HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2017-05-22 Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board
May 22, 2017
Agenda
1. Deer Management Recommendations —Conservation Board
2. Route 96B Pedestrian Study Final Report
3. Review process for water bill inquiries
4. Discuss and consider joining an amicus brief regarding CAFO's
5. Committee Reports
a. Codes and Ordinances
i. Signs and Murals
b. Planning
ii. Short term rentals
c. Budget
d. Personnel and Organization
e. Public Works
f. Other—Acknowledge Ethics Forms
6. Review June Agenda
7. Consent Agenda
a. Approve Town Board Minutes
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract
c. Accept Park Foundation Grant 17-048
8. Consider Executive Session
9. Adjourn
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
1, Paulette Rosa, being duty sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town oflthaca, Tompkins
County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of"the 'I I own Clerk of
the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the, official newspaper, 111taca Journal.
[-1ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE
f.)TICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
El NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL
11 NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST
ORDER
Sign and Mural laws
Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: TOW0 OfIth"a
Town Clerk's Office NotIC00i 0*4611,c FleorfV104
The lthacal'owfl rioard'Will
215 North Tioga Street hjold a rneetiog or,jkjj)e, 12,
2017 at Town f4all, 215 N.
Ithaca, NY 14850 Tioga S't,, Itha"11 Nay bF
ning at 5,30 pjy). regar ing
proposed,
Town website at ww8x.twvn.itfiaca.n AIS Local Law ftevisln5) the
................ ............... Town Of Ith %S1 n peovi-
,llc� , owl
Sion's by Dcfl.t�lj
Ithaca Code �1-jj I(j apker r221,Of
and by 40100,
sj�ro provislon� to and A60-
,91 Town
Date of Posting: 5/23/201.7 27 1 0; "Z0f1VhW' and (t1h a
271I'ZojiinqSf-)016,al
Date of Pu ation: 6/1/2017 Ue'Distticts"
'raj Pr6vlskMr tO
ter 270 "Z10
.................... .....- ..... . ...................... ......................
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of
2017.
Notary Public
S P,T w Yo r k
o. 01 KE s0 2 5,07 3
0rjaflfled an ch uyiar (,-;ounty
Corn,iniss'aon, Expres May 17, 20
Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board
May 22, 2017
Minutes
Board Members Present: Bill Goodman, Supervisor; Rod Howe, Deputy Town Supervisor;
Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, and Pamela Bleiwas
Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement;
Mike Solvig, Director of Finance, Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Paulette Rosa,
Town Clerk; and Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent
1. Deer Management Recommendations —Conservation Board
Mr. Goodman noted that this report was requested by the Town Board two years ago and he
thanked the Conservation Board for their work on it.
Mr. Roberts and Mr. Hamilton were present and Mr. Roberts reviewed the report and took
questions and comments from the Board.
Mr. DePaolo had a question about the population or herd density figure given and Mr.
Roberts responded that the math is a little off, but the number of deer per square mile is
accurate. Mr. Hamilton added that the question shouldn't be how many deer we should or
shouldn't have, but what are the deer doing? The deer are over-browsing and the natural
forests are being depleted so we do not recommend counting the deer, we recommend
looking at the natural areas and seeing the damage and acting on that. Mr. Roberts agreed,
saying that is a much more important aspect to focus on rather than the number of deer in an
acre; what are the effects. Mr. DePaolo responded that you still have to connect that so some
kind of measurable number and the numbers are in the report for a reason; some sort of
animal management program would have some kind of target numbers to quantify results.
Discussion followed with Mr. Roberts and Mr. Hamilton discussing other ways to measure
such as the cases of Lyme disease, car accidents and regeneration of forest growth.
Ms. Hunter asked about the agricultural losses referenced and if it is correct that farmers can
get nuisance permits to take as many deer as they want and Mr. Roberts responded that yes,
they can pretty much take whatever they want.
