Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2018-05-21 MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD Monday,May 21, 2018 Town Boardroom—4:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Discuss alternatives for NYSERDA Grant monies 3. Committee Reports a. Planning Committee b. Public Works Committee c. Personnel and Organization Committee d. Budget Committee e. Ad Hoc Committees 4. 5:30 Public Hearings for Noise permit applications: LaTourelle events on Thursday,July 5th from 7:00— 11:00 p.m. and Sunday, July 15th from 3:00—6:00 p.m. on the Banquet Terrace. Spencer Paving Company,June 11th—parking lot paving from 6pm-6am at 1204 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca Beer: Wednesday Music Series from 5pm—8 p.m. weather permitting May 30th through October 31St ; Hoptoberfest Saturday, October 20'h 4pm-8pm; Cayuga Sound Unplugged Thursday, September 20th from 5pm—8 pm and Reggae Fest Set Sunday, June 24th, from 12noon—4pm 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of Town Board minutes b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Accept Annual Conservation Easement Inspection Report—Ithaca College Wetlands 6. Adjourn MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD Monday, May 21, 2018 Town Boardroom—4:30 p.m. Minutes Board Members Present: Bill Goodman, Supervisor; Pamela Bleiwas, Deputy Town Supervisor; Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, and Rod Howe Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Marty Mosely, Code Enforcement; Mike Solvig, Director of Finance, Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town(5:30p.m.) 1. Call to Order Meeting called to order at 4:30 p.m. 2. Discuss alternatives for NYSERDA Grant monies (Attachment 1) Mr. Goodman explained that he had asked Mr. Goldsmith for options for the grant monies in place of the LED streetlight replacements the town had been thinking about doing because we will not have all of the information we wanted before the deadline for the state. Mr. DePaolo asked about the solar pv option and whether it would be the conventional grid-tied payback system where we would be paid back after our consumption was met and if we had any indication whether we would be able to finance a system that would be adequate in size to meet our electric demand. Mr. Goldsmith stated that yes it would be that kind of grid-tied system and he hadn't looked into the specifics but we would not be eligible for the tax breaks that most people find very useful. He added that he hadn't weighed which option is the best bang for the buck. Mr. Goodman said we do have two hybrid vehicles and one is budgeted for the next two years for our replacement schedule or we could use this towards fast-tracking our Phase 2 of the Green Building Policy by having a consultant get it ready for codification. Discussion followed on what would be the most visible of the options, so residents would know the Town is serious about meeting our greenhouse emissions reduction goals. Having charging stations at Wegman's? A solar array on public works building? Going greener with the PWF renovations? The Board seemed to feel a combination of energy improvements for the additions/renovations at the Public Works Facility and toward another hybrid or electric vehicle were the best options for all residents versus "gifts" or incentives for particular people or groups. Mr. Goldsmith will work on the submission. TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 1 3. Committee Reports a. Planning Committee—Mr. DePaolo reported that they did not meet in May. Mr. Goodman noted that there was an extension for the comment period on the DEC Emerson Clean Up plan and discussion followed on whether we can coordinate with the City on comments. Mr. DePaolo will work with Ms. Ritter and the board can discuss this at the June 11th meeting. b. Public Works Committee—Mr. Howe stated that they meet tomorrow and will be talking about the CIP and Fleet Replacement plans. Mr. Weber noted that a change order for the E State St work has already been submitted for about $17K, and although this should be covered by the contingency funds, this early in the project does not bode well. That said, they are following the agreement by notifying us and he will let them know that if it comes close to over budget, or over the contingency, they will have to come back for authorization. c. Personnel and Organization Committee—Ms. Bleiwas reported that the committee had an issue to bring to the board; in reviewing a request by an employee to take work time to volunteer and work later or different hours to make up that time, it was determined that that was a communication issue more so than a board issue. But in reviewing that, the committee looked at the Volunteerism Policy which allows employees to work up to 8 hours of work time to volunteer for a community based organization(s) as a group or organized activity being carried out by the Town. After a lengthy discussion the board members were split on whether to possibly change the policy to allow for any type of volunteerism, regardless of town involvement. There were some concerns about tax- payer funded volunteerism which could cause concern or backlash from residents who do not want their tax money used for volunteerism or certain types etc. versus a concern that the town should promote civic mindedness by giving these hours away. Ms. Leary added that it wouldn't be any more of a gift than it is now and the proposal was to delete the requirement of a"group activity" and management in attendance did say that it hasn't been used in the past. Mr. Howe was in favor of removing the prerequisite and Mr. Levine thought it was a negligible amount of time and Alternatives actually gives 3 hours a month. Ms. Bleiwas thought it was opening a can of worms and people have personal time that they can use for their desire to volunteer and she didn't get a sense of support from management because it is taking more work time away, even if it is 8 hours a year, it is 8 hours multiplied by X number of employees and there was a bit of concern about the type of work people could use this to do and although she admits to being a bit of an alarmist, she didn't see it as the Town's responsibility to promote good citizenship among our employees and we are in a different situation than Alternatives since they are not using tax-payer dollars; people are free to not bank there if they do not like their causes. In these political times, she wouldn't like to see some organizations supported by her tax dollars and we should leave it as it is. TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 2 Mr. DePaolo agreed that there is an accountability issue here; a transparency issue, because taxpayers can't come in and find out where an employee is volunteering. He felt it was negligible in its financial impact, but it does create some grey areas that don't seem worth the potential administrative and potential controversy it could cause. Ms. Bleiwas will send the policy around and the topic can be revisted. Post Office—Mr. Goodman noted that the Post Office would like a new 5-year lease with auto renewal for two more 5-year extensions and we don't want to give them that much time. d. Budget Committee—Did not meet last month; next meeting will start looking at the 5- year plan. e. Ad Hoc Committees — i. Deer Committee public session tomorrow night(June 22nd ii. Short Term Rentals Comm canceled in May, next meeting is June 21" at 4 iii. Sidewalk Comm continuing to look at creating a sidewalk district for Forest Home in 2019 iv. Ms. Hunter reported on the IO which is meeting on Wednesday and Keith Batman from Cayuga County will be attending to report on watershed regulations they are or have enacted in that county. She is also submitting comments on the State's HABs Plan 4. 5:30 Public Hearings for Noise permit applications: LaTourelle events on Thursday, July 5th from 7:00 —11:00 p.m. and Sunday, July 15th from 3:00—6:00 p.m. on the Banquet Terrace. Mr. Goodman opened the public hearing at 5:35 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Mr. DePaolo noted that we went through a permit for them last month and they have been operating up there without any apparent concern from their neighbors so he was generally comfortable with what they are doing, but he was a little concerned about the event on a weeknight scheduled until 11:00 p.m. The later it gets, the louder is may seem with ambient sound going down. Ms. Rosa stated that Mr. Wiggins couldn't make it tonight, but he had mentioned that it was kind of a holiday week extension so it is not really a"weeknight"in practice; kind of a holiday week where kids are not in school and many people are off. There also have never been any complaints of any sort. TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 3 Ms. Bleiwas asked if there was anything we had to do special to do past the 9 p.m. in our law and Mr. Goodman responded that the 9 p.m. limit is associated with construction noise. The other reference to a time period is "day time hours" and "night time hours." TB Resolution 2018 -074: Approval of Noise Permit for LaTourelle for two events Whereas the Town Board held a duly publicized and noticed public hearing on May 21, 2018 where anyone wishing to comment on the application for a noise permit were afforded the opportunity to do so, and Whereas the Town Board discussed the application, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board issue a noise permit to LaTourelle for the events: Thursday, July 5th from 7:00— 11:00 p.m. and Sunday, July 15th from 3:00 —6:00 p.m. on the Banquet Terrace. