No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2016-05-23Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday,May 23,2016 at 4:30 p.ni. *Study Sessions are meetings ofthe Town Board which generally focus on committee reports and informational presentations.Time sensitive action items may be scheduled when needed.Please contact the Town Clerk's office at 273-1721 or Dterwilliser@town.ithaca.nv.us with any questions. Agenda 1.Call to Order 2.Residential Energy Score Program (RES?)Presentation - Nick Goldsmith 3.Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting 4.Discuss comments on the DGEIS for Chainworks 5.Discuss request for support for INKS'petition to the State re.:property taxes 6.Ratify appointment of Senior Engineering Tech -Public Works a.Appoint Town Engineer 7.Committee Reports a.Budget b.Planning c.Public Works d.Personnel and Organization e.Codes and Ordinances 8.Consider Consent Agenda Items a.Approval of Town Board Minutes b.Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Create Administrative Assistant I-V positions and Information Aide position d.Ratify appointment of Records Management Project position -Deputy Town Clerk e.Ratify appointment of Information Aide -Public Works f.Authorize Federal Work Study Agreement 9.5:30 p.m.Public Hearing regarding a proposed local law entitled "Authorizing a Monetary Gift to the City of Ithaca to Support Rangers for the Six Mile Creek Gorge" a.Consider Adoption 10.Board Comments,Official's Reports and review of Correspondence TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I,Paulette Terwilliger,being duly sworn,say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County,New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper,ithaca Journal: •ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE •NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS •NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL •NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ORDER Local Law for Monetary Support to the City of Ithaca for Gorge Rangers Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Town website at www.town.ithaca.nv.us Date of Posting:5/13/2016 Date of Publication:5/17/2016 Paulette Terwilliger Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this _Z_^^rday of 2016. Nota°PuMo°®f"3'fline so Legals 050 Town of Ithaca Public Hearing ' The Ithaca Town Boartl wi#I iitfts)hokJ a public hearing el its I AKA meeting on May 23.2016be-i BDTT ginning at 5:30 p.m.regartl-' [al;ing a proposed local law enti-1 tied 'Authoriring a Monetary r If (si:Gift to the Dty of Iduea to ij SSO-Support Rangers for the Six » jmmii Mile Creek Gofge"al which s ishWI,tune anyone interested in c 252<l.commenting onthe proposed L iryjii law wiH be heard.Com-It f fore-menls or Cjuestions on theP ranted proposed local law canbe d-p ch 11.reeled to the Town Clerk and S ;Auc-the draftis available onltreat 6 der at www.iown.ithaca.ny.u8 Court-Pauletle Terwilliger Town Oerk ^ 5/17/2016 2toam JHID- -unTir.ETOBJDDFR«- Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday,May 23,2016 at 4:30 p.m. Minutes Board Members Present:Bill Goodman, Supervisor; Rod Howe, Deputy Town Supervisor; Pat Leary,Tee-Ann Hunter,Eric Levine,and Pamela Bleiwas Absent:Rich DePaolo Staff Present:Susan Ritter,Director of Planning,Bruce Bates,Director of Code Enforcement; Mike Solvig,Director of Finance,Judy Drake,Director of Human Resources;Paulette Terwilliger,Town Clerk;and Jim Weber,Highway Superintendent 1.Call to Order -Meeting called to order at 4:30 p.m. 2. Residential Energy Score Program (RESP)Presentation - Nick Goldsmith and Emily Cuppemell Ms.Cuppemell went through a powerpoint presentation and executive summary (Attachment 1) explaining the status of the project and the next steps. Mr. Howe asked if this there is a cost to the homeowner and Ms.Cuppemell responded that the hope is to have a pilot program with about 250 homes done and paid for but in general,the cost would be about $300-$500. Mr.Goodman asked about what type of funding they hope to get and who would be implementing the program.Ms.Cuppemell Responded that NYSERDA is very excited about this program and hoping the program will become a model for other municipalities and/or counties.Some other utility providers are also interested and there are some state and federal grants out there for carbon reduction as well as local foundations.She stated that the implementer would be a private company or non-profit group such as Cooperative Extension. Ms.Hunter asked what the vetting process would be for the evaluators and what type of oversight to ensure the ratings are accurate and not skewed toward one thing or another. Ms. Cuppemell stated that there are existing certifications in place right now; one is mn by the Department of Energy and the other is RESNET and both are strictly monitored and randomly checked and an extensive probationary period for evaluators before they can be fully certified. Mr. Howe asked about the historical "special"conditions and she responded that there would be annotations on the Score when applicable because of some things that simply can't be done to a historical house. Mr.Goldsmith reiterated that this is the time for comments from the board and the public on anything that raises a question or concem.They will be taking comments for another few weeks and then use those comments to revise the draft and come back to the board for acceptance of the program. TB 05-23-2016 pg. 1 Mr.Goodman moved item 5 up on the agenda Discuss request for support for INHS'petition to the State re.:property taxes Paul Mazzrella,Executive Director,INHS Mr.Mazzarella explained that this is a request for Tompkins County to have the authority to assess certain types of properties at below market values and those properties would be properties that are developed under Community Land Trust Models which are used to create permanently affordable for sale homes and they are permanently affordable by a mechanism that separates the land transaction from the building transaction.In these properties,INHS retains ownership of the land and sells the improvements to the homeowner at below market price because we receive subsidies.The issue that has arisen is that the Assessment Department believes they do not have the authority to value these properties at prices other than the full fair market value without consideration of the subsidies or underlying deed restrictions on the properties.This makes the homeowners pay full market value taxes and make them unaffordable to some who would otherwise be able to afford them. Mr.Mazzarella used Hollycreek as an example saying that a townhouse was sold for $104,900 and it is assessed at $165,000 with an increase in taxes of about $1,900 a year. The homeowner can't recover that money because the deed restrictions also have limits on what the home can be sold for in the future.He added that the Greenways project became unfeasible in part because of this issue. Mr.Mazzarella noted that the County is fully on board with this and has helped him draft the resolution and the law and it will only apply in Tompkins County and the County Legislature and the City of Ithaca have passed resolutions in support of this. Mr.Levine stated that he is very familiar with this problem in his position at Alternatives and he feels it is not fair to the homeowner to tax them on fair market value which is what you can sell a house for but they can't sell it at that, so it isn't the true market value or fair market value. Ms.Leary stated that she is in favor of this and that it also would demonstrate our commitment to affordable housing. Mr. Goodman stated the net effect would be about $300 per unit for the town taxes and the same if not slightly higher on the school taxes. Ms.Hunter asked about complexes like the one near the hospital and Mr.Mazzarelli responded that those are rentals and fall under a different law; the law he wants only applies to owner- occupied. TB Resolution 2016 -080:Urging New York State to Amend the Real Property Tax Law to Allow Tompkins County the Option to Provide a Partial Exemption to Residential Properties Subject to Resale Restrictions Whereas,there is a demonstrable and critical shortage of affordable housing within Tompkins County;and TB 05-23-2016 pg. 2 Whereas,the Town of Ithaca has attempted to address that shortage through a number of measures,including approving the development of new affordable rental and owner-occupied homes in the Town of Ithaca;and Whereas,Section 501(c)(3)of the Internal Revenue Code allows for the creation of nonprofit entities that have as one of their purposes the acquisition of land to be held for the primary purpose of providing affordable homeownership through the implementation of deed or ground lease restrictions;and Whereas,the nonprofit agency is subject to an initial regulatory agreement restricting purchase of these properties in accordance with an income test; and Whereas, such programs are known generically as community land trusts, and Whereas, with the support and encouragement of the Town of Ithaca, the community land trust model is being utilized in Tompkins County as a means to develop affordable housing that remains affordable throughout its existence by means of limitations on future re-sale prices; and Whereas,while the limitation on resale prices promotes long-term affordability.New York State's Real Property Tax Law does not allow consideration of such limitations when determining the assessed valuation of property participating in a community land trust, resulting in assessed values that can far exceed the restricted re-sale value of the property and a property tax burden well in excess of that borne by properties that have similar re-sale values in the marketplace;and Whereas, this adverse element of the Real Property Tax Law is deterring the development and purchase of homes through the community land trust program and is therefore exacerbating the shortage of affordable housing in Tompkins County;and Whereas,it is in the interest of Town of Ithaca to address that deterrent to the development of affordable housing;now therefore be it Resolved,that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca urges the New York State Legislature to amend the Real Property Tax Law by creating a new section of law that would allow Tompkins County,by local law, to grant a partial exemption equal to the difference between the full resale value absent any restriction and the maximum resale value of said property established by said ground lease to residential properties located on land owned by a nonprofit entity and subject to a ground lease or deed restrictions which restrict the resale price of the property for at least 30 years. Moved:Eric Levine Seconded:Pamela Bleiwas Vote:Ayes -Levine,Bleiwas,Goodman,Leary,Hunter and Howe 3.Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting -Brief review 4.Discuss comments on the DGEIS for Chainworks TB 05-23-2016 pg. 3 Mr.Goodman stated that Mr.DePaolo's comments and the Planning Department comments were sent to the board. Mr.Goodman had a few comments on Mr.DePaolo's comments on Chapter 5 which desdt with environmental impacts and mitigations and the Public Health and Environment in particular associated with the pollution.(Attachment 2)Top of page 3 under Additional Mitigation - talked about the lists which refer to future studies which can't be commented on and he asked Ms.Ritter how that would be handled;would they have to do a supplemental GEIS when those studies are done? Ms.Ritter responded that she didn't know about a supplemental but they would definitely have to provide proof from DEC that the site was safe. She added that the DGEIS does say throughout that they are waiting for DEC comments and approvals. Mr.Goodman went on to say that in many instances it says mitigations A, B, C or D would be used but if these studies come back with something else,would that be a change that would trigger a supplemental GEIS and Ms.Ritter responded that is a good question and she will ask about that type of scenario.If new information is received it may trigger something and at the site plan process,SEQRs are done and new information will come to light. Ms. Hunter turned to the Planning Board comments and staff comments with a few clarifying questions and stated that she thought they were very good. Mr.Goodman moved that the town board accept the comments submitted by Mr.DePaolo as the town's comments and authorize him to send them to the Lead Agency.Seconded by Mr.Howe, unanimous. 5.Moved up ~Discuss request for support for INHS'petition to the State re.:property taxes 6.PULLED Ratify appointment of Senior Engineering Tech -Public Works Moved up -Supervisor's Report Mr.Goodman reported that the town closed on the Meig's property to add to the preserve in the Bostwick and Culver Road area and we will have a resolution to name the preserve at the June meeting. Mr.Goodman reported that he contacted Pres.Rochon regarding support for fire services or carving out IC from our fire district and he asked him to wait until after graduation. Moved up 7.5:30 p.m.Public Hearing regarding a proposed local law entitled '^Authorizing a Monetary Gift to the City of Ithaca to Support Rangers for the Six Mile Creek Gorge" Mr.Goodman gave an overview of what the law is, stating that the town is looking at contributing to the City so they can hire additional Gorge Rangers because in the past they have had two and been out there on their own and this will allow for pairs or the buddy system and the TB 05-23-2016 pg. 4 City asked the County and the Town for some monetary support.He added for the public that if they are interested about swimming in the gorges, the most effective place to talk about that is the City Common Council who is the body that owns that property and that watershed. Mr.Goodman stated that he would give people 3 minutes each given the number of people and opened the public hearing at 5:31p.m.and asked Joe McMahon,Chairman from the Natural Areas Commission to speak first. Mr.McMahon reiterated that this board does not have the authority or control to make a decision about swimming there and it isn't Common Council's decision either;New York State has very stringent regulations about where swimming can happen and how it can happen and he wasn't here to discuss whether he agrees with that or not, but they have regulations and Six Mile Creek would never pass those requirements for water clarity,access,facilities and more and it would cost tens of millions of dollars to make that happen in Six Mile Creek and it is not a place for it. The City has declared Six Mile Creek a Natural Area and the County has gone a step farther and declared is a Unique Natural Area.There are a lot of plant and animal species in the area and it has been preserved and that is why those plants and animals are there.What has happened in the last decade or so is having a serious detrimental effect on the plants and animals that are there because huge numbers of people are coming to swim and through social media word of mouth, people are coming from hundreds of miles away and camping there because they have seen the videos of cliff jumping on social media and they came to try. Mr.McMahon stated that one weekend he went and woke some people and they told him they were from Massachusetts and saw the videos and decided to camp out. He convinced them to help pick up but it took the City two dump truck loads to get all the garbage out. Huge crowds are trampling plants and destroying the ecosystem.There are birds that used to nest there that are not found any more and the steep hillsides are bare and when it rains there is excessive runoff which also adds to silt in the stream and affects downstream.It is a horrible situation in a really unique place. Mr.McMahon went on to say that it is also a place where people have died and got hurt and that is where the Gorge Rangers came from;through a lawsuit over 30 years ago when a high school student was killed and the parents felt the City was not doing enough to educate the public about the dangers there and they required the program to start. It worked ok for a while but as the crowds grew and as people got a greater sense of entitlement about what they should be allowed to do there,they got more hostile to the Rangers.Rangers have been physically abused and had rocks thrown at them and been screamed at and backup has been spotty at best.The Rangers are in a precarious position and he asked a Sheriffs deputy why they won't send an officer down there alone and they said "because it's not safe"and he said but the Rangers are down there alone and you have radios and guns and training and the Deputy responded,"well they wouldn't be there if they worked for us." Mr.McMahon state that they have tried spot patrolling but if it isn't a nice day, it doesn't work and it costs a lot more money to have deputies on overtime than having Rangers and it is expensive to have the Fire Department and other emergency services respond to calls as well as it is not cost effective for elected officials to have to attend numerous meetings to talk about this TB 05-23-2016 pg. 5 issue such as Commonland who asked you to pass no parking and you did and it just moved up a street so that didn't work. The problem can be addressed;the sense of entitlement where people think they can do what they want where they want doesn't have to exist. If there is education it can help and that is what the Rangers do.They are the eyes and ears and they can call in support when needed.There was a zipline put up once on two trees, in this Unique Natural Area. It just isn't a place where there should be hundreds of people. Mr.Goodman clarified that the Gorge Rangers do not issue tickets and Mr.McMahon agreed, stating that they are mainly an education tool and they are there to be eyes on what is going on. Mr.McMahon went on to say that this isn't just a City problem;a lot of people say the City needs to address this but it is a County and State problem because if I have a State fishing license,I can go stand in Six Mile Creek,but I can't go swim in Six Mile Creek. He S2ud that he thinks it takes all the agencies together to address the negative impacts of what is happening and that is what needs to be done. Dave Melsky lives in the Honness lane area and spoke in favor of the law in support of the Rangers stating that it is not going to be enough to keep the crowds coming.It is no longer some local illicitly enjoying a swimming hole near their neighborhood but in fact there are people coming from hundreds of miles away and there are huge crowds down there.There isn't sufficient parking or trash receptacles and there are no bathroom facilities and yet all those things still happen and they are happening in our yards. He stated that he has witnessed the sense of entitlement and gotten the surly stares when he pulls into his own house while they are blocking his street; increased litter in the ditches and in front of our houses and heard about public urination and defecation in neighbors'yards. He stated that he hopes this will be enough to stop it. Logan Bell, W King Rd - Mr. Bell stated that he started the petition and he has heard a lot of problems and we have had the same solutions for quite a long time and the Gorge Rangers have been terribly ineffective in controlling crowds,pollution or making people safer and he felt the local government would benefit from a lot more public input on the issue. He went on to say that he understood there was a proposal to create a Six Mile Creek Safety Committee but for some reason that was not followed through on and it was instead decided that this could be handled by increasing enforcement. Mr. Bell stated that he has heard that it is legal to fish and stand and fish if you have a license but he would like to wade and he asked what is the difference? Why are we punishing people who are just trying to cool off on a warm day? Mr. Bell went on to say that he has a personal problem with people who throw litter on the ground and walk across peoples'yards and trespass and are drunk and unruly and we really need to address this problem but he doesn't see any results with the Rangers and as an entrepreneur, he would like to see results. He said if you try something and you do not see results and just double it and double it, in his opinion, that is a waste of time and money and we need more creative approaches which could come from the public. TB 05-23-2016 pg. 6 Mr. Bell stated that he has heard so many good ideas just from standing outside City Hall for the last two hours. A lot of opinions that are not being considered by the local government and he thinks the issue should be opened up to a public forum and really let residents try and find a way to deal with this problem without infringing on the rights or the freedoms to enjoy natural areas responsibly. He said that he understands there are strict guidelines and everyone understands it is not possible to turn Six Mile Creek into a Teman-like park swimming area and that is not our intended purpose. Mr. Bell stated that he has swam there twice and there was not a single sign waming of the dangers of jumping and he looked down and realized it wasn't something he wanted to do but thought a sign would help. Mr. Goodman asked Mr. Bell to wrap up and added that he has some good ideas but they would be better directed to Common Council. Mr. Bell responded that the Town is responsible for handling town tax money and it may seem like a drop in the bucket, but it should be open to public comment and some of that money could be used to pick up trash or recyclables. Mr. Bell closed by stating that he is here because you are voting on funding $7,500 to a program that is directly going to make it harder for me to swim there and will not remedy any of the problems that are affecting the community. Ryan Lee, Falls Street - Mr. Lee stated that he was her to speeik on behalf of citizens and residents of the town who enjoy Ithaca's beautiful natural areas. Mr. Lee stated that he appreciates the comments from the first speaker and he appreciates that there are problems in the gorges;these are special natural areas and as a naturalist and conservationist,he understands the importance of preserving these natural areas and what the effect of large crowds can be on places like these. Mr. Lee stated that he does support the ranger program,that education and outreach are important,but he thinks we need to think very carefully about the effectiveness of this program and these policies and what the actual effects of what we want to achieve from them are. He asked if doubling the amount of funding is actually going to address these problems or are there other things that could be done with this money instead. Mr. Lee stated that, for example,there are laws on the books besides the ones that already stipulate that you can't swim;laws that stipulate "attractive and appropriate signage must be put in place in these public places to make people aware of their rights,responsibilities and risks."He believes that currently these signs are insufficient and some of this money could be spent better and with greater effect on other programs and he would like the board to consider these other options in this debate. Jeremy Vaverka, N Cayuga Street -Organizer of the Free the Gorges Campaign along with Mr. Bell and a petition with over 200 signatures.