Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB Minutes 2019-11-18Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, November 18, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. Agenda 1) Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2) Discuss proposed amendment to Tompkins County Ag District 1 3) Discuss and consider setting a Public Hearing regarding changes to Laughing Goat Conservation Easement 4) Persons to be Heard and Board Comments 5) Discuss Short Term Rental draft legislation 6) Continue discussion on Green New Deal 7) Discuss and consider creation of GIS Analyst position 8) Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract d. Acknowledge Town of Ithaca Independent Audit for 2018 e. Approval of Floating Holiday f. Set records management day for December 13, 2019 from Sam to 1pm g. Recommendation to the County Legislature to reappoint of Kelly Sauve as our Youth Services Board representative h. Approval of revised Office System Job Classification Listing for 2020 i. Approval of job descriptions — Engineering j. Approval of Health Consortium wages 2020 9) Report of Town Officials 10) Report of Town Committees/Intermunicipal Organizations 11) Review of Correspondence 12) Consider Adjournment Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, November 18, 2019 at 5:30 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, Marry Mosely, Asst. Director of Code Enforcement; Mike Solvig, Director of Finance, Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town 1) Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2) Discuss proposed amendment to Tompkins County Ag District 1 — Michael Smith, Environmental Planner (Reports) The Board has no questions or comments on the item. TB Resolution 2019 - 167: Recommendation to the Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board regarding removing parcels from Tompkins County Agricultural District No. 1 Whereas, the Tompkins County Legislature along with the Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board (AFPB) is reviewing Tompkins County Agricultural District No. 1 as part of the regular 8-year review; and Whereas, a small portion of Agricultural District No. 1 is in the southeast corner of the Town of Ithaca; and Whereas, the AFPB has asked the Town of Ithaca if there are any issues with the existing boundaries that relate to town plans and if any modifications to the district should be made; and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee on September 19, 2019 discussed and reviewed a map prepared by planning staff that identified eight parcels for possible removal from the district due to the unlikelihood that they would ever be used for agriculture and forwarded that recommendation to the full Town Board for consideration; now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board hereby recommends to the AFPB that the 8 parcels (Tax Parcel No.'s 48.-1-14.4, 48.-1-13.22, 48.-1-14.1, 48.-1-13.21, 47.-2-7, 47.-2-6.31, 47.-2-6.54, 47.-2- 6.53) identified on the map titled "Tompkins County Agricultural District 4 1 — Town of Ithaca — 8-Year review — Town Board — Novemberl8, 2019" be removed from the district. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Pat Leary Vote: ayes — Howe, Leary, Levine, Goodman, Bleiwas, DePaolo and Hunter TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 1 3) Discuss and consider setting a Public Hearing regarding changes to Laughing Goat Conservation Easement Ms. Ritter noted that this has been discussed before and essentially the suggestion is to removing mowing requirements and allow solar panels, which is in line with our current conservation easements. Some discussion followed on whether to remove the mowing requirement throughout the property as there are some wet areas and other steep areas. The Board agreed to the total removal of a mowing requirement. TB Resolution 2019 - 168: Setting a public hearing regarding proposed amendments to the agricultural conservation easement for the Laughing Goat Fiber Farm (Gary & Lisa Ferguson) Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby sets a public hearing to be held at its December 9, 2019 meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m. local time at 215 N. Tioga St, Ithaca regarding the proposed amendments to the agricultural conservation easement for the Laughing Goat Fiber Farm (Gary & Lisa Ferguson). All persons interested in the proposed amendments will be heard at that time. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Tee -Ann Hunter Vote: ayes — Hunter, Howe, Leary, DePaolo, Levine, Goodman and Bleiwas 4) Persons to be Heard and Board Comments John Kadar addressed the Board regarding the Gateway Trail project and concerns regarding flooding if changes are made to the berm. He recounted floods from the past 20-30 year's and he is very concerned about flooding concerns. Marie Macrae addressed the Board saying that she was from Dryden but wanted to support the efforts of Mr. Goldsmith and the Green New Deal. She said what the town does here affects her in Dryden and everyone else because we are all connected. She felt the actions that we all do now are important to all of us and especially the young people. Carolyn Beeman addressed the Board regarding the Gateway Trail and read a prepared statement. (Attachment 1) John Powers addressed the Board about the Gateway Trail as a resident of Buttermilk Falls Rd and read a prepared statement. (Attachment 2) Samuel Rudin, former resident of Buttermilk Falls Rd who spoke about a destructive flood in the early 1970's and he is concerned about flooding issues if the opening in the berm is removed. It is a very traumatic experience to live through as well as expensive and he doesn't want that to happen again. TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 2 Barbara Kowslowski, Renwick Heights Rd addressed the Board regarding the draft short-term rental (STR) legislation. She stated that the draft limits unhosted rentals to 29 days a year and she asked if this were true even if the host has arranged for someone to be oncall? She thought that that would be relevant if the host is interested in maintaining good neighbor relations. It also mentions that the Codes department can provide the number of the person that is on call, but what if you can't get in touch with the Code department. She thought it might make more sense to have the Codes department or the host provide contact information to neighbors before something unfortunate happens. Her second point has to do with a possible cynical interpretation of the current draft; imagine somebody buying two adjacent houses where the owner lives in one house and can rent for an unlimited amount of days and the other house, unhosted, could be rented for 29 days and she wondered if that possibility had been considered. She used the example of a in-law house where the owner could live with an 8-bedroom house on the same lot where unlimited rentals could occur. Ms. Kowslowski turned to the Mountain View examples and asked about the remedial actions to resolve complaints and whether that includes paying for damage done by renters? She asked, more broadly, who does pay for damage done by renters? She said her neighbor had a hedge and a fence damaged by a renter and the renter refused to pay for it and the host said the renter should be contacted. She thought this was a serious issue and perhaps needs to be looked into. Resident spoke about the reference to Mountain View in the draft law saying it seems to him a person could buy a 6 bedroom house and build a small studio I can essentially open a boutique hotel. He said if he were a neighbor to such a person, it would matter to him if during the half of a year when the owner of the boutique hotel isn't there, there is someone he could get in touch with if something is going on in the residence. He was concerned about the reference to problems a neighbor had with their property destruction. He said sometimes they can get in touch with the owner, but they maybe several hundreds of miles away and if we could get in touch with a local representative who had some authority, it would have made the situation much, much simpler. Mia Slotnick, Renwick Heights neighborhood read a prepared statement outlining concerns with the latest draft. (Attachment 3) Anthony Haag addressed the Board saying he has a property next to his own so he is one of those circumstances where the 90 days would affect him. He stated that last year they were unable to get tenants in at January and the house was vacant until May and given the cyclical nature of the turnover in this area dues to the colleges, he would just implore the board to changing that time limit. Mr. Haag said that when they can't get tenants in they still need to pay the bills and although they now have tenants with a 2-year lease, and so he wasn't looking at making STR a full time business, but he is looking to make sure he is able to pay his mortgage and with the number of TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 3 rental buildings going up in Ithaca, it is a huge concern for the Landlords' Association. He said they are finding that units that used to fill readily with no problem are harder and harder to fill. He said it is not that we are charging exorbitant rents, we are just covering our mortgage and this provides us with the flexibility to have leases off the cycle that most of us depend on Caroline Greenwald said that when she saw the draft she immediately contacted Mr. Goodman because this draft has a fundamentally different effect on lakefront properties than any of the other drafts. She said that the way the draft has been reordered, it reads that there are certain restrictions that apply to lakefront properties that previously did not. She said she was told that was unintended and it will be reordered, but she just wanted to point that out to anybody that was not already aware of that. Ms. Greenwald said that she was in favor of a balanced approach to rentals in general and she thought there was a balance in the draft between maintaining communities and characters of neighborhoods and also the benefits that come from STRs. both for the economic benefit to homeowners and hosts and also to the community. The people who stay here generally come here because of the availability of these houses and wouldn't otherwise come and so there is a benefit that has to be balanced. She wanted the Board to hear both sides and although we might not be as vocal, we care just as much. (Attachment 4) Other emailed comment(s) (Attachment 5) There was no one else wishing to speak and Mr. Goodman turned to the Board. Mr. DePaolo addressed the comments regarding the flooding issue and asked Mr. Weber if the filling of the underpass