Mr. Roberts turned back to the presentation slides, and said what he heard from the other
municipalities that have deer management programs is the safety aspect of any culling
program and the report recommends using trained, licensed archers over corn bait which are
carefully prepped in advance for optimal shooting lanes for the safest program. The arrows
are shooting down through clear lanes with a 95%retrieval rate of any wounded deer needing
to be tracked. The locations would be town-owned or resident granted. The area programs
TB 2017-05-22 pg. 1
have had no issues once they were up and running. Not everyone is against deer
management.
There was some discussion about whether SEQR would be needed and Mr. Roberts said it is
important not to refer to this as hunting, since shooting deer over a baited trap is not hunting.
Mr. Goodman assumed there would need to be a SEQR if town property were to be used.
Ms. Hunter asked more about who would do this type of thing and Mr. Roberts responded
that there are advantages to having a municipal-lead program over increased general permits
because particular locations can be selected as well as professional and vetted shooters can be
hired. One of the decisions the board needs to make is whether to use private or public lands
or a combination of both.
Ms. Leary asked about the subcommittee idea and wondered why the Conservation Board
would not take the lead on this and Mr. Roberts responded that he is against that because
there are not enough people with enough knowledge on the Conservation Board and Mr.
Hamilton added that they are an advisory board and as elected officials who collect a salary,
the board needs to do something about this. He stated that the town really needs the people
with a job to do something about this as part of their job. He thought this should be
considered part of making the town a healthy and happy place as part of the board's job and
the Conservation Board has studied the heck out of this for years at the Town Board's request
and the issue is not going away and something needs to be done. Mr. Roberts again said that
after talking with other municipalities who do deer management, he has an idea of who
should be on the committee to move forward; there are good people out there at the State
level to run this type of program at little cost.
Mr. Howe asked if we did do a committee to review the recommendations and administer the
ones we wanted, which he was in favor of, they may also come up with other ideas based on
this report? Mr. Roberts responded that yes, they can use the report and recommendations
but it does need to be fleshed out even more. Mr. Hamilton spoke up saying this has been
going on for 14 years and places that are doing programs are seeing a reduction in effects and
our natural areas are becoming the sanctuaries for the deer.
Mr. Goodman asked if the City was doing anything or interested in doing anything and Mr.
Roberts responded that there seemed to be some interest but he had not heard back.
Mr. Howe stated that he lives in Forest Home and he has seen much fewer deer in the recent
past and it must be from what Cornell is doing. Mr. Roberts agreed, saying Cornell and
Cayuga Heights have and continue to run programs.
Mr. Goodman asked if there were any further questions and stated that he would like to see if
there is interest in forming the Deer Management Committee to get suggestions on spending
town funds on this.
Members were interested in moving forward to the next step. Mr. DePaolo asked what the
probability of a program's success being hinged on our connecting towns also participating
TB 2017-05-22 pg. 2
and Mr. Roberts responded that the town has a large chunk of refuge type areas for the deer
and he thought the town is kind of the center of the problem because of that. There are fewer
hunters or hunting areas because of suburban development, yet enough of a nature like area
to attract the deer with abundant food and shelter.
Mr. DePaolo commented by addressing Mr. Hamilton, stating that it is clear that he is
enthusiastic about implementing this program, and he thought that personally, he had an
aversion to having certain dramatic actions sanitized holistically and would prefer not to
continue to use words like"take" and "manage" and"harvest" and just call it what it is,
which is killing a large number of animals. He said that to the extent that we can be honest
about what it is, then maybe we cannot get into a situation where we are trying to wish it into
the cornfield; there are some serious ramifications of doing this. He thought they
downplayed the number of people that are against this type of deer management and he could
not imagine what the repercussions would be if a deer were wounded and ran into a residents
back yard and was clearly suffering. He said those are the types of situations he does not
want to see or hear about, and they are quite possible.
