The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB Correspondence 2008 CX A e, 9z �4 5%) LTV I c> F_MCI M ro'jrc j Aj ISOA ftP LE M TDO DOWL 15 q 14 t-O(L I " Ar"6 Tli6 ti -47 V4 L w) ytk- f4 K. %NJ Y7, � 2-7 wtp)jt4mt, 710- rwow IS Ye.*4 P5%37LBaa 144 -,4> L6.M rna C>J_ I _ vpbr4V Im +m z 'n4k 4ass let ,4 lv4 TrH wb%ml� P�a .,:Ot)v;fLp JA-Ue —11*6trL ,ntk. M)4 0 1 ; t,4tCc Mr Tiat vvk>%3) � LnNr,. 5-rr4r " "3 71te f4'3-b(- rl44eLA- Tb s5esr P)LO-4 n4 t-m r a L L r T, ,ZN4 srlC Vkd3 0 0 eL Vv Wr t rt P 17 0 ba p m 4-om rw Lam ryle, 12-7 j Nil cc" Ke- 1,6 : 2-73 - 090�5- OF 1,�, o TOWN OF ITHACA } II 21 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 �W YOB www.tow n.ithaca.ny.us Town Supervisor(607)273-1721,E)d 125:HE ncimanna a vn ithaca.nv.us TOWN CLERK(607)273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS(607)273-1656 ENGINEERING(607)273-1747 PLANNING(607)273-1747 ZONING(607)273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 January 4, 2008 Richard Matthews 380 King Rd E Ithaca, NY 14550 Dear Dick, On behalf of the Town of Ithaca I want to thank you for your many years of service on the Zoning Board of Appeals. At the organizational meeting of the Town Board another person was appointed for the ' new term. The Town Board wishes to encourage some amount of turnover on our boards and committees to continue the fresh ideas and approaches that you so ably demonstrated yourself. When more than one person wants to be appointed to a particular board we are faced with a dilemma, particularly when there are not enough openings to accept all of the applicants. My fellow Town Board members and I faced just such a dilemma when considering appointments to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We appreciate your interest and hope you will consider an appointment to an alternate position on this board. If you should wish to continue to be involved, please let the Town Clerk's Office know that you are interested by calling 273-1721 or e-mailing the Town Clerk at townclerkgtown.ithaca.n us. Again, the Town is most grateful for your dedication and major contribution to the Town of Ithaca. Sincerely, /-/—/ ,.•. ;7— Herbert J. Engman Town Supervisor �0 TOWN OF ITHACA00 , 211 215 N. Toga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 W. y0-' www.town.ithaca.ny.us Town Supervisor(607)273-1721,Ext 125;HEn�man(�1own.fthaca.nv.us TOW N CLERK(607)273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS(607)273-1656 ENGINEERING(607)273-1747 PLANNING(607)273-1747 ZONING(607)273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 January 9, 2008 Kevin Talty 115 Lexington Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Kevin, On behalf of the Town of Ithaca I want to thank you for your many years of service on the Planning Board. At the organizational meeting of the Town Board another person was appointed for the new term. The Town Board wishes to encourage some amount of turnover on our boards and committees to continue the fresh ideas and approaches that you so ably demonstrated yourself. When more than one person wants to be appointed to a particular board we are faced with a dilemma, particularly when there are not enough openings to accept all of the applicants. My fellow Town Board members and I faced just such a dilemma when considering appointments to the Planning Board. We appreciate your interest and hope you will consider an appointment to an alternate position on this board. If you should wish to continue to be involved, please let the Town Clerk's Office know that you are interested by calling 273-1721 or e-mailing the Town Clerk at townclerk cz.town.ithaca.ny.us. Again, the Town is most grateful for your dedication and major contribution to the Town of Ithaca. Sincerely, .. erbert J. Eng an Town Supervisor (1-5D Q Department of Assessment 128 East Buffalo Street Valeria Coggin Inclusion through Diversity Jay Franklin Director Assistant Director January 11 , 2008 Herb Engman, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Compliments for the Town Clerks/Tax Collectors Dear Mr. Engman, I assume you are aware that the 2008 January Town and County tax bills had to be reprinted due to an error beyond our control. First time in a quarter of century we had to face the prospect of not being able to deliver the tax bills to the towns in a timely manner. Fortunately, the Tax Roll, the Warrant and the electronic data were forwarded to the Clerks/Tax Collectors prior to January 1, 2008, which has enabled them to conduct their business associated with tax collection. However, the late delivery of the reprinted bills necessitated them to make special arrangements during their holiday, working on the weekend and evenings in order to get the bills out to the property owners. During this difficult time we have received exemplary cooperation from all the Town Clerks/Tax Collectors. We had the occasion to express our appreciation to them, but I thought it would be important to bring to your attention the outstanding "public service" spirit of your employee(s). I want to assure you that we have put a procedure in place immediately to prevent events like this from happening again. Once more, I'd like to thank you and your staff for helping us to correct the wrong and move forward with positive attitude. Sincerely yours, f Valeria Zia Director of Assessment Cc: Debbie Kelly, Tax Collector Mail Address: Tel: 607-274-5517 128 East Buffalo Street Fax: 607-274-5507 Ithaca, New York 14850 assessment@tompkins-co.org http://www.tompkins-co.org/assessmenU Herb Engman r 'om: smccutcheon@warrenhomes.com ant: Tuesday,January 15, 2008 7:55 AM go: Herbert J Engman Subject: RE: Re-zoning Enfield Falls Road tax map#33.-1-9.2 Dear Herb, I know you share my concern and appreciate all your good comments. I will send you the listing for the Enfield Falls Road property. Chris Vitale put an offer on the least expensive property in our area first (next to Turback's for $110,000) then went to the next least expensive piece, Enfield Falls Road. With best regards, Susan Quoting Herbert J Engman <HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us>: > I share your concerns. Do you have the asking price for the parcel on > Enfield Falls Road? > Herb > Herbert J Engman > Town of Ithaca Supervisor > Town of Ithaca > 215 N. Tioga Street > Ithaca, NY 14850 > Phone: 607-273-1721 > Fax 607-273-5854 Email HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us Web: www.town.ithaca.ny.us -----original Message----- From: smccutcheon@warrenhomes.com [mailto:smccutcheon@warrenhomes.com] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:57 PM > To: HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us > Cc: wburbank@town.ithaca.ny.us; jcowie@town.ithaca.ny.us; > bgoodman@town.ithaca.ny.us; pleary@town.ithaca.ny.us; > elevine@town.ithaca.ny.us; pstein@town.ithaca.ny.us > Subject: Re-zoning Enfield Falls Road tax map #33.-1-9.2 > We have lived on Enfield Falls Road for many years. We chose this > home, as did many of the other 21 families living in our neighborhood, > because of the rural setting adjacent to Robert H. Treman State Park. > We are writing to express our biased concern about the proposed zoning change. > We wanted you to be aware that there are other properties in our area > currently for sale that do not require a zoning change (See attachment) . > In your discussions, you may decide changing the character of our > neighborhood is the best use for the 10.6 acre site across from the > entrance to Lower Robert Treman Park. Please carefully consider the > alteration of the scenic view from both the land looking toward the > southern valley as well as the view from Lick Brook Gorge across Route > 13 looking west. Please consider the run-off that would occur with > extensive paving the project would require. Please consider the > difficult access to Route 13 from Enfield Falls Road. > We acknowledge the need for low cost assisted living. We are just > not convinced this is the best site. /Oft\ With best regards, Susan and Jim McCutcheon 157 Enfield Falls Road > Ithaca, New York 14850 > (607) 272-4468 1 Herb Engman 'om: cmoore2@twcny.rr.com int: Friday,January 25,2008 10:41 AM o: HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us Cc: smcutcheon@warrenhomes.com Subject: Proposed Assisted Living Enfield Falls Rd My family has lived on the property that is adjacent to the lot where the proposed assisted living facility might be built for ten years. We border the NE side of the parcel in question. You have already acknowledged several issues that seem to indicate that this site is not the best. The difficulty accessing Rt 13,the distance from emergancy services and the lack of compatibility with the surrounding properties are all issues that you mentioned as being troublesome. I can't see the improvement in the new location when compared to the old. If road access is considered the new lot offers only marginal improvement if any due to the traffic flow past the Rt 327 entrance to Rt 13. This is not a big improvement. Rt 327 loops around in an arc and surrounds the property in question on three sides more or less. There are quite a number of residents located along the inner side of this loop in such a way that all the backyards will face directly towards the proposed assisted living building. This is akin to placing the commercial entity with perhaps 100 people and 40 plus cars and trucks in the middle of a donut. It would be quite different if the building were to be on the end or away from the homes but to be almost in the backyard of so many houses because of the lay of the land seems to me to really exacerbate the question of compatibility with the neighborhood. I am having a difficult time seeing the plus side of witching from a property that borders conservation land to a property that borders more an a half dozen private homes. Like the highway access issue this so called improvement very marginal in my mind. anally I believe there is a commercial property that is far more suitable for sale not ..00 far from here. I believe the assisted living facility is a good thing but I do not feel that the proposed site is appropriate. Please urge the proponents of the project to keep looking for a better site. Thank you very much for tackling these difficlt issues. We appreciate your efforts. Best Regards, Clayton and Susan Moore 104 Enfield Falls Rd Ithaca, New York 14850 1 OF 1�, 9 TOWN 4F ITHACA ° _' . _1 > 118 21 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 �'w �o� www.town.ithaca.ny.us Town Supervisor(607)273-1721,Ext 125;HEngmanCcDtown.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK(607)273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS(607)273-1656 ENGINEERING(607)273-1747 PLANNING(607)273-1747 ZONING(607)273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 January 30, 2008 Commissioners of Election Cree and DeWitt Tompkins County Board of Elections 128 East Buffalo Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Commissioners Cree and DeWitt: Pursuant to your invoice, dated December 12, 2007, to recoup 2007 Primary and General Election expenses, the Town of Ithaca is submitting a total of 59.402.00. As a representative of the Town of Ithaca.I have a fiduciary responsibility to my constituents; I do not take my role tightly. My rca.sorn for submitting $3,826.25 less than ,look, the amount invoiced (SI3?28.25) is iii part because County Resolution No. 165, dated September 7, 2005 States. Comay charge backs to the Town of Ithaca would total$9,402 for 2007 and would continue to decrease through 2010. It is my understanding that, according to HAVA and the NYS Comptroller, counties in New York State can only chargeback those expenses that were previously incurred (prior to 2005) by the town, by its own actions and not election expenses that lead been initially incurred by counties and charged back to towns and cities. The additional y3,826.25 billing appears to fall into a gray area. While I am not contesting this additional amount, as Town Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca I cannot authorize additional spending without supporting detail. If you would please provide a certified, audited copy of the election expenses for 2007 along with copy(s) of chargeback resolutions and the formula used for computing the town's share, it would help me ascertain whether or not the Town of Ithaca is responsible for the additional payment. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and welcome any concerns or comments you have. es tfu. Py Herb J. Engman Town Supervisor Karen Billings From: Webmaster@town.ithaca.ny.us 'Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 9:24 AM To: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Feedback.htm ******************************************************************************* department: Town Board MessageType: Complaint Subject: Meeting SubjectOther: Extended Living Facility Username: Clayton Moore , userstreet: 104 Enfield Falls Rd usertown: Ithaca UserEmail: cmoore2@twcny.rr.com UserTel: 607-342-4733, 607-272-8735 UserFAX: B1: Submit Comments: Todays Ithaca Journal (2/1/08) has a report on last nights Planning Committee meeting. In the report it says that board members Peter Stein and Pat Leary argued that the impact on the neighbors would be less than 20 dwelling units housing 50-60 people, the maximum that current zoning would allow. Zoning aside perhaps the board is unaware of the large gas transmission line that runs diagonally across the middle of the property along it's longest axis making it virtually impossible to build on anywhere near 100% of the 10 or so acres in the plot. In the recent past two real estate deals involving residential building on this plot fell through because of the gas pipeline. Please take this into consideration as you discuss this proposed zoning change. 1 C/ 3 o��oFrr� _ TOWN OF ITHACA 4, 18 z' �� 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS(Roads,Parks,Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 Date: February 1,2008 To: All Northeast Area Residents and Property Owners From: Town of Ithaca Public Works Department For many years,the Town of Ithaca has received complaints from residents in the Northeast area regarding drainage problems. The Town has responded to many of these complaints, albeit with mixed results. On March 12, 2007,the Ithaca Town Board directed its Public Works Department to find a comprehensive solution to the Northeast drainage problem. As a first step,the Department has decided to assemble a complete database of all current Northeast drainage problems from the point of view of residents and property owners, including,but not necessarily limited to, wet basements, saturated lawns, dying trees,runoff from neighboring properties, excessive flow in ditches, and erosion of culverts,ditches or streams. The Department will analyze the data, and present its preliminary findings to residents at a public meeting. The ultimate goal of the effort is to construct a plan that will satisfactorily address all Northeast drainage issues to the greatest extent feasible. To accomplish our goal, we must have complete and accurate knowledge of all Northeast drainage problems. We can only do this with the cooperation of everyone in the neighborhood. We are asking every property owner and resident to fill out the enclosed questionnaire, and return it in the enclosed envelope by February 15. It will only take a few minutes to do. For now,we only need to know whether or not you have any problems, and what type of problems they are. We may contact you in the future to learn more about the problems you are experiencing. It is important that we have your response even if you have no problems to report. Once again,the Town of Ithaca is committed to working with you to find solutions to the persistent drainage problems in the Northeast. Please help us by filling out and returning the enclosed questionnaire by February 15, even if you have no problems to report. IAProjects\FINAL draft NE letter 01042008.doc Town of Ithaca Page 1 1/29/2008 Drainage Problem Survey Please return this survey in the enclosed envelope by February 15. If you have any questions, please call the Town Engineer Dan Walker at (607)273-1747 Ext 128. Property Address Respondent's Name Phone Email Are you the property owner? Is the property your residence? I. Has the property experienced any drainage problem in the last year? If your answer to the above question is No,please return this survey in the enclosed envelope. Otherwise,please fill out the rest of the survey. II. Over the past year,has this property experienced Yes No: a. Wet basement....................................................................... ...... b. Persistent soggy areas in the yard........................................ ...... c. Flooding following heavy rains........................................... ...... d. Dead or dying trees/shrubs due to excessive wetness.......... ...... e. Water runoff from neighboring properties........................... ...... f. Excessive water in ditches.................................................... ...... g. Erosion in 1. Culverts...................................................................... .... 2. Ditches....................................................................... .... 3. Streams...................................................................... .... III. If you have owned or lived in this property for five years,please answer the following question by circling one of the three capitalized choices. Otherwise, go directly to IV. Are your drainage problems BETTER THE SAME WORSE than they were five years ago? IV. If you have drainage problems not covered by the choices in II,please describe them below. You may use the back of this form if necessary. I:\Projects1NE121307Survey_Response Rev2 FINAL.doc 1/29/2008 9:08:14 AM Page 1 of 1 Herb Engman rMft� From: joescag@twcny.rr.com Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 5:45 PM To: JKanter@town.ithaca.ny.us Cc: BobR25@twcny.rr.com; pdeptula@peregrine-companies.com; Brian Wilbur; pmeskill@tompkins- co.org; HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Holochuck Homes Jonathan, Today I had a chance to obtain the plans for Holochuck Homes from Bob Romanowski. I find it strikingly suspicious that between pages 3 and 4 (of 4), my property and the adjacent parcel owned by Peter Rogers (Our properties are between Lakeside and Seventh Day Adventist)were left out of the drawings. This is unacceptable and I would encourage you to provide me with a detailed drawing of what is happening behing my home. I am 100%opposed to this project as I see it. The homes shold be located down farther and move the conservation zone more towards my back so the homes are located over the hill and do not obstruct my view of the lake. It will add to traffic, noise,and strain the sewer system flow. I encourage you to revisit the town of Ithaca codes back in 1980 when Lakeside was forced to install a new sewer line due to clogging. It is my understanding that this was necessary to maintain flow to the trunk line (under the proposed new development) I am also in consultations with legal advisors regarding a potential claim against the town for loss of air. This was successfully pursued and won by a community activist in the 1970s. I will pursue this avenue if my view is obstructed. Also,what type of housing is this? If it is low income or subsidized, I want to know about it.We already have enough police demand on West hill because of it. I would like to know when a thorough traffic study will be conducted as I would like to be present filming it, hopefully during the school season, not like the flawed one conducted by Overlook when students were gone. Thank you Joe Scaglione 1223 trumansburg Rd 2/25/2008 16 February 2008 To Whom It May Concern, We are interested in developing a plan to assist the town, county and Buttermilk Park in stabilizing the drainage ditch located on the SE corner of 390 Stone quarry road, Ithaca, N.Y. The drainage ditch empties into the Owl Gorge creek located in Upper Buttermilk State Park. This drainage ditch runs alongside the southeastern border of the property at 390 Stone Quarry rd. and occasionally overflows. This ditch is eroding the town's right of way adjacent to the property line at 390 Stone Quarry rd. and is in dire need of repair. We are willing to assist the town, county and park in stabilizing and repairing this drainage ditch with the following proposed long-term solution. Our Proposal to the parties involved: We are willing to allow the town and county to divert the water into two ponds located on our land. The water from the drainage ditch would initially be diverted into a settling pond located on 390 Stone Quarry Road. The second pond, located on 389 Stone Quarry Road,will then accept water from the first pond and act as a reservoir for a potential micro-hydro electric plant. In other words, we would like the drainage ditch repair done by the town and county to include the possibility of allowing the water from the drainage ditch to be diverted into two ponds located on our properties. The water from the second pond will empty through a pipe into the creek located in Upper Buttermilk State Park. An impulse turbine generator could be located at the end of the pipe to slow down the water as it empties into the creek. By so doing we have taken the energy out of the water and solved the erosion problem. During any extreme storm event, such as a 100 yr event, any excessive overflow from the sediment pond located on 390 will flow into the reservoir on 389 and any excess flow from the second pond may be released down the gently sloping grassy meadow into the creek. Any excess flow at the head of the drainage ditch may be released into the Owl gorge creek by way of its present path. We are also proposing to potentially place an ornamental water wheel at the end of the drainage ditch head in order to slow down the property line erosion at the SE corner of 390 Stone Quarry Rd. This would also take the energy out of the water before it drains into the creek from the drainage ditch head(where it presently drains) during any excessive storm water overflow as well as provide a second outlet for excessive water during a 100 yr event. To Summarize: Our ultimate aim is to improve our natural environment with the addition of the two ponds on our properties, and to minimize the present ditch erosion by taking the energy out of the normal drainage water flow and storm water flow before releasing it into Owl Gorge creek. Upon completion of the ponds, the landowners will investigate the potential for generating electricity by means of an ornamental water wheel (located at the head of the drainage ditch) and a micro-hydro electric impulse generator(located at the base of the creek on park land). The latter will release water into Owl Gorge creek from the reservoir located on 389 Stone Quarry Rd. Any overflow from the latter pond, during a 100 yr storm event, may be released down a grassy meadow on 389 Stone Quarry Road to the creek. Consequently, the normal water flow from the drainage ditch (after passing through the two ponds) will still be emptying into Owl gorge creek but do so with less energy and sediment. We are not looking for funds, only assistance and cooperation to have the water in the drainage ditch diverted to the ponds, and permission at present to allow the water to enter Owl Creek slightly west of where it currently enters the creek. We feel this is a sound proposal and that all the parties involved: the Town of Ithaca, Upper Buttermilk State Park, and the present landowners will potentially benefit from seeing this project to fruition. Since our proposal is a long-term solution to the drainage ditch erosion(maintained by the Town of Ithaca), we would prefer that they(the Town of Ithaca) bear the cost of the engineering and design work. We would prefer T.G. Miller as the engineering and design contractor. When the construction phase occurs, the landowners are willing to share in the construction costs of the ponds located on their property. Any dirt excavated by the town or county in the drainage ditch repair may be utilized in the pond construction. We (the landowners) will bear the cost of investigating the potential for generating electricity and any Micro Hydroelectric installation since we will be the primary beneficiaries of such a project. Consequently, we may eventually seek permission to place an ornamental water wheel at the head of the drainage ditch as well as a small hydroelectric generator at the end of the drainage pipe coming from the reservoir to assist in taking the energy out of the water. We are open to any suggestions from all parties involved as to how we might offset any of the latter expenses through any grants that the town and county might be aware of for such a project. Thank you for considering our proposal. 1'� Richard M. Eshelman and Tomasz Pracel Amim H.Meyburg 1 I6 Salem Drive Ithaca,NY 14850 February 17, 2008 Subject: Drainage Problem Survey Mr. Dan Walker, Town Engineer Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Mr. Walker: I am returning the completed"Drainage Problem Survey". However, I want to point out to you(and the Town Board and the Public Works Department)that in my opinion this survey is a complete waste of taxpayer money. The result of the survey is virtually predictable, namely that few, if any, homeowners have had serious drainage problems this last year. The reason, of course, is that we have not had any precipitation situation that typically gives rise to drainage and flooding problems in the Northeast area. As you must know, during a substantial part of the year we lived under draught conditions in the Ithaca area. Hence, asking about drainage and flooding problems during this last year is useless. Clearly, such a survey needs to cover the experience of several years to develop a true picture of the situation, giving the annual fluctuations in precipitation and their distribution over time. As you and the Highway Department staff(who have been around for a while) know, serious problems arise in the 100 block of Salem Drive every time we experience melting of a substantial snow pack, accompanied by rainfall. As you have witnessed yourself, under those circumstances the north-south running ditches along Salem Drive cannot handle the volume of water coming downhill from the east. The result is that the Salem Drive roadway gets flooded, as do the properties on the west side of Salem Drive. For example, typically water runs down the driveway of the property at 110 Salem Drive and floods the garage. Our front lawns will be flooded, with water threatening to enter the lower level of our homes. Some of us will be out there(before the Highway department shows up with heavy equipment),trying frantically to clear ice plugs from culverts and ditches to allow the water to flow south towards a substantial ditch that heads southwest towards Hanshaw Road. I had to call the Sheriff on several occasions because the flooded Salem Drive roadway was a serious hazard to unsuspecting motorists. 1 r In the last few years, the Ithaca area experienced substantially below average snowfall, so that the situation has not been as serious as described above, especially not last year. As is clearly evident, even to an amateur observer, the large runoff volume from the uphill lands east of the 100 block of Salem Drive, flowing along the east-west streets (Sycamore, Maplewood, and Birchwood Drives)reaches the eastside ditch along Salem Drive at a high velocity. The water has to make a 90 degree turn and flows along a significantly smaller grade heading south. The volume coming downhill from the drained wetlands along Briarwood Drive(due to new construction in a wetlands area over the last few years which has made the flooding problem far more serious than it already was) far exceeds the capacity of the ditches along Salem Drive. Unless the uphill water runoff is controlled both in volume and speed, I cannot see how the drainage and flooding problems along the 100 block of Salem Drive can be avoided. My plea to you and the Board is to disregard this survey, since its information(if you can call it that)is totally useless and misleading for determining drainage and flooding problems for the 100 block of Salem Drive. Instead, please use your own observations and those of senior Highway Department staff and long-time residents along Salem Drive to get relevant and useful information without incurring the cost of an irrelevant survey. Some of us have provided such information at public meetings in the past, already. I will be glad to discuss this further, if you are interested. Sincerely, A"'.04 //444� Arnim H. Meyburg 2 3 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Remediation, Rogion 7 615 Erie Boulevard West, Syracuse, New York 13204-2400 RECEIVED ,.done: (315) 426-7551 • FAX: (315) 426-7499 :bsite: www.dec.ny.gov MAR - 7 2008 Alexander S. Grannis Town of Ithaca Commissioner Town Clerk February 25, 2008 Mr. Tom West City of Ithaca Department of Public Works 103 East G rcen Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Mr. Dan Walker Director of Engineering Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 *�► Re: Utility Lines, South Hill Gentlemen: Over the past several months the NYSDEC and the NYSDOH have been investigating several sanitary sewer lines in the South Hill area of Ithaca for the presence of trichloroethene (TCE) and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil vapor surrounding the lines. This work has been prompted by previous studies performed between November 2005 and October 2007 by Emerson Power Transmission and Sauth Hill Business Campus related to their South Aurora Street and Danby Road facilities, respectively. Attached for your use are copies of two drawings depicting VOC results in soil vapor samples collected to date along the sewer lines. The first represents conditions along the line which originates at the farmer NCR/Axiohm facility located at 950 Danby Road, now South Hill Business Campus. It is identified on City of Ithaca utility drawings as the "National Cash 1`e inter" sewer. The line extends in a northerly direction across the eastern portion of Fn: crsoii's property, then continues along Danby Road/South Aurora Street to Columbia Street. l�Itcral emanating from Ithaca College has also been shown. The second drawing depicts VOC results obtained by Emerson from soil vapor and manhole vapor samples collected along South Aurora Street, I lilk iew Place, Columbia Street, Pleasant Street, Turner Place, South Hill Terrace, South Cayuga Street, and East Spencer Street. TOM WEST/DAN WALKER. -2- FEBRUARY 25, 2008 As the drawings illustrate, elevated levels of VOCs were detected in the soil vapor associated with the sewer lines in nearly every location sampled. The sources of the vapors are believed to be historical releases of solvents from Emerson and NCR, although the relative contributions have yet to be determined. Regardless, the results are of concern due to the potential for the vapors to migrate into nearby homes, as well as for potential exposure to utility workers performing routine inspection and maintenance activities. This issue was raised during a January 24, 2008 public meeting, and both NYSDEC and NYSDOH officials emphasized the need for workers to follow proper health and safety protocols established by their respective municipalities, including the use of appropriate monitoring-equipment. --The NYSDEC and the NYSDOH are continuing to investigate the extent of soil vapor contamination associated with the sewers, and to assist in this effort, Carl Cuipylo of this office will be contacting you in the near future to arrange to review the most current utility drawings you have on file. In addition, one of the residents attending the January 24`h meeting informed us that at some point in the past, the City had performed a"smoke test" on some of the sewer lines. We would be interested in any information you have available concerning this test. Thank you in advance for your help in this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Karen Cahill or Mr. Cuipylo of this office, or Susan Shearer of the NYSDOH at(800)458-1158, ext. 27860.' Sincerely, Gregg A. Townsend, P.E. Regional Hazardous Waste Remediation Engineer cc w/ enc.: Carolyn Peterson,Mayor, City of Ithaca Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton Wayne Sincebaugh, Town of Ithaca Public Works Department y J ec.: Ken Lynch Mary Jane Peachey Karen Cahill Carl Cuipylo Susan Shearer,NYSDOH -Troy Mark VanValkenburg,NYSDOH - Troy n 23.2 2.08 M13I 730 y � 10.2LTF1 _ South Hill EI mentary School D e n Power � 477 39.3 36 LI33 210 2010 ��-- 170 ND 214 l N Sample Location and ND TCE Results (ug/m^3) w E 232 d NCR Sewer Line s Pre Nov. 2007 Routing iohm (F rmer NCR) 0 235 470 940 1,410 1,880 "�" Feet ` Manhole Q� ED Manhole w _ " m &Ann Manhole Ct i I I f •f li1L>�` N i' � G!:03 dd ,� 1 ✓J � " i j a �� •, ' 1 taea� w t"to ` r tzi to I to Ncm r t \ LO \ Le ell . , � tato ` ` \,L� DIM I oral 0 �(� H - > TOWN OF ITHACA 18 21 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 4NW yoSt www.towii.1thaca.ny.LIS Town supervisor(607)273-1721, Ext 125; HEngmar@1own.