Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2011-03-072. $ Q7 ` Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, March 7, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. ,44 215 N Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Agenda 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Report of Tompkins County Legislature 3. Report of Ithaca Common Council 4. Persons to be Heard and Board comments 5. Discuss Conifer Senior Living Re -Zoning Request 6. Discuss and Consider setting a public hearing Regarding a Local Law Revising Chapter 205, Entitled "Property Maintenance", of the Town Code of the Town of Ithaca 7. Consider Setting a Public Hearing re.: Noise Permits for Ithaca College Senior Week Events a. May 18th — 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. BBQ with performers and music b. May 20th — 8:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Outdoor Movie Projection 8. Consider setting a Public Hearing Regarding Regulations Relating to Road Closures for Block Parties (Susan B) 9. Discuss and Consider Acceptance of the Concept and Locations of the Proposed Public Utilities (water and sewer) to be dedicated to the Town in Conjunction with the Cleveland Estates Subdivision Proposal. 10. Discuss and Consider Acceptance of the Concept and Locations of the Proposed Public Utilities (water and sewer) to be dedicated to the Town in Conjunction with the Belle Sherman Cottages Subdivision Proposal. 11. Consider Setting a Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Code Chapters 270 (Zoning) and Chapter 271 ( Zoning: Special Land Use Districts) to Provide a Planned Development Zone for the Belle Sherman Cottages Project located off Mitchell Street 12. Consider Setting a Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Relating to Historic Resources and the Possible Adoption of a New "Limited Historic Commercial' Floating Zone 13. Consider Setting a Public Hearing Regarding Two Proposed Local Laws Amending the Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 (Zoning) to (1) Add Article XVIII - A, Titled "Limited Historic Commercial Zones" and a. (2) Amend Article XIII, Titled Commercial Zones Generally, to Add Provisions Related to Limited Historic Commercial Zones, to Revise Additional Special Requirements, and to Clarify Drive -Through Operations Requirements 14. Consider Approval of Agreement for Legal Defense and Settlement Costs Associated with FirstEnergy 15. Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes of Feb 28, 2011 b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract d. Setting Fee for Fireworks Permits e. Setting of Brush and Leaf Pickup 16. Report of Town Officials 17. Report of Town Committees 18. Intermunicipal Organizations 19. Review of Correspondence 20. Consider Adjournment (A1 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, March 7, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. 215 N Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Minutes Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Tee -Ann Hunter, Rich DePaolo and Nahmin Horwitz Staff Present: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Solvig, Finance Director and Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Engman called the meeting to order at 5:32 and led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. An agenda item regarding Youth Program Funding was added after approval from the Board. Report of Tompkins County Legislature — None Report of Ithaca Common Council — None Persons to be Heard and Board Comments Paul Merrill from the Christopher Circle Neighborhood Group addressed the Board (Attachment #1) regarding the draft policy regarding the use of the Christopher Circle Tank site for staging and using the Monroe County balancing test to determine whether it could be used for non -emergency staging. Mr. Merrill did not believe using the balancing test was appropriate and the Town should not consider using the site for any staging other than emergency response. Discussion followed with Mr. Horwitz asking Mr. Merrill what kind of wording he was looking for in a policy. Mr. Merrill responded that he did not believe a policy was needed. He believed that the Town should follow the Town Code without exception or using the Monroe balancing test. Mr. DePaolo asked Ms. Brock about the language in the ruling distributed by Mr. Merrill concerning the Monroe County Balancing Test. Ms. Brock responded that it means that a municipality can choose to be more restrictive than the application of the test but not less restrictive. Representatives from Conifer addressed the Board and the Board discussed the draft resolution concerning the Conifer Senior Living Re -Zoning Request The representatives gave a brief history of the project and the stages and steps they have already gone through with town departments and boards for the project. The need is there with all senior housing currently at capacity and with waiting lists. They added that the hospital is in favor of the location and they think they will be able to work with TB 3-7-2011 Page 2 of 16 TCAT to provide additional public transportation. Another advantage is the infrastructure and services are already in place. The timing is crucial due to the funding cycles for State monies. They stated that it usually takes 2 or 3 submissions before approval and the window is only open once a year. As it stands, the best case scenario is 2014 occupancy. Discuss followed on the application process, timing and funds available from the State. The Board had questions regarding quality of life in that location as well as whether a PILOT agreement will be requested since Conifer has not paid on their current PILOT agreements. Discussion followed. The draft resolution was moved and seconded for discussion. Mr. DePaolo questioned what was being voted on because the title of the draft resolution was misleading. Mr. Engman responded that the resolution is to instruct staff to prepare a town law regarding rezoning the parcel which would then go through the normal process of public hearings and input and Board consideration. Mr. Horwitz had