Mr. DePaolo said his final question is a rhetorical question; we have a lot of problems in the
town and a lot of health problems... what are we doing to cure cancer or any number of
things that need attention and resources? We have decided that the deer is the answer and so
are we going to eradicate white-footed mice too? Where does it stop? Where do we decide
that the focus on one area, or how do we decide that focusing on one area of a large and
complicated eco-system is enough to solve the problem? We have decided there are too
many of them and we are going to kill them... there are too many people, are we going to kill
them too? We have decided that there are too many deer and that is problematic... are there
too many house cats that are killing the birds and we are going to kill the house cats? Where
does it stop? He stated that everyone in his family has had Lyme disease and been treated
successfully so he thought the Lyme issue, although potentially problematic, is something of
a red herring; it is not a fatal disease and is treatable and curable. It is problematic and he has
family who have chronic symptoms, but he didn't know if they would want deer being shot
in response to that. He stated that has an issue with it in that it is arbitrary in nature in that
we are going to concentrate on the deer so our flowers can grow and somehow this is going
to solve our problems and no matter what the neighboring municipalities chose to do or not
do, is beyond our control so he is dubious as to the long-term success of the proposal, but
more importantly to him, he wants it referred to as what it is, instead of the squeaky clean
way it is being presented.
Ms. Leary said there are a lot of problems with a lot of things but the other municipalities
near the town have had these programs and they are not as effective as they could be because
the town isn't participating. She thought we should decide whether or not we want to pursue
this one instead of some other random problem. It effects humans and the ecosystem of other
animals who use forest cover so it is not just us and our gardens. She stated that she thought
that as far as deer not being killed right away, she thought Cornell had pistols that some of
the archers were equipped with to solve that problem.
TB 2017-05-22 pg. 3
Mr. DePaolo responded that we should discuss at the next meeting and he is not against it per
se, but it is clear that the report was entered into to justify the outcome and the intensity of
the presentation and Mr. Hamilton's approach is that the project is being sold instead of a
presentation of a report that is supposed to be reviewed and thought about and discussed with
the other policy makers.
Ms. Bleiwas stated that she did not think we should compare ourselves to Cornell at all given
that Cornell is private property with greater resources, so they can spend money to have a
sharp shooter nearby but it is hard to compare us to Cornell.
Ms. Bleiwas also said she still had a couple of problems with the report in that her question
last time about how do we know it's a problem still hasn't been answered. The map with all
the points is not the town of Ithaca and that is her concern, not about the state of New York
or Texas or the other places on the map. She is worried about the town of Ithaca and maybe
to some extent, the County of Tompkins. If we know what is going on in the county and can
extrapolate for the town of Ithaca, maybe that would be useful, but the report does not answer
the main question; before I kill anything, I want to know that it is a problem for people and
businesses. She added that she respects that it is hard to get, but don't come back with "it's a
problem, trust me." It seems that the Conservation Board is trying to sell something you
decided from the get go and she was curious who on the board fought against this idea?
Where was the competition of ideas or the people who said this isn't a good idea or this
would be better if we did it this way.... Or was it a bunch of people getting together saying
we are all in agreement, let's see how other people do it and do it that way.
Mr. Bleiwas addressed Mr. Goodman saying that she is not against forming a committee to
look at the report but her questions have not been answered and maybe the new committee
can look at that but right now she is not buying the program.
Mr. Goodman stated that there were enough people interested in continuing the discussion
and it would be on the June 8t'meeting agenda.
Mr. Roberts added that he was not even interested in this topic until he started working on
this report for the Conservation Board, but the report does come from the compilation of
facts and he worked hard to get local data, of which there isn't much, but he worked hard to
extrapolate what he could by pulling in the most local data he could. He said it is not just us
trying to answer the question but the full report does have what local data is available.
Added Item—Discuss and consider approval of Energy Benchmarking Requirements for
certain municipal buildings —Nick Goldsmith
Mr. Goodman summarized saying that this is the NYSERDA Clean Energy Communities
program where if we get four out of ten of the high-impact items, we can qualify for some grants
that are a first-come first-serve basis so there is a time issue. Adopting this policy will be our
fourth.