or overpass as it were; is that something that has a structural and unavoidable existence? He said he understands there are other people involved, DOT and Federal, but is there an engineering reason why it has to be filled in versus being allowed to exist as a flood relief appurtenance? Mr. Weber responded that he was not sure it was ever designed for a flood relief. It existed as described as an access for the farmers at the time. He said he thought the discussions on filling that in is more just a cost savings as opposed to building a bridge to span it. Mr. DePaolo responded that his comment would then be that it seems to serve a pretty valuable purpose, or that is the indication we have been given, so he would certainly like to see that re- examined. He said he realizes this project is pretty far along, but if it wouldn't throw a years - long delay into the mix, it would be worth doing. Ms. Ritter added that she talked to Mike Smith and the underpass was acting as a relief valve for that water prior to Home Depot being developed. Now Home Depot is there and the topography has changed; it is no longer an area where a lot of water can be dispersed, because their parking lot is raised, we believe so if anything could be done, such as adding culverts or something, she thought there would need to be some analysis and surveying to determine whether things have changed so much that it wouldn't even act as a relief valve anymore because Home depot has changed the conditions on the other side. TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 4 Mr. DePaolo said then as far as we know that analysis wasn't done? Ms. Ritter said it wasn't done because again, as Mr. Weber said, its purpose was not to act as a drainage way. Ms. Hunter said with regard to Home Depot, would the development at Home Depot exacerbate or alleviate the problem of flooding and then have flooding incidents been reported subsequent to the development of the Home Depot site? Ms. Ritter responded that the people who came to speak referenced incidents that were prior to Home Depot being there. We are just guessing right now, we believe the parking lot area might be raised so it wouldn't be as big an area to disperse flooding that was there prior to Home Depot going in. Ms. Hunter asked if we are intending to look at this issue further, maybe the Public Works Committee, or are we under some kind of a time crunch? Ms. Ritter responded that the final design went to NYS DOT and they are reviewing it and if something were changed we would have to work with them but, she before making any proposed changes, you would want to study whether the water would still disperse very well on the other side like it did back in the 70's and 90's. She asked Mr. Weber if he had any thoughts on it. Mr. Weber said it was his understanding that the Army Corp of Engineers has been working with DEC relative to the whole inlet system and a lot of the work that exists is a result of the flooding in the 1996 era and before. The raised bed for the railroad is a part of that study because it does impact and direct the flood plain so they are certainly looking at it. He added that the Home Depot property came in and did some rework on their site and since these were not part of a drainage system, he didn't know if there were any requirements on Home Depot to accommodate drainage through those gaps. Mr. Weber said there are a number of issues that may come up in trying to convert them to a drainage facility where there may not be rights to drain onto the Home Depot side. Mr. Goodman said maybe this could be discussed at tomorrow's Public Works Committee and check in with our engineers and whether they have any thoughts on this. Mr. DePaolo said he wanted to be clear that he isn't hearing anybody say convert them to drainage facilities, but he does hear people saying leave the holes where they are because there is a chance that they actually might mitigate flooding. So unless there is a compelling reason o fill them in, he didn't understand why they just couldn't be left as is. Mr. Goodman said the first thing would be to talk to the engineers we hired to do the design and see if they thought about this at all or were aware of this at all in making the designs and Ms. Ritter said she assumes they did and she would also assume a bridge would be much more expensive than filling it in. She thinks it was a cost issue and flooding was not on the radar. TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 5 Ms. Hunter responded that it is on the radar now and should warrant further discussion at some level. Mr. Goodman said we should check with the engineers and see if they were aware of the issue when they were developing the recommendation and go from there. Mr. DePaolo asked what the construction schedule was at this point. Ms. Ritter responded that we were hoping to have DOT approval by now and start construction in the spring. It has not gone to bid yet, but we had been hoping to have already started with some of the tree cutting that would have to happen before March. This is not an in-house project, we are just sponsoring the grant and overseeing it. 5) Discuss Short Term Rental draft legislation Mr. Goodman said he would like to get any thoughts tonight, especially from board members who are not on the STR Committee. He added that given the number of items and questions Ms. Brock identified, he will schedule at least one more committee meeting, but he would like to hear any issues or thoughts members have. Mr. DePaolo began at "Definitions" and he thought the definition of hosted and unhosted short term rental uses which still reads "... require presence ... throughout..." and there was a question in the past as to whether or not that "throughout" could be modified to allow for people doing any number of errands that would take the host out of the residence. Ms. Brock responded that Mr. Levine had proposed using "live and sleep" to replace "require presence" which is used in the Census language and accomplishes the purpose. Mr. DePaolo turned to pg 3 iii which deals with proof of preexisting rental agreements and he thought we had discussed having an effective date that was far enough out to accommodate this like we did with the ADU law and save the administrative effort of receiving and recording existing agreements. Pg 5 second paragraph which deals with the number of days and whether or not someone gets automatic 90 days for satisfying one of the criteria. He said he had stated a suggestion of starting with a lesser number that will then escalate if there were no violations associated with a property then someone could move up to a greater number of days based upon renewal. He said his concern was that you could literally have two adjacent parcels that both comply with the setback requirements and one is on a 1 acre parcel and the other is on a 3 acre parcel and one person, just by virtue of being on a larger parcel, gets 90 days and the other person gets 29 which he thinks is something that needs to be discussed. He said he had suggested 60 days so we don't get repeated problems where we have already committed to allowing 90 days. TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 6 Pg 5 further down regarding notifications, he thought the notification(s) should happen before the rental because it would be helpful for Codes to know there is going to be activity in a certain area. It doesn't seem to be more burdensome on hosts prior versus post rental. Some discussion followed and Mr. Mosely will look into the feasibility of actually instituting an electronic notification system. Mr. Goodman said he is looking ad Wednesday, December 41h sometime after 3p.m. for the next STR Committee meeting. He asked for any comments, especially regarding the number of days, prior to that meeting. 6) Continue discussion on Green New Deal Mr. Goldsmith gave a powerpoint presentation on what the Town has done so far and future plans. (Attachment 6) Ms. Hunter asked about the funding for help figuring out how to help homeowners pay for these improvements and Mr. Goldsmith responded that he has applied for grants and that is a component of those grants. She commented that anything that can be done to help homeowners finance these improvements we may be requiring would be good. Some discussion followed on programs that have been rolled out in other municipalities where financing is done through one's property taxes and others. Mr. Goldsmith said they would be looking at everything out there. Ms. Hunter said it is important that we work with and develop relationships at the State level because we are going to need their help and this is an initiative they have also stated they are pushing and we can't do it alone. Ms. Hunter said traffic is a huge concern and contributor and we also need to work with TCAT to get to that source reduction. Mr. Goodman added that it was surprising to see the pie charts and just how much transportation accounts for getting to our goal. Mr. DePaolo asked if those transportation figures were the community as a whole and Mr. Goldsmith responded that he used the County's Transportation Study so it was transportation for the county parsed down to the Town of Ithaca using some assumptions. Mr. Goldsmith said TCAT had just reached out to him and he will pursue that relationship. 7) Discuss and consider creation of GIS Analyst position There was no discussion on this item as it has been discussed at the committee level for a while. TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 7 TB Resolution 2019 — 169: Creation of Position of Geographic Information Systems Analyst (GIS) under Civil Service. Whereas, the Town of Ithaca established compliance under the New York State Civil Service Agency to qualify employment positions in the Town of Ithaca in accordance with Section 22 of Civil Service Laws, Rules and Regulations; and Whereas, by regulation of Civil Service Law the Town must create a position and approve the job description before making an appointment; and Whereas, the Town has determined the need to create a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analyst position; now, therefore, be it Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby establish the following position in accordance with the applicable New York State and Tompkins County Civil Service rules: 1. The following position is established and is a position in the competitive class pursuant to Section 44 of the Civil Service Law: 1-(One) — Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analyst And be it further Resolved, the Town Board does hereby approve the job descriptions for the said position as created and monitored by Tompkins County Civil Service. Moved: Tee -Ann Hunter Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas Vote: ayes — Hunter, Bleiwas, Leary, Levine, Howe, DePaolo and Goodman 8) Consider Consent Agenda Items TB Resolution 2019 -170: 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 b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract d. Acknowledge Town of Ithaca Independent Audit for 2018 e. Approval of Floating Holiday f. Set records management day for December 13, 2019 from Sam to 1pm g. Recommendation to the County Legislature to reappoint Kelly Sauve as our Youth Services Board representative h. Approval of Revised Office System Job Classification Listing -2020 (Attachment 7) TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 8 i. Approval of job descriptions —Engineering j. Approval of Greater Tompkins County Municipal Health Insurance Consortium Employee Wages for 2020 Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Tee -Ann Hunter Vote: ayes — DePaolo, Hunter, Howe, Goodman, Leary, Levine and Bleiwas TB Resolution 2019- 170a: Approval of Minutes Resolved, that the Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes, as the final minutes of the meetings on September 23, October 3, October 21, November 6, 2019 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. TB Resolution 2019 - 170b: Town of Ithaca Abstract 22 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. 