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 1196 - 1253 General Fund Town Wide 105,559.17 General Fund Part-Town 21829.23 Highway Fund Town Wide DA 2,011.19 TB 2019-09-23 Pg. 18 .......... ................... Hi'&Yay Fund Part 'rown DB 153,488.89 Water Fund 12,32338 Sewer Fund 66,297.87 State Route 96b, Sidewalk—117 7,800.40 ............. ...... Fire Protection Fund 266,750.00 Forest Horne f,i&ing District Glensi�e 10,62 Renwick Heiglyt, Lght District I7 70 Eastwood Coninions Lightin.g_Pistrict 2,479 ClavasLane Li titin District 127 Winner's Circle LighLiq._District 4,95- Burle Driv� Ligj�ting District 11,55 __.. _jgYJ_ ....... _. . ........... West Haven Road __I�Zjht qg_District.. 45,82 Cod n Road Lig.Ini!Ig Dis_trict.,,______._ 26.66 Debt Service 2,175.00 TOT, L619,415.96 .......... TB Resolution 2019— 135c: Ratify Promotional Appointment to Ifeavy Equipment Operator Whereas, there is as vacant Heavy Equipinent Operator position due to prornotion" and Whereas, the Highway Superintendent has determined through interviews and evaluation that Jon Munson, Motor Equipment Operator, possess the necessary knowledge,, skills and ability to satisfactorily perforni the duties of the Heavy Equip irrent Operator position; and Whereas, the Highway Superintendent is proniotionally appointing Jon Munson, to the Heavy Equipment Operator position, effective Septernher 16, 2019; now, therefore, be it Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Itliaca does hereby ratify the Highway Superintendent's regular prornotional appointinerit. of Jon Munson, as full tinie Heavy Equipment Operator for the Public Works Departnient, effective Septerriber 16, 2019; and be it further Resolved, this is as 40 hours a week position, at the hourly wage of$27,05, which is an estin-iated annual salary of$56,264, in Job Classification "IV", with full time benefits; and be it further Resolved, if(fie said successfully complete the mandatory eight (8) week probationary period there will be no further action required by the Town Board, 13. Adjourn Meeting was adJOUrned upon motion and a second at 7:15 p,rn. Subrni b Pau ette sa, T n. ..lerk T B 2019-09-23 Pg. 19 ... ................................ . .............. ............. 1113artop.. ice]-ogtiic ..�w. Attachemnt 2 September 13, 2019 Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent Town of Ithaca Public Works Facility 114 Seven Mile Dr. Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Town of Ithaca— Forest Home Walkway Improvements Project Subj: Draft Concept Plans and Estimates of Probable Cost File: 2071.002.001 Dear Mr. Weber: Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. (B&L) has prepared the attached Draft Concept Plans and Estimates of Probable Cost for the Forest Home Walkway Improvements Project.The following is a summary: • Concept A—Walkway improvements depicted on the existing alignment • Concept B—Walkway improvements and proposed alignment fully centered within the existing approximately 10-foot wide Town parcel • Concept C—Walkway improvements and proposed alignment depicted as a hybrid of concepts A and B • Concept D—Walkway improvements primarily depicted on the existing alignment,with the lower portion straightened up to accommodate a shallow drainage swale within the existing Town parcel limits. Concrete block steps are presented in this concept, however can be eliminated and substituted for the cost of a different material surface if so desired. Concepts A through C remain as originally presented and discussed at the Public Works Committee Meeting on August 20th for your reference in the upcoming presentation to the Town Board for their consideration. Concept D was developed as the proposed most feasible alternative that we believe achieves the goals of the Town to improve the walkability and stability of the Forest Home Walkway. The Estimate of Probable Cost provides a base cost developed from the surface materials shown in Concept D (stone dust walkway with concrete steps and sections of timber railing), however alternate surface material and railing options are provided at the bottom of the estimate for consideration, as discussed. Additionally, in response to the concern raised over the cost of the metal pipe railing,we have provided a unit cost based on recent bid prices we have received on other types of similar projects in upstate New York. However,we are also currently in contact with a railing manufacturer to determine if there is a The ti-°Xpe Rencle,[o . listen "s"F I�r rr<:arr�r F e;rE tnr�;y, n�!�rararal N .1"r08B� C'7 �r���°315457 5�00 a k 3154510052� Her rarr�;r�����.ra�p�r���r��!�.r��ra�rr�r K..dq�w�power��. � &L more a ccu rate cost factor forth is pa,rticularconstruiction a pplication and gain a better estimate for your use. lf so, this cost will, be updated in the final version of the estimate prior to the presentation to the Town Board, Upon review of the concepts and estimates, please feel free to contact us with any questi�ns. Sincerely, Keith F. Ewald, RLA, AICP Managing Landscape Architect AAM/kfe Attachments a'x w� m m W U m mmmmmm mC� mmo W c) �a p a 'fi' y' rp 64 Sly W p V � � G O G'' �� � J✓� ((��� ter_ n� f 0 _ b0 f115 � � / p ..... i / ba L68 .. .f;9 s�s Ot, w� 1 m, ¢ �� � g„ 16 48'9 W uul�uuuuuuw� pm �y„ I q MR Ill N Z ��� ,y✓I����/<��/ ��� �... } � 11111111111 `'w� ty, w�Y� 00 pqHim BE ✓if � � ��O �✓ z I; �,"� 199ra o I n0"rrs OskMR MEN a 8 m,��,��ra,mmmmm�,mmm,�m�,mmmm Prepared by: AAM Date: 9/12/2019 Checked by: Date: o� � '' i . " .* Town of Ithaca Forest Home Walkway Improvements Estimate of Probable Cost Concept A -Im rovements on Existina Alianment Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 2 5'-0" wide Stone Dust Walkway' LF 430 $ 36.00 $ 15,480.00 Excavation, Subbase, Surface Redi-Rock Concrete Steps 3 (Excavation, Subbase, Steps) LF 135 $ 218.00 $ 29,430.00 4 Pipe Railing LF 535 $ 175.00 $ 93,625.00 5 Bicycle Dismount Signage EA 2 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 6 Drainage Improvements3 LS 1 $ 12,025.00 $ 12,025.00 7 Landscape Improvements LF 1 $ 3,750.00 $ 3,750.00 Construction Subtotal $ 156,310.00 Contingency (20%) $ 31,262.00 y Work Zone Traffic Control (7%) $ 10,941.70 E Survey Operations (2%) $ 3,126.20 Mobilization (4%) $ 6,252.40 Total $ 207,900.00 'Alternate Walkway Surface Options: Asphalt=$42/1-F, Concrete (Exposed Aggregate) _$78/1-F, Grass Pavers= $101/1-F 2Alternate Railing Option:Timber Railing=$100/1-F 3Drainage Improvements include : Cleaning, Grading, & Reshaping of Ex. Channels, Cleaning Ex. Culverts, Inlet/Outlet Protection, New Drainage Culvert, Granite Curb along Warren Rd 4Landscape Improvements include:Topsoil and Turf Restoration along Walkway, Landscape Plantings at Trailheads r O¢f C9 � a�mw 0 Lr Qt`� mila m ;m o oz- 16 ...� ........................... .....—� .. 90 esa 991,69q JQ 00988 a e 0 �� yQi`r r orl% w 00 t N{ ollm@mmmm �— ��� ,l WPM ON z Illo�llllllllll�i� m � p �V, ������ t%� � %jl� � I �o z �� ro Q4� � � ��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ��/� �Y t �/!4 i /��F m�Z p..�w✓v7 �C9999 ua I�. LU z ------------ s t wag �� o r P5G �� muullllllll t Zoo/ pLE.4sawT ctzvnr8 „w a �w Z p 8 1 o�.p�'U Prepared by: AAM Date: 9/12/2019 Checked by: Date: o� � '' i . " .