TB 2017-05-22 pg. 4
Mr. DePaolo asked about the definition in the Policy/Procedure and it was explained that this
would only apply to the buildings that have electricity to them and meet the 1,000 sqft. Pump
houses and the like do not fall under this program.
TB Resolution 2017- 063: Establishing Energy Benchmarking Requirements For Certain
Municipal Buildings
Whereas, buildings are the single largest user of energy in the State of New York. The
poorest performing buildings typically use several times the energy of the highest performing
buildings—for the exact same building use; and
Whereas, collecting, reporting, and sharing building energy data on a regular basis allows
municipal officials and the public to understand the energy performance of municipal buildings
relative to similar buildings nationwide, and equipped with this information the Town of Ithaca
is able to make smarter, more cost-effective operational and capital investment decisions, reward
efficiency, and drive widespread, continuous improvement; and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan contains the recommendation to
"Ensure municipal buildings and facilities act as a model of good energy efficient practices.
Track energy usage on a regular basis. Conduct energy audits and implement recommended
upgrades;" and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Town Board desires to use Building Energy Benchmarking
- a process of measuring a building's energy use, tracking that use over time, and comparing
performance to similar buildings - to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by making
available good, actionable information on municipal building energy use to help identify
opportunities to cut costs and reduce pollution in the Town of Ithaca; and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca currently collects energy use data for all facilities on a
monthly basis, and enters energy benchmarking data for certain Town facilities into Portfolio
Manager; and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Town Board desires to establish a more formal procedure or
guideline for Town staff to conduct such Building Energy Benchmarking; now therefore be it
Resolved, that the Town Board hereby adopts the Building Energy Benchmarking
Policy/Procedures.
Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: Ayes—Hunter, Howe, DePaolo, Goodman, Bleiwas, Leary and Levine
2. Route 96B Pedestrian Study Final Report
Mr. Ritter gave a brief background on the project saying that this project started in 2015 with a
steering committee made up of the town, city and Ithaca College with public outreach and
TB 2017-05-22 pg. 5
stakeholder meetings and an online survey. This report was also to help go after grant money
which we have done.
The simple part of the report is that they propose from King Rd to the City line and an alternate
from King Rd to South Hill Business Campus and wait for Chainworks with both being on the
East side of the road. In addition, there was a recommendation to reduce the travel lanes from 12
feet to 11 feet and reduce the 8 foot shoulder; to create a bigger buffer and make the road feel
more suburban than urban.
Another recommendation is a sidewalk from Ithaca College to the City line with the existing 9
foot lane becoming the sidewalk.
Some discussion followed with Ms. Ritter saying that the DOT is not in favor of any reduction in
size of the road but maybe the next wave of staff will be so it shouldn't be ruled out.
Ms. Hunter had questions about what we are favoring at this moment and when the actual design
is supposed to happen. She is in favor of as much separation from the traffic as possible for
pedestrians and cyclists. Ms. Ritter responded that the study did not really talk about cyclists and
she felt that until Rte. 96B needs some work done to it, we are not going to be able to do any
changes to the road itself, so we will need to focus on the sidewalk for this particular grant. Ms.
Hunter wanted to make sure the board is involved with the design and approval. She did not
want the sidewalk right against the road. Ms. Ritter clarified that this is from the college to the
city line but she would definitely have that conversation with the designer(s) and her.
Mr. DePaolo added that DOT does not seem to be in favor of narrower roads; Coddington Rd
wanted 9 foot and got 11 foot because it is a feeder road. Some discussion followed and we will
try to get what we want, but it may be an uphill battle.
Ms. Ritter noted that this concludes the contract with DHA for the study and report and we
continue to apply for grants to study the Route 96 toward the hospital and any other monies
available for sidewalks or sidewalk reviews.
3. Review process for water bill inquiries
Mr. Goodman referred to an email from a resident outlining a billing question and stated that
these are the types of issues we get and he wanted to make sure the full board was comfortable
with him handling these. The practice has been that Mr. Solvig and the he research and discuss
with Bolton Point and then make a decision on an individual basis whether to give a refund on
the Town's portion of the charges. He added that he was hoping there would be fewer and fewer
with the new meters that were installed. Mr. Solvig added that in the past self-read method, the
most common is people misreading their meters or not reading them at all and now that is moot.