(Attachment 3) Mr.Vaverka stated that he agrees with Ryan and he does appreciate many of the point that the first speaker brought up; there are real concerns about protecting these areas and public safety. He thinks the Gorge Reingers fill a need for public education but the money might be spent better elsewhere.He thinks the Rangers have helped but he wanted to bring to officials attention that TB 05-23-2016 pg. 7 swimming is being targeted while there are lots of other laws being broken such as littering, noise, drugs etc. yet swimming is the targeted activity and he was pretty sure there are already laws on the books against those activities. He stated that he has been on Six Mile Creek for his entire life every summer and he has never once seen a person get a ticket for public intoxication or open container or loud music or littering and yet, the burden falls on swimmers like that's the big danger and really it is cliff jumping that is the big danger. The town does have the responsibility to warn the public about the various dangers and risks in the areas and the signage doesn't mention cliff jumping and there is no specific ban on cliff jumping and that is the big issue here, along with parking and litter, but again, those things can be dealt with through enforcement that is already on the books. Mr. Vereka stated that he supports the public outreach and education but he didn't think the lack was in the Gorge Ranger program but signage and enforcement of the other issues could be greatly improved. This is not just a City issue but a Town and County and to a great sense, a New York State issue but that's not to say that given it involves everyone,we have to talk to everyone and you feel this is out of your hands; we still need to talk to you and let our opinions be known. He added that the group would like to see the Public Safety Commission involve town officials,local law enforcement and the public engage together to talk about solutions while allowing responsible people to enjoy this area.There are many people that enjoy these areas responsibly. Melanie,Grandview neighborhood - She thanked the town board for working on this issue. She asked the board to communicate with the neighborhood when items like this are on the agenda because they found out about this by accident. Melanie stated that she was disappointed that the promised Six Mile Creek Safety Committee has not been formed which was promised in October and she wanted to clarify to the swimmers that to the best of her knowledge,only 4 tickets were issued last summer.She stated that she doesn't think people are trying to get money out of people who can't afford it but the idea is to send a clear message to people in the Southern Tier and Central NY and beyond that those of us who live in the area are not comfortable with allowing the creek to being a party destination and if those who feel that they are able to use the area in a responsible way without putting themselves at risk or putting the volunteer rescuers at risk,if those people feel that they are able to organize trash removal,prevent erosion,eliminate the alcohol and drug use in the area,tum people away when capacity is reached,then we don't have to bother government and law enforcement agencies,but at this point,we have passed that place and as imperfect as government and law enforcement agencies may be, we do have to ask for their help.She encourage the Town to really push for the formation of the Safety Committee the neighborhood was promised and then maybe there wouldn't be as much confusion and polarization because everyone will be talking it over together and discussing possible solutions and considering them together so we can all support the work being done. Scott Kesslin - Mr. Kesslin stated that his parents described swimming in the reservoir as a garden of Eden in the 70's but they stopped going there because it was ruined and in the 90's he swam there even though it was ruined by their standards and he still enjoyed it quite a lot but eventually he stopped as well because it got even further ruined and he can only imagine,yet 20 TB 05-23-2016 pg. 8 years further,andit seemslike it is continuingto degrade,so hecouldonlyimaginewhatanother 20 years of heavy partying will do to the beautiful location and he really appreciated the statements of the first speaker and agrees that it does need to be protected. Mr. Kesslin stated that he felt this amount of money is well spent but he recommends that significant strings be attached that related to effectiveness because the Gorge Ranger program has existed for quite a while and he had in fact spoken by chance to a former Ranger who had spoken to a young man that died at the gorge the day he died, and that speaks to a lack of efficiency.He said that he does not claim to have an answer or a proposal,but he wouldlike to say that in general, being put in a position of having responsibility but not authority is an extremely difficult position to be put in and he would think twice before putting someone in that position. He said he would rather see the money to law enforcement and if they refuse, some type of better education. He said this former ranger, this incident has enough of an impact on him and became enough of his identity that that was how he introduced himself. There was no one else wishing to address the board and the public hearing was closed at 6:01 p.m.and moved to the Board for comments. Mr. Goodman again encouraged people to contact the City Common Council because that is where a lot of decisions are being made for the Six Mile Creek area. Mr. Howe asked what Safety Committee was being referred to and Mr. Goodman responded that he talked to the mayor a couple of time over the last few months and he said he has relied on the City Clerk,Julie Holcomb-Connelly to lead efforts on this.There is a Gorge Committee that the City has and he thought she was going to bring up this at the meetings of that committee but it seems they focused on the gorges that go through Comell and there hasn't been any specific effort to look at the Six Mile Creek gorge. He did hear they are considering taking down the dams as an option once the new water treatment plant system is completed and they don't necessarily need the dam anymore. Mr. Howe then stated that he thought when the board has talked about this before,we would want to see some sort of review of the effort but he was supportive of moving forward with the law. Mr.Goodman agreed and stated that this is a pilot program for us and he mentioned to the City that we would want a report comparing statistics from last year to this year. Ms.Hunter said that she is supportive of the law and thanked everyone for coming saying that she has heard many people come to this board about problems they are experiencing as residents in the area and also comments about the lack of areas to swim and she has consistently advocated for changes to the State's swimming rules and access to water.This particular site needs our protection at this moment but she encourages people to really look at the State laws and how one can and cannot access the water that we all own and understand that this is something local govemment does not have a lot of say in but it is a worthy cause. Ms.Hunter stated that she went to the Gorge last year with the Rangers and the Sheriff's Department and she felt for the Rangers;it is a potentially frightening experience to be out there TB 05-23-2016 pg. 9 alone tryingto get a messageacrossto peoplewho mightnot want to hear what they are saying. Hopefullytherewillbe some coordination betweenthelawenforcementandthe rangers. Ms. Leary stated that is seems to her that the City needs to face the reality that they need to fund their police department and the county fund the sheriffs department adequately if the situation becomes that out of control they obviously do need more enforcement and these rangers will help but if they need to make the call, there is only so much the Town can do and she is happy to two extra rangers for their own protection, but ultimately the city may need to look at their own budget priorities and properly fund the law enforcement and clean-up of the area. Ms. Bleiwas stated that what really struck her tonight was the danger to the ecosystem in the gorges and we have to protect that. She said she hadn't thought about that and even if NYS was more relaxed in their swimming regulations, perhaps this is one area where it shouldn't be allowed anyway. She added that she didn't hear any real opposition to them tonight or the concept of non-police personnel making sure things are not out of control and providing some education and safety warnings but more an objection on the costs and what they thought could be done. She added that she has heard people over the past year and a half about the totally unacceptablebehavior in that area and she is concernedabout the ranger's safety and$7,500 is a reasonable amount for us to pitch in to try and make our streets a little bit safer and the gorge a little bit safer. Mr.Levine said that he agrees with a lot of what he has heard tonight and appreciated everyone coming out. He said although $7,500 is not going to solve the problem it is something we can do right now and people have mentioned other things that can be done and we could be supportive of those as well as they come forward. Mr.Goodman called for a vote.Unanimous. TB Resolution 2016 -081;Adopt Local Law 6 of 2016 entitled "Authorizing a Monetary Gift to the City of Ithaca to Support Rangers for the Six Mile Creek Gorge" Whereas,pursuant to the Town's New York State Municipal Home Rule powers,a local law may be adopted to authorize the Town to make a gift to another municipality where the gift furthers a public purpose of the Town, Whereas,at its meeting on March 7,2016,the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca reviewed and discussed the proposed local law and adopted a resolution for a public hearing to be held by said Town Board on May 23, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. to hear all interested parties on the proposed local,and Whereas,notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal,and Whereas,said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof,and TB 05-23-2016 pg.10 Whereas,pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA")and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617,it has been determined by the Town Board that approval of the local law is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment,"and thus approval of the local law is not subject to review under SEQRA,now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board hereby adopts Local Law 6 of 2016 entitled "Authorizing a Monetary Gift to the City of Ithaca to Support Rangers for the Six Mile Creek Gorge,"and it is further Resolved,that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. Moved:Eric Levine Seconded:Pamela Bleiwas Vote: Ayes -Levine,Bleiwas,Hunter,Howe,Leary and Goodman 8.Committee Reports a.Budget - Mr.Levine reported that they starting looking at the initial 5 year budget projections and scenarios and Mr.Weber went over some cheinges to the road improvement program due to staffing changes.Next meeting we will starting the review of the capital improvement program and teilking about sales tax and the property tax override law for this year. b.Planning - Ms.Ritter reported they reviewed the Maplewood PDZ and Ms.Brock will be reviewing it as well as the Town Board at the next regular meeting.They also reviewed the Planning Department's Zoning Review document and discussed future meeting where we will discuss historical resource protection and affordable housing. c.Public Works - Mr.Howe reported they discussed fleet replacement and how our decisions are made and what the rating system looks like and it was very interesting to do into that in some detail.They also reviewed the changes to projects due to staff changes.Mr. Mountin's request for a waiver from the town regarding sewer hookup was held with a presentation from him and we asked him to talk to his neighbors about other connections being made so it is in his court at this point.Project status updates were given and the Gradeall was delivered. d.Personnel and Organization - Ms.Bleiwas reported they talked about the fiber connection between the county and the town Public Works Departments and convening an adhoc committee to do a website overhaul and the use of social media.They also began talking about the differential pay for mid-level classes more equitable. e.Codes and Ordinances - Mr.Goodman reported they are almost done with the revisions to the solar law and working on the mural law to go with the sign law because they will not be TB 05-23-2016 pg. 11 considered signs but should be done at the same time to avoid confusion. The committee ^ decided to move forward with a simple chicken law to allow small flocks of hens and not dealing with guinea hens. Guinea hens are currently allowed under current interpretation of the law and that will not change;the changes will focus on allowing them in zones where they are not currently allowed. f.Intermunicipal Watershed Organization - Ms.Hunter reported that the 10 will be considering a letter of support for a grant application for an upgrade to a boat launch in the Town of Union. They will also be putting together a ditch maintenance proposal for another grant cycle but they are still working out the details of what the proposal will include. g.Community Garden - Ms. Hunter reported that the garden is full and working very well now.She stated that there is one gardener who is a force at the garden and takes responsibility for filling the water tanks and does the lion's share of the work on the community plot and she would like to ask the Town Board to consider a resolution of appreciation for her leadership in helping the garden. Ms. Drake noted that the P&O Committee was going to discuss what we could do for long-term volunteers such as the flowers here and the cemetery mowing at Inlet Valley. Ms.Hunter also asked if anyone would be interested in visiting the garden and said that Ms. Terwilliger has worked really hard to get the gardeners working together and understanding the rules and getting it running and keeping the paperwork.It is just beautiful this year and it would be nice for members to see. 9.Consider Consent Agenda Items TB Resolution 2016 -082: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. Create Administrative Assistant I-V positions and Information Aide position d.Ratify appointment of Records Management Project position -Deputy Town Clerk e.Ratify appointment of Information Aide -Public Works f.Authorize Federal Work Study Agreement Moved:Rod Howe Seconded:Eric Levine Vote:Ayes -Levine,Bleiwas,Hunter,Howe,Leary and Goodman TB Resolution 2016 -082a:Approval of Minutes of the May 11 and 13,2016 Whereas,the draft Minutes of the May 11,and 13,2016 meetings of the Town Board have been submitted for review and approval,now therefore be it TB 05-23-2016 pg. 12 Resolved,that the Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes as the final minutes of the meetings of April 11,and 13, 2016 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. TB Resolution 2016 -082:Town of Ithaca Abstract 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.628 -720 General Fund Town wide 87,585.58 General Fund Part Town 22,231.53 Highway Fund Part Town 91,417.93 Highway Reserves Fund 238,908.16 Water Fund 72,597.34 Sewer Fund 5,887.95 Coddington Road Water Main Replace 6,600.89 Fire Protection Fund 255,000.00 Forest Home Lighting District 1,268.85 Glenside Lighting District 34.45 Renwick Heights Lighting District 59.54 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 80.56 Clover Lane Lighting District 10.71 Winner's Circle Lighting District 16.07 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 37.57 West Haven Road Lighting District 148.91 Coddington Road Lighting District 86.66 Trust and Agency 2,929.98 TOTAL 784,902.68 TB Resolution 2016 - 082:Creation of Administrative Assistant I -IV positions and Information Aide position 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 TB 05-23-2016 pg.13 Whereas,the Town has determined the need to create Administrative positions in line with Tompkins County; 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: (a)(One)-Information Aide (b)(One)-Administrative Assistant I (c)(One)-Administrative Assistant 11 (d)(One)-Administrative Assistant HI (e)(Two)-Administrative Assistant IV (in place of the current (Two)Administrative Assistant) 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, TB Resolution 2016 -082 :Ratification of Town Clerk's Appointment of Deputy Town Clerk. Whereas,the Town Clerk received approval May 9,2016 to hire a Deputy Town Clerk to work on a records management project involving Municity and Laserfiche from June 2016 through December 2018;and Whereas,Town Clerk and Human Resources Manager interviewed a candidate from the open recruitment and have determined that Jasmin Cubero possesses the knowledge,skills and ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the Deputy Town Clerk position and the records management project;and Whereas,Paulette Terwilliger,Town Clerk has appointed Jasmin Cubero as a Deputy Town Clerk,effective.May 31,2016;now,therefore,be it Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby ratify the appointment made by the Town Clerk,of Jasmin Cubero as a Deputy Town Clerk,effective.May 31,2016; and be it further Resolved,the said position is in job classification "B"at 37.5 hours a week,at the hourly wage of $22.36,with full time benefits,from account A1410.100;and be it further TB 05-23-2016 pg. 14 Resolved, a twenty six (26) week probationary period applies with no further action by the Town Board if there is successful completion of the probationary period as determined by the Town Clerk;and be it further Resolved,this is a long term temporary position through December 31,2018,unless otherwise modified by the Town Board. TB Resolution 2016 - 082:Ratification of Highway Superintendent's Appointment of Information Aide Whereas, there is a vacancy in the part time position of Information Aide for the Public Works Department;and Whereas,the Interview Committee interviewed seven candidates from a canvas;and Whereas, the Committee has determined that Lori Shurtleff possesses the necessary knowledge and skills to satisfactorily perform the duties of Information Aide; and Whereas,Jim Weber,Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works,appointed Lori Shurtleff as Information Aide,effective May 31, 2016; now,therefore be it Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby ratify the appointment made by the Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works,of Lori Shurtleff as Information Aide,effective May 31,2016;and be it further Resolved, this is a 30 hours a week positions,at the hourly wage of $18.40, which is an estimated annual salary of $28,704 from A5010.100,in Job Classification "A",with part time benefits;and be it further Resolved,a mandatory twenty-six (26)week probationary period applies with no further action by the Town Board if there is successful completion of the probationary period as determined by the Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works. TB Resolution 2016 -082:Approval of Federal Work Study Agreements Whereas,the Town has budgeted the necessary funds to cover the cost of participating in the Cornell University and Ithaca College Federal Work Study Program to provide student interns with a valuable work experience while providing the Town of Ithaca with valuable technical support;and Whereas,Cornell University covers 75%of the hourly wages 2ind 100%of the employment expenses of this program and the Town would be responsible for the other 25% of the hourly wages plus 10.25% for non-registered students employed for the summer;and Whereas,Ithaca College covers 100%of the hourly wages and 100%of the employment expenses of this program;now,therefore,be it TB 05-23-2016 pg. 15 Resolved,the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the participation in the Cornell University and Ithaca College Federal Work Study Programs for the school year of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017; and be it further Resolved,the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby authorize and direct the Town Supervisor to sign any necessary Agreements or Participation forms; and be it further Resolved,the cost of participating in the said program for the year 2017 shall be reviewed and approved during the budget process. 10.Board Comments,Official's Reports and review of Correspondence Ms.Terwilliger reported that she posted the closing of the East Hill Rec Way on the website when the County sent the notice out and members may get calls.The closure is Maple Ave through Rte. 366 and the trail per Mr. Weber. Mr.Weber stated that the whole trail will be closed because it has been his experience that users do not pay attention to signs and will go through construction areas. Ms. Hunter asked that this full closure be discussed at the Public Works Committee. Mr.Goodman noted that Conifer closed on the property for the senior housing and Sand Bank Road will not be closed because the project isn't happening this year. Ms. Drake wanted to comment regarding the public hearing and she stated that just in our little park on East Shore Drive, we are replacing signs constantly;we are required to have signs from a liability stand point and they are constantly being taken down,peeled off,written on etc.These signs are expensive and she stated that she couldn't even imagine what it would be like if they put additional signage in that area. The meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second at 6:32 p.m. Submittec Paulette Terwilliger,Town Clerk TB 05-23-2016 pg. 16 sjg^/Kf, Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and implementation Plan Second Draft Prepared for: New York State Research and Development Authority Sam Kraemer,Project Manager Prepared by: Emelie Cuppernell,Performance Systems Development, for The Residential Energy Score Project Team CPA #CGC30040/Contract #39504 Deliverables 7.1 and 7.2 Submitted:05/13/16 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 NOTICE This report was prepared by EmelieCuppernell In the course of performing work on the Residential EnergyScore Project for the Town of Ithaca,contracted for and sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (hereafter "NYSERDA").The opinions expressed In this report do not necessarily reflect those of NYSERDA or the State of New York,and reference to any specific product,service, process, or method does not constitute an Implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of It.Further,NYSERDA,the State of New York,and the contractor make no warranties or representations,expressed or Implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product,apparatus,or service,or the usefulness,completeness,or accuracy of any processes,methods, or other Information contained,described,disclosed,or referred to In this report.NYSERDA,the State of New York,and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product,apparatus,process, method,or other Information will not Infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss.Injury,or damage resulting from,or occurring In connection with,the use of Information contained, described,disclosed,or referred to In this report. NYSERDA makes every effort to provide accurate Information about copyright owners and related matters In the reports we publish.Contractors are responsible for determining and satisfying copyright or other use restrictions regarding the content of reports that they write.In compliance with NYSERDA's policies and federal law. Ifyou are the copyright owner and believe a NYSERDA report has not properly attributed your work to you or has used It without permission,please email prlnt@nyserda.ny.gov. Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 Table of Contents Listof Figures 4 1.Executive Summary 5 2.Background 6 3.Program Overview 8 4.Program Elements 10 4.1.Home Rating 10 4.1.1 Rating System 11 4.1.2 Recommendations 12 4.1.3 Timing 12 4.1.4 Recommendations 13 4.2.Tompkins Residential Energy Score 13 4.2.1 Recommendations:IS 4.3.Home Energy Label 15 4.3.1 Recommendations:18 4.4.Cost 18 4.5.Value 19 4.6.Program Administration and Design 20 4.7 Consideration of Concerns 21 5.Implementation 24 5.1.Phase One:Secure Funding 25 5.2.Phase Two: Hire Program Implementer 25 5.3.Phase Three:Complete Program Design 25 5.3.1 Design the Label 25 5.3.2 Design Education and Outreach Plan 26 5.3.3 Determine Alignment of HE5 to HERS Energy Predictions 26 5.3.4 Set up Database System for recording and tracking data 26 5.3.5 Data Infrastructure Requirements 26 5.3.6 Creating MLS Data Connection 29 5.3.7 Infrastructure Deployment 31 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 5.3.8 Staffing 31 5.4.Phase Four:Pilot 32 5.5.Phase Five:Voluntary Launch 33 5.5.1 Start Accepting Ratings 33 5.5.2 Begin Marketing and Education Plan Including Label 34 5.5.3 Evaluation and Adjustments - Policy Optimization 34 5.6.Phase Six: Revise Program based on Evaluation 34 6.Conclusion 35 7.Glossary 36 8.Bibliography 38 9.List of Attachments 39 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 List of Figures Figure 1:Residential Energy Score Program as a cyclical process 5 Figure 2: An energy score provides a simple metric to help understand the energy use and efficiency of a home 7 Figure 3: A step by step look at the Home Energy Score Process 10 Figure 4: The RESNET Home Energy Rating Systems Index vs.the DOE Home Energy Score 14 Figure 5:Image of One Label Design Considered in Vermont 17 Figure 6: The Home Energy Labeling Information Exchange (HELIX)can facilitate the delivery of the score from the program database to the multiple listing service 29 Figure 7:SEED Platform Concept of Operations 30 Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 1.Executive Summary The Residential Energy ScoreProject (RESP)team\a consortium of five (5)municipalities In Tompkins County,received a grant from New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NVSERDA) to develop a Home Energy Rating and Disclosure Program.The team is proposing a voluntary,residential energy score program for homes within Tompkins County.This project is aimed at Increasing consumer and homeowner awareness and understanding of energy use and energy efficiency in homes.The program is designed to support the region's energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals by Increasing energy efficiency in the housing sector of Tompkins County. As described in this document,homes in Tompkins County will have the option to receive an energy rating that generates a numerical score.The score,and accompanying information, will allow homeowners,homebuyers,realtors, and others to understand the energy use of the structure,and to compare the energy use of homes across the county.While there are many ways to describe the energy efficiency of a house, some descriptions prove more useful than others. An asset rating,a key part of the proposed program,provides one clear metric that removes the influence of occupant behavior,fuel price and weather fluctuations.It's helpful to think of this as an EnergyGuide Label for a home,similar to 5.Owners Invest in Energy Efficiency Upgrades r 4.Market Values Energy Efficiency 3. Consumers Fully Informed 1.Rating Performed on Home \ 2.Label Generated those provided for major appliances. The asset Figure l:Residential Energy Score Program asa cyclical process rating provides homebuyers a way to compare the estimated energy use of homes they are considering and the estimated annual cost to run them. This transparency provides homeowners and buyers an opportunity to value energy efficiency in the real estate transaction,motivates homeowners or sellers to improve their score,and allows greater opportunities to highlight investments in energy efficiency at time of sale (Figure 1). Policymakers gain reliable data about status,progress,and target areas for needed assistance and opportunities for reducing emissions in the community. This document describes a proposed home energy score program forTompkins County, including recommendations for designing a home energy label,phases for implementation of the program and an evaluation plan for policy optimization going forward. The RESP team consists of representatives from the Towns of Danby,Caroline, Ithaca and Ulysses, and the City of Ithaca, as well as support from the Tompkins County Planning Department and Cornell Cooperative Extension. Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 The recommendations include: 1. Two nationally recognized,industry backed rating systems should be incorporated to allow for including new and existing homes and multifamily units while still providing the value of one consistent number for comparison across homes.The team has named this one number the Tompkins Residential Energy Score. 2. The Score should range from roughly 0-200+in units of energy use per year in MMBtu's of site energy. 3. The program should incorporate ratings at any time,but encourage ratings at significant points in the homeownership life cycle.These points include:time of home energy audit,retrofit,or renovation;time of home inspection;time of code inspection;and time of real estate transaction. Phase 1 involves securing funding for development and implementation to move the program forward. Funding allows Phase 2,securing an implementer to drive the program forward,to take place.The Program Implementer will work with the Project team to complete Phase 3,including program design, marketing,education,and program infrastructure.Rolling out the actual program and allowing participation starts with a pilot (Phase 4)and then moves to a voluntary program accompanied by heavy marketing and education (Phase 5).During the transitions from phase 4 to 5,the Implementer should evaluate progress,data,and public feedback to make appropriate adjustments to the program going forward.Finally,in Phase 6,we suggest evaluating the program and local readiness or need for a home energy scoring mandate or law. Here we present these stages in detail for a comprehensive understanding of the proposed program,implementation,and the ability to manage data and evaluate effectiveness. A recent white paper by Better Buildings®identified the invisibilityof energy efficiency and the lack of a standardized data field to incorporate into the Multiple Listing Service (MLS)as the two top barriers to valuing energy efficiency in residential real estate transactions.(Elizabeth Stuart,November,2015) The proposed program inthis document,with wide-spread adoption,would remove these barriers in Tompkins County. Other expected outcomes of this project include the following: localjob development;reduced greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions;increased comfort and safety for homeowners;durability of the housing stock;partnerships with Realtors and other key industry professionals;and increased energy and economic security. 