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas Vote: Ayes—Howe, Bleiwas, Leary, Levine, DePaolo and Goodman Opposed: Hunter Spencer Paving Company, June 17th—29th for parking lot paving between 6pm-6am located at 1204 Trumansburg Rd Mr. Goodman opened the public hearing at 5:45 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Ms. Rosa reported that Mr. Smith called and stated that the date may be a bit more flexible depending on Maplewood since they are at that site and she suggested changing the resolution to allow sometime between June 10th and the 30th with prior notice to the neighbors once a start time is established. Ms. Rosa noted that Mr. Smith had told her that the machinery now is such that you can stand 10-feet away and hold a conversation so the noise is not horrible,just the beeping of the back-up warnings. The board had a number of concerns with this request, mainly why it had to be done overnight and the length of time and why it couldn't be done on a weekend when the parking lots would be empty. Mr. Weber responded that in many instances, the production facilities are not operating on Sundays or weekends to get the product(asphalt) from so it is not possible. Chris Hyde,property owner was present and responded to questions about the length of time requested saying that it really should take 5-6 days and the larger span is to account for weather. He also stated that there was no way to section it off and do it during operating hours without putting patients at risk due to the types of mobility issues patients of the majority of the businesses serve. In addition, TCAT also has a right of way there and would have to reroute and TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 4 inconvenience a lot or riders if we attempted to do it during the day. The lot will be fully torn up and replaced but a drop off area will be made useable and smooth at the end of each night to allow for use by patients during normal hours. The goal of course is to do this as quickly as possible. Having a 4 or 6 hours work day is not feasible given the mobilization needed at the beginning and end of work. For example, if it takes an hour on each end, that would leave 4 hours to actually get the work done, and that is best case scenario. He added that the project manager has spoken to the neighbors and he hadn't heard anything specifically from him so he couldn't say for sure they didn't have any concerns, but he added that they could work with the neighbors if there were issues once the project started. Ms. Rosa added that the neighbors did get the notification of the public hearing and she had not had any contact from them. It was noted that there are three residential houses nearby. Some discussion followed and the resolution was changed for the earlier date and the condition of the Town Clerk notifying the neighbors in advance of the actual start. TB Resolution 2018 -075: Approval of Noise Permit for Spencer Paving Whereas the Town Board held a duly publicized and noticed public hearing on May 21, 2018 where anyone wishing to comment on the application for a noise permit were afforded the opportunity to do so, and Whereas the Town Board discussed the application, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board issues a noise permit to Spencer Paving for the project: Parking lot paving from 6p.m. —6 a.m. at 1301 Trumansburg Rd June 10th through June 291h with the following: Conditions: That Spencer Paving inform the Town Clerk at least 5 days prior to the start of the project who will in turn notify the neighbors of said start date. Moved: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes—Bleiwas, Hunter, Howe, Leary, Levine, DePaolo and Goodman Ithaca Beer: Wednesday Music Series from Spm—8 p.m. weather permitting May 30th through October 30 ; Hoptoberfest Saturday, October 20th 4pm-8pm; Cayuga Sound Unplugged Thursday, September 20th from Spm—8 pm and Reggae Fest Set Sunday, June 24th, from 12noon—4pm (See additional comments in Attachment 42) Mr. Goodman opened the public hearing at 6:05 p.m. Mr. Maines, Attorney—Mr. Maines stated that he had sent a letter to the Board and the Town Clerk representing some of the neighbors and wanted to stress that they acknowledge that the ambient noise level is typically higher than usual being so close to Rte. 13 but the topography TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 5 basically traps the sound and all they want to be able to do is to go outside and enjoy the weather and their homes. They think it is extraordinarily disruptive. They also wanted to acknowledge that Ithaca Beer is a great patron and they just want to minimize the effects and although the application states that the speakers will be faced toward the highway, it doesn't work given the topography. The neighbors want to stress that they are happy to try and work with Ithaca Beer on mitigation measures, but for the time being, the request is to hold off on any permits. Brian Lynch—spoke for the broader community that enjoys the music and the economic benefits of Ithaca Beer and to take into consideration the time of day being requested and after a applying a reasonable balance, three against and the benefit to the community, it seems reasonable to grant a permit. Rebecca—employee of Ithaca Beer and recently retired to Ithaca. Wanted the board to think about the benefits to the employees and part of her decision to retire to Ithaca was the arts scene and although she can empathize with those that don't have the same level of enjoyment for outdoor music, this is an important addition to the Ithaca arts scene which has a very short season. Kevin Cosella—Ithaca Reggae Festival June 24th which is scheduled for Ithaca Beer and will just be an acoustic guitar and a voice; so that will be a very reduced sound situation, but, as for the bigger issue, Ithaca Beer is bringing a great vibrancy to the Town of Ithaca and four or five neighbors should not be able to stop this type of activity given the times of the day they are proposed and the greater benefit to the community. Larry Sallinger —wanted to reaffirm previously written and verbal comments at other public hearings here. He is compelled by economic impact arguments to say that there are economic impacts to our property values given 27 musical events over the summer so there is a concern about economic impacts on our side also. Mr. Sallinger said that historically, when these come up, the Board talks about mitigation efforts and how important it is to do something about mitigating the impact, yet here we are four years later and the applications show very little mitigation efforts. It seemed to him that the time has come to get serious about meaningful mitigation efforts with definite timeframe for doing it and a definite result. He urged that the Board condition any permit, if they were to issue one, be conditioned on a timely mitigation plan to be overseen by the Town. He wanted the Board to keep in mind that this is 27 outdoor events in excess of 80 hours over the course of three seasons; spring, summer and fall, and it seems to him that that is an unreasonable intrusion on our ability to enjoy the property that we own. Joan Geisler, 13 Peachtree—she wanted to stress that the situation is fairly complex; the neighborhood is not particularly happy, the business is not particularly happy and the solution is probably going to be a compromise that requires some expertise that neither of us have on our TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 6 own and she urged the Board to not vote on this request tonight because it seems that there will either be a big winner or a big loser; either all of the concerts are going to happen and the neighborhood has to listen, or none of the concerts are going to happen and the neighborhood is going to be quiet and she stated that she was pretty sure that given a little time and some serious effort, a compromise could be reached where there could be music and it wouldn't be too bothersome to the neighborhood. Nathan Carlsen 183 Seven Mile Dr. —stated that he has lived there for over 21 years, before the neighborhood development or Ithaca Beer was there and it was all open fields.... He works at Ithaca Beer and would like to be able to stay there and the concerts are needed for them to be successful and he would be happy to act as a mediator. Ralph Geisler —Mr. Geisler started by apologizing for his apologized for his behavior at the other meeting and said that was out of character for him and it was unacceptable so he wanted to be clear about that. He stated that he wanted to support the lawyer's letter that was submitted on their behalf and said the three families have heard from other families as well; this isn't one cranky guy but a neighborhood problem. There are others that have to work or do not feel it is worth coming but said they are glad we are going. He stated that he understands Ithaca Beer wants to make more money and more power to them but he doesn't want it done at his expense and he didn't think it was appropriate for people to say to us, suck it up,you live there,put up with it. He believes there is a compromise; there could be some sort of screening that could be put up. We are not asking that it go away,just keep it to a certain level. Mr. Geisler went on