Others are for large bills due to leaks or burst pipes and with the new system an alarm is
triggered for BP to contact the owner.
The Board was in favor of his continuing to make these types of decisions. Ms. Rosa noted that
any email or written request addressed to the Town Board would continue to go out to the full
Board.
TB 2017-05-22 pg. 6
4. Discuss and consider joining an amicus brief regarding CAFO's
Mr. Goodman gave an overview stating that the DEC issued a permit for CAFO's and they are
being sued as listed in the resolution. The Board was in favor of joining with limited questions
focused on how many were in the Town of Ithaca with the answer being none and focused on
water quality. Ms. Hunter is familiar with the topic and felt it was not aggressively against
farmers or agriculture. There is no cost to the Town for this.
TB Resolution 2017-064: Authorization to loin, and for the town supervisor to sign a
retainer agreement for: an application to request amicus curiae status in the matter of
Riverkeeper, Inc.; Cortland-Onondaga Federation of Kettle Lake Associations, Inc., Sierra
Club; Theodore Gordon Flyfishers, Inc. and Waterkeepre Alliance, Inc.,v. Basil Se22os in
his capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca(hereafter"Town Board")is concerned
about the impacts on its community of the recently adopted Clean Water Act General Permit for
CAFOs; and
Whereas, EarthJustice has filed a petition challenging the aforementioned General
Permit; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will seek amicus curiae status in
the matter of Riverkeeper, Inc.; Cortland-Onondaga Federation of Kettle Lake Associations, Inc.,
Sierra Club; Theodore Gordon Flyfishers, Inc. and Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc., v. Basil Seggos in
his capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and seek consent
of the court to submit an amicus curiae brief, and be it further
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will retain the Columbia
Environmental Law Clinic to provide legal services to the Town in connection with the
preparation and submission of the amicus curiae brief, and be it further
Resolved, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to sign the retainer letter with
the Columbia Environmental Law Clinic for such legal representation services.
Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: Ayes —Hunter, DePaolo, Leary, Levine, Howe, Goodman and Bleiwas
Added Item Discuss and consider approval of fee schedule for before and after normal
work hour inspections
Mr. Goodman explained that normally this would go through a committee process but Ithaca
College has requested after-hours inspections for sprinklers and we can change our fee schedule
by resolution. Mr. Bates stated that he researched other municipalities and then took the Code
Officers overtime wage with benefits and came up with the suggested cost.
TB 2017-05-22 pg. 7
Ms. Hunter asked about unintended consequences such as Maplewood asking for inspections and
Mr. Bates responded that they are under Planning Board conditions to work certain hours and
what prompted this was a need for a specialized inspection that he couldn't do and would
therefore cost the town so he suggested this change.
TB Resolution 2017 -065: Addition of fee for before and after normal work hours
inspections to the Town of Ithaca Fee Schedule
Whereas, Local Law 19 of 2009 established the setting or amending of Fees by Town
Board resolution, and
Whereas from time to time inspections required by the Town's Code Department and
cannot be scheduled during normal workhours (normal workhours are �/z hour before and �/z hour
after Sam to 4:30 pm Monday thru Friday, except holidays).
Whereas the Director of Code Enforcement is in favor of allowing for these type of
scheduled inspections with the Director's approval, and has suggested the following after
reviewing the cost of these inspections to the town.
Inspections before or after normal working hours -- $150 an hour/2 hour minimum
followed by �/z hour increments
(fee includes standard lhr. travel time)
Inspections on Holidays -- $200 an hour/2 hour minimum,
followed by �/z hour increments
(fee includes standard lhr. travel time)
now therefore be it;
Resolved, that the Ithaca Town Board approves the addition to the Town of Ithaca code
Enforcement's fee schedule to include before and after work hours inspections authorized by the
Director of Code Enforcement as noted above.
Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter
Vote: Ayes —Levine, Hunter, Goodman, Howe, DePaolo, Bleiwas and Leary
5. Committee Reports
Codes and Ordinances
Signs and Murals —Mr. Goodman stated that he wanted to give everyone one last time
for comments or changes before the public hearing in June. The Board had none.
Planning
Short term rentals —Mr. DePaolo stated that he was not reporting on the short term
rentals but rather the rental property oversight related to accessory apartments and owner-
TB 2017-05-22 pg. 8
occupancy provisions and operating permits. The committee has decided that it has reached the
point where we have a first draft to send to the full board and determine where we go from here.
The idea is to require owner-occupancy of primary units that are associated with accessory
apartments in all zones except high-density zones. The committee is asking to establish owner-
occupancy by requiring 6 months and a day residence with a one year period every five years to
vacate the premises and rent both to allow for such things as sabbaticals or other needs.
There are oversight provisions and bringing local real estate agents into the mix by asking them
not to sell or rent properties without an operating permit to foster communication between the
seller and the renter. The violations are bumped up and judicial discretion removed so penalties
are set and hopefully a deterrent.
The question now is whether to have counsel look at it first or the board. Mr. Goodman
reminded the board that the moratorium expires the end of July and it would be good to have this
ready for that.
Mr. DePaolo added that the owner-occupancy can easily be incorporated but the operating
permits might take some time so a rollout date would have to be decided upon.
Ms. Hunter stated that she thought we were going to talk to people and get input from residents
other than during a public hearing. Some discussion followed with Ms. Hunter asking for a
broader outreach through the local Landlords' Association.
Ms. Rosa spoke as a resident, saying that if she did not work for the town, she would have had
no idea that an "in-law apartment" or accessory apartment would be illegal if it was the full size
of her basement which is the same size as her house, or that if she moved out it would become
illegal in the future for her to rent out the apartment as well as knowing about the need for an
operating permit. She thought it would be unfortunate to find that out at a crucial time such as
when selling and that many of the "average"; she thought it was well known maybe on East Hill
and South Hill because of the colleges, that the town is working on regulations and there are
issues with rentals, but probably not so much in other areas of the town and outreach is
important.
Mr. DePaolo also reported that there is some legislation at the State level regarding short term
rentals that is being pushed by the hospitality businesses so more to come on that. It is severely
limiting and endeavoring to level the playing field between hotels/motels and AirB&Bs.
Mr. DePaolo added that the committee did talk about what time frame to require for owner-
occupied while still meeting the needs for homecomings, graduations etc. while not making a
business out of it. Accommodate demand without sanctioning a business opportunity for taking
housing stock and making it short term rentals.
Mr. Goodman added that he is meeting with the Renwick Heights group on June 14th at 4:30.
Mr. DePaolo and Ms. Leary said they would join him. Mr. Goodman would also like to hold the
special meeting June 19th to hear from both sides of the short term rental spectrum.
TB 2017-05-22 pg. 9
Ms. Ritter added that she discussed this at the committee and with the East Hill plans gearing up,
it would really help to get moving on the Form Based code and we need some additional voices
in looking at what Cornell is proposing and help us with our Form Based Code draft(s). The
local people first and then some more national critique by another group. There are national
firms that are doing this now as opposed to coming in and writing the Code. Some discussion
followed and the board was in favor of getting additional help and the best help available.
Ms. Ritter added that at the recent training and she heard such horror stories but at the end they
said it is worth it to do this, but it is a challenge. They said to tell our elected officials that we
will adopt a Form Based Code and then you will be back to fix it with amendments.
Mr. Goodman added that Cornell's developers do plan to hold charrettes in June.
Budget --Mr. Levine reported that they discussed mortgage and sales tax collections which are
up a bit and started on the 5 year capital plan. Next meeting will be focusing on the staffing plan
for 2018 with the 5-year capital plan scheduled for a study session for full board discussion.