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK (607)273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS (607)273-1656 ENGINEERING (607)273-1747 PLANNING (607)273-1747 ZONING (607)273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 February 25, 2008 Paul Mazzarella Executive Director Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services 115 West Clinton Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Paul: A recent request from a constituent for housing rehabilitation assistance underscores the need for more housing resources in the Town of Ithaca. Therefore I enthusiastically support your application for funding to develop a home rehabilitation program in the town. The Town of Ithaca has never been able to offer its residents the opportunity to participate in a program such as this. Like the recent caller, I am certain there are many others who will jump at the chance to improve their homes. I am especially appreciative of the fact that INHS will target energy conservation and seniors in this program. Energy costs are up dramatically and conservation will help individuals as well as reduce our Overall carbon footprint. Leveraging other sources of support such as NYSERDA and Weatherization will provide an additional boost to low-income homeowners. Seniors are often in particular need for homeowner assistance because of reduced income and inability to do home repairs themselves. Rapidly rising assessments and sometimes resulting increased taxes along with higher prices without corresponding increased pay have put a financial strain on many households in the Town of Ithaca. On behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca I applaud your efforts to secure funding and I look forward to a successful program. Sincerely, / erbe/rtJ. Engm -rn Town Supervisor Page 1 of 1 Herb Engman MAR _ 7 ?000 From: joescag@twcny.rr.com ToVVr7 of Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 6:53 PM town Cie k To: HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us; WBurbank@town.ithaca.ny.us; pmeskill@tompkins-co.org Subject: Re: litter on trumansburg rd ----- Original Message ----- From: joescag@twcny.rr.com To: HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us ; WBurbank@town.ithaca.ny.us ; pmeskill@tompkins-co.org Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 5:12 PM Subject: litter on trumansburg rd Herb, Will, Peter: As you know from my previous letters, I am a 45 year resident on rt 96, next to Lakeside Nursing home. I have and will continue to be an advocate of quality of life issues. Today I noticed a large number of"Yellow Book" yellow page guides laying along rt 96, in the storm drains, on lawns and under mailboxes. There were at least a dozen of them placed under a set of mailboxes about 100 feet north of the old stone heap (1100 block of tburg rd) Since these are in plastic bags, I am concerned about clogging of storm drains and overflow onto roads, especially with changing temps, could create a black ice issue. Besides, it is littering and if anyone else did it, they would surely face a ticket and hefty fine. I appreciate your insight into this matter. I found one of these thrown in the middle of my driveway on friday. Thanks Joe Scaglione 3/4/2008 ® . * TOWN OF ITHACA 1$ 21 215 N. Toga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 W y0 www.town.lthaca.Ily.LIS Town Supervisor(607)273-1721, Ext 125; HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK (607)273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS(607)273-1656 ENGINEERING(607)273-1747 PLANNING (607)273-1747 ZONING (607)273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 March 6. 2008 To: George Sheldrake Sharlyn Keegan Rachel Frank Matthew Snyder Deirdre Snyder Heather Christ Marla Miller From: Herb Engman Re: Calkins Road Petition This letter confirms the receipt of your letter and petition concerning a potential zoning violation at 180 Calkins Road in the Town of Ithaca. It is my understanding that you are concerned both with the issuing of the permit to build the pole barn as well as the potential subsequent use of the property for non- home business activities. I have reviewed the process of the Zoning Board of Appeals ruling on the placement of the pole barn in the side yard and the subsequent application and permit for placement of the pole barn in the back yard and find that the proper processes were followed and decisions made were reasonable under town code. On January 31 Kristie Rice and I conducted an unannounced site visit to 180 Calkins Road. The only items stored in the pole barn were concrete framing panels, several wood-cutting saws, a `Bobcat" machine and various bolts and fasteners in bins along one wall. The only observed problem was a small pile outside covered with a tarp. Mrs. Knewstub indicated the pile would soon be moved into the pole barn. Any future observations concerning potential violations of the building permit and/or the home occupation law should be conveyed immediately to Steve Williams, 273-1783, extension 133 and swilliams@town.ithaca.ny.us. Should he not be available, contact Kristie Rice at 273-1783, extension 123 and krice@town.thaca.ny.us. I will be setting up a meeting at your convenience with the appropriate town staff to discuss further your concerns. Sincerely, /HZ4beer�tJ. E man Addresses—per Herb's letter about the pole barn on Calkins Road Mr. George Sheldrake 174 Calkins Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Ms. Rachel Frank 174 Calkins Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Ms. Dierdre Snyder 182 Calkins Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Ms. Marla Miller 178 Calkins Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Mr. Matthew Snyder 182 Calkins Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Ms. Sharlyn Keegan 174 Calkins Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Ms. Heather Christ CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Daniel L.Hoffman,City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504 Patricia Dunn,Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507 Robert A. Sarachan,Assistant City Attorney Khandikile M.Sokoni,Assistant City Attorney March 11, 2008 Herbert Engman, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Mary Ann Sumner, Supervisor Town of Dryden 93 E. Main Street Dryden,NY 13053 RE: Title to Joint Sewer Plant Property Dear Supervisors Engman and Sumner: Mayor Carolyn Peterson has asked me to write to both of you, regarding a question that has arisen pertaining to the sewage treatment plant jointly operated by the City of Ithaca and the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden. Since approximately 1988,the Ithaca Farmers Market has occupied a site in close proximity to the joint sewer.plant (which commenced operation in 1987), pursuant to a 20-year lease with the City of Ithaca. In the course of preparing for negotiation of a new lease with the Farmer's Market, I checked on the title of that site. I was surprised to learn that approximately half of the site occupied by the Farmers Market is part of a tax parcel (No. 24-1-1)that also encompasses the entire joint sewer plant site, and which appears to be owned solely by the City. (The southerly half of the Farmers Market site,together with other land, comprises a separate, City-owned tax parcel.) Having been told that the sewer plant site was originally intended to be conveyed into joint ownership by the partners, I researched the Joint Sewer Agreement. Although I have yet to locate a copy of the original 1981 Agreement, I do have signed copies of the 1984 amended version, as well as what I believe is the most recent version, as revised on December 31, 2003. Both the 1984 and 2003 versions, in Section 3 ("Title to Property"), state that"title to all real property and improvements thereon, including the treatment plant site location and other facilities, shall vest in the parties hereto as tenants in common in the /00%\ same proportions as their respective treatment plant ownership interests." "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." za Section 8 of each version notes that the City would receive a credit adjustment toward its `01101) share of initial capital costs of the project, in consideration for its contribution of"the land and rights of way which it has acquired and now owns, and for the buildings thereon(including equipment and apparatus), which are to be transferred from the present facilities now owned and operated by the City of Ithaca, to the project and the facilities which are to be jointly owned under this agreement." Copies of the pages from the 2003 version of the Agreement that include Sections 3 and 8 are enclosed. The (1984) Agreement then refers to Appendix I, with regard to the amount of and basis for the credit adjustment. (Note: In the 2003 version, what was Appendix I to the 1984 version appears as "Appendix III;"it is otherwise unchanged.) This appendix (copy enclosed) establishes the total value of the City's credit as $400,000, including "Parcel IV" ($206,500 for the land) and the facilities on Parcel IV ($133,000); in addition, it assigns a value of$50,500 to the City's "remaining debt on non-reusable parts." No other parcels are named or valued in Appendix I. The appendix notes that values for the land and facilities are derived from appraisals by Edward W. Austin and American Appraisal (from 1980 and 1979, respectively). After some digging, we were able to locate the Austin appraisal; an abridged copy, not including pages addressing comparable properties, is enclosed. This report describes and values five, distinct, City-owned parcels(on both sides of Route 13). The total value of Parcel IV is stated as $408,940 (apparently rounded down to $400,000 for the purposes of establishing the City's credit). On Page 6, the appraisal report makes reference to a map, entitled"Proposed Treatment Plant Site Layout." I have the original of that map in my office; a copy (on which I have highlighted "Parcel IV") is enclosed. As you will see,the five parcels are delineated; on the original map handwritten numbers in circles are drawn on the parcels (apparently by the City Engineer at the time). The parcel numbered "4" (described on pages 7 and 8 of the appraisal report), appears to coincide closely with what is today the fenced site of the sewer plant. A separate parcel, labeled"5,"appears to coincide closely to the northerly half of the Farmers Market site; this parcel is characterized on the map as"potential public open space and recreation area." The proposed outfall pipe for the sewer plant is shown as skirting Parcel 5 for the most part,then running along its northerly edge before crossing under Cascadilla Creek. The actual layout of the new,joint sewer plant is different from what is shown on this pre-construction map, and the outfall pipe takes a more direct route, crossing Parcel 5 diagonally. The northerly wing of the Farmers Market pavilion is located above the outfall line. I have not been able to determine why the intended conveyance of title into joint ownership never actually occurred. I did not become the City Attorney until January 2006. It appears that attorney Patricia Kennedy, who worked in this office in the 1990s, was aware of the non-conveyance and, in the mid-1990s when the parties were contemplating revision of the Agreement, suggested that it be remedied in the course of that process. (She also correctly observed that the term"term in common"was inappropriate for municipalities, and should be changed to "joint tenants.") The actual revision of the Agreement did not occur until years later, after Ms. Kennedy had left this office;her advice apparently was lost. Neither Patricia Dunn, who was at this office when the agreement was revised,nor Susan Brock, who represented the '� partners at that time, can recall why the conveyance did not occur. Mayor Peterson wishes to act with openness and in good faith in this situation. If the Town of Ithaca and Town of Dryden still want the sewer plant site (i.e., essentially, "Parcel 4") to be jointly owned, she is prepared to effect that step. In that case, our proposal is that tax parcel 24-1-1 first be divided, so as to sever the Farmers Market site (essentially, "Parcel 5") from it. The division line would be located at or just to the west of the westerly fence of the sewer plant site. The City would retain ownership of the Farmers Market site, subject to an easement for the outfall pipe. Such a division of tax parcel 24-1-1 is also called for in order to facilitate a timely new lease for the Farmers Market (before the end of 2008). By my reading of the applicable law, the City should not sell or lease City-owned property without competitive bidding. However, if such property is within the boundary of the City's designated urban renewal area, and it is sold or leased by the City to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), that agency can identify a qualified and eligible sponsor of revitalizing economic activity on the property, and proceed to sell or lease the property to such a sponsor without the normal competitive bidding process. I have recommended that the Farmers Market site be leased to the IURA, and that any sub-lease to the Farmers Market be handled through the IURA. In any case,the City will ensure that any lease is subject to what would in effect be a permanent"easement" for the outfall line (regardless of the ownership of tax parcel 24-1-1), that would allow the sewer plant operators to maintain, repair or replace the line without incurring any additional cost for resulting displacement of or damage to Farmers Market facilities that may be located above it. OON Would you or your attorneys please let me know if the Towns remain desirous of joint ownership of the sewer plant site, and whether there are any objections to the division of tax parcel 24-1-1 as I have proposed. (I will be on vacation and out of town for the next two weeks, but would be happy to discuss this matter when I return.) If you believe that this matter needs to be addressed by the partners' Special Joint Committee, I would ask that a meeting of that group be convened in the near future, and that the Mayor and myself be invited to attend. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Daniel L. Hoffman City Attorney DLH/kdg Enclosures Cc: Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson William J. Gray, Superintendent of Public Works Daniel Cogan, City Representative on Special Joint (Sewer) Committee Mary Tomlan, City Representative on Special Joint (Sewer) Committee :� . 0 @ 9 fo FlS�II f C*4 � t J�r• r I . ' Y ` II .Sewer'' Al i--cc w-,e� 2.3 In the event that the election to terminate is exercised as above provided,the assets of the joint operation shall be disposed of by agreement of the Parties hereto upon agreed valuation on the basis of ownership interests as herein provided. Section 3. Title to Property 3.1 Title to all real property and improvements thereon, including the Treatment Plant site location and other facilities, shall vest in the Parties hereto as tenants in common in the same proportions as their respective Treatment Plant ownership interests. Section 4. Ri t-of-way and Tax Exemption 4.1 It is specifically agreed during the duration of this Agreement that the real property and improvements, including any intermunicipal interceptor,trunk line or lines, located within each Party's jurisdiction shall be entirely exempt from real property taxation by said Party and each Party agrees to said exemption, and each Party has adopted a Tax Exemption Resolution provided under Section 406 of the Real Property Tax Law. Section 5. Type of Treatment Plant and Improvements 5.1 This Section 5 and Section 6 below are included in this Agreement for historical purposes. The Parties acknowledge that the design, type, size, and specification of the Treatment Plant, including site development, trunk lines, improvements and other equipment were built as recommended by the Consulting Engineers Stearns and Wheler and as approved by the respective governing bodies of the Parties and by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 6 E. Remaining debt-on original plant equipment and facilities.owned by the City of Ithaca whether or not included in the new Treatment Plant as listed in Appendix III. F. Flow meters for determining operational cost allocation hereinafter set forth. G. Attorney and legal fees, administrative expenses. H. Such other expenses ordinarily connected with the construction, establishment, and reconstruction of a joint wastewater treatment facility but specifically excluding the respective laterals and internal sewer systems of the Parties. I. Financing and interest costs. J. Cost of equipment required to implement the Industrial Pretreatment Program. 7.3 Capital improvements and equipment with a useful life in excess of five years shall be subject to the approval of each of the Parties prior to initiation of such improvements or acquisition of such equipment. 7.4 Notwithstanding the foregoing, capital costs shall not include costs related to jointly used interceptors and sewer lines. Those costs are dealt with in a separate agreement between the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca dated December 31, 2003. Section 8. Pre-Agreement Costs 8.1 This Section 8 is included in the Agreement for historical purposes. The City of Ithaca received a credit adjustment towards its share of capital costs for the land and rights-of-way which it acquired and owned, and for the buildings thereon{including 8 equipment and apparatus),which were transferred from the facilities solely owned and operated by the City of Ithaca,to the project and the facilities which are jointly owned under this Agreement. 8.2 The amount of the credit adjustment for land,buildings,equipment, and apparatus was in the amounts set forth in Item 4 under the heading, "Anticipated Local Capital Costs"of Appendix M. 8.3 In addition to the aforementioned credit to the City for its contribution of land, equipment,buildings and apparatus toward the project, further credit was allowed to the City for expenses that it incurred for the Plan of Study, the Maximum Efficiency Evaluation for Wastewater Treatment Facilities Report, and STEP I work(exclusive of SSES which is covered by a separate agreement)which had not otherwise been shared in by the other Parties. 8.4 The Town of Ithaca provided a recording secretary and received credit for such costs in support of the Sewer Service Planning Committee. Section 9. Financing—Capital Costs 9.1 Each respective Party shall be responsible for financing its respective share of the capital costs. The Parties may jointly or individually apply for Federal or State grants for all or a portion of their share of capital costs,whichever may be most advantageous to said Party. 9.2 These respective amounts, or such portion thereof as may be needed during construction or reconstruction, shall be provided by each respective Party upon warrants 9 APPMIX I TITLE OF*PROPEIM AND CAPITAL COST APPORTION All costs aesociat�d with new plant and site for the hypothetical . first year NO-GR09M PLW will be-apportioned by fixed percentages based on the prsvious year flow records of contributions from respective municipalities and load factors for major industry and septage. The reserve capacity of the new plant and proportionate share of the site-i,ould be apportioned by fixed percentages based on gradth projections for the respective municipalities for the year 2005 as indicated in the Facilities Plan and on additional load factors for major industry and septage. At the time the fixed percentage of reserve capacity is reached by any municipality or industry, additional capacity shall be made available as needed from the remaining '.reserve capacity. Each municipality or-industry with remaining reserve capacity shall provide the needed capacity b a proportion equal to their remaining reserve ca Y P � �!. 4 pacify over the total remaining •rpserve capacity and be reimbursed for same in "dollars of that year" i.e., future worth by the municipality requiring the additional capacity. Any reduction of flow values frau any entity, while not affecting the fixed percentages paid for = the first year plar(t, will act as a credit for capacity to that , entity and always be used before additional reserve capacity. (See Scheme III for a more detailed explanation). Scheme III is made a part of this Agreement. Capital improvements and equipment with a useful life in excess of five years needed following the determination of the scope of the STEP II project shall be subject to the approval of':each of the participating municipalities prior to initiation of.. such improvements or acquisition of such eguipant - ANTICIPATED IACAt, CAPITAL COSTS 1. 30 YEAR sQ' m G PERIOD > : t l ! 2. INTERFSP RATE •- 9�B j :' • i 3. LOCAL Lt3mING FOR NEW OONSrRUC'1'ION - $4,300,000 4. LOCAL EXPI343ES Fok EXISTING PLAN.V AND LAND a. .Based on Edward W. Austin 6/60, Land Appraisals ' Parcel IV..............$206,500 i LAW $206,500 i b. Based on Edward W. Austin 6/80, Land Appraisals ' Jlmerican Appraisal 6/79, and Federal Funding !; $286,000 x .50 = Facilities on Parcel IV........ •. � $193,000 Remaining Debt non- " ' .Reusable Parts........... 50,500 BUILDINGS 193,500 i IND PLUS BUILDINGS 'TOTAL $400,000 S. PRA7Dl'T VOCAL COST TOM...........$4,700,000 i i Jot EDWARD W. AUSTIN "Realtor and Appraiser ITHACA, N. Y. APPRAISAL REPORT AND VALUATION ANALYSIS PROPERTY OF: City of Ithaca Sewer and Water Treatment Facilities PREPARED FOR: City Engineer Mr. Phil Cox Y 1 PREPARED BY: Edward W. Austin Realtor - Appraiser - ,) W. AUSTIN (Realtorr Appraiser Subject Parcel I SubjectParcel 1 •• • Northeasterly Y ..� 5 sTT-l,,,r 4 '' -a v;,s,.s,add. F.�.'�'d�,.,.<f'Tx�.,.�L•�y t+n.��"y ��. nrs h�� a EDWARD W. AUSTIN 'Realtor and Appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. I Subject Parcel III I; i Uzi- -- Looking Northwesterly •L ' 7 ry Y ak Subject Parcel IV Looking Northwesterly 7-1 EDWARD W. AUSTIN Realtor and ,flppraiser ITHACA. N. Y. F} Subject Parcel V Looking Southerly r EDWARD W. AUSTIN 6ealtor and Appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATION OF APPRAISAL Page 1 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS 2 PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL . . . . . 3 APPRAISAL PROBLEM. 3-4 DEFINITION OF VALUE APPRAISED. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 6-8 AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS 8-11 LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . 9-11 ECONOMIC TRENDS. . . . . . . . . . 0. . 0 . . . . . 12 SALES HISTORY OF PROPERTY. . . . . . . 0 6, . . . 12 ZONING . . . . . . . . 12 HIGHEST AND BEST USES. . . . . . . . . . 13 PROPERTY VALUATION . . . . . . 0 . . 13-14 LAND VALUE . . . . . . . 14-18 LAND SALES CHART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 COST APPROACH TO VALUE . . . . . . . . . . 19 - ESTIMATE OF INITIAL COST CHART 20 MARKET DATA APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-22 CONCLUSION OF VALUE, MARKET DATA 23 CORRELATION AND CONCLUSION OF VALUE. 23 } APPRAISED VALUE. "23 ADDENDUM Area Maps Location Maps Tax Parcel Maps Sales Limiting Conditions Qualifications i . L EDWARD W. AUSTIN Realtor and Appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. i CERTIFICATION OF APPRXISAZ I hereby certify that I have personally examined and inspected the within property, that to the best of my knowledge and belief the statements contained in this appraisal, and upon which the opinions expressed herein are based, are correct, subject to the limiting condi- tions herein set forth. Employment in and compensation . for making this report are in no way contingent upon the value reported, and I certify that I have no financial interest in the subject property. In my opinion, the full -and fair value of the property as of June 10, 1980 is: (See Sheet 23) Dated June 10, 1980 Edward W. Austin Page 1 f 1. t EDWARD W. AUSTIN Realtor and appraiser rrHACA. N. Y. SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS REPUTED OWNER: City of Ithaca ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: First, Franklin & Third Streets PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED: Fee Simple TYPE OF PROPERTY: Public Utility LOT AREA: Parcel I - 68,882 square feet Parcel II - 35,732 square feet Parcel III - 12,000 square -feet Parcel IV - 543,193 square feet Parcel V - 296,208 square feet BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS: Office building, warehouse,garage storage, sewer treatment facilite ZONING: P-1 DATE VALUE ESTIMATE: June 10, 1980 DATE OF APPRAISAL: June 10, 1980 APPRAISED VALUE: See sheet 23 i 1 Page 2 EDWARD W. AUSTIN Realtor and Appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. PURPOSE* OF APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the value of the following listed tax parcels and parts thereof, presently owned by the City of Ithaca. Parcel # 'Tax Map # -j 8,-b4 I 25-4-1 PUMP S" . II 25-2,-1 Pie*P. P,&MP SrA, III 25-1-5 (part of) r*nA)rl 'Jt-- S;r'E IV 24-1-1 ntrq,2 �y�ta�7` V 23-1-1 APPRAISAL PROBLEM The problem posed in this appraisal is to estimate the value of a series of parcels of land owned by the City of Ithaca and used presently or in the past as a part of the Water and Sewer Department of the City. Two different values will be sought in this appraisal, Market Value and Value in Use. Market Value will be used for those properties that could or would be commonly bought and sold on the open market. Value in Use will be sought for those "Special Purpose Properties" that are not commonly traded in the Market Place but do have a value in use. Page 3 ' EDWARD W. AUSTIN Realtor and Appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. The Market Data Approach is the most reliable indica- tor of value for those properties commonly traded in the Market Place. The Cost Approach is the best and most reliable indicator for "Special Purpose Properties% The appraiser was instructed to value parcels I through V as bare land and further to value parcel I with present improvements, to value parcel IV with the special purpose improvements thereon. Parcel IV is the only parcel that will be valued,by the Cost Approach to value. DEFINITION OF VALUE APPRAISED The values reported in this appraisal will be Market Value for those parcels that would have a substitute or similar use and Use Value for those Special Purpose Parcels. Market Value is considered to be that amount of money, expressed in dollars, that a property would bring if exposed on an open, competitive market for a reasonable period of time to find an informed, knowledgeable buyer, the buyer and seller being fully informed of all the uses to which the property is capable, neither being under duress to buy or to sell. Page 4 I EDWARD W. AUSTIN 4ealtor and .4ppraiser ITHACA. N. Y. Use Value or Value in Use is the value of a "Special- Purpose Property". Special-Purpose Property is defined in the American Institute of Real Estate Appraiser's Appraisal' Terminology •and Handbook As being, "A property devoted to or available for utilization for a special purpose, but which has not independent marketability in the generally recognized acceptance of such a term, such as a clubhouse, a church property, a public museum, . a public school, and so on. It also includes other buildings having value, such as hospitals, theatres-, breweries and others which cannot be converted to other uses without large capital invest- ments. " In estimating the Market Value, a search has been made 'for sales of bare land and also of properties similar and comparable to Parcel number I. In estimating the Value in Use of Parcel number IV, construction costs furnished by consulting engineers Stearns & Wheeler has been used in conjunction with esti- mated land value. Page 5 EDWARD W. AUSTIN CRealtor and Appraaer ITHACA. N. Y. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The property being appraised is composed of five different parcels of land presently owned by the City of Ithaca. The following drawing, made a part of this appraisal, entitled "Proposed Treatment Plant Site Layout" indicates the individual parcels.. Dimensions on all the land and buildings in this appxa :sal have been taken from tax maps and records in thea Tompkins County Assesors office. The geheral location of the parcels is in the -- northw.es�te�ly section of the City of Ithaca bounded in part by Cas•cadilla Creek, Lake Street, along Franklin and First Streets and divided by State Route 13. Parcel I is known as tax map parcel number 25--4-1 and is located at the corner of 7ranklin and 'First Streets. According to the dimension on the tax map, the lot should contain approximately 68,882 square feet of land. The building irpprovements• on the parcel are of brick, block, and frame construction. It consists of the main building, which is partially two .stories in height, an open faced storage building, and a one story garage building also containing the paint shop. The main building is used for Page 6 EDWARD W. AUSTIN cRealior and Appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. offices, workshop area and general storage. The property record card in the Assessor's office indicates the ground coverage of the building to be approximately 8,250 square feet with an area of approximately 690 square feet on the second floor. The open face storage shed is indicated to be approximately 1,433 square feet and the garage building to be approximately 3,422 square feet of ground coverage. Parcel II is known as tax map parcel number 25-2-1 l -oo and is bounded on the westerly side of First Street, on the southerly side of Franklin Street, on the northerly side by State Route 13, and on the easterly side by Lake Street. The dimensions on the tax map indicate the lot should con- tain approximately 35,732 square feet of land area. The building improvements on this parcel are all "Special Purpose" building improvements used in the sewer treatment process. Parcel III is a portion of a larger city owned triangular parcel bounded by First Street, Franklin Street, .and State Route 13. Its size is approximately.- 0)feet by Z.Y5eet. This is a art of tax ma ✓f; p parcel number 25-1-5. Parcel IV as shown on "Proposed Treatment Plant Site Layout" is composed of tax map parcel number 24-1-1 - 1t;foo and a portion of tax map parcel number 23-1-1. This - parcel is very irregular and is bounded by Cascadilla Creek = 290 000 Page 7 EDWARD W. AUSTIN Realtor and _,Ippratser ITHACA. N. Y. on the northeasterly side and by the Railroad on the southerly side. Due to the irregular boundaries, the area is estimated to be 12.47 acres. This parcel con- tains improvements used in the sewer treatment process. Parcel V will be the remainder of tax map parcel number 23-1-1 after a portion has been added to tax map parcel number 24-1-1 to create Parcel IV. The area of this parcel is bounded by Cayuga Inlet on the westerly side, Cascadilla Creek on the northerly side, and lands of the State of New York on the Southwest. AREA AND 'NE'IGHBORHOOD' ANALYSIS The various parcels of the subject property are adjoining or near to New York State Route 13 and are in an area devoted primarily to business, industry, and property owned by both the State of New York and the City of Ithaca. New York State has a large tract of adjoining land used by the New York Department of Transportation for open storage and garage space. Immediate neighbors are a trucking terminal, scrap • metal junk yard, a bowling alley, super markets,: a marina, and inexpensive residences. Page 8 i EDWARD W. AUSTIN (Realtor and Appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. Location: The City of Ithaca is located in the center of the Finger Lakes region of Central New York State, an area noted for its educational institutions and its position as an agricultural center of the Northeastern United States. Situated in Tompkins County, it is served by a network of state highways including the following routes: 13, 89, 96, 96B, and 79. The City of Ithaca, with an estimated population of 28,200, is wholly surrounded by the Town of Ithaca. Al- though the Municipalities are not primarily industrial communities, 'they have over 60 manufacturing establish- ments. It is estimated that the Consumer Spendable income for 1978 was $529,717,000. Among the principal products manufactured are: Computer terminals, shotguns, research instruments, heat resistant materials, power-drive chains, automatic pre- cision scales, scientific instruments, satellite-borne sensors, and other sophisticated electronic devices. The municipalities have available all the usual com- mercial services and a- number of shopping centers in which are located branches of various national chain and depart- ment stores. Page 9 EDWARD W. AUSTIN Realtor and i4ppraiser ITHACA. N. Y. The Ithaca area has long been culturally and academi- cally influenced by both Cornell University, founded in 1865, and Ithaca College, founded in 1892. Ithaca College is located on a new multi-million dollar campus, while Cornell has added modern buildings and research facilities to its original campus. Student enrollment at Cornell University in 1979-1980 was approximately 16,500 and at Ithaca College it was approximately 4,100. Cayuga Lake, more than 40 miles in length, is the largest of the six major lakes in the Finger Lakes Region and offers a variety of recreational activities. There are ten state, municipal, and private boat-launching sites lining the Lake for all types of boating activities. There is also a variety of winter recreational facili- ties including several ski centers and two ice rinks in the area. The Ithaca area is served by U.S. Air, Cummuter, Mall and Empire Airlines, from the Tompkins County Airport with jet flights to New York City, Washington, Pittsburgh, and Chicago. Direct air passenger, mail, and cargo service is also furnished to 23 New York State communities and six Massachusetts communities and areas of New Jersey, New Hampshire and Michigan. The Municipalities are also served Page 10 EDWARD W. AUSTIN (Realtor and -,4ppratser ITHACA. N. Y. by the Greyhound Bus Lines with a terminal located in the City of Ithaca. Fire protection is supplied by volunteer companies and the full time paid fire department of the City of Ithaca. Police protection is furnished by City, Village, and County Police Departments as well as the New York State Police. Gas and electricity are furnished by the New York State Electric and Gas Corporation. Source: Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce lofts Page 11 EDWARD W. AUSTIN Realtor and Appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. 