to say that the idea that this is "only 3 hours"is ludicrous; this is 3 hours at least 23 times. That is 69 hours that you are taking from us. So that in and of itself starts to push the "reasonable"ness of this. He thought the four special events are what a noise permit is really about; this usual and normal activity that they are carrying on. If Ithaca Beer would instead say once a week we have to open the doors and a big fan is on and it will make a lot of noise for 3 hours and we have to do that because it is necessary to our business, he didn't think the Board would be looking at that and saying, well, suck it up neighbors. Everyone would agree that that type of noise would be disruptive and annoying and music can also be disruptive and annoying. To think that somehow this is a community service; it is and that is wonderful and he applauds their efforts to help the community out, but please, not at his expense or the other neighbors' expense. He said that unfortunately they have been put in the place of a"hecklers veto" and he was sorry about that but that is where they are. He stressed that the resolution that created Ithaca Beer stated that this is a low density residential district... a"residential" district so we really shouldn't be using the term or reasonable or not, but rather focus on the "25 feet" or not. Whether the sound is heard at 25 feet. TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 7 Mr. Geisler closed by saying he would like to stress that he thinks there can be a compromise, but he idea that this just goes ahead and we are told "too bad" is not appropriate. Kirk Komaromi, 10 Peachtree Ln—here to support his neighbors and the points made. He said it is pretty clear from the request for permits that Ithaca Beer is expanding its outdoor activities this year and really makes sense from a marketing point of view because the taproom is limited in space so you grow your business outdoors and they have installed an outdoor kitchen and it seem very clear that there will be more people outdoors dining and drinking so beyond the music is the crowd noise and that goes on from the time it opens until the time it closes. So that is maybe noon to 9 or 10 on the weekends and that isn't something they can control so in addition to expanding the outdoor dining, now there are additional outdoor music happenings. He said his concern is that the Board needs to balance the needs of all of the stakeholders and in every previous request, the Board has favored the beer company in granting those noise permits and the problem is that there has never been any requirement for them to have some form of noise abatement plan. There has been no quantified limits put on the volume or the intensity of the music and so, in our past experience, it varies quite a bit; in fairness, there are nights where it is mostly an acoustic event and really not objectionable at all but there are other concerts where it is a rock band and that is meant to be played loud but when you have a full drum set, and base and that coming through your house, there are nights where you can't get away from the sound, regardless of where you go inside your house and that is unreasonable. Mr. Komaromi said he didn't know what the answer was but he thought there needs to be some sort of formal noise control plan and it has to involve some kind of barrier between the beer company and the neighborhood. We are at a disadvantage given where we are located from the company, but this is an issue for other venues in the area; many of the wineries and breweries want to have entertainment and it does create the issue of noise. He used Treleavan as an example; they have constructed what looks like a billboard blocking the house nearest to the winery to absorb the sound. He wasn't suggesting that is the answer here, but there has to be some kind of plan so they can expand their business without creating additional discomfort for the neighbors. Brian Ash, Ithaca Beer—stated that what his mind goes to after listening tonight is what is reasonable? What measures have been taken and what measures could be taken and how do you balance that? Once you start implementing above and beyond, and he would consider what they have done so far, and what they are asking, to be quite reasonable. Rather than having music for 5-6 hours multiple times a week up until l 1pm as other permits sound like they are for, it is 5-8 p.m. which seems relatively reasonable. We have taken efforts to direct sound away from residences and the type of music we are intentionally choosing is lower-key music; we are not going after rock bands. So we already have taken certain measures and take the impact into account. He said he did go out to Treleavan and that is not the most attractive thing and he would be frustrated with the looks of it if he lived nearby. So, what is reasonable and how much is reasonable to ask? Where does it stop? What if it doesn't impact like everyone wants? Do you ask for more? Or do you go back to asking what is reasonable? TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 8 Mr. Ash said in addition to being an employee, he is a resident of downtown and impacted by those music events and it is pretty great to see a vibrant downtown. That does go late in the evening and in this case, the community aspect of it outweighs the concerns. Mr. Goodman asked for any others who wished to address the Board; there was no one and the hearing was closed at 6:32 p.m. and the matter turned to the Board. The Board took the three special events request first. Mr. DePaolo stated that Kevin made a persuasive argument for the event he is involved with and he is comfortable sanctioning the special events without a lot of todo but he has comments about the solutions for the other. Ms. Hunter said her over-arching concern is having sat at this table and listened to this for a number of years and to the best of her knowledge we have not had any noise mitigation plan presented to us for discussion and she is not inclined to support these because we are not making any progress on this in terms of meeting any of the concerns of the residents in this area; this is not to say I am against categorically musical events there, but I don't think we have had a serious noise mitigation discussion and plan and we need to do that and she asked about the meeting Mr. Geisler referenced. Mr. Goodman stated that after the last public hearing, the Sheriff asked for a meeting and that was held last Friday with 5 neighbors coming, along with the Sheriff, a lieutenant, him, Ms. Bleiwas and Ms. Rosa with his takeaway being the Sheriff encouraging them to work out a compromise and it didn't seem they wanted to be called on any more noise complaints and that they have gone out in the past and not thought that it was unreasonable amount of noise. Ms. Bleiwas added that she felt the Sheriff's were a bit surprised that the music we were all discussing ended so easy and they had been thinking this was late night music and driving issues the neighborhood was dealing with and when they found out how early it ended, they were surprised that it was considered unreasonable and at that point, we were talking about 6-9 by mistake, not the 5-8 which is before us. Ms. Hunter asked if there was any offer to investigate a noise mitigating plan or placed on the table and Mr. Mitchell approached and stated that that wasn't discussed that night but tonight, listening to the neighbors, he felt this was the first he had heard of a willingness to compromise. The last time he had discussed it at the Board level was when several members came out to one of our shows and felt it was quite reasonable what we were doing. We stop music early, we face it a certain direction as asked and it is not unreasonable to be asked to sit down with the neighbors and discuss options, but his concern is what level of mitigation are we looking to do in order to satisfy some neighbors who have a reasonable concern, maybe, but it is unclear exactly what it is... bodies in the backyard? Some types of music? None of the music? .... He is willing to do a sit down, but he has heard from this Board that the music we are playing, at the time we are playing it and at the level we are playing it has all been "reasonable" so it seems the question is is it reasonable and that is a hard answer to come to. There is great benefit to having music TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 9 and we do it, in our opinion, quite infrequently, but relatively speaking for 3 hours a night on a Wednesday night, that is reasonable. Mr. Mitchell went on to say that he is willing to come to the table and have discussions but he would want to know what the investment level is that is being asked of him and in return, like someone said at the other meeting as a concern... you can put up a big pavilion like at Treleavan and have music all the time... Is that what we are suggesting? We need to all get on the same page. He said he doesn't like being in the middle and he doesn't like having unhappy neighbors, but from his standpoint, we are not being unreasonable and how much more do I have to do to be even more reasonable? He doesn't want to have to keep coming in every year. We have talked about decibel levels and haven't been able to agree on that. This board itself hasn't been able to agree and what needs to be decided is whether this is reasonable noise or unreasonable noise. Talk turned to various mitigation ideas such as