1469 - 1530 General Fund Town Wide 56,991.03 General Fund Part -Town 18,967.43 Highway Fund Town Wide DA 221.36 Highway Fund Part Town DB 42,288.19 Water Fund 9,412.41 Sewer Fund 2,632.04 State Route 96b Sidewalk — H7 10,497.90 Fire Protection Fund 266,000.00 Forest Home Lighting District 2,623.15 Glenside Lighting District 13.28 Renwick Heights Lighting District 22.23 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 31.14 Clover Lane Lighting District 4.17 Winner's Circle Lighting District 6.19 Burlei h Drive Lighting District 14.48 West Haven Road Lighting District 57.54 Coddin ton Road Lighting District 33.43 Debt Service 282,042.50 TOTAL 691,858.47 TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 9 TB Resolution 2019 - 170c: Bolton Point Abstract Whereas, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing 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. Voucher Numbers: 492-533 Check Numbers: 18653-18694 Capital Impr/Repl Project Operating Fund TOTAL Less Prepaid TOTAL $ 10,738.59 $ 51,295.34 $ 62,033.93 $ 38,085.28 TB resolution 2019 - 170d: Acknowledge receipt of independent audit for Town of Ithaca 2018 Resolved that the Town Board acknowledges it has received the independent audit for year ending 2018 by Sciarraba and Walker with no issues found. TB Resolution 2019- 170e: Approval of Floating Holidays for 2020. Whereas, there is an annual poll conducted of all town and SCLIWC employees to determine their preference for the next year's floating holiday for each location; now, therefore, be it Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the Floating Holiday for 2020 for Town Hall staff as Thursday, December 24, 2020 (moving half day holiday to December 23, 2020) as requested by a majority of the employees of Town Hall; and be it further Resolved, the Town Board does hereby approve the Floating Holiday for 2020 for Public Works staff as Monday, July 6, 2020 as requested by a majority of the employees of Public Works; and be it further Resolved, the Town Board does hereby approve the Floating Holiday for 2020 for SCLIWC staff as Friday, May 22, 2020 as requested by a majority of the employees of SCLIWC. TB Resolution 2019 - 170f. Setting Records Management Day for December 13, 2019 TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 10 Resolved that the Town Board approves of setting December 13, 2019 from Sam — noon as it's annual Records Management Day where the office will be closed. TB Resolution 2019 - 170g: Recommendation to the County Legislature for reappointment of the Town of Ithaca's Youth Services Board representative Resolved that the Town Board recommends that Tompkins County reappointment Kelly Sauve as its Youth Representative on the Youth Services Board TB Resolution 2019 - 170h: Approval of Revised Office System Job Classification Listing for 2020 Whereas, the Town Board adopted the current Office System Job Classification Listing in October 2012; and Whereas, the Human Resources Manager, utilizing the Job Classification Position Assessment program, has evaluated new positions, modified positions and vacant positions for adjustments to the Office System Job Classification Listing; and Whereas, the Personnel & Organization Committee has reviewed the recommendations by Human Resources and recommends the revised Office System Job Classification Listing, which includes changes due to the re-establishment of the Engineering Department and the creation or changes in positions for effective 2020; therefore, be it Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the revised Office System Job Classification System as submitted effective January 1, 2020. TB Resolution 2019 -170i: Approval of Revised Engineering related Job Descriptions Whereas, the Town Board re-establishment of the Engineering Department, effective January 1, 2020; and Whereas, the Personnel and Organization Committee reviewed the revisions made to the engineering related job descriptions and recommend approving the revised job descriptions; now, therefore, be it Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the revised job description for Senior Civil Engineer, Civil Engineer, Senior Engineering Technician and Engineering Technician I. TB Resolution 2019 - 170j: Approval of Greater Tompkins Co Municipal Health Insurance Consortium Employee Wages for 2020 Whereas, the Town of Ithaca was established as the "Employer of Record" for the Greater Tompkins County Municipal Health Insurance Consortium (Consortium); and TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 11 Whereas, the Consortium approved of the 2020 employee wages while approving the 2020 Budget at their September 26, 2019 meeting; Whereas, the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the proposed wages for Consortium employees for the year 2020; now, therefore, be it Resolved, the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the Consortium's 2020 wages as detailed below. Title 2019 wages 2020 wages Increase Executive Director $90,000 $91,800 2.0% Clerk of the Board $34.00/Hr. $34.00/Hr. 0.0% due to July 2019 adjustment Administrative / Computer Assistant $25.50/Hr. $26.01/Hr. 2.0% 9) Report of Town Officials Fire Contract — Mr. Goodman reported that the contract with IFD expires the end of the year and they are asking that we remove the requirement of hiring five volunteers for every hired regular firefighter. They would like to keep the four of the five positions that had been funded through a grant for the past few years. This removal of the requirement would only apply to this requested hiring. Discussion followed on the state of volunteer efforts here and country wide and bunker programs that are working in the Village of Cayuga Heights. Mr. Goodman added that TCOOG is working on this issue because many towns are grappling with the loss of volunteer roster numbers for their companies. The Board was in favor of allowing this concession. Mr. Goodman reported that they are thinking that the sale of the collegetown station will pay for the replacement station. They are still deciding on an East Hill location. Along the same lines, the leases for the land under the stations on East and West Hill have expired and will need to be renewed. It is $1 so a technicality but needs to be renewed. PWF Expansion/Renovation Project — Mr. Goodman reported that the revised estimate is approximately $900K with the new plans changing the HVAC equipment and removing the heat pumps. Both the heat pumps and the break room expansion will be listed as alternate bid lines. This allows us to put either alternate lines back in depending on the amount of the bids. TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 12 Mr. Goodman added that we will have to make a decision at that point regarding green building efforts. Mr. Weber responded that we meet the criteria set in our Green Building Policy without the beat pumps. Other Mr. Solvig reported on the sales tax revenue and interest dividends year to date. Ms. Drake gave an update on Health Consortium saying they are reviewing the agreement and a draft was sent out for comments from stakeholders. 10) Report of Town Committees/Intermunicipal Organizations — None 11) Review of Correspondence — None At 7:28 p.m. Mr. Goodman moved to enter executive session to discuss the employment history of a particular person followed by closed session to seek the advice of counsel. 12) Consider Adjournment Meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second at 7:47 p.m. Submilit' VZ Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk TB 2019-11-18 Pg. 13 TB N alilak"s I 1.. 18 1q Carolyn Beeman 11 Buttermilk Falls W Ithaca, NY 14850 The Board Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, 14850 RE: Plans for the Gateway Trail - Concerns Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board; We recently learned that the long awaited Gateway Trail is entering a new phase. I was alerted to this fact by my neighbor. I did not receive a letter concerning these plans despite being immediately adjacent to the proposed construction, construction that extinguishes a Right of Way (ROW) granted to our property which occurred on the building of the D L and W Railroad berm that at the time crossed the property. The north property line is now defined by the berm. We have been concerned about privacy because the proposed trail lies about 15 feet superior to my back yard. We spoke to Bill Goodman, the Town Supervisor about those concerns and shortly after received copies of the plans for fencing and privacy screening. While we think those are less than adequate, my letter is about something I discovered when I was able to download those plans and take a look at the fine print. Now that we have reviewed those plans in detail, we find that an element of the proposal which physically threatens our property and which constitutes an illegal taking by the town of the Right of Way (ROW) that passes through the RR berm. This ROW built in 1906 was granted at the time to permit the property owner access to the fields the RR ROW crossed when it was built. We have discovered thru the School of Hard Knocks, that this is not the only function of the ROW. It ALSO serves as an emergency flood valve, protecting the properties that are in the flood plain of the Inlet by preventing flood waters from backing up and submerging the properties in front of the berm. We live at the junction of Buttermilk Falls