'ECONOMIC TRENDS The economic condition of the Ithaca area is healthy comparatively. Employment is good' along with a relatively low unemployment rate. Many people consider the "business" of Ithaca to be education due to Ithaca College and Cornell University being located here. These educational insti- tutions do not flucate rapidly and have a stabilizing effect on the Community. Several large national corpora- tions or divisions thereof are located in Ithaca; Morse Borge Warner, National Cash Register Co. , Ithaca Gun Co. , and others along with many smaller corporations that help stabilize the area. SALES' HISTORY OF PROPERTY There has been no sale of the subject land parcels in the past ten years. ZONING The area of the subject parcels is in the P-1 designated area. The permitted primary uses are: Public recreation Public and semi-public institutions whose purpose 'is education--with exceptions. Accessory uses- and service buildings for permitted uses, upon issuance of a special permit. Page 12 i EDWARD W. AUSTIN Tealtor and Appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. t 1 1HI'OHEST AND BEST USES The Highest and Best Use of the subject parcels is considered to be the present use do to the zoning placing a legal limitation on use. Upon the discontinuance of the present use of the subject parcels, for the purpose of this appraisal, it is assumed the zoning would be changed to a classification in keeping with the neighborhood. PROPERTY VALUATION In arriving at an estimate of value, the three approaches to value have been considered and only two have been used. The Income or Economic Approach has not been used due to a lack of sufficient information on rental data to justify a conclusion to value. The Market Data and Replacement Cost Approaches have been used. In the Market Data Approach, a search has been made for the most recent sales of bare land and improved prop- j erties that are located in commercially and industrially zoned areas in the City of Ithaca. From these sales, .an estimate of value has been drawn. Information has been obtained from the consulting engineers Stearns & Wheeler, a local contractor and Page 13 i EDWARD W. AUSTIN 4ealtor and Appraiser 1THACA. N. Y. national cost service, as to the estimated replacement cost of buildings and improvements for the cost approach to value. To this has been added land value to arrive at a value estimate. LAND VALUE The following sales of bare land have been analyzed and compared to the subject property to draw a conclusion as to the bare land value of the subject parcels. The sales prices shown and the lot sizes have been taken from records in the County Assessor's Office. Land Sale # Date Location Lot Size Selling Price 1 11/79 S. Meadow St. 14. 8 a $330,000.00 2 11/79 S. Meadow St. 5.9 a $138,000.00 3 4/79 Elmira Road .9 a $ 42,500.00 4 6/77 225 Elmira Rd. .91 a $ 72,000.00 5 6/77 326 Elmira Rd. . 82 a $110,000.00 6 5/76 720 Willow Ave. .459 a $ 15,000.00 7 11/73 200 Hancock St. 1.95 a $ 45,000.00 8 9/73 506 Esty St. .29 a $ 11,500.00 9 9/73 509 Esty St. . 315 a $. 11,500.00 Page 14 i —"`— EDWARD W. AUSTIN 4Realtor and Appraiser •I-► ITHACA• N. Y. 44 G1 • r1 M tD M 10 01 01 M er r-1 'tr N Ln r-1 N 1l 01 I- M N N rl N M 0 rO -H � a ) :~ � � GS b U N M 01 01 9- r %D M M M N 0% • +•� A \ \ \ \ \ \ \�\ \ -�1 bWJ r-1 f-i a Q •1.1 R r-1-H U • It Ab 0 G�-I tD •rI r-1 M 00 O d' Ln N G1 M I-I • L!1 to O CO O 1� to OD oo O 10 m P, : .r, N r-I rl M .>•I VI. vi- to- V)- il} M- v)- v} RI r-1 O n� :0 ani 3 ro to ro 0 •rl b N 0 � A 0 0 o O o o O o o U g to E! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O•rl 0 . . . . . • . . •H O 0 O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 . 4 0 x r-I ;rq o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 U rts H o O Ln o 0 o O Ln Ln H U•fq cn a C O }s tl] - O 00 N N O In Ln rl rl IG-�I M m v f- � r-1 d' ri rS.1 l Ar z C IU 0 • 00 V d' 'e O O N V' 00 0 d� ON 00 O O 00 111 O v LD N b N LH -0 lD O N 00 rl O 01 co 1` W • d' L- M O �D O d' N M fd N 2j to r-1 LqT T N M M M N 00 rl rl ,A •N t13 U) .r.{ 41 0 4J r4 b1 ch b rI N Ln Ln 01 rl 0 U >4 00 01 01 01 00 v 01 N co 1-L 44 k L� U d� to ri c3 N Q, D•, i r-I •n+J 0 ro C �4 P U1 •ti 04 0 Ln Lo Ln Ln Ln r-1 N r•1 r-1 ,r~ 0 CO 1 1 t I 1 1 H •n 0 oa al al oa ao z oa H H * ro .� o 0 rl r-1 N M d• Ln lD r- 00 M 1� Page 15 i 1 EDWARD W. AUSTIN gealtor and Appraiser 1THACA• N. Y. The land sales charted show a range of $.51 to $3.76 per square foot when adjusted for time only. Further consideration needs to be given to ,location, size and use of the sales lots when being compared to the subject parcels. As shown on the chart, generally square foot values on the large plots are lowest with the highest price on the small lots and the medium sized lots being the med- ium range of selling prices. An analysis has been made of two sales in the immediate neighborhood of the subject land parcels. The recent sale of the three quarters interest in Grossman Industrial Properties Inc. to Hospital Management Group and the sale from M. Bennett to H. W. Tayton Co. *Inc. By abstraction and adjustment for time, land values are indicated to be approximately $. 83 and $1. 00 per square foot. The land area of the Grossman property is approx- imately 89,515 square feet and the Bennett property being approximately 31,92% square feet. A comparison has been made between Subject Parcels _ t I & II and those sales that are the best indicators of value to these parcels. The sales considered are the above named Grossman sale, Bennett sale, and also lot sale number 7. These sales are all in the immediate neighborhood but the Page 36 j EDWARD W. AUSTIN Realtor and ,Appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. Grossman and Bennett sales are considered to have better locations with their exposure and access to Route 13 for business purposes. The lot size of the Grossman sale and sale number 7 are very equal to Parcels I & II. There is a wide variety of use in the three comparables used but all are used commercially. Value indicated by these sales is assumed to be $.80 per square foot. Subject Parcel III is considerably smaller in land area and is best compared to lot sales numbers 8 & 9. It is felt that the use of parcel III could be comparable to sales 8 & 9 and the location is comparable to these two lot sales. Value is assumed to be $1.25 per square foot. Parcel IV is a large lot containing approximately 12. 47 acres of land. This parcel is best compared to sales 1 & 2 for size but does not have the valuable location advantage. For the purpose of this appraisal, it was assumed that the land was vacant and the zoning could be changed to a commercial use. Bare land value is assumed to be $.38 per square foot. Parcel V is also a large lot zoned M-1. The only lot sale in the M-1 district was sale 6. The M-1 district permits a wide range of commercial uses and the value range is very comparable to other business zones. Parcel V is restricted in use due to two electric transmission a e 17 EDWARD W. AUSTIN Wealtor and Appraiser MHACA. N. Y. lines bi-secting the lot. The access to the lot is by a paved, dead end street. Use of the lot is further restr- icted due to the location of the sewer treatment plant. While there is a minimum amount of odor associated with the sewer plant, it is assumed that there would be a very limited demand for the property. The square foot selling price of Sale '#2 was $.536 for a prime location in a commercial zone,' with better access and a more flex- ible lot for development. 'Value of Parcel V is estimated .to be 25% less or $.40 per square foot. It has been concluded from the analysis of the lot sales that value is not dictated by' zoning but rather by location and lot size.' It is assumed that land value of the subject parcels is as fellows: Parcel I 68,882 sq.ft. at $ .80 = $ 55,105.00 Parcel II 107,361 sq. ft. at $ .80 = $ 85,888. 00 Parcel III 12, 000 sq.ft. at $1.25 = $ 15,000.00 ^ j Parcel IV =643x133 sq.ft. at $ .38 = $206,413.00 Parcel V 296,208 sq.ft. at $ .40 = $118,483.00 EDWARD W. AUSTIN 6Realtor and ,,4ppralser ITHACA. N. Y. COST APPROACH TO VALUE The Cost Approach will be utilized to establish value on that portion of the subject property designated as Parcel IV. This portion is the location of the exist- ing aerated grit chamber and the two primary settling tanks plus overhead piping, etc, which will be retained and used in the planned new treatment plant project. Parcel IV meets the definition of "Special Purpose Property" and is best valued by the Cost Approach. The following information has been supplied by. Stearns & Wheler: Total 1960 Estimated Cost $241, 000. Adjusted by C.P,2. To 1980 Cost $404, 880. Less estimated depreciation 50%* 202,440. Depreciated value of improvements $202,440. Estimated land value 206 ,500. Present value, Cost Approach $408,940. *Depreciation is based on remaining physical life. it has been assumed by the Engineers that the above Improvements have a 20 year remaining life which indi- cates a depreciation rate of 2. 5% per year. r"1 Page _19 I 1 1 EDWARD W. AUSTIN Realtor and Appraiser rrHACA. N. Y. ESTIMATE OF INITIAL COST AERATED GRIT CHAMBER AND TWO PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS ITHACA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Yeat 1960) From Contract No. 1: 1. Aerated Grit Chamber $43,210 2. Primary Settling Tank No. 1 72,550 3. Primary Settling Tank No. 2 72,550 4. Change Order No. 1 (grit chamber) 470 From Contract No., 2: 1. Overhead piping between tanks a. Pipe Supports and Bases - 8 at $828 6,620 b. Pipe and Couplings - 30-inch diameter 3,350 2. Yard Piping Across Highway (use as -casing to install new force main) 250 feet at $40 10,000 From Contract No. 3: 1. Underground feeders and wiring to tanks 2,000 Foundation Work by City (estimate) : .1. Surcharge Site 50,000 2. Level and prepare foundation under tanks 5,000 Construction Subtotal — $220,750 $220,750 = Percentage of Total Construction Cost: 220, 750 x 100 = 24.45 882,610 + 20,000 Engineering Costs: 1. Stearns & Wheler: 24.45% x $79,872 = $ 19,530 2. Subsurface Investigation: 24.45% x $2,487 = 610 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST = $240, 890 Adopt $241,000 *Total Site Foundation Work by City (estimate) Information taken from Stearns & Wheler Page 20 EDWARD W. AUSTIN CRealtor and .Appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. i MARKET DATA APPROACH The Market Data Approach will be used to estimate value to subject Parcel I. This parcel contains a two story building that houses offices, workshop, and general storage plus a garage building and an open faced shed. The land area is estimated to be approximately 68, 882 square feet. In the search for sales of properties similar to the subject Parcel I, the following listed properties have been analyzed to determine the indicated value to Parcel I. The following information on sales amounts, lot sizes, and building improvements has been obtained from the records of the Tompkins- County Assessment Department. Sale # Date Location -Sale Price RP-1 8/79 723 Cascadilla St. $ 75,00.0. • RP-2 5/74 403 Third St. $ 42,500. I RP-3 4/79 702-704 W. Buffalo St. $ 50,500. R'-4 10/79 801-811 W. State St. $130,000. RP-5 3/75 West State St. $100,000. RP-6 2/76 120 Brindley St. $ 55r 000. RP-7 6/75 104 Cherry St. $137,000. RP-8 2/76 716 W. Clinton St. . $100,000. RP-9 5/75 381 Elmira Rd. $150,000. RP-10 2/80 Third St. (157, 333) Page 21 i EDWARD W. AUSTIN 6Realtor and Appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. Ir"\ The subject property has been compared to the two sales in the immediate neighborhood, Sales parcels RP-2 and RP-10. Consideration has been given to. the date of sale, lot size and building improvements. The follow- ing chart shows the comparison made. Subject RP-2 RP-10 Sale Date 5-77-4 2/80 Sale Price $42,500. $157,333. Lot Size 1.58 a . 73 a 2.05 a Building Area 11,672 sq.ft. 4, 821 sq.ft. 14,400 sq.ft. Sale RP-2 was adjusted a plus' $29,500 for a smaller lot, and a plus $36,000 for a smaller building. A time adjustment- of $20,400 was made based on an estimated average of 8% per year increase in value since 1974. An indicated value to the subject property of $128,400. : Sale RP-10 was adjusted a minus $16, 500 due to the subject lot being smaller and a minus $16, 400 for the newer and larger building improvements on the sale pro- perty. There was no time adjustment made on this sale. The indicated value to the subject based on this compari- son is $124,500. Page 22 i EDWARD W. AUSTIN F "Realtor and ./appraiser ITHACA. N. Y. ?Pool\ CONCLUSION OF• VALUE-,- MARKET DATA It is assumed thatthe value of Parcel. I by the Market Data Approach is $125,000. CORRELATION AND CONCLUSION OF VALUE The Market Data Approach to Value has been utilized to arrive at a value estimate of subject parcels I, 'II, III, and V. The improvements of parcel IV has been- arrived eenarrived at by the Cost Approach, to this has been added the land value to arrive at the value estimate. The value of parcels IV and V as combined would be the sum of the two parts. APPRA:14ED VALUE The appraised value of the individual parcels are as follows: Parcel I $125,000. Parcel II $ 85, 900. 1161-7O0 Parcel III $ 15;000. a Parcel IV Parcel V $118,500. Value of parcels IV and V as combined would be : i Say S Page 23 1 eU HAC4 �L '7-f 41ft _ail JqC7 4.V( --a , 41 bil /Z MWEIVED LIAR 2 7 1908 �d f .OW,, j Town Of Ithaca Fx�eL�,aR Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION THREE 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13202 www.nysdot.gov CARL F. FORD, P.E. ASTRID C. GLYNN REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER March 19, 2008 Ms. Karen Billings Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Ms. Billings: RE: REQUEST FOR LOWER SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT ON EAST KING ROAD Thank you for your March 5 letter and petition requesting a lower school speed limit on East King Road in the area of Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School of Ithaca. A formal investigation will be conducted at the subject location. The Department has begun a new initiative to be more responsive to you, our customers. To carry out this initiative, we encourage you to submit any information which may be helpful in our investigation. This may include letters from the public, accident data, maps, etc. This information should be submitted to my office at the above address. Please be aware that our review requires sufficient field investigation and analysis to assure a proper response. Upon completion of the investigation, you will be notified of the results and our determination. Very truly yours, &0�11441�1� DIANA L. GRASER, P.E. Regional Traffic Engineer A00%, cc: W. Sczesny, County Highway Superintendent H. Engman, Town Supervisor M. Koplinka-Loehr, County Legislator, District 11 T. J. Joseph, County Legislator, District 12 Tompkins Un ;W `ar of Elections L /fir 1 1 ,Fast uffalo tre BSet Stephen M.DeWitt - f Elizabeth W.Cree Democratic Commissioner Itha a„Ne ' `ork IA- 5O Republican Commissioner (607)274-5522 Fax: 33 (607)274-5521 www.votetompkins.com April 11, 2008 Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St. Ithaca,NY 14850 Attn: Herb Engman Dear Herb, As per recent laws and court rulings, this fall we will begin to use a ballot marking device in every poll site. This device accommodates voters with disabilities, allowing them to vote independently. We will continue to use our old lever voting machines too,but in 2009 we will complete the change over to a whole new voting system, using the above ballot marking device which is also coupled to a paper ballot scanner. Voters will fill out �►, a paper ballot that is then inserted into the optical scanner. After the ballot is scanned it is immediately deposited in the ballot box attached to the scanner. These changes have increased the cost and complexity of running elections. In an effort to reduce equipment,training and poll worker expenses,we have tried to reduce the number of poll sites in the county. This consolidation will save a significant amount of taxpayer's dollars, and hopefully result in smooth running elections. Starting with the September 2008 Primary,people who voted at the Cayuga Heights Fire Station,will move to T-S-T BOCES, &the First Congregational Church of Ithaca. Hospicare will now be voting at the College Circle Apts. Community Center&those who voted at Boynton Middle School will now vote at the First Congregational Church of Ithaca. We will advertise the site change and consolidation, and notify voters by mail. We will also provide notices at the old site directing voters to their new site. We are extremely grateful for your helping us implement this consolidation. On behalf of the Board of Elections and Tompkins County voters, we extend a heartfelt "Thank you.” If you have any questions at all,please call us. Sincerely, Stephen M. DeWitt Elizabeth W. Cree A001% COPY APR 2 9 1008 Town of Ithaca Town Clerk Ms. Karen Billings 132 Glenside Road Town Clerk Ithaca, NY 14850 Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca NY 14850 April 29,2008 Dear Karen, As you know I recently won the election for a vacant seat on the Tompkins County Legislature. My election has been ccrtificd and, with sadness, I must now resign as a member of the Town of Ithaca Town Board, effective 2:00 PM on Tuesday,April 29, 2008. Please convey my best wishes to Town staff and fellow board members. Sincerely, 4�ors GCS} Will Burbank OF I T� . �� TOWN OF ITHACA 871- 11 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 ��r' www-to4Vn.lthaca.ny.us . PrI -10 PUBLIC WORKS (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water &Sewer) 273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607) 273-1704 Karen Billings, TOWN CLERK 273-1721 May 5, 2008 Stephen Dewitt and Elizabeth Cree Tompkins County Commissioners of Election 128 East Buffalo Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Special Election to fill unexpired term of office on the Town of Ithaca Town Board. Dear Commissioners Dewitt and Cree: Please be advised that the Town of Ithaca is requesting that a Special Election be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2008 to fill the unexpired term of office on the Ithaca Town Board vacated through the resignation of former Town Board Member Will Burbank. The unexpired term, for which the Special Election covers, runs from January 1 , 2009 through December 31, 2009. Please feel free to contact me if additional information is needed. Respectfully, Karen M. Billings Town Clerk Town of Ithaca " = TOWN OF ITHA A CONSERVATION BOARD -' 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 To: Herb Engman, Towti ol' lthaca 5ul)cry f or From: The Conservation Board Subject: Implementing the Scenic Resources Committee's recommendations Date: May 5, 2008 On January 7, 2008, the Scenic Resources Committee's presentation and report, "Saving Ithaca's Views," was enthusiastically received by the Town Board and forwarded to the Planning Committee for further action. We are anxious to receive some direction from this committee so that we can begin work on implementing at least some of the concrete actions recommended in the report. At the same time, we do understand the challenges of losing a committee chairman mid-stream. The Scenic Views Committee has been working on plans for interpretive and educational view signs at the locations of some of our Town's best views. At East Shore Park, for instance, we'd like a view sign erected as a first step toward preserving one of our most spectacular Town views. Such action was recommended on page 5 of our report, now available on the Town's web site. We appreciate having this report available through the web site. Proposed projects such as Ithaca College's Athletics and Events Center, and the Holochuck Development are potential threats to scenic views. The sooner we can move ahead on actions to save views, the better. If there is anything we can do to help the Planning Committee progress in this direction, please let us know. 7 i A14Y 16 STATE OF NEW YORK r7 DEPARTMENTTRANSPORTATION /7 C/'� Ce REGION THREE 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13202 www.nysdot.gov CARL F. FORD, P.E. ASTRID C. GL.YNN REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER May 14, 2008 Ms. Karen Billings Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Ms. Billings: RE: REQUEST FOR LOWER SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT ON EAST KING ROAD .� This is a further response to your March 5 letter and petition requesting a lower school speed limit on East King Road in the area of the Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School of Ithaca. Our traffic engineers have completed their review of this location and determined that extending the limits of the 30 MPH school speed limit approximately 500 feet farther east to a point before the crest vertical curve on East King Road would be appropriate. Our review also indicated that 30MPH is appropriate for this school speed limit, therefore, a further reduction of the 30 MPH limit is not warranted at this time. The official order authorizing the new limits of the 30 MPH school speed zone will follow. Very truly yours, 90-'e'� /"� DIANA L. GRASER, P.E. Regional Traffic Engineer cc: W. Sczesny, County Highway Superintendent H. Engman, Town Supervisor M. Koplinka-Loehr, County Legislator, District 11 T. J. Joseph, County Legislator, District 12 STATE OF NEW YORK— DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC AND SAFETY DIVISION STUDY NO.: 3080045 NOTICE OF ORDER FILE: 50.12-local TROOP: C THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS FILED AN ORDER WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHEREBY: SECTION: _1650.12 SUBDIVISION: (b) PARAGRAPH: OF THE DEPARTMENT'S REGULATION IS ❑ ADDED R AMENDED to read as follows: ❑ REPEALED (b) 30 MPH on East King Road, CR 179, adjacent to the Montessori School of Ithaca, between a point 800± feet east of the east building line of this school and a point 300± feet west of the west building line cf this school, a distance of 1180± feet. The above order will be effective upon the installation, modification or removal of the necessary traffic control device(s) required by an conforming to the State Manuai of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 5114108 APPROVED BY: ka u&' /-A Regional Traffic Engineer (DATE) (SIGNATURE) (TITLE) DESCRIPTION: Order extends the existing 30 MPH school speed zone easterly a distance of 500± feet. COUNTY: Tompkins LOCALITY: Town of Ithaca OTHER RELATED ACTIONS 9 NONE ❑ (Identify) cc: ❑ CITY ❑ POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ VILLAGE ❑ SHERIFF X REGION 3 TRAFFIC ENGINEER -----T® TOWN 29 STATE POLICE ❑ OTHER ® COUNTY SUPT. ❑ PERMITTEE (Specify) TE 3e (8/80) - 1 - °F .12, : �> TOWN OF ITHACA 1821 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 �W yob www.town.ithaca.ny.us Town Supervis0r(607)273-1721, Ext 125; HHn nn,-ai ;;n i TOWN CLERK (607)273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS (607)273-1656 ENGINEERING (607)273-1747 PLANNING (607)273-1747 ZONING (607)273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 May 19,2008 C(D?l Jon Meigs 235 Culver Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Ithaca College and Cornell Projects Dear Jon: Thank you for your letter dated May 15, 2008 regarding the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center and the Cornell Master Pian. Your point is well taken that these are large and complex projects. Since your primary focus seems to be on the Ithaca College project, let me start by responding to your observations on that. First, the Planning Board is the lead agency for the Ithaca College Athletic & Events Center project, and is responsible for site plan review and the special permit that is required for the educational use. The Town Board has no involvement in Town approvals for this project. It is important for the Town Board to be aware of the Planning Board's activities, but to make sure that their independence is respected and protected. My understanding is that the the Planning Board established itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review in February 2007 and issued a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance in March 2007, thus requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The public and other agencies have had many opportunities during the EIS process since then to participate in the review and provide input to the Planning Board, The Planning board held a public scoping meeting in May 2007, and incorporated public comments into the final scoping document for the EIS. During the many months of preparation of the EIS, representatives from Ithaca College and their consultant team met with Town staff to make sure that details in the EIS were covered properly. The Draft EIS was submitted to the Planning Board in November 2007, and based on several meetings with the Board, Ithaca College submitted substantial revisions to the EIS. Although not required, the Planning Board invited the public to speak during those meetings. The Planning Board then accepted the Draft EIS as complete, based on the amendments that had been incorporated, in January 2008. The Planning Board held a public hearing on the EIS and preliminary site plan submission on March 4, 2008, and accepted written comments on the Draft EIS through March 14, 2008. A Final EIS was then prepared, which included all of the public comments received on the Draft EIS, and the Planning Board's responses to substantive comments regarding the Draft EIS. The Planning Board accepted the Final EIS as complete on April 22, 2008 after inviting the public to comment further on the Final EIS. In regard to the agenda for the May 20, 2008 Planning Board meeting, the agenda assumes the possibility that the Board may complete its review of the Findings Statement and accept the Findings Statement at that meeting. The Planning Board has informed me that the times listed on the agenda are approximations only, and are not,meant-to imply the actual amount of time that a particular item may take. If the Board. doe&,accept the Findings Statement, then a public hearing has been scheduled on May 20 h later in the meeting to hear additional comments from the public regarding the preliminary site plan and special permit request for Phase 1 A of the project. If that public hearing is completed that night, the Board will then review and discuss the preliminary site plan for Phase 1A, and consider approving the preliminary site plan and special permit. If the Board grants preliminary site plan approval and special permit for Phase 1A, then it would be able to open the public hearing to consider final site plan approval for the Remote Parking elements of the project. It is quite possible that any one of these items may not actually be completed at the May 201h meeting, in which case the Planning Board would continue discussion and consideration at an upcoming meeting (most likely on June 3, 2008). It is true that under SEQR, all identified components or phases of a project should be evaluated in the environmental review. The entire Athletic & Events Center project was included and evaluated in the EIS. Once the SEQR requirements have been met, the Planning Board does have the discretion and authority to approve individual �1 phases or elements of a larger project, and has done so on many occasions in the past. Upon reviewing the timeframe and elements of the review process, my impression is that the review schedule has not been compressed. Quite the contrary, it appears that this project has undergone a lengthy and thorough review process, and is following appropriate procedures. That's not to say that I and others may personally disagree with elements of the plan. As to your suggestion that the Town consider hiring our own consultant to provide additional perspective and objectivity regarding the project, that would only be considered in extraordinary circumstances. Since the Town Board must raise the funds, through higher taxes, for such extra consultation, we must rely heavily upon our professional staff for expertise in almost all projects facing the town. In regard to the Cornell Master Plan (and I assume that you are also referring to the Cornell Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement, or t- GEIS), here are a few observations. First, in regard to the Master Plan, the Town of Ithaca has had little direct involvement in the Cornell Master Plan process other than discussions with Cornell representatives regarding the Plan and attendance at several of Cornell's open houses and providing informal comments to Cornell as the Plan process evolved. None of the Town boards have any approval authority over the Cornell Master Plan itself, although many of us have been very interested in the Master Plan proposal, and in particular, the East Ithaca Village concept. We will also v have to factor this into the Town's Comprehensive Plan update over the next couple of years and hope to have an ongoing conversation with Cornell on this. In regard to Cornell's t-GEIS, again, the Planning Board is the lead agency that has taken the responsibility for coordinating the environmental review of this effort. I and other Town officials have also participated in the t-GEIS Resource Committee meetings, at which municipal and technical input have been provided to Cornell and their consultants during the preparation of the t-GEIS. This has been a very long planning process, and we understand that the draft t-GEIS is finally about to be submitted to the Planning Board to begin the process of review of that document. Without getting into too much detail, the t-GEIS process has already involved many public meetings and workshops, and will include more opportunity for public input as the process comes to a conclusion. My understanding is that the main purpose and use of the t-GEIS is to provide a resource to the Planning Board and other agencies to better evaluate specific Cornell projects as they are proposed. As part of that process, Cornell is proposing to provide annual reports to interested agencies to monitor how actual Cornell growth and the transportation mitigation strategies that are implemented match up with the projections in the t-GEIS. The Planning Board's ultimate acceptance of the t-GEIS will in no way give Cornell any more rights to developing projects than it has now. Individual projects will still have to go through the same rigorous review and approval process that they do now. Much as you suggest, it will give the Town and other agencies a bigger picture and useful information by which to make more informed decisions. Various Town officials have been involved throughout the t-GEIS process, and I have confidence that the Planning Board and Town staff will have the time, resources, and expertise necessary to guide the t-GEIS professionally and appropriately thorough the remainder of the process. I appreciate your concerns and suggestions. I hope that my observations and clarifications have been helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or require further clarification on the above. Sincerely, / t/� -- Herbert J. Engman Supervisor Town of Ithaca cc: Rod Howe, Chair, Town of Ithaca Planning Board Town of Ithaca Town Board Harold Craighead 21 Fairway Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 May 20, 2008 Mr. Fred Noteboom, Highway Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Noteboom, I would like to comment on the proposed modifications to the roadways in the Forest Home area of the Town of Ithaca. I believe there is strong sentiment in the community for assuring that any roadway modifications be as friendly as possible for bicyclists. I do not know where the plans and approvals stand, but I wanted to make sure the issue of bicycle safety was not lost in this process. As I have read the published Forest Home Traffic Calming Report it appeared that the encouragement of cycling was not a component of the background study, addressing bicycling usage as only an "occasional bicycle." However, by my personal observation the Forest Home roadways are major commuting routes for both automobiles and cyclists. In this time of soaring gasoline prices the interest in bicycle transportation is increasing and the Town of Ithaca can be of great assistance by assuring that any roadway modifications promote safe use by both automobiles and bicycles The Traffic Calming Report recommendations, possibly because of the study design did not address cycling as a significant use, inadvertently resulted in some recommendations that are potentially unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians. For example, the use of a roughened cobble stone area at the road edge, combined with narrower roadways and sharp-edged curbs is of considerable concern. Also the direction of bicycles to pedestrian pathways is generally recognized as unwise for both pedestrians and cyclists. I am concerned that Ithaca's commuting and recreational cyclists, many of whom are unaware of possible road modifications, could be negatively impacted by these proposed changes. As an example of a very effective road modification, I think the paving of the shoulders and bicycle signage on the section of Warren Road between Route 13 and Hanshaw road has been excellent for promoting shared bicycle and automobile use. I would be delighted to see that same shoulder paving extended to the section of Warren Road south of Hanshaw. That section of Warren Road has even greater bicycle traffic as cyclists from Warren and Hanshaw funnel into the southern section with the currently unpaved shoulders. Sincerely, Harold Craighead Harold Craighead 21 Fairway Drive Ithaca,NY 14850 May 20, 2008 Mr. Herb Engman, Town Supervisor Town Hall 215 North Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Herb,. I would like to comment on the proposed modifications to the roadways in the Forest Horne area of the Town of Ithaca. I believe there is strong sentiment in the community for assuring that any roadway modifications be as friendly as possible for bicyclists. I do not know where the plans and approvals stand, but I wanted to make sure the issue of bicycle safety was not lost in this process. As I have read the published Forest Home Traffic Calming Report it appeared that the encouragement of cycling was not initially a component of the .background study, addressing bicycling usage as only an "occasional bicycle." However, by my personal observation the Forest Home roadways are major commuting routes for both automobiles and cyclists. In this time of soaring gasoline prices the interest in bicycle transportation is increasing and the Town of Ithaca can be of great assistance by assuring that any roadway modifications promote safe use by both automobiles and bicycles The Traffic Calming Report recommendations, possibly because of the study design did not address cycling as a significant use, inadvertently resulted in some recommendations that are potentially unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians. For example, the use of a roughened cobble stone area at the road edge, combined with narrower roadways and sharp-edged curbs is of considerable concern. Also the direction of bicycles to pedestrian pathways is generally recognized as unwise for both pedestrians and cyclists. I am concerned that Ithaca's commuting and recreational cyclists, many of whom are unaware of possible road modifications, could be negatively impacted by these proposed changes. My impression that the issue of bicycle friendliness and safety is of concern to the general Forest Home community, and people would like this to be part of the plan as things move forward. I noticed that the consultants to the Town Planning Board seemed to recognize these issues of bicycle safety. I would encourage the Town to continue to include it all roadway changes, modifications that improve the safe use by both bicycles and automobiles. Sincerely, rte, Harold Craighead �j X 1 0 a O 0 o� O 0 e _ O O ............ .............. .................... ............. ............. A O rd PI a X r • FI � tx iL o w. � \ �� T - Melinda Stan.iszevska I ' `` , - 2.20 "Coddle ton Rd. 607-319-4966 386-478--8828; i;; 1. aca, NY 14850 Herb EngmanJ.92 Jonathan Kanter ,, rr /ii Ir �� I-i rrn� IC Planning Board Members ___ * May 21, 2008 COMMENT ON MAY 20TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING RELATED SPECFICALLY TO THE Ithaca College proposed walk/bike way behind our homes on Coddington Rd. Mr. Herrick' s answer that the 12foot light poles were needed because of VANDALISM has raised, once again, our original concerns over a walk/bike way behind our homes . It is now our safety that again comes to top of the list of objections . This statement brings my neighbors and I back to our original concerns about having such a pathway behind our homes . The college seems to accept the occurrence of on campus VANDALISM as a given. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE RISK FOR RESIDENTS ! The college has their Security Patrol . We would have to call the Sheriff' s Department for a night time occurrence on our property. The Town is not going to repair or reimburse us for damages to our property. Now we are talking about safety of residents versus safety of students . By improving Coddington Rd. and eliminating the path behind homes we solve the safety concerns for both students and residents ! With today' s Ithaca Journal review of the meeting, I have received several calls from residents in support of doing something to improve Coddington in the block in question. It appears to be a well recognized problem. We need you, the members of the Planning Board and our Town Supervisor to take action while the college may still be interested in a collaborative effort to make Coddington the SAFE way for everyone. (I understand Mr.Noteboom has funds for sidewalks) . Please take action ASAP to prevent a mistaken effort to solve the safety issue that has motivated the college to promote the trail idea now. Sincerely, AONN, Melinda Staniszewska L as Lifelong June 2, 2008 Herb Engman, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Mr.Engman: We are extremely grateful to the Town of Ithaca for its support of Lifelong (DBA for Tompkins County Senior Citizens' Council,Inc.). We would request that the Town Board consider continuing its support in 2009 with a grant of$9,400. If the Town is able to consider a cost of living increase, that would be wonderful,but we also understand the pressure the Town is under to keep costs down. In 2007 the number of Town of Ithaca residents participating in Lifelong sponsored programs were as follows: ♦ 481 (up from 342 in 2006)took part in regular weekly activities at Lifelong. ♦ 208 (up from 167in 2006)participated in our life long learning program. ♦ 215 participated in Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. Six of our volunteer tax counselors live in the Town of Ithaca. Others served as health insurance counselors, drove Gadabout vans, worked in libraries and museums, assisted with bloodmobiles, flu clinics,etc. ♦ 80 participated in senior citizen community group activities in two groups located in the Town of Ithaca, the Ellis Hollow Unit and the Northeast Unit. Town residents often participate in programs and senior citizen groups located in nearby towns due to the area's geography and town lines. Residents of the Town of Ithaca participate in the Ellis Hollow Unit, the Northeast Unit, the Varna Unit and many participate in the Enfield Unit. Lifelong provides coordination and staff assistance to independent senior citizens groups throughout the county. ♦ 210 Town of Ithaca residents participated in our summer swim program. ♦ 87 took part in our Walking&Fitness Program, 17 of them are Town of Ithaca residents. 6 of the 21 walks were held on trails in the Town of Ithaca. ♦ Since the shortage of flu vaccine in 2004,the flu clinics conducted by the County Health Department and assisted by Lifelong were quite different than in years past. Instead of several clinics held around the county, including several in the Town of Ithaca,just five clinics were held and vaccinations were done by appointment. Because of the new format, we are unable to estimate the number of town residents who received the vaccination. 1,1'70 seniors over the age of 65 received flu shots and 531between 50 and 64 received the vaccination for a total of 1,701. We know for sure that at least 209 of these were Town of Ithaca residents. Since 90%of all influenza deaths occur in the elderly, this program is an essential part of our mission and services to senior citizens. ♦ 76 Town of Ithaca residents received Health Insurance Counseling during 2007. Enhancing the Second Half 119 West Court Street,Ithaca,New York 14850 607-273-1511 Fax 607-272-8060 E-mail: lifelong@tciifelong.org www.tclifelong.org RSVP 0 ♦ In 2007, 79 Town of Ithaca residents received free tax counseling from Lifelong (but over 850 of r` those served did not identify a town of resident so we believe many more Town of Ithaca residents received tax assistance). Based on a-file average refund, it is estimated that this program helped over 950 seniors, low income families, and persons with disabilities receive refunds over $650,000. This figure does not include state refunds. ♦ 3,452 Town of Ithaca senior citizen households receive the quarterly newsletter"Senior Circle". The newsletter provides useful information on Tompkins County aging services and programs, as well as helpful tips for keeping fit. ♦ Our weekly radio program aired on WHCU 870 AM reaches 8,700 area residents according to Cayuga Radio Group. The program not only keeps seniors informed about programs and services offered by Lifelong, but also disseminates information about other programs and services to seniors such as Foodnet, Gadabout, County Office for the Aging, etc. It would be difficult to estimate the number of listeners from the Town of Ithaca, but certainly many of our regular listeners are residents of the town. Through Lifelong Town of Ithaca residents have access to health insurance counseling, tax counseling, health screening clinics, safe driving courses (92 town residents), summer swim program in collaboration with Borg Warner, discounted bus tickets, photo copying, travel program (50 town residents) and most importantly a friendly and helpful staff who answer numerous questions and help Senior Citizens access other services they may need. ` I've included a copy of our 2007 Annual Report, and a copy of our Audited Financial Statements. I've enclosed the Outcome Model used by the United Way,and Geographical Distribution Chart,which shows the number of participants for Town of Ithaca as well as for all the other towns in the county. Lifelong is an Assumed Name on file with the Department of State, our Legal and Corporate Name remains Tompkins County Senior Citizens' Council, Inc. Please let me know if there is any further information you need for your consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, Bill Hawley Executive Director Cc: Al Carvill OF INh `7 TOWN OF ITHACA --J ,, 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 � � 1�`t4'11'.lO,i tl.11)18C8.11y.11s PUBLIC WORKS (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water &Sewer) 273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607) 273-1704 Karen Billings, TOWN CLERK 273-1721 D June 10, 2008 CO Stephen Dewitt and Elizabeth Cree Tompkins County Commissioners of Election 128 East Buffalo Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: To fill unexpired term of office on the Town of Ithaca Town Board. Dear Commissioners Dewitt and Cree: Please be advised that the Town of Ithaca has a second vacancy on the Town Board and is requesting that a Special Election be held in conjunction with the regularly scheduled General Election on Tuesday, November 4, 2008 to fill the unexpired term of office on the Ithaca Town Board vacated through the resignation of former Town Board Member Jefferson Cowie. The unexpired term, for which the Special Election covers, runs from January 1 , 2009 through December 31 , 2009. Please feel free to contact me if additional information is needed. Respectfully, Karen M. Billings Town Clerk Town of Ithaca TIME WARNER CABLE June 12, 2008 Ms. Catherine Valentino Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Valentino: As you may know, Time Warner Cable Inc. ("Time Warner Cable")is the managing parent of the entity operating a cable television system serving your community. Time Warner Cable is a publicly-traded corporation, with approximately 84%of its common stock currently indirectly held by Time Warner Inc. ("TWX"), itself a publicly-traded corporation, with the remainder widely held by public shareholders. On May 21, 2008, TWX and Time Warner Cable announced a plan to effect a complete separation of Time Warner Cable from TWX(the"Spin-Off'), The end result of the Spin-Off will be the divestiture by TWX of its entire ownership in Time Warner Cable either through (i) an exchange offer whereby TWX stockholders may exchange some or all of their shares of TWX common stock for shares of Time Warner Cable common stock or(ii) a dividend by TI \`X to its stockholders of the shares of Time Warner Cable common stock held by TWX, or some combination of these mechanisms. Upon completion of the Spin-Off, which we hope to occur before the end of this year, 100% of the common stock of Time Warner Cable will be publicly traded. The Spin-Off will not affect the ownership interests held by Time Warner Cable in any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries or affiliates, and Time Warner Cable will retain management authority over the cable system in your community. The Spin-Off will not result in the assignment or transfer of any of the cable system's assets or any cable franchise. Moreover, ultimate control of Time Warner Cable will rest with the same public shareholders both immediately before and after completion of the Spin-Off. The Spin-Off does not require any action on your part. I would like to assure you that this Spin-Off will have absolutely no impact on our cable system or its operations. In particular: • There will be no change in the local management and staff as a result of the Spin-Off. • Time Warner Cable will continue to be solely and exclusively responsible for the day-to-day management and operation of the cable system. � b June 12, 2008 Page 2 There will be no change in our commitment to provide our customers with the best variety and quality in entertainment and information services, all at competitive rates and with excellent customer care. • This Spin-Off will have no impact on our business policies or practices. Please do not hesitate to contact me at(315)634-6242,jeff.unaifis@twcable.com should you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance. We look forward to continuing our valued relationship with your community. Sincerely, Jeffrey A. Unaitis Vice President, Public Affairs Central New York Division 509901 State of New York State Board of Real Property Services 16 Sheridan Avenue Albany, New York 12210-2714 Notice of Tentative State Equalization Rate /r`k for the 2008 Assessment Roll Mr. Herb Engman , Supervisor County of Tompkins Town of Ithaca Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street .� Ithaca, NY 14850 4321 Tentative Equalization Rate: " 100.00 HEARING DATE: HEARING PLACE: Office of Real Property 7/8/08 10:00 AM Services 16 Sheridan Avenue Albany, New York On 6/13/2008 the State Board of Real Property Services established a tentative 2008 State equalization rate of 100.00 for your municipality. This equalization rate was computed using data from your municipality's tentative assessment roll. If final assessment roll data produces a significantly different rate,we will recompute the equalization rate and notify you. The Office of Real Property Services applauds your efforts to comply with the statutory standard of assessment by completing a reassessment in 2008. The tentative equalization rate is the same as the"local stated level of assessment(LOA)" declared by the assessor and displayed on your tax bills. The tentative equalization rate indicates the level at which a municipality is assessing property in relation to its full market value, as measured by the Office of Real Property Services. The tentative equalization rate clearly supports your LOA. A copy of the data reports showing the computation of the tentative State equalization rate is being sent to your assessor. If class equalization rates have been established for your assessing unit, they are provided on the attached list. f'O*N The full value standard of the tentative 2008 State equalization rate is the total full value as of July 1, 2007. The ,,ercentage change in the estimate of full value between the 2007 State equalization rate and the 2008 State equalization rate due to the change in full value standard for your municipality is 0.2%. The percentage change for the other municipalities in your county is shown on the enclosed report. A written complaint and all evidence which you wish to submit in support of that complaint must be mailed or hand delivered to Darlene A. Maloney,Assistant to the State Board, at the Albany office of the State Board at the above address at least five days before the hearing date set forth above. The complaint must be made on the enclosed complaint form and signed by the chief executive officer or legal representative. Please refer to Subpart 186-15 of the Board's rules and the State Equalization Rate and Complaint Process booklet when preparing supporting documentation if you file a complaint. The complaint booklet is available on the ORPS website at http://www.orps.state.ny.us or you may contact your ORPS regional office or Brian Moon or Kim Lee in Equalization Support Services in Albany at(518)474-5666. THE COMPLAINT FORM AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION DEADLINE IS: 7/3/2008 The hearing itself is not an adjudicatory proceeding. You will, however, have the opportunity to explain the written materials previously submitted, and/or to offer oral statements in support of your complaint. As the duly authorized representative of the State Board, the hearing officer will communicate your comments, in summary form,to the Board. Staff will review the written documentation you submitted in support of your complaint, to determine whether to recommend to the Board that changes be made in the calculation of the State equalization rate. The State Board will meet on July 29, 2008 in Albany. We will notify you of the recommendation and the exact time and location of the Board meeting. ,40%\ Ms.Valeria Coggin, Director of Assessment Town of Ithaca 128 E. Buffalo Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Central State of New York Page: 1 County of Tompkins Office of Real Property Services Date: 6113108 16 Sheridan Avenue Time : 9:15 AM Albany, New York 12210-2714 2008 Equalization Rate Status (A) (B) (C) 2007 State 2008 State Percentage Change Municipal Municipal Equalization Equalization in Estimate Code Name Rate Rate and Status of Full Value 509901 Tompkins County Assessing U 85.00 100.00 Tentative 0.21% Town of Caroline Town of Danby Town of Dryden Town of Enfield Town of Groton City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Town of Lansing Town of Newfield Town of Ulysses Column C is the percentage change in the estimate of full value between the 2007 State equalization rate and the 2008 State equalization rate due to the change in full value standard. This percentage change is important because county and school taxes are apportioned according to a municipality's share of the full value of the county or the school. A municipality will be apportioned a larger share of the tax levy if its fuLXalue increases by a larger percentage than others, or if its full value decreases less than the decrease for other nipalities in the county or school. The information shown in columns B and C is subject to change as the other tentative rates are established in the county and as rates are finalized after the completion of rate complaint processing. You will be sent a complete report when we have established 2008 State equalization rates for all municipalities in your county. Tompkins County COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR C� .is:ffi y� �. Department of Administration Stephen Whicher 125 East Court Street, Ithaca,NY 14850 DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS *'•�'"; Phone: (6O7)274-5551 Paula E.F.Younger Inclusion Through Fax: (607)274-5558 Shawn Mart6l Moore Diversity "Promoting excellence in County operations while respecting the needs of the people we serve." June 17, 2008 Mr. Herb Engman Supervisor,Town of Ithaca 215 N.Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Supervisor Engman: I am pleased to report that the Tompkins County Legislature approved a grant for your municipality in the amount of JZ,(L00 as part of the 2008 Community Celebrations Grants Program for Tutelo Homecoming Festival. Please sign and return the attached contracts and voucher, and return them to me at the above address. If you need to contact the applicant,here is the name and telephone number for that group/individual: Audrey J. Cooper—(607) 272-2292 Ext. 135 Thank you for your submission, and please contact me at the Tompkins County Administration at 274-5548 should you have any questions regarding your grant. Sincerely yours, ::14'?A170 9aclqune Kippola Staff Liaison Strategic Tourism Planning Board /OWN TOWN OF NEWFIELD CHARLES BERGGREN TOWN SUPERVISOR 166 MAIN ST. NEWFIELD NY 14867 PHONE: 607-564-9981 FAX: 607-564-7329 June 17, 2008 Mr. Herb Engman Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca NY 14850 Dear Herb, I am writing on behalf of the Newfield Town Board regarding our concerns for the City of Ithaca opening a dump in the vicinity of Van Ostrand Road in the r•» Town of Ithaca. So you are made aware of our concerns the Town Board asked that I send you a copy of a letter that was sent to Mayor Peterson on May 13, 2008. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. I can not express enough the concerns the Town Board and the Residents have concerning the possibility of this dump site and the effect it would have on the safety, health and welfare of our Town. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely. Charles Berggren Town Supervisor ENC. CC: Tompkins County Planning Board Greg Stevenson, County Legislature Fernando de Aragon, Transportation Coalition TOWN OF NEWFIELD 166 Main Street Newfield,New York 14867 May 13,2008 Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson City of Ithaca 108 E. Green Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Mayor Peterson: I write on behalf of and pursuant to the direction of the Newfield Town Board in order to inquire about reports we have recently received that the City of Ithaca is considering opening a dump in the vicinity of Van Ostrand Road in the Town of Newfield. Please be advised that the Town is deeply concerned about this possibility and the effects it would have on the safety, health and welfare of its residents. We also are concerned about the potentially significant environmental impact this might have on the Town. Consequently. I ask that you please advise me at once about the City's intentions concerning this dump. Furthermore, please keep me informed of any and all developments concerning this project. Sincerely, Charles Berggren Town Supervisor T ns: y Fi a `z r nt 2 S . I 50 (607) 4-5545 June 23, 2008 Supervisor Herb Engman Town of Ithaca 215 N.Tioga Stt Ithaca, NY 14850. Re: Transfer of Septage Billing Dear Supervisor Sumner: Enclosed find Resolution No.113 which evidences support by the Tompkins County Legislature of the IAWWTF taking over the administration of septage disposal from the county.This resolution was adopted unanimously by the Health, Government Operations and Budget Committees and the entire Legislature. I look forward to continuing this discussion with the Joint Commintee at it next meeting. Very truly yours, f l S V�- � David Squires Finance Director Cc: IAWWTF 0 RESOLUTION NO. 113 - REQUESTING THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY TO TAKE OVER FINANCIAL BILLING OF THE SEPTAGE DISPOSAL AT THE ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FROM XOMPKINS COUNTY MOVED by Mr.Burbank,seconded by Mr.Proto. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 377 of 1988 authorized an agreement with the Ithaca Area - -- -- - Wastewater-Treatment-Facility-.(IAWWTF) for -to-ensure a more..environmentally Acceptable method of septage treatment and dispose;ani WHEREAS, under the agreement Tompkins County is responsible for reimbursing the IAWWTF for operating and maintenance costs associated with septage receiving activity, and for the debt service on the improvements added to accommodate septage waste,and WHEREAS,the debt for the aforementioned capital improvement has now been retired, and WHEREAS, the continuing involvement of the County for billing and collecting for septage disposal now that the debt on the improvements have been retired is no longer warranted,and WHEREAS, a more efficient method of financial billing at the point of service is practical and desirable and is acceptable to the IAWWTF,now therefore be it RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Health and Human Services, the Government Operations, and the Budget and Capital Committees, That Tompkins County is supportive of the r� transfer of the financial billing operations of septage disposal from the County Finance Department to the IAWWTF effective January 1,2009, RESOLVED, further,That the County Finance Director is charged with coordinating with the IAWWTF to ensure a smooth transition of the financial billing function. SEQR ACTION:TYPE 11-2 ***** ***** cc: Administration—via Network Finance Public Works RECEIVED D 19 .08 COMPTROLLER STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss: COUNTY OF TON PKINS) I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of a resolution adopted by the Tompkins County Legislature on the 17'x'day of June,2008. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said Legislature at Ithaca,New York, this Ie day of June,2008. aabu'a�C ,Clerk Tompkins County Legislature $ 4F Ir$ ° TOWN OF ITHACA 118 21µ 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 � V YO wwlv.town.1thaca.ny.us Town Supervisor(607)273-1721, Ext 125 ; io:vn.itl _a.1r:�u TOWN CLERK (607)273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS (607)273-1656 ENGINEERING (607)273-1747 PLANNING (607)273-1747 ZONING (607)273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 To: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board From: Herb Engman �� 7 Town of Ithaca Supervisor Re: June 24, 2008 Resolution Date: July 7, 2008 1 was delighted to receive your resolution of June 24 supporting pedestrian connectivity at Ithaca College from both Coddington Road and Danby Road (Rte. 96B) to the City of Ithaca sidewalks. Unfortunately, the only way the Town of Ithaca can usually afford to create new walkways is by making them a requirement of new development or through grant funds. I would be happy to work with anyone to identify sources of financial and other support necessary to create new, safe pedestrian connections from the Town of Ithaca to the City not only in the Ithaca College area, but also along Rtes. 96 and 79. As a matter of fact, we are already working on those connections. As you indicate, a true intermunicipal effort can be the key to success of all these efforts. Again, thanks for the resolution of support. CC: Jon Kanter CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street-3'd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 0 JOANN CORNISH, ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DESARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning 4 Development - 607-274.6550 Community Development/IURA- 607-274-6559 Email: planning@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 July 2, 2008 Herb Engman, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 120 Warren Road Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Mr. Engman: Please find enclosed a resolution that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board adopted on June 24, 2008. Sincerely, ate, a,kv Jody Andrew Office Assistant An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �«! PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESOLUTION CONCERNING NEED FOR INTERMUNICIPAL PLANNING TO CREATE COMPREHENSIVE SOUTH HILL PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PLAN —approved at June 24, 2008 meeting of City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board— WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board believes that establishing continuous, integrated pedestrian and bicycle linkages,including a continuous sidewalk system,between the two entrances to Ithaca College —on Danby Road (Route 96B) and Coddington Road—and downtown Ithaca should be an important public poli- cy goal, and WHEREAS: the first step toward achieving that goal would be to conduct the necessary intermunicipal planning, which would require the participation of New York State,Tompkins County, City of Ithaca,Town of Ithaca and Ithaca College officials, and WHEREAS: it appears that the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council may be the appropriate agency to coordinate such a multi jurisdictional planning effort, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board ask the City of Ithaca representatives on the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council to consider requesting that the Transportation Council coordinate such an intermu- nicipal planning effort. Moved by Schroeder Seconded by Cullenen In Favor: Cullenen, Marcham, Schroeder, Snyder Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: Boothroyd, Kay Vacancy: 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD r823 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 RECEIVED JUL 0 z, 2009 Town of Ithaca To: Town of Ithaca Town Board Town Clerk From: Diane K. Conneman Chair, Town Of Ithaca.Conservation Board Date: July 7, 2008 Re: Town Policy on Roadside Ditches The Conservation Board at their July meeting noted that the Town continues to install culverts and fill roadside ditches. A most recent installation of which we are aware is on Simsbury Drive in the northeast. While this may be for safely conditions, it is not consistent with recently adopted Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Law, That law encouraged the use of grassy swales to slow and filter water runoff to promote the ecological health and water quality of our streams and Cayuga Lake. An additional concern with the Simsbury culverts is that they end at the Cayuga Heights Village line at which point the water is flowing faster and creating silting in their open ditches. This may open the town to liability issues with the village at some point in the future. You, as our Town Board, have stated that you are interested in preserving,the environment in our town. We would like to encourage you to review Town policy on road side ditches and develop highway department procedures that are consistent with goals and objectives of the Town's Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Law. r'AiD , `� 1640 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, New York 14850 . P607/257-1822 Fax: 607/257-5470 FOUMNS COUNTY www.spcaonline.com July 10, 2008 Herb Engman Town of Ithaca Supervisor 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. E mann 1 The SPCA of Tompkins County is very interested in maintaining its contractual relationship for dog control with the Town of Ithaca. \Vc have been working in �-. cooperation with the Tompkins County Council of Governments on the issue of contracts since last fall, and it is our intention to follow the RFP process that has been put forth by TCCOG. We urge the Town of Ithaca, as a member of TCCOG, to consider the bids resulting from the TCCOG RFP process before choosing a service provider for dog control next year. These bids are due August 15, 2008. If the Town of Ithaca is unable to follow the timeline put forth by TCCOG, we respectfully request that you solicit a bid from the SPCA for next year's contract. Cordially, Abigail Sm' Executive Director CC: Pat Leary, Deputy Town Supervisor Bill Goodman, Ithaca Town Board Eric Levine, Ithaca Town Board Peter Stein, Ithaca Town Board Rich DePaolo, Ithaca Town Board Tee-Ann Hunter, Ithaca Town Board r'* Karen Billings, Town Clerk T h e S o c i e t y f o r t h e P r e v e n t i o n o f C r u e l t y t o A n i m a l s � w � � � R � / � � / CD� CD m � U (L % w # W / CL 0 o k � / ° 'o / O a a CD a :3 o � D E \ ok � � ° 'o CV Z C 9 � C'4 / / CL § 2 \ 0 � U / - C � goomB % E ca < E § @ 0 \ E w o # o o ¥ o m - o = § - » o r o 0 7@ n ¥ c % w w 9 o m LLC)Rtt � $ BBdBk \ k \ 2 _j Lu o - MNW@ao00 o = T 2 q < U 32 � d� / � � 2 � / ( CL k O w � 69 ¥ c m � � c 2 § R S § / 2 c < ■ / Cf) t-- n * go # CD o k \ E / fm mo -Rt 0000 # qo q Q q n w a \ CO @ o o f A k 2 2 E w 2 cc < � 2 �$ / 7 � R 2f E R k@ A k mk ) » � / 0 9 § - -- - 2 CD § < k / k cc < o - § / E L « 0 2 < wL O m c m ( 2 ± 2O2o2ww m � : q o @ 0 � � O 2 - mo 2 E Qw » 2oZk \ / & & < L < 2 2 0 w � O 2 § d o 0000W0F- 2 = w 2 'D 2 Page 2 of 2 From: Denise McEnerney [mailto:denise.mcenerney@autodesk.com] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 5:43 PM To: dholford@town.ithaca.ny.us Cc: Denise McEnerney Subject: Question about Time Warner service on West Hill Hello, I am contacting you because you are on the website as secretary of the code Enforcement a zoning department. I apologize if I need to go to someone else,but I don't know who to contact about my issue. My neighbors and I are trying to get Time Warner to provide cable on our street as there are quite a few of us who need internet access for work. I live at 131 Hopkins Rd.which runs between Bundy Rd.and Hayts Rd. on West Hill by the hospital,just above the new West Hill Overlook. We asked Time Warner to come out and evaluate our situation,and received a letter from them stating that our area doesn't meet the minimum line extension criteria outlined in their franchise agreement with our municipality,which I am assuming is the Town of Ithaca. Can you tell me if this is correct? Also can you advise us as to how we can go about petitioning to get cable? If I should be going to someone else about this,please let me know. I appreciate any help you can provide in this matter. Best Regards, Denise McEnerney 131 Hopkins Rd. eo*%, Ithaca Work: 266-7202 Home: 272-1787 7/17/2008 Page 1 of 6, r t�-o Y'm. Karen Billings From: Herbert J Engman [HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:10 PM To: Karen Billings Subject: FW: Question about Time Warner service on West Hill Attachments: Time Warner Letter.pdf Karen, more info. On the Time-Warner situation. Please let me know when you find the contract. Also, please run a copy for the TB folder. Thanks. Herb Herbert J Engman Town of Ithaca Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: 607-273-1721 Fax : 607-273-5854 Email : HEngman _town.ithaca.ny.us Web: www.town.ithaca.ny.us From: Denise McEnerney [mailto:den ise.mcenerney@autodesk.com] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:36 AM To: HEngman@town.lthaca.ny.us Cc: Denise McEnerney Subject: FW: Question about Time Warner service on West Hill Dear Mr. Engman, I am following up on an email 1 sent to Dani Holford, as I wasn't sure what category my issue fell under. Attached is a letter from Time Warner responding to an inquiry about 4getting cable on our road. My family lives at 131 Hopkins Rd.,which runs between Bundy Rd. and Hayts Rd. above West Hill Overlook. The letter states that our area doesn't meet (lie minimum line extension criteria outlined in your Franchise Agreement with Time Warner. I am hoping that perhaps the West Hill Overlook has made an impact on this agreement. When we attended the Town Board meetings during the planning of West Hill Overlook there was discussion of utilities such as water, gas and cable eventually becoming available to the neighboring households of the development. Is this still something that is in the works? We,as well as many of our neighbors, would like to pursue the possibility as we need internet access for our jobs, and as you know, dial-up is difficult with today's technology. We look forward to hearing from you! Best Regards, Denise and .toe McEnerney From: Dani Holford [mailto:DHolford@town.ithaca.ny.us] Ago,., Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:00 AM To: Denise McEnerney Subject: RE: Question about Time Warner service on West Hill I am not the person to speak to, but I did forward your message to the Town Supervisor. 