2.Background Tompkins County has a goal of an 80%reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 levels by 2050. Where will these reductions come from?The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)estimates that roughly 20%of the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come from our homes.According to the March 2016 Tompkins County Energy Roadmap:Evaluating Our Energy Resources,it will be critical to reduce energy demand in order to meet emissions goals. The Roadmap Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 determined that to meet emissions goals by 2050,the community will need to achieve at least a 35% reduction in energy use in existing buildings through retrofits and upgrades.This project is aimed at helping meet the region's energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals by increasing energy efficiency in the housing sectorof Tompkins County with a residential energy score program}The practice of providing a metric to represent the relative energy efficiency or energy use of a home is often referred to as home energy scoring,or labeling. This project is in line with other efforts across New York State,the Nation, and the Globe. New York State is currently undergoing huge changes with Governor Cuomo's comprehensive energy strategy, Reforming the Energy Vision (REV),which is a major overhaul of the state's current approach to energy efficiency and programs.REV is designed to help consumers make better and more informed energy choices,enable the development of new energy products and services,protect the environment,and create new jobs and economic opportunity throughout New York State.Very recently on the national level,the Senateon April 20*^2016 overwhelmingly passed the Energy Policy Modernization Act,which Included language from the SAVE Act and includes many substantial energy efficiency provisions.And beyond the United States,a Global "Universal Climate Agreement"was reached on December 12,2015 in Paris to support the creation of growth,innovation and solutions for a low-carbon world. A home energy score brings these efforts to homes and the homeowner,buyer,and renter level in a real,tangible way. The score or rating allows the market to view the estimated annual energy use of a home in one comparable metric.Scores,or ratings,have become standard practice for many items in our lives: we have miles-per-gallon ratings for cars,energy guide information for major appliances, credit scores for our finances,and cholesterol levels for our bodies.(Figure 2). The value of a score is that it provides a quick,consistent,and clear way to see where something falls in comparison with others or with a certain standard or goal.Awareness of a metric often inspires and allows for changing that metric.Without a home energy score,homes and real estate transactions lack a way to value or compare the energy efficiency of homes.Energy efficiency often becomes invisible.Home energy labeling and disclosure programs aim at making this information visible,giving homeowners more incentive to invest in energy efficiency. Wouldn't It be great to understand a home's energy efficiency like a car's miles per gallon? •>40 •V MPG ^.'LASLP'HiiA CACr$cfflClf^iCY o ^? n MPG hOMESEFFiCSNCY The Residential Energy Score Project (RESP) Aims to solve this problem in Tompkins County Figure 2:An energy score provides a simple metric to help understand the energy use and efficiency of a home. Italicized words are defined in the Glossary. The Residential Energy Score Project (RESP)team,a consortium of five (5)municipalities in Tompkins County, received a grant from New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)to develop a Residential Energy Score and Disclosure Program.Current residential energy disclosure programs around the world use a range of approaches to evaluate the relative energy efficiency of a home and make this information available to relevant parties.A detailed review of these programs was performed as part of this project,and can be found In Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 Attachment 2. The momentum of labeling initiatives around the country is growing rapidly. Ratings are currently being adopted bya dozen or so states either as a regional pilot initiative or in some cases,like Vermont, Connecticut,and Massachusetts,as part of a state-wide home labeling program.Whilethis concept is relatively new to policies in the United States,in some places like Denmark and the Australia Capital Territory,residential energy rating disclosure programs have been around for over 15 years. Prior to completing this report,the Residential Energy Score Project Team completed over a dozen outreach events including:three (3)formal meetings with the project's Technical Advisory Committee, four (4)targeted meetings with representative realtors,two (2)meetings with the Tompkins County Climate Protection Initiative,one (1)public presentation,one (1)meeting with the County Assessment Department,and one (1)meeting each with the Ulysses Town Board,the Danby Town Board,the Ithaca Town Board,and the Cityof Ithaca Planning Committee.The team had two (2)meetings with the Tompkins County Council of Governments,one (1)meeting with Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP),a presentation to the Northeast Home Energy Rating Systems (NEHERS)Alliance, and a meeting with Attorney Susan Brockto discuss legal issues surrounding a law or ordinance.Surveys were sent out following most of these events to solicit additional ideas and feedback. The Technical Advisory Committee for the RESP is made up of experts from targeted industries of relevance to this project including realtors,lending officers,builders,raters,home performance professionals,engineers,brokers,utility representatives,and low income advocates. After looking at numerous evaluations of existing energy disclosure programs,the following are the key recommendations for programs to be most effective: 1. Engage with local real estate agents and other stakeholders; 2.Create consistent targeted outreach via public communication,education,and marketing; 3. Relyon existing,nationally recognized rating systems,which ensures quality assurance; 4. Allow disclosure before or at time of listing to allow homeowners and buyers to use the information more effectively; 5. Link participants to appropriate resources to drive home efficiency improvements (contractors,incentive programs,do-it-yourselfers); 6.Create a strong implementation plan for confirming participation; 7. Have a quality assurance process in place; 8.Create a written plan for evaluating and updating the program;and 9. Work toward wide-spread adoption by the majority of homes. 3.Program Overview Inthis program,a certified energy rater would visit a home to perform a rating, or a comprehensive home energy assessment,which often includes diagnostic testing using specialized equipment,such as a blower door,duct leakage tester,combustion analyzer and an infrared camera,to evaluate the home's Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 energy related assets.A complete list of the data collected during these inspections can be found in Attachments 4 and 5. The information collected during the rating can be used to not only generate a score,but also to calculate estimated annual energy costs for the home and provide recommended energy improvements.This information is delivered to the homeowner,builder.Realtor,or other interested party,on a report or label. The label provides valuable information on how the home is operating from an energy use standpoint and where improvements can be made to increase the homes energy efficiency.When a house is for sale,a /abe/communicates investments made that may not be visible,such as added insulation,and potential home buyers can anticipate the costs of energy bills and future efficiency upgrade needs.The label gives Realtors a standard way to discuss the energy features of a home.Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)explains how these policies provide needed information to consumers,"like miles-per-gallon ratings on automobiles,or nutritional labels on food, energy performance disclosure gives consumers the tools to make informed choices and inform themselves upfront about poor buildings and building components,higher-than-anticipated energy bills, discomfort,or unplanned renovation needs."(Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships,2013) Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 ^IBI ..SS-fA § U B •& --iw Figure 3: A step by step look at the Home Energy Score Process 4.Program Elements Utility Costs Reduced CO2 Emissions Reduced Green Jobs Increased 4.1.Home Rating At the heart of this program Is the use of a home energy rating,specifically an asset rating,which evaluates the energy efficiency of a home.The rating is intended to provide a simple way for homeowners and buyers to distinguish between high efficiency homes and lower efficiency homes and to provide guidance on the savings potential of various improvements.A rating is done by a trained and certified rater,who will spend roughly two (2)hours in an existing home taking measurements and performing diagnostic tests,such as the blower door test,to determine the leakiness of the structure. This Information is then entered into computer simulation software to create an energy model of the home and determine,among many other things,the rating.In addition to the rating,the rating software may be used for code compliance,estimated annual energy use,and potential savings as a result of 10 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 home performance improvements.Energyefficiency and use in homes Is complicated,and there are many ways to think about and capture energy savings and efficiency of a home,such as behavior change (turning down the thermostat),embodied energy (lookingat the sum total of the energy necessary for an entire home life-cycle),and energy source (coal vs. wind). Inthis project we focus on the efficiency of the assets that make up the structure itself, such as insulation,infiltration levels, and heating equipment,and use this to estimate the average energy use per year,assuming typical fuel prices, typical occupants,and typical weather^ 4.1.1 Rating System Asset ratings create a score by evaluating a home's actual physical structure and mechanical systems, and major lights and appliances.The physical structure includes size,window properties,insulation levels,shading,infiltration,and home location,to name a few.Mechanical systems include the home's heating,cooling,and hot water heater,as well as some large appliances.A rating is a similar process to what most people know of as an energy audit,however,unlike an audit,a rating provides a clear metric to compare homes to each other and generally involves stringent third party quality assurance and oversight of the rating data and the individual inspector's certification.An audit often focuses on a specific occupant and opportunities for that occupant,whereas a rating focuses more on the structure itself,independent of the current occupant.A rating requires additional data collection beyond what is needed for a typical NYSERDA home performance or weatherization program.Homes participating in NYSERDA's low-rise new construction program already receive a rating,as described below. An asset rating removes occupant behavior and use patterns from the assessment,allowing the energy performance of buildings to be easily compared to each other for a prospective buyer.Currently in New York,the "New York State Truth in Heating Law,"which has been in effect since 1981,requires sellers and landlords to provide prospective buyers and tenants with the past two years of utility bill information upon request.This can be informative,but energy use in a particular home can vary significantly depending on who lives there and how they operate the home.The asset rating removes this wild card.Asset ratings are used in other national labeling and compliance programs across the nation,such as ENERGY STAR homes,and come with third party certification and quality assurance (QA)- The nationally accepted rating system used for residential new construction is the Residential Energy Systems Network (RESNET)Home Energy Rating System Index (HERS Index).More than one million new homes have been rated using HERS since 1995.The HERS Index is the nationally recognized system for inspecting and calculating a home's energy performance.It is the standard used to qualify homes for the ENERGY STAR,Passive House,LEED,and the DOE Zero Energy Ready Home.A HERS rating is required for homes participating in NYSERDA's low-rise new construction program,in Aprilof 2016, New York joined nine other states and adopted the voluntary performance compliance path for the 2015 International 11 3 Both rating ^sterns use national standard assumptions about the standard or average occupant, weather averages for a speciflc area, and usage assumptions. The actual assumptions used can be found in the Mortgage Industiy National Home Energy Rating Systems Standards for HERS:httpr/Avww.resnet.us/blog/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/RESNET Mortgage Industrv National HERS Standards.pdf or the DOE Home Energy Score http://energv.gov/eere/buildings/homc-energv-score-calculation-methodologv Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 Energy Conservation Code (lECC)State Energy Code, which willgo into effect in October of 2016. Currently NewYorkison the 2009 lECC.This Energy Rating Index Compliance Option establishes a new voluntary performance compliance path for the 2015 version of the lECC.This means that a home can meet the state's energy code by obtaining the required HERS Index. The HERS Index can be used on single family buildings,duplexes,townhomes,and units within multifamilybuildings. While the HERS Index iswell suited for very high-efficiency homes and new construction,the rating system used for most existing homes of average to low energy efficiency is the U.S.Department of Energy's (DOE)Home EnergyScore (HES).HES,launched in 2012, isan asset rating developed to show energy efficiency and opportunities for improvement in existing homes.Asof January 2016,more than 32,000 homes have received the Home Energy Score.HES is currently being adopted by a dozen or so states either as a regional pilot initiative or, in some cases,as part of a state-wide home labeling system. Connecticut launched the nation's first statewide Home Energy Score Program in Aprilof 2015. The team performed considerable research to determine the appropriate rating system(s)to use for the program.More detailed information on programs across the country that are considering,or have already implemented,residential energy rating and disclosure programs can be found in the Residential Energy Score Project's "Report on Existing Home Energy and Disclosure,"included here as Attachment 2. The report looks at these programs to see the various ways energy efficiency has been evaluated and how and when this information has been made available to influence consumers.Based on this research,the project team recommends generating a "Tompkins Residential Energy Score"from either of the two national rating systems -the Residential Energy Services Network's Home Energy Rating Systems Index (HERS Index)and the Department of Energy's Home Energy Score (HES Score)for this project. Both the HERS Index and the HES Score provide a standardized,nationally recognized method for conveying the energy performance of a home.Using both systems willallow the program to capture both new and existing homes,single-family detached homes,as well as units in multifamily buildings. These systems come backed with quality assurance oversight,training options for certifying Raters,and connections to national programs,such as ENERGY STAR and LEED.For detailed information on the data collected during a Home Energy Score rating see Attachment 4,"Home Energy Scoring Tool Data Collection Sheet"and for a HERS Index Rating Attachment 5,"RESNET HERS Index Rated Features." 4.1.2 Recommendations The program should use both the HERS and the HES rating systems to generate a projected Millionsof British Thermal Units per year (MMBtu/yesr)value.Using two rating systems is optimal for greatest participation in the program,while still providing the value of one consistent number for comparison across homes. 4.1.3 Timing A home rating can take place at any point in time,but to maximize the benefit and limit the interruption to occupants,the program would encourage ratings at significant points in the homeownership life cycle. For an existing home,these points include:time of home energy audit;HVAC tune up;retrofit or 12 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 renovation;time of home inspection prior to home sale;time of code inspection for renovations or additions involvinga buildingpermit; and the time of real estate transaction such as listingor sale. For new construction,the rating often involves at least one inspection during construction and a final inspection once built. These all represent times when an outside agent is in the home performing evaluations or work and a rating could be an added service without a lot of added time or resources.The professionals performing these other services are also great candidates to become certified raters and expand their business offerings.These are also times when homeowners are considering home improvement options and could benefit from information that would help them understand the opportunities for energy related improvements and influence the rating.Feedback from the project's Technical Advisory Committee suggested that soon after a home purchase is the perfect time to offer homeowners a rating because that is when people are thinking about making home improvements.Many programs across the nation that are adopting home energy rating and disclosure programs are bundling them with either the real estate transaction or home performance programs. 4.1.4 Recommendations The program should incorporate ratings at any time,but encourage ratings at significant points in the homeownership life cycle.These points include:time of home energy audit;HVAC tune up;retrofit or renovation;home inspection;code inspection;time of real estate transaction such as listing or sale;and new construction. 4.2.Tompkins Residential Energy Score The purpose of the Tompkins Residential Energy Score,or "The Score,"is to provide one metric for understanding and comparing the energy use of homes and provide some context for where a home lies in a range of homes.After considering public feedback and research done on this topic,a score based on millionsof BritishThermal Units per year,or MMBtu/year,is recommended for this project.MMBtu is the industry standard for discussing units of residential home energy use,and is in line with other scoring/labeling efforts,such as the Vermont example (Figure 5). A lower score is associated with lower MMBtus,indicating lower energy use and anticipated utility costs.Usinga score based on an energy unit is beneficial because it does not change with the changing cost of fuels.Estimated energy costs can be generated from the rating based on the current or area average fuel rates at the time of the rating and can be revised later if rates change.While annual energy cost is one of the primary interests of prospective buyers or renters,the Score based on energy,rather than dollars,is more meaningful for comparing the energy use of one home to another.Ifa homeowner generates 100%of the energy used on-site,looking at costs could be very misleading when trying to understand the expected energy use of the home. Using MMBtu/year also allows translating different rating systems into a single score. When lookingat the HERS index (Figure4, left), a lower number is associated with higher energy efficiency. In contrast, the DOE Home EnergyScore (Figure4, right) uses a higher number to indicate lower energy use. In addition,both scores are based on different assumptions and used for different purposes,which makes comparing one to the other impossible.For example,one cannot say that a HERS Index of Xis equal to a 13 Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 HES Score of Y.Both rating systems,however,use software that generates estimated M/WStu/year for the home based on the assets of the home evaluated in the rating.Using an /WMStu/year score allows the incorporation of either system,and includes all residential housing stock in the program with the same scoring system. HERS'Index Existing Homes Reference Home Zero Energy Home Hora Cntrfy 80 Lms Energy Home Energy Score ISMS Henmocau*Um (MaMMJJITMM Um men 1 •nwjy Cs)ENERGY IJOOMusrvlOTI iMrwn i*ro A^cmOasnM Tm the Iw••fmtf ey—"Cytw tl S Oe««>vw9 <oo^^hoi siaic The Hm*Fm«p>i>rOei^an mu cvmrt mcM ndv ib rm id *w None to a Kor«t««*rrvrtoy $411 1D|M* I RumO ftlGM Cfciii^iJewwew# !«•-«C'weVV Smtv Ww^v»14.4|M Figure 4: The RESNET Home Energy Rating Systems Index vs.the DOE Home Energy Score Energy use in MMBtus can be expressed in two distinct ways:"site energy,"which is the energy used at the home and measurable by the utility meter or fuel tank,and "source energy,"which includes all energy used in generating and delivering the energy to the home.Another way to think of source energy is that it includes where the energy came from {e.g.New York,Canada)as well as what form it was in {e.g.wind,coal,oil)before it arrived on site.Source energy takes into account transmission losses and the efficiency of creating that form of energy.For example,electricity use measured at the home {site energy)does not include the raw energy used to create the electricity in the first place.When we create electrical power,approximately two thirdsof the power is lost. The inefficiencies involved in producing and distributing electricity are significant,but electric heat and appliances are nearly 100%efficient at transferring heat within the home.Source-based energy use factors are applied to the site energy, dependent on fuel type,to account for generation and transmission losses or the energy used to extract and deliver the fuel.While there are benefits to using each method,the lessons learned by the Vermont Working Group with their statewide labeling initiative should be considered.They eventually went with site energy "to keep the explanation of the energy score relatively simple,avoid controversies regarding which source-based factors to use,and in order to give full credit to on-site renewables."(Energy Futures Group,2013) Credit for renewables and on-site energy generation was identified as an important element during outreach for this project.The current recommendation for this project isto use estimated MMBtu/year to include both new and existing home rating systems,and display these in site energy units,unless an 14 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 appropriate alternative vyay to credit or highlight renewables in the program isidentified. The presence of renewables and onsite power generation can be included on the label, as described later inthis document. 4.2.1 Recommendations: The program should use the MMBtus derived from either the HERS Index or the HES Score to convert the rating data into one comparable number,creating the home's Tompkins Residential EnergyScore. The Score would range from roughly 0-200+, and would reflect the projected annual site energy use of both new and existing homes. 4.3.Home Energy Label Once a rating is completed on a home,the calculated Score and other relevant information should be presented on a label or report.While the rating itself, in the absence of a program,can produce a score, the project team is suggesting a label that would be more relevant and informative than just a number. Alabel provides a visual and a descriptive explanation of what the score means in terms of energy use, estimated energy costs,and where the score falls in relation to other scores in the area.It can also guide the owner by suggesting cost effective improvements or list the biggest energy uses in the home.Alabel would allow for including ratings on the entire range of housing stock in Tompkins County (new and existing, high and low efficiency), and serve to facilitate home energy improvements.To view more detailed information on the local housing stock,see Attachment 3,"Review and Analysis of Preliminary Data inTompkins County." A label provides information to help understand the home's score,and provides additional relevant information and resources,such as access to local weatherization and assistance programs,resources for homes in the historic district,or home performance contractors. While the Score of MMbtu/year isa projected annual energy use,other information such as the presence of renewables,an efficiency metric such as MMbtu/year per square foot, and size of the house can be added to the label. It is envisioned that this label could be used in various ways -for instance as a helpful resource for homeowners considering making investments,or as a document to display on a sign or electrical panel - but that it would be used primarily in the real estate market to share energy information about homes that are for sale or rent.On the following two pages.Figure 5 shows an example of a label used in designing the Vermont Home Energy Profile as part of their statewide labeling initiative.Vermont, Massachusetts,and Connecticut are all creating or already have in place statewide voluntary energy scoring and labeling programs of existing homes. 15 Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 VT HOME ENERGY PROFILE The Vermont Home Energy Profile is a report on three related components of home energy:usage,cost, and efficiency.The profile is based on the home's structure and heating, cooling,and hot water systems.Energy usage and costs are estimates only. Actual usage and costs may vary and are based on many factors such as weather and occupant behavior.See reverse side for details. HOME INFORMATION LOCATION: 123 Main Street Anytown,VT 05000 YEAH BUILT: 2005 SIZE (SO. FT.): 3,029 REPORT INFORMATION PROFILE ISSUE DATE: X/XX/20XX ASSESSOR: John Doe ORGANIZATION: Common Sense Audits PHONE: 808-921-5990 Efficiency Vermont 16 THIS HOME'S EXPECTED ENERGY USE 93 MMBtu ANNUALLY THIS HOME'S EXPECTED ENERGY COST $3,137 ANNUALLY ENERGY HOME ENERGY SCORE niRM TKC MOC TO sa Item YOU scoai mtionauk 93 Expected Annual Energy Usage Thisscalerepresentshowmuchenergyyourhomeisexpectedto use overthe courseofa year,placedona scaleof 0 to 200*,wherezeroenergyusageismost efficient. MMBtu/yr LOWEST ENERGY USE MMBtu/yr This home's usage:93 HIGHEST ENERGY USE 0 40 High Performance home .A. Ill Avg. VT home Built to energy cede (RBES 2011) 200+ Thebreakdown of fuelusageis based on the fuels used in this homeandaveragefuelcostsas of June 2015. Expected Annual Energy Costs* Propane $1,578 631 gal $2.50/gal Electric $1,559 10,396 kWh $0.15 / kWh Energy Features that Contribute to this Home's Profile EnvelopeTightness;650 CFIfiO Attic Insulation:R-38 Wall Insulation:R-19 Primary Heating System/Fuel:Propane Boiler PrimaryHeating SystemEfficiency:88 AFUE WaterHeating:Propane,Indirect Windows:Doubte-pane ?.1 >1 :-j4 Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 U.S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY U.S.DOE HOMEENERGYSCORE Tliedata utilized to producettiis tiome's Vermont Home Energy Profile CS1 alsoshowhowyourhomecomparestoothers nationwide.TheU.S.Department of Energy (DOE)Home Energy Score usesa 10-poinl scaleto describe yourhome's efficiency - wttere 10is the most efficienL For more Information Aout this home's national score,visit wwwJ)oineenergyscore.gov Home Energy Score nw Horn*EiMtpy 9«ot«a «oatrooal laUig aysleia thai fefloctj the eoow aflioaney o<a hoinv Ixi99<]oilItwhoiTwS amjhoatmg coulou.anU hotwalwayWoiM AiHieaa 123 Main SPwt Any1o«n.VT OHOO ©ENERGY 111 Assessnert type FViH AaseasinentUala 0V1IV3D1S Sens ID nsas OuHtediBsesaay VT.VE1C4001 Home Enasy Soae Varson ii201S.