* Town of Ithaca Forest Home Walkway Improvements Estimate of Probable Cost Conce t 8 -Alignment within Parcel Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 2 5'-0" wide Stone Dust Walkway' LF 400 $ 36.00 $ 14,400.00 Excavation, Subbase, Surface Redi-Rock Concrete Steps 3 (Excavation, Subbase, Steps) LF 180 $ 218.00 $ 39,240.00 4 Pipe Railing LF 555 $ 175.00 $ 97,125.00 5 Bicycle Dismount Signage EA 2 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 6 Drainage Improvements3 LS 1 $ 12,025.00 $ 12,025.00 7 Landscape Improvements4 LS 1 $ 3,750.00 $ 3,750.00 8 Gravity Block Retaining Wall LF 125 $ 1,000.00 $ 125,000.00 9 Tree Removal EA 20 $ 600.00 $ 12,000.00 Construction Subtotal $ 309,040.00 Contingency (20%) $ 61,808.00 Work Zone Traffic Control (7%) $ 21,632.80 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumuuuuumuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuVlll Survey Operations (2%) $ 6,180.80 Mobilization (4%) $ 12,361.60 Tota 1 $ 411,100.00 'Alternate Walkway Surface Options: Asphalt=$42/1-F, Concrete (Exposed Aggregate) _$78/1-F, Grass Pavers= $101/1-F 2Alternate Railing Option:Timber Railing=$100/1-F 3Drainage Improvements include : Cleaning, Grading, & Reshaping of Ex. Channels, Cleaning Ex. Culverts, Inlet/Outlet Protection, New Drainage Culvert, Granite Curb along Warren Rd 4Landscape Improvements include:Topsoil and Turf Restoration along Walkway, Landscape Plantings at Trailheads _ P� M o o'W, w� �{Y6 url4. "r"bm' s- h 5� iK m`ww rFa vow mmm mm � gg W m zn�le g a Iv LOU b7 S16 N �t © }Q �� � ! �� Illllllllllll�llluuuuiill °_ ' � W o � s a= � Zt Ses �,t /% z�� '°s. 15.118 H �mmi / OCD Z ylllllll °CEW � � �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .. �r / ✓L I �.! J� � L` zoo ao 146 0. 1 � um� Z w? u z u DVIU 3 .r, 6llir /i� i �i, IIII�IIIIIIIIIIfiiu .. � iii �... �... �..,��...e... Lv a �rti Prepared by: AAM Date: 9/12/2019 Checked by: Date: o� � '' i . " .* Town of Ithaca Forest Home Walkway Improvements Estimate of Probable Cost Concept C-H brid Ali nment Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 2 5'-0" wide Stone Dust Walkway' LF 470 $ 36.00 $ 16,920.00 Excavation, Subbase, Surface Redi-Rock Concrete Steps 3 (Excavation, Subbase, Steps) LF 120 $ 218.00 $ 26,160.00 4 Pipe Railing LF 515 $ 175.00 $ 90,125.00 5 Bicycle Dismount Signage EA 2 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 6 Drainage Improvements3 LS 1 $ 12,025.00 $ 12,025.00 7 Landscape Improvements LS 1 $ 3,750.00 $ 3,750.00 8 Gravity Block Retaining Wall LF 100 $ 1,000.00 $ 100,000.00 9 Tree Removal EA 1 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Construction Subtotal $ 252,580.00 1111111111111111111111119Contingency (20%) $ 50,516.00 Work Zone Traffic Control (7%) $ 17,680.60 m° Survey Operations (2%) $ 5,051.60 Mobilization (4%) $ 10,103.20 Total $ 336,000.00 'Alternate Walkway Surface Options: Asphalt=$42/1-F, Concrete (Exposed Aggregate) _$78/1-F, Grass Pavers= $101/1-F 2Alternate Railing Option:Timber Railing=$100/1-F 3Drainage Improvements include : Cleaning, Grading, & Reshaping of Ex. Channels, Cleaning Ex. Culverts, Inlet/Outlet Protection, New Drainage Culvert, Granite Curb along Warren Rd 4Landscape Improvements include:Topsoil and Turf Restoration along Walkway, Landscape Plantings at Trailheads ryh r> r µ a a� gra16 69 T ra r 1 � W RE'FFiB ...- 49789 .. Z gym, J1 m puIIIIi W4 ❑ �j �I lui n IE o fiE'91g w �� �uNmh! b 14 z IMP ung III .: Ef G�✓fit .%��/� 0 a' cr ELFH6' ei agy � a large 8ME a r zavBe mqg f �'� x® f N ' 1£"F6e 01 y gy flz. Mpg P. � V iulllllgllll PA FL f f muuuumim a �iq m �'� % AFB st m mm mm. Icr Li e zd Y Prepared by: AAM Date: 9/12/2019 Checked by: Date: o� � '' i . " .* Town of Ithaca Forest Home Walkway Improvements Estimate of Probable Cost Concept D -Propose Im rovements on Ex.Ali nment With Steps) Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total 1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00 2 5'-0" wide Stone Dust Walkway' LF 425 $ 36.00 $ 15,300.00 Excavation, Subbase, Surface Redi-Rock Concrete Steps 3 (Excavation, Subbase, Steps) LF 110 $ 218.00 $ 23,980.00 4 Timber RailingZ LF 290 $ 100.00 $ 29,000.00 5 Bicycle Dismount Signage EA 2 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 6 Drainage Improvements3 LS 1 $ 14,975.00 $ 14,975.00 8 Landscape Improvements4 LS 1 $ 3,750.00 $ 3,750.00 Construction Subtotal $ 88,805.00 Contingency (20%) $ 17,761.00 y Work Zone Traffic Control (7%) $ 6,216.35 E Survey Operations (2%) $ 1,776.10 Mobilization (4%) $ 3,552.20 Base Construction Total $ 118,200.00 'Alternate Walkway Surface Options: Asphalt=$42/1-F, Concrete (Exposed Aggregate) _$78/1-F, Grass Pavers= $101/1-F 2Alternate Railing Option: Pipe Railing=$175/1-F 3Drainage Improvements include : Cleaning, Grading, & Reshaping of Ex. Channels, Cleaning Ex. Culverts, Earthwork for New Drainage Swale, Inlet/Outlet Protection, New Drainage Culverts, Granite Curb along Warren Rd 4Landscape Improvements include:Topsoil and Turf Restoration along Walkway, Landscape Plantings at Trailheads From: Bruce Brittain To: Paulette Rosa; Paulette Rosa Subject: Forest Home Walkway Concepts Date: Thursday,September 12,2019 3:24:59 PM Hi Paulette-- Appended below are two e-mails relative to the Forest Home Walkway that Doug and I sent to the PWC earlier. Please include these in the compilation of comments. Also, I would like to add the following: Doug and I would be happy with either of two alignments at the upper sharp corner. Staying on the current alignment, as shown in Concept A, or following the path's original 1911 alignment, as shown in Concept C. Our preference would be for whichever of these two alignments would cause the least disruption to the existing trees and tree roots. If the Walkway stays on the current alignment, the original alignment could be utilized as a rest area, with a bench. Conversely, if the Walkway were to be relocated to its former alignment, the rest area and bench could be located on the path's current alignment. During the August PWC meeting, Doug and I handed out and discussed a map of a proposed Concept, which we referred to as Concept A-Prime. We would like this to also be part of the official record. Thank you very much. We look forward to an improved Walkway. --Bruce -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Brittain <brucebrittain@verizon.net> To: r1h13 <rlh13@cornell.edu>; THunter <THunter@town.ithaca.ny.us>; rd <rd@richdepaolo.com>; bgoodman <bgoodman@town.ithaca.ny.us>; jweber <jweber@town.ithaca.ny.us>; dthaete <dthaete@town.ithaca.ny.us>; cwhite <cwhite@bartonandloguidice.com> Sent: Sun, Aug 18, 2019 6:15 pm Subject: Forest Home Walkway Concepts DATE: August 18, 2019 TO: Rod Howe Tee Ann Hunter Rich DePaolo CC: Bill Goodman Jim Weber Dan Thaete Chuck White FROM: Bruce and Doug Brittain RE: Forest Home Walkway Concepts Thank you for the opportunity to preview the three Concepts that the Committee will be discussing on Tuesday. Actually, it looks like one basic Concept, but with three possible alignments. We have examined them all, and would like to share the following thoughts: ALIGNMENT Three different alignment options are offered: Concept