Creek and the Inlet. Joining the Cayuga Inlet slightly up hill (south) from this point are: • Lick Brook, • West Brook, • Fish Kill and • Enfield Creeks. When there are severe weather events in Danby, Newfield or Enfield, the water drains into Cayuga Inlet by these waterways which joint Cayuga Inlet just above Buttermilk Falls Creek. Do these events occur with any frequency? Yes, indeed they do. I believe they have affected every owner of the property since it was built, although there is no formal record of such events. We purchased 112 Buttermilk Falls Road in 2013. During our due diligence, it was not apparent that the property was in a flood plain. The National Flood Maps contain no indication that flooding affects the property. The mortgage holder required no Flood Insurance. However, on the night of June 15, 2015, my husband who had been recovering from a severe illness, and I were watching a video. The weather was cloudy and damp, but there was no rain. We heard a pounding on our back door. It was the fireman that lives next door. "You are surrounded by water!" he exclaimed. Indeed, about 18 inches of water was rapidly flowing through the property, so fast that stepping into it I was nearly knocked down. We ventured into the basement and saw that the west wall of the basement looked like Buttermilk Falls, because the hydrologic pressure of the flood waters was pushing thru the solid stone foundation wall. The sump pump was overwhelmed. The water was 30 inches deep and hovering 6 inches from the bottom of the electrical panel. We shut off the power to prevent a fire from shorts. The cause of the flood we found out the next day, was a severe thunderstorm over Danby and Newfield where roads and driveways had washed out closing roads and causing a lot of damage. Our losses: 2 thriving bee hives, total loss of bees and equipment, 3 vehicles, (1 of them 2 months old), numerous pairs of expensive leather shoes and purses from mold which developed in the ensuing months. Kitchen cabinets had to be cleaned with bleach numerous times, mold on wood bookshelves and books thru the first floor is still a problem. The monetary loss amounted to about $40,000 for the vehicles and $300 for the bees and equipment. Fortunately some of these losses were insured. But the time invested in replacing these and cleaning moldy surfaces repeatedly was not. It is not within your power to stop the flood events that have affected our property for the 150 years the house has been on the property. The hydrology is set by the drainage that can go nowhere but thru the creeks and into the Inlet. The construction of the berm obviously exacerbated these by blocking the drainage to the fields that have now been turned into asphalt parking lots and big box stores. However, it is within your power to leave the ROW underpass alone, or to shore it up if it has structural issues that are not apparent on a visual inspection. Blocking this underpass will have much larger damaging effects on our property in the next floods and potentially cause flooding of the neighboring property owned by John and Cathy Powers since the next lowest spot where the water will seek outlet is Route 13 under the Bridge to Nowhere. I am not a hydrologist or environmental engineer, but it is possible that closing the underpass may cause the blocked flood waters to flow down Route 13 at the bridge over the creek flowing from Treman State Park. It is also likely that overtime it will erode the railroad berm as the water seeks outlet to the Inlet threatening the Gateway Trail necessitating expensive shoring up to maintain the bed. It has also come to our attention that the fill material to be used to close the ROW will be scraped from the top of the berm, reducing its height. As we understand it the bed of the berm was cinder, a typical fill material in the early part of the century. Cinder, of course, is a waste material of the coal that was burned in the RR engines of the time. Cinder is frequently a toxic material with such heavy metal contaminants as lead, arsenic, mercury to name just a few. The bed as it exists now has had year over a 100 years to settle, the surface is likely no longer toxic. However, scrapping the top layer off will likely expose toxic levels. We believe it is the Towns responsibility to test the materials exposed at the surface of the berm and the proposed fill if it is used in any way in the construction and dispose of them in such a way that they do not threaten the surface soils on the resident's properties or the ground water of the wells from which the residents obtain their driving water. In Summary We are asking that the filling in of the ROW that passes through the berm be struck from the Gateway Trail Plan as it constitutes an illegal taking of a Right of Way granted to the Property at 112 Buttermilk Falls Road W at the time of the building of the D L and W Railroad line and insure that the underpass continues for function as it has since it was first build in at the turn of the century. Sincerely yours, Carolyn Beeman Donald Jones cc: John D Powers l��U,III71°I'll CILA; 21 To: Town Board, Town of Ithaca � F i 1,ii 1 V cS I 18 1112 0 1 Q 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, New York, 14850 From: John D. Powers 106 West Buttermilk Falls Rd. Ithaca, New York 14850 18 November 2019 The neighborhood of Buttermilk Falls is small. Basically it is five families, but are separated by the four lanes of Rt 13; the Elmira Rd. Life is different here than in other neighborhoods like those found on South Hill or in Eastern Heights sections of the Town of Ithaca (TO[). For the residents of the West Buttermilk Falls Rd. we have a big -box store; the Home Depot. We endure truck noise and sometimes a late -evening street -sweeper cleaning the parking -lots, and the annoying lights of the Home Depot that are on during all hours of darkness. Directly south of this is a woods and brush area belonging to the Buttermilk Falls State Park; the New York State Department of Parks and Recreation (NYSDPR). Directly to the east of my property is Rt 13, a four -lane highway that is the main thoroughfare for the greater Ithaca area; all parts north and south. Though the speed limit is listed as 30 mph it is only the more aware and prudent driver who obeys this posted limit that continues from the COI to a location just south of the Sand Bank Rd. where the speed -limit transitions from 30 to 45 mph.; this intersection just south of the Buttermilk Falls Rd. intersection. Most drivers and notably most trucks use this area to either accelerate when traveling south or to slow down when entering the COI. In reality the corresponding speed limits are more like 40 plus for the COI and 50 plus for north bound traffic. The noise associated with these higher speeds is extremely disruptive and when a truck's Jake -brake is added there can be no real piece. Then we have to add the road dust and salt into the environment, a portion of which seems to cover my property. Though there some very nice aspects associated with living here, I can say that living here is hard work, rarely quiet, and not clean. With the exception of leaving for education and related experiences I have been a legal resident of this property for my entire life of over 67 years and my family has owned the property since the 1930's. The current railroad berm that also has the boundary for the COI and TOI running through the center has transitioned from initially (I believe) the Lehigh Valley Railroad (LVRR) to the last rail operator Norfolk & Southern and when they abandoned their ROW the NYS Department of Parks and Recreation became the property owners. The berm was initially part of the New York State Parks and Recreation Black Diamond Trail, and many years ago the Parks Department conducted public presentations with public comment from the general public and people of standing; those owning property adjacent to the proposed trail. Many parts of the trail have been completed, but the responsibility for the local part of interest; that part in the southern part of Ithaca along incorporating the railroad berm has become the responsibility of the COI and TOI with the TOI taking the later lead. The nationally famous landmark, the "Bridge to Nowhere"; built in 2001 was, I believe, a joint project between the COI and TOI. With great fanfare the pre- fabricated bridge was erected with the designation of the "Gateway to Ithaca", the bridge decking placed, then chain -link fences placed at either end of the bridge to eliminate the opportunity for people to use the bridge, then the bridge would be forgotten and allowed to go into disrepair. A $15000 bridge inspection was conducted a few years ago and three years ago the 6" x 4" solid oak bridge decking started to rot and fall onto the sidewalk and roadway below. I took pictures of the rotten wood littering the sidewalk and outlined concerns for public safety and submitted them to the COI and TOI, but no action was taken. After a while my wife and I cleaned -up the mess and continued to remove bits'n pieces as they continued to fall. Eventually a COI DPW crew removed the remaining bride decking. Incidentally, my wife and I took responsibility for maintaining the area adjacent to the sidewalk under the bridge; the western side of the "Gateway to Ithaca". We mow, rake, and remove garbage fromm this area and in general along the highway. The only recognition we received for this was from a high-up offical of the NYS Department of Labor who was visiting the local office when it occupied a space in a commercial building just inside the COI limits on the west side. He came over and complimented my wife for her efforts while she was collecting trash from under the bridge. It is sad that the "Gateway to Ithaca" is neglected by both the COI and TOI. A few years ago a contractor proceeded to remove trees from the top of the railroad berm on both sides of Rt 13. This prompted a visit to the TOI and subsequent meetings with the Planning Department (PD) of the TOI. It is during these meetings I learned of the plans for the Gateway Trail; the scope of the project. I received plans for the trail project and then met with the Planning Department to discuss them. Years earlier, the day the "Bridge to Nowhere" was placed, I had a impromptu conversation with the then Mayor of the COI and a department head within the TOI. I brought up my concerns about privacy and security for my property. Both agreed that a chain -link fence boarding the trail on top of the berm would provide the best privacy and security for the residents. Problem solved. When this conversation was brought -up with the TOI PD concerning the current plans I was told the this would not be happening. On further evaluation of the