(3bca7n UtM Hen Envoy UaM lau Enarfy homMnergyceera.gov HOW DOES THE VERMONT HOME ENERGY PROFILE WORK? Vermont Home Energy Profile isa tooltoassess a home'senergy consumption and average associated costs.The lower the expected MMBtu ona scaleof 0200,the better! Alow MMBtu identifies a home as energy efficient with a smaller carbonfootprint and lower energycosts.TheVermont Home Energy Profile alsoallows forthe comparison ofonehome'senergycosts andusetoanotherhome.The MMBtu calculation Isbased ona home'ssize,insulation levels,draltiness,heatingandcoolingsystems,andhot waterheatingefficiency.Thisprofile isbasedonthe building features themse^es. notonhowa particularoccupantusesthe building.Number ofoccupants,behavior, weather,indoortemperature,lighting and ^pliance usage,are standardizedto calculatenormal,averageenergyusebasedonthe assets whichmakeupthe home. Ahome'sactualenergyuse will varywithconditions suchas occupancy,behavior, weather,andchangestothe home.Assessments arecompletedby qualified Assessors whomustmeet DOE certification requirements. ASSUMPTIONS Average Vermont fuelpricesare usedto generatethe estimatedannualenergycosts presentedinthisscore.Values are obtainedfromthe Vermont Fuel PriceReport Thefollowing tableshowspricingassumptionsusedinthisreport. COMPARING THE COST OF HEATING FUELS TYPE OF ENUST tlU/UNIT TVP cmc S/UNIT S/HMKTU HIGH EfnaiHCT S^UtTU rwlOii.Slllan l».ZOO 80H S26f S21.16 9SW 520JS XooMne.Cailon 1)6600 80H 5321 S29.60 Propjfit OUton VI.600 SOH S2S0 S31I1 93«SZ9.37 Njlural Oas,rnwin lOOOOO SOW SU3 517,91 9SW 515.03 CMtncitv,Xwn IReiistive Kcat)3.11?lOOW sots 51316 El«lricitv.K»n ICaU Climate Hedl Pump)3.112 S0.15 210H 518,32 Wood.CndlC'een)22.000.000 60H SZ27.11 Sir?• Perieis.Ion K.ioaooo eoh S2M 52Z.ll 'riK nanral gas pricen used onItienteellectix MVS -Wood greenand Ptfets updatedWM. Cierentfuelpricerepaxttcan UeoUainedtrcni ine PutiicService Departmenl Mhite Mte:/^HicMnkutraaaLdeWpuHic«tlMt/tue<.repeft REFERENCE HOMES FOR EXPECTED ENERGY USE SCALE LOWEST ENERGY USE -Ahighly efficient home that produces as much energyasit consumes is considered a Net-ZeroHome.This honw would have a 0 score. AVERAGE VERMONT HOME •An average Vermont home is defined as 1,972 square feet,oil boiler andintegrated hot water,built to Vermont's minimum energy code specifications (RBES 20t1). HIGH PERFORMANCE HOME -Efficiency Vermont's highestperforming residential new construction service tier.These homes canbeupto 75%more energyerficient thana home built to code. HIGHEST ENERGY USER- Some of the most inefficient homes in Vermont can consume over200 MIBtu/year intotal energy. Figure 5:Image of One Label Design Considered In Vermont 17 USEFUL TERMINOLOGY MMBTU •1 MILLION BTUS -Ahtu(British Thermal Unit)isaunitofenergy,specifically theamountofenergyrequiredto raise1lb.of waterl degree Fahrenheit.For reference, thisis approximately the amountofenergyreleasedbyburning1 wooden match. 1MMBtu -7galfuel oil.10therms of natural gas,11 galof propane,or 293 kWh ofelectricity. ENERGY CODE -Vermont's Residential Building Energy Standards(RBES)were enactedin 1998.Thesestandardsset minimum energyperformance guidefines for new construction and renovation building features.For moreinfomiation see: www,puU1csefvice.vermontgov/topIes/ener9y.efflclency/ri)es ADDITIONAL RESOURCES CARBONFOOTPRINT As it relates tothis profile,the amount of C02 fin lbs.)released intothe atmosphere per yearas a result ofthe energy usedtooperateyourhome.Total carbon footprint includes the productsweconsumeas well as transportationandotheractivities.You cancalculate yourcarbonfootprintfromthe data supplied byyour Vermont Home Energy Profile. Learnhowby visiting: wwY(,epa.gov/cllmatechange/ghgemlsslDns/lnd-calculator,html LOCATION EFFfCIENCY Curious how your neighborTiood ranksintermsoftotalcostof homeownership and transportation?Talie a look atthe Center lor Neighbcrtiood Technolog/s HoiSlng and Transportation Affordability Index at http7/htalnda.cnt,org/map ENERGY EFnCIENCY PROGRAMS Thefollowing programs canhelpgetyouonthe pathto making your home more energyefficient Oficiency Vermont •888-921-5990 •www,efflcienc¥vermontxom Vermont GasSystems •602-863-4511 •www,vennontgas,com Burlington Electric Department -802-665-7342 •wwwJrurtlngtonelectrlcxom HeighborWorksofWesternVermont •8{K-438-2303 *www,nwwvtj)rg Vermont's Weatherizatkm Program •wwKdcr,vennont,gov/oeoAveatherization Efficiency VeimonI EffKiencY Vermont wascreated bytheVermont Legislature andthe Vermont Pubfic Service Board to helpall Vermonters reduce energy costs,stmigthenthe economy,andprotect WermonfsenvironmenL For morein(oriT«tion,corXact Efficiency Vermont at 888-921-5990 or visitwww.efflclencyvermonl£om. Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementatlon Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 4.3.1 Recommendations: The program should make the Score associated with each address publicly available.All other information collected could be made available to the public with the written permission of the participating homeowners.Based on the Residential Energy Score Project's community outreach and feedback throughout the project,the label for this project should,at minimum,include the following in order to be most effective: 1. The home's Tompkins Residential Energy Score; 2.Where the home falls on a continuum of Scores; 3.Estimated annual home energy costs; 4. The homes efficiency Inunits of MMBtu/square foot; 5.The presence and source of onsite power generation,such as solar and wind; 6. If the home is located in a historic district; 7. Basic home information collected by the rater (address,square footage,year built); 8.Information on where to access local support to improve a home's score;and 9.Date when energy score rating was performed. Alongwith the date of rating, a disclaimer or language should be included that "this rating represents the state of the house on date and is subject to change with major home renovations,replacement of major appliances,and any significant change to the home's structure." When generating the annual home energy costs, or costs byfuel type,the fuel price assumption should be listed on the report.The team should also consider using the state-level fuel and electricity rates available from Energy Information Exchange (EIA)by eGRID subregion.Emissions &Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID)has a more comprehensive look at the environmental attributes of electric power systems in different regions. 4.4.Cost The cost of hiringa Rater to perform the Home Ratingmay varyfrom house to house, and from one ratingproviderto another, but basedon the team research,the expected rangeis$300-$500per home if performed independently (not as an add on to another service). The cost could be less if the rating is performed at the time of another service, such as a home energy audit, or home inspection. The rating process involves2-4 hours within a typical home, followed by 1-4 hours of computer modeling and reporting. Thetime involved depends on the sizeand complexityof the home and the rating system used (HES or HERS).All certified raters must belong to a provider,and fees cover software licensing, mandatory quality assurance inspections and registering the ratings with the national database. To encourage voluntary participation,the cost of the ratings could be covered byoutside funding or be subsidized to reduce or eliminate the cost to homeowners.Outreach and education in the community willhelp individuals,businesses, non-profits, agencies, and municipalities understand the value of havingmultiple homes scored. These entities may be willing to consider incentives to fund part of the rating costs. There isvalue to multiple groups in havinghomes scored ina community. These benefits, described below,would be communicated to these groups as part of the outreach around the program, 18 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 and they would be encouraged to consider incentives to fund a part of the rating costs. Pursuingfunding options and partnerships through localand statewide agencies should be part of the phased roil-out of the program. Some of these agencies include NYSEG,NYSERDA,municipalities,local corporations,and local foundations. 4.5.Value The Residential EnergyScore Project Team sees the project providing value to many groups.Some of these benefits are described below. 1.Homeowners:This rating will identify energy and cost-saving priorities for home energy improvements.Homeowners will receive recognition and visibility of existing energy efficiency features and improvements in the real estate market. 2.Homebuyers and Renters:The Score and Label will help consumers avoid the "surprise"of higher-than-expected energy bills or unplanned renovation needs.The program will provide consumers with more information about the projected operational costs of owning the houses under their consideration as well as opportunities for improvement.Expected monthly energy costs is a big piece of missing data for many new homeowners and renters in Tompkins County, many of whom move from areas that are not climatically similar to the Northeastern United States,or don't have as old ofa housing stock.On March 29^**of 2016,Fannie Mae announced their new "HomeStyle Energy Mortgage"loan designed to support borrowers in their efforts to increase energy efficiency and reduce utility costs for their homes.In order to qualify for this loan, a home must have either a HES or HERS Rating performed.An FAQ for the new HomeStyle Mortgage in included with this document as Attachment 6 as well as the announcement as Attachment 7. 3.Realtors:Realtors will benefit from more credible information for their clients.They will be "better informed on documenting and quantifying how energy efficient a home is, allowing them to more confidently market energy efficient features."(American Councilfor an Energy- EfficientEconomy, 2014) InChicago,preliminary analysis of an energy disclosure policy found that home listings that disclosed energy costs spent less time on the market and had a higher closing rate,regardless of how much or how little energy they used. (Elevate Energy, 2014) This supports the idea that consumers value more information,even if that information is not favorable.There isvalue in understanding the full picture of home ownership.During outreach for this project,a Realtor reported that she often hears from newcomers to the area that they are concerned about costs to operate inefficient old homes inTompkins County. This program would help explain and reassure people that some of these old houses have been retrofitted and are indeed energy efficient. 4. Policymakers: Policymakers will get more access to data on the energy use of the existing buildingstock, to both inform future policy development and track progress toward meeting local climate and/or energy reductions goals for buildings.The program creates opportunities to 19 Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 target homes in need and create more synergies between policies,programs,and the actual housing stock.Overtime,ratings also allow for tracking improvements and savings. 5.Home Performance Contractors and Auditors:These trades will benefit from a new business opportunity.They have the option to become raters themselves and add this service to their existing service as a value-added offering.They may also benefit from the assumed increase in demand for home improvements.A rating pre and post energy efficiency retrofit work is a great way to validate the results beyond a simple payback. 6. Builders: Builders can benefit by being better prepared for code and future code requirements. The rating compliance option is part of the 2015 energy code,which newly permitted homes must comply with starting in October of 2016,and has already been written in to the 2018 lECC language.Having a rating on a new home also gives energy efficient builders recognition for a home performing above code requirements. 7.Related Agencies:Having the rating data stored and easily accessible supports other agencies that can benefit from accessing rating information,outside of a proposed sale of a home.These agencies include the Tompkins County Department of Assessment,municipal planning boards, and home performance programs.Activities associated with this might include supporting energy code compliance,or making better energy policy decisions about a given area. 8.Everyone:For the entire population,the Tompkins Residential Energy Score would give people a common language to discuss energy efficiency and energy use in homes,and create a population more aware of its energy consumption.This serves as a base for discussing and encouraging efforts to increase energy independence and economic security as a community and lower greenhouse gas emissions. 4.6.Program Administration and Design Although ratings are already available and happening,there is value in having a local Home Energy Rating and Disclosure Program.Working with two existing national rating systems and developing our own program gives us the most advantages.The proposed program,ideally implemented by one central, local agency, would provide one consistent Score,the Tompkins Residential EnergyScore,(derived out of either the HES or HERS rating system)and a locally meaningful label to provide context.The Program would provide important infrastructure,including a centralized database to track allScores and allow for easy transfer to a Multiple Listing Service (MLS).The central database allows controlled access to data to compare and verify Scores,the ability to analyze the set of Scores to educate policy decisions moving forward,and the ability to evaluate and determine program effectiveness. The central agency,or Program Implementer,would complete the program design and drive the process forward.An energy efficiency program implementer generally oversees and facilitates the local education and marketing efforts on the value of participation,facilitates training of local certified raters, generates the Score and label,provides quality assurance,engages with local contractors and real estate 20 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 professionals,and provides periodic evaluations of the program.This role of program implementer and the details of the program design are described in more detail inthis report in Phase 3. Goals for Effective Program Administration The infrastructure used to oversee,process,and support the program should address four keys goals: 1. Cost Effectiveness -The overall administrative process of performing the rating,generating the label,and getting it into the MLS must be cost effective.If the cost is too high,then there will be pushbackfrom homeowners and Realtors. Ahigh costfor a voluntary rating will result in little participation. 2. Quality Assurance - The system needs to establish confidence in the rating numbers.A system with little or no quality assurance will eventually reduce consumer confidence in the usefulness of the Score. 3. Time Efficiency- The administrative process needs to be timely.A synchronous process where ratings can be done along with other events,such as energy retrofit or solar installation,and data stored for retrieval when the house is to be sold,will also help reduce time pressure to deliver a rating when a house is going on the market.If the rating takes place at some point during the home sale process,a fast process will reduce the chance that the rating is responsible for delays in sales.Selling a house has many steps and there is reluctance to add to this burden. 4.Sustainability -The administrative process needs to be sustainable.Startup costs may be more significant than can be funded by transaction fees,and external funding may be needed.Ongoing administrative costs will need a source of continued revenue,most likely through transaction fees. 4.7 Consideration of Concerns In presentations to the public and various groups of stakeholders,several issues have been raised as concerns by both the RESP team and feedback from the Technical Advisory Committee and public about the design and implementation of the program.These include: 1.Consider how the program may impact a home's assessed value and taxes; 2. Avoid creating disproportionate negative impacts on the low income population; 3.Homeowner privacy concerns;and 4.Considerations for historic districts. These concerns are described below,along with related information relevant to this project. 1.Home value:Importance of considering the Impact of a score on the assessed value and sale price of a home. Concerns were expressed that a Score may affect the assessed value of a home and/or the sale price of a home,with possible implications on property taxes. 21 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 Tompkins County Department of Assessment staff made it clear that a Tompkins Residential Energy Score,or any home energy rating, will not affect the assessed value of properties now or in the foreseeable future.Assessed value is based on market forces;values are adjusted when there are obvious changes In the local housing market that can be applied across similar properties.Until ratings are extremely widespread -common enough to show specifically how a good rating,bad rating,or no rating at all impacts market value - it will be impossible to apply the results equitably across all properties in the County,according to the Department of Assessment. Furthermore,the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance specifies what data are collected and stored in the assessment database.Our County Department of Assessment cannot add fields,and therefore has no way to collect or store additional information such as an energy score in its Image Mate database. It is worth noting that energy efficiency upgrades such as a new furnace,or increased insulation,are treated as normal maintenance,and do not influence the assessed value of a home. Regarding sale price, a Score willbe only one factor among many that a prospective buyer will consider, along with other important information like location, school district, size,acreage,kitchen design, or age. Although there are reports that show that homebuyers are willingto pay more for newly-built homes with an energy efficiency certification such as EnergyStar or LEED for Homes,research conducted as part of this project found no evidence of a relationship between changes ina home's energy rating score and changes in itssale price. In other words, no indication was found that a home with a better (or worse)score would necessarily yield a higher (or lower) sale price. However,there are other benefits to obtaining a score.As noted in the "Realtors"segment of section 4.5,above,there is evidence that disclosinga score, even if the score isunfavorable, helps to sell a home. The information itself,whether positive or negative, is helpfulto the buyer. Itis hoped that as scores become widespread, awareness of the energy use of a home will become part ofa buyer's informed decision makingand that we willhave more energy conscious and informed consumers in the area. 2. Low-Income residents:Importance of avoiding disproportionate negative impacts on the low income homeowner and renter population. Concerns were expressed that low-income homeowners whose homes score poorly, but who cannot afford to do the upgrades that would result ina better score, would therefore not be able to sell their homes. Issues related to home value and salability are addressed above.The concern that low-income homeowners may not be able to afford energy efficiency upgrades will be addressed byemphasizingthe availabilityofseveral programs for low-income people to help payfor, or fullysubsidize some upgrades. This information can be included with or on the label. The RES Program will also create ties with 22 TompkinsResidentialEnergyScore Programand Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 agencies that offer financial incentives to low-income people for energy efficiency upgrades,such as Tompkins Community Action and NYSERDA. A score provides valuable Information to help low- and middle-income home buyers and renters by giving them more information about the energy use and potential utility costs of a home they are considering.This is currently a problem when renters unexpectedly face extremely high energy bills when they move in, which will have to be paid throughout the duration of their occupancy,or when home-buyers realize that they can only avoid high energy bills by either doing upgrades to the property or livingin uncomfortable or unsafe conditions.The RES Program allows low-income buyers and renters to factor in the cost of energy to their decision about whether a prospective property will be affordable. A recent report released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,highlighted the higher-energy burdens (percentage of income spent on energy bills)experienced by low-income and minority households when compared to the average household.The report also highlighted that families with higher energy burdens are at greater risk for respiratory diseases,increased stress,and they can experience increased economic hardship and difficulty moving out of poverty.One strategy mentioned in the report for improving energy efficiency in low-income communities is incorporating energy efficiency education into program design.The report states that "state and local governments can set policy directives that support low-income energy efficiency, including disclosure and benchmarking policies for multifamily buildings."(DrehobI & Ross,2016) 3.Disclosure and Privacy:Importance of honoring people's desire to control data about their lives. Concerns were expressed about how the information collected would be stored and disclosed,and to whom. Currently RESNET hosts a website that allows a home to be searched by address to find the HERS Rating on a home, ifit has received one. The site shows only the address of the house and the rating, no information about the homeowner,occupant,or other characteristics of the home isdisplayed. The DOE Home Energy Score currently does not have a publicly accessible database. There is already a lot of information about homes that could be considered private available to the public through the Department of Assessment's online database,Image Mate, as wellas through other sources.Image Mate Basicwas created for use by the public and provides free and convenient access to real property information such as:the property address;a history of assessed value and sale value; year built;square footage;types of heating/cooling systems and fuel used;presence of a solar energy system;and general condition of the property.A complete list of data publicly available from the Department of Assessment can be found in Attachment 10. Any database developed for the Residential EnergyScore project willnot add significantly to the information that is already publiclyavailable from other sources. 23 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 Researchshows that for a rating project to have the greatest impact on affecting the housing market and drivingenergy efficiency,Scores need to be available to prospective buyers during the listingand sale process,preferably through realtors.Also, if the program is to be effective,citizens will need to become more aware of what a good Score is,and what Scores near-by homes or homes that are similar to theirs have. Itwillbe important for everyone to have a sense about whether their home is"Average," "BelowAverage," or "Better than Average" in energy use. This awareness willhelp to encourage home owners to get needed upgrades. As the project moves into the implementation phase,the Project Team will request more input from the public to determine the exact means and limits of disclosure. 4.Historic Homes and Homes in Historic Districts:Importance of not jeopardizing homes that are protected because of their historical significance. Concerns were expressed that homes with historical value or in a historic district have limited options to upgrade and improve a potentially poor score. While some restrictions are placed on upgrades to homes in historic districts and homes protected as historic,many upgrades are still permitted,and many home performance options do exist.Resources for historic homes,including information about energy efficiency upgrades and related tax credits,are available on the Cityof Ithaca's Landmarks Preservation Commission webpage.The relevant linkwill be listed on the back of the Label. During program design it will be important to continually consider these four primary topics that have been raised as concerns by the RESP team,the Technical Advisory Committee,and the general public.As implementation progresses,additional opportunities will be created for people to help craft strategies to make the RESP successful and meet these challenges. 5.Implementation Staging the implementation in phases allows time to develop the program in further detail,set up appropriate infrastructure,and prepare the market to engage successfully in the program.The six phases of implementation include the following: 1.Phase One:Project Team secures funding for development and implementation to move the program forward; 2.Phase Two:Project Team acquires a Program Implemented 3.Phase Three:Program Implementer works with Project Team to complete the program and Label design,marketing and education plans,program infrastructure including data management,and evaluation plan; 4.Phase Four:Program is rolled out with a limited Pilot Program to determine how the program can be most effective; 5.Phase Five:Voluntary Program begins,accompanied by intensive marketing and education;and 24 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 6. Phase Six:Evaluation of program design and possibilities for improvement. Below,the phases are presented indetail for a comprehensive understanding of the proposed program, implementation,and the ability to manage data and evaluate effectiveness. 5.1.Phase One:Secure Funding Without adequate funding,the program cannot move forward.Funding options may include private foundations,NYSERDA,NYSEG,participating municipalities,community based non-profit groups,or other private organizations such as the National Association of REALTORS®(NAR). Funding consists of stages: 1.Start-up funding to complete program and label design,set-up infrastructure,and provide training; 2.Funding for a pilot;and 3. Funding on an annual basis to run the program after initial launch. 