questions on terminology and how rents are set. He also asked about the process if the Town did go forward with a moratorium and study that comes back with a zero development scenario, would this resolution lock the Board into approving the development. Different Board members responded that it would not "tie the Board's hands". There was some discussion on possible East Hill locations with Cornell and they responded that they would welcome that also, but the location on West Hill close to the hospital is ideal. Mr. Engman read a letter in support of the proposal from John Rudd, VP of the hospital. There was also some discussion on the proposal to rezone the entire parcel instead of the portion they wish to build on. The representatives responded that some one will want to build for additional senior services; it might even be them. The Board expressed concerns regarding re -zoning the entire parcel because of the possible moratorium and planning for development on West Hill. Rezoning the entire parcel might limit options. The Conifer representatives then talked about what could be future uses for the parcel which included "worker housing" and additional senior -focused housing. Ms. Hunter was concerned about the location and depending on the proximity of the hospital as the only reason to put the senior housing there. There are issues of public transportation, security and topography. She did not feel there was an urgency given the submitted timeline and that there may be a better location for senior housing. Mr. Engman responded that the Town told developers this is where senior housing makes sense, and a year ago the Board passed this project along to the Planning Board which sent a message that this is the location for this type of project. He felt that Conifer has TB 3-7-2011 Page 3 of 16 gone through the process and been given certain encouragements and this resolution should be a clear message of support for the project to them. Mr. DePaolo stated that he did not doubt that there is a market for seniors, but argued that a market study is for a general area, not a specific location. He also did not like the reference to the survey from the Comp Plan which had numerous high number responses for "top priorities" and the Tompkins County Housing Needs Study which may be outdated. He felt this was an all -or -nothing vote because if this passes, you might as well forget about planning for development on West Hill. He added that after the study, we may come out saying this is exactly what we want or need but given the timeline, we should take that time. The point is to look at this comprehensively and passing this takes away the ability to envision a larger picture. This is the first domino to losing control of planning on West Hill. Ms. Leary disagreed and felt there was still a lot of West Hill to plan development (PDZ) for and did not necessarily have to include a planned development zone but Mr. DePaolo noted the last resolved which specifically refers to a PDZ. Ms. Hunter noted the title of the resolution is clearly intended to push through zoning that will not be part of planning for development of West Hill. Mr. Goodman was not concerned about the implied un -involvement of the Town Board in the development of the re -zoning or PDZ for the area because the Planning Committee will look at it and have input which included Town Board Members and then it would be referred to the full Board. He went on to talk about the discussions held on the PDZ over the past year or so and how he leaned towards a re -zoning so the rest of a PDZ could be planned more thoroughly. He thought the view from the hill is a major factor. He added that he agreed with Ms. Hunter's concerns about walkability and services but believes this can be a part of a future PDZ while a moratorium gives the Town time to plan the rest of the development on West Hill. Mr. Engman added that he could not imagine planning on West Hill not including a senior facility. He felt this was a part of future planning. There was further discussion on past Comprehensive Plan comments and Planning Department comments regarding the project. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 — 036: AGREE TO CONSIDER REZONING THE CONIFER PARCEL ON ROUTE 96 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR LIVING FACILITY AND AUTHORIZING TOWN STAFF TO PREPARE THE TOWN LAW WHEREAS Conifer Realty has proposed a multiple -residential development of approximately 72 units for low-income seniors on West Hill, and WHEREAS the location of the proposed development is substantially adjacent to existing low- and moderate -income housing and near senior housing on West Hill, some of which is owned by Conifer Realty, and TB 3-7-2011 Page 4 of 16 WHEREAS Conifer Realty has established itself in the Town of Ithaca as a responsible developer with a track record for providing well-built and maintained housing, and WHEREAS according to a market study provided by the developer Conifer Village on West hill has a 100% occupancy rate and a waiting list of 32; its other senior property in the Town of Ithaca, at Ellis Hollow Road Apartments, has a 99% occupancy and a waiting list of 65; Titus Towers, the next closest senior housing near West Hill, located in the City of Ithaca, has 100% occupancy and a waiting list of 6-8 months; and all other low-income senior housing in the county has occupancy rates at or near 100% and substantial waiting lists, and WHEREAS according to the Town of Ithaca Residents' Survey conducted for the Comprehensive Plan Committee the need to provide for more senior housing was identified as one of the top priorities of residents, and WHEREAS according to the Tompkins County Housing Needs Assessment Study, significantly more low- and moderate -income housing was identified as a need in the Town of Ithaca and throughout Tompkins County, and WHEREAS over the last 18 months Conifer Realty has had at least 14 meetings with town committees, boards, and staff to work out details of the proposal, and WHEREAS the economic viability of the Conifer project depends in part on state housing subsidies which may not