A (following the existing walkway alignment), Concept B (staying within the current parcel), and Concept C (a "hybrid" alignment). The current alignment (as shown in Concept A) seems largely satisfactory, but could be improved upon by following the smoother 1911 alignment where the path cuts the corner. This is presumably what Concept C is trying to show, but unfortunately, Concept C also introduces a couple of awkward (and unnecessary) design features elsewhere. Concept B needlessly restricts the Walkway to the Town's deeded parcel, and thereby adds extra length, extra elevation changes, extra stairs, a sharp corner, and extensive tree removal. Also, when an alignment similar to B was constructed by the Town in the 1980s, pedestrians did not take it, instead choosing to cut the sharp corner. There is no reason to think that path users would be any more enamored of alignment B this time. An additional unexplored alignment issue which the Committee might want to consider is at the top of the path where it meets Warren Road. If the Walkway were to swing to the north approximately 35 feet (aiming for the end of the existing curbing, near the utility pole), this could result in a more gradual slope for the upper end of the Walkway, would connect the Walkway to the walkable shoulder on the west side of Warren Road, and would put the crosswalk at a location that would provide significantly better visibility, and therefore better safety. (This path realignment would require some regrading, and the removal of some red pines, one of which is already dead.) STAIRS vs SLOPE All three Concepts call for stairs on the steeper parts of the Walkway. While stairs may be safer for pedestrians when the Walkway is slippery, they would make it less convenient to navigate with a bicycle or baby stroller, and could make winter maintenance more difficult if they precluded the use of a snowblower. This should be a decision for the Committee to make, weighing the various pros and cons of stairs vs slope. Also, if stairs are used, they could be made of actual stone rather than concrete. SURFACE TREATMENT All three Concepts call for 3 inches of stabilized stone dust surface, over a 6 inch thick subbase. Other possibilities (stone, brick, washed concrete, grass pavers, etc) were not presented as options from which to choose. Again, this should be a Committee decision. RETAINING WALLS Concepts B and C call for a retaining wall at the top of the lower slope. Concept B clarifies that this would be a gravity-block wall, 50 ft in length. Concept A does not include a retaining wall here (and there is not one now), so it should not be required for Concepts B or C. If a retaining wall were necessary, it could be constructed of natural stone, to match other stone walls in the area, rather than concrete. REST AREAS Concept C includes two Rest Areas. This is a nice addition, but seems excessive. Plus, they appear to be poorly sited. The lower one is pushed into the hillside, necessitating excavation and a retaining wall, and the upper one appears to be situated within the creek banks. It might be better to replace these two Rest Areas with a single one located between them, in the level area where the Walkway currently cuts the corner. CHERRY TREE Concept C indicates that the large cherry tree that Town planner Susan Beeners preserved may have to be removed. This is actually not necessary. A slightly tighter turn at that location (following the 1911 path grade) would preserve that tree, as well as the others that are shown on the Plan. SMALL RIVULET The small rivulet that adjoins the Walkway flows year round. It has erroneously been identified in the documents as a "drainage swale," rather than a stream. All three Concepts call for the streambed to be cleaned, graded, reshaped, and stabilized with permanent erosion control (check dams). Given that this is a natural stream, which does not appear to be eroding (or to have eroded during the past 50 years that we have been watching it), these measures seem both unnecessary and inappropriate. Creek beautification measures could be called for instead, including the removal of invasive vegetation. CULVERT UNDER WALKWAY All three Concepts call for the existing culvert to be replaced. There is no discussion of materials proposed for either the wingwalls or walking surface. The Committee could consider various options for this creek-crossing: culvert vs wooden bridge vs stone-slab bridge, etc. In any case, it would be more fitting if the wingwalls were made of stone, rather than concrete or pressure-treated wood. CONNECTION TO WESTERN SHOULDER ON WARREN ROAD All three Concepts include a crosswalk at the top of the Walkway, connecting to the eastern shoulder of Warren Road. However, none of the Concepts include an explicit connection to the western shoulder of Warren Road (although the "Trailhead" area shown on Concept A comes close). This is an existing problem, and could be addressed by extending the Walkway a short distance north to join the existing walkable shoulder on Warren Road. (If the Walkway end were to be realigned as proposed in the ALIGNMENT section above, this connection would already be accomplished.) DIVERTING RUNOFF AT TOP OF WALKWAY Existing ground contours currently direct runoff water onto the Walkway, where it erodes the path surface. (This was amply demonstrated during the rainy site visit, when the consultant met with path users.) This water (and snow melt) drains from the golf course, from Warren Road, and from the pull-off area used by the Town. If the pull-off area were regraded, this runoff water could instead be directed into the little creek. A gentle swale should be sufficient, and should not interfere with the pull-off area's continued usefulness as a parking area for Town work crews. (If the end of the path were shifted north as proposed above, this swale could run parallel to the Walkway on its new alignment.) INSTALLING CURBING ALONG WARREN ROAD All three Concepts call for 55 ft of new curbing to be installed along the western edge of Warren Road, north of the top of the Walkway. This is presumably to prevent the runoff water that originates on Warren Road from eroding the Walkway, as discussed above. However, this proposed curbing would not address the runoff water from the golf course or the pull-off area, so the swale discussed above would still be required. Given this, the installation of curbing seems like an unnecessary expenditure. If curbing were to be installed, its length should be considered carefully. A length of 55 ft would extend the curbing well beyond the pull-off area used by the Town, but would not extend it as far as the crest of the hill. This would create ponding problems in the ditch where the curbing ends. Instead, roughly 25 ft would be enough to extend to the upper edge of the pull-off, and would not be likely to cause ponding difficulties. But keep in mind that any curbing, especially if it only had a 1 inch reveal, would be a partial solution at best, and would not resolve the Walkway erosion issue. ENGINEERING vs LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT APPROACH It is our understanding that B&L was chosen as the consultant, in part, because a landscape architect would be the lead designer for this project. We have nothing against engineer Chuck White, who did a splendid job of collecting public input, in spite of a heavy rain. However, the Concepts provided do not appear to have benefited much from the involvement of a landscape architect. One might have expected more of an emphasis on the use of natural materials, location of Rest Areas so as to avoid unnecessary cut and fill, recognition of the rivulet as an aesthetic resource rather than an industrial drainage swale, etc. In short, Concepts A, B and C do not represent the full spectrum of possibilities, but they do lay the groundwork for a fruitful discussion of how the Committee and Board would like to see the Walkway restored. With due consideration of the above points, it should be possible to create a functional and attractive Walkway which would serve the pedestrian commuters in the Town of Ithaca for the foreseeable future. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Brittain <brucebrittain@verizon.net> To: bgoodman <bgoodman@town.ithaca.ny.us>; r1h13 <rlh13@cornell.edu>; THunter <THunter@town.ithaca.ny.us>; rd <rd@richdepaolo.com>; dthaete <dthaete@town.ithaca.ny.us>; JTalbut <JTalbut@town.ithaca.ny.us>; amaurer <amaurer@bartonandloguidice.com>; cwhite <cwhite@bartonandloguidice.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 20, 2019 4:20 pm Subject: Forest Home Walkway Hi All-- Thank you for a productive meeting this morning. Three further points: 1. Doug and I have suggested shifting the top of the Walkway and the associated crosswalk further to the north. We believe that this could improve pedestrian safety. We should have clarified, however, that this is something that we have not discussed with the FH community. In fact, some of our friends and neighbors who live on Crest Lane (south of the FH Walkway) may object, since it would mean that they would have to walk a bit further to access the Walkway. Nevertheless, we still recommend at least exploring this option. 2. The handrail appears to be one of the biggest expenses of the project. The rail that B&L has proposed is certainly attractive, but Sticker Shock has given us a renewed appreciation of the rail that is there now. The current rail consists of 1 inch galvanized Schedule 40 pipe supported by (rotten) wooden 44 posts on 6 ft +/- centers. This isn't particularly attractive, but it is (or was) functional. Could we replicate this design, but with galvanized pipes driven into the ground to replace the wooden posts? This would not be as nice as the railing that we discussed this morning, but it would likely be significantly cheaper. And, as discussed, further cost savings could be realized by only installing the railing on the steeper parts of the path. 3. A remaining question is whether or not to install steps. We invite each of you to walk the path soon, and to judge for yourself whether steps might be a worthwhile addition. (Also notice how often you reach for the handrail.) Then walk the path that extends uphill from the stone pedestrian bridge at the head of Beebe Lake. This path features the Redirock concrete steps that were referenced in the Concept documents (as well as the attractive but expensive handrail). Doug and I would be happy to walk these paths with any of you, if you like. Please note that whichever path you walk second will seem like the more tiring one.... --Bruce (Ashlyn: I don't have Keith's e-mail address. Could you please forward this to him? Thank you.) .c m m� m Y E Y c p 3 c �aL ` N O c�, a d O p " O_... N Q N m N= 30 a c0 a0j N U« �'p j Ln U _p U E L o m R m N c) [a r (CLO) .L-. m ) E U L to N ti p [a O U p L i-p O_ 3 c_p'c `a co O a) O O) O U ca U) c'O a a N a) N p Y N > �`• U N O —-O Fo N aU ^ rn c 3 m 5 3 V 7 i 00 V a)L. N N ", o N Ern 7 N a) O -0 > N J O. N C g� � o tfN3��tm � -� noo pO c > m c-8) u)) o r .1)v p� cou)E a) iE N o3CO L w �w � c °) m3�?+� c 2 ° o `aac Q o 0 o cL ac m mLLa E Q �._ m E U p U U a) C N« O O C 7 C 0 U N O_ O O lb N �2-6 o O U W.9 a)m U)m p 7 a) N (O A N O N oLL - O> 3N� >- 3 -pmUL) 2Mm ° E= .12— N E N 7 0 a) p m m ca a) o m m mEL o�C m aa)) - mma) c5;``ac Z j N y ca N c 0 ca p p >• N N a.) E � d � o earn'>o0Nm N 2 CL u�` v) %n = 2 a aa))m t o m a c m [0 � r � B29.2 m o c V W ~i t itl\U{� �Atl �I' illi l 8 i ff I��II�I�{I O 1 Jp a 111 1 'I IN / R v b5 r 16v g sit10 cr rre a T DP ¢. r � IiFr z S eB3s5 8 t �� ( r1{ �t; ���" It i ii � tr ��� t � (� m mmil G Wyk tt S� ri Dam � 4 < �rDam � � gN N. r E � u " �1 IF lq•.___�__ 841.32 d ��.� 1� v. D 1 = top! < ti ID 915.39 n° mw'N 1693 . �'0 C z v 8e iP.WCN qm, k H� ail " l r m m 9 h z -------------------- ®®��\ riirrlr;lilllrrrl. �� �u �) 12, "'^�� IIS J�� I„a @ I 1 C jai into Ih Kid IJinn B 0 � �Aq�°"�� lI 'l � C Now York 1/18',i1 , /9 GR Nl S e,oi iii G,IIIIdJi l,tuird i�flioiii,g T: 607.255.2400 E: botanicgardens@cornelLedu September 16, 2019 Bill Goodman Supervisor,Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Supervisor Goodman, We have reviewed the alternatives provided for the redevelopment of the Forest Home Walkway and respectfully submit the following comments for consideration. Provided the project objectives, and the opportunity to correct an encroachment issue, our preference is to realign the planned walkway fully within the Town's property boundaries as described under alternative B. It is our understanding that the existing path alignment currently encroaches onto University property, and no use agreement or easement presently grants this access and use. Option B would eliminate the project's complexity, including avoiding additional real estate transactions, agreements, easements, and/or title transfer. Additionally, we would ask that: • The Town accept responsibility for covering future tree removal expenses (for a period of up to 3 years)for Cornell trees that sustain construction root damage from the construction process and are subsequently identified by Cornell that they need to be removed for public safety and liability reasons. • The Town develop,fund, and execute a habitat restoration plan and project to remove trail infrastructure across encroached areas and restore appropriate native vegetation, subject to Botanic Garden approval. No work or funding is presently indicated in Alternative B for any of this necessary scope. • Provide more detail on the major drainage swale adjacent to the walkway.The swale appears to be primarily on University property, and significant work is proposed in all three alternatives to "Clean, grade, and reshape existing swale. Add permanent erosion control to stabilize slope." The level of detail in the proposed plan is not adequate in order to fully provide comment at this time on the means and methods. Additionally,given that the protection of the path, stairs, railings, and stormwater structure assets can be jeopardized by inadequate maintenance of the stormwater conveyance systems here, maintenance considerations for this system should be part of the construction alternatives deliberations. There are numerous other concerns and questions on Alternatives A and C, and recognizing the limited advance notice Cornell was provided, we have not had sufficient