5.2.Phase Two: Hire Program Implementer Determining where to situate the project and what entity will be responsible for implementing the program and tracking data is critical to initiating the project.The project team has identified Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County as one possible candidate. The Program Implementer \Nou\di be responsible for: 1.Overseeing and Guiding Program Design; 2.Training and Policy Support; 3.Education and Outreach; 4.Program Optimization; 5.Program Quality Assurance; 6.ResuIts/Data Tracking; 7.Facilitating Connections with Local Workforce and Home Performance Programs;and 8.General Program Administration. 5.3.Phase Three:Complete Program Design Here we look in detail at the key elements related to designing and implementing the Residential Energy Score Program. 5.3.1 Design the Label The creation and design of the label needs to include stakeholder feedback,consumer input,and consideration of the local concerns and priorities.Label design should strongly consider feedback from public outreach for this project,as well as the lessons learned from the Vermont Energy Labeling Working Group during their development of a voluntary residential building energy label. In Vermont, realtors,their regional Multiple Listing Service (MLS)organization,home performance contractors,the 25 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 U.S.Department of Energy,different states and the public all provided feedback on proposed scoring metrics and label designs.(Energy Futures Group,2013) The Vermont group determined that a score Inunits of M/WStu/year for total estimated energy production based on an asset rating was the best metric.The label also Included projected energy costs and a general description of the home.Ideas for the label obtained during the RESP team outreach, outlined In the Home Energy Label Recommendations section of this report,section 4.3.1,should be Included. 5.3.2 Design Education and Outreach Plan Outreach and education must focus on the value of the rating to the homeowner,homebuyer,seller, buyer's and seller's agents,renter,and home performance contractors.It must also highlight the goal and need for carbon emission reductions and the role this project plays In both achieving that goal and In the creation of Informed policy decisions going forward.For more details supporting outreach and education to different groups,review section 4.5 of this report. 5.3.3 Determine Alignment of HESto HERS Energy Predictions Using two rating systems Iskey to allowing Incorporation of existing market ratings on new construction, very high efficiency homes, and multlfamllyunits via the RESNET Home EnergyRatingSystem (HERS) Index and a feasible path for the average existing homes to obtain a score via the Department of Energy's Home EnergyScore (DOE HES).Bothof these asset rating systems use a modelingtool that will determine energy use projections In MMBti/s per year. Research Is needed to determine how well these projections line up to one another for the same house. For example.Ifwe lookat the same home using the two approaches,will they deliver a similar enough projection In energy use?Understanding how these line up with one another,and the potential margin of error Iscritical to a score that Includes both. 5.3.4 Set up Database System for recording and tracking data There are three key types of data that need to be tracked and maintained for a program to be successful: 1.Available Workforce:A database of local certified raters and Contractors that have an understanding ofthe program and are able to asses a home for the Scoreand perform retrofit work. The need for additional localqualified contractors to perform the work Ina reasonable time period; 2. Participating Home Data: Data on houses participating.Including the Scores,address,date of rating,and other relevant Information; 3. Evaluation Data: Quality assurance and consumer and participant feedback data.Including when and why the rating was performed. 5.3.5 Data Infrastructure Requirements Data Infrastructure refers to the digital structure supporting data storage,sharing, and management. Data Infrastructure may Includea web portal and a database.In the design of a process and data 26 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 infrastructure for program and data management,it is essential to develop a description of the requirements and data points needed to meet the overallgoal.The following listof requirements for the infrastructure reflects the Residential EnergyScore Project Team's research on current programs,best practices,and local needs. 1.Store and Access data on Participating Raters There willbe multiple participating raters,both HERS and HES certified,that willlikely represent a range of public and private organizations.The qualifications for these raters are maintained by RESNET or DOE, and raters need to verify these qualifications annually.The program should maintain a list of local participating raters both for certification validation and for the public {homeowner.Realtor, buyer)to locate a local rater via a web portal. 2.Store and Access data on Rating Partners Each rating system (HERS and HES)requires a rater to belong to a rating provider for quality assurance oversight.These providers can often coordinate to share information and strengthen a program's effectiveness.Multiple organizations would be supporting the delivery of ratings,both as a part of private enterprise as well as in the delivery of energy efficiency programs,such as Assisted Home Performance with ENERGY STAR,Low Income Weatherization,and ENERGY STAR labeled Homes. Information on the providers who have raters participating in the program should also be accessible. 3.Generate a Label The infrastructure needs to support information from both the HES and HERS rating data and populate the common label. It needs to take in data from approved sources (such as the software tools approved by these rating systems)in order to produce this label. A mechanism for generating a local,graphically rich label is necessary,incorporating all of the items highlighted in section 4.3.1 of this paper.The Score should to be stored for retrieval along with the data used to generate the label for each home.The system must allow for limits on who can access information about an individual home. 4.Automated Quality Assurance Before the label is produced,the data need to be reviewed to check for obvious errors.Paperless automation the checks data for basic accuracy is crucial to speed up Quality Assurance (QA)and to reduce costs.Timing is important for QA.This review needs to happen before the data are made available to interested sellers or fed into the MLS,or in any way made publicly available. National experience has shown that data errors are more likely to be introduced when energy scores are input directly into the MLS by Realtors or other professionals.Rating data review by RESNET and DOE will be much delayed and not support timely review of rating scores before submission.When a rating is being used immediately to influence the sale of a home,quality assurance should be fast and highly automated. 27 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 Performance Systems Development has created an automated reviewtool for RESNET energy ratings used by energy raters in 13 states and by utility-funded new home programs.The same database application, Compass, has been extended with funding from DOE to support the DOE Home EnergyScore tool. Thismay be the only database application In the country with support for both RESNET HERS Index ratings and DOE Home Energy Score ratings. 5. Field Quality Assurance A certain percentage of jobs are given field QA under the terms of both the DOE HES and the RESNET HERS rating. This quality assurance involves a third party performing the rating again to verify results and reviewing electronic and paper documentation to ensure the rater is abiding by the rating standards and performing diagnostic testing appropriately.These QA data are reported to both RESNET and the DOE for tracking and maintaining a rater's certification.Leveraging these national field inspection requirements is important for maintaining a low cost of delivery.This can be achieved by verifying and tracking that a rating has been submitted to these entities.This saves the program from needing to perform a separate field QA. 6.Storage and Retrieval of Ratings The home rating would ideally happen simultaneously with different types of events,such as home performance audit,home inspection,or post sale,when data can be collected more cost effectively by trained individuals.Because these events are not necessarily aligned with the time a home is listed for sale,the rating information needs to be stored somewhere,and made available for input into the MLS at the appropriate time. While it is ideal for the public to have access to the Tompkins Residential Energy Score data outside of the MLS,some information associated with the rating may need to remain private.The control over which data may be shared is a key requirement of the program,and the infrastructure needs to provide access restrictions so that different stakeholders can access different subsets of data.For example, realtors may benefit from having access to information about Scores by category of regions of the county and at various price points. Having information from the ratings combined with other information,such as participation in weatherization or local renewable energy programs,age of home,and whether or not retrofit work has been performed,is essential to program evaluation and optimization.It is also tied to the ultimate goal of better understanding the opportunities available to improve energy performance of the housing in Tompkins County.The program needs flexibility in the portal or chosen infrastructure to capture this additional information. 7.Training To make ratings broadly available in the market,training will need to be made available on a recurring basis,and raters will need to be recruited.Training on the specific program,including the local submission and labeling process,would also be necessary. 28 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 5.3.6 Creating MLS Data Connection There are two key database applications that need to be connected - a data repository for the information described above and the Realtor Multiple Listing Service (MLS).Many similar databases, such as the MLS and Department of Assessment databases,are not linked.Currently inTompkins County,the Department of Assessment manually inputs information that they find on the MLS and vice versa.It isa goal of the program that the Score for homes could be included in online real estate and rental marketplace databases such as Zillow,Trulia,and Realtor.com.Opportunities for this are better now than ever.The Real Estate Standards Organization (RESO)recently added a "Green Verification Metric"field to their Data Dictionary which references both the DOE HES and the RESNET HERS systems. This dictionary creates common standards that lists and describes how all real estate data fields can be included in an MLS and encourages consistent terms and data structures.This new Green Verification Metric is defined in the dictionary as: "Afinal score indicating the performance of energy efficiency design and measures in the home as tested by a third-party rater.Points achieved to earn a certification in the High Performance Rating field do not apply to this field.HERS Index is most common with new homes and runs with a lower number being more efficient.A net-zero home uses zero energy and has a HERS score of 0. A home that produces more energy than it uses has a negative score.Home Energy Score is a tool more common for existing homes and runs with a higher number being more efficient.It takes square footage into account and caps with 10 as the highest number of points."(Real Estate Standards Organization,2016) This provides the structure for including the Score in the local MLSin Tompkins County.There are systems available and in development that would aid in connecting the rating data or Score into the MLS.The U.S. DOE announced on September IS,2015 an award providing three years of funding to Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)to support the development of HELIX,or the Home Energy Labeling Information Exchange in an effort to "expedite the creation of large-scale home energy labeling policies and programs that support the market valuation of energy efficiency in homes by making U.S.DOE Home Energy Score (HES)data accessible to local Multiple Listing Services (MLS)and other market interests".(Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships,2015) HELIX MUmPlEUSnNC SERVICE* rs Figure 6: The Home Energy Labeling Information Exchange (HELIX)can facilitate the delivery of the score from the program database to the multiple listing service Another tool available that supports home energy rating and disclosure programs is the DOE's Standard Energy Efficiency Database Platform,or SEED.SEED isan open source database application for managing information related to energy scores on buildings.SEED was created to support the management of benchmarking mandates for large cities but is now being adapted for use with 29 Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 residential ratings.NEEP is currently exploring ways for HELIX to leverage SEED to facilitate this process. NEEP released a one-page information sheet on HELIX,found in Attachment 8 to this document,that states that HELIX will support incorporating home rating information into the MLSs "while providing appropriate data security and privacy protections".(Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships,2015) One key capability of SEED is to manage energy data for large numbers of buildings.SEED can collect information from property assessment and other existing databases and match this information up with energy ratings submitted by qualified raters (Figure 7). SEED PlatfonnConceptofOperations SEED Platform Data Sources j Analysis Toolsj Database Built on a Standard i Taxonomy Figure 7:SEED Platform Concept of Operations The SEED database itself is not intended for use by energy raters,Realtors or homeowners,but rather supports data management for governments and programs.SEED can be connected to user friendly web portals that can allow raters,homeowners or program staff to input or access information.These basic web portals can be easily created and would have very low maintenance costs.Some cities are investing in enhanced web portals that contain data mapping and data visualization tools. An example of this can be seen in Philadelphia's commercial benchmarking portal,a website that allows individuals to easily create visual reports on emissions,building size, building type,and score for the city. In addition to collecting the data on a home from the rater,the program must also generate the label. SEED has an option to install a plug-in application as an extension.A plug-in created to generate the local label could be an option for this program design. A one-page information sheet on SEED can be found in attachment 9. It's important to note that this database includes controlling the disclosure of information as determined by the individual program set up but can allow data sharing with other third parties at the client or homeowners'discretion.As part of implementation and infrastructure development,the team should consider feedback received during outreach on homeowner privacy rights and concerns. Another related tool is Compass,developed by Performance Systems Development.Thistool could be used to provide the portal for energy raters to submit ratings to the program,to automate quality assurance checks on the rating information,and to generate the locallabel. This information could be 30 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 used in combination with SEED for storage.PSD also has direct experience with the visual connectivity functionality of SEED through its role as the developer of the interconnection between SEED and EPA PortfolioManager benchmarking system under a contract with Lawrence BerkeleyNational Lab (LBNL) and US DOE. 5.3.7 Infrastructure Deployment The initial deployment of the information technology (IT)system would require the development of a detailed plan for IT implementation that is beyond the scope of this report.Once the ITsystem is planned,the deployment can happen in stages.Deployment would start with a database,web portal, and the creation of the data connection to the MLS. The next stage of IT deployment would be the development of the portals for credentialed users to access data or supply data to the system.These web sites can also provide homeowners with access to a list of qualified raters and link to other energy efficiency resources in the county. The final stage of IT deployment would be the development of a public-facing portal with data visualization and reporting tools to help increase understanding about an individual homes score,and energy use in Tompkins County housing as a whole.The portal could include reports that are designed for various audiences,such as Homebuyers or Renters,Realtors, or the Tompkins County Department of Assessment.The exact information that is displayed will consider homeowner privacy concerns and should first be proposed for public feedback. If adequate funding is available for program start up,investing some of these funds in automation for the label generation and OAcan help reduce the cost of ongoing support for the rating effort.While automation of the process isan important end goal, low initial rating volumes may require offering the label with more manual generation process,such as a spreadsheet application.This application could be used by the qualified energy efficiency consulting staff.Similarly,manual OA review can be used at the initial launch. Ongoing support for the ratings requires an efficient and responsive review process.There is considerable time pressure in the process of listing a home.Beingable to demonstrate that the staffing and systems are in place to make the process of obtaining a rating,getting a OA review, and posting it to the MLS quickly and efficiently willgo a long way to addressing the concerns of the real estate community and the public. 5.3.8 Staffing The program would require both IT support and energy efficiencyconsulting support as well as general administrative roles.Determining detailed staffing needs would be dependent on the implementer and final program plan and IT design. 31 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 5.4.Phase Four:Pilot starting participation with a pilot phase would allow for testing the design and effectiveness of the program on a smaller scale. One option for a pilot isto target 25%of allsingle-familyhomes in Tompkins County that are built, sold or significantly retrofitted in approximately one year, until 250 homes are rated,scored,and labeled: 32 Location -throughout Tompkins County; •Duration-approximately one year; Target 250 single-family homes and apartments for labeling -HERS rating for all new house construction and units within multifamily buildings 4 stories or less in height;HES rating for all major retrofits and 10-25% of existing homes sold (ratings performed in advance so that the label is available at time of house listing); •Staff - 2-3 full-time raters certified for HES and HERS; •Program implementer to design label,collect data,drive participation through education and outreach,and evaluate the program as described below; •Education and outreach -work with municipal building departments to target all new construction and all major retrofits;work with realtors to educate prospective sellers to have rating performed before listing house;work with all residents to voluntarily get rating/label and to understand what the label means;and • Cost-ROUGH BALLPARK $300,000 is needed to cover the staff time so that ratings are FREE to those participating in pilot. During the pilot phase,the following aspects of the program should be evaluated and fine-tuned: 1.Effectiveness and relevancy of the label; 2. Training needs of local workforce on HES and HERS Certification; 3.Lobe/generation process; 4.Retrieval and storage of data; 5.Quality Assurance; 6.Potential negative impacts on low income population; 7. Best time/most frequent time that a rating occurs; 8. The ability of the Tompkins Residential EnergyScore program to influence home improvements, home purchase decisions, and purchase price; and 9. Available funding for home energy retrofit work. Program evaluation and reporting should include feedback and discussions with the Technical Advisory Committee,the Residential Energy Score Project Team,and participating municipalities. In addition to accepting new homes into the program,the pilot phase should encourage labeling homes that have had ratings in the past and adding these data to the program database.Thiswill need an added layer of quality assurance to ensure the data are accurate and still relevant. Tompkins Residential Energy Score Programand Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 5.5.Phase Five:Voluntary Launch The team has determined that a voluntary program Is the best approach for several reasons.The legal review that was performed as part of this project (Attachment 1)revealed that at this time there are potential legallimitations InNew York State for municipalitiesto create an ordinance or lawrequiring home energy scoring. Realtors expressed concerned that a mandate at time of sale could add extra stress and burden on sellers at an already stressful time. Launching the program on a voluntary basis will provide the opportunity to evaluate whether the free market can scale the program appropriately and capture the public's enthusiasm for home rating and scoring. A voluntary program could build toward a mandate in the future,if desirable and legally permissible,and could use the staged Implementation approach described later In this document.A voluntary program should Include an Increased priority on providing education on the value of asset ratings. An Initial voluntary phase,where participation Is optional.Is useful to figure out best practices and allow the data infrastructure to be tested and fine-tuned.Research,however,shows that voluntary rating program participants are disproportionately owners of high-performing homes,and they participate out of an Interest in certifying or recognizing their homes,rather than to drive retrofit.(Dunsky Energy Consulting and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships,2009)This Is one reason that a mandatory program may be a preferred long-term goal.Without getting large-scale adoption,the program will not reach its goal. The voluntary program should capture all ratings that have already been completed or are already In process In the area,Independent of the program.Some homes In Tompkins County are already voluntarily receiving HERS Index and HES asset ratings due to their owner's desire to obtain certification as ENERGY STAR,Passive House,LEED for Homes,and participation In NYSERDA's Low-rise New Construction Program.173 homes In Tompkins County received a HERS Index between 2011 and 2015. Asof May 2016, no HES ratings have been performed InTompkins County. While 173 homes Isa small number Inlight of the 20,000 one (1)and two (2)family residential properties InTompkins County, It shows that there Is already a starting base of homes In the area that have asset ratings and will continue to acquire asset ratings Independent of the program.The program needs to Include the existing ratings In the Tompkins Residential Energy Score database,while also educating consumers and others about the value,and driving demand for ratings to happen going forward.In order to get additional participation,homeowners need to see a clear value,or incentive,to participate.Below,steps are listed for launching the program. 5.5.1 Start Accepting Ratings Once the ITsystems are Inplace with the ability to track and generate the Tompkins Residential Energy Score and label,the program can begin accepting participants.Ratings could be submitted by either HERS or HES raters and tracked In the chosen Infrastructure. 33 Tompklns Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 5.5.2 Begin Marketing and Education Plan Including Label Thisphase would require the development of marketing and educational materials to support the program that targets Realtors,homeowners,homebuyers,raters,home performance contractors,code officers, and home inspectors.This should include the value of the rating and the value of energy efficiency, logistics for how to participate in the program,and how to use the information on the label. The Department of Energy (DOE),the Residential EnergyServices Network (RESNET),and the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)offer great educational resources and templates.The program should utilize local organizations,such as Cornell Cooperative Extension and SolarTompkins to strengthen efforts.The RESP team,through its outreach efforts,identified the top four (4)messaging motivators: 1.Saving money; 2. Knowing what to expect in monthly energy costs; 3.Saving energy;and 4.Reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 5.5.3 Evaluation and Adjustments -Policy Optimization Analyze data to help determine rates of adoption,trends in the types of homes participating,and major hurdles and opportunities to increase participation.This should include customer feedback as well as data analysis.Key ideas for policy optimization should include most frequent time of rating,if ratings are tied to home performance work, and where there are obvious gaps in participation among the population (e.g.income level,region,housing type).This information helps guide the program going forward,and helps validate funding needs and program effectiveness,cost sharing,and integration with other programs.Evaluation should specifically look at participation and the ability to support low- income households and households that statistically are more likely to have a higher energy burden such as African-American,Latino,and Renters.(DrehobI & Ross,2016) Regular evaluations should revisit the idea of a mandate,specifically whether and when a mandate is an appropriate option.Ultimately the value of the program and its effectiveness at creating value in energy efficiency in real estate transactions and driving energy improvements is dependent on wide-scale participation.If the market drives sufficient participation,a mandate is not necessary. 5.6.Phase Six:Revise Program based on Evaluation After evaluation is complete,review results and consider how to best strengthen the program.This could include increased marketing,additional workforce training,creating incentives to enhance participation rate,and re-visiting the legality and advisability of creating mandates for participation. 