berms, and the issue of the building and bouncing back. Mr. DePaolo went in to some technical detail about how different things would work or not work and Mr. Mitchell said a berm is not as easy as it sounds and if you are talking about lowering a decibel level... we haven't established a reasonable decibel level and the only one ever brought up was the 90 decibels coming into the town where it is posted, and if we are talking about lower than that??? Is that is what is deemed reasonable??? We have had you out and been told it is reasonable.... If I am going to invest tens of thousands of dollars can I have music on Saturday nights too....where is the give and take and the compromise? I am happy to sit down with the neighbors and talk that out, but right now we are just talking about Wednesday nights for 3 hours and is that being unreasonable? Playing dinner music? The 3 extras are the bigger events that are louder than dinner music but again that isn't unreasonable in my mind. Ms. Leary asked about a natural barrier such as a line of trees or hedgerow....and Mr. Mitchell responded that there is a decent amount of natural landscaping between us and the nearest neighbor, who is 750 feet away and there are trees and bushes between us. Ms. Bleiwas commented that we are trying to brainstorm ideas without knowing what any of them are going to cost or if they are really going to work or work to the neighbors' satisfaction. Everyone is talking about the landscape and how that makes it really noisy and how do we know a berm would work and so on and so forth. She said that she thinks we need to focus on what our job is and it is Ithaca Beer's decision whether or not they want to make additional investments and I have heard both tonight and at our meeting with the Sheriff that they are questioning whether an investment is good from a business perspective and also whether it would satisfy the neighbors and any money small or large might not satisfy the neighbors. So what we should do and focus on what Ithaca Beer has presented to us and weigh the reasonableness of this request. She said that she finds both requests to be completely reasonable and Ithaca Beer is a tremendous asset not only to the Town of Ithaca and the tax base of the Town of Ithaca, but also to our entire community in Tompkins County; people love to go to Ithaca Beer. It is a lovely and family friendly environment; if you see the kids dancing on the lawn at dinner music you realize that this is the spirit of Ithaca and we have our local brewery who bring people out to the region beyond Upstate New York and to keep this viable is important to the vitality and the economy of our community. We are fortunate that we are not like the other upstate communities that are floundering, we have to give them reasons to be here TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 10 and Ithaca Beer is a prime example. She said she has watched this business grow over the last 20 years and she is thrilled to have it and to go there and she was one of the group who went to Peachtree Lane and she heard music and did not find it unreasonable.... Someone talked about living downtown and really enjoying it and she realized that not everyone enjoys it, but we are talking about 4 larger events a year and 3 hours on a Wednesday that ends at 8p.m. so it is not going to interfere with anyone's sleep... this is 3 neighbors saying I would rather not hear this music and no one has told me any other hardship other than it's not what I prefer. She went on to say that when we do our job of balancing our interests, I wholeheartedly support granting these permits and really hope my fellow board members see that and realize what an asset we have in this company. Ms. Leary said that just because an entity is an economic asset, that doesn't negate the concerns of the neighbors, but it is a limited number of events and our noise ordinance limits noise after 9pm so the hours are ok and the nature of the music is such that it is reasonable, but she hoped that there would be ongoing efforts to try and work it out. People have a right to enjoy their property, but on balance, these are ok. Mr. Goodman said he was fine with the 3 events and he called for a vote. TB Resolution 2018 -077: Approval of Noise Permit for Ithaca Beer special events Whereas the Town Board held a duly publicized and noticed public hearing on May 21, 2018 where anyone wishing to comment on the application for a noise permit were afforded the opportunity to do so, and Whereas the Town Board discussed the application, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board issues a noise permit to Ithaca Beer for the special events: Hoptoberfest Saturday, October 201h 4pm-8pm; Cayuga Sound Unplugged Thursday, September 20' from 5pm—8 pm and Reggae Fest Set Sunday, June 24th, from 12noon—4pm. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes—Howe, DePaolo, Leary, Levine, Goodman, Bleiwas and Hunter The Board turned to the Wednesday music series. Mr. DePaolo stated that he wanted to clarify that he is not suggesting anywhere near spending $30K but he thought there are some potential lower cost solutions that could be explored. Ultimately it comes down to what we feel is reasonable. We have the unenviable task of trying to figure out what that means. There is some misunderstanding about the standard in our ordinance, characterized in Mr. Maines letter that if something can be heard beyond 25' feet, that it somehow trips the wire on a denial of a permit; and the standard given in that language is for what is considered reasonable. The reference to 25' feet is where if something is deemed TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 11 unreasonable, because if that was the standard, there would be no sound at all in the Town of Ithaca. He went on to say that there is a compelling counter-argument to the application because it is essentially a waiver request and there is a hardship component, or a need component in the language, and he wasn't convinced business would be worse or better with or without live music and he is also a performing musician and sometimes there's a big crowd and sometimes there isn't so an economic argument might not be the argument to use in justifying the application. He said that he respects the comment about our job being to determine what is reasonable, but that standard is different for everyone and he hasn't heard any potential mitigation strategies being explored at this point in time, and that is what bothers him. We might not agree with the people who object because our standard is different, but to whatever extent we can get people together to try and figure out some potential, cost-effective solutions, we should do that and to his knowledge that hasn't really happened. He understands Dan's concerns; it is a Pandora's Box... how much money do you throw at it without knowing what will make people happy, but until the discussions are had we are not going to get any closer to an answer. Mr. DePaolo said that with his expertise and experience in the field, there are ways to lower sound and his suggestion was to break this appeal out into increments as a way of compelling some type of dialogue. Mr. Goodman moved to enter closed session to seek the advice of counsel at 7:08 p.m.; seconded by Mr. DePaolo, unanimous. Ms. Leary moved to reenter open session at 7:45 p.m; seconded by Ms. Bleiwas, unanimous. Mr. Goodman reminded the public and the Board that there is a motion on the table to approve the Noise Permit Application for Ithaca Beer weekly music series adding that the Board has had the chance to seek the advice of counsel and will continue the discussion now. Ms. Leary suggested a condition be listed to have the band(s) located within 50' of the diners. Mr. Mitchell stated that he and the neighbors talked in the lobby while the Board was in closed session and he would prefer no set distance so he could play around with the different locations and some of the ideas being tossed around. If the Board were to place restrictions, it would tie his hands. One of the ideas is to put hay bales behind them and that's interesting, and may work, but may not work within the confines you are giving and there could be other ideas once we continue talking together. He said he understands the intent, and this is the first time we have had a conversation, and mitigations can't be done without sitting down and seeing if we can compromise. Mr. DePaolo thought it was great to see communication happening, but how would the Board know this was happening and continuing? He suggested that Mr. Mitchell amend his application to halfway through or so and the Board could check in and see how it was going. Mr. Mitchell responded that he would be amenable to doing that, but he has booked the bands through and can't be wishy-washy about it but he is willing to do that to show that he is working on it. That TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 12 said, the trick is going to be in seeing if a reasonable compromise can be reached and there is a difference at the moment is what is "reasonable" so that is the crux of the problem, but he is willing to try. The Board discussed the options of the 50' foot condition and adjusting the application. At the end of it, the Board and the applicant agreed to a permit through Labor Day while conversations and trial mitigations were attempted. Mr. Mitchell made it clear that he would like the Board to come out and see and test the mitigations so he knows there is real data to use. The resolution was amended by the mover and seconded to change the timeframe of the application through Labor Day. Ms. Hunter still had concerns, mostly around the length of time being most of the summer. Vote was unanimous for that change. Mr. Goodman moved to table the resolution to allow staff time to spell out the findings regarding the application. Seconded by Ms. Hunter; vote was 5 in favor—Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Levine and Howe; opposed—Hunter and Bleiwas. Mr. Goodman called a special meeting of the Town Board on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. to vote on the application/resolution. Mr. Geisler wanted the question regarding the PDZ being in the Low Density Zone and Mr. Goodman responded that the board and staff would have to look into that and couldn't answer that at this moment. 