7/17/2008 120 Plana Di. Smi,:D. `._ tEai, 1 JY :38`0 P.n F n x 20F.-, GinghumJcn. I�:Y 12'85(; T-aI (GO',) C•74-0646 TIME ` S SER CABLE THE POWER OF YOU" July 8, 2008 Mr.Joseph McCerney 131 Hopkins Road Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Mr. McCemey, Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding the possible extension of Time Warner services to your residence at 131 Hopkins Road. We have undertaken an engineering analysis to determining the feasibility of extending our cable infrastructure from its current location to your location. While your area does not meet the minimum line extension criteria outlined in our Franchise Agreement with your municipality, the New York State Public Service Commission has a prescribed formula that calculates the costs, as well as the portion to be assumed by the cable operator and those to be borne by the customers). This formula reveals that the cost to extend our infrastructure to your area is $4,511.00. We have also verified that there are 2 residences associated with this potential extension. Therefore, if all 2 residents are interested in acquiring our service,the cost per resident would be $426.00. If all residents are not interested, the cost for the project will be shared, on a pro rata basis, by the number of residents that desire service. If you are the only one interested, your cost would be$2,681 A0. Costs do not include applicable fees and taxes. If you are interested in proceeding with this process, please complete the statement below and return this letter, within 30 days, to: Three Warner Cable, 120 Plaza Drive, Suite D, Vestal,NY 13850 Attention: Surveys. Sincerely, Time Warner Cable DIW/e 62308 85186 I, am interested in pursuing this possibility. I, -ilso, understand that no charges will be incurred, nor will physical work on this extension of service begin until n final price has been determined and a signed sales contract with Time Warner Cable is in place. SIGNATURE DATE �� C� �1404- Monday August 11, 2008 Town of Ithaca Board 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: PETITION TO REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT ON RT. 79 EAST Dear Board members: There has been five accidents in ten years outside my home at 1401 Slaterville Rd. This is quite a dangerous place, where Honness Lane meets Rt. 79 East. After the last accident, which involved me, I resolved to try to get the speed limit reduced from 45 to 35 mph. To this end, l have gone door-to-door with a petition to reduce the speed limit within the Town of Ithaca's portion of the highway. The response was quite positive. Most people signed the petition. I covered not only Slaterville Road but Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road. People agreed with me that reduction of the speed limit to 35 mph would make our neighborhood safer. (Many residents of Honness Lane and Pine Tree Road complained that excessive speeding on their own roads is also a considerable menace to safety.) During my work 1 took note of many walkers and bicyclists using the highway. It struck me that Rt. 79 is used by more than motor vehicles. These other users need to be as safe as possible. Some people need to cross the highway to get their mail. Speed limits must protect everyone, not just drivers. But drivers need protection, too. There are numerous driveways bringing vehicles onto the highway. Vehicles may even back onto the road. Rt. 79 East has several churches and a few businesses bringing a lot of traffic together. In addition, the highway has enough curves so that visibility is not always good. There was also much concern expressed about excessive speeding, especially by trucks. Trucks need to slow down well before Ithaca. This is for noise reduction as well as safety. Truck brakes can be very loud! For all these reasons, please approve the reduction of the speed limit from 45 mph to 35 mph, in the Town of Ithaca portion of Rt. 79 East. Then, this petition can go to Albany for action by the State. Thank you! Respectfully submitted, Nancy A. Beeler &V4. -Ree #3 1401 Slaterville Rd. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 272-3898 Petition for a Lower Speed Limit on 79 East in the gown of Ithaca i fully agree that the speed iimit for Route 79 East in the Town of ithace should be lowered from 45 mph to 35 mph. S (print name) (sign name) j d �''� T►��`e �C�. J G�"� �l�4 8� (full address) (print name) (sign name) _Titer J (full address) 6 e-C--AIA (print name) (sign name) (fuii address) C (print name) jpetss � (sign name) VILa aLte 4'PL92 (fuii address) (print name) , &o-7 my. �Jt�, sig name) eek Alf.— -17uv (fuii addre j r'1 Peifiion nor a Lower Speed, Limit on 75 Eznsi- J 0 tfi? ID Illy nI 0, ith' ac a I fully agree that the speed i1n, it for Route 79 East in the Town of Ithaca should be lowered from 45 mph to �5 mph. 1XZ4 (print name) (sign name) (full address) zz' (23-k�e- A-2 (print name) -RS,5,n name) (full address) v, o\- (print name) (sign name) Q- (full address) q c (print name) (sign name) CIC A) v Iq (full address) 'Iv C'k-c print name) (sign name) (full address) T Petition for a Lower Speed Limit on 79 East in the Town of Ithaca fully agree that the speed limit for Route 79 East in the Town of Ithaca should be lowered from 45 mph to 35 mph. (print name) (sign name) 0 =��a (L-CSS-6 (full address) M �- (print name) �-- � (sign name) (full address) C('n`pt (print name) (sign name) (fuii address) i rk-0- V,-�- (print name) OII�L 6 'CA S�o U 0n� i (sign name) lob (full address) (� {print name) (sign name) Ouil address) Petition for a Lower Speed Limit on 70 Past in the Town of Ithaca i fuiiy agree that the speed limit for Route 79 East in the Town of Ithaca should be lowered from 46 mph io SS mph. (print name' tP ) (sign name) ZA41cy Z�Y (full address) s er (print name) �S L-`O ry� l e � Lti rte _(sign name) (fuii address) rint name] G (sign name) (full address) (print name) sign M, It �; (full address) L A i O adil LA (print name) V��- (sign name) X35 . (full address) Petition for a Lower Speed Limit on 70 East in the gown of Ithaca r"q i fuliy agree that the speed limit for Route 79 East in the Town of Ithaca should he lowered from 45 mph to 35 mph_ =-I-f (print name) (sign name) Lft TEW14 t C f K P. 4 (full address) e (print name) (sign name) lel-y"/ (full address) (print name) n (sign name) f yl 4A Vt./ �(� (full address) -T0 YiA C(at u Se u - - (print name) (sign name) {�2 2dQ . � Hca ./I/,Vt (full address) "�Wh . Lyk &--Z- (print name) ` (sign name) (full address) '^ Petition for a Lower Speed Limit on 70 East in the Town of Ithaca i fully agree that the speed limit for Route 79 East in the Town of Ithaca should be lowered from 45 mph to 35 mph. �l (print name) (sign name) f r ✓% ��e. �md� --TrXJL I N! (full address) 0 M45 (print name) (sign name) Y z <;�Q kW i/(0 5' We'a NI (full address) -e c fe (print name) /C 3-er (sign name) (full address) C 1D t) (print name) UI (I A- 5;;� (sign name) )krM UA (full address) (print name) Lql S14 l (sign name) mac. (full address) 4A 2-,o Petition for a Lower Speed Limit on 70 East in the Town of Ithaca � i fuily agree that the speed limit for Route 79 East in the Town of Ithaca should be lowered from 45 mph to 35 mph. E (print name) (sign name) 51( (full address) (print name) a0 ,, dt(SQ (sign name) 5 W► P IQ COC l fit U f (full address) (print name) (sign name) (full address) CAi:W (print name) (sign name) (full address) CA Afe ry o,,, (print name) (sign name) I v - Pe (full address) '#OWN Petition for a Lower Speed Limit on 70 East in the gown of Ithaca i fuiiy agree that the speed limit for Route 79 East in the Town of Ithaca should be lowered from 46 mph to S5 mph. a'O kt�,v D• S I t� t (print name) Mi�gd�q�lq (signname) Jft S(�rvij y (fuii address) �� 3v, .S f w-��) {print name) drh Va v S (o 0 )..o cs � c, `v (sign name) (full address) �^ dames C o (print name) G 1 (sign name) 3 o S [ 1'��6 S�)(fuil address) (print name) (sign name) I �3 IV l Y�Sn (fuii address) (print name) (sign name) (full address) Petition for a Lower Speed Limit on 70 East in the Town of Ithaca i fuliy agree that the speed iimit for Route 79 East in the Town of Ithaca should be lowered from 45 mph to M mph. (print name t (sign name) I `3 R61 (full address) (print name) (sign name) , (full address) 3S+a+4- (print name) is V1 S n Ni L- (sign name) (full address) (print name) Pj (sign name) fa�, 0—qtJ�./t (full address 10 r d l � gsd (print name) U l t t (sign name) (full address) Petition for a Lower Speed Limit on 79 East in the Town of Ithaca i fuliy agree that the speed limit for Route 79 East in the Town of Ithaca should be lowered from 45 mph to 35 mph. (print name) 114, A11,14 x�,&% (sign name) e S v 111XJ"/j614,,c4 OJ (full address) Sara 2 (print name) (sign name) 1 °� 1�'C5'�✓��`� �Gw�— (futl address) N (print name) (sign name) tj (full address) �s SCI rt 1n I Y1rint name' (P ) (sign name) [ 1 ° IAN c (fuli address) 4. (print name) l Sa /7/OA A,3,Q S (sign name) (full address) Petition for a Lower Speed Limit on 79 East in the Town of Ithaca i fuliy agree that the speed limit for Route 79 East in the Town of ithace should be lowered from 45 mph to S5 mph. (print name) (sign name) (full address) �fi St (print name) �( (sign name) 0 S -(� nem uWy�� /Mull address) LJOrl SA,4, (print name) (sign name) # L (foil address) c GeAIIFSA r (print name) (sign name) Z (full address) INA PO/ q':L I ('/ (print name) (sign name) (full address) 911 &ra PA+ &f�- Petition for a Lower Speed Limit on 90 East in the Town of Ithaca I fully agree that the speed limit for Route 79 East in the Town of Ithaca should be lowered from 45 mph to 35 mph. (print name) (sign name) (full address) r r'- S (print name) (sign name) ��. x ee4—z (full address) (print name) �1 (sign name) J►" - (full address) (print name) (sign name) PiMi -rel . dCA IV l (full address) A-N i F L4- ° /''��' S S (print name) (sign name) (full address) Petition for a Lower Speed Limit on 79 East in the Town of Ithaca i fully agree that the speed limit for Route 79 East in the Town of Ithaca should be lowered from 46 mph to S5 mph. L 6-, Avv, PO (print name) (sign name) 0 6-7(fuii address) AL� A (print name) (sign name) A62 Ouii address) 4a C (print name) / (sign name) !`-lY"t- ~'n� (full address) `L tiU� (print name) TP— e, KO r-, G ci vJ (sign name) /401 (full address) (print name) (sign name) Aiovlv (full address) �M r s -jj/7vA-e1-5 - << l MICHAEL EDMOND LANE /60%\ ATTORNEY AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 835 12 SOUTH STREET DRYDEN,NEW YORK 13053 TELEPHONE:16071 844-8440 September 19, 2008 Herbert J. Engman, Supervisor, and Town Board Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Estate of William Anson Grover, Sr. to Weir 1486 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Dear Supervisor Engman and Councilpersons: I represent the Estate of William Anson Grover, Sr. , who owned real property located at 1486 Tr+»+a sburg Road in the Town of Ithaca. The property was contracted and sold to Mr. Patrick Weir. The Executrix of the Estate is Mrs. Gayle Batterson- Gulyas.. When real property is sold, it makes a difference as to whether it is connected to public sewer or has its own septic system. When there is a septic system, the tank must be found, pumped, and certified to be in good working order by a septic contractor. The Executrix did not personally know if this property was connected to sewer. The realtor checked the assessment records which said it was not. The Estate hired Stinky's Tank Service to pump the septic tank and certify its condition. Stinky's stated that the property was connected to public sewer. Buyer and his attorney, Jonathan Albanese, still questioned whether or not the property was connected to public sewer. Your Engineer, Dan Walker, was contacted about it. Mr. Walker informed that office that the property was not connected to public sewer, saying it was the only property not connected. Mrs. Batterson-Gulyas, relying upon Mr. Walker's statement, then had Stinky's return to the property to do more investigation excavation with the same result. The Town was contacted again. This time, Frank Noteboom stated that what Mr. Letter to Herbert J. Engman, Supervisor, and Town Board Town of Ithaca September 4, 2008 Page (2) Walker had said was wrong, and that the property was indeed connected to public sewer, as Stinky' s had originally determined. The original bill from Stinky' s was for $237 . 60 . The Executrix accepts that that much should be paid by the Estate. But when Stinky' s had to return for further investigation, the extra work increased the bill to a total of $1, 620 . 00, or an additional $1, 382 .40 . That work included replacement of a line that was damaged in that excavation. It would not have been damaged if the second excavation had not occurred. The full bill has been paid by the Estate. The extra $1, 382 .40 was incurred solely due to the negligence of your employee, Mr. Walker, because he advised that this property was not connected to public sewer. Had the information supplied by him been correct from the beginning, no additional excavation work would have been done. I am submitting copies of both of the bills ($237 . 60 and $1., 620 . 00) with this letter. I am also enclosing a copy of the CFCU Community Credit Union check for the $1, 620 . 00 to Stinky' s Tank Service issued at the house closing. The Estate of William Anson Grover, Sr. hereby makes claim for reimbursement from the Town of Ithaca in the amount of $1, 382 .40 due to the Town' s negligence. Please forward a check, payable to the Estate, care of this Office . Thank you. Very truly t rs, Michael Edmond Lane MEL/pal Enclosures xc: Mrs . Gayle Batterson-Gulyas, Executrix 26r Michael Lane ESQ Fax:6078448440 Aug 21 2006 11 :09 P.02 Aug 21 ne Oesbea DannieiI- Cornelius (6071347-6`; P. 1 /Oft'sInvoice Stinks Tank 8exvice 399 Main St Ext. i3a6e Invalce# Freeviille,NY 13068 ari4nooa aso En To Gmen wmiem 1496 T=m msbntg Rd rrlmrnr 14830 „ Amolurt P Fee i75.40� Service Ca11 Pcdbimed 45,Wr sq do is on cny s Wa. Sales Twc 17.611 ,,,.� Total $237M lug 26 08 1'1 : 14a Dannielle Cornelius (607) 347-6744 p. l Stinky's Tank Service Invoice 399 Main-St Ext: FreeviUe,NY 13068Date Invoice# t 8/]4 ON 850 Bill To Grover,William 1486 Tmmansburg Rd Ithaca NY 14858 Description . Amount Dig-up Fee,line replacement and service call 1,500.Off IAMIN From the work completed we are positive that this house is on city sewer. Sales Tax 120.00 CY GAG Total $1,620.00 . r X5,847 CFCU COMMUNITY CREDIT't; -..SON MORTGAGE CLOSING ACCOUNT . CFCU COMMUNITY CpEDIT UNION im CRAFT Ab.;' PH.807-257-8506 ITHACA,NEW YORK 14850=1Ole ITHACA,NY 14850 60.8164-2213 ` ' /2/2008 PAY TO ORDER OFE Stinky's Tank Service * ` 1,620.00 One Thousand Six Huhdred.TWdnty and 00/100****" DOLLARS 9 E M W iL MEMO , ! � � Weir-Payment w.,J II40 L 584 71I' I: 2 2 L 38 L 540i: L 5 L 3 7 500 Loll' �� (9 -POn (HOrn n -.Ownership q ewer Plant Site age From: Daniel Hoffman To: HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us CC: Peterson, Carolyn Date: 9/23/2008 4:06 PM Subject: Ownership of Sewer Plant Site Dear Herb: Mayor Peterson has asked me to write to you, regarding the future ownership of the site where the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility is located. She believes it would be useful to have another meeting of the concerned parries, as soon as is feasible. From your letter of August 14, 2008, it is clear that you disagree with the City as to specifically what real property was intended, per the 1981 agreement regarding the joint sewer plant, to be transferred to joint ownership (among the three involved municipalities). The Mayor would like to receive from you the evidence or rationale that you believe supports your position that the three municipalities should jointly own not just the land where the plant is located, but also the land (known as "Steamboat Landing") that has been leased to the Ithaca Farmers Market (IFM) for the past 20 years. At that time, the City would be happy to share its full rationale and all of the evidence we have assembled (some of which was not available at the time of my letter to you and Supervisor Sumner, of March 11, 2008). Mayor Peterson indicated to me that she had mentioned to you that the City is continuing to work on a new lease for the Market site. Mindful that the current lease expires at the end of 2008, the City has been engaged in productive discussions, both internally and with IFM representatives, for almost a year and a half. Common Council considers the Market to be a unique and very important economic and social institution (for the City and the region), and wants it to continue to operate and prosper. Similarly, the City is well aware of the proximity of the sewer plant and of the importance of providing for its current and future needs. It has taken a great deal of effort - on the part of both the City and the IFM - to reach this point. In order to be a responsible landlord and to avoid leaving the Market "up in the air" as to its future, the City is committed to completing this process in a timely manner. While the issue of plant site ownership needs to be resolved, the Mayor does not want it to jeopardize or delay the prompt completion of the new lease for the Steamboat Landing site. For your information (and this will be explained to all other members of the Special Joint Committee, as well), any new lease will provide for immediate access to the outfall pipe that runs under the northerly part of the Steamboat Landing site, for any necessary repair or replacement. Also, any new lease will allow the City to terminate or modify the lease, in the event of an emergency involving the sewer plant, or should it (9/24/Z008) Daniel Hoffman Ownership 9f Sewer Plant Site become necessary to expand the sewer plant in that direction (even though Superintendent Bill Gray believes that such a possibility is quite remote). In fact, the safeguards of this type that will be built into any new lease are considerably stronger than what is in the current lease. The steps the City is undertaking at this time involve securing an up-to-date survey of both the plant site and the Steamboat Landing site, and starting the formal process required to lease the Steamboat Landing site to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (for subsequent sublease to a "qualified and eligible sponsor" of the desired economic/renewal activity). Any such sublease will ultimately require Common Council approval, as would any future, significant, physical changes to the property that are proposed by the sublessee. The City is proceeding via the IURA for a new lease because it views the Market as an economic development and business incubation activity, and the IURA is the agency most skilled at guiding and enhancing such activity. I hope you will agree that it is important and in the interest of good intermunicipal relations to discuss this situation in the near future. My assistant, Jody Andrew, contacted your office (and Mary Ann Sumner's) to suggest several possible times for a next meeting. The Mayor understood that Attorney Guy Krough would be away at some point soon; she would like to know if you want to meet as soon as possible, even if that means without Attorney Krough, or if you would prefer to wait until Attorney ,•�, Krough has returned. Please advise, at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Dan Hoffman Daniel L. Hoffman, Esq. City Attorney City of Ithaca, New York 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 274-6504 dhoffmanCbcityofithaca.ora � l� +� �+- .f•J � �� Cha L'Ij C" Potential Public Open Space and 'I ALAIIL �` p n 1�r3+•' �� Recreation Area �`'• � . ,err ,��• Phosphate a !. J Stripper tank Operation �� Building t r� rad { �. � �.� :�} ��+,1 >y � >.r• Ice a ., u}, Cy }'� •1-• g of r +-+, ,rte" =pis' 1 ,t F '• �� '11 Gravity hlekening JY Primary l } a Aeration Settling Jl ,r y Tei.ae Tanks r.. r1flu+rnl �� Aerated Anse Structure �t Grit \ Dion Secondary 1 fr Chambers +� Sr1"Hnfi o 1 a 1 Jf Tanks '' { �'ww t � •i 4 FYC.M411t'f on V-deOF 1�'t.l��ap/ WWW3 3 5Ff tCep1!&► age JPQC4PJSME5 SWloN LakLk baPtRoe aga Wlil �?� O(f�rCtiMaC'�CJy ls�+ static ln,� � Station �Y LEGEND nli�Existing Facilities Proposed Facilities ='` Ftaf�u.nt tin Future Expansion Building W- Remove Remove Existing Facilities [rucl _ Convert to other City Uses FRANKLIN influent -,TnFFI Sewer Fence City Property Line Screen Planting SCALE I FEET 0 15 300 m n � s 'LAS IV f til: Town of Itnaca Town of Ithaca Town Clerk 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 October 3, 2008 RE: Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC. SRBC Application for Approval To all interested parties: Notice is hereby given that the Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC. has filed an"application for approval"with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) for consumptive use from the Susquehanna RI'ver Basin to be located in the New York counties of Broome, Chemung, 100" Steuben, Cortland, Tomkins, Chenango, Delaware and Tioga and in the Pennsylvania counties of Bradford, Susquehanna, Wayne, Lycoming, Sullivan, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Tioga, Elk, Cameron, Clearfield, Clinton Centre, Cambria, Blair, Columbia, and Wyoming. SRBC approval is required under 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 803. The maximum daily consumptive use for the project will be 20 million gallons per day. The purpose of this project is for natural gas well development. Interested parties should submit comments or inquiries to the attention of: Ms. Paula B. Ballaron, Director of Regulatory Program Susquehanna River Basin Commission 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 Phone (717)238-042; Fax(717) 238-2436. A-* E-mail pballaron@srbc.net Thaler & Thaler Richard B.Thaler Attorneys and Counselors at Law Louis K.Thaler(1903-1979) Guy K.Krogh 309 North Tioga Street Thomas D.Cramer P.O. Box 266 Service By Fax or Other Electronic l� Katrina Thaler Medeiros# Communication Not Accepted Lorraine Moynihan Schmittt Ithaca, New York 14851-0266 Telephone: (607)272-2314 #also admitted in Massachusetts Michael P.Porciello Fax: (607)272-8466 GKrogh@thalerandthaler.com October 16,2008 Hon. Herb Engman,Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Town of Ithaca,Tompkins County, New York $1,125,725.00 Fund Balance Transfer Note— Renewal BAN 01-08 Dear Supervisor Engman: We have acted as counsel in connection with the issuance by the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, (the "Issuer"), of its $1,125,725.00 Fund Balance Transfer Note denominated as Bond Anticipation Note 01-08 (the "Note"), which Note memorializes a borrowing by the Town of Ithaca to pay and retire BAN 01-07 and renew such obligation as BAN 01-08, after payment of principal and interest due, acting for and on behalf of the Consolidated Water District, from the Town of Ithaca Consolidated Sewer District Reserve Fund. More specifically, the Town of Ithaca Consolidated Sewer District maintains a true reserve fund, which reserve fund is the lender of the money herein promised to be repaid, pursuant to the authority of §6-c, et seq., of the General Municipal Law, by the Town of Ithaca,acting by and on behalf of the Town of Ithaca Consolidated Water District, the borrower, as authorized by Town Law and as the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca is the decision making authority for such water district. We have examined the law and such certified proceedings and other papers as we have deemed necessary to render this opinion. We have not been engaged or undertaken to review the accuracy, completeness or sufficiency of any offering material relating to the BAN, Bond or the Note and we express no opinion relating thereto. We have not been engaged or undertaken to review the legality of any future conversion of this transaction to a bond transaction that is or may be privately or publicly placed or offered, and we express no opinion relating thereto. We have advised that the Town must seek the opinion of Bond Counsel as to this transaction and as to the conversion of this transaction to a public or private bond, and all opinions and advice is given subject and subordinate to the expressed limitation and such advice of bond counsel as it is presumed that such advice was obtained and is not material to this transaction as structured. As to questions of fact material to our opinion, we have relied upon lawful Town proceedings and other certifications of public officials furnished to us, without undertaking to verify the same by independent investigation. Based upon the foregoing,we are of the opinion that,under existing law: 1. The Note is a valid and binding obligation of the Town. 2. All the taxable real property in the territory of the Town is subject to ad valorem taxation without limitation as to the rate of, or amount necessary to pay,the Note. 3. Interest on the Note is exempt from personal income taxes imposed by the State of New York or any political subdivision thereof, including the City of New York. 4. Interest on the Note is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations. It should be noted, however, that with respect to corporations (as defined for federal income tax purposes), such interest is taken into account in determining adjusted current earnings for purposes of computing the alternative minimum tax and the environmental tax imposed on such corporations. The opinions set forth above are subject to the condition that the Town comply with all requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that must be satisfied subsequent to the date of execution of the Note in order that interest thereon be, or continue to be, excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Failure to comply with certain of such requirements may cause the inclusion of interest on the Note in gross income for federal income tax purposes to be retroactive to the date of issuance of the Note. We express no opinion regarding other tax consequences arising with respect to the Note, and again respectfully refer the Town to its bond counsel. It is to be understood that the rights of the holders of the Note, and the enforceability of the Note, may be subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws affecting creditors' rights heretofore and hereafter enacted to the 2 • extent constitutionally applicable, and that their enforcement may also be subject to the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases. Sincerely, 75sure(s): THALER Bond Anticipation Note ("BAN") BAN Certificate BAN Closing Certificate BAN Arbitrage Certificate BAN /001IN elk\ 3 �o%ld Q Town Board, Town of Ithaca, 215 N. Tioga Street ep-4thaca,NY 14a50 Bundy Road Petition for 4S MPH Speed Limit-2008 As concerned residents of Bundy Road,which is in and owned by the Town of Ithaca,and as other persons with vested interest,we,the undersigned,hereby petition the Town of Ithaca to reduce that portion of Bundy Road which is currently limited at 55 MPH to 45 MPH and to post the appropriate signs. The following is our Memorandum in Support as to why a lower speed limit is necessary for public safety and ecological preservation: • There are numerous deer and turkey crossings. • Road is well used by pedestrians,bicyclists and joggers. • There is no designated lane for these pedestrians,bicyclists and joggers. • Chip-stone repaving has increased stopping distance and promoted flying gravel hazards by speeders • The speeders are non-residents of Bundy Road • There are numerous children residing on Bundy Road. • There are numerous grandchildren visiting on Bundy Road. • There are numerous dog-walkers on Bundy Road. • There are two farms with road equipment that use Bundy Road. • 66%of the residents have to cross the road to get their mail • 78%of the residents have to back out of their driveway onto Bundy Road. Person(s)to be heard: Richard J.Wohlgemuth 152 Bundy Road Respectfully presented, q�5 nne Fogarty Lead Petitioner 238 Bundy Road Ithaca,NY 14850 J Bundy Road Petition for 45 MPH Speed Limit-2008 The following signatories support this petition to limit the speed limit for the entire length of Bundy Road to 45 MPH: SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS PHONE Ali- Pei li-Pi i Al6e2i S, JLC / L, /�� $�a t� n:� "7.3 -z Z T Ilk 2V6 C-,, d Page of Bundy Road Petition for 45 MPH Speed Limit-2008 The following signatories support this petition to limit the speed limit for the entire length of Bundy Road to 45 MPH: SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME / ADDRESS PHONE �- Del Z Ute✓ Z 7 G�SY`-) 717t= a ! r cld0 ev Yi a Z chi . 1L-/,V-k / , L#4- VVl4 ��(4 i } Page Z- of Bundy(toad Petition for 45 MPH Speed Limit-200$ The following signatories support this petition to limit the speed limit for the entire length of Bundy Road to 45 MPH: SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS PHONE Lam- G � c� zZCo � � �U 7 3 v�cC '97 9 -- Z10D !� t' � --f 7 g d L Let ICA r-,+0 Idd For)�ps- (i J AO ti Q r'` t Tl ��E'�� 1, I' f !