34 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 6.Conclusion A residential energy score program for the participating municipalities and across the County should allowfor the largest participation possible by incorporating both the RESNET HERS indexfor new homes and the DOEHome Energy Score for the existing housing stock.Displaying the Tompkins Residential EnergyScore inunits of estimated site energy use inMMBtu/year would allow the program to incorporate both systems.With this approach,homeowners can compare all rated homes to each other and account for renewable and on-site energy production on the label. It is important to remember that without large adoption,the program will struggle to meet the ultimate goals of valuing energy efficiency in real estate transactions and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.For example,ifonly some refrigerators received EnergyGuide information,or only some cars had miles per gallon ratings,the information would begin to lose relevance.If we cannot compare the score of one home to another,or see where it ranks in the range of homes in Tompkins County,it becomes much less valuable.In order to achieve this wide-spread adoption,the Residential Energy Score Project team is proposing a staged approach to allow for public education,market readiness,and further program development,such as developing the label,marketing materials,and necessary data Infrastructure.A central implementer overseeing this process and creating connections with local programs and existing workforce is essential for success.A pilot and voluntary program with regular evaluation,assessment, and discussion about future options ensures program optimization.The proposed Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program will assist Tompkins County municipalities in moving toward a more sustainable, energy independent,and healthier future for all residents by increasing consumer awareness, understanding,and ability to value the energy use and efficiency in homes. 35 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 7.Glossary Asset Rating - Asset ratings create a score by evaluating a home's actual physical structure and mechanical systems,and major lightsand appliances. The asset rating is scored by the national calculation methodology (NCM).Using an approved calculation tool,an assessor creates a model of the annual €02 emissions from the building. Data Infrastructure - Data infrastructure refers to the digital structure supporting data sharing and management.Data infrastructure may include a web portal and a database. DOE Home Energy Score -The Department of Energy Home Energy Score is similar to a vehicle's miles- per-gallon rating.The Score allows homeowners and homebuyers to identify how much energy a home is expected to use and provides suggestions for improving its energy efficiency.It also allows homeowners to compare the energy performance of their homes to other homes nationwide. Home Energy Rating - also referred to as a "rating"in the document,a Home Energy Rating refers to the process of evaluating a home's energy efficiency and performance in a standard way that can be compared to other homes.The two most common type of home energy ratings used today are operational ratings and asset ratings. Label - The label acts as a standard method to graphically communicate home rating information for both existing and new home construction.The label is generated from approved data sources (such as the two rating software tools)and is stored for retrieval along with the data used to generate the label for each home. MMBtu's -1 MMBtuis equal to 1 million BTU (British thermal unit).All fuel energy use can be converted to this unit.One BTU is approximately equal to the energy released by burning one kitchen match. Operational Rating - Alsoknown as "Measured EnergyRating",an Operational Ratingis based on measured amounts of delivered and exported energy.The measured rating is the weighted sum of all energy carriers used bya building and isa measure of the in-use performance of a building. This measurement is relevant to the certification of actual energy performance. Program -Aresidential energy disclosure program evaluates the relativeenergy efficiency of homes and opportunities for improvement and standardizes the availabilityofthis information ina given market. Program Implementer -The Program Implementer is responsible for developing and implementing the program.Responsibilities include:overseeing and guiding program design,training and policy support, education and outreach,program optimization,program quality assurance and enforcement, results/data tracking,facilitating connections with local workforce and home performance programs, and general program administration. RESNET HERS Index -The Home Energy RatingSystem (HERS)Index is the industry standard bywhich a home's energy efficiencyis measured.It's also a nationally recognized system for inspecting and calculating a home's energy performance. 36 Tompkins Residential Energy Score Programand Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 Site Energy- Site energy is the amount of heat and electricity consumed bya buildingas reflected in the utility bills.Analyzing site energy can illustrate how the energy use for an individual building haschanged over time. Source Energy-Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is needed to operate a building.By taking all energy use into account,the score provides a complete assessment of energy efficiencyina building.Itincludes all transmission,delivery, and production losses. Tompkins Residential Energy Score or "The Score"-The Score allows homes inTompkins County, New York to view the estimated annual energy use of homes in one comparable metric. 37 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 8.Bibliography American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. (2014).Residential Energy Use Disclosure:A guide for Policymakers.ACEEE. DrehobI,A.,& Ross,L.(2016).Lifting the High Energy Burden in America's Largest Cities: How Energy Efficiency Can Improve Low Income and Underserved Communities.April:ACEEE. Dunsky Energy Consulting and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.(2009). Valuing Building Energy Efficiency Through Disclosure and Upgrade Policies. Elevate Energy.(2014,April 22). Energy Cost Disclosure in Residential Listings in Chicago: A Preliminary Snapshot.Retrieved from http://www.elevateenergy.org/wp/wp- content/uploads/ECDOrd_Analysis_FINAL.pdf Elizabeth Stuart,L.B.(November,2015).Capturing Energy Efficiencyin Real Estate Transactions. •.Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies. Energy Futures Group.(2013).Vermont Energy Labeling Worknig Group:Development of a Voluntary Residential Building Energy Label. Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.(2009). Valuing Building Energy Efficiency Through Disclosure and Upgrade Policies. Dunsky Energy Consulting. Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.(2013).Building Energy Rating and Disclosure Policies Update and Lessons From the Field. Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.(2015,November 15th ). Home Energy Labeling and Information Exchange One Pager.Retrieved from http://www.neep.org: http://www.neep.org/sites/default/files/resources/Home%20Energy%20Labeling%20lnformatio n%20Exchange%200ne-Pager.pdf Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.(2015,December 15). NYBUILDING ENERGY CODE.Retrieved from www.neep.org:http://www.neep.org/buiietin-board/ny-building-energy-code Real Estate Standards Organization.(2016, April 28).www.reso.org.Retrieved from http://www.reso.org/data-dictionary/ 38 Tompkins Residential EnergyScore Program and Implementation Plan SECOND DRAFT 05-13-16 9.List of Attachments 1.Memo:Legal Issues for Home Energy Rating and Disclosure Program 2.Report on Existing Home Energy Rating and Disclosure Laws and Programs and Best Practices 3. Review and Analysis of Preliminary Data In Tompkins County 4. Home Energy Scoring Tool Data Collection Sheet 5.RESNET HERS Index Rated Features 6.HomeStyle Energy Mortgage FAQ 7.HomeStyle Energy Mortgage Announcement 8.HELIX-Information Sheet 9.SEED -Information Sheet 10.County Assessment Department Data from ImageMate 39 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNINGBOARD TB May 24,2016 Garrick Blalock,Chairman City of Ithaca Planning &Development Board 108 East Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Re:Town of Ithaca Planning Board Comments on the Chain Works DGEIS The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is generally supportive of the proposed Chain Works project. As an Involved Agency in the SEQR review,the Board has reviewed the Chain Works Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS)and offers the following comments: Chapter 1:introduction.Page 1-2: • The applicant should consider taking a holistic approach to LEED NO certification,focusing on obtaining the LEED ND credits that have the greatest environmental,economic,and/or social benefits,and implementing design elements which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the relevant Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan goals.The applicant should be aware that LEED ND credit weighting is not necessarily an indicator of the greatest environmental,economic,or social benefit specific to the Site. The applicant should strongly consider exceeding the LEED ND credit requirements because some Site characteristics which contribute to LEED credits are endemic to the Site location.For example, in the Smart Location & Linkage category,credits earned for "Brownfield Remediation"and "Housing and Jobs Proximity"are automatically earned because of the Site location and history. Key LEED ND credits which the applicant should strongly consider: o Smart Location & Linkage: •Access to Quality Transit • Bicycle Facilities • Site Design for Habitat or Wetland and Water Body Conservation o Neighborhood Pattern & Design: • Housing Types and Affordability •Reduced Parking Footprint •Transit Facilities •Transportation Demand Management •Access to Civic& Public Space •Community Outreach and Involvement o Green Infrastructure & Buildings: •Certified Green Buildings •Optimize Building Performance •Indoor Water Use Reduction •Outdoor Water Use Reduction •Solar Orientation Renewable Energy Production District Heating and Cooling Infrastructure Energy Efficiency Light Pollution Reduction Excluding the following credits,the applicant should consider meeting the following minimums for LEED certification: LEED Certification Standard Credit Threshold Suggested Credit Threshold Excluded Credits-Site Requirements Certified 40-49 60-69 Preferred Locations -10 credits Brownfield Remediation - 2 credits Housing and Jobs Proximity - 3 credits Visitability and Universal Design -1 credits Innovation -5 credits Regional Priority Credit Defined -4 credits Silver 50-59 70-79 Gold 60-79 80-99 Platinum 80+100+ Table 1:Suggested LEED Certification Thresholds,Based on Site History Chapter 2:Project Description 2.1 Overall Proiect Description 2.1.1 Project Phasing • The applicant has indicated that the actual phasing of the project may not follow the phasing noted in the DGEIS (e.g., Phase IV may be developed before Phase I). Anychanging of phasing related to the project may require the submission of a supplemental EIS. • Dosignificant precipitation events which occur during Phase Iactivities such as excavation,filling, compacting,have the potential to change Site hydrology/hydrogeology? 2.6 Proiect Purpose.Need,and Benefit 2.6.1 Housing • The total ChainWorks development willinvolve over 900 units of housing in an area that is walkable,well served by transit and very close to employment centers and necessary services. However,the DGEIS does not say anything about developing any portion of the 448 units proposed for CW2 and 467 units proposed for CW3 to be affordableto the median incomehousehold.By contrast,in Section 2.7.2.1,the DGEIS suggests that the project will fill the need for the "approximately 1,000 moderate to luxury rental units"that were mentioned in the 2011 Danter Company housing study that was prepared for the Downtown Ithaca Alliance. Ofthe over 900 new housing units at ChainWorks,about how many will directlysatisfy non- student community housing needs?How many will directlysatisfy the affordable housing needs for different income levels? Thismeans units intended for occupancy bythe broader general public -for-sale units or lease terms that do not follow an academic calendar;rental of full unfurnished units with no by-the-bedroom leases;conventional floorplans with no roommate suites; and development or management byan entity that does not specializein student housing. The DGEIS uses total bedroom count to describe the residential development,whichimplies student housing. The DGEIS cites a "2006 Housing Study", most likely the Tompkins CountyAffordableHousing Needs Assessment.That study finds a need for 3,894 new housing units between 2005 and 2014, and specificallyexcludes student households. While HUD may tally 2,034 new units built in that timeframe,as the DGEIS states,there is no breakdown of how many units are student-oriented (and not meeting resident demand),or how they satisfied the housing needs for different income groups.According to the Housing Strategyfor Tompkins County (6-19-2007),"... a housing strategy for the county should plan for adding at least 4,000 units to the localhousing stock over ten years,with at least half of these units affordable to households making less than 80%of median income.It needs to be emphasized that this demand does not include students..." Later in the DGEIS,Figure 2.7.6 (Building 24-Potential TypicalResidential Floor Plan),shows apartment floorplans with certain traits that are common to purpose-built student housing, and not usually seen in apartments built for general occupancy.This includes a symmetrical roommate suite-style plan,bedroom size and bed-to-bath parity,and the lack of a bathroom directly accessible from a common hall.These elements further hint at purpose-built student housing - which does not directly satisfy housing demand among the general public -being a part of the Chain Works project.If student housing will be a part of Chain Works,the DGEIS may be exaggerating the project's potential impact on "satisfy[ing] a community need for housing"and "making housing more affordable". 2.6.2 Connectivity This section has one of several statements in the DGEIS claiming the project will "enable the construction of the Gateway Trail."However,the trail needs to be on the ground to realize its connectivity and amenity benefits.The impact of Chain Works will increase demand for the trail, but the DGEIS has no specifics about how the project will help meet that demand. This section also states that the project will have "opportunities for enhanced public transit and connectivity between downtown.East and South Hill,and their academic institutions."However, the DGEIS doesn't describe the impact on transit service at current service levels,or what improvements TCAT might need to provide adequate service at buildout. 2.6.3 Sustalnablllty •Denser infill development on a close-in grayfield/brownfield site has a much lower environmental footprint than the alternative of low density sprawl on more remote greenfield sites.The DGEIS doesn't mention the benefits of redevelopment,versus the impact from conventional development that would otherwise take place to satisfy market demand. 2.6.4 Attract and retain entrepreneurs • The DGEIS claims that Chain Works will solve "brain drain"by "redevelopment of the Site into a 'live, work, play'urban center".The reasons for Ithaca's "brain drain"are many and nuanced, and go beyond the lack of startup or incubator space.Even then,the region's population continues to grow, and its Census tracts top the nation for educational attainment.Ithaca remains an aspirational community for those drawn to the environment of a college town.Stating that"...it is clear that the regional "brain drain"isa solvable issue with redevelopment of the site",as ifChain Works will be a cure-all,seems like an exaggeration of the project's potential benefits. 2.6.5 Aligns with City and Town Comprehensive Plans • The DGEIS.Chain Works generally follows many goals and recommendations of the 2014 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.However,the DGEIS or proposal does not address a few other key goals of the Plan that are relevant to a project of this scale.This includes the following. o LU-4-C Ensure that a variety of housing types and prices are provided that support a broad range of household types,sizes,lifestyles,life stages,and household incomes in new neighborhoods. o HN-2 Encourage a balanced blend of high-quality housing opportunities,including moderately priced housing to provide a range of prices to accommodate the local workforce. o HN-2-A Require developers to provide a certain percentage of residential development as moderately priced housing adorable to households in them median income range (80%to 120% of Tompkins County median household income),and/or consider using density bonuses and other modifications of development standards...to encourage developers to create moderately priced housing units. o RE-l-F Require new parks and common open space to be amassed into meaningful, quality spaces.Require parks and common open space to be contiguous to the maximum extent practicable,and located where they are visually and functionally part of the public realm. The FEIS should describe how Chain Works would help satisfy these goals and recommendations. 2.7 Site Program and Lavout 2.7.1 CWl:Natural Sub Area • This section states that the applicant "iswillingto consider mechanisms such as appropriate deed restrictions,or conservation easements to memorialize this conservation zone."The Town of Ithaca encourages exploring deed restrictions or conservation easements to promote the permanent conservation of land where possible. This strategy should work in conjunction with the proposed PUD/PDZ language related to the ChainWorks project. 2.7.2 CW2:Neighborhood General Sub Area • Table 2.1.1 (Development Summary bySub Area) on Page 2-3 of the DGEIS states that CW2will have a total development of 568,400 square feet (allnew buildings). Table 2.7.1 (also labeled Development Summary by Sub Area)confirms that number,and also notes that the entire development in CW2 would be residential. However,the text description of CW2,found on pages 2-20 and 2-21,indicates different numbers and uses for CW2.In terms of uses,the last paragraph on page 2-20 starts with "this Sub Area restricts development to residential and limited commercial uses."Arecommercial uses proposed for CW2as well as residential uses?Ifso,what percentage willbe commercial and what percentage will be residential? In terms of numbers,the third line in that paragraph states "the total area of all buildingswithin this SubAreawould not exceed 700,000square feet." On page2-21,the top paragraphgoes on to explain that "the total gross square footage footprint of residential development in CW2will not exceed 177,000 gross square feet" and that "639,475 gross square feet in CW2 are designated residential for the purposes of the analyzing the environmental impacts in the DGEIS." Shouldwe assume that the 568,400 square foot "total development"refers to building footprint and the 700,000/639,475/177,000grosssquare foot "total grosssquare footage footprint" refersto floor area?Please clarify.Also,please clarifyif the floor area numbers provided refer to the 4- story scenario or the 6-story scenario (noted at the bottom of page 2-20).Finally,if177,000 gross square feet will be the maximum residentialarea proposed for CW2 ("will not exceed..."),then why analyze an additional 639,475 gross square feet for that area? On Page 2-21,Section A-Aof Figure 2-7.3:Section through CW2 and CW3 Sub Areas -this drawing is misleading to the reader,showing only buildings in CW2 that are 3-stories tall (two of them with underground parking),where the proposal is really for "a maximum of 4-stories for building heights exposed to NYS Route 96B"with "up to two additional stories allowed below the uphill grades first story." All CW2 related tables and numbers should be revised to indicate the most accurate information about the uses, building areas/footprints/floor areas and accurate visual representations of building stories and heights. In general,building stories need to have a "not-to-exceed height"(floor to ceiling)noted for all Sub Areas,not just the CW3 (more comments related to CW3 below).As stated in our comments related to Adequacy,we maintain that the proposed heights of "4 stories plus 2 additional stories on the downhill side in CW2"is excessive. 2.7.2.1 Residential • This section makes statements about the 2012 Downtown Housing Strategy in the City of Ithaca, New York,indicating that it "projects a shortage of approximately 1,000 moderate-to-luxury rental units by the year 2016".In reality,the report actually projects a demand for 600 to 675 "affordable- moderate"to luxury units in the extended market area (EMA).When projections include "tax credit"units,the total five-year demand is 900 to 1,000 units.From page 3-3 of the Downtown Housing Strategy: Luxury units (average monthly rent $1,750):100-125 total units Upscaleunits (average monthly rent $1,300):200-250 total units Affordable-moderate units (average monthly rent $850): 300 units Taxcredit units (average monthly rent $690):300-325 units Overall support:900-1,000 units The Downtown Housing Strategy specifically leaves out purpose-built student housing from its projections.While this section brings up the Downtown Housing Strategy and its findings, it does not state that Chain Works will help alleviate the region's housing shortage,and to what extent - only that the project "offers a great opportunity to develop a variety of multi-unit rental buildings." Please describe how Chain Works will directly satisfy the projected demand for luxury,upscale, affordable-moderate,and tax credit units,as the Downtown Housing Strategy report describes. • This section mentions the CW2 subarea will have a "variety of housing types".These housing types include "point-access","townhomes or double loaded",and "multi-unit corridor configurations". These are not different types of housing,but different forms of access to individual units in multi- unit buildings.Please correct this. 2.7.3 CW3:Neighborhood Center Sub Area • We acknowledge that portions of this Sub Area are located in the City of Ithaca and portions are located in the Town of Ithaca.We also acknowledge that this Sub Area contains a large mix of proposed uses, from residential to industrial,to be located in existing and proposed buildings. That is why the citv and town specificallv indicated in their comments related to Adeauacv that there should be special consideration related to the proposed heights and designs of new buildings that will be constructed along the Aurora Street/NYS Route 96B frontage in the CW3 Sub Area.We suggested changing the Sub Area designation along this corridor to CW2,thereby limiting the uses to residential and the building heights to a maximum of 4 stories (or shorter,with much lower than 24-foot story heights).We maintain that the proposed heights of "6 stories plus additional 2 stories"in CW3is particularly excessive along Aurora Street/NYS Route 96B,especially when the story height of any new building is proposed to be "limited to 24-feet"(DGEIS page 2-23,second paragraph,last line). Regarding the same,we also recommended revising the PUD-PDZ language to show design and architectural standards that would be unique to the Aurora Street/NYS Route 96B frontage. Alternately,we suggested creating a new defined area that pertains only to the Aurora Street/96B frontage and contains its own set of architectural design requirements that would include a variety of architectural styles,so new development blends in appropriately with the variety of styles that exist along Aurora Street/NYS Route 96B.Homogenous and/or institutional style architecture could negatively affect the character of the corridor. The DGEIS did not consider any of the above suggestions or recommendations that were in the Town of Ithaca's Adequacy comments. 2.7.3.2.Commercial • This section states Buildings17 and 18 will be converted to about 10,400 ft^of restaurant/cafe and event cafe space.However, Table 5.7-4 (Project Generated Trips) uses 7,200 ft^as the basis for restaurant trip generation.Which information is correct? 2.7.3.3.Industrial • This section states that "Industrial uses...would be limited to what is currently allowed in the City's B-2zoning and some uses in the City's 1-1 zoning." Alarge portion of the CW-3 area is in the Town of Ithaca. The PUD/PDZ regulations related to the project will shape the allowable uses in the project. Between 2.7.3.4 and 2.7.3.5 • A section titled "Recreation"is called for in the Scope (2.5.5,p. 12)between DGEIS 2.7.3.4 (CommonAreas,Open Space and Other Facilities and Services)and 2.7.3.5 (Parking),but there appears to be no such section.It isclaimed that this is addressed by 2.7.1 (p. 2-19), but the scoping requirement that "This subsection of the DGEIS will describe where the recreation areas will be located within the Chain Works District,potential square-footage,and types of recreational amenities and activities" is not wellsatisfied with specifics, and no square footage estimates appear at all. 2.7.3.5 Parking • There are some confusing numbers for parkingspaces on page 2-23. The second paragraph indicates that there will be an increase of 450-475 parkingspaces from the "current 875 spaces." Butthe last paragraph inthe section notes that there will be a "total of 675 parkingspaces in CW3." Please clarify or correct ifthis is a typo. 2.7.4 CW4:Industrial Sub Area • The repurposing of the existing industrial buildings seems appropriate for this Sub Area, as does the proposed increase in height. We understand that the story height noted in the last lineof the first paragraph under this section on page 2-31("story height will not exceed 30feet") refers to the first story of the existing buildings only.However,this should be clarified. 2.7.5 Transportation Network • Thissection describes projected transportation network improvements that different phases of the project will require.Who will be responsible for those improvements? 2.7J Anticipated Project Population • The office, retail and industrial areas inTable 2.7-3 (Anticipated Employee Population)do not match those of the traffic projections InTable 5.7-4 (Projected Generated Trips). Which information is correct? Chapter 3:Introduction (this is mislabeled in the Table of Contents and should state "Reasonable Alternatives") Chapter 5:Environmental Setting/Impacts/Mitigation 5.1 Land Use/Zoning 5.1.2.1 Response to the Goals of the City and Town Comprehensive Plans • To what extent willChain Works accommodate family-friendly housing and amenities? 5.1.4.2 Land Use and Zoning >Mitigation Measures >Mitigation to Form and Intensity of Uses • Table 5.1-4 describes permitted uses in the four subareas,"per ExistingCityZoning". City of Ithaca zoning regulations do not apply in the Town of Ithaca.Please correct. 5.1.4.3 Land Use and Zoning >Mitigation Measures >Design standards • On page 5-16, for the CW4 Subarea,the DGEIS states "The impact on the neighboring properties and the other zoning districts is anticipated to be minimal as the result of the clearly defined Sub Areas and Design Standards to be set in place as a result of this project."However,the conceptual PDZ regulations have no performance standards,buffering or screening requirements,or other standards that would help mitigate the impact of potentially intensive industrial uses near residential areas.Mitigation must be a part of any PDZ standards the Town adopts. 