5. Consent Agenda TB Resolution 2018 -076: 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—None b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Accept Conservation Easement Inspection Report for Ithaca College Wetlands Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes—Howe, Hunter, Goodman, DePaolo, Bleiwas, Levine and Leary TB Resolution 2018 -076b: Town of Ithaca Abstract Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it TBS 2018-05-21 Pg. 13 Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 636 - 704 General Fund Townwide 19,931.45 General Fund Part-Town 10,760.72 Highway Fund Town Wide DA 313,14 Highway Fund Part Town DB 20,648.65 Water Fund 40,276,81 Sewer Fund 19,,078-70 Fire Protection Fund 700.00 Forest Home Lighting District 47.49 Glenside Lighting District 14.20 Renwick Heights_Li Ming District 24.54 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 33.18 Clover Lane Lighting District 4.42 Winner's Circle Lighting District 6.63 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 15.49 West Haven Road Lightin; District 61.34 Coddington.Road Lighting District 35.70 Trust and Agency 3,235.21 Debt Service 350.00 TOTAL I 15,5 37.67 TB Resolution 2018—076c: Acknowledge Annual Conservation Easement Inspection of the Ithaca College Wetland Mitigation Sites Raponi and Rich Road Sites Whereas the easements between the Town and Ithaca College require an annual inspection performed by the Town Planning Staff, and Whereas Michal Smith, Environmental Planner has completed his inspection and submitted a report to the Town Board which is filed with the Planning Department, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board hereby acknowledges the Report as required in the agreement. 6. Adjourn —Meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second, unanimous. 8:14 p.m. Submitted b Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk TBS 2018-05-21 P,g. 14 _nl IME EAhrIg 05-21-2018 OF 1.7, TOWN OF ITHACA f 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 F ,g 216„ Office of the Supervisor Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner W yG Email: ngoldsmith@town.ithaca.ny.us Phone: 607-273-1721 x136 To:Town Board From: Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner Date: May 16, 2018 Re: NYSERDA Clean Energy Communities Grant This document provides information related to the NYSERDA Clean Energy Communities discussion that is on the agenda for your upcoming study session on May 21, 2018. The Town is eligible for a $50,000 grant(with no cost-share required)from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) under the Clean Energy Communities (CEC) program. The grant application is due June 19, 2018. The intent of the May 21 discussion is to discuss potential project ideas. A resolution finalizing the selection of project(s)will be brought to the June 11 Town Board meeting. Grant applications are scored based on energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions; collaboration and knowledge transfer; innovation and replicability; and economic development. Projects must be started within six months of award notification and be completed within three years of contract execution. Project ideas are presented below; some of these were brought up at the January 29 Town Board study session. LED streetlights:There is support to transition to LED street lights, either by buying the streetlights from NYSEG and then converting to LED, or by switching to the NYSEG LED lease option. However, we need additional information before we can make this decision, and the Town should be able to finance either option without grant funding. Municipal facility upgrades:The Public Works addition could be designed and built to comply with the proposed Green Building Policy. Additionally (or alternatively), energy improvements could be made at the existing PW facility and/or Town Hall. Solar PV:Two other municipalities have installed solar arrays on their facilities with CEC funds. Community programs:The City of Binghamton will offer "green grants" through a third party to both homes (20 x$5,000) and businesses (4 x$25,000). Ulysses may implement a small residential grant program to incentivize solar, heat pumps, insulation and air sealing.Tompkins County is funding a Business Energy Navigator position to enable/promote energy efficiency improvements. Electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle(s)and charging station:The grant could fund the entire cost of the vehicle(s) and charger for the Town fleet. There is an upcoming aggregate bid organized by NYS, as well as existing financial incentives, which would reduce costs. Planning Projects: Although there is a focus on direct GHG reduction, NYSERDA has indicated that planning projects will be considered, especially as part of a "package" that also includes implementation projects. From: Dawn Forman To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman Cc: da n2 ithaca beer.com Subject: Ithaca Beer Noise Permit Date: Friday,May 18,2018 1:34:41 PM Dear Ms. Rosa and Mr. Goodman, I am a homeowner of 6 Apple Blossom Lane, Ithaca,NY 14850. I attended the meeting that was held for our community with Ithaca Beer Company, town of Ithaca officials, and the Sheriffs office on April 27, 2018. Thank you for holding such a meeting. It was a productive conversation until it was in the process of being wrapped up and a community member decided to finally speak up against the permit but acted very irrationally. I want to give my support for Ithaca Beer Company to get permission to have the noise permits that they are seeking. While we personally hope that they will invest in some sort of pavilion for their music guests, as it is a much more pleasant experience for patrons who like outdoor music from experience at Ithaca Beer Company compared to wineries that have such venues for music. I can understand them waiting to see if these events are profitable enough before spending money on one. Dan Michell, the owner of Ithaca Beer Co., did come across as a bit pompous in not wanting to do anything to improve the situation of noise mitigation to our community stating that whatever he did would likely not be enough for some in our community. His point was driven home when a neighbor on Peachtree Street acted in an irrational way, by pounding the table and demanding no music was played outside at Ithaca Beer Company. Further stating that he wanted to enjoy the silence on his back deck and not listen to Ithaca Beer Company's music, but waited until the end of what I thought was a semi-productive meeting between other community members, Dan and the Sheriffs office. This homeowner clearly proved Dan's point to all attending the meeting. The actions of the neighbors on Peachtree St, and their not wanting any music playing at all at Ithaca Beer Company showed that Ithaca Beer Company could likely do little to satisfy these homeowners. The actions of pounding the table and getting so upset during a very rational conversation, were also signs to all attending that little could be done to make this homeowner happy, other than giving them exactly what they want. His waiting until the end of the meeting as it was wrapping up and not participating in the conversation should also be noted in his unwillingness to seek a solution to the problem. As I stated before, I first thought Dan came off as pompous and uncaring during our conversation, but the actions of this neighbor who sends out the angry emails in our community email list about this music, showed me why Dan acted the way he did. This gentleman and his wife did not come seeking solutions, they came in the hopes of getting their way, which was apparent to me when he asked me if I was for or against the music as the only person other than my son in the conference room prior to the meeting beginnin and let out an angry guttural noise when I said that I didn't mind the music. Ithaca Beer Company has reached out to our community in past years. Offering us free food and letting us know about the music nights ahead of time in past years. The music ends at 9pm and doesn't go on to the wee hours of the evening. Having gone to listen to music at the these events in the past, the events aren't full of ruckus patrons who are out of control causing any harm to our neighborhood or property. The events are rather delightful and we enjoy hearing the music on our front porch and through our open windows, if weren't able to make it over to the event to listen to the music there. It is my hopes that the town of Ithaca will grant Ithaca Beer Company