time to detail all of them in full. Some additional questions and points of concern Cornell Botanic Gardens has are: • What non-Town land will be necessary in order to stage and construct the project, including any temporary easements that may be needed, and how does this differ, if at all, across the three alternatives? • What plans and budget are there for restoration of the impacted natural areas, and does this differ across the three alternatives? • How much storm water currently flowing through the drainage swale is expected to be captured by the new curbing on Warren Road and conveyed into a catch basin, and where does this basin outlet? • We would like additional detail on the proposed $8450 in drainage improvements and drainage swale improvements in note#3. Thank you for your considerations to these comments. We look forward to continuing to engage with the Town as the project details are further developed. Best regards Todd Bittner Director of Natural Areas Cornell Botanic Gardens Comments regarding the FH Walkway as of Tuesday, September 3, 9am Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Forest Home Walkway concepts. They all appear to be a huge improvement over the condition of the current Walkway, and I especially appreciate that steps and railings have been incorporated to cope with the steep sections. I would be happy with the adoption of any of the concepts. At the 7/17 meeting with Walkway users, we discussed transferring the street light on the east side of the downstream bridge to the other side of the road so that it illuminates the intersection of the pedestrian bridge and the base of Pleasant Grove at the stop sign. Although not technically part of the Walkway, this is a dangerous crossing in the dark; moving the light across the street where walkers could benefit from it would be extremely useful. My husband and I noticed that the crosswalk at this location (from pedestrian bridge to base of the Forest Home Walkway)was repainted immediately after the 7/17 meeting, and that this remedy has improved the crossing situation. But we still need the light moved! Thanks for doing the painting and thanks for giving serious consideration to the repositioning of the street light. Regards, Teresa Craighead 21 Fairway Drive (frequent Walkway user) I am not a resident of Forest Home but a member of Forest Home Chapel so all that goes on in the Hamlet is of importance to me. My choice of these options would be the third one. Sally Grubb Member Forest Home Chapel Townclerk: Let me offer my opinion concerning the redesign of the Forest Home Walkway. It seems to me the first option of the three submitted will be more than adequate for all users of the path. Changing the existing alignment(options 2 and 3) is much more expensive and just adds steeper slopes and added distance for those of us walking the path—as well as for those maintaining it and clearing snow from it. I believe the added expense for options 2 and 3 could be much better spent on other projects —(or maybe a zip line for part of the path? ❑ ). My thanks to the Town for maintaining this path so well, especially in the winter. Pete Loucks 116 Crest Lane, Forest Home From: Caroline Arms, 200 Forest Home Drive As requested on http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Quick- News/foresthomewalkwayimprovementconcepts I am submitting comments on the three concepts from Barton & Loguidice for the Forest Home Walkway. Although I am currently President of the Forest Home Improvement Association (FHIA), the views expressed here should be seen as primarily those of an individual adjacent property owner who observes the safety problems at the intersection at the bottom of the Walkway on a daily basis. Firstly, I am resending the comments I sent to the Public Works Committee chair on August 19, before the PWC meeting where the concepts were to be discussed. ===message sent to PWC chair on 8/19/2019 --- These points are primarily from the perspective of adjoining property owners of 200 Forest Home Drive. 1. Note 1 for all concepts relates to the "drainage culvert" that runs behind the patio at 200 FHD. It seems to imply that a single activity to "Clean drainage inlet and flush pipe for improved drainage" will address the problems. It is important to understand that such action will be needed after every significant rainfall. The ditch(presumably what they term the drainage inlet)was dug out three times this spring after the flow down the hill brought stones and earth. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss this in more detail. We would really appreciate moderate-cost suggestions as to how we can address this problem in the long term. 2. Concept B includes "shallow drainage Swale parallel to walkway" at the lower end. Clarification is needed as to why this is only in concept B and how water in that Swale is intended to function and drain. 3. All three concepts include "Improve and stabilize road shoulder" and "Align sidewalk with existing bridge sidewalk". It appears that the intent is to have those coming down the walkway use a longer stretch of the shoulder on the uphill side of Pleasant Grove Road before crossing PGR than at present. Pedestrians will not have exclusive use of that shoulder. The shoulder area in question is frequently crossed by TCAT buses coming across the downstream bridge and up Pleasant Grove Road,particularly if there is traffic at the stop sign at the bottom of PGR. Changes here should be discussed with TCAT. The stretch of shoulder is also used by delivery trucks and contains access covers for water distribution pipes. Heaps of plowed snow currently end up on that stretch of shoulder in winter. From the perspective of the community, here are two further points: A. We could not find specific dimensions for the proposed steps. It would be helpful to document the height and horizontal length of steps. B. The community is interested in a walkway that can be reliably and cost-effectively kept open in the winter. Given that the concept designs are now supplemented by cost estimates, I will add that I see no need for the extra costs of the gravity block retaining walls in concepts B and C. If use of the current alignment eliminates those costs while still providing a robust structure for the future, I would definitely favor concept A. I understand that Cornell has been willing to provide a suitable easement or property transfer in the past and know that the university considers the land in question as of little value. As stated in my earlier submission, I do have concerns about shifting the location of the crosswalk on Pleasant Grove Road (PGR) as proposed in Concepts A & C, because this would require pedestrians coming down the Walkway and heading across the downstream bridge to share a stretch of shoulder with buses and other wide vehicles that often need to use the shoulder for a wide turning circle, round traffic waiting on PGR to turn onto the bridge. Note that traffic coming down PGR cannot see whether the bridge is clear until they pull ahead well past the stop sign. I have heard persuasive arguments that the intersection would be safer if it were made smaller, e.g.,by moving the stop sign on PGR closer to the bridge. Based on daily observation of traffic at the intersection, I believe the proposal in B&L design concepts A and C to move the crosswalk on PGR would likely make the intersection less safe for pedestrians and drivers than at present. It might be useful for Town staff to review recommendations made for limiting the size of major intersections in Forest Home in the Forest Home Traffic Calming report, available at https:Hfhia.org/traffic/. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on these designs. Sincerely, Caroline Arms 200 Forest Home Drive Thank you for posting the three options for the Forest Home Walkway Improvement. I have a few comments. First, I like the steps, especially in the steeper parts of the walkway. Second, I am happy with the current pathway and don't see a need to straighten it out as shown in option 42. However, if that is necessary to stay within the parcel, I would support that. However, my guess is that Cornell will not begrudge a few feet on their land. However, they may not want someone to build step off the parcel (near the top of the path). Third, I don't see a need for the gravity retaining wall as shown in options 42 and 43. Having said that, I am not knowledgeable in the field and would support that wall if it were to be a case of doing a better job up front to provide longer term benefits and prevent deterioration or decrease maintenance in the future. In other words, I would not want to be penny wise,pound foolish. It also might be needed to stay within the parcel (see comment above) Fourth, I am surprised the railing costs so much and that it takes up such a large percentage of the final cost. Thank you to the Town of Ithaca for supporting the walkway. I use it almost daily and appreciate any care or upkeep that keeps it functioning. Jamie Loehr 25 Fairway Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Attachment 3 SunTrust Financial Centre JOHNSON j 4oi East Jackson Street,Suite 3100 i% POPETampa,Florida 33602 H, �-� � Telephone(813)467-8900 1 � Fax(813)223-7118 J k., f JP 1, �;`f' f Email:JCovelli@JPFirm.com � r11 E COUNSELORS AT LAW TAMPA wu CLEARWATER ST. PETERSBURG September 13, 2019 VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Jim Weber Dir. Public Works Town of Ithaca 106 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, NE 14850 Email: JWeber@town.ithaca.ny.us Re: Petition to the Town of Ithaca by Winston Square Apartments LLC, a New York limited liability company("Winston")for abandonment of the roads located adjacent to that certain apartment complex commonly known as Winston Square Apartments Dear Jim: We are legal counsel to Winston and are authorized to provide this letter on its behalf. This letter shall serve as the written petition by Winston pursuant to New York State Highway Law Section 207 for the Town of Ithaca (the "Town") to commence the process required to abandon those certain roads depicted on the Official Town Map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference (the "Roads") which are adjacent to that certain apartment complex owned by Winston and commonly referred to as Winston Square Apartment and to subsequently convey all right, title and interest in and to the Roads to Winston pursuant to a Quit Claim Deed. Specifically, based on the Official Town Map Winston is requesting that the following Roads be abandoned by the Town and all right, title and interest of the Town be conveyed pursuant to Quit Claim Deed to Winston: 1. Winston Drive from the intersection of Winston Court to the terminus at the intersection of Salem Drive; 2. Salem Drive from the intersection of Winston Court to the terminus at the intersection of Winston Drive; and 3. Winston Court from the intersection of its east-west portion and its north-south portion to Winston Court's termination at the intersection of Winston Drive. Winston supports the abandonment of the Roads by the Town and conveyance of the Roads to Winston;provided,however,this petition is subject to the conditions that(i)the Town shall be responsible for obtaining an abstract of title;(ii)the Roads shall be conveyed to Winston pursuant to a quit claim deed, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, excluding customary easements for utilities; and (iii) in Cr JOHNSON POPE COUNSELORS AT LAW TAMPA ■ CLEARWATER ■ ST. PETERSBURG Jim Weber, Dir. Public Works Town of Ithaca September 13, 2019 Page 2 connection therewith, there shall be no obligations, commitment, conditions or liabilities placed upon Winston in connection with the abandonment of the Roads by the Town and the conveyance of the Roads to Winston, except those expressly agreed upon by Winston. Winston recognizes that abandonment of the terminuses and the conveyance to Winston will not create any loss or damages for Winston and;provided, that the Town conveys the terminuses to Winston, Winston agrees to waive its right to seek compensation under New York Highway Law Section 209. Except as otherwise stated herein,the parties shall otherwise be responsible for their own costs and expenses incurred in connection with the abandonment, including but not limited to legal fees. In the event that the abandonment and conveyance of the Road to Winston would require Winston to undertake any obligations, commitments or conditions or incur any liabilities (collectively, the "Conditions"), any agreement by Winston to accept a conveyance shall be subject to Winston's review and approval of any such Conditions and the negotiation and execution of such definitive legal documents as may be necessary to properly document the respective parties agreement to such Conditions prior to acceptance of any conveyance of the Roads. In this regard, we would look forward to receiving any further information to assist in our evaluation. In the meantime, should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ,...m ....�..............,�.�� Joseph P. Covelli JPC/gcs cc: Andrew Gordon Bob Hull 5633457 2 JOHNSON POPE Of B 0 K(-)R, 11,T � P & 13 U FZ,T,J S , L L P COUNSELORS AT LAW TAMPA ■ CLEARWATER ■ ST. PETERSBURG Jim Weber, Dir. Public Works Town of Ithaca September 13, 2019 Page 3 EXHIBIT A MAP OF ROADS See Attached 56334572 z a w IWO o � � a z K m za oma �4uj cc WINS1'ON DR g a �0ca D W J� d=e = aZ 3x O m m E V) II °G oc a Q Q Zo Uj Q O o � Q 1� N x rV' pp t O ON WINST z k 9 € U- 0 O .� Wr i = m B Y d Q DEERFIE D P 6 A c� G a a i ROSENI RD o= mz,Ki oW=W� .g U nz 5z: omgz; { p— W 8 4OWOi all 1 uWUI �mapi r oF-- o x 11 t -6 ¢ 3 0 a z m a ( I aU)ia wz(L 0O_Q 0 O (1% � , r � Iu � � e cs � � ❑D t�� �U)w ca LU lul « r, r 1 � 1 r_ 1 �> r/ /,L. ,�r l/ / ale, r %Nl / / 1, ➢ l f / rrw ori If/% A%/// ��I 0 r % L' (s / �t, =r/r j...' r �n J ///./ « ✓ �� �A. "l��/ o to , O o 0 w o o Ul) oZS 1 rfl/�%//O/✓��a, ° i/°a/ w; sR a«' / f� ri r/%', t% / Q 4 p o i/1 V� / 21 � I / I 1111`I r JJ� I,,, /f � °.: p/6 //dol �/j � ��� � f/r�j oVl➢�)NNU�w � Jr ���f �%I ///i Q/i�� lam➢�3!/� � 11� ; �1 z �z /'"9��%/Ofv. � //�1fr, ,d� ����i�o` � � !� z J uu IIIIII� � C�lu�I{lIN /'ul n4� -, 'tl �Vli�� YS4 ffidl/rlr f i�sVj��l�' ➢r, � �i � 1 �,MJ`�z, I 0 r I L / ° / r r«Glr c o rr r ��". �b,�i /1/� ��� 3fv➢l�l��� I,. �� �° zIJ �j�,l 1/���,d"�3� �%�,.. r �� ��.