5.2 Land - 5.2.1.1 Surface Geology • The USDA Soil Survey Map and accompanying description of the soils on the site indicate that there are highly erodible soils in the areas within and around Sub Area CW2. Page 5-20 of the DGEIS states that soil type LtB should "remain in some type of vegetation to reduce erosion,"and that soil type LtC could "produce rapid stormwater runoff,"and "should remain in vegetation as a protection against erosion."However,these are the exact same areas where new high density housing and development is being proposed.The DGEIS acknowledges this in one paragraph on page 5-23,where it explains that Sub Area CW2 contains the highest concentration of new development in the project while simultaneously containing the highest potential for soil erosion due to the soils and slope. The proposed mitigation related to developing Sub Area CW2is vague (page 5-24) and generally mentions submission of grading,geotechnical and excavation plans for each Phase beyond Phase I. Thisis appropriate for a Generic Environmental Impact Statement,especially since CW2 is part of Phase IV.However,additional studies,including a possible supplemental EIS,may eventually be required for the CW2 Sub Area in order to adequately evaluate the actual development limitations in that Sub Area related to soils and slopes. 5.4 Vegetation and Fauna • The DGEIS contains a very thorough biological study of the area's flora and fauna.Although the project includes tree removal,the DGEIS indicates preserving the most intact and valuable forested area,where the Appalachian Oak-Hickory forest is located (CWl).The DGEIS also contains a tree survey and preservation plans for CW2(p. 5-41),the area that is currently undeveloped.Overall, the biological study appears to be complete and the proposed mitigation for areas with the most tree removal appears to be adequate. 5.5 Public Health and Environment 5.5.1 Existing Conditions • This section in the scoping document (Scope 5.5.1,p.26)promises a more detailed history,but the history provided in DGEIS 5.5.1 (p. 5-43)provides no more detail than what appears in the scoping document. 5.5.2 Potential impacts • The DGEIS acknowledges that,"Areas of the Site, including the driveway area.RicePaddy (area southwest of Building34) and sediments in ditches,which are down gradient from the core structures,were found to have heavy metals,PCBs,VOCs,and SVOCs in the soil,sediment and groundwater exceeding their NYSDEC cleanup standards.[...]Furthermore,impacts in subsurface soils can be a concern in the event that future ground intrusive work encounters these impacts and they are not properly handled. Impacts in groundwater can migrate off-site and based on geologic setting and hydrology at the Site can present in surface water downgradient in locations where bedrock fractures outcrop at the surface creating seeps."Has the applicant/DGEIS considered the necessity of additional, voluntary soiltesting during Phase I?Specifically,during excavation,filling, and compacting activities for: o Rehabilitation of Driveways I,II,and IV o Rehabilitation of the parking areas for Buildings 21 and 24 o Construction of new parking areas for Buildings33 and 34 o Connection of the utility services for Buildings 21, 24, 33,and 34 Has the applicant/DGEIS consideredthe benefit ofadditional,voluntarygroundwater sampling at all downgradient monitoring wells: o During Phase I excavation,filling,and compacting activities? o During heavy rainfall events? o After heavy rainfall events? o Duringspring thaw?i.e. during a time when potential effects of frost wedging on bedrock fractures which control vertical and horizontal movement of groundwater would become apparent? Related, inAppendixG4- Phase II Supplemental Rl Work Plan,Page44,Figure 3, Generalized Fence Diagram A-A',the estimated horizontal extent of beddingfracture zones isdisplayed.Onwhat scientific basiswerethe bedding fracturezone boundaries defined?How wasthe boundary defined ifzonethicknesswasmeasured acrossjust one monitoring well that was not proximal to another monitoringwell?Were previousgeophysicallogdata used for this analysis?] 5.5.1.8 Sediments 8t Seeps • Some technical language must be clarified.The DGEIS states in Chapter 5,Section 5, Subsection 1, Point8:Sediments &Seeps on page 5-49, "Aresampling of that seep performed by Emersonwas non-detect for allof the constituents mentioned.[...jFigures 6A,6B,and 7Aof the Phase II ESA (included in Appendix Gl)illustratethe locationofsediment and seep samples and summarizethe significant sedimentandseep sampling results."However,ifone follows the reference to Appendix Gl ofthe Phase II ESA,one will locatewhat may(cannotbecertainbecauseofvague referencing of sample numbers on page 5-49) be the two samples mentioned in the DGEIS:B18-SEEP 1 and BIB- SEEP 2. Apparently these samples were taken 10 minutes apart, on August 28,2013,as per the Spectrum Analytical lab report on page 1008of Appendix Gl. Whatwas the implied meaningof "resampling"?It would be moreappropriateto call this process "duplicate sampling."Ifonesample contained a significant contaminant concentration and a second sample was non-detect,then that scenario would warrant a resampling at a later time. Please clarify. 5.7 Transportation/Circulation • The DGEIS directs most of its attention towards motor vehicles.For example,the mitigation implementation scenario for intersections on page 5-131 focuses entirely on motor vehicles -not the needs of pedestrians or cyclists.Other forms of transportation - walking, cycling, and public transit --should not be an afterthought in the review or design of Chain Works,especially considering its urban setting,and its aspirations of sustainability and walkability. Mitigation should place a greater priority on how to better move people,not just cars and trucks.Are sidewalks proposed for the portion of the project along Aurora Street/NYS Route 96B? 5.7.1.5 Transit • While "existing demands for transit in the South Hill area are met",the DGEIS doesn't go into much detail about future needs.Can current service frequencies and capacity handle the anticipated need?How will TCAT handle future demands for transit? 5.7.2.2 Project Trip Generation • Table 5.7-4 (Project Generated Trips)needs more explanation.What specific ITE land use category was the basis for the trip generation estimate for a certain land use?What is the pre-adjustment average trip generation rate for the land use categories?Do the "AM Peak"and "PM Peak" projections represent just one peak hour,or the two-hour peak ranges (7:00 AM -9:00 AM,4:00 PM -6:00 PM)the DGEIS uses elsewhere?Also, limiting data and projections to peak hours doesn't give a full picture of Impacts throughout the day.Including vehicle trips during off-peak hours (about 60% of the total). Recreating the table (below)using default variables in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th edition) for trip generation rates (per apartment,or 1000 ft^GFA for non-resldentlal uses), and two-hour AM and PM peak periods (peak hours of adjacent street traffic),the results are much different. Even adjustment for TNDor urban mixed use projects does not seem like It would account for the difference. PHASE LAND USE AM PEAK PM PEAK DAY (7-9 AM)(4-6 PM) (ADT) 1 Office (General office 710)257 246 909 Residential (Apartment 220)82 99 532 Industrial (General light industrial 110)314 331 1,189 Subtotal 653 676 2,630 2 Office (General office 710)579 553 2,047 Residential (Apartment 220)852 1,035 5,553 Retail (Shopping center 820 (most general))100 387 2,228 Restaurant (Sit-down restaurant 932)156 142 915 Industrial (General light industrial 110)454 478 1,718 Subtotal 2,141 2,595 12,461 Total Total project generated trips (ITE)2,794 3,271 15,091 Total Chain Works EIS table on page 5-88 1,124 1,341 n/a Please explain the input variables and ITE land use categories for peak hour trip generation In the DGEIS.If applicable,describe any adjustment for purpose-built student housing (lower vehicle ownership,shuttle service,etc.). The Appendix briefly touches on the long-term Impacts of a "no build"alternative,but not the DGEIS. While trip generation numbers for Chain Works seem daunting,its overall impact should be lower than the alternative -conventional suburban development that would otherwise satisfy market demand. 5.7.2.3 Trip Reduction Adjustments • The methodology for trip generation reduction on pages 5-89 through 5-91 is reasonable,and the adjustment seems conservative. 5.7.3.2 Transportation and circulation >Mitigation Measures >Adjacent Roadway Network • The Transportation Demand Management (TDM)strategy for "Relationship with Ithaca College" reads,in part,"The feasibility of recommendations for pedestrian sidewalks and pedestrian connections along NYS Route 96B as it related to the on-going Route 96B Pedestrian Corridor Study remain to be seen."This seems to reflect some uncertainty about the need for a pedestrian connection between Chain Works and Ithaca College.Considering the scale of Chain Works,a safe,uninterrupted,all-season pedestrian connection to Ithaca College will be a necessity,not something that "remains to be seen". 5.8 Utilities 5.8.1.1 Water Supply • Infigure 5.8-1,the existing water main that crosses the site from east to west to the railroad bed is 12 inches in diameter,not 8 inches as shown in the figure. All water mains should be looped and contain as few dead ends in the system as possible. 5.8.1.2 Sanitary Sewers • Housing in area CW-2is downhill from the existing sanitary sewer service.The sanitary sewer for this housing area would need to be pumped uphillto the existing gravity sewer. Ifthe proposal involves multiple owners (e.g.HOA),then the developer will need to set up a Sewage Works Corporation for maintenance of these facilities. 5.8.1.3 Stormwater Infrastructure •Stormwater from the new development at area CW-2is shown to run through POS E(full description inAppendix E).Given the topology of the site, the new buildingrunoff would drain directly to the existing railroad bed,thereby bypassing POS E.The developer will need to submit a grading plan showing the method used to get runoff to POSE. The narrative callsfor runoff reduction for the new impervious areas caused by new buildings, parkingand drives via green roofs on the new buildings. Reducing water runoff by using green roofs isa best management practice. However, the way the DGEIS is written seems to imply that the proposed methods will reduce the water quantity coming off of a parking lot via a green roof, which is counterintuitive and inaccurate.Please clarifythis. Overall,the proposed water quantity and quality methods willneed further review when the full SWPPP Isdone for this project. 5.10 Visual/Aesthetic Resources Iplanning staff hopes to hav£more info on this section by s/241 • The photos from West Haven Preserve were actually taken from the EcoVillage fields above the preserve (Page 5-168,Figure 5.10-1). 5.11 Communitv Services iplanning staff hopes to have more info on this section by s/241 5.12 Open Space/Recreation in • The DGEIS mentions the trail opportunities on the property,but nothing about the possibility of park or open space land within the development.The DGEIS also doesn't mention the development of playgrounds or any other facilities for young kids.Please provide more information on what open space and recreation facilities the project will actually provide. As noted earlier,there are several vague statements in the DGEIS regarding the construction of the Gateway Trail, but with no commitment as to how the trail willbe constructed.Will the developer put money towards the trail development?Related to the Gateway trail,the DGEIS notes in Section 5.12.4.1,page 5-230 and 5.12.4.2,page 5-231 that the Gateway Trail either wouldn't happen or would be unlikely,which are incorrect statements to make.A different future owner could grant an easement for the trail;Emerson as the current owner could grant an easement,or the Town and City could use eminent domain at any point to put the trail in. The Chain Works project is not the only way the Gateway Trail is going to happen. 5.13 Construction Activities iplanning staff hopes to have more info on this SEaiON by 5/241 Chapter 8:Growth Inducing Aspects and Character of Community •There are several areas within Chapter 8 of the DGEIS where there is missing information.For example:we are told in the "help document"provided by the applicant that section 8.1 (Community Character/Urban Form/Visual Impacts)satisfies the requirement to "Identify amenities provided by the Project for the community including restaurants,cafes,shops,open space network, circulation connections,and office spaces,"but in fact that part of the DGEIS says almost nothing about the specific facilities that are envisioned for this space.A description that fulfils this requirement would specify projected locations,functions,floor space,seating capacity,and so on. Another requirement is to "Discuss the growth in economic activity from both tourism and property value increases."There isa discussion of property value increase in the section referred to (8.2), but it's not netted out in a figure for the actual tax revenues on the re-assessed property,and there is no attempt at all to gauge the effects of an increase in tourism (ifany). In a third case,the scoping requirement to "Discuss the diversity of housing unit types as well as pricing. This willinclude an estimate on the number of units for each housing type and size" is mapped to DGEIS section 8.3. This section begins with the statement that "housing types willvary throughout the Site, which will provide a wide-range of market rate housing opportunities,"but the rest of the piece gives the impression that there are no actual low-income housing opportunities in this project.If there are,these need to be specified,and if not,that fact should be recognized.We are not presently convinced that putting low-income housing inthis project is necessary to achieve the goal of addressing gentrification in the city,but the facts here should be stated more clearly. 8.3 &8.4 Population/Demographics and Gentrification • The following comments were submitted as part of the DGEIS Adequacy review process and did not receive a response (other than that the comments were not related to Adequacy): The Chain Works District proposal Includes construction of 900+residential units described as "market rate housing opportunities".Approximately half are slated to be located In the Cityof Ithaca and the remainder in the Town of Ithaca.It seems reasonable to speculate that the addition of such a large number of high-end residences to the existing housing stock of both municipalities is likely to result in a number of potential environmental impacts,both positive and negative.The applicant was Instructed inthe Final Scoping Document,Chapter 9: Growth InducingAspects and Character of Community, pages 60-61 to include inthe DGEIS discussion of a number of specific 11 19 potential impacts relating to housing,thus establishing the breadth of information required (holding added): o Discuss the diversity of housing unit types as well as pricing.This will include an estimate of the number of each housing type and size. o Evaluate existing market demand and need with a comparison to the proposed housing portion of the Project. o Discuss the gentrification of urban areas and the impacts to the City and Town with a concentration on the scale of the development and tax revenues. Each of the topics above was at least mentioned in the DGEIS,Chapter 8:Growth Inducing Aspects and Character of Community, in either Section 8.3:Population/Demographics or Section 8.4: Gentrification.However,given that these two sections together amount to approximately 2 pages in length,it is our opinion that none of the above points have been adequately addressed in terms of both the depth and tvpe/source of information presented.Without data drawn from a wider range of sources that can serve as the basis for a more in-depth analysis of this complex set of issues,we feel strongly that readers of the DGEIS do not have adequate information to make informed decisions about these important components of the environmental analysis.Clarifying comments are as follows: Depth of Information Presented Diversitvof housing unit tvpes and pricing (first bullet point): This entire point is addressed in just three paragraphs in Section 8.3. It is stated that the project willinclude "units averaging 2 bedrooms,with a range from studios to 3 bedrooms"and are described as being located in "double loaded corridor apartment buildings", "loft and penthouse units in the historic buildings" and "townhouses".However,there is no attempt made to provide, as required,the projected number or percentage of the proposed 900+residential units that will fall into each of these size and type categories.The only pricing information presented isfor an "average 2 bedroom unit" projected to be "around $2,370"which would "be affordable for households with a combined income of $94,800". Nopricing data is projected for the studio,1 bedroom or 3 bedroom units nor is there any information provided concerning the expected pricing differentials across the various housing types. Market demand and need,comparison (second bullet point): Section 8.3 (DGEIS)presents a number of facts and figures relating to various aspects of the "existing housing market". However, this data is not consistent or cohesive and does not fulfill the requirement for an "evaluation of existingmarket demand".To beginwith,the applicant does not specifically define the geographic boundaries of the housing market that may be impacted.At various times the market area is referred to as the "Cityof Ithaca",the "Town"(ofIthaca), "TompkinsCounty"and the "Ithaca Metropolitan StatisticalArea". These are, indeed, verydifferent units of geography across a range ofvariables. Without a well-defined,agreed upon definitionofwhat constitutes the physical extent of the existing housing market,there is no valid basis on which to "evaluate"market demand nor can there be any valid "comparison to the proposed housing portion of the Project", both of which are required by the final Scoping Document.In addition,a robust discussion of this topic would also include the identification and description of specific consumer markets which the project is intending to target.Targeting allows for breaking the general population within the larger housing market into smaller demographic segments that differ across a number of economic,social and behavioral dimensions,thus providing a more solid basis on which to "evaluate existingmarket demand".Although there Issome vague mention of targeting (e.g. "a wide spectrum of demographics", "senior population","market for luxury,upscale and moderate/affordable new rental units")none ofthese are addressed inanydepth and there isno attempt to tie them specifically to "existing market demand and need"as it relates to the proposed project. 'Gentrification and impacts (third bullet point): Whilewe agree that gentrlflcatlon Isa "difficult phenomenon to measure",this does not exempt the applicant from presenting a more In-depth analysis than the one page that Iscurrently offered. Avast cross-dlsclpllnary literature concerning gentrlflcatlon currently exists,spanning many decades.None of this literature Is referenced In Section 8.4 (DGEIS)where the subject Isdiscussed. Whilea reasonable definition of gentrlflcatlon Is presented as the basis for the discussion, of the three "metrics"contained within It,only one," risinghousing prices".Issignificantly addressed.The remaining two are briefly mentioned but only as they relate to current conditions In the City of Ithaca. One of these metrics,"displacement of people from longstanding communities"Is,In fact.Implied to be Irrelevant In this case because, "....converting an area that Is not residential Into a new neighborhood.Isby definition not resulting In the displacement of existing households,one of the key factors In gentrlflcatlon".The Town of Ithaca,and specifically the South Hill neighborhood,which Isvery vulnerable to the possibility of gentrlflcatlon as a result of the residential portion of the proposed project.Isbarely mentioned. The final paragraph of Section 8 (DGEIS)states that,"While the Project does not plan to Include any below market rate housing,the additional supply of units allowed under the proposed zoning action can be expected to help slow,reduce,or prevent gentrification in the surrounding neighborhoods by increasing the City's limited housing supply (emphasis added)."This Is particularly troubling as It draws conclusions based on little or no substantive data or analysis. Further,as stated In the Scoping Document,the applicant Is required to discuss gentrlflcatlon as It specifically relates to the "scale"of the proposed project.There Isno evidence that the applicant has attempted to fulfill this requirement.Given the cursory overview presented In Section 8.4 (DGEIS),readers will find little to assist them In wading through the complex subject of gentrlflcatlon and even less aid In determining the potential environmental Impacts of the residential portion of the proposed project. Tvoe/Sources of Information Presented Secondarv (I.e.prevlouslv gathered)data sources referenced but not compiled In a comprehensive bibllographv or reference list (e.g.2013 ACS,Housing Needs Assessment,2006,etc.).Without such a list,the reader Is left with the burdensome task of looking up each of the referenced sources In order to determine their existence and assess their content.See the 40+page Historic and Archaeological Resources,Appendix H of the DGEIS for an example of a bibliography of appropriately referenced secondary sources that were used whole or In part as the basis for drawing conclusions concerning potential Impacts and suggested mitigation. No Inclusion of primarv data.Housing market analysis.Including the Impacts of gentrlflcatlon.Isa highly complex undertaking,especially for a project of this size.Relyingsolely on secondary data sources (some of which are quite dated)seems Inadequate to address this Important and multi- faceted subject matter.See the 49+page Transportation and Circulation,Appendix I of the DGEIS for an example of the appropriate Inclusion of primary data collected by an expert consultant and used to Identify potential Impacts and suggested mitigation. Potential Impacts/Mltlgatlon Measures/Alternatives to Proposed Action All other chapters of the DGEIS relating to potential environmental Impacts Include specific sections presenting "Potential Impacts,"Mitigation Measures"and "Alternatives to Proposed Action". Chapter 8: Growth Inducing Aspects and Character of Community (DGEIS)does not contain any of these sections.It appears,therefore,that the applicant has made no attempt to specifically Identify any potential negative environmental Impacts, to suggest an appropriate mitigation plan or put forth any alternatives for the residential portion of this project.Given the goals of the scoping process and the subsequent drafting of the DGEIS,It seems that the omission of this summary analysis Isa glaring error and leaves DGEIS Chapters,Section 8.3 and Section 8.4 substantially n incomplete.If,for some technical reason,the applicant is not required to provide this analysis for the above Sections of DEGIS Chapter 8,then it is even more imperative that the currently inadequate information,both in terms of depth and appropriate type/source,as described above, be supplemented so that readers have the data necessary to draw their own conclusions concerning potential negative environmental impacts of the proposed project and how they might be best mitigated. Chapter 9: Effect of Proposed Project on Use/Conservation of Energy [planning staff hopes to have more INFO ON THIS SECTION BY 5/241 Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on this important matter.Ifyou have any questions,please contact Susan Ritter,Director of Planning,at 607-273-1747 or sritter(5)town.ithaca.nv.us. Sincerely, Fred Wilcox,Chairman On behalf of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board 14 Chapter 5:Environmental Setting,Potential Impacts,and Mitigation 5.1 Land Use and Zoning 5.1.3.1 Potential Impacts to Zoning Environmentally valuable areas would be preserved and protected as an amenity for the neighborhood and surrounding community. •"Environmentally valuable areas"should be identified.It is not clear whether the paragraph refers to on-site areas or ancillary benefits related to reducing development pressure on surrounding areas.On-site and adjacent areas potentially impacted by contamination should not be categorized as "environmentally valuable"unless they are known to be in compliance with regulatory cleanup standards. The new development will take on a clusterform avoiding environmentally and visually sensitive areas. •Paragraph should indicate whether "visually sensitive areas"include the valley/lake view from Rt. 96B and viewshed impacts on surrounding hills and valleys. 5.1.4.2 Mitigation to Form and Intensity of Uses Buffers will be maintained in areas adjacent to existing residential zones to control the intensity of development. •Buffers should also be maintained in areas adjacent to natural areas to prevent impingement of development on green space. 5.1.4.3 Mitigation to Form and Intensity of Uses CWl Sub Area The Design Standards effectively prevent the development of the CWl Sub Area. There is no proposed specific mitigation for this Sub Area because the preservation of this land as a natural area is in fact part of the proposed mitigation for the other SubAreas. •Paragraph should reference whether design standards will apply to accessory buildings envisioned for CWl Sub Area. 5.5 Public Health and Environment 5.5.1.1 Investigations At the time of the work, some of the soil gas sampling could not be completed due to high water table. WSP recently completed the soil gas sampling activities and subsequent to receiving the analytical results an addendum to the Boundary Reassessment willbe provided to the NYSDEC •The results of deferred soil gas sampling should be disclosed in the GEIS to allow for public comment on the request to decouple the southern 34-acre portion of the site from the IHWDS. 5.5.1.8 Sediments &Seeps These sediment areas are located down gradient (northwest)ofBuildings 17/18 and Building 34. Based on the impacts above the NYSDEC sediment criteria,these two sediment areas will be further evaluated by the property owner, to delineate the extent ofsediment impacts. •The results of sediment testing for the areas identified above should be disclosed if known, or the testing timeline should be indicated. 5.5.1.14 Soil Vapor Intrusion As a result ofprevious investigations and the Phase IIESA testing the following buildings at the Site require SVI monitoring or mitigation:•Mitigation ofBuildings I, 2 (basement portion),3, 3A,4, 4A, 5,6, 6A, 8, 9,10,18,21,24,33 and 34 •Mitigation strategies should be detailed on a building-by-building basis.Currently,there are no specific mitigation measures proposed. 