a noise permit and that Ithaca Beer Company will continue to be good neighbors to our community despite the actions of some in our community, and take head to the comments made by the other homeowners in attendance who came seeking solutions and to work with Ithaca Beer Company, not against them. I will be unable to show up at the hearing for this permit, but hope is that this letter is distributed to all council members making this decision for the music permit. My lack of attendance isn't a lack of caring, but have family commitments at the time the hearing is scheduled. Sincerely, Dawn Forman Dawn Forman dmforman@fastmail.com 412-608-7694 ithacafirm.com MAI N ES FIRM, PLLC Russell E.Maines,Attorney 109 East Seneca Street,#206 Rmaines@ithacxfirm.com Telephone:(607)279-1775 Ithaca,New York 14850 Facsimile:(888)476-6608 May 21, 2018 Town of Ithaca Board 205 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Bruce Bates Director of Code Enforcement Ithaca Town Hall 205 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 RE: Ithaca Beer Company Noise Permit Applications Dear Town Board and Mr. Bates: This letter is submitted in opposition to an undated Noise Permit Application by Brian Ash and Mike Wilber which seeks to accommodate"1-5 piece bands acoustic to moderately amplified on taproom lawn facing Route 13" covering "every Wednesday May 301i-October 240' 5 pm-8 pm" (the "23-Event Application"); and a separate undated and an unsigned Noise Permit Application covering May 11,June 24,September 20 and October 20(the"4-Event Application"). I understand that the public hearing on both applications is to be held on May 21, 2018 on the Board's 5:30 p.m. agenda (the first event on the 4-Event Application obviously has already occurred). The parties objecting to the application are the resident owners of homes in an adjacent zoning district; specifically Robert W. and Joan E. Geiszler of 13 Peachtree Lane; Lawrence R. and Louise D. Sallinger of 14 Peachtree Lane; and Kurt and Carol Komaromi of 10 Peachtree Lane. The objectants are residents of the Saponi Meadows subdivision which abuts premises owned or controlled by the permit applicants. I will refer to my clients herein as the "Saponi Meadows" residents. I do not purport to speak for all residents of the Saponi Meadows subdivision,while we reserve the right to add additional objectants. We understand that the noise would be generated from a lawn adjacent to the Ithaca Beer taproom on a 10.31-acre parcel purportedly owned by Nut Brown Realty,LLC("Nut Brown")(tax parcel ID # 31-3-2.10) and leased to the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency ("TCIDA")under a lease-leaseback arrangement initially memorialized in a memorandum of lease dated December 21, 2011 (Tompkins County Clerk Instrument No. 585124-011). We further understand that the adjacent field is a portion of a 70.32-acre parcel (tax parcel ID # 33.-3-2.2) purportedly owned by Mitchell Ventures,LLC ("Mitchell Ventures"). We understand that Nut Brown and Mitchell Ventures are sister companies owned or controlled by the permit applicant; or by the entity referenced on the application as "Ithaca Beer Company." We refer herein to "Ithaca Beer Company" under the presupposition that the individual applicant Dan Mitchell controls the Nut Brown and Mitchell Ventures parcels. The objections include but are not limited to the following: 1. The Permit Applications Are Too Vague As To Location. The Noise Permit applications do not specify with sufficient detail the Ithaca Beer parcel(s)upon which the events are to be held: the Nut Brown parcel, the Mitchell Ventures parcel, or both. The "taproom lawn" is an insufficient description. We need more detail from the applicants regarding the exact spot on which the events are to occur, in order to tailor our objections appropriately. We presuppose that the applicant has control over both parcels. The Saponi Residents reserve all rights, including the right to amend or supplement the objections. 2. The Permit Applications Are Overbroad As To Time And Number. The applications reference events that are occur on a regular basis over the course of nearly half a year. The 4-Event Application states that"the four starred events are similar in nature and thus on one application." To my knowledge, the 23-Event Application contains no such representation, but even if it did,the noise ordinance neither contemplates nor authorizes a single permit application to cover multiple discreet events. The Town Code does not authorize blanket authorizations for multiple events. Town Code Section 184-11,entitled"Authorization for permit,"provides: Where the enforcement of this chapter would create an unnecessary hardship, the Town Board, in its discretion, is authorized to grant a permit for a specific waiver from the requirements of this chapter. Such waivers shall be granted only in those circumstances where the applicant demonstrates that the waiver is necessary for a valid purpose, that the proposed waiver is the minimal intrusion needed, that on balance the need for and benefits of the waiver outweigh the needs and rights of the surrounding neighbors to a peaceable and quiet environment. The two applications under review do not seek "a specific waiver" from Chapter 184. Rather,they seek a general waiver for 27 events.The potential noise difference between the events is substantial, as the applications concede;they cover both acoustic and amplified sound. The Saponi Residents respectfully submit that the Board lacks authority to grant blanket permits over an extended period of time; and accordingly, the two permit applications should be denied. _....... _.. . -......... -- ------- . -- --- .. ..-- - -....._-...................... 3. The Permit Applications Fail The Balancing Test Set Forth By Section 184-11. The Saponi Residents have been subjected to obnoxiously loud events emanating from the Ithaca Beer premises over the past several seasons. The events occur during a time of year and times of day when the Saponi Residents wish to enjoy the relative peace and quiet of their neighborhood. They would like to enjoy their meals and their family times in relative silence. If the applicants wish to generate noise for hours at a time on a regular basis,they should explore options to block the noise emanating from the Ithaca Beer properties — so called "noise barriers." The Saponi Residents are not experts in sound reduction(nor am I), but they would be willing to lend reasonable assistance to the Ithaca Beer people to explore whatever reasonable options might be available. It does not take an expert to know that the physical environment around the Ithaca Beer Company is something of a sound trap. The property is located near the base of a large hill that traps sounds, and adjacent to a large metal building that magnifies it in the direction of the subdivision. The current situation is unacceptable even given the other physical conditions of the area such as the nearby state highway. 4. The Relief Sought By The Permit Applicants Violates The Purpose of the Noise Ordinance. Section 184-3 of the Town Code, entitled"Purpose,"states: The purpose of this chapter is to preserve the public health,peace,comfort, repose,welfare, safety and good order by suppressing the making,creation, or maintenance of excessive, unnecessary, unnatural or unusually loud noises which are prolonged, unusual or unnatural in their time, place, and use or which are detrimental to the environment. For the reasons specified in above, the relief requested violates the purpose of the noise ordinance. Rather than preserving peace and comfort in the nearby areas, the permittee would seek a license to generate loud,oppressive and unreasonable noise during times of the day or week when the residents wish only to do what the patrons of the beer company wish to do: enjoy their meals and their company peaceably. The difference is that the Saponi Residents wish to do so in a manner that does not interfere with the rights of others. 5. The Ithaca Beer Events Violate Zoning Rules. The amplified music at the Ithaca Beer events violate the Town Code. Town Code Section 184-7, entitled"Radios, television sets and other sound-producing or-amplifying devices"provides: A. It shall be unlawful for any person within any Residential Zone,or within 500 feet of a Residential Zone, to use or to operate any radio or receiving set, musical instrument (including drums), phonograph, television set, any other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound or any other sound-amplifying equipment in a loud, annoying or offensive manner such that noise from the device interferes with the comfort, repose, health or safety of members of the public or recklessly creates a risk thereof, within any building or, outside of a building, at a distance of 25 feet or more .........................._....... . "..1.1...