plans there was no real consideration given to neighbor hood security and as far as privacy was concerned there were I I plantings called -out. Of the ten listed to act to provide "privacy" only five would grow to a height greater than three feet, and these five were probably spread out over a distance of approximately 150 feet. When questioned about these plantings 1 was sent a picture of a grove of trees, the same as the variety planned; the picture taken in the Eastern Heights area. It was an insult to receive these pictures as representative of plantings that would be provided here. I showed the plans to a licensed landscape architect and asked him to comment about the proposed plantings providing privacy for my household, and he was at best amused and generally appalled concerning the lack of sensitivity on the part of the planning department. When the issue of security was brought -up I was told that the TOI has had no problems with previous trail developments. I would think that he was referring to the trails associated with the watershed area and the eastern heights development. He obviously knew nothing about issues we deal with in our neighborhood. As the conversations continued I became very emotional over the TOI's lack of concern for our neighborhood, and the representative from the PD said, and this is a direct quote, "we are the Town of Ithaca, and we will do whatever we want to do and we don't have to tell you anything". That is the last time I had anything to do with the TOI PD. A few years has passed and nothing was done with the trail. I went to see Supervisor Goodman about another topic regarding an issue with the development just inside the COI. I asked Supervisor Goodman about the trail, and he indicated that the plans were currently under review by the Finger Lakes Region of the NYSDPR, and that a copy would be available after the review and approval was received from the FR/NYSDPR. I finally received a digital copy from Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, TOI on 29 Oct. I made these plans available to Carol Beeman and Don Jones, owners of 112 West Buttermilk Falls Rd. it was the first time they had heard of the trail development continuing past their property. I guess the first thing I would like to address is the lack of communication by the TOI PD. The PD was well aware of my concerns regarding this trail development years ago, and yet no attempt was made to approach the residents of the neighborhood of West Buttermilk Falls to make us aware of the new plans; plans that far exceed the scope of the previous plans. No attempt was made to ascertain our concerns regarding our privacy and security. My first thought was that they were living -up to their motto told to me earlier that "we are the Town of Ithaca, and we will do whatever we want to do and we don't have to tell you anything". I went to the PD's website and read the "What we do". It was cold and hard, it mentioned "residents" once, did not use the word "people" and I was surprised that I could not find a "mission" statement. I work for the COI Fire/Rescue, and we have a very clearly defined mission statement and we make it very clear that we "serve the people". I had no such feeling from what I saw form the PD's webpage. Maybe their quote to me should appear there. There is a legal term; one that most are probably well aware of and that term is "due regard" .... what a reasonable person would do in a similar situation. It is something that guides me in what I do for a living. The keyword is "reasonable", and in this case the question is, what would have been reasonable for the PD to do in a situation where their plans would have a very significant effect on residents privacy, personal and property security, and from what I am finding out now, the actual value of our property. There is also the issue of history of this project with the residents ..... where the project is a known emotional issue. To me and to anyone I have talked to including people involved in other municipalities it would have been reasonable for the TOI PD to approach the residents start an exchange of information .... concerns and ideas. It may be that I have to accept some responsibility for the untimely, late involvement in these processes as the plans were probably presented in regular board meetings. Well, shame on me, and I will not make the same mistake of expecting that the PD will act with "due regard" in the future. Okay, well what about the future? Would it be reasonable that based on what is happening now, the elected board members resolve to require that the PD notify residents with standing; that is those people that will be directly affected by projects not related to critical infrastructure like water and sewer projects. Would it be reasonable to expect that the TOI act to a higher level of standards with regards to being sensitive to the needs of the residents, the taxpayers of the TOI? This trail is not a critical infrastructure project affecting the welfare of the entire TOI community. Safety / Security I feel that the TOI PD is unaware of security issues we have here. Their knowledge of developing trails is in nice neighborhood areas. For example, Carol and Don of 112 West Buttermilk Falls Rd have to erect a barricade at their driveway entrance to prevent people from entering their property to turn around, and I have had people drive a large loop over my lawn to turn around. Where the current berm is concerned we constantly have people on the berm who see the West Buttermilk Falls Rd. from the top of the berm and cut across our property(s) to reach the road. More on this later. The proposed Gateway trail will end just west near the rear corner of Nome Depot. It will be a "trail to nowhere" and even if there is a sign indicating "dead end" on the trail, there will be people who will take the shortest distance available and use our property as a short-cut. The area to the west of 112 West Buttermilk Falls Rd (owned by the NYSDPR) and south of the berm is a wooded area with plenty of places to hide. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the "jungle" area within the COI. There have been several locations for this designation, but new areas have grown behind Walmart and behind Burger King. I will not try and describe the population that frequents these "camps" but there has been a history of deaths, medical problems including frequent ODs and other problems including fires. You can't walk around these camps without taking notice of the discarded hypodermic syringes and needles lying about. Easy access to and privacy seem to encourage the development of these types of camps and we fear that the "trail to nowhere" will encourage the gowth of these camps in our nearby areas. The trail will not be lit at night, and we also fear that there will be those who will take advantage of the ability to slip unseen into the rear yards of the bordering properties for the purpose of "no good". The Gateway Trail specifies a wooden three -rail fence Oft 6 inch high along the residential areas but this fence is more for "looks" than preventing people from crossing onto private property, and looks like it would be easy to climb over. I was told that I could install a my own chain -link fence at the bottom of the berm. Why should I have to protect myself from a problem that you are creating? Privacy The berm is elevated. The exact height varies little in the residential area and my estimate that it is between ten and twelve feet in elevation. Our back -yards; our property, our lives will be reduced to a public fish -bowl. I have included a picture ot'someone standing on the berm to show how easy it will be in invade our privacy- flow wOLdd YOU like this situation in Your back yard. Why would you plan, wily would YOU allow SOMethill- to happen to someone else that YOU Nvould not Nvant happen to you? Isn't that an example of "two sets of Riles". The people in -charge ofthis project go home at night this is our home ... we are already at home. As mentioned earlier there are eleven plants listed in the planting schedule. 011C Plantus occidentalis; the American sycamore that could grow tip to 6 feet per year. There are Five RhUS aromatica or fragrant SUrnac planned, this is a low -growing shrub, used more for ground -raver that can grow to be five -feet high but will be about 3 feet hioh for the, most part, Five Junipents virginiaria or red cedar is a moderate -growth rate tree and can grow at 24 inches per year but mostly 8-12 inches per year. They are not known as a large diameter tree and keeping them regularly watered is critical for the survival of new trees. So, of the ten plants scheduled to be planted on the trail adjacent to the 1 O6 West Buttermilk Falls Rd. property only five will reach any height and if these five Juniper are alternated with the other 5 sumac as scheduled, the Juniper will, be planted at a distance ol-'40 feet apart. A licensed landscape architect was CO11SUIted and asked if these plantings would provide even a minimally adequate privacy L7 barrier and they indicated that it would not. There are NO plantings scheduled for the trail along the boarder with 112 West Buttermilk Falls Rd. For the neighborhood issues of security and privacy, any solutions proposed would be met by the PD with an answer of ... no funding available. This probably would not be the case if the PD had not ignored the neighborhood of West Buttermilk Falls and had acted with due regard and involved the neighborhood in the planning of this trail. Flooding There is at "superstructure- as desi-noted in drawitio PL.