5.5.1.15 Contaminated Building Materials In addition to the salt pot area of Building 14,the Phase II ESA revealed concrete floors with sulfide impacts in Buildings 4, 8,and I3A and cadmium impacts in Building 34 at concentrations that most likely require remediation. • The DGEIS should state unequivocally whether mitigation for cadmium will be required in Building 34 and,if required,what the mitigation strategy would be. 5.5.1.18 Boundary Reassessment Study Three surficial and three subsurface soil samples contained concentrations ofp cresol or metals above their unrestricted use SCOs. There are no spatial distribution trends and these compounds are not related to the historical operations at the Site. •The distribution trends and source of the pollutants is secondary to their existence at levels above '"unrestricted use"soil cleanup objectives.Since this area is currently envisioned for residential use,remediation strategies to achieve applicable standards should be detailed. 5.5.1.19 Additional Investigation /Remediation The applicable NYSDEC criteria and thus extent of remediation is dependent on the use ofthe Site with industrial uses requiring the least stringent remedial work for soil and residential uses requiring the most stringent remedial work for soil. •Requiring cleanup to use-specific standards within the site does not address the issue of the ongoing migration of pollution from the site to surrounding (predominantly down gradient)areas.Ideally,comprehensive investigation of "the site"should be expanded to include adjacent "off-site"areas with a known or suspected history of dumping,disposal or suspected pollution pathways. In general,the NYSDECis anticipated to require the following regardless of use: As indicated above, the future remedial work required will be based on the results of additional investigation and proposed uses of the Site and as such,specific remedies cannot be determined at this point in time The lists subsequent to the quotes above contain numerous possible remediation/mitigation strategies that,for all intents and purposes,can not be meaningfully commented on until NYSDEC actually determines specific courses of action. This is a fundamental problem with this DGEIS,in that it largely promises future studies and decisions related to significant Issues,but requires substantive commentary before those determinations are made. 5.5.2 Potential impacts As previously noted, multiple AOCs were found to have contaminants exceeding their cleanup standardsfor groundwater and soil,including TCE, barium, cyanide,and petroleum product.Areas of the Site,including the driveway area.Rice Paddy (area southwest ofBuilding 34)and sediments in ditches,which are down gradientfrom the core structures,were found to have heavy metals, PCBs, VOCs,and SVOCs in the soil,sediment and groundwater exceeding their NYSDEC cleanup standards.Ifnot addressed,over time these contaminants can have impacts to the public health and the environment (emphasis added) • Given the known impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and the decades-long existence of contamination,the DGEIS should reflect the reality that unaddressed contaminants have already impacted the public health and environment.Again,for this reason,investigation and remediation efforts should not be limited to the site,but expanded to include all areas potentially impacted by the site. This has initiated a process with NYSDEC whereby Emerson (the responsible party)is required to and is performing a Phase II Supplemental RI to delineate the newly discovered AOCs and evaluate the need and method of remediation necessary to address these AOCs to at least an industrial use standard. •Requiring cleanup to industrial-use standards on certain portions of the site should only be considered if it is determined that current and potential impacts from industrial-use areas on areas with more stringent standards are not of concern. 5.5.3 Mitigation Measures Assuming the Boundary Modification request to NYSDECto release the southern most portion of the Site is successful, no remediation requirements will apply to the CW2Sub Area. However,ifsuch request is not successful the Restricted Residential SCOs will also apply to CW2 along with any institutional and engineering controls that are applied to the remainder of the Site. • The presence of constituents above "unrestricted-use"SCO'sin CW2,and the envisioned residential use seem to indicate that some remediation could be necessary prior to construction,based on site-specific analyses,and contingent soil gas vapor test results from the NCR sewer that were forthcoming at the time of DGEIS publication.Also,see above comment,regarding 5.5.1.19. /^\Areas of impacted concrete (Bullings 4, 8,ISA,14 and 34)will require remediation which will most ^ likely take the form of removal or capping. Removal and capping are significantly different approaches with considerable implications for pollution migration and impacts on adjacent areas.Source removal is preferable, where practicable.Nevertheless,the DGEIS should articulate some criteria for determining when particular strategies will be used in specific places. Typical remedial approaches include: The paragraphs subsequent to this preface provide a list of remediation and mitigation strategies that are commonly used in the cleanup of industrial sites.Unfortunately,they are provided for informational purposes and do not relate directly to components of the existing site or its development. ) rauavDCE caunn This petition has collected 197 signatures using the online tools at iPetitions.com Printed on 2016-05-23 Pagt 1 ot10 )) FreetheGorges About this petition Swimming is not a crime. The City/Townof Ithaca and Tompkins County need to immediately reverse focus and consider alternatives to restricting swimming at second dam and other wonderful swimming areas.Adults should be able to make decisions for themselves.We propose the city/town and county immediately adopt a resolution to address these concerns.Please consider sharing this important cause. Page 2 of 19 Signatures 1.Name:Ross Trent on 2016-04-27 23:14:22 Comments: 2.Name:Keili farrell on 2016-04-28 05:43:35 Comments: Name:Connor Maskell on 2016-04-28 15:55:45 Comments:FREE THE GORGESHII! Name:Chelsey vanzandt on 2016-04-28 20:11:42 Comments:Everyone complains that kids these days oniy care atx>ut technology,or are a part of the drug epidemic,but then they do stuff like this.Close places where people can relax and have innocent fun in nature,or then charge people to enter a state park for a picnic,it's sad and ridiculous,and hypocritical.Keep taking away our innocence fun, but don't you dare then complain about what we do because we are denied this fun. #youreaskingforit Name:Alex W on 2016-04-29 00:20:29 Comments:What ever happened to "swim at your own risk"?And if the city's so concerned about garbage,how about a trash can?And ifthey want their precious ticket revenue I'm sure charging admission would make them a lot more. Name:Lucas Magalhaes Comments: on 2016-05-0217:14:26 Name:Jared Corsette on 2016-05-03 02:01:35 Comments: Name:Jake on 2016-05-03 21:25:04 Comments: 9.Name:Tim L on 2016-05-03 21:43:28 Comments:in a city that's progressive enough to ailow people to shoot heroin in public spaces it's somewhat bafflingthat swimming is treated as criminal behavior.Where I'm from,there's "svirim at your own risk"signs everywhere and people are responsible for their own behavior.Allowing the public to swim there without fear of recrimination might help keep out those who are littering and drinking too much. 10. 11. Name:Kelii Farrell Comments: on 2016-05-04 14:05:20 Name:Shakti on 2016-05-04 15:46:00 Page 3 of 19 3 12. Comments: Name:Ellen Brown on 2016-05-06 03:01:17 Comments: 13. Name: Chris Mobley on 2016-05-08 12:16:23 Comments:This needs to happen immediately. 14. 15. Name: BeckiHawley on 2016-05-06 15:15:52 Comments: Name:Julie Riney Comments: on 2016-05-06 15:34:40 16. Name: Indigo Holohan on 2016-05-06 15:42:47 Comments:This is ridiculous. Instead of discouraging enjoying Ithaca's natural beauty we shouldbe supporting it-afterailitiswhatmakes Ithacaa uniqueand desirable destination. 17. 18. Name:Jennifer Sullivan on 2016-05-06 15:52:25 Comments: Name:Robin Rape Comments: on 2016-05-06 16:24:25 19. Name: Madigan Holohan on 2016-05-06 19:16:06 Comments:Oneofthe manyreasons Imovedhere 13 years agowas the access tothe natural beautyand enjoyment ofthe waterways ofthisarea. Donot restrict and use itas another excuse to generate funds viaticketingthe general public. 20.Name:Alan Cameron on 2016-05-06 20:05:06 Comments:I always thought thislawwasa ridiculous wasteof time.I'd like tobeableto go for a refreshing dipat Buttermilk Falls without looking overmy shoulder every second waiting forsomebadgeto popup with a ticket bookinhand.Swimming is criminal behavior?Step off,man. 21.Name:Marvin Warren on 2016-05-06 20:30:27 Comments:Swimming inourcreeksandgorgesiswhatIwaitallyear for,ifsa partofail ofmyfondest memories of Ithaca,frommyfirstvisitsonwards. Goahead, though,fill upthejails with swimmers;I certainly won'tbe carrying IDwith me next time I wade into Fall Creek... 22.Name:Cassandra grzybowski on 2016-05-06 21:15:39 Page 4 of 19 3 3 ) Comments: 23.Name:Shane Hinkle on 2016-05-06 21:18:03 Comments: 24.Name:Rachel on 2016-05-06 21 ;40:37 Comments:The state parks don'topen swimming untilJulyand are oftenovercrowded. Where are residents supposed toswim until then?It'd be a wiser use ofmoneyto hire lifeguards than have patrols withbody cameras. 25.Name:Kristine Eckenrode on 2016-05-06 21:57:09 Comments: 26.Name:Jessica English on 2016-05-06 22:18:59 Comments: 27.Name:Josh Doian on 2016-05-06 22:23:09 Comments: 28.Name:Amanda Hoben on 2016-05-06 22:42:18 Comments:Asimplesignstating "Swim at yourownrisk"wouldbe sufficient 29.Name: Beth Sprankle on 2016-05-06 22:44:08 Comments: Swimminginthe gorges hanns no one. If someone needs rescue they should pay all charges from their own pocket. 30.Name:Cieie Gladstein on 2016-05-06 23:11:53 Comments: 31.Name:Jillian Meruila on 2016-05-05 23:24:47 Comments: 32.Name:Stephanie Lee on 2016-05-07 00:03:22 Comments: 33.Name:Michael Grubb on 2016-05-07 00:19:35 Comments: 34.Name:Lennessa on 2016-05-07 00:47:00 Comments: 35.Name: Emily Richards on 2016-05-07 00:54:35 Page Sot 19 )) Comments: 36.Name:Amanda Rosman on 2016-05-07 01:05:59 Comments: 37.Name:Sara on 2016-05-07 03:13:22 Comments: 38.Name:Staci Kurick Comments: on 2016-05-07 03:42:45 39.Name:Olivia on 2016-05-07 05:10:24 Comments:it's bad enough that the commons has been destroyed,we dont need tax dollars wasted policing people trying to have a good time. 40.Name:Brittany Kline Comments: on 2016-05-0710:21:33 41.Name:tessa myers Comments: on 2016-05-07 10:29:22 42.Name:Melissa Ellis Comments: on 2016-05-07 11:19:23 43.Name:Emily Millen Comments: on 2016-05-07 12:41:36 44.Name:Joe Outzen Comments: on 2016-05-07 12:42:17 45.Name:Jill McDonald Comments: on 2016-05-07 12:59:55 46.Name:Karlem Sivira Comments: on 2016-05-07 13:39:45 47.Name:Hillary Joy Pitoniak on 2016-05-07 13:43:21 Comments: 48.Name:Gloria nash Comments: on 2016-05-07 14:02:31 Page 6 of 19 49.Name:Daniel Weller on 2016-05-07 14:51:10 Comments: 50.Name:Allison on 2016-05-07 15:07:40 Comments: 51.Name:JoanMarie Cartier on 2016-05-07 15:09:30 Comments:This has bothered me for years.1 miss the Ithaca from when 1was a girl. 52.Name:Hannah Hones on 2016-05-07 15:10:58 Comments: 53.Name:Sam Martinez on 2016-05-07 15:11:10 Comments: 54.Name: Aprila iacovelli on 2016-05-07 15:54:37 Comments: 55.Name:Jessie shannon on 2016-05-07 16:50:32 Comments: 56.Name: Emily Engel on 2016-05-07 16:56:24 Comments: 57.Name:Tamara Shannon on 2016-05-07 17:02:04 Comments: 58.Name:Scott Rougeau on 2016-05-07 17:03:30 Comments: 59.Name:Tracey Calhoun on 2016-05-07 17:05:31 Comments: 60.Name:Brianna on 2016-05-07 19:00:50 Comments: 61.Name: Amy Yanosh on 2016-05-07 19:53:25 Comments: 62.Name:Briggs Seekins on 2016-05-07 20:09:59 Comments:Quit throwing away tax dollars on nanny state bullshit. Page 7 of IS 3 63. 64. 65. Name:Graham Drake-Maurer on 2016-05-07 20:22:27 Comments: Name: Abby schnellinger on 2016-05-07 21:22:46 Comments: Name:Nikki on 2016-05-07 23:09:27 Comments: 66.Name:Melissa Mobbs on 2016-05-08 01:01:57 Comments:Keep the gorges beautiful! 67.Name:Michael McCabe on 2016-05-08 01:10:47 Comments: 68. Name:Shaylan Barlow on 2016-05-08 04:43:18 Comments: Iam an Ithaca native and grew up swimminginthe gorges.Restrictions on swimminginand around Ithacagoes against everythingthe city/ townstand for. 69.Name:Kristen White on 2016-05-08 15:09:11 Comments:This has been an issue that drives me up a wall for sometime now. God (in whatever form youbelievein,creationism or Darwinism)has provided these beautiful placesforhumansto use forthe rejuvenation ofoursouls.Thelawhas no righttotellme that I'mnot allowed to be in nature. Iwant to see the public notice of the public hearing and the results ofthe proceedings; Stating that we are not allowedto swiminthe gorges. 70. 71. Name:Peter Cole on 2016-05-08 20:42:47 Comments: Name: Rudy Nunez on 2016-05-08 22:35:16 Comments: 72.Name:Beth on 2016-05-09 01:35:08 Comments:People loveto swimthere. It'sbecomea tradition formanyoverthe years. 73. Name: Mike Moseley on 2016-05-09 02:49:19 Comments:I've grovwi upinIthacamywholelifeand been blessed to havethe god-given nature this area offers.It'strulyunfortunatethat itis seen as a crimeto enjoy these beautifulplaces. Lefs hope we can reformthingsto make the naturalenvironments around us safe and kept clean whilestillbeing able to appreciate its beauty and refreshing waters! 74. 3 Name:Maijatta Pakkala on 2016-05-09 03:03:33 Comments: Page 8 of IS 3 75. ) Name: Morgan Snyder on 2016-05-09 03:11:09 Comments: 76.Name:SHAWN on 2016-05-09 03:15:49 Comments:Ifind it rediculous that we humans bom of this land have to suffer reguiations thatseparate us from nature cant sleep outsidecant bathe outsideitnevermade much sence to me... looks like another way to generate tickets ifyou ask me... ) 88. Comments: Name:Brenda on 2016-05-09 13:29:39 Comments: ) 89. Name:Jonathan grind on 2016-05-09 13:33:34 Comments:It's shouldn't be illegalto swim and enjoy our natural areas,but ifyou do something stupid and get hurt or dien it should at your own risk and the city/town shouldn't be held liable for your own dedsions. 77.Name: Gary McGuire on 2016-05-09 03:18:09 Comments:1supportthe ability ofadultsto makethierowndedsions about swimming in Ithaca's gorges. 90.Name:Eric on 2016-05-09 14:17:32 Comments:Free all swimming areas 78.Name:Elizabeth Stiadle on 2016-05-09 03:28:42 Comments: 91.Name:Taylor LeBlanc on 2016-05-09 14:38:45 Comments: 79.Name: Crystal stroman on 2016-05-09 03:29:52 Comments: 92.Name:Stephen Camp on 2016-05-09 15:11:08 Comments: 80.Name:Amanda on 2016-05-09 03:54:45 Comments: 93.Name:Kyle on 2016-05-09 15:37:50 Comments: 81.Name: AustinSwigart on 2016-05-09 04:39:26 Comments: 94.Name:T Herold on 2016-05-09 15:37:51 Comments: 82.Name:Jeremy Veverka on 2016-05-09 04:49:39 Comments:Swimming should not be a prohibitedinour beautifulgorges, itis our rightto enjoy them as nature intended. 95.Name:Nate schwartz on 2016-05-09 15:52:42 Comments: 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. Name: peter kenerson on 2016-05-09 08:08:20 Comments: Name:Samuel Chapman on 2016-05-09 10:32:45 Comments: Name:Derek on 2016-05-09 12:59:00 Comments: Name:cameron kraus on 2016-05-09 13:18:27 Comments: Name:Paul on 2016-05-09 13:26:10 Page 9 of 19 96.Name:Rebecca Potash on 2016-05-09 15:59:38 Comments:Ifeel like this isn't about the swimming but it's about the trash and noise the swimmers bring.Swimmers need to be respectful of people living near 6 mileand the people living near 6 mile need to chill. 97.Name:Kathleen corke on 2016-05-09 16:02:33 Comments:Ilove Ithaca,one of the things Ilove the most is observing the beauty of first/second dam. 98. 99. Name:Michael Fitzgerald on 2016-05-09 16:12:11 Comments: Name:Heather Elwell on 2016-05-09 16:13:50 Comments: Pogo 10 of 19 100.Name:Seth on 2016-05-09 16:44:26 Comments:Educate on safety,and have people live at their own risk. 101. 102. 103. 104. Name:Rafael Ferreira on 2016-05-09 16:51:48 Comments: Name: Emily on 2016-05-09 17:14:45 Comments: Name:Lauren Cemelli on 2016-05-09 17:15:47 Comments: Name:Madeline Graziano on 2016-05-09 17:19:11 Comments: 105.Name:Jacob Gray on 2016-05-09 17:41:15 Comments:Its just swimming focus on the dope not swimmers., 106. 107. 108. Name:Antonio Petri on 2016-05-09 17:41:34 Comments: Name:Sydney Hill on 2016-05-09 17:58:47 Comments: Name:Marcie Middlebrooks on 2016-05-09 19:32:55 Comments: 109.Name:Patrick Fegely on 2016-05-09 19:48:59 Comments;Maybe Install some form of safety device to prevent people from falling over the dam!Also they could have someone certify water depths,and check for/clear hazardous underwater debris. 110.Name:Cory Demeree on 2016-05-09 19:49:54 Comments:Ifeel that 2nd damn could be a swmable area ifwe could post a lifeguard, I knowthat may bringleagel responsibilitys to the city but it's no different than buttermilkor any of the falls, that is my opinion and Iwill leave it as that.Thank you 111.Name:Chris Snyder on 2016-05-09 19:51:43 Comments:Ilike swimming! 112.Name:Charlotte Robbin on 2016-05-09 19:55:04 Comments:Iknow that it may be a liabilityfor the city, but maybe if they post something saying that swimmers are taking their safety into their own hands when entering the Page 11 of 19 water, and that the cityis not liableto damages,itwont be a big deal,maybe have patrols once ina whilejust to make sure people aren't littering,or being a danger to others. 113.Name:Alex Moin on 2016-05-09 21:14:49 Comments:Asimple sign warning swimmers ofthe potential hazards and releasing the Cityfromany resulting damages/injuries wouldbe more than enough.These swimming holes are some of the best parts of Ithaca;dont take them away. 114. Name:Jeremy W Thompson on 2016-05-09 21:23:52 Comments: Swimmingat second dam is one ofthe fun pasttimes of Ithaca.Reconsider please,your decision. 115.Name:Alisa Bllnova on 2016-05-09 21:32:47 Comments: Let'strytofigureout a wayto educate people on gorge safety and eliminating waste, butas dignified and free adults we should be able to enjoymakingour owndecisions.Including swimming Inthe gorges at ourownrisk.Please don't take the best part of Ithaca summer away from us! 116.Name:Adrlenne Huffman on 2016-05-09 21:54:23 Comments:Withoutbeing able to swim inthe gorges,these natural gifts that are meant to be enjoyed bodilyare reduced to pretty pictures on our iPhones.We all understand that the intention is to reduce harm, but that is not possible in a world of moving parts, vehicles,high places, gravity,and pure luck.You cant make everythingthat mightharm a person illegal.Youhave to allowpeople to make choices for themselves.As soon as you stripa personofthe righttomakea wisechoiceforhimorherself,youessentiallymakeit impossibleforlearningto happen and forwise choices to be made at all.Instead of punishingeveryone forthe unwise choices of a notable demographic, why not provide educational opportunities that allowus to be rationaland courteous? Provideus withthe opportunityto clean up afterourselves. Provideus witha sign that makes us aware that our lives are in our own hands.Let us have responsibility for ourselves,our actions,and our affect on the worldaround us.Personal responsibility is the rightwe earn when we turn 18 in this country. 117.Name:William Jones on 2016-05-09 23:52:41 Comments:Asimple"swimat ownrisk"will take the liabilities offthe townof Ithaca. 118.Name:Matthew Barko on 2016-05-10 00:06:03 Comments: It'stime to treat people likeadults and give them the option to livea little instead ofjust tryingto make a profitbygivingticketsfora nonsense law. 119. 120. 3 Name:joaquin Canay Comments: Name:Brittan Binder Comments: on 2016-05-10 00:08:20 on 2016-05-10 00:12:11 Poge 12 of 19 3 121. ) Name:Kristen on 2016-05-10 00:13:16 Comments: 122.Name:Jamie on 2016-05-10 00:23:23 Comments: This is a veryspecial spot formy sister and her boyfriendand Iso it's be amazing ifwe can swim there:) 123. 124. Name:Ed on 2016-05-10 00:24:43 Comments: Name:Nora on 2016-05-10 00:28:47 Comments: 125.Name: MikeJohnson on 2016-05-10 00:33:33 Comments: Accordingto the Constitution the government is not supposed to own any land lookitup and see for yourself 126.Name:Jaclyn on 2016-05-10 00:42:15 Comments: 127.Name: Angel ferrer on 2016-05-10 00:50:41 Comments: This place is a great place forgood svwmand a great hike. Ifanything you should be making this place a park for familiesand friends to enjoy likethey have been.I beg you to not take my greatest memories of my life. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. Name:Thomas Ruttledge on 2016-05-10 00:51:34 Comments: Name:Russ on 2016-05-10 01:10:15 Comments: Name:Nadine C on 2016-05-10 01:27:53 Comments: Name:Jason Comaire on 2016-05-10 01:32:36 Comments: Name: Amy Dennis-Payne on 2016-05-10 01:51:46 Comments: Name:Jonathan Fannetti on 2016-05-10 06:09:12 Page 13ol19 )) Comments:Instead of hiring rangers they should hire lifeguards and charge a small fee to pay for the cost of lifegaurds. 134.Name:Jaime lee on 2016-05-10 12:00:06 Comments: 135.Name:raluca iorga on 2016-05-10 18:11:07 Comments:Every physical activity cames *some*inherent risk. Even walking or crossing the street.Accidents are tragic, but there's such a thing as over-regulating! 136. 137. Name:Brooks hendrix 2 on 2016-05-10 20:22:48 Comments: Name:Allen Houghtalen on 2016-05-10 23:09:02 Comments: 138.Name:Chris on 2016-05-11 01:08:48 Comments:Just keep the place clean and itwill be fine 139. 140. 141. Name:Alana Shaw on 2016-05-11 02:24:19 Comments: Name:Karson McGill on 2016-05-11 02:29:57 Comments: Name:Pheobe on 2016-05-11 02:52:51 Comments:Let us swim!!!!!! 142.Name:Matthew Ashford on 2016-05-11 03:03:14 Comments:More swimming for ail! 143. 144. 145. 146. Name:Jeremy K on 2016-05-11 04:26:04 Comments: Name:Daniella Prado on 2016-05-11 04:46:45 Comments: Name:Travis Howard on 2016-05-11 05:11:02 Comments: Name:Lucien Clavier on 2016-05-11 05:45:47 Comments: Page 14 af 19 159.Name:Jonathan RIley on 2016-05-12 15:02:53 147.Name:Dan Tubman on 2016-05-11 12:52:17 Comments:1largely don't actually swim but Itis a fine pastime that has been around forever itis part of ithaculture and to over regulate it Isa sure way to make this region less than It is and has been. 160. Comments: Name:Ann on 2016-05-12 19:43:42 Comments: 148.Name:Jonathan Caussade on 2016-05-11 13:10:10 Comments: 161.Name:Sean Logan on 2016-05-13 00:18:32 Comments: 149.Name:Alexander Schumacher on 2016-05-11 15:19:17 Comments: 162.Name:McKenzle Jones-Rounds on 2016-05-13 20:44:05 Comments: 150.Name:Nick on 2016-05-11 16:30:55 Comments:Freedom Is what our country stands for. 163.Name:David Huland on 2016-05-13 20:44:45 Comments: 151.Name: Ian Shapiro on 2016-05-11 19:25:38 Comments: 164.Name:Al Nolan on 2016-05-13 20:46:33 Comments:Making moneyoffreatictingpeople frommothernature wontstop people from getting hurt! 152.Name:Mike friend on 2016-05-11 19:50:42 Comments:165.Name:Ruth Bennett on 2016-05-13 20:54:07 Comments:Swimming shouldnotbe a crime.The vast majority ofus enjoy swimming in 153.Name: amy kilpatrick-dzul on 2016-05-11 20:38:31 Comments: the six milecreek swimmingholes and do so responsibly.Whynot invest thismoney ina regulartrash servicetothese sites? Weshouldbe encouragingpeopletoenjoyand interact with natural areas rather than restricting access and policing these sites. 154.Name:Pete Weisz on 2016-05-11 21:16:37 Comments:Definitelynot a crime.Easy walking-distance access to natural woods and swim spots Is one of Itliaca's main attractions.Sabotaging tfiat would be a sad step to just another piece of concrete suburbia,like a neatly-cut sterile grass lawn that noone's allowed to walk on.Punishing residents for enjoying nature destroys value in a bigway. If swimmers can't swim,subsidize swimming lessons. 155.Name: Alison Byers on 2016-05-11 22:50:09 Comments: 156.Name:Lisa A Hens on 2016-05-11 23:50:07 Comments: It'sjust another way tofund Ithaca's bloated government - $200 fines. 157. 158. Name:Daniel holmes on 2016-05-12 00:28:27 Comments: Name: Aubrey Jlles on 2016-05-12 13:46:15 Comments: Poga IS of 19 3 3 166. Name:Sarah Portway on 2016-05-13 21:13:36 Comments:Swimming inthe gorgesinthe summerIswhatkeeps me from jumping off them In the winter. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. Name:Annise Dobson on 2016-05-13 21:15:26 Comments: Name:Norman Portlcella on 2016-05-13 21:35:54 Comments: Name:Christopher Bedell on 2016-05-13 22:00:14 Comments: Name: Nikolas Hoepker on 2016-05-13 22:23:44 Comments; Name:Andrew Marshall on 2016-05-13 22:25:06 Comments:Ithacans deserve the natural wealth of the Gorges! Itshould not be a crime Page 16 of 19 3 ) to enjoy them responsibly. 172.Name:Lorraine Fitzmaurice on 2016-05-13 23:24:56 Comments:Swim at your own risk. 173.Name: kristen Johnson on 2016-05-13 23:56:37 Comments: 174.Name:Yoav Kallus on 2016-05-14 00:43:26 Comments:Please do not assume that you know better how people ought to livetheir livesthan theythemselves do. The freedom to swimat one's ownriskshould not be taken away from Ithacans. 175.Name:Marina Gershon on 2016-05-14 04:21:57 Comments:Swim at your own risk 176.Name:Daniel Pierce on 2016-05-14 10:27:28 Comments: We picklitterup when we go to second dam, not leave itbehind. I also agree ifyoumake swimming illegal inone ofour creeks, soon it will be illegalto swiminallof them. )) 184.Name:Bob Kellogg on 2016-05-17 11:19:06 Comments:Keep the option to take a dip without a fine.Swimming in gorges is another issue. 185.Name:James Capp on 2016-05-18 17:01:58 Comments:Piease leave me alone and let me swim.Peace and Love. 186. 187. 188. Name:Mike on 2016-05-21 17:01:39 Comments: Name:Rich Bernstein on 2016-05-21 17:05:05 Comments: Name:Michael Mendola on 2016-05-22 15:19:22 Comments:I <3 swimming. 189.Name:Justin Armstrong on 2016-05-22 19:57:52 Comments:Ithink we should not lump the hazards of cliff jumping and binge drinking with swimming.Signs warning people of the specific hazards and measures to ensure safe swimming would be a better more effective approach. 177.Name: Ryan McDermott on 2016-05-14 10:37:20 Comments: 190.Name:Scott McCasland on 2016-05-22 21:01:10 Comments: 178.Name:Jeremy Dietrich on 2016-05-14 15:19:31 Comments:You can't regulate stupidity. Adults can make their own decisions. 191.Name:Christine McMeekin on 2016-05-23 05:25:15 Comments: 179.Name:Kristen miller on 2016-05-15 03:09:51 Comments: 192.Name:Virginia Marques on 2016-05-23 13:37:22 Comments: 180.Name: EmilyDiAngelo on 2016-05-15 13:52:01 Comments: 193.Name:Matt Wilson on 2016-05-23 14:22:21 Comments:Anyone should have the God-given freedom to swim in water. No one has the right to take that freedom away. 181.Name: Ayah Almousa on 2016-05-15 13:54:08 Comments:194.Name:Ashanee Brooks on 2016-05-23 14:30:59 Comments: 182.Name:Ahmad Rafiqi on 2016-05-15 14:42:25 Comments:195.Name:Randy Hardy on 2016-05-23 14:35:49 Comments: 183.Name:Bob Nape on 2016-05-15 16:00:38 Comments:'We the people"do not empower the government to protect us from Mother Nature 196.Name:David Mazzarella on 2016-05-23 14:47:25 Comments: Page IT of 19 Page 1Bof19 197.Name: Logan Bell on2016-05-2317:35:31Comments:Itis time for "We thePeople'togetorganizedandassertourright tohavethefreedom to enjoy nature in a peaceful andresponsibleway.Freethegorges!Swimming isnotacrime!Pa9»19ot19)\