Mr. Goodman added that he would like to talk about having a$500K limit on the road work to
match the tax amounts collected so we do not bond for that type of work. Ms. Leary stated that
there was some discussion on raising that amount and Ms. Hunter thought it might be a benefit to
have the yearly field trip do a guided tour of the roads and what needs fixing and how that is
determined and so forth.
Mr. Solvig added that it looks like Bolton Point will be revising their water rate schedule and that
may have some effect on our bottom line.
Personnel and Organization—Ms. Bleiwas reported that they reviewed the IT security
associated with the recent audit and will involve updating policies and training. They discussed
making recommendations to the City regarding the Board of Fire Commissioner's concerns and
it was decided that Mr. Goodman would write a letter for the board to review and then submit.
In the personnel side, the committee discussed the 5-year staffing plan with a focus on 2018 to
send recommendations to the Budget Committee. There are two FTE's at Public Works and a
new admin assistant for Codes and these were moved to Budget Committee.
The ERC and Personnel discussed the washer and dryer request from DPW but there really isn't
a place for it right now. Uniforms have been considered in the past with employees choosing a
clothing allowance instead.
The Ithaca Beer social was well attended and the picnic is now on the last Friday of July to avoid
some conflicts so July 28th.
Public Works -- Mr. Howe reported there was no meeting in May
TB 2017-05-22 pg. 10
Other —Acknowledge Ethics Forms —Ms. Rosa reported that the forms have been
submitted and a meeting will be scheduled, but there were very few changes.
Sidewalk Group—Mr. Goodman reported that they have discussed different avenues
and the one they are going to explore further is sidewalk districts for each hill but then we got the
grant for the 96B and the City got a grant for the Rte 96 to the hospital so we may go back to a
town-wide district fee. He will be talking to Ms. Brock about particulars.
6. Review June Agenda
7. Consent Agenda
TB Resolution 2017 -066: Adopt Consent Agenda
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the
following Consent Agenda items:
a. Approval of Town Board Minutes
b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract
c. Accept Park Foundation Grant 17-048
Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Pat Leary
Vote: ayes —Hunter, DePaolo, Levine, Leary, Goodman, Bleiwas and Howe
TB Resolution 2017-066a: Approval of Town Board Minutes of April 24th & May 8th 2017
Resolved, that the Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes, with any
corrections, as the final minutes of the meeting on April 24, and May 8, 2017 of the Town Board
of the Town of Ithaca.
Minor change made to the May 8th minutes attributing a meeting to Mr. DePaolo which was
really Mr. Howe. Moved by Mr. DePaolo, seconded by Mr. Howe, unanimous.
TB Resolution 2017-066b: Town of Ithaca Abstract
Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town
Board for approval of payment; and said vouchers have been audited for payment by the Town
Board; now therefore be it
Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said
vouchers in total for the amounts indicated.
VOUCHER NOS. 585 - 669
General Fund Townwide 76,951.94
General Fund Part-Town 24,708.58
Highway Fund Part-Town 67,315.86
Water Fund 54,989.77
TB 2017-05-22 pg. 11
Sewer Fund 66,246.59
..........--
Risk Retention Fund336.68
Fire Protection Fund 2255,800.00
Trust andAg. ncy 1,000.00
Debt Service 446.00
TOTAI., 547,795.42
TB, Resolution 2017 - 066c: Accept Park Foundation Grant 17-,048
Resolved (lie Town Board accepts the Park Foundation Grant. 17-048 for $35,000 for continued
support Of the SUStainability Planner shared with the City of Ithaca through 2017.
8, Consider Executive Session Motion made by Mr. Goodman to enter executive session to
diSCLISS the employment history of a particular person and to review audit results at 7:18p.ni.,
seconded by Mr. DePaolo. UnanirnOLIS Motion to reenter open session made by Mr. Goodman
at 7:39 p.m., seconded by Ms. Hunter, unanimous.
9. Ackjourn — Meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second at 7:40 p.m.
Sub hitt,�17
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
TB 2017-05-22 pg. 12