�Q��® �1l/�% z � CUazU VRPv " IIIIII �Il 1 „� ,�'" m' id I= „✓ i/, !ri�' �/ ;r,l_I a��iiN/ ;,,,�ii i I WIIW`�i�i�1 � a�� 2m° Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 -Project Information Instructions for Completing Part 1—Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part I based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1.You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1—Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: "Discontinuance,abandonment and transfer of the following road terminuses:580'of Winston Ct.,600'of Salem Dr.,& Project Location(describe,and attach a location map): NE Ithaca-Winston Court,Winston Drive and Salem Dr Brief Description of Proposed Action: Discontinue and abandon for public purposes roadways terminuses within an apartment complex. Transfer ownership and maintenance of to the owners of the complex while maintaining easements for public utilities. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: James W Weber,Highway Superintendent E-Mail: Address: 114 Seven Mile Dr City/PO: State: Zip Code: Ithaca NY 114850 1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES administrative rule,or regulation? If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that Z ❑ may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval:Highway Superintendent Order discontinuing and abandoning for public purposes roadway terminuses. 3. a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 2.36 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 0 acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 2.36 acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on,are adjoining or near the proposed action: 5. ®Urban ❑ Rural(non-agriculture) ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial m Residential(suburban) ®Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Aquatic ❑ Other(Specify): CU Lab of Ornithology ®Parkland Page i of 3 SEAF 2019 5. Is the proposed action, NO /A a. A permitted Use under the zoning regulations? I b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? El F-1 171 NO YES 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? D 7. Is the site ofthe proposed action located in,or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes, identify: —1 Fv(1 F 8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site ofthe proposed action'? 1:1 c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed action? 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies: ............... El 1-1 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES IfNo,describe method for providing potable water: ........... .......... ...... 11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: -------............... ------ F-1 El 12. a. Does the project site contain,or is it substantially Contiguous to, a building,archaeological site,or district NO YES which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner ofthe NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? b. Is the project site,or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites oil the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SI PO)archaeological site inventory? 1:1. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? F] FYI b. Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody? If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent ofalterations in square feet or acres: .......——----- .......... ll,auc 2 of"3 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site.Check all that apply: ❑Shoreline ❑ Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑Early mid-successional ❑Wetland ® Urban ❑Suburban 15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed by the State or NO YES Federal government as threatened or endangered? ❑ El 16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan? NO YES F7 ❑ 17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES If Yes, Q a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? If Yes,briefly describe: 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO YES or other liquids(e.g.,retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? If Yes,explain the purpose and size of the impoundment: F71 Q 19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES management facility? If Yes,describe: a ❑ 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES completed) for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑ I CERTIFY T INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOW EDGE Applicants nsor/ ame: James W Web r Date:9-23-2019 Signature: Title:Highway Superintendent PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3 Agency Use Only[[f applicable] Project Date: �- Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 2-Impact Assessment Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept"Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?" No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning Elregulations? 2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? a ❑ 3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? a 4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the ❑ establishment of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)? 5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or El existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway? b. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate ❑ reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 7. Will the proposed action impact existing: a a.public/private water supplies? b.public/private wastewater treatment utilities? Z 8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? 121 9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands, ❑ waterbodies,groundwater,air quality,flora and fauna)? 10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainage problems? 11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? PRINT FORM Pagel of2 Agen Use Onl [If applicable] Project- Date: Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 Determination of Significance For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur",or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please complete Part 3.Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting, probability of occurring,duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short- term,long-term and cumulative impacts. The roads are currently used as circulation among internal parking lots for an apartment a complex and their discontinuance and abandonment for public purposes and transfer to the apartment complex owner will not change the apartment complex's existing use.The owners will be making upgrades and repairs to the surface and may add landscaping in parts of the road areas, but this will not increase or decrease the existing environmental impacts of the circulation roads in the parking areas. Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environment impa ts. Name of L ad A nc ate 00, 0— Prtt o ype Name of Res onsibl i r in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature e/o�f�Resp�o'n)sible O cer in I eard AAg—ency Signature of Preparer(if different from Responsible Officer) 400 Ju{.riI- G �sw�� i�" S sr�'Jd--, p�ra 3 t PRINT FORM Page 2 of 2 Attachment 4 �Nllllllll�l��� � °�YIIIUI��r�,�ll)�,ti�WV plUu6 September 10, 2019 �y pp' I y p II I:,,.Y I' Ilur. J I""K,fW I'4 r'I I Ms. Susan Ritter, Town Planner Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Town of Ithaca Inlet Valley Draft Zoning Amendment— Scope of Work Dear Sue: We have considered the town's comments and updated our proposal to provide continuing professional services to the town to advance the above-referenced project. We understand the overall goal is to prepare a draft zoning amendment to help advance the future land use recommendations of the economic development strategy developed for Inlet Valley. The zoning scope of work will include creation of an overlay district(s), modifications to the existing zoning ordinance for the subject areas in the Inlet Valley corridor including the permitted use schedule, dimensional requirements, special permit requirements and preparation of development design guidelines. A more detailed scope of work is attached. Please feel free to reach out to me any time. My cell is 518-339-3969. Thank you for the opportunity to be of continuing service to the town on this important project. Yours truly, John J. Behan, AICP Principal Attachment: Scope of Services and Fee Proposal ,..kprr nffv,,, 'k.'"W YYo t I28(")(: Town of Ithaca Inlet Valley Draft Zoning Amendment–Scope of Work 9/10/2019 Page 1 Project Coordination, Communication and Client Meetings—Behan Planning and Design will coordinate these services and deliverables with the town planner. Project review meetings/conference calls will be conducted with the town economic development committee during the course of the project. It is expected that approximately 2-3 project coordination/review meetings/phone conferences will be required, at least one of which may be in person. (We have budgeted for presentation a town public meeting (task 5). Task 1 – Preparation of Zoning Overlay District Map. Behan Planning will develop a proposed overlay district map for the Inlet Valley Corridor, drawing from the prior work. The map will include up to two overlay districts and will utilize the town zoning district map as the base. Task 2—Draft modifications to permitted uses. Modifications to the permitted uses in the underlying zoning districts that would be subject to the overlay district will be prepared including uses allowed by right, special permit uses and consideration of potential uses permitted by incentive (amenity) zoning and prohibited uses (including clarification of uses in the underlying district which will be no longer permitted.). Zoning definitions will be reviewed and modifications including new definitions of terms will be drafted to accommodate the proposed uses and related zoning changes. Task 3—Dimensional/Area and Bulk Requirements. Modifications to area and bulk requirements will be drafted as appropriate including lot area, setbacks, building size and residential density. Task 4– Development Design Guidelines. Building upon its prior effort and work product developed to date, Behan Planning and Design will prepare illustrated development design guidelines to inform site and subdivision planning for the Inlet Valley. A preliminary outline for the guidelines includes: 1. Introduction and Purpose 2. Applicability 3. Site Analysis 4. General Principles for Site Plan Development in Inlet Valley a. Topography, Stormwater Management and Natural Systems b. Roadside Landscape Treatment and Access Management C. Site Design d. Architecture / Signs f. Country Laneway and connections to Black Diamond Trail The development design guidelines will be prepared using existing graphic and drawing references available from the graphic/photo library of Behan Planning and Design and, if needed, material available from public domain on the internet. One custom graphic in the form of a perspective sketch will be prepared illustrating selected design and development character recommendations as depicted in a potential development/redevelopment scenario in the Inlet Valley. Town of Ithaca Inlet Valley Draft Zoning Amendment—Scope of Work 9/10/2019 Page 2 It is expected that the design guidelines will be set up as a stand-alone document for attachment by reference to the zoning ordinance. Task 5 — Preliminary Draft Zoning Amendment and Design Guidelines and Public Presentation. Behan Planning and Design will compile and present the preliminary draft zoning ordinance amendment and development design guidelines at a public meeting. The presentation material will be made available for town posting on the town website. Feedback from this meeting including online and additional public input will be considered and collaboration with the town attorney and town planner in the development of the subsequent draft. Task 6 — Draft Zoning Amendment and Design Guidelines Behan Planning and Design will refine the preliminary draft zoning ordinance amendment and development design guidelines and town staff will present an overview of the proposed changes at the public hearing with the town board. The draft zoning and design guidelines will be made available for town posting on the town website. General Notes: • Behan Planning and Design will provide the town with electronic copies of all final deliverables including a final high-resolution PDF for printing and a lower-resolution PDF for online publishing along with a copy of the final, editable native files. The town will be responsible for any printing. • The town will coordinate the logistics of meetings, notices, SEQR review and coordination, communication, printing, and other technical and support requirements for the project. The town understands that Behan Planning and Design is not providing legal services. Town staff will revise and finalize the Inlet Valley Zoning Amendment and Development Design Guidelines for adoption by the Town of Ithaca as part of the town code. The town will be responsible for any required review or modification of the proposed zoning amendment for legality and form. Town of Ithaca Inlet Valley Draft Zoning Amendment—Scope of Work 9/10/2019 Page 3 Budget Estimate — Task Estimated Total Fee Hours Project Coordination, Communication and Client Meetings 20 2,600 Task 1 — Preparation of Zoning Overlay District Map. 8 1,040 Task 2 — Draft modifications to permitted uses. 12 1,560 Task 3—Dimensional/Area and Bulk Requirements. 12 1,560 Task 4 — Development Design Guidelines. 40 5,200 Task 5 — Preliminary Draft Zoning Amendment and Design 40 5,200 Guidelines and Public Presentation. Task 6 — Draft Zoning Amendment and Design Guidelines. 24 3,120 Total Hours 156 $20,280 Expenses: 720 Basic Services Subtotal $21,000 Allowance for Additional/Optional Services (if Required) 4,000 TOTAL $25,000 Behan Planning and Design will complete the basic services outlined above for a lump sum fee inclusive of expenses of $21,000. Additional/optional tasks include preparation of environmental assessment form, attendance at additional meetings/public hearings, final drafting of zoning amendment and design guidelines, etc. would be provided if requested by the town at an hourly basis plus expenses. (Lump sum fee estimate based on $130/hour. Professional staff billing rates range from $100 to $165/hour.)