- 3 1 _. .._.31 Page from the source of such sound or interferes with the conversation of members of the public who are 25 feet or more from the source of such sound. The Ithaca Beer Company is subject to Section 184-7 because it is subject to the rules of a Low Density Residential Zone{see Town Code Section 271-15[D]). Planned Development Zone No. 14 authorizes"any use permitted in a Low Density Residential Zone"as well as those specified in the authorizing legislation. Regardless of how far the noise creation may be from Saponi Meadows,Ithaca Beer is subject to Section 184-7. The operative language,then,is noise from an amplified device or musical instrument"that can be heard at a distance of 25 feet or more from the source." We submit that noise permits are intended for unusual irregular events rather than for repeated, scheduled events over the entire warm weather season.While the authorizing legislation contemplates "special events such as festivals or music series"; the legislation must be read consistently with the legislation relating to activities in residential zones. Noise permits are intended for unusual,very limited circumstances. They are not intended to allow business owners an end-run around the fundamental purpose of the noise ordinances. 6. The Ithaca Beer Permit Applications Create A Nuisance. The Ithaca Beer Company is engaging in conduct on the Nut Brown and Mitchell Ventures properties that interferes with rights of the Saponi Residents, and which diminishes the value of the Saponi Residents' properties. Regardless of the outcome of tonight's hearing, we expect to hold all parties, accountable for activities that violate the Town of Ithaca law or that otherwise interfere with the Saponi Residents'common law property rights. Pursuant to Section 268[2] of the New York State Town Law, and other applicable law, the Saponi Residents hereby demand that the Town Board deny the permit applications; and the appropriate parties,including the Code Enforcement Officer, issue noise citations for unnecessary noise emanating from the properties at all times, including the dates and times referenced in the two permit applications at issue. This demand is continuing in nature. We thank the Board and Mr. Bates for consideration of these matters. Sincerely, Russell �RLM "gm►by es01&0.21Maine 19:0• -aa00 Russell E. Maines -----_ - --- .. ................_._--..-._ _ . -- -- -. ... ------------- 4iPage TOWN OF ITHACA FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2018 REPORTS: BALANCE SHEET REVENUE & EXPENSE SUMMARY and CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS DETAILED CASH LISTING FOR FIDUCIARY FUNDS SUMMARY OF BANK COLLATERAL TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET FOR THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2018 GENERAL GENERAL HIGHWAY HIGHWAY WATER SEWER DESCRIPTION TOWNWIDE PART-TOWN TOWNWIDE PART-TOWN FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH $ 5,506,283 $ 967,501 $ 577,577 $ 2,779,942 $ 683,977 $ 2,541,938 INVESTMENTS - PETTY CASH 700 200 TOTAL-UNRESERVED CASH $ 5,506,983 $ 967,501 $ 577,577 $ 2,780,142 $ 683,977 $ 2,541,938 RESERVED CASH: PARKS&OPEN SPACE PLAN $ 827,933 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT 165,487 69,408 79,343 23,817 12,037 HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT - 250,066 PRESERVE MAINTENANCE 40,139 - LAND STEWARDSHIP 9,847 - - INVESTMENTS - FIDUCIARY FUNDS 4,422 TOTAL-RESERVED CASH $ 1,047,828 $ 69,408 $ - $ 329,408 $ 23,817 $ 12,037 OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,259 WATER&SEWER RECEIVABLES 19,841 40,616 DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS - - 1,985,305 STATE&FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE - DUE FROM OTHER GOV'TS 70,791 59,400 - 24,737 PREPAID EXPENSES 8,196 (374) - (374) (187) (187) TAXES RECEIVABLE-CURRENT - - TOTAL-OTHER ASSETS $ 78,987 $ 59,026 $ - $ (374)1 $ 2,029,695 1 $ 42,687 TOTAL ASSETS 6 633 798 1,095,935 577.577 3,109.177 2,737,489 2,596.662 LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $ - $ - $ $ - $ _ $ ACCRUED LIABILITIES 228,668 194,262 103,934 24,000 DUE TO OTHER FUNDS RETAINAGE - DEFERRED REVENUE - RESERVED FUND BALANCE 1,047,828 69,408 - 329,408 23,817 12,037 UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 5,357,302 832,265 577,577 2,675,834 2,713,672 2,560,625 TOTAL LIABILITIES&FUND BALANCE 6 633 798 1.095.935 577,5771 $ 3,109,177 2,737,489 2,596,662 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE-01/01/2018 $ 3,997,002 $ 1,072,768 $ - $ 2,267,511 $ 2,820,416 $ 2,763,256 ADD: REVENUE 3,572,830 286,221 958,430 1,675,909 1,676,184 806,760 LESS: EXPENSE 1,164,702 457,316 380,853 938,178 1,759,111 997,354 [FUND -04/30/2018 6,405.130 901.6731 $ 577.577 3,005.243 2,737,489 2 572 662 Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET FOR THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2018 CAPITAL RISK FIRE LIGHTING DEBT TRUST& DESCRIPTION PROJECTS RETENTION PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE AGENCY FUNDS FUND FUND FUNDS FUND FUND ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH $ 553,996 $ 146,967 $ 4,520,120 $ 25,069 $ 1,266,881 $ INVESTMENTS PETTY CASH TOTAL-UNRESERVED CASH $ 553,996 $ 146,967 $ 4,520,120 $ 25,069 $ 1,266,881 $ RESERVED CASH: PARKS&OPEN SPACE PLAN $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ _ $ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT - PRESERVE MAINTENANCE LAND STEWARDSHIP FUNDS FOR BOND REFUNDING FIDUCIARY FUNDS 244,035 TOTAL-RESERVED CASH $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 244,035 OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $ - $ - $ $ _ $ _ $ CUSTOMER RECEIVABLE DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS STATE&FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE DUE FROM OTHER GOV'TS PREPAID EXPENSES TAXES RECEIVABLE-CURRENT TOTAL-OTHER ASSETS $ - $ - Is - 1 $ _ $ _ $ TOTAL ASSETS 553,996 146,967 4,520.120 25,069 L1.,266,881 244,035 LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $ - $ - $ _ $ _ $ _ $ ACCRUED LIABILITIES 244,035 DUE TO OTHER FUNDS 1,985,305 RETAINAGE 23,098 DEFERRED REVENUE RESERVED FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE (1,454,406) 146,967 4,520,120 25,069 1,266,881 TOTAL LIABILITIES&FUND BALANCE 553,996 146,9671 $ 4,520,120 25.069 1 9 1,266.881 244,035 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE-01/01/2018 $ (1,454,426) $ 151,706 $ 2,078,828 $ 8,809 $ 228,128 $ ADD: REVENUE 145 40 3,251,883 19,006 1,208,054 LESS: EXPENSE 4,778 810,591 2,746 169,300 FUND BALANCE-04/30/2018 $ (1,454,281)1 $ 146,967 4,520.120 25.069 1,266,881 Page 2 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET for CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2018 , ,., '_,SAG(IVE,CAPITA ,TS ;.� „r %�; CLOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS PRl7JEG FUND H7 FUND 118 FUND H9 FUND 1110 1 FUND H11 I FUND H12 FUND H13 FUND H21 TOTAL DESCRIPTION Route 96B Gateway Trail Trumansburg Ellis Hollow Park Lane Sapsucker Wds Christopher Cir Sand Bank Rd CAPITAL Sidewalk (Grant Funding) Water Tank Water Tank Water Main Water Main Water Main Improvements PROJECTS ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH $ 95,530 $ 72,440 $ 1,238 $ 5,000 $ 12,023 $ 4,744 $ 2,464 $ 360,557 $ $ $ 553,996 INVESTMENTS TOTAL-UNRESERVED CASH $ 95,530 $ 72,440 $ 1,238 $ 51000 $ 12,023 $ 4,744 $ 2,464 $ 360,557 $ $ - $ 553,996 OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $ - $ - $ _ $ _ $ $ $ $ _ $ _ $ $ CUSTOMER RECEIVABLE _ _ DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS - _ STATE/FEDERAL RECEIVABLE - - DUE FROM OTHER GOWTS - 126 - - - - 126 PREPAID EXPENSES _ _ BAN LOANS TOTAL-OTHER ASSETS $ - $ 126 $ - $ _ $ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ $ 126 TOTAL ASSETS $ 95,530 $ 72r565 $ 1,238 $ 5 000 $ 12,023 $ 4,744 $ 2,464 $ 360,557 $ - $ - $ 554122 LIABILITIES&FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $ - $ _ $ _ $ _ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ACCRUED LIABILUTES - - _ DUE TO OTHER FUNDS - - 700,024 5,000 454,542 460,877 364,862 1,985,305 RETAINAGE - - - - 23,098 - - - - 23,098 BAN PAYABLE _ RESERVED FUND BALANCE - _ _ UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 95,530 72,565 (698,786) 0 (465,618) (456,133 _ (362,398) 360,557 (1,454,281) TOTAL LIAB&FUND BALANCE $ 95,530 $ 72,565. $ 1,238 $ 5,000 $ 12,023 $ 4,744 $ 2,464 $ 360,557 $ - $ $ 554122 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE-01/01/2018 $ 95,505 $ 72,546 $ (698,786) $ - $ (465,621) $ (456,134) $ (362,399) $ 360,462 $ - $ $ (1,454,426) ADD: REVENUE 25 19 0 0 3 1 1 95 - 145 LESS: EXPENSE - _ _ FUND BALANCE-04/30/2018 $ 95,530 $ 72,565 $ (698,786) $ 0 $ (465,618) $ 456133 $ (362,398) $ 360,557 $ - $ Page 3 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET for LIGHT DISTRICTS FOR THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2018 FUND SLA FUND SL-2 FUND SL-3 FUND SL-4 FUND SL-5 FUND SL-6 FUND SL-7 FUND SL-8 FUND SL-9TOTAL DESCRIPTION Forest Glenside Renwick Eastwood Clover Lane Winner's Burleigh Westhaven Coddington LIGHT Home Heights Commons Circle Drive Road Road DISTRICTS ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH $ 7,572 $ 1,719 $ 1,723 $ 3,218 $ 415 $ 11088 $ 1,606 $ 4,655 $ 3,072 $ 25,069 INVESTMENTS - - - TOTAL-UNRESERVED CASH $ 7,572 $ 1,719 $ 1,723 $ 3,218 $ 415 $ 11088 $ 1,606 $ 4,655 $ 3,072 $ 25,069 OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ CUSTOMER RECEIVABLE - DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS - STATE&FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE - PREPAID EXPENSES - TAXES RECEIVABLE-CURRENT 6,300 1,000 1,200 2,600 300 900 1,100 3,500 2,100 19,000 TOTAL-OTHER ASSETS $ 6,300 $ 1,000 $ 1,200 $ 29600 $ 300 $ 900 $ 1,100 $ 3,500 $ 2,100 $ 19,000 TOTAL ASSETS $ 13,872 $ 2,719 2,923 5,818 $ 715 $ 1 988 $ 2,706 8,155 5,172 44 069 LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $ . $ - $ - $ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ ACCRUED LIABILIITES _ DUE TO OTHER FUNDS _ DEFERRED REVENUE - RESERVED FUND BALANCE - - - UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 13,872 2,719 2,923 5,818 715 1,988 2,706 8,155 5,172 44,069 TOTAL LIABILITIES&FUND BALANCE 13,872 $ 2,719 $ 2,923 5,818 $ 715 $ 1 988 $ 2,706 8,155 5,172 $ 44 069 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE-01/01/2018 $ 1,790 $ 899 $ 757 $ 1,066 $ 168 $ 341 $ 691 $ 1,764 $ 1,331 $ 8,809 ADD: REVENUE 6,301 1,000 1,200 2,601 300 900 1,100 3,501 2,101 19,006 LESS: EXPENSE 519 180 234 449 54 153 185 610 360 2,746 FUND BALANCE-04/30/2018 7,572 $ 1,719 1,723 $ 3,218 415 1 088 $ 1,606 4,655 3,072 $ 25,069J Page 4 of 4 a TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2018 GENERALGENERAL HIGHWAY HIGHWAY WATER SEWER DESCRIPTION TOWNWIDE I PART-TOWN TOWNWIDE PART-TOWN FUND FUND FUND FUND- FUND FUND REVENUE BUDGETED REVENUE $ 4,560,778 $ 1,543,150 $ 810,750 $ 3,171,750 $ 7,081,208 $ 2,663,584 ACTUAL&ACCRUED 3,572,830 286,221 958,430 1,675,909 1,676,184 806,760 RE1/ENUE OVER 11NDER $ 987948 $ 1'256929 1:.