-2, an underpass associated with 112 West 1� I" BUtterruilk Falls, Rd. Above file entrance to the "tUrInCl" there Used to be a inlay in the concrete with the Mate " 1906" which I imagine is the date ot'construction. The most important current function of this tunnel is as a flood relief' channel allowing water held -back by the current (proposed elevated trail berm to escape to the other side of'the berm. The need Im this tunnel to act as flood relief has been demonstrated many times over the last few decades and the current owners and past owners of. 112 West Buttermilk Falls Rd. will attest to this fact. I have include(] pictures of the flooding as It normally occurs, but when you loop a this picture please understand that this picture was taken during daylight hours, and the "crest" of the flooding occurred during darkness preventing Suitable photos to be taken and besides, the location that was used to take the illustrated photo was inUndated with swift-riloving water and was not it place you could stand. If you look at the picture to the h rigt of opening you call L� t7 see where the snow -fine stops because of the water level. here IS cl Picture of at person standing in the tunnel, and lie is indicating the relative height of file water at crest. The approximate flow cross-section is (,.;reamer than 45 sq, ft. through file tunnel I C- Other jActures show .... >171(ioding across Rt 13 looking South at the construction of' (lie new bridge at the intersection with Rt 13A. The NYS DOT had said that they were elevating Rt 13 dUrill" the new Construction to an �17 11 elevation higher than any expected flooding level. They obviously miscalculated. Z� Z7� >13titternulk Creek looking west flora the Rt 13 bridge, >The end of West Buttermilk Falls Rd.; the abandoned part, looking, east to Rt 13, There is a NYSE&G truck parked in front of' 112 West Buttermilk Falls ]Rd,, and water is still flowing across the road into 112 West Buttermilk Falls Rd.. A-ain, durinc, peak 1100(fill(I I Could not have oottell to the 10Cati0l) tile Picture was taken from and also would not have been able to stand there, To remove the "superstructure", that is to remove the tunnel will tremendously increase the amount of damage to 112 West Buttermilk Falls Rd. if not destroy the property, and cause flooding to continue eastward to Rt 13. This flooding has been perviously discussed with the TOI in years past and the flooding specific to 112 West Buttermilk Falls Rd. was discussed with the PD during conversations, rather emotional ones, concerning the first iteration of the Gateway Trail. Pictures of the flooding of this area can also be found in historical issues of the "Ithaca Journal". According to Planning Department head Ritter a SEQR was conducted several years ago by engineering consultants retained by the TOI and the SEQR was subsequently approved by the DOT. I have requested a copy of the SEQR, and we will check to see if it does take into account the flooding situation and address the impact of removing the "superstructure"; the tunnel associated with the 112 West Buttermilk Falls Rd. property, and does comply with NYS regulations that require a SEQR as prescribed in 6 NYCRR Part 617 as determined by authority of NYS Environmental Conservation Law Sections 3-0301(1)(b), 3-0301(2)(m) and 8- 0113. Knowledge of the flooding of this area has been in the public domain for decades. Possible flooding mitigation solution I have included a topographic map that roughly shows the area west of 112 West Buttermilk Falls Rd.; property owned by the NYSDPR. I have highlighted an area of the railroad ROW where, I believe, was washed-out in a flood occurring around 1926. Both sides of the berm were subsequently reinforced with rip -rap; very large stones. I believe that the concrete abutments from the old black -iron bridge acts to restrict the flow of flood waters causing the water to back-up; exacerbating the flood conditions to the south of the abutments, and the rip -rap berm reinforcements acting as a dam causing higher flood levels in the West Buttermilk Falls Rd. neighborhood. If this rip -rap was removed I believe that this would eliminate the dam effect, and possibly reduce the back-up of flood waters maybe to a point where the neighborhood would be spared from future flooding damage. An added advantage of removing the rip -rap would be to use this material to reinforce; to stabilize the bank of the Inlet where the floodwaters continue to erode the property now owned by the NYSDPR. No doubt the volume of soil lost during this erosion has significantly contributed to the demise of the flood control channel and the inlet to the lake in general, depositing thousands of tons of unnecessary material in these waters further compromising their ability handle water flow, and contributing to the cost of the eventual dredging of these channels. In this case, prevention costs less than the eventual remediation. Hazardous material The abandoned railroad ROW is covered to an unknown depth with cinders also referred to as boiler - slag. The EPA does not list cinders as a hazardous material, but the age of this material is over one - hundred years old, and the kind of coal burned and the conditions the coal was burned; the function of the boilers probably belonging to steam -traction engines is unknown. Cinders are known to contain arsenic and mercury. In drawing PL-2 there is a reference to the removal of the abutments; removal of the tunnel under the ROW, and that "item 203.03 is to be used to fill this area to grade. In drawing TYP-1 there is a reference to the material specified as item 203.03. This material, as removed to allow other material to be used as the foundation and top of the trail is mostly cinders, and will be used to fill- in the area left open by the removal of the tunnel associated with 112 West Buttermilk Falls Rd.. Left in -place the cinders don't seem to present a problem, but once disturbed it is unknown what effects this will have on the neighborhood; the environment and the well that supplies drinking water to the residents of 112 West Buttermilk Falls Rd., and possible other wells in the area. Before this material is disturbed I would like an analysis done on samples from a distributed area along the berm. I would like the collection of surface and core samples; the core samples taken 6" below the proposed material scheduled to be removed and the analysis to be conducted by a certified laboratory with experience in working with this material, and would like the results to be disclosed to the public in the same form as the results are delivered to the TOI. I am currently in the process of contacting Toxic Targeting of Ithaca to possibly get them involved in this matter. In closing The neighborhood of Buttermilk Falls is a small neighborhood. We have not got a large voter population, nor can we muster a large number of signatures that could influence TOI policy. It is because of this I feel that the TOI PD feels safe in ignoring us. I keep remembering the quote from the representative from the PD ... "we are the Town of Ithaca, and we will do whatever we want to do and we don't have to tell you anything". "They"; the TOI PD is not the Town of Ithaca. "We"; the residents, the property owners, the taxpayers, the voters, the people who live here ARE the Town of Ithaca. The Planning Department of the Town of Ithaca is supposed to represent the interests of all people, is supposed to work for the people, and should not be allowed to ignore, to reduce -to -nothing anyone living here for a project not related to critical infrastructure, and I think that the PD needs to "reinvent" itself, and issue a mission statement where the needs of the many and the needs of the one are equal. Perhaps the first sentence of their mission statement should be "We serve the people of the Town of Ithaca". Thank you, John D. Powers 102 & 106 West Buttermilk Falls Rd. E 12 19 2 III . . . .. ....... 33 90 1 yi Pryor SAE I Nip b 44 9 rn P. ... ..... . ... p A 'a f f 57 . ...... ...... PI ITMACA GATEWAY TRAIL B:CYCLEANI PLULSTIlIANI-11111 P N: 3754.52 0 131007 E SWTH TOM AND Cdly OF I fItACA, LOMPKINS �COUNTY UM YORK FISHER ASSMATVS -- :!a 2wafEaae I DAMS TYMAL 5FCTMt4 AUG ZVO ljj 5) MA 5LINE -PL-3 IIHACA GATEWAY TRAIL 8 CYCiZ AN D P ED 1- 7 RAN F Ar IU TY !N 3754.52 FISHER 0 f, SMITH TOWN AND CITY OF HIHACA, IOMPKINS SWIM; Y NEN YCRK ................ ASS..El WDAV=r-s I � .. ......... . . . ...... PIAM STA 5,50109rkiO,00 AUG V)19 J v cesc,Ul nawd OATr BY F 1 a 1,u 111Ic� S I 1 8 2 () I Short Term Rentals Points of concern from latest draft of local law adding STR revisions Mia Slotnick/Kenneth Simpson 11/18/19 p. 2:7he owner -occupant who must reside in the principal residence for a minimum of 185 days per year." How will this be policed? p. 2: "Operating permit required" How long will they be valid for? p. 2: "Before expiration or renewal of the OP, it shall be the responsibility of the owner to schedule an inspection with the Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Dept..." In a previous meeting, we were told by the Head of Code Enforcement that it would be impossible to inspect every unit due to lack of time and manpower. Will every unit actually be inspected? How will this be done? How will it be determined whether the OP will be renewed? There was previous discussion about neighbor complaints having influence on whether or not a permit was granted renewal. p. 4: "Over -occupancy. Verified over -occupancy shall constitute a violation of the OP." How will this be verified? p. 4: "The owner of any unit rented for an unhosted STR use shall provide enough DRIVEWAY parking spaces..." I am hoping this actually means DRIVEWAY parking spaces since in our neighborhood, we have witnessed destructive, unsightly, and extremely unsafe parking practices that hosts have resorted to to accommodate their guests' cars, such as parking within a hairpin turn, greatly obstructing visibility for cars trying to negotiate the turn, parking in new "parking spaces" created immediately contiguous with narrow twisting roads, as well as parking on top of garden beds and in front yards. Will off street parking be required for hosted STRs as well as unhosted? How will this off street parking requirement be policed? p. 2: "in a dwelling unit on an adjacent tax parcel that is owned by the same owner" Will this create an opportunity for full time B&Bs to be operating under the guise of a hosted STR? Will this then encourage hosts to buy adjacent properties? p. 6: "Mountain View -Take remedial action to resolve any and all complaints..." Would this include damage to neighbors' properties? We have suffered damages to our property caused by our short term renters in our neighbors' home, and both the home owner and the renter are refusing to reimburse us. T 111111,, a ii a ii dc� s 11... 181111,20 1 Q From: Bill Goodman To: Eric Levine; Pam Bleiwas; Pat Leary; Rich De Paolo; Rod Howe; TeeAnn Hunter Cc: Paulette Rosa; Susan H. Brock; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: STR comment from C. Greenwald for tonight"s TB Meeting Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 1:17:30 PM Hi folks, a comment from Carolyn Greenwald on the new STIR draft we will discuss tonight: "Just to point out the major changes, the new draft says all STIR can only be done in dwellings that are principal residences and the owner must live there 185 days per year. The draft also says that lakefront resident has "no limit on the number of days per year that a dwelling unit may be used for unhosted short-term rental." I think the second provision is intended to mean that a lake house can be un-hosted short term rental 365 days a year (indeed that is what it says). However, the first provision would make that impossible; the host would need to live in the house at least 185 days a year. Given the contradiction (and the history) I don't think this was intended in the drafting. I think the fix is that the exception for Agricultural, Conservation, lakefront Residential and Planned Development zones, needs to apply both to the principal resident requirement and the un-hosted requirement. Another fix is to revert back to the previous drafts when these zones were entirely exempt from the regulations." MVO:: ,Il ii a miiuV ;5 .III �11111l i i u i.:0 cm s I 1.. 