• ��7�"'�� ! � %J / z "�' �-eJ l Sa PCU 7,-8283 ILI u >n n J` a 1l a jP-L3 Page of Bundy Road Petition for 45 MPH Speed Limit-200$ The following signatories support this petition to limit the speed limit for the entire length of Bundy Road to 45 MPH: SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS PHONE 12QQ C / Page of 1682 Slaterville Rd. Ithaca, NY 14850 October 20, 2008 Ithaca Town Board Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St/ Ithaca, NY 14850 As a family who has lived on Rt. 79 for 15 years, we would like to respond to the proposal that the speed limit between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden line (near Burns Rd.)be reduced from 45 to 35 mph. First, if people are concerned about speeding on the road, we think the correct response is better enforcement of existing limits,rather than making the limits more stringent. Second,if people dislike the sound of traffic changing speeds in their vicinity, this proposal doesn't solve the problem. In fact,it multiplies it. There would still have a 5 mph reduction near Honness Ln. In addition, the noise of a 10 mph reduction would be imposed upon neighbors up the road who didn't bargain on that when they bought their houses. Before anything is changed, we would suggest some test drives. First, individuals should drive back and forth from the city line to Burns Rd. at a speed that seems reasonable and safe while checking their speedometers. Our guess is that it will read more than 35 mph. Next, they should drive back and forth to Burns Rd, or even to Slaterville going the proposed lower speed limits when traffic allows. Consider if this feels safer or if it is just frustrating. Think about how it adds 30% to your travel time, day in and day out. In our time living on and observing the highway, with one of us bike- commuting, most of the accidents we've seen have been due to fatigue,maneuvering to avoid wildlife, aggressive driving, and inattention. Given that the road curves a lot and is full of no-passing zones, the last thing we want is drivers who are frustrated with going so slowly trying to pass when it's not really safe. That's not good for bikers or cars. Lastly,when you look at the houses along the road, the only clear distinction in density occurs at the City/Town of Ithaca line. We think it makes sense to keep the 30/45 mph transition there. Sincerely, Steve &Ellen Lantz Dear, Honorable Representative Herb Engman I am Jed Glosenger a local resident of the Town of Ithaca and I was just writing to support your vision of creating alternative energy systems in our town. I am currently living in Vermont in an environmentally friendly dorm and have learned a good deal of how to live more in synch with the environment. I feel as though Ithaca as well as Burlington is on the right track however some more executive decisions to create a higher array of alternative energies in Ithaca would be valuable. I have lived in Ithaca all my life and have worked for the town in the Department of Public works on the highway department work crew. I have seen a lot of the good we are doing such as not using any weed killers or pesticides(although it makes the job harder I respect that decision). I have noticed the occasional solar panel that is put in on the roofs of local buildings yet I think Ithaca is progressive enough to support expanded forms of these energies such as wind mills. The current vote to install some of these clean energy users is key to be used as not only a new source of power on our windy hills but also as a source of inspiration for others to take the environmental sentiment in mind. I think thus far you have done a great job such as saving Sapsucker woods from development. That patch of land is a testamentto my love for nature. With that type of respect for nature more environment action by individuals will follow. For these reasons I hope you vote to put the windmills into action because as you said yourself a slight noise increase is not as important as promoting energy UGvelVplllent locally. i have confidence you will vote for the windmills and hope you have a good day. -Jed Glosenger,, 10/25/08 Herb EVIM a kA I ZO WArren ROOd rflrNYjlyFro STATE OF NEW YORK Tcwrl Of Ithaca DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 'FOvvn Clerk REGION THREE 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13202 www.nysdot.gov CARL F FORD, P.E. ASTRID C. GLYNN REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER October 27, 2008 Ms. Karen Billings Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Billings: RE: REQUEST FOR LOWER SPEED LIMIT ON SLATERVILLE ROAD (ROUTE 79) Thank you for your October 8 letter and petition requesting a lower speed limit on Slaterville Road (Route 79) from the City of Ithaca line to a point beyond Pine Tree Road. A formal investigation will be conducted at the subject location. To carry out the Department's initiative to be more responsive to our customers, we encourage you to submit any information which may be helpful in our investigation. This may include letters from the public, accident data, maps, etc. This information should be submitted to my office at the above address. Please be aware that our review requires sufficient field investigation and analysis to assure a proper response. Upon completion of the investigation, you will be notified of the results and our determination. Please use the attached TE9a form for future speed limit requests on local (Town and County) highways. The only change is elimination of"Gentlemen" from the salutation, Ms. Karen Billings October 27, 2008 Page 2 Your interest in this matter is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, kxl� /A--(� DIANA L. GRASER, P.E. Regional Traffic Engineer Attachment CC' W. Sczesny, Tompkins County Highway Superintendent H. Engman, Town Supervisor Michael Koplinka-Loehr, County Legislator, District I 1 U °�••_� CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 ompg �►Oq.,, NA,� OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CAROLYN K.PETERSON �Rpq Telephone: 607/274-6501 Fax: 607/274-6526 November 12, 2008 Herbert J. Engman, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Mary Ann Sumner, Supervisor Town of Dryden 93 E. Main Street Dryden, New York 13053 Re: Transfer of Sewer Plant Site to Joint Ownership Dear Herb and Mary Ann: On March 11, 2008, City Attorney Daniel Hoffman wrote to you regarding the above- referenced matter. In the course of some research related to the negotiation of a new lease for the so-called"Steamboat Landing" site (which has been occupied by the Ithaca Farmers Market since 1988), the City Attorney discovered that while the original, 1981 Joint Sewer Agreement intended for the site of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant to be transferred from City of Ithaca ownership to joint(proportional) ownership by the plant partners—the City, the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden—in fact, such transfer has never taken place. In that letter, the City Attorney explained that if the Towns still want the sewer plant site to be jointly owned, I am prepared to effect that step. This letter is intended to reaffirm that offer, in a more specific manner—by describing in detail the boundaries of the land in question. Since March, I have met twice with you to discuss this matter. The City Attorney attended both meetings, as did Attorney Guy Krough, on behalf of the Town of Ithaca. Attorney Mahlon Perkins attended the first meeting, on behalf of the Town of Dryden. The City's Superintendent of Public Works, William Gray, also attended both sessions. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �«! While the 1981 Joint Sewer Agreement is not as clear as we might now wish it had been (faced with the challenge of interpreting it, 27 years later), with regard to the exact boundary of the land intended to be conveyed into joint ownership,the City's exhaustive research into the question has convinced us that the intended conveyance encompassed essentially the land actually occupied by the sewer plant, as demarcated by the fence that surrounds the plant (together with an intended easement for maintenance of the outfall pipe, which runs northeasterly under the fence and under the Steamboat Landing site). We are convinced that the parties did not intend for the adjacent land—now referred to as the Steamboat Landing site—to become jointly owned, and that the "credit"the City received for its intended contribution of land to the tripartite partnership was limited to the value of the actual sewer plant site. Certain unilateral adjustments to tax parcel boundaries, made by the County Assessment office in recent years, were not based on deeds or surveys (or on actual land use). As a result, land in this area that was and is entirely under City ownership has been split by a new tax map parcel line that actually runs through the middle of the Farmers Market pavilion. The City has commissioned a survey of the sewer plant site,as well as of the Steamboat Landing site. I provided copies of a preliminary version of the survey map to both of you, at our last meeting. Enclosed you will find a revised(but still preliminary) version, on which I have highlighted the parcel that the City is offering to transfer into joint ea%N ownership (together with a permanent easement for maintenance,repair or replacement of the outfall pipe). As you know, the City has been engaged, for the past 15 months, in negotiations for a new lease for the Steamboat Landing site. The City wants the site to continue to be used for a producer-to-consumer market of locally-produced goods. Toward that end, Common Council has decided to lease the site to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, so that the IURA can recommend an eligible and qualified sponsor for such a market(which we expect to be the Ithaca Farmers Market), as a long-term sublessee. Such an arrangement of course requires a precise definition of the boundaries of the leased area. Therefore, for the purposes of leasing the Steamboat Landing site, as well as the possible conveyance of the sewer plant site, the City also intends to adjust the lot lines of its parcels, as shown on the enclosed map, such that the sewer plant site(essentially, as defined by the fence) and the land to be leased to the IURA will be wholly separate tax parcels. As I have explained previously,any new lease or sublease for the Steamboat Landing site will contain upgraded safeguards that address the needs of the sewer plant and its users, including a provision for modification or termination should it be determined that the plant must expand into the Steamboat Landing site. I will also remind you that at this time there is a large residue of coal tar-contaminated soil on the sewer plant site (to the northwest of the plant itself), dating to the time of coal gas production by NYSEG. NYSEG is legally responsible for its remediation, and it is our understanding that such remediation is to occur after the clean-up of the Markles Flats coal tar site on Court Street. I would appreciate it if you would let me know,within the next three months,whether the Towns wish to have the sewer plant site, as shown on the enclosed map, conveyed by the City to joint ownership by the IAWWTP partners. If so, I would suggest that our respective municipal attorneys confer as to the procedural requirements for such a transfer. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation. Sincerely, Carolyn K. eterson Enc. Cc: Special Joint Committee William J. Gray Daniel L. Hoffman, Esq. Guy Krough, Esq. Mahlon Perkins, Esq. / i!! lipM !r it 11111 Ilk Illi$a k ;r! a Im 11 Pit If Ill Ia r! LZI � 11 * n 11 !!1 V •.co > � n 1 SIRES( zi 2 G$6 ui7 8 �y .N 1033 Thaler & Thaler Richard B.Thaler Attorneys and Counselors at Law Louis K.Thaler(1903-1979) r^A Guy K.Krogh 309 North Tioga Street Thomas D.Cramer P.O.Box 266 Service By Fax or Other Katrina Thaler Medeirost Electronic Communication Not Ithaca,New York 14851-0266 Lorraine Moynihan Schmittt Accepted Telephone: (607)272-2314 Michael P.Porciello Fax: (607)272-8466 talso admitted in Massachusetts GKrogh@thalerandthaler.com November 13,2008 Herb Engman,Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 State Street Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: IAWTP Property Issue Dear Herb: I have,with some pain,concluded my review of four of the six volumes of the Facilities Plan,the construction prints, specifications,and diagrams,your files,the intermunicipal agreements and amendments thereto,and the miscellaneous memorandums, agreements, and commentary from various sources throughout the years regarding this particular question. The only thing that I have concluded with certainty is that it is extremely difficult to assemble a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle with 200 or so pieces missing. However,it seems clear from my review of the information that,while the City has an argument that may be made, such argument does not carry much weight. I am more persuaded that the current plant location parcel and the whole of the Ithaca Farmers' Market Parcel were intended to be jointly owned. The City's recited history is somewhat convoluted and not persuasive in light of the facts and documents reviewed to date. First,the"additional land" referred to in the appraisal could not be the in-filled inlet watercourse to Cascadilla Creek. Not only was this land never a topic of discussion,but the maps and measurements used at the time that the appraisal was completed were all based upon the land as filled in-without reference to the same as that land had existed for years. This is why the reference to"additional land" refers to the Farmers' Market Parcel,not some in-filled creek run. The best that could be said is that that the acres of infill could account for the difference between the original assessment map of 10.74 and the later measurement of 12.47 acres, or maybe,as likely, that differential in acreage calculations is borne of the fact that the appraiser never had a survey done-he arrived at his numbers by use of the Assessment Records and backed-into the numbers by subtracting out land reported as sold to NYS for Parcel V;more on this later. Second,the Assessment Office changed the map to show that a portion of the Farmers' Market piece was included as part of the plant site, presumably because somebody (probably someone from the City,as they were the only ones looking into this until recently) relied upon an interpretation of the applicable drawings and the underlying agreements. They may have read the Appraisal as requiring Parcel IV and part of Parcel V(which it states) to be jointly owned, and based upon the location of the outfall pipe, they just drew a line to include the same. The Tax Map as currently drawn seems to reflect this interpretation,but obviously that line seems to be logically, not legally, drawn. Third,and finally,it is important to note two additional facts. First, the appraisal Report actually pre-dated the finalization of some of the documents set forth in the Facilities Plan. Therefore,the Appraisal Report was not determinative as to the shape of the property even though it reflects what people thought they were going to agree upon. Second, the argument about the money -why would the City give up something it didn't pay for- does not hold any weight upon close scrutiny. In fact, the$400,000.00 reference is completely fictional. That$400,000.00 was not based upon the appraised value. The appraised value of the land and facilities was closer to$600,000.00 because the final appraised value of Parcel IV was$408,940.00 and the facilities values were $241,000.00. Instead they used only part of the appraisal analysis - the square foot value, to reflect what the parties then believed was an accurate price given, presumably, the condition of the facilities and perhaps the fact that there was going to be some de- construction costs,which,ultimately, the City might have been wholly responsible for since it was their obligation to comply with the new regulatory requirements. Further, the number$400,000.00 did not really come into play until Dryden made a request relative to excess capacity and set forth an argument(see Dryden letter regarding George Schlect analysis-9/24/80) that put a$401,000.00 evaluation on the project. In other words,the money was never fixed or based specifically upon any one factor- it was negotiated. The fact that it happened to match out to something that was in the appraisal Report is a mere coincidence that was used in the Agreement to justify the number arrived at. For example,the 1980 Joint Sewer Draft had a value of$541,248.00,but by signing in 1981, this number had magically become$400,000.00. Therefore, I do not find the argument that the City did not receive its "fair consideration" persuasive at all. To give you an idea as to why I drew the conclusion that the Town's interests includes all of the Farmers Market Parcel, I would like to step you through my analysis in much the same way that Dan Hoffman stepped through his. I first review the 4 possessed volumes of the Facility Report. I note,however, that the Facilities Report references that there should be six volumes,with volume five being eafts identified as the State SEQRA Review Documents. I do not know if they were later 2 consolidated into four volumes,but certainly if there are two additional volumes,the City should allow us to review them. r� Volume One of the Facilities Plan does not have any relevant information on point. Volume Two has several interesting pieces of information. Pages 2-2 and 2-3 spell out that the idea was to prepare a plan of study for required treatment facility modifications. Page 2-4 describes the need for a Facility Plan Report. I note that these plans, together with appropriate cover letters and explanations,were delivered to the DEC in October of 1976 and the EPA in January of 1977. These delivery letters would be the useful to review. Page 2-4 states that the objective was to develop a cost effective means of upgrading and expanding the city of Ithaca sewage treatment plant. I note that page 2.7 references the 6 volumes and page 4.7 references various soil tests, which are later identified as having being done throughout both sites, all the way to the inlet, and all along all proposed outflow locations. I question why soil tests for siting the plant would have been done on soil the owners of the plant were never intended to own. This makes no sense and supports the conclusion that it was the whole of both Parcels that were to be owned and so used (or usable, as we will later see). Volume 2,just after page 4-34, and at Figure 4.12 shows the existing site. The existing site is clearly depicted as the entire present facility site (what has been discussed as Parcel IV) and all of the Farmers' Market site,identified as Parcel V). This is important because this map exists throughout these various documents and the name of the map is repeated verbatim when describing the land. Volume 2 at page 5.1 is also instructive because it references very high growth rates as being in effect within the service area. Thus, the study envisioned phased construction. The language here suggests that they had their first phase of construction, largely the existing facilities as then drawn (and now built). Additional phasing occurs as shown in the construction drawings showing future site expansion locations within the existing footprint of Parcel IV. This was to reference the 2005 anticipated build-outs. Also referenced is the ability to expand into the additional the 6-7 acre parcel (the Farmers' Market Parcel (Parcel V) (mainly to meet the phasing and build-outs anticipated to meet 2035 needs). Page 6-52 spells this out more clearly as well. They reference the extent of city owned property on the northerly site (north of route 13 - Parcels IV and V) showing that there is "ample room for expansion'. It also states that the plan is to place everything on the northerly site -being, at that time, as shown by all of the maps as consisting of Parcel IV and Parcel V. This configuration is also consistent with the "Proposed Treatments Plant Site Layout",being figure 4.1 -the same map that shows up throughout the facilities plan,in the environmental review, and in the Appraisal Report. Page 6.3 again references the benefits of using the northerly parcel-because it has room for expansion and creates some open space and recreational areas along the waterfront 3 that would be beneficial to residents. Page 6-63 is instructive to what was meant by "expansion." They built a facility in the 1980's that had on-site, meaning within the existing footprint,potential expansion that they anticipated would cover the needs of the municipalities through 2005; yet the entire site plan, including the Farmers' Market Parcel,was something that they considered that would provide adequate expansion capacity through 2035. Thus, figure 8.2 again shows the plant site layout. Again, this map as well covers the whole of the Farmers' Market Parcel, referencing it as"potential public open space and recreation area," thus completely agreeing with the statements made at pages 6-52, 6-53, and 6-63. Volume III consists of the various Appendices referenced in Volume II. There is a reference in the Appendices that shows various cost allocations with the city having 66%, the Town 23%, Dryden 3% and Cornell,8%. This interestingly dovetails with the differential between the$600,000.00 numbers referenced in the appraisal and the $400,000.00 final number agreed upon in the 1981 draft(400k being approximately 66% of$600k). It also coincides with the $541,248 number from the 1980 draft and the final number of$400,000.00. This further explains that the number arrived at was based upon negotiations and not any single cold hard fact- such as the opinion of an appraiser. Volume IV largely consists of the environmental assessment statement. Figure 2-16, showing the area of review, and of course, shows this same layout. Figure 4.1 provides the facility treatment plan site layout, and shows that the SEQRA was done on the entire site, meaning again,both the facility site and the Farmers' Market Parcel. The simple answer is that the SEQRA applied to the whole of the Farmers' Market Parcel as such a review was mandatory -it need not be so reviewed if it was not part of the site. It is also instructive to note that there were four proposed outfall locations. Two of which received the most serious consideration, and one of which, option C, was actually constructed. The outflow pipe for Option C runs smack-dab across the middle of the Farmers' Market Parcel, yet there is no easement relative to that pipeline. While the City may summarily argue that they didn't need to give themselves an easement, since they own both Parcels,the reality is that the easement would have been required if it was envisioned that one Parcel would be owned by three municipalities and one Parcel owned by the City. Further, to the extent that they are separate Parcels,even if owned by the same person, an easement should have still been created because there is still a dominant and a subservient estate. Easements appurtenant are not subject to the "doctrine of merger" when a benefited parcel survives. This conclusion that both Parcels were included is also supported by page 7-4 of Volume IV. There,the potential public open space and recreation area indicates that it could be utilized by the city and helps provide mitigation for impacts- in other words, an undeveloped portion that is saved for future expansion creates a built in"buffer" between the plant,its site impacts, and other impacts relative to the lake,the inlet, and 4 the users of the lake. This analysis if further supported at page 11.1 when they were talking about"reserve commitments". Specifically, at item 1, they refer to"land committed" to new facilities and disposal area for sludge. This clearly implies that there is "additional land" since the existing footprint of the existing site was clearly not sufficient. This "additional land" comports with the "additional land" reference in the appraisal, and based upon the information in the SEQRA, included Parcel IV and all of Parcel V. I also examined the public hearing records. Page 8 makes that same reference to the northerly property. All these references to the"northerly property"were never in dispute - they refer to all of what we've discussed as Parcel IV and Parcel V-the City owned lands to the north. Page 9 describes that there is quite a bit of land unused which will provide an area for new units, including 5 to 7 acres for non-sewer uses. This five to seven acre area is, of course,the Farmers' Market Parcel. Further references to the "northerly property" occur at page 21, and frankly,are replete throughout the hearing. At page 58 they identified the firm of Haley &Aldrich. This company performed soil tests throughout the area and all across the Farmers' Market Parcel and the outfall routes. Again,why test soil when there is a question of ownership? The answer is that there was no such question. There is also much discussion about the gasworks building, as you and I both note, on page 63 and elsewhere. One matter that was being considered was saving the gasworks building as being of historical significance. There was discussion that if they wanted to save the gas works plant they could actually move the entire site farther north-onto Parcel V,being the Farmers' Market Parcel. This suggests, clearly, that Parcel V was within the proposed Treatment Plant Site as confirmed by Figure 4.1 and every other drawing throughout the documents reviewed. An examination of the appraisal shows a number of important things,but only one thing can be clearly concluded. This appraiser did not do any actual surveying and did not do a substantial amount of on-site measurements. He specifically states that he relies on assessment map records for purposes of calculating square footage. We have all identified that the assessment records,and the square footage records,are historically inaccurate in this area. The appraiser never discloses what portion of Parcel V was already added to Parcel IV's evaluation. Similarly, the size of Parcel V was arrived at by looking at the assessment maps and subtracting out what was reported as sold to New York State. Despite these inherent inaccuracies, perhaps explaining the need for price negotiation, the Appraiser adopts that same Figure 4.1 as the Treatment Plant Site Layout. He describes Parcel IV as all of Tax Parcel 24.4-1 and part of Tax Parcel 23.-1-1 (now the Farmers' Market Parcel). Given Outfall pipe C, this clause explains the change at the assessment office relative to part of the Farmers' Market ?Oft� Parcel. 5 The Appraiser describes Parcel IV as being bounded by a creek on the northeast (Cascadilla Creek), a railroad on the south(not really helpful since the railroad was relocated when route 13 was re-routed) and estimated it as being approximately 12.47 acres. He also describes Parcel V as the remainder of Tax Parcel 23-1-1 after adding part to create Parcel IV. As noted, this is not helpful -we do not know what was added, or whether it was added before or after the 12.47 acre measurement is applied to Parcel IV. Furthering such confusion,Parcel V is described as having the inlet to the west, Cascadilla Creek to the north,and New York State land on the southwest. Obviously, he does not accurately describe what portion is going to be added to Parcel IV since he described all of 23-1-1 in that description- yet, part of that Parcel was added to Parcel IV, so the boundaries could not have been as he describes. Hence, the only conclusion is that he was describing the Parcels as then existed,and not the Parcels as evaluated. If you analyze his values on page 17, 20 and 23,you will note that he did evaluations based on square footage, a facility evaluation,and a final appraised value. It is clear that the parties did not use the final appraised value; they used the square footage valuation, and then negotiated from there. I note with interest that he put a combined value of Parcel IV and V of$627,400.00, which is not the sum of Parcels IV and V based on his final individual appraised values. I have no clue where that number came from, except perhaps the thought that a larger parcel may have a larger net value. It is interesting, as noted,to again note the relationship between 66% and$627k as nearing the$400k number finally agreed upon. Again, the $400k credit did not come from the square footage calculation, but from negotiations. The recitation of the square footage value was a convenient mathematical model that fit well,but it was not what actually occurred relative to how they all arrived at that$400k number. The contract drawings at G-6 show the same map as every other map -Parcel IV and V as being included. Now we get to the joint sewer agreement. Section 3 describes title to the property as being the"Treatment Plant Site" plus all referenced right of ways per Appendix 1. Appendix 1 is that same map as Figure 4.1,which is all of Parcel IV and all of Parcel V. It is important to note that the"treatment plant site" language is the same as used throughout all of these documents when referring to where the plant is going to be built. That term referenced the land upon which the plant will be situate - the two lots shown upon all the maps. Further verifying these points is the 1980 draft that preceded the signed 1981 agreement. This draft has two key and telling distinctions. First, the original price set upon as the amount of credit due the City was$541,248.00-the value on the 1980 Appendix 1. This varies substantially from the 1981 final agreement, thus perhaps 6 verifying that price was negotiated. Secondly, the 1980 agreement also notes that Parcel IV was only 50% in use - it is unclear if this references the existing facilities or the planned facilities with Parcel IV being expanded to include part, or all of, Parcel V. I have also referenced the 9/24/80 request by Dryden which introduced the approximate$400,000.00 number that was ultimately agreed upon. The 1984 Amendment did not contain any substantive changes relative to this issue, except the ownership clause was simplified. In 1996,there is an interesting city memo dated 12/9/96 from the then City Attorney to the Mayor identifying that there is a controversy regarding the parties' capital contributions and the fact that the transfer of the plant/site did not take place. Beyond this 1996 analysis, it does not appear as if anything happened until 2003 when an Amendment was adopted. This 2003 Amendment, however, did not solve the problem, as we all well know,though it did adopt the same Facility Plan as the original 1981 signed agreement. That concludes the analysis of the documents that have been, to date, made available to me. It seems clear from the construction diagrams, the four volumes of the Facilities Plan that are possessed, the Appraisal, and the parties Agreements, that they are all describing the treatment plant site layout. The descriptions of the buffer zones, the expansion areas, the additional six to seven acre parcel, etc., all point to the fact that it was clearly intended that the parties would jointly own both Tax Parcel 24.4-1 (Appraisal Parcel IV) and Tax Parcel 23-1-1 (Appraisal Parcel V). There is,however,some rational argument that can be made that the plan was only intended to cover half of the Farmer's Market Parcel. This appears to be a conclusion that the Assessment Department or some appraiser made when they amended the map in 2006, effective 2007. Documents supporting this change should be sought as I suspect the City made the request-who else would have? If nothing else, this is an admission that some portion of the Farmers' Market Parcel was supposed to be jointly owned. I believe a presentation should be built for the City that emphasizes key points-the plans, the expansion references,and the interesting dovetailing of the City memo and the 1980 draft. As far as a litigation analysis, and taking into account that there is always some risk due to the fact that several persuasive explanations can be fairly said to exist due to the lack of complete documentation and, more importantly, the lack of complete clarity in the existing documents (not to mention that the City is the repository of other documents that may clear this all up), I believe that the Town has the stronger case. Based upon facts now known, there is a 65 to 70% probability that the Town would prevail if this 7 matter were place in dispute. As to the cost of proceeding in a court,I would anticipate that the initial pleading stage ^' would cost somewhere on the order of$2,500.00. This would include the necessary research to draft, and the drafting,service and filing of a Summons and Complaint,the receipt of Answer and any applicable counter claim(most likely seeking a Declaratory Judgment), and answering those counter claims. The second phase of litigation is known as the discovery phase and encompasses requests for information,conferencing with the court over trial readiness time tables, and deposing various parties and witnesses. I anticipate that this phase,if fully explored,would cost something on the order of$10,000.00. The next phase of litigation is the pre-trial phase. This phase usually include various motions-usually motions for summary judgment or for rulings on evidence to try to end the case or limit or preclude the other parties proofs and evidence. Motion practice is very expensive,entails legal research, as well as time in court. I would allocate another$12,000.00 to this phase of the proceeding. The final phase, of course,is the trial phase. As a practical rule, and based on personal experience,for each day in court, two days of preparation exist outside of court, whether it be research,preparing witnesses, preparing trial outlines, document books, analysis,arguments,motions in limine,etc. This trial, given the 3 or 4 witnesses alive and the volume and detail of documents,plus rather extensive discovery to get the City to flush out all of its records,would probably last on the order of 3 to 4 full days. Since trial days are almost universally 12 hours long,that means we can functionally plan on approximately$15,000.00-$20,000.00 to try the case. A further phase comes up if you deal with appeals,but it is impossible to know if an appeal would be taken at this time. Even upon an accelerated timetable, this case would take a year to prepare and try. Because of the time,cost and uncertainty of proceeding the trial (even though the time issue may prove out as valuable leverage against a City that wants to move fast), it would probably be better to try to deal with this case summarily,such as through an Article 78 asking the court to compel the city to transfer title to the whole property. This would take about half the time and cost,but would increase the risk since the court would be making a summary determination-usually without the benefit of a full blown trial or hearing. The best solution, of course, is either to continue to negotiate and try to come to an agreement, or simply acknowledge that the parties can not agree and come up with some mechanism to resolve this matter. We could consider jointly petitioning the court to appoint a Special Master to make a determination and recommendation on this-sort of a form of formal arbitration/mediation. The court would appoint