$ 147680 $ ` 1 495841 $: 5405'024. $ 'v 856`824 % OF BUDGET EARNED 78.3% 18.5% 118.2% 52.8% 23.7% 30.3% EXPENSE BUDGETED EXPENSE $ 4,978,222 $ 1,894,070 $ 773,185 $ 3,490,313 $ 7,040,519 $ 3,302,208 ACTUAL&ACCRUED 1,164,702 457,316 380,853 938,178 1,759,111 997,354 EXPENSE A1/ER{UNDER 3 813 520 1436 Z54 :392 333 , 552` 35 :6281: {08 % BUDGET EXPENDED 23.4% 24.1% 49.3% 26.9% 25.0% 30.2% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE-01/01/2018 $ 3,997,002 $ 1,072,768 $ - $ 2,267,511 $ 2,820,416 $ 2,763,256 ACTUAL&ACCRUED ADD: REVENUE 3,572,830 286,221 958,430 1,675,909 1,676,184 806,760 LESS: EXPENSE 1,164,702 457,316 380,853 938,178 1,759,111 997,354 FUND BALANCE-.04/30/2018 $ 6 405130 1.$ 901,673 $ 577,5771 $ 3,005,243 1 $ 2m7,4891 $ ' 2 572 662 CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH(CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 5,506,283 $ 967,501 $ 577,577 $ 2,779,942 $ 683,977 $ 1,031,546 CASH-SJC OPERATING 1,510,392 INVESTMENTS - PETTY CASH 700 - 200 TOTAL-UNRESERVED CASH $ 5,506,983 $ 967,501 $ 577,577 $ 2,780,142 $ 683,977 $ 2,541,938 RESERVED CASH PARKS&OPEN SPACE PLAN $ 827,933 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT 165,487 69,408 79,343 23,817 12,037 HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT - 250,066 PRESERVE MAINTENANCE 40,139 - LAND STEWARDSHIP 9,847 INVESTMENTS FIDUCIARY FUNDS 4,422 TOTAL-RESERVED CASH $ 1,047,828 $ 69,408 I $ - 1 $ 329,4081 $ 23,817 $ 12,037 TOTAL CASH-,04/30/2018 6.554,811 1.036.909-F$-577,577 I 3109 551 I 707j794 2 553 975 Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2018 CAPITAL RISK FIRE LIGHTING DEBT TRUST& DESCRIPTION PROJECTS RETENTION PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE AGENCY FUNDS FUND FUND FUNDS FUND FUND REVENUE BUDGETED REVENUE $ - $ 15,000 $. 3,274,000 $ 19,000 $ 1,208,144 $ ACTUAL&ACCRUED 145 40 3,251,883 19,006 1,208,054 REVENUE OVER,UNDER $ 145' $ 14960 -$ (22.117),:$ -—6-r$ '- 90 % OF BUDGET EARNED 0.0% 0.3% 99.3% 100.0% 100.0% EXPENSE BUDGETED EXPENSE $ - $ 15,000 $ 3,382,500 $ 17,850 $ 1,341,144 $ ACTUAL&ACCRUED 4,778 810,591 2,746 169,300 EXPENSE.OVER y UNDER _,r': $:. 10 222. 151.04 A$ 1 171::844 $..': %OF BUDGET EXPENDED 0.0% 31.9% 24.0% 15.4% 12.6% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE-01/01/2018 $ (1,454,426) $ 151,706 $ 2,078,828 $ 8,809 $ 228,128 $ ACTUAL&ACCRUED ADD: REVENUE 145 40 3,251,883 19,006 1,208,054 LESS: EXPENSE 4,778 810,591 2,746 169,300 FUND.BALANCE-04/30/2018 $ (1,454,281), $ 146,967 , $ 4,520,120 $ 25,0691 $ 1,2669881 11 CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH(CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 553,996 $ 146,967 $ 4,520,120 $ 25,069 $ 1,266,881 $ CASH-SJC OPERATING INVESTMENTS PETTY CASH TOTAL-UNRESERVED CASH $ 553,996 $ 146,967 $ 4,520,120 $ 25,069 $ 1,266,881 $ RESERVED CASH PARKS&OPEN SPACE PLAN $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT PRESERVE MAINTENANCE LAND STEWARDSHIP FUNDS FOR BOND REFUNDING FIDUCIARY FUNDS 244 035 TOTAL-RESERVED CASH is - Is - $ - 1 $ - 1 $ - $ 244,035 TOTAL CASH-04/30/2018 $_ 553,996 1 $ 146,967 $ 4,520,120 1 $ 25,0691 $ .1 266 881 $ 244,035 Page 2 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2018 FUND H7 FUND H8 `FUND H9 FUND H70 FUND H11 FUND H12 FUND H13 FUND H21 TOTAL DESCRIPTION Rd 988 Gateway Trail Trumensburg Ellis Hollow Park Lane Sapsucker Christopher Sand'Bank Rd CAPITAL Sidewalk (Grant,Fundin Water Tank Water Tank Water Main Water Main Water Main Improvements PROJECTS REVENUE BUDGETED REVENUE $ - $ _ $ _ $ _ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ACTUAL&ACCRUED 25 19 0 0 3 1 1 95 145 REVENUE OVER"UNDER 25 . ': 19:.$. ,0 0 $i : I 3 $.r 1 :$ 1 95:'$ - _$ $ 145 % OF BUDGET EARNED 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% EXPENSE BUDGETED EXPENSE $ $ $ _ $ $ $ $ _ $ $ _ $ _ $ ACTUAL&ACCRUED EXPENSE:OVER=TINDER $,_-.;;_. %OF BUDGET EXPENDED 0.0% 0.0"/0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE-01/01/2018 $ 95,505 $ 72,546 $ (698,786) $ - $ (465,621) $ (456,134) $ (362,399) $ 360,462 $ $ $ (1,454,426) ACTUAL&ACCRUED ADD: REVENUE 25 19 0 0 3 1 1 95 - - 145 LESS: EXPENSE _ _ _ FUND BALANCE-04/30/2018 $ 95,530, $ 72,565 $ ::(F98,786) $ 0 (465,618) $ 456133 $ (362,398) $ 360,557 $ $ 1454 281 CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH(CHECI(ING/SAVINGS) $ 95,530 $ 72,440 $ 1,238 $ 5,000 $ 12,023 $ 4,744 $ 2,464 $ 360,557 $ - $ $ 553,996 INVESTMENTS _ _ - TOTAL CASH.-04/30/2018 $ 95 530 $ 72,440 1,238 5.000 12,023- $ :4.744 .$: 2464 $ 360,567 - $ Page 3 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for LIGHT DISTRICTS FOR THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2018 FUND SL-1 FUND SL-2 FUND SL-3 j,.FUNDSL-4 FUND SL-5 FUND SL-6 FUND SL-7 FUND SL-8 FUND SL-9 TOTAL DESCRIPTION Forest' Renwick Eastwood Winner's Burleigh Westhaven Loddington LIGHT Glenside Clover Lane Home. Hei hts Commons Circle Drive Road Road DISTRICTS REVENUE BUDGETED REVENUE $ 6,300 $ X11000 $ 1,200 $ 2,600 $ 300 $ 900 $ 11100 $ 3,500 $ 2,100 $ 19,000 ACTUAL&ACCRUED 6,301 1,000 1,200 22601 300 900 1,100 3,501 2,101 19,006 REVENUE OVER'UNDER 1 0 0 1 0 0- 0 1 1 6 % OF BUDGET EARNED 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% EXPENSE BUDGETED EXPENSE $ 5,000 $ 1,150 $ 1,300 $ 2,500 $ 300 $ 850 $ 11150 $ 3,400 $ 2,200 $ 17,850 ACTUAL&ACCRUED 519 180 234 449 54 153 185 610 360 2,746 EXPENSBOIEIr UNDER `: 4'487 ," 970 ..bl ;'1066:' 2'051 ,< ;T 246 697'i. 965 2790 184.0 15`104' %OF BUDGET EXPENDED 10.4% 15.7% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 16.1% 17.9% 16.4% 15.4% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE-01/01/2018 $ 1,790 $ 899 $ 757 $ 1,066 $ 168 $ 341 $ 691 $ 1,764 $ 1,331 $ 8,809 ACTUAL&ACCRUED ADD: REVENUE 6,301 1,000 1,200 2,601 300 900 1,100 3,501 2,101 19,006 LESS: EXPENSE 519 180 234 449 54 153 185 610 360 2,746 FUND BALANCE-04/30/2018 7,572 1,719 1,723 3,218 415 1,088 1,606 4,655 3,072 25 069 CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH(CHECKINGISAVINGS) $ 7,572 $ 1,719 $ 1,723 $ 3,218 $ 415 $ 1,088 $ 1,606 $ 4,655 $ 3,072 $ 25,069 INVESTMENTS _ TOTAL CASH-04/30/2018 7.572 1,719 1,723 3218 415 1,088- 1,606 4,655 3,072 25 069 Page 4 of 4 t TOWN OF ITHACA DETAILED CASH LISTING - FIDUCIARY FUNDS FOR THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2018 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TRUST&AGENCY FUND TA200C DISBURSEMENTS CHECKING $ - TA200P PAYROLL CHECKING 14,714.55 TA202 ON-LINE COLLECTIONS 10.86 TA205 ROAD USE AGREEMENTS 31,484.91 TA206 ITHACA TOWERS OPTION ESCROW 11,876.28 TA207 UNCLAIMED BAIL-ITHACA TOWN COURT 3,152.59 TA209 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING 13,921.63 TA210 STORMWATER COALITION 67,973.07 TA211 PLANNING DEPOSITS 39,123.99 TA212 CAYUGA LAKE WATERSHED INTERMUNICIPAL ORG 31,497.87 TA214 LAKE VIEW CEMETERY-PERMENANT MAINT FUND 18,773.64 TA215 LAKE VIEW CEMETERY-FERRIS MEMORIAL FUND 11,506.08 TOTAL CASH:TRUST&AGENCY FUND $ 244,035.47 GENERAL TOWNWIDE FUND A237 INLET VALLEY CEMETERY $ 4,421.73 TOTAL CASH: FIDUCIARY FUNDS $ 248,457.20 Road Use Agreements: Conifer Realty-Cayuga Meadows RUA $ 30,436.00 Jeff Simmons-120 Maple Avenue 1,000.00 Accrued Interest-transfer to General Fund 48.91 Total-Road Use Agreements $ 31,484.91 Unclaimed Bail-Ithaca Town Court: TB Resolution No.2016-166,adopted 12/12/2016 $ 1,750.00 Exp. 12/26/2022 TB Resolution No.2017-075c,adopted 6/26/2017 1,400.00 Exp. 6/26/2023 Accrued Interest-transfer to General Fund 2.59 Total-Unclaimed Bail-Ithaca Town Court $ 3,152.59 Planning Deposits: Nextel Site Lease Deposit $ 4,510.32 Wireless One Site Lease Deposit 4,601.43 Maplewood Traffic Calming Deposit (Rec.3/19/18) 30,000.00 Accrued Interest-transfer to General Fund 12.24 Total-Planning Deposits $ 39,123.99 TOWN OF ITHACA SUMMARY OF BANK COLLATERAL FOR THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2018 TOMPKINS TRUST COMPANY.- CASH OMPANY.CASH &CASH EQUIVALENTS $ 20,743,690 INVESTMENTS _ TOTAL CASH ON DEPOSIT $ 20,743,690 LESS: FDIC INSURANCE $ 250,000 LESS: FMV OF COLLATERAL ON DEPOSIT @ 04/30/2018 U.S.GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS $ 23,928,550 OVER(UNDER)COLLATERALIZED $ 3,434,860 CASH ASSETS COLLATERALIZED @ FMV 04/30/2018 117% Collateral is held by the Bank of New York,pledged for the Town of Ithaca,New York,for all deposits and/or repurchase agreements of Tompkins Trust Company. NOTE: For deposits in excess of FDIC coverage,General Municipal Law,section 10 requires that the excess amounts are to be secured by eligible collateral.