181111,20 1 Q From: Mary Iandoli To: Paulette Rosa Subject: Unhosted STR draft proposal Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 3:56:50 PM To: Members of Ithaca Town Board The draft proposal scheduled to be presented November 18, 2019 is a result of many meetings hosted by the Board. The meetings, many of which I attended, began in March of this year. STR meetings were held as a result of three STR properties that were problematic to some of their neighbors. Neighbors shared their concerns of guests in these homes who created unacceptable noise levels and sometimes parked vehicles on the street. Eight months later, we are now at the draft proposal stage. The draft limits non hosted STR to 29 days. One can assume that limiting the number of days is not going to limit the noise and or parking issues. The noise and parking issue has not been solved. Yes, the owner can be contacted and then reach out to STR guests, demanding the noise be curbed. This is what a responsible host should be expected to do. However, owners who do not oversee their STR diligently, should be held accountable for the disruptions to a peaceful neighborhood. As a 20 year town of Ithaca resident and taxpayer, and a stellar host of our family's un hosted short term rental (I or my property manager reside across the street , but not adjacent to the property when rented) I find this draft to be punitive, and not the solution to the issues brought to the board. I encourage the Board to reflect on its rational of 29 days, and I strongly suggest the days be extended to 90 days and the noise problems be addressed more directly. Sincerely Mary Iandoli Town of Ithaca V4 Ili 011,, 7, ..... . ... -, 9MI. (Ij w &WIF"d Pffffmmmi�, IR a U111, mmmuA t` �mmmmm� �WU7NNlYLNR(YlPHif� ,u�w!vNNfi'Mr� �Nm��mm��pi ,mwrrmm�um VM1, wNmuuuu�uuuuuuioi� �mmmmm� �Ilrcmrrn�mii� Pfmmmm, V4 Ili 011,, 7, ..... . ... -, FxNYR6ffffmmd� w �F I V c" OFFICE SYSTEM JOB CLASSIFICATION LISTING Effective : 1/1/2020 TB Res#: updated V2020•II ng l)svq & other changes Class Civil Service Title BOLD = FLSA exempt -salaried positions I Highway Super./Dir Public Wks (40) Director of Planning (40) Director of Code Enforcement (40) 1)11rector of 11 n ilnee l 40 Town Clerk (40) H Human Resources Manager (40) Finance Officer (40) G Senior Civil Engineer w/PE 40 rrnnrn only) F Network/Records Specialist (37.5) Senior Planner (37.5) Deputy Finance Officer (37.5) Sr. Code Enforcement Officer (40) Iwo", Alrslysl (40) Senior Civil I rr llneer ^4cf E Planner (37.5) s usLallnalrlfty "klalr l"1C,,;,r ("4o) Electrical/Code Enfcmt Offcr (40) Civil Engineer 40 D Administrative Assistant IV (TH-37.5 P- 40) Principal Account Clerk Typist (37.5) Bookkeeper to the Supervisor (37.5) Court Clerks salaried 37.5 C I bepGlly iG°survlr Ckel'lk (3"7 5) Administrative Assistant III TH-37.5 P- 40 B Deputy Town Clerk (37.5) CITY OF 11 11ACA 31.0 Wi��st (ireen Street ltliaca, New York 14850-5,49"1 OFFICIi OFTHE FIRE, ('111IF"T Tclvplujnv� 60"1 2-72-1234 Fav 00- 2'2-2-91 To: Svante Myrick, Mayor Ithaca Town Board City of Ithaca Common Council City of Ithaca Public Safety and Information Commission From: Tom Parsons, Fire Chief Date: October 2"", 2019 Re: Quarterly Fire Chiefs Report for 2019 (Third (quarter) ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION A I 1) Career Personnel Report PERSONNEL STAFFTNG LEVELS I Chief 0 Deptity Chief (unfunded vacancy) 6 Assistant Chiefs 8 Lieutenants 50 Fire Fighters 65 Uniform Personnel I Administrative Coordinator Total employees as of September 30"', 2019 — 66 a) Vacancies, Retirements, Hiring, and Promotions • There is one vacant firefighter position. A recruit firefighter was terminated in August after not completing the probationary period. '17he position will remain unfilled in 2019. • Firefighter Brian Pendell announced his retirement effective October 3 1 2019. His position will not be filled this year, Page 2 of 6 - Fire Chief s Report for Third Quarter 2019 October 2°d, 2019 Lieutenant Thomas Basher Jr. was promoted to Assistant Fire Chief on September 8d', 2019. The promotion is filling the vacancy created by Assistant Chief Deis' retirement in August Firefighter Trevor Peyus was promoted to Fire Lieutenant on September 8d', 2019. The promotion is filling the vacancy created by Assistant Chief Basher's promotion Firefighter Christopher Hamilton was promoted to a Temporary Fire Lieutenant Position. His promotions are filling a position for Lt Greg Stilwell who is off work on extended injury leave. b) Firefighters on Injury Leave • There are one firefighter and one fire lieutenant off work on injury leave. One firefighter and one fire lieutenant are currently undergoing treatment, and it is undetermined when they will return to work. 2) Budget Report and Labor Contract a) We are well into 2019, and our expenditures and revenues in line with expectations except our overtime expenditures are higher as the result of the number of firefighters off on injury and extended leave. A summary of the 2019 budget is attached. b) The Firefighter and Fire Officer Labor Contracts were settled in March of 2018. The firefighters and fire officers received a 1.5% salary increase on 1/1/2019 and recieved another salary increase of 1.5% increase on 7/1/2019. The firefighters and fire officers will receive a 2.75% salary increase on 1/l/2020. The current labor contracts expire on 12/31/2020. 4) Grants and Donations a) In December of 2018, I submitted a grant application to FEMA for $187,000 in funding to replace the 25-year-old exhaust extraction systems in all of the fire stations. The department was notified in September that it was awarded a FEMA grant for $169,730 to be used to replace the exhaust extraction systems in all of the fire stations. There is a 10% local contribution of $16,973 required by the terms of the grant. The funding will be included in the 2020 budget. b) I also submitted a second grant application to FEMA for $543,000 in funding to replace our 30-year-old Heavy Rescue Truck. We did not receive an award for this grant. Page 3 of 6 - Fire Chiefs Report for Third Quarter 2019 5) Apparatus October 2"d, 2019 a) We have issued a purchase order for a new Aerial Platform Truck, that will be replacing our 1998 Aerial Platform Truck. The truck will be delivered in the Summer of 2020. 5) Fire Training Center a) In 2018, we received a structural report on our Rope Tower and our Fire Training (Burn) Building. The report indicates that repairs to the Fire Training Burn Building are needed if we are to continue to use the building. The building cannot be used for live -fire training until repairs are made or the building is replaced. b) We also received a report from the NYS Labor Department also indicating that repairs and additional work on the building need to be completed before the building can be used for live fire training. While we are considering the possibility of building a new fire training building and a new rope tower, we have performed repairs and modifications to the building to bring in into OSHA compliance. An engineering analysis will be performed later this year to determine if the building is safe to use for live fire training after the repairs have been made. LIFE SAFETY DIVISION Fire Prevention Bureau 1) Code Enforcement Division: The following is a list of Activities through the Third Quarter of 2019: Complaints Received 266 Referred to the City Building Division 144 Referred to the Town of Ithaca 51 Investigated by the Fire Prevention Bureau 71 Inspections: 1179 City - Fire Safety & Property Maintenance 285 City - Permit Required City Fire Safety 407 Town Fire Safety & Property 143 City — Fire Sprinkler System 74 City - Alternative Fire Protection System 7 City - Fire Alarm System 95 City — Standpipe Hydrostatic Test 1 Page 4 of 6 - Fire Chiefs Report for Third Quarter 2019 October 2"d, 2019 City - Standpipe Flow Test 8 City — Fire Pump Flow Test 3 City — Elevator Inspection/Test 93 City — Water -based Fire Prot. Plan Review 35 City — Fire Alarm System Plan Review 23 City — Alternative Fire Suppr. Plan Review 5 Permits or Certificates: 706 Operating Permit — Assembly Occupancy 166 Operating Permit — Large Assembly Occupancy 39 Operating Permit — Hazardous Occupancy 10 Operating Permit — Lumber Yard 2 Operating Permit — Elevator 183 Operating Permit — Fireworks 1 Operating Permit — Install or Modify FPS 78 Operation Permit — Food Truck 14 Operation Permit — Parking Garage 1 Certificate of Compliance — Commercial Insp. 123 Certificate of Compliance — School 0 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Alarm 49 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Sprinkler 11 Certificate of Compliance - Fire Pump 1 Certificate of Compliance — Fire Standpipe 6 Occupancy Posting Certificate 15 Certificate of Compliance - Alternative Suppression 7 2) Fire Investigation Unit: The Fire Investigation Team investigated nine fires through the third quarter of 2019. There were six fires investigated in the City of Ithaca, and three fires were investigated in the Town of Ithaca 3) Public Education and Special Events Public Education Events: 12 Fire Drills Witnessed: 2 Child Safety Seat Inspections: 37 Page 5 of 6 - Fire Chief's Report for Third Quarter 2019 �3' :: ti [�►1;y ��i�� C�TI 1) Emergency Response: October 2"d, 2019 Januarthrough September 2019 Responses - 3930 Incidents City of Ithaca: 2839 Incidents (72.24%) Fires: 48 Overpressure/Rupture 5 EMS/Rescue: 1135 Hazardous Conditions: 137 Service Calls: 189 Good Intent: 464 Alarms/No Fires: 847 Severe Weather: 12 Other: 2 Town of Ithaca: 1072 Incidents (27.28%) Fires: 25 Overpressure/Rupture: 1 EMS/Rescue: 627 Hazardous Conditions: 35 Service Calls: 33 Good Intent: 154 Alarms/No Alarm: 195 Severe Weather: 2 Other: 0 Mutual Aid: 19 Incidents (0.48%) Fires: 2 Overpressure/Rupture: 0 EMS/Rescue: 4 Hazardous Conditions: 2 Service Calls: 3 Good Intent: 7 Alarms/No Fires: 1 Severe Weather: 0 Simultaneous Incidents: 829 Incidents (21.09%) Page 6 of 6 - Fire Chief s Report for Third Quarter 2019 October 2nd, 2019 Volunteer Recruitment and Retention 1) There is currently 1 Active Scene Support Volunteer Firefighter and 10 Active Volunteer Fire Police. There is no active firefighter who is an interior firefighter qualified. 