someone it 140� deemed to be neutral, impartial, and to have expertise as to evidence and real property 8 issues. Most of the arguments would be submitted in written format(such as my letter of analysis, duly embellished with case law etc.). The Master could interview witnesses and would make a determination. This avoids the rules of evidence,avoids trials, appeals,and probably reduces the total cost of the proceeding to around$4,000.00- $6,000.00 (though I have sometimes had things resolved, even this complex,for substantially less). It is that last option that I think presents the best avenue in terms of obtaining relief. We get a fair impartial look,at a reasonable price,and do not necessarily make an enemy out of out long term partner in the sewage treatment plant. Once you have had time to digest this analysis and my recommendations,please let me know if you would like to proceed with another meeting with the City. If so,much as Attorney Hoffman did,I would present a"dog and pony" show highlighting the various documents that I pointed out,emphasizing that the City has the balance and remainder of such documents,and hope to persuade them that their position is not as iron clad as they would like us to believe. Thank you for your time and attention to the above. Very truly yours, nogh LER Esq. GKK/cw 9 Page 1 of 3 Carrie Whitmore From: Carrie Whitmore[CWhitmore@town.ithaca.ny.us] ea%N Sent: Friday, November 14,2008 12:20 PM To: 'pfeitner@aol.com' Cc: Karen Billings; 'p117@comell.edu' Subject: RE: 1089 Taughannock Boulevard --dock modification request Dear Mr. Feitner, Thank you for your comments and I will forward them to the Town Board and Codes and Ordinances Committee. If you have comments on the proposed Lakefront Residential Zoning, you should direct them to the Town Board and the Codes and Ordinances Committee. I believe the Town Board will be reviewing the proposed local law amending the Lakefront Residential Zone requirements at their December 8, 2008 meeting and will hold a public hearing at that time; you are welcome to attend the meeting and express your concerns/comments to the board or you could email/mail your comments to me and I will distribute them to board members. If your comments are specific to the Burns' request for approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, you could contact Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, or attend the public hearing being held on the appeal November 17th at 7:00 p.m. Regards, Carrie Coates Whitmore First Deputy Town Clerk From: pfeitner@aol.com [mailto:pfeitner@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:22 AM To: CWhitmore@town.ithaca.ny.us Cc: KBillings@town.ithaca.ny.us; p117@cornell.edu Subject: Re: 1089 Taughannock Boulevard --dock modification request Hi Carrie, Thank you for sending this information; it is helpful. Not knowing the specifics in detail of the Bums's situation,the reason to extend the length is interesting. And allowing the lift to extend even further past the end of the dock is also interesting,though I understand that thy are finding the material from the creek a problem. Usually a creek is a boundary of a property along the lake,rarely in the middle of the property. The ordinances seem to prefer a central location for a structure when there is not enough room for the listed setbacks. So, if the current structure is in a otherwise poor location and needs to be replaced,then I might wonder just why it needs to be accommodated in the current location that has the complication of wash out. Or why they could not accept that the lift cannot function in that location and use the allowed ,411� option to moor their boat offshore,or change the location of the structures, rather than to support the 11/14/2008 Page 2 of 3 push of the structure further into the lake past the ordinance, past the allowance for the dock, etc. What happens when the wash continues and the lift needs to be moved again; another 12' out? I have been mulling over what I see as some areas of concern with the proposed ordinances. Clearly it is very difficult to satisfy and to find limits that are both reasonable for the majority of Town lake residents and are respectful o f the folks who use the lake who are not lake residents, and particularly mindful of the lake itself and what is wanted fundamentally as an outcome of the ordinances in regard to that natural resource. That's a chore. The work that has been done is impressive and it is evident that much thought and hard work has gone into the creation of these guidelines. There remain some things perhaps unattended. One is, clearly there is a bias in terms of dock length to the vocal minority of large sailboat owners in particular who want to have their boats accessible from their own dock rather than to use a mooring or the marinas. I am not sure that this bias has a place in this ordinance. So, a 50'limit seems overboard given both the general needs of the majority of residents and more than ample to give the capacity for boats to utilize the docks. Only the very largest of lake sailboats would need more than 4'of water during the main season. If it is currently 30' (which al also ample for the majority of property owners and sailboat owners), and 50' seems to make the sailboat owners fully satisfied,then what is wrong with 40'? Every 1'of encroachment has an effect on the visual impact to abutters; when it comes to the lake, shorter is better even if this means disappointing the desires of large sailboat owners. Seems reasonable. Particularly given that the vast majority, if not all, properties already have docks in place which either co nform or not. The limit only serves to "cap" the constant and relentless encroachment by property owners into the public waters of Cayuga Lake. This brings me to my next quandary. There are many structures that exist now that are well outside the guidelines, existing or proposed. It must be spoken to someplace, though I do not know where,that these existing structures (pre-ordinance) are "grandfathered" in perpetuity? Some of these are old enough to be somewhat historic almost in nature (larger architectural boathouses, etc). Allowance for certain elements to remain seems reasonable to me(provided they are well maintained). What regulates "pre-existing, non-conforming"? What regulates "repair/replacement" of newer structures only allowed by variance?It seems that there should be a reasonable and gradual and non- egregious shifting over time back to the status of"conforming" to the reasonable extent possible for all properties. The vast majority of these properties have structures and docks that pre-exist, some conform, some almost conform, some don't conform and some were constructed with purpose to bypass the norms or to get it grandfathered in place before we can't do what we want any longer. I have tried to write up some very minor,but I feel very important, elements for consideration. I do not have the time just now to get them together and off to you, but when they are ready and i do have the time, who is it that I should be directing this information to?The Planning Board?The Zoning Board? The Town Board? Thank you for your attention and assistance. Sincerely, Peter Feitner 11/14/2008 Page 3 of 3 -----Original Message----- From: Carrie Whitmore<CWhitmore ci)town.ithaca.ny.us> To: pfeitnerieaol.com Cc: Karen Billings <KBillings ({town.ithaca.ny.us>, p117��cornell.edu Sent: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 9:19 am Subject: 1089 Taughannock Boulevard -- dock modification request Dear Mr. Feitner, I have attached the resolutions and minutes (request begins on page 5) of the Planning Board regarding the request by Mr. and Mrs. Burns to modify their existing dock. Please note that the minutes are in draft form and have not been approved by the Planning Board at this time. I've also attached the public hearing notice of the Zoning Board of Appeals as Mr. and Mrs. Burns will be appearing before them on Monday, November 17, 2008. A0 Please email or give me a call at the number below if you have any questions and I hope you find this information helpful. Regards, C2rrie O-Wtes Whi.tVkore First Depvt� Towo, CLCV't, 215 North Tioaa street Ithaca, New yoriz 14250 OP) 60 -23-121 ext 11.0 (F) F�0 -23-5854 � cr�hitvu.oreC`�towrn..ithaca.v,�.�cs Instant access to the latest & most popular FREE games while you browse with the Games Toolbar- Download Now! 11/14/2008 or C-) , Department of Assessment 128 East Buffalo Street Valeria Coggin Jay Franklin Director RECEIVED Assistant Director November 18, 2008 Town of Ithaca Karen Billings Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Town Clerk Ithaca NY, 14850 Dear Karen, This letter is to inform you that the New York Legislature has increased the maximum income level for eligibility for the "Persons sixty-five years of age or over" (RPTL 467) and the "Persons with disabilities and limited income" (RPTL 459-C) exemptions. The previous legislation allowed for an income limit of $27,000 to receive a fifty percent (50%) reduction in taxable value. The new legislation signed into law this year allows for the minimum level to increase to $28,000. In addition, this new legislation allows for the maximum income level to be increased to $36,399 for eligibility for a five percent (5%) reduction in taxable value. The Tompkins County Government Operations Committee at their November 14, 2008 meeting decided to increase the maximum income level in order to receive a five percent reduction to $36,399. This will go forward to the full legislature in December however even if the county declines the increase the income scale, your municipality may c ose to do so. The new scale is as follows.. }h� I,' New Available Income Scale UP TO - 28,000 50% EQiNIORE LESS THAN 28,001 28,999 45% 29,000 29,999 40% 30,000 30,999 35% 31,000 31,899 30% 31,900 32,799 25% 32,800 33,699 20% 33,700 34,599 15% 34,600 35,499 10% 35,500 36,399 5% Mail Address: Tel: 607-274-5517 128 East Buffalo Street Fax: 607-274-5507 Ithaca, New York 14850 assessment@tompkins-co.org http://www.tompkins-co.org/assessmenU Enclosed please find a spreadsheet listing all of the taxing jurisdictions within Tompkins County and their current corresponding income limits. If your municipality/school district would like to adjust your income scale for these two exemptions, the Department of Assessment needs to be notified by March 1, 2009 to apply the higher income limit to the 2009 Tentative Assessment Roll. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, Jay Franklin Assistant Director of Assessment Department of Assessment 2 November 18,2008 00 r r� a�EjoE3le �NOl� �ooLno � o1�n LD � MMNN �- O 0000000_ 0M� �C1 d- Nco4NMMM- M2AM LnM C0 49 E J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O E W O OO OOO O O O O O O � O pOOODI� fcO� N � E O g N N N M M M N 80- 7 SSW co0D0 000a C ` er- r m = � � 8 � � Im ° � ►- aW 0H- 1- F- CD o o� `oppE o�nf o� o� o� off' of 3' of o4 a° nus opof of MZMNN NZqc� cO9NN N SCJ � cryc� NNsO- OIA U 0 = 000000 O = F- m 0mm0m000 O 000000.mN 0 e C N � oCt 0oaq mr" to yck at at R r%q W m CL N0m O O . � cyco gLN -M 0— 4M01 E oym0 ! O ON � NMMi C. F�-y E J EOWN r � � V- O j jN jNW O O O O T.- r0 0 0 : �' W 1 4 N r f- i W —8 O OR O O O 42pO0000mao o 0 o � oo880 0 0 a) p CD00g § g $ o( 8 o EF- � NriV' V' iri r EP2 o0000o O E E � pN m �aoaioiorNNri �a 8a NNNNNN N 8a7wiWr� WGoCD Ld 8 a 8p, 8M NNNNNMMC7m N S W S W r r r r r r r S LE-PJ S M W o C co m cc c D m LL c LLI Im t9 m F S > cS oatn Ln0 M* e0LD p �nou� ono -no � p �e, Ln0Ln0tD VMMNr to V VMMNNr r �i M M NNrr N0 0 m m o m m m O 000 § 00088 0 m m m m m 0 CpA� O O 00m00000 �' 8 8MN - 000 amo ~ vv 1q: Nr0 0 m m 0 0 0 00 t-t Z to 'i M NN �p NN O J N N N N N N M M M co w M W N N N N N N N N N N t/ M W N N N N N N N N N N E � W EQ„J, � a;-j pp N r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p J N r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O .I pr Op qp 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0) p000000000 O � 0 2 Lf) nln V:MNrO �n N 088 �C11n V' CO C-4 X11 E � � vuoimgrIRRtt%R 0 cn UiCDF a o IL oio .- Naiv�ricoi: ao 8a7NNNN NNNMM N SagN NNNNNN NN N $ a V- C14 N NN NNNN SSW SMW 5 � W O e 3 06 '� c •0 00 C c 01 N a 2 oo ° o 'S E E is 0 O � 0 I- 1�- s off �� tN9MN14 N V , lNq f411M, ON pQpQ ��pp a O PpC� GO p vf N 3O�N NNN W mm 17 NJNN0coco �gP) l7m NSg�p h �pO�C30 Sp -0 $ 8N $$Np $grSoa $$888$ $Q000 . n 8CpVNNV)N N aVNNNl07 l07MMlmi lei N 0 co �- a N E pp p� V �� C C4 H��i Lf) 111 Al o��jQ appaa�a�ayy��p�pap�p a: a�0�� ml � pNl09NN NZaV < MC pN Npp �fl��l� 19NN eP(7ZsTQ (1) V)NN N Cl) pOp.0o00p0 C 1-0p0p0000 O 888029 O pO pO 0000 $ CpO pO pO pO pOO OOO pOp ppOp OO G Oy 008829 h OyNt(fN�ION N 8$$029 n OOOOf$r` f` yNNN�O$ 0 oyLI,Nl7� �N(O t0 .NNW e=N l7� tfim m �Or��T � N N �OO� NCV I+f� pycD O r r r r r r r r r r O r r $ r r r r o J r O r J r N r r W888888 a a 3 r o Q r r r r r r r 0 - o ] - po 0 0 0 E r 0 0 0 8 8 8 $ E 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 8 E 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E n $ 0 $0 0 0 $ Q00000 W OO O EQ Qtq�NN �pf N 00000 W oo O QQO000 W m O ?OQNNN " N 1- �iV W'i? N r ^h' Pr �M� H O1-O-Nvi aim O � LiW O�fV IV CM Or c� f�00 OWOrN h a r r r r r r La=a r r r r a r r r r Ca a r r r r r B a a r r r �W mW c@ N W l0 �1 15 NO k0 Cp) 0.Q CN Q/ C� O 20 xr 3.r yo r Zv Ng]NF7 N N Ya NON NO w vvM9*0 N N 'Q Qt+)NIN rr NZ �(9 l'7NNrr co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O a 0 W 00000000 O 20 ppppO 0 QQWMNr 00 co 0 F' �� OVN � OONi. O 00000000 O yh��v,rilHy�m o 0 N O N N N N N N 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N vi E m E � .3- _ o kx P po poo 00o 0 o p0 0 p0 C5 K 0 0 0 $ $ 00 o p p QQ1000N41 �MN � O O loo QL I v W NOr �pQO��N � N� O �Q W W �y fr 9 F- C a r N N N N N N N N 8 a r r r N N N N N r $?CCCW)1 m N N N N m 8 6. W _ W 7 0 J ❑ � zN c�� OZ W7 ONONONON us OtOOV' VMMNN OWf pWp17 d) OW1 pWj O p� 009C:2 O Qi $O p N 070107 co's, t0 N 'W mW. � O� OO .O is NNV � LLj fO^7. 00 01 O r (f pf �j yyyyyy111 h W W pT 0 0 r of N M $ N N N N M M M M N N N M M Comm M 3 N uw r o 0 0 0 0 0 o P O w Q o 0 0 o ' s a o p $ m 0000000 o$ $ a1OOpPg000000 p 0 000007 W t�t6N 000061 W 7��DN gC t0 h W 01 at O r N�7 01 N p n W W O 8jWNNNNNMMl+7M W C [L Nl+1MMMM W tf � L = 01 U co U2 $ V G H L E c1 c r G7 r V o q7 r f� � 2oco �o�7Mn IC F- n 3.1 �N P E H M ° ° °1111 a�� o aEa�a�a�a�� a W�a0MR NOOONONONON MMN Z'P V MMNN NZ� � MMNN N � � MMNN 1000 � c9MNN NZ a� X000.000 �aZ OP 0000 p O aoaocA O az 0008 O 000000 0 p 0 0 0 g O S F 0 0 0 O O P O 000000 O r O O O O S S O O O O O O p O 000 W W n N tONNITMN N 00001 W N n 00007 Wh h N NNN�OW W OpyNM�'QNm �O p,av "i1ff fD 07 grfV MlYl Ftp N pry OrNNI+/R V p(/� W diO rNN N OW r rrrrr 49N r r rr � prrrr r r {pW rrrrrr i{ pw rrrr r E<� £ci r Eo Eos r EN-A Opp paP -088 o , pC o O � rr o O°�wr r p � �` yoopogo 0 O O p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O p Q O g p p O O g O O O p O p 0 0 0 O E0� OO0007 W O p�QN �NN V M N � DOOOO W 0D O �Q� SOO$61W O �0 NNNNrO N �-gS �Iff r h Or N v; O �"' Or�MM e O H OI Or NN PI W H PW 0)C r {� 8 a Q r r r r 8 a r r r r r r B a r r r r r 8 a r r r r r 8 a r r 5mw �mw � � =mow Sew c 8 g 8 8 u, N �077 S G fONNV a -O o M X61 Cp O7 ME" MOM� o�T°o3�'oL'3Eoe o M..glel °`QE`eE-. o ..3E`. 3'.�' 3: O N O N P N O N O N O N p N O N O N O O N Q 10 O N O N 0 N � 'Q M M N N r r N z�Q M M N N r r N Z V V M M N N r r N o 67 67 W O1 W W o O1 O W IC W W 01 Q1 Of W O 0 0 0 O Q p P W P W O1 M O p1 W M W M O W Ql W W W Q7 W W O rr O O O 0 0 0 0 W O It It W W 07 �� .M �NyrO W O nNNa MNr0/ O S%NNNRNNNNN SN Wr NCV NNNN N Oh W W NN �yMM 0 �l O W r N N N N q A N W N W N J o E0-j Eti-7 £ row E n , 2 o P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 3 R r r o ooaoopopo o r 000$ 0000 o mO� tn 0000 poo a 3� 8 O D N N N N C M N r 0 N N N N N tT M N r N 0 0 0 O M N r N F- �o �y M y ui ao N 61 E IL v C04 r R�y Ci A r 8 CL g 8a NC-4NNNNNN $a rrNNNNN $Gc6� °r � NNNN Wr c W r $cam . p N �z11O Ovpi Zuo7 C7WQ 09 123 King Rd. East Ithaca,NY 14850 November 18, 2008 Supervisor Herbert J. Engman Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Re: Town of Ithaca/King Road Parcel Dear Supervisor Engman: This letter confirms my agreement to convey Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1-3.21 to the Town of Ithaca without a parkland restriction, in fulfillment of the agreement with the Town regarding the Ithaca Estates Phase II Subdivision. This agreement is predicated on the following understanding, as I discussed with Susan Brock on May 8, 2008: (1)the proceeds from any sale of the parcel are to be used to purchase additional parkland or to develop infrastructure at existing parks, (2) the Town will retain a right of first refusal if it conveys the property to the Montessori School and the School thereafter seeks to sell or transfer the parcel, (3)outdoor storage of materials and structures exceeding 20 feet in height will be prohibited through a deed restriction, and (4) I will retain subsurface mineral rights(including natural gas rights),but not the right to place structures or equipment on the surface to extract such minerals. I understand that the Town Board will consider acceptance of the parcel at its December 8 meeting, and I will undertake all necessary actions to facilitate the transfer of the parcel to the Town. Sincerely, Evan Monkemeyer OF 1�h TOWN OF ITHACA 18 21 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 --- �W y0 www.tow n.Ithaca.ny.us Town Supervisor(607)273-1721, Ext 125; HEngmanCa town.ithaca.nV.us TOWN CLERK(607)273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS (607)273-1656 ENGINEERING(607)273-1747 PLANNING (607)273-1747 ZONING (607)273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 November 26, 2008 Mayor Carolyn Peterson City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mayor Peterson- Thank you for your letter of November 12, 2008 confirming the City of Ithaca's position concerning joint ownership of the sewer treatment plant land. As I have indicated verbally a number of times, the position of the Town of Ithaca is that joint ownership of the land includes both the area within the current fence as well as the entirety of the parcel upon which the Farmers' Market now sits, commonly referred to as the Steamboat Landing site. As you know, at our May, 2008 meeting the City Engineer promised to provide more detail concerning the tax parcels and related information so that a more informed decision could be made. Lacking that information by August, 2008, 1 sent to you a fetter outlining the Town of Ithaca's position and reminding you that negotiations over the leasing of the Steamboat Landing site would of necessity involve the Town of Ithaca. Finally, on October 16, 2008, the Town was provided with the information promised by the City in May. Within a week a City committee — and subsequently Common Council — voted to approve an agreement with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency to contract with a lessee for the use of the Steamboat Landing site. Common Council also voted to unilaterally redraw the tax parcel lines in the area. Rushing the agreement through committee and Council within a few days of the Town's receipt of the promised information demonstrates little intention of a properly negotiated settlement of this matter. Therefore please be advised that unless the City is willing to agree that joint ownership with the Town of Ithaca includes both the current plant site and the Steamboat Landing site — and the City begins immediate action to effectuate that joint ownership — the Town of Ithaca is prepared to file Notices of Pendency since the title to real property is in dispute. Please respond immediately as to the City's willingness to change its position. I also request a meeting within the next month to discuss procedures to settle /9"\ this dispute. I suspect you share my desire to come to a negotiated settlement rather than a court-ordered one. Sincerely, eertan or CC: Common Council Ithaca Town Board Dan Hoffman Guy Krogh CITY OF ITHACA V :�t 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 y amop OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CAROI.YN K. PETERSON R�RAO 'Telephone: 607/274-6501 Fax: 607/274-6526 Herbert J. Engman, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 December 4, 2008 Re: Ownership of Sewage Treatment Plant Site Dear Herb: On December I", I received your letter dated November 26, 2008, regarding the above- referenced matter. Your letter indicates that copies were provided to Common Council r� members, but, as of last night, none(other than me) had received it. Your letter presents a partial account of the events of the past eight months, making it incumbent upon me to set the record straight for the Common Council and Town Board members who have now been drawn into this issue. As you know, in the 1970s the City was faced with replacing its aging sewage treatment plant, and the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden wanted to increase their capacity for sewage disposal. After much discussion and negotiation, the three municipalities decided to collaborate in the construction and operation of a new,much-improved sewage treatment plant. A formal Joint Sewer Agreement was signed by the municipal partners in 1981, and the new plant was constructed over the next several years. The City had acquired a large expanse of land to the south of Cascadilla Creek and east of the Cayuga Inlet, in a series of purchases over the course of many decades, stretching back to the 1930s or before. This land is on both sides of Route 13 (which highway was constructed in the early 1960s). The City used part of that land (on both sides of Route 13) for the location of its former sewage treatment plant (probably constructed in the 1940s). The intermunicipal partners decided that the new plant should also be located on this City-owned land. Various possible designs were considered, with the ultimate selection of a facility to be sited entirely on the west side of Route 13. The 1981 Agreement references a map (copy enclosed) that shows all of the City-owned land in this vicinity, "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." t� Page 2 and shows the proposed plant occupying what is described as"Parcel 4" (or"IV"),of five parcels demarcated on the map. In the Agreement,the parties state their intention that the City would contribute the land on which the new plant would be constructed, and would receive a"credit"for the fair-market value of that land(and of the buildings then on it, which would have to be demolished to make way for the new plant) in the calculation of each party's share of the total plant cost. In 1980, while the actual design and precise location of the proposed new plant were still under consideration, a local appraiser(Ed Austin)was retained to calculate the value of all of the City-owned land. The appraiser broke up the City holdings into five parcels, corresponding to those outlined on the enclosed map (and including a copy of that map in the appraisal report). The appraised value of Parcel 4 was $408,940,and that is the amount(rounded down to $400,000) for which the City received credit pursuant to the 1981 Joint Sewer Agreement(see Section 8 of the Agreement and its Appendix I—copies enclosed). Parcel 4 is the only part of the City-owned land in that vicinity that is mentioned in the Agreement. (The Agreement was amended in 1984 and 2003, and what was then Appendix I became Appendix III, but the references to Parcel 4 and the $400,000 credit amount were unchanged by those amendments.) On the enclosed map, you will see that immediately to the west of Parcel 4 is Parcel 5, which roughly corresponds to what is now known as the "Steamboat Landing"site (where the Ithaca Farmers Market is located). On this map,Parcel 5 is identified as "Potential Public Open Space and Recreational Area." As noted, Parcel 5 is not referred to in the 1981 Joint Sewer Agreement or the later, amended versions of the Agreement. (The sewer plant design was modified after the signing of the original Agreement,such that the plant, as built, actually occupies a slice of the easterly portion of what was shown as Parcel 5. Thus, what is now the fenced-in plant site is actually somewhat larger— probably by at least a couple acres- than the land for which the City received credit.) A lot has happened in the 27 years since the original Agreement was signed. The new sewer plant was built and it has operated very successfully ever since (under the careful oversight of what is now known as the Special Joint Committee, or SJC, and with personnel supervised by the City's Department of Public Works, Water and Sewer Division). The Ithaca Farmers Market lost its home in the late 1980s, and was desperate for a new long-term location. The Steamboat Landing site, west of the sewer plant,was then a foreboding, vacant wasteland, with a jumble of construction debris and uneven ground left over from the plant construction and from the filling in of the original Cayuga Inlet Channel, in the 1960s. The City decided to offer that site to the Market,and in 1989 entered into a 20-year lease with the Market. To our knowledge,there was never any objection—over the past 20 years -to that leasing, from the SJC or from either of the Town partners. As we all know, the Market has flourished at the Steamboat Landing site, becoming a vibrant economic and social asset for the City and the entire region. Page 3 On a darker note, the construction of the new plant made evident the fact that the site was heavily contaminated with coal tar left over from NYSEG's historical use of it for gasification. A large pile of contaminated soil was excavated and consolidated on the site and remains there to this day, awaiting remediation by NYSEG. For reasons that are unknown to me,title to the sewer plant was apparently never transferred from the City to the intermunicipal partnership, even though the Agreement was revisited twice when it was amended. We have found no evidence in our records of the Towns ever having raised the issue of ownership(prior to the current situation). The current lease with the Market ends on December 31, 2008. For the past year and a half, the City has been engaged in discussions and negotiations, with the intention of having a new lease for the Steamboat Landing site, for a producer-to-consumer market of locally-grown or crafted goods (and incubator of related local businesses), in place by the end of this year. From the beginning of that process, it has been the City's intention to lease the site to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, so that the agency can use its expertise in the field of economic development to select and work with an appropriate, qualified and eligible sponsor of such a market as a sublessee (rather than to rely on an otherwise-required highest-bidder situation). Furthermore, City negotiators (including our Superintendent of Public Works) have been very mindful of the possible future needs of the sewer plant, requiring that any future lease or sublease of the Steamboat Landing site incorporate terms that will allow immediate and unrestricted SJC access to the outfall pipeline for maintenance, repair or replacement(to be backed up by means of a permanent easement, if the plant site is conveyed into joint ownership), as well as the right to modify or terminate the lease or sublease in the event of an emergency situation involving the sewer plant, or if the plant needs to expand in the direction of the Steamboat Landing site in the future (a prospect deemed remote by our Superintendent). These protections go well beyond any such protections in the current lease with the Ithaca Farmers Market. In the course of our work on the new lease, the City Attorney (who was not in that position before 2006) discovered that the 1981 Agreement called for joint ownership of the plant site, and that the transfer of ownership had never been implemented. As soon as I found that out, in March of this year, I directed the City Attorney to inform you and the Dryden Town Supervisor, and to offer to effect the transfer,if the Towns still wanted that to happen. (A copy of the letter sent to you on March 11, 2008, is enclosed.) A meeting involving you, Mary Ann Sumner, the attorneys for both Towns and the City, and the City's Superintendent of Public Works ensued, on May 21, 2008. At that meeting, I was very surprised that your response to my disclosure and offer was to insist that the City should also transfer ownership of part or all of the Steamboat Landing site to the partners. Based on the language of the Joint Sewer Agreement and other evidence I had seen at that point, I did not understand the basis for your claim, and I asked you to �` explain and document it. (I am still waiting for that explanation.) Page 4 I also repeated my suggestion that the most sensible way to approach this situation was not to spend a lot of(the public's)time and money trying to figure out exactly what others intended 27 long years ago, but to recognize the"facts on the ground"at this time, to address the real needs of the sewer plant and to acknowledge and continue the City's custodianship of the Steamboat Landing site, as a"good neighbor"to the plant. Following that meeting,the City did more research into the subject, and came up with more documentation. You asked me to provide any such material to you, and I indicated that I would, if you would at the same time share with the City whatever evidence you had to support your position. (Please see attached copy of the email message sent to you on my behalf, on September 23rd, from the City Attorney. This message also makes clear the City's intention to continue to proceed in a timely way with the ongoing effort to lease the Steamboat Landing site to the IURA, for sublease to a farmers market. We never received a response from you to that message.) Another meeting among City and Town of Ithaca and Dryden representatives was scheduled for October 16th. To my surprise, you and the attorney for the Town of Ithaca came to that meeting with no new evidence or documentation to support your previous position. Nevertheless,I decided to share with you the exhaustive research that had been conducted by City staff, including at least a dozen documents, some of which dated back to the 1930s. In my opinion,the evidence assembled by the City clearly demonstrates that the parties' intention in 1981 was that the only land to be conveyed into joint ownership was the site actually occupied by the new sewer plant, and not the Steamboat Landing site (other than a right-of-way across it as needed, for the outfall pipe). At the end of the meeting, you and the attorney for the Town of Ithaca indicated that you would review the copies of materials we had presented, and get back to us. It is my understanding, since that meeting,that the Town of Dryden is satisfied with the interpretation and resolution proposed by the City. At the SJC meeting on November 12th, I presented the City's offer in written form, together with a preliminary survey map (prepared at the City's expense)showing the exact boundary of the land that would be transferred into joint ownership (which transfer would require new tax map boundaries)and the approximate location of a permanent easement(to the joint owners) for the outfall pipe. (Copies of letter and annotated map attached.) I asked for a decision within three months, as to whether the Towns want to proceed with the proposed transfer to joint ownership(notwithstanding the unremediated coal tar contamination). Frankly, I am puzzled by your letter of November 26th, in which you describe"the position of the Town." Whereas previously, by my understanding, you were claiming that joint ownership should extend only across the northerly part of the Steamboat Landing site (north of the tax parcel line as redrawn in 2006), now you are asserting that �` the entire Steamboat Landing site should be jointly owned. However,while you have Page 5 broadened the Town's claim, you still have provided no evidence to back it up, or to rebut the extensive material which the City (unilaterally)has shared with you, starting in March and continuing through the October meeting. As you know, I am a strong advocate of intermunicipal cooperation, particularly between the City and Town of Ithaca. Our 27 years of cooperation in creating and running a regional sewage treatment plant provide an excellent model for such cooperation,and it makes sense for the ownership of the plant to be shared as well. I hope that I am incorrect and that the communications from you on this matter are not as adversarial as they sound, and that the ongoing and nearly-completed efforts to continue the successful arrangement between the City and Farmers Market are not jeopardized. I am still awaiting an explanation and documentation of the logic and basis of your position. I am, as always, prepared to have more discussion, in hopes of resolving this matter. My only "condition"for such further discussion is that it be broadened beyond you and me (and our staffs), to include members of the Town Board and Common Council (who would presumably need to be involved in any resolution). If you are interested in such a meeting, please contact me at your earliest convenience,to begin consideration of possible dates and times. Sincerely yours, Carolyn K. Peterson Enc. Cc: Ithaca Town Board members (w/enclosures) Common Council Superintendent William J. Gray Daniel L. Hoffman, City Attorney -6- (i ) Such other expenses ordinarily connected with the construction and establishment of a joint wastewater treatment facility but specifically excluding the respective laterals and internal sewer systems of the participating municipalities . (j) Financing and interest costs. Section B . Pre-Agreement Costs The City of Ithaca shall receive a credit adjustment towards its share of capital costs for the land arid rl'�hts-of-way which it has acquired and now owns, and for the buildings thereon, (including equipment and apparatus) which are to be transferred from the present facilities now owned and operated by the City ,of Ithaca, to the project and the facilities which are to be jointly owned under this Agreement . The parties have agreed that the amount of the credit adjustment for land , buildings , equipment, and apparatus shall be the amounts set forth in Item 4 under the heading, "Anticipated Local Capital Costs" of Appendix 1 . The parties ave further agreed , that in addition to the aforementioned credit to the City for its contribution of land, equipment , buildings and apparatus toward the project , further credit will be allowed to the City for expenses that it incurre for the Plan of Study, the Maximum Efficiency Evaluation for Wastewater Treatment Facilities Report, and Step I work (exclusive of SSSS which is covered by a separate agreement) which has not otherwise been shared in by the other participating municipalities. The Town of Ithaca has provided a recording secretary and shall receive credit for such costs in support of the Sewer Service Planning Committee . Section 9. Financing - Capital Costs Each respective participating municipality shall be responsible for financing its respective share .of the Capital Costs . The participating municipalities may jointly or individually apply for Federal or State grants for all or a portion of their share of the project cost , whichever may be most advantageous to said municipalities. n i •r J. :. APPSMIX I TITLE Or*PROPE!'Ci'Y AND CAPITAL ODST APPORTIONhaNT All costs associated with new plant and site for the hypothetical first year NO-GAGc,M PLANP will be-apportioned by fixed percentages based on theprevious year flan records of contributions from respective municipalities and load factors for major industry and septage. The reserve capacity of the new plant and proportionate share of the site would be apportioned by fixed percentages based on growth projections for the respective municipalities for the year 2005 as indicated in the Facilities Plan and on additional load factors for major industry and septage. At the time the fixed percentage of reserve capacity is reached by any municipality or industry, additional capacity shall be made available as needed from the remaining deserve capacity. Each municipality or-industry i with remaining reserve capacity shall provide the needed capacity by a proportion equal to their remaining reserve capacity over the total remaining rpserve capacity and be reinbursed for same in "dollars of that year" i.e., future worth by the mulicipality requiring the additional capacity. Any reduction of flow values frau any entity, while not affecting the fixed percentages paid for the first year plant, will act as a credit for capacity to that , entity and always be used before additional reserve capacity. (See Scheme III for a wore detailed explanation). Scheme III is made a part of this Agreement. Capital improvements and equignent with a useful life in-.'excess of five years needed following the determination of the scope of the STEP II project shall be subject f to the approval of''each of the participating municipalities prior to initiation of..; such improvements or acquisition of such equipment. ANTICIPATED VOCAL CAPITAL ODSTS I -i- 1. 30 YE-AR BOtgDING PERIOD 2. INTEE9T RATE 9h8 3. LOCAL DING FOR NEW CON61'k2UG'L`ION - $4,300,000 4. LOCAL EXPEgSCS I,C?R EXISTING PIANP AND LAND a. Based on Edward W. Austin 6/80, Land Appraisals Parcel IV..............$206,500 LN $206,500 i i. . b. Based on Edward W. Austin 6/80, Land Appraisals American Appraisal 6/79, and Federal Dinding $286,000 x .50 = Facilities 1 f cn Parcel IV........$143,000 Remaining Debt non- Reusable Parts..... . ..... 50,500 BUILDINGS 193,500 ;LAND PLUS BUILDINGS TOTAL $400,000 5. PF4XTECT LDCAL OOST TOTAL...........$4,700,000 .q I y i' I I . 1 1 i 1 5'(? r' _� �511 P�Pixa= jg 11!1 pjj 11r. jJ111'14 kit r! I 1� 3 F` rr I 1! ••ao Jk 1111!c 424.oft $i \N 1 ! d mr '` $ 1-0 tib � •� M1 �► ta tee♦ ♦ ♦♦`\ ♦ a ♦ ♦♦moi �'y` � _ _ \ �r � ` � � . OF 1p TOWN OF ITHACA �10 21_ 215 N. Tiaga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Y04 \v\vw.town.ithaca.ny.us Town Supervisor(607)273-1721, Ext 125; HEngman@town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK(607)273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS (607)273-1656 ENGINEERING(607)273-1747 PLANNING(607)273-1747 ZONING(607)273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 December 5, 2008 JoAnn Cornish Acting Director, Planning and Development City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Cornish: The Town of Ithaca has not had time to prepare a total review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Water Supply project, but I have a few comments followed by those of our Town Director of Engineering, Dan Walker. There is a need for more clarity in the draft. For example on page 78, first full paragraph. it is stated that "Under- the purchase option it is likely that maintenance dredging of the Sixty-Foot Reservoir (for dam safety) (see section 2.6.2) will not be necessary." Yet on page 2 the Table E-1 leaves the impression, despite careful language, that dredging is equal under the two plans. I have had people tell me that the dredging activity and related costs would be the same under both options and that simply is not the case. The conclusion that "The costs of the two options are similar" (page 39, first bullet) is pci-plcxing. The paragraph goes on to state that the Rebuild Option has a capital cost of $23 million and the Purchase option $16 million. A difference of$7,000,000 hardly seems similar. Annual operating costs for the Rebuild Option are listed as $1.4 million and for the City's share under the Purchase Option as $1.9 million. How can a difference of$500,000 per year be considered similar? The next paragraph refers to other possible factors affecting the long-term calculations, but they are not made clear. In addition, potential pipeline construction cost savings by cooperating with the Towns of Ithaca and Lansing are not included in the fiscal analysis. The towns must replace the aging line along East Shore Drive and could contribute to costs of the City's new, bigger line. It is also not clear if Bolton Point's offer to spread the expansion costs of the plant among all its rate payers is part of the calculations. Green house gas emissions are discussed on page 114. There is no calculation given of the cumulative GHG for the Rebuild Option of electricity use, higher chemical use, dredging every three years, the at least weekly use of a vehicle for inspections, etc. Use of only the electrical usage for demonstrating GHG is misleading. Following are the comments of Dan Walker,Town of Ithaca Engineering Director: Options Evaluated The water supply options evaluated in the DEIS were limited to the rebuilding of a 6MGD city water treatment plant or purchase of water from the SCLIWC. The original water supply report by O'Brien and Gere included an additional option that consisted of the construction of a scaled back(3MGD) City water treatment plant to provide the city base flow needs and purchasing water from the SCLIWC plant during times of peak flow. This option should be reconsidered for the following reasons: 1. The option would provide more than adequate flow for the 60 percent of the city system that is served by gravity 2. The SCLIWC and the Town of Ithaca have constructed a 3 million gallon storage tank and increased transmission main capacity that could serve the city high level needs with minimal additional improvements. 3. The Town currently supplies the higher elevation service area on the west side of the city. 4. A smaller plant would require a smaller footprint and result in the production of less treatment residuals 5. Dredging of the reservoir for capacity would be less critical with a smaller daily demand 6. Provides the redundancy of a third regional plant. Impacts of Reservoir Maintenance The DEIS discussed the need for sediment removal in the reservoir to improve storage capacity and also for removal of silt near the dam for protection of the structural integrity of the dam. The conceptual dredging plan did not address removal of sediments directly adjacent to the dam. I think the Cost of the reservoir maintenance program was not fully addressed in the original cost analysis of the variable options and may have resulted in an underestimate of the rebuild option. The new storm water regulations required by NYSDEC and adopted by the Town will probably result in a more extensive and costly control system than has been anticipated by the current study information. We hope these comments are helpful. Since ly be J. n n OF rpt TOWN OF 1THACA 18 21 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 4�tp Yo4 ' www.town.ithaca.ny.us Town supervisor(607)273-1721, Ext 125;HEn manC town.ithaca ny us TOWN CLERK(607)273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS(607)273-1656 ENGINEERING (607)273-1747 PLANNING(607)273-1747 ZONING(607)273.1783 FAX(607)273-1704 December 16, 2008 Mayor Carolyn Peterson City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Carolyn: As I indicated in my most recent e-mail I look forward to another meeting to complete negotiations concerning the jointly-owned sewage treatment plant land. To clarify one point: the compromise I suggested at the last meeting is still on the table. The reason I reverted to stating that all of the Steamboat Landing site should be included in joint ownership was that the City's decision to redraw the tax parcels and to finalize the rental agreement with the Farmers' Market without further contact with the Town of Ithaca seemed to indicate that the City had rejected the compromise. I agree with your suggestion that we look at conditions on the ground today rather than try to decipher the intent of negotiators ?7 Vicars ago. That approach indicates to me that the joint ownership of approximately hal f-ilio Steamboat Landing site— to a point including the outfall pipe with an adequate buffer zone— is a reasonable solution to protecting the interests of all for the foreseeable future. It might be of use for you to see in expanded form the reasoning Guy Krogh and I presented at our last meeting. Below is the analysis that led us to believe that all of the Steamboat Landing site should have been transferred to joint ownership 27 years ago. None-the-less, we are prepared to suggest the compromise reiterated above. TOWN OF ITHACA ANALYSIS OF SEWER TREATMENT PLANT JOINTLY OWNED LANDS By Guy Krogh, Attorney for the Town of Ithaca I have, with some pain, concluded my review of four of the six volumes of the Facilities Plan, the construction prints, specifications, and diagrams, your files, the intermunicipal agreements and amendments thereto, and the miscellaneous memorandums, agreements, and commentary from various sources throughout ,. the years regarding this particular question. The only thing that I have concluded with certainty is that it is extremely difficult to assemble a 1,000 piece ,*a jigsaw puzzle with 200 or so pieces missing. However,it seems clear from my review of the information that,while the City has an argument that may be made, such argument does not carry much weight. I am more persuaded that the current plant location parcel and the whole of the Ithaca Farmers' Market Parcel were intended to be jointly owned. The City's recited history is somewhat convoluted and not persuasive in light of the facts and documents reviewed to date. First,the "additional land" referred to in the appraisal could not be the in-filled inlet watercourse to Cascadilla Creek. Not only was this land never a topic of discussion,but the maps and measurements used at the time that the appraisal was completed were all based upon the land as filled in—without reference to the same as that land had existed for years. This is why the reference to "additional land" refers to the Farmers' Market Parcel,not some in-filled creek run. The best that could be said is that that the acres of infill could account for the difference between the original assessment map of 10.74 and the later measurement of 12.47 acres, or maybe, as likely, that differential in acreage calculations is borne of the fact that the appraiser never had a survey done—he arrived at his numbers by use of the Assessment Records and backed-into the numbers by subtracting out land reported as sold to NYS for Parcel V;more on this later. Second, the Assessment Office changed the map to show that a portion of the Farmers' Market piece was included as part of the plant site,presumably because somebody (probably someone from the City,as they were the only ones looking into this until recently) relied upon an interpretation of the applicable drawings and the underlying agreements. They may have read the Appraisal as requiring Parcel IV and part of Parcel V (which it states) to be jointly owned, and based upon the location of the outfall pipe, they just drew a line to include the same. The Tax Map as currently drawn seems to reflect this interpretation,but obviously that line seems to be logically,not legally, drawn. Third, and finally, it is important to note two additional facts. First,the appraisal Report actually pre-dated the finalization of some of the documents set forth in the Facilities Plan. Therefore, the Appraisal Report was not determinative as to the shape of the property even though it reflects what people thought they were going to agree upon. Second, the argument about the money—why would the City give up something it didn't pay for—does not hold any weight upon close scrutiny. In fact, the $400,000.00 reference is completely fictional. That $400,000.00 was not based upon the appraised value. The appraised value of the land and facilities was closer to$600,000.00 because the final appraised value of ,�►� Parcel IV was$408,940.00 and the facilities values were$241,000.00. Instead they used only part of the appraisal analysis—the square foot value, to reflect what /10*41 the parties then believed was an accurate price given,presumably, the condition of the facilities and perhaps the fact that there was going to be some de- construction costs,which,ultimately,the City might have been wholly responsible for since it was their obligation to comply with the new regulatory requirements. Further, the number$400,000.00 did not really come into play until Dryden made a request relative to excess capacity and set forth an argument(see Dryden letter regarding George Schlect analysis—9/24/80) that put a$401,000.00 evaluation on the project. In other words, the money was never fixed or based specifically upon any one factor—it was negotiated. The fact that it happened to match out to something that was in the appraisal Report is a mere coincidence that was used in the Agreement to justify the number arrived at. For example, the 1980 Joint Sewer Draft had a value of $541,248.00,but by signing in 1981,this number had magically become $400,000.00. Therefore, I do not find the argument that the City did not receive its "fair consideration" persuasive at all. To give you an idea as to why I drew the conclusion that the Town's interests includes all of the Farmers Market Parcel,I would like to step you through my analysis in much the same way that Dan Hoffman stepped through his. I first review the 4 possessed volumes of the Facility Report. I note,however, that the Facilities Report references that there should be six volumes,with volume five being identified as the State SEQRA Review Documents. I do not know if they were later consolidated into four volumes,but certainly if there are two additional volumes, the City should allow us to review them. Volume One of the Facilities Plan does not have any relevant information on point. Volume Two has several interesting pieces of information. Pages 2-2 and 2-3 spell out that the idea was to prepare a plan of study for required treatment facility modifications. Page 2-4 describes the need for a Facility Plan Report. I note that these plans,together with appropriate cover letters and explanations, were delivered to the DEC in October of 1976 and the EPA in January of 1977. These delivery letters would be the useful to review. Page 2-4 states that the objective was to develop a cost effective means of upgrading and expanding the city of Ithaca sewage treatment plant. I note that page 2.7 references the 6 volumes and page 4.7 references various soil tests,which are later identified as having being done throughout both sites, all the way to the inlet,and all along all proposed outflow locations. I question why soil tests for siting the plant would r-�, have been done on soil the owners of the plant were never intended to own. This makes no sense and supports the conclusion that it was the whole of both Parcels /011-1 that were to be owned and so used (or usable, as we will later see). Volume 2,just after page 4-34, and at Figure 4.12 shows the existing site. The existing site is clearly depicted as the entire present facility site (what has been discussed as Parcel IV) and all of the Farmers' Market site, identified as Parcel V). This is important because this map exists throughout these various documents and the name of the map is repeated verbatim when describing the land. Volume 2 at page 5.1 is also instructive because it references very high growth rates as being in effect within the service area. Thus,the study envisioned phased construction. The language here suggests that they had their first phase of construction,largely the existing facilities as then drawn (and now built). Additional phasing occurs as shown in the construction drawings showing future site expansion locations within the existing footprint of Parcel IV. This was to reference the 2005 anticipated build-outs. Also referenced is the ability to expand into the additional the 6-7 acre parcel(the Farmers' Market Parcel (Parcel V) (mainly to meet the phasing and build-outs anticipated to meet 2035 needs). Page 6-52 spells this out more clearly as well. They reference the extent of city owned property on the northerly site (north of route 13—Parcels IV and V) showing that there is "ample room for expansion". It also states that the plan is to place everything on the northerly site-being, at that time, as shown by all of the maps as consisting of Parcel IV and Parcel V. This configuration is also consistent with the "Proposed Treatments Plant Site Layout",being figure 4.1 — the same map that shows up throughout the facilities plan, in the environmental review, and in the Appraisal Report. Page 6.3 again references the benefits of using the northerly parcel—because it has room for expansion and creates some open space and recreational areas along the waterfront that would be beneficial to residents. Page 6-63 is instructive to what was meant by "expansion." They built a facility in the 1980's that had on-site,meaning within the existing footprint,potential expansion that they anticipated would cover the needs of the municipalities through 2005;yet the entire site plan, including the Farmers' Market Parcel,was something that they considered that would provide adequate expansion capacity through 2035. Thus, figure 8.2 again shows the plant site layout. Again,this map as well covers the whole of the Farmers' Market Parcel, referencing it as "potential public open space and recreation area," thus completely agreeing with the statements made at pages 6-52,6-53, and 6-63. Volume III consists of the various Appendices referenced in Volume II. There is a reference in the Appendices that shows various cost allocations with the city ,�►� having 66%, the Town 23%, Dryden 3% and Cornell, 8%. This interestingly dovetails with the differential between the$600,000.00 numbers referenced in the /vok, appraisal and the $400,000.00 final number agreed upon in the 1981 draft (400k being approximately 66%of$600k). It also coincides with the$541,248 number from the 1980 draft and the final number of$400,000.00. This further explains that the number arrived at was based upon negotiations and not any single cold hard fact—such as the opinion of an appraiser. Volume IV largely consists of the environmental assessment statement. Figure 2- 16, showing the area of review, and of course,shows this same layout. Figure 4.1 provides the facility treatment plan site layout, and shows that the SEQRA was done on the entire site, meaning again,both the facility site and the Farmers' Market Parcel. The simple answer is that the SEQRA applied to the whole of the Farmers' Market Parcel as such a review was mandatory—it need not be so reviewed if it was not part of the site. It is also instructive to note that there were four proposed outfall locations. Two of which received the most serious consideration, and one of which,option C, was actually constructed. The outflow pipe for Option C runs smack-dab across the middle of the Farmers' Market Parcel,yet there is no easement relative to that pipeline. While the City may summarily argue that they didn't need to give themselves an easement,since they own both Parcels, the reality is that the easement would have been required if it was envisioned that one Parcel would be owned by three municipalities and one Parcel owned by the City. Further, to the extent that they are separate Parcels,even if owned by the same person,an easement should have still been created because there is still a dominant and a subservient estate. Easements appurtenant are not subject to the "doctrine of merger" when a benefited parcel survives. This conclusion that both Parcels were included is also supported by page 7-4 of Volume IV. There,the potential public open space and recreation area indicates that it could be utilized by the city and helps provide mitigation for impacts—in other words, an undeveloped portion that is saved for future expansion creates a built in "buffer"between the plant,its site impacts, and other impacts relative to the lake, the inlet,and the users of the lake. This analysis is further supported at page 11.1 when they were talking about "reserve commitments". Specifically, at item 1, they refer to "land committed" to new facilities and disposal area for sludge. This clearly implies that there is "additional land" since the existing footprint of the existing site was clearly not sufficient. This "additional land" comports with the "additional land" reference in the appraisal, and based upon the information in the SEQRA, included Parcel IV and all of Parcel V. I also examined the public hearing records. Page 8 makes that same reference to �•�•, the northerly property. All these references to the "northerly property" were never in dispute—they refer to all of what we've discussed as Parcel IV and �►, Parcel V—the City owned lands to the north. Page 9 describes that there is quite a bit of land unused which will provide an area for new units, including 5 to 7 acres for non-sewer uses. This five to seven acre area is, of course,the Farmers' Market Parcel. Further references to the "northerly property" occur at page 21, and frankly,are replete throughout the hearing. At page 58 they identified the firm of Haley & Aldrich. This company performed soil tests throughout the area and all across the Farmers' Market Parcel and the outfall routes. Again,why test soil when there is a question of ownership? The answer is that there was no such question. There is also much discussion about the gasworks building, as you and I both note, on page 63 and elsewhere. One matter that was being considered was saving the gasworks building as being of historical significance. There was discussion that if they wanted to save the gas works plant they could actually move the entire site farther north-onto Parcel V,being the Farmers' Market Parcel. This suggests, clearly, that Parcel V was within the proposed Treatment Plant Site as confirmed by Figure 4.1 and every other drawing throughout the documents reviewed. An examination of the appraisal shows a number of important things,but only one thing can be clearly concluded. This appraiser did not do any actual surveying and did not do a substantial amount of on-site measurements. He specifically states that he relies on assessment map records for purposes of calculating square footage. We have all identified that the assessment records, and the square footage records, are historically inaccurate in this area. The appraiser never discloses what portion of Parcel V was already added to Parcel IV's evaluation. Similarly, the size of Parcel V was arrived at by looking at the assessment maps and subtracting out what was reported as sold to New York State. Despite these inherent inaccuracies,perhaps explaining the need for price negotiation,the Appraiser adopts that same Figure 4.1 as the Treatment Plant Site Layout. He describes Parcel IV as all of Tax Parcel 24.-1-1 and part of Tax Parcel 23.-1-1 (now the Farmers' Market Parcel). Given Outfall pipe C,this clause explains the change at the assessment office relative to part of the Farmers' Market Parcel. The Appraiser describes Parcel IV as being bounded by a creek on the northeast (Cascadilla Creek),a railroad on the south (not really helpful since the railroad was relocated when route 13 was re-routed) and estimated it as being approximately 12.47 acres. He also describes Parcel V as the remainder of Tax ,*•� Parcel 23-1-1 after adding part to create Parcel IV. As noted, this is not helpful— we do not know what was added, or whether it was added before or after the 12.47 acre measurement is applied to Parcel IV. Furthering such confusion, Parcel V is described as having the inlet to the west, Cascadilla Creek to the north, and New York State land on the southwest. Obviously,he does not accurately describe what portion is going to be added to Parcel IV since he described all of 23-1-1 in that description—yet,part of that Parcel was added to Parcel IV, so the boundaries could not have been as he describes. Hence,the only conclusion is that he was describing the Parcels as then existed, and not the Parcels as evaluated. If you analyze his values on page 17,20 and 23,you will note that he did evaluations based on square footage, a facility evaluation, and a final appraised value. It is clear that the parties did not use the final appraised value; they used the square footage valuation, and then negotiated from there. I note with interest that he put a combined value of Parcel IV and V of$627,400.00,which is not the sum of Parcels IV and V based on his final individual appraised values. I have no clue where that number came from,except perhaps the thought that a larger parcel may have a larger net value. It is interesting,as noted,to again note the relationship between 66% and $627k as nearing the$400k number finally agreed upon. Again, the$400k credit did not come from the square footage calculation, but from negotiations. The recitation of the square footage value was a convenient mathematical model that fit well,but it was not what actually occurred relative to how they all arrived at that $400k number. The contract drawings at G-6 show the same map as every other map—Parcel IV and V as being included. Now we get to the joint sewer agreement. Section 3 describes title to the property as being the "Treatment Plant Site" plus all referenced right of ways per Appendix 1. Appendix 1 is that same map as Figure 4.1,which is all of Parcel IV and all of Parcel V. It is important to note that the "treatment plant site" language is the same as used throughout all of these documents when referring to where the plant is going to be built. That term referenced the land upon which the plant will be situate—the two lots shown upon all the maps. Further verifying these points is the 1980 draft that preceded the signed 1981 agreement. This draft has two key and telling distinctions. First,the original price set upon as the amount of credit due the City was $541,248.00 - the value on the 1980 Appendix 1. This varies substantially from the 1981 final agreement, thus perhaps verifying that price was negotiated. Secondly,the 1980 agreement also notes that Parcel IV was only 50% in use—it is unclear if this references the existing facilities or the planned facilities with Parcel IV being expanded to include part, or all of, Parcel V. I have also referenced the 9/24/80 request by Dryden which introduced the approximate $400,000.00 number that was ultimately agreed upon. The 1984 Amendment did not contain any substantive changes relative to this issue,except the ownership clause was simplified. In 1996, there is an interesting city memo dated 12/9/96 from the then City Attorney to the Mayor identifying that there is a controversy regarding the parties' capital contributions and the fact that the transfer of the plant/site did not take place. Beyond this 1996 analysis, it does not appear as if anything happened until 2003 when an Amendment was adopted. This 2003 Amendment, however, did not solve the problem, as we all well know, though it did adopt the same Facility Plan as the original 1981 signed agreement. That concludes the analysis of the documents that have been,to date,made available to me. It seems clear from the construction diagrams, the four volumes of the Facilities Plan that are possessed,the Appraisal, and the parties Agreements, that they are all describing the treatment plant site layout. The descriptions of the buffer zones,the expansion areas, the additional six to seven acre parcel,etc., all point to the fact that it was clearly intended that the parties would jointly own both Tax Parcel 24.4-1 (Appraisal Parcel IV) and Tax Parcel 23-1-1 (Appraisal Parcel V). I think the analysis above adds to the historical record of the fascinating, but long- overdue for solution, issue of the joint ownership of the sewage treatment plant land. I hope that our next meeting can focus on a compromise and not a rehash of that history. Sincerely, r V et J. Ema ng Town Supervis �� a * RECEIVED; i DEC 2 A 2000 ySU� Town of Ithaca "town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION THREE 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 132©2 www.nysdot.gov CARL F. FORD, P.E. ASTRID C. GLYNN REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER December 18, 2008 Ms. Karen Billings Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Billings: RE: REQUEST FOR LOWER SPEED LIMIT ON BUNDY ROAD Thank you for your December 10 letter and petition requesting a lower speed limit on Bundy Road between Hopkins Road and Sheffield Road. A formal investigation will be conducted at the subject location. To carry out the Department's initiative to be more responsive to our customers, we encourage you to submit any information which may be helpful in our investigation. This may include letters from the public, accident data, maps, etc. This information should be submitted to my office at the above address. Please be aware that our review requires sufficient field investigation and analysis to assure a proper response. Upon completion of the investigation, you will be notified of the results and our determination. Please use the attached TE9a form for future speed limit requests on local (Town and County) highways. The only change is elimination on "Gentlemen:" from the salutation. Ms. Karen Billings December 18, 2008 Page 2 Your interest in this matter is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, DIANA L. GRASER,P.E. --v- Regional Traffic Engineer Attachment cc: W. Sczesny, County Highway Manager H.J. Engman, Town Supervisor W. Burbank, County Legislator,District 12 O n TOWN OF ITHACA ,e 2' 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y, 14850 �zw y0! t www.town.ithaca.ny.us Town Supervisor(607)273-1721, Ext 125: HEnqman@1own.ithaca.ry..us TOWN CLERK(607)273-1721 PUBLIC WORKS(607)273-1656 ENGINEERING (607)273-1747 PLANNING(607)273-1747 ZONING(607)273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 December 22, 2008 Mary Raponi 341 Coddington Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Raponi: Thank you for your letter of December 11. The reason I did not get back to you previously was that my inquiries seemed to lead to dead ends and I had nothing to report. You letter sparked some new avenues of inquiry and I have answers to offer now. logo`, I checked the standard form used to respond to returned check payments. I could not find any objectionable language. Is it the bolding of one sentence that is bothersome? If you still have your letter perhaps you could send a copy explaining the parts YOU find offensive. Town staff dug deeper into the question of a $10,000 payment for the right of way Por the water tower. It turns out that while the $10,000 payment was initially '.L111-ested, the final arrangement was for the Town to prepare the documents and provide: s}4,istance on subdividing the lot into three parcels. The Town prepared a map, made the application and prepared the SEQR for the subdivision and the Town waived the application fee for the subdivision as compensation for the easement. Therefore, these services were accepted instead of an actual payment. I hope this clarifies some of the confusion. Sincerely, e ert J. ng Town Supervi r