2) There are three volunteer firefighters who resigned from the department in the last six months. Two have moved out of state, and one relocated to the Town of Dryden and joined the Dryden Fire Department. _ n P 8E B' 8E E? 6E 6E BE b° � 8E 8° BE 6E 6E F° Ff S`. B' 6E h R M W M - - P O Bululcuis J M N M M d co M P R P M R M h M N lUe�led 09p O O •- R N h p. pp pN O d w h O p<p fl% papuedxg ri O R. e " vNi upi o . �i c cq cv P h O P N - CO ri h Q R In ems. ^o M C Cl!Osert - m d `Rp C%l nosing Bu{uloii 00ceil 0 N IUeWYBDUDW n: o R M N P AsusBzswg ^ v R N G p. O M •8 M -- O R V O cm4 n b OV. C t 0599tOD 4 C h M CSP - N C^V P In M I,: uoIlseS lWddng O• P `RO tR.. n N � 00SSt N of co cli �+ UollseS esuodseg N cr N o R O O co ,p R h u0110eS AteiDS M ri N o N 00at nosing uoIlueneid 04J �'1 N 4D O M O h O O N i'•. VI a', � 05ml Buluuold cc No a R o N aS N (I Np co h o M y UORD$sfulUPv — sje"nN lunossv n �= c - n N o n N vi o_ n pry R nn n R a O in < ,n V o ,n O •0 V h o 10 Q ppv O pN pp� 8O ppR cq pp N OOV ppQ o O O 0P O O O M CQ - M Vf O N 0 6 C4 u] V O O a0 a0 Cp P leBPng '^ n �d a o Q v uS > u o cr o > S e C z= «° u c a g g io 0 0 04 C14 (Y) • 0 C) 0� 0 0 C) CD Ol 04 b9- 0 CD W) 0% 2 0 0 10 cl 0 Ol W) 0 iD m > < 0 f-� Cy. m 04 6 0 to 10 0 o (D cli 0 co") co 0 N to bo+ 64 vt t4 to tPr VI. U) w c C) w E U> 10 in 04 Clt co �a tq N r,� o 0 0 o boo+ 6+ to+ #.0+ to+ V). 0 It �j. o. C%i a- Q, Q) tn (n 0 Q. CD C3 N10 O zC > 8 O co &. 0. M 0 0. C4 "It C4 m C4 Go z W 0 LO Q CZ 0 § 0 '0 CO w C'! 0 a 0 0 0 CZ 0 Go C,:O. 0 OD 10 0 0 r-I �2 b+ e+ t—o9. too* tolr to+ t0i. 6+ bpr to+ 6�r b0g+ to+ to+ 40 u u V) Ol 0 LO C) 0, ZR — Z8 — — Z8 10 m m C14 C'N C*4 C14 N 04 04 C14 v ag c - 0 X 3: 0 M u —0 40 0 > 0 U u CL C va A= c 0 OL CN 0 0 V) (D (1) E > — Lb r lu lu 4) u u E CL E 0 C4 a 0 C 0 C > 0 z so CL (A 0 a 0 E a (D u OL > C 0 4) Oe cr to .;fl 0 4A -5 CY a) E 0 0 0 lu fh a) X) a) 'D *a 0 cn U- LU u u CL 0 V) 0 u 0 0 0 u cn — 0 c 2 cd () 0 E CL c c 0 0 ac a? T 0 M (D Oe 0 w IL i 6Ir .9- 0 o C,,g�14Q��4 na'eo` �a�000a m? rj�i� �_ oa00000N.-v000 m IL olg�.-000�e�oNo e� N e- m �v C~ N O O O O O O O O O O O 2 m mm O O O O O O O O O O O O 0)1 3 O O O Cn•t0000 P c+1 N 000 x� m mO 0 2cn0000rronoNo W ((mm�(ppp Q: 2 LL ZO 0 m m a ... .... ... .. ........... IIW � Cc 0 LL 0 L) Z 0 CL > co 0 U) W 0 w a m 0 a al 0 mi CD 0 0 0 0 C3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co C14 OD (D -It CN ,q 1.-0 8-0- -.0- $ CD CD 0 C) 0 C) © 0) 00 (D ix) Nr Cl) cli - Ithaca FD Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {O1/01/2019) and f09/30/2019) Incident Type 100 Fire, Other 111 Building fire 113 Cooking fire, confined to container 114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or 115 Incinerator overload or malfunction, fire 116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined 118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 120 Fire in mobile prop used as a fixed struc, Othe 121 Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence 123 Fire in portable building, fixed location 130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire, Other 131 Passenger vehicle fire 132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 134 Water vehicle fire 137 Camper or recreational vehicle (RV) fire 140 Natural vegetation fire, Other 141 Forest, woods or wildland fire 142 Brush or brush -and -grass mixture fire 143 Grass fire 150 Outside rubbish fire, Other 151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 160 Special outside fire, Other 162 Outside equipment fire 170 Cultivated vegetation, crop fire, Other 200 Overpressure rupture, explosion, overheat other 221 Overpressure rupture of air or gas pipe/pipelin 231 Chemical reaction rupture of process vessel 243 Fireworks explosion (no fire) 251 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no ignition 300 Rescue, EMS incident, other 300lGorge Rescue, EMS incident, Ground Evacuation 3002Gorge Rescue, EMS incident, Low Angle Rope 311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 320 Emergency medical service, other 321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injur 322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Fed) 324 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 331 Lock -in (if lock out , use 511 ) 3311Lock-in / Knox Box Access Required 3312Lock-in I Force Entry Required 341 Search for person on land 01/01/2019 01/01/2018 01/02/2017 01/01/2016 to to to to 09/30/2019 09/30/2018 09/30/2017 09/30/2016 10 7 4 6 32 30 27 29 9 12 12 13 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 r 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 4 7 6 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 6 1 13 0 3 0 0 3 5 2 5 0 3 1 5 4 2 4 4 5 8 5 5 1 5 3 5 2 4 1 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 e 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 2 2 9 5 11 4 1 1 4 3 0 2 1 0 21 33 21 18 51 68 49 76 y 1568 1452 1541 1434 46 53 60 65 12 15 9 14 31 27 24 29 0 0 0 1 6 6 3 3 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 10/01/2019 10:40 Page 1 Ithaca FD Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between 101/01/20I91 and 109/30/20191 Incident Type 342 Search for person in water 350 Extrication, rescue, Other 350lGorge ae000e w/o Rope Systems 35I Extrication of victim(s) from building/atcoctor 352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 354 Trench/below-grade rescue 355 Confined space rescue 356Ieorge Rescue, w/ High -angle mope Extrication 360 Water a ice -related rescue, other 361 Swimming/recreational water areas rescue 363 Swift water rescue 365 Watercraft rescue 371 Electrocution or potential electrocution 381 Rescue or EMS standby 400 Hazardous condition, Other 410 Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition, 411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 413 oil or other combustible liquid spill 420 Toxic condition, Other 421 Chemical hazard (no spill or leak) 422 Chemical spill or leak 424 Carbon monoxide incident 431 Radiation leak, radioactive material 440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, Other 441 Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/wor� 442 Overheated motor 443 Breakdown of light ballast 444 Power line down 445 arcing, shorted electrical equipment 451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 460 Accident, potential accident, Other 46I Building or structure weakened or collapsed 463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 471 Explosive, bomb removal (for bomb scare, use 480 Attempted burning, illegal action, Other 481 attempt to burn 500 Service Call, other 510 Person in distress, Other 5I1 Lock -out 512 Ring or jewelry removal 520 Water problem, Other nz/nz/oozo oz/oz/ouzn 01/01/2017 01/01/2016 to to to to 09/30/2019 my/sn/uozo oy/ap/uvzv 0e/30/2016 V O l O z 2 3 2 l 2 0 O e O U l l n l 2 2 9 ll 20 11 O O O l O l O 0 1 z 1 u O O O l O 2 I O 2 l 3 O 3 O I 3 I V O O 2 U l l 31 20 28 43 I 2 « 3 G lO 6 10 45 67 44 71 1 ] 2 4 O O l 0 2 l 2 3 2 O l 1 20 26 15 11 0 l O D ll 16 10 13 o 3 l 4 2 lO 6 5 6 I 2 l 2 19 40 38 32 12 15 9 7 l O l l 2 2 z 2 2 2 U O 4 3 O 5 0 U V I U O I O l O l O 122 89 87 76 6 3 O 8 9 lO 7 7 l O O O 7 13 6 19 I0/01/20I9 10:40 gage 2 Ithaca FD Incident Type Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between (01/01/20191 and (09/30/2019) 01/01/2019 to 09/30/2019 521 Water evacuation 1 522 Water or steam leak 12 531 Smoke or odor removal 5 540 Animal problem, Other 0 541 Animal problem 2 542 Animal rescue 8 550 Public service assistance, Other 7 551 Assist police or other governmental agency 18 552 Police matter 4 553 Public service 554 Assist invalid 555 Defective elevator, no occupants 561 Unauthorized burning 571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 600 Good intent call, Other 611 Dispatched & cancelled en route 6111Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Dispatcher 6112Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Bangs 6113Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CUEMS 6114Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CU EH&S 6115Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IC Safety 6117Dispatched & cancelled en route - By MA Dept 6118Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IPD 6119Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Other 621 Wrong location 622 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch address 631 Authorized controlled burning 641 Vicinity alarm (incident in other location) 650 Steam, Other gas mistaken for smoke, Other 651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke 653 Smoke from barbecue, tar kettle 661 EMS call, party transported by non -fire agency 671 HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat 700 False alarm or false call, Other 7001False alarm or false call, Other - Medical Alarm 710 Malicious, mischievous false call, Other 711 Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm 713 Telephone, malicious false alarm 714 Central station, malicious false alarm 715 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 721 Bomb scare - no bomb 730 System malfunction, Other 7 8 0 6 2 42 13 10 190 29 171 62 6 7 2 1 54 0 1 0 9 2 0 1 25 6 59 12 1 0 14 1 0 32 01/01/2018 01/01/2017 01/01/2016 to to to 09/30/2018 09/30/2017 09/30/2016 5 6 9 9 11 13 10 6 8 1 0 0 1 2 1 5 1 1 5 11 7 17 12 20 3 5 3 8 7 9 6 4 7 3 1 0 7 4 5 1 1 4 43 44 61 7 6 8 25 22 14 215 261 242 22 18 30 152 145 147 66 69 82 0 11 13 10 11 9 4 1 1 0 0 0 61 48 27 1 2 1 1 3 0 3 0 1 10 20 12 4 2 4 1 0 1 1 2 1 25 33 38 15 4 33 39 42 59 4 5 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 10 17 22 4 6 1 0 1 0 27 38 25 10/01/2019 10:40 Page 3 Ithaca FD PeriodIncident Type Comparisons 11 Alarm Date Between (01/01/2019) and (09/30/2019) Incident Type 01/01/2019 01/01/2018 01/01/2017 01/01/2016 to to to to 09/30/2019 09/30/2018 09/30/2017 09/30/2016 731 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 13 10 3 10 733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 65 75 63 77 734 Heat detector activation due to malfunction 9 12 6 6 735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 52 49 88 64 736 CO detector activation due to malfunction 22 16 21 22 740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, Other 90 89 88 61 741 Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional 20 19 17 12 742 Extinguishing system activation 0 0 3 0 743 Smoke detector activation, no fire - 491 450 454 396 744 Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 51 59 54 70 745 Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 103 113 159 103 746 Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 2 6 8 9 800 Severe weather or natural disaster, Other 11 1 3 0 812 Flood assessment 0 0 2 0 813 Wind storm, tornado/hurricane assessment 3 3 1 0 900 Special type of incident, Other 0 1 4 3 911 Citizen complaint 2 0 1 0 Totals 3930 3864 3976 3863 10/01/2019 10:40 Page 4 a