be available into the indefinite future because of budgetary uncertainties in state and federal funding; therefore, time is of the essence to allow the project to move forward, and WHEREAS the Conifer project was considered as the first component of a larger Planned Development Zone to include mixed uses and a park & ride, which has been set aside pending a possible year-long moratorium and study of the entire West Hill area, and WHEREAS the Conifer development would provide an anchor for, while not precluding changes to, a future PDZ for the immediately adjacent parcels, would not significantly interfere with planning for the larger West Hill area, and would fulfill an immediate need for low-income senior housing; now therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town Board supports consideration of the rezoning of the Conifer parcel to Multiple Residence and directs the town planning staff, upon consultation with the attorney for the Town, to draft a local law to create such rezoning. Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Eric Levine Vote: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Levine and Horwitz Nays: DePaolo and Hunter Motion passed 5 to 2. TB 3-7-2011 Page 5 of 16 Discuss and Consider setting a public hearing Regarding a Local Law Revising Chapter 205, Entitled "Property Maintenance", of the Town Code of the Town of Ithaca The local law was drafted by Mr. Bates and Mr. Krogh. Ms. Brock noted that she made minor changes to the title and she would be putting it into the standard local law format prior to the public hearing. Mr. DePaolo asked if discussion on the draft law was going to happen at this meeting or at the public hearing. It was decided that discussion on the particulars of the draft local law would happen at the study session. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 037 : Set a Public Hearing Regarding a Local Law deleting Chapter 205 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled 'Property Maintenance', and adding a new Chapter 205, Titled 'Property Maintenance' RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 11 th day of April, 2011, at 5:45 p.m. for the purpose of considering a proposed Local Law Deleting Chapter 205 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled 'Property Maintenance', and Adding a New Chapter 205, Titled 'Property Maintenance'; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed amendment may be heard concerning the same; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal published in the City of Ithaca, Ithaca, New York, and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca, said publication and posting to occur not less than five days before the day designated above for the public hearing. MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Herb Engman VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Consider Setting a Public Hearing re.: Noise Permits for Ithaca College Senior Week Events a. May 18th — 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. BBQ with performers and music b. May 20th — 8:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Outdoor Movie Projection TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 038 : Setting a Public Hearing Regarding Noise Permits for Ithaca College Senior Week Activities BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the 11th day of April 2011 at the following times for the following events requiring noise permits: TB 3-7-2011 Page 6 of 16 5:50 p.m. May 18th Event — SPLASH with performers and music, and 5:52 p.m. May 20th Event — Outdoor Movie and it is further RESOLVED, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed noise permits will have an opportunity to express their concerns and/or support, MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Nahmin Horwitz VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Consider setting a Public Hearing Regarding Regulations Relating to Road Closures for Block Parties TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 — 039: SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REGULATIONS AND PERMITS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PARTIES, CELEBRATIONS AND EVENTS REQUIRING TEMPORARY CLOSURES OF TOWN ROADS Whereas, Section 64(10-b) of the New York Town Law authorizes a town board to adopt regulations for the issuance of permits by the town superintendent of highways or commissioner of public works for neighborhood block parties, celebrations or events that require temporary closure of a town street, highway or road, and Whereas, New York Town Law Section 64(10-b) requires a public hearing on at least five days notice before said regulations may be adopted, Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 11th day of April, 2011, at 5:55 p.m. for the purpose of considering proposed Town of Ithaca Regulations for the Temporary Closures of Roads for Neighborhood Block Parties, Celebrations or Events, and be it Further resolved, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed Regulations may be heard concerning the same, and be it Further resolved, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal published in the City of Ithaca, Ithaca, New York, and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca, said publication and posting to occur not less than five days before the day designated above for the public hearing. MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Bill Goodman VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. TB 3-7-2011 Page 7 of 16 Discuss and Consider Acceptance of the Concept and Locations of the Proposed Public Utilities (water and sewer) to be dedicated to the Town in Conjunction with the Cleveland Estates Subdivision Proposal. Mr. Engman asked if a park was in the plans for the subdivision and the applicants responded that there was not, but there was an open space area planned. Ms. Brock disclosed that the wife of one of the applicants provides cleaning services for her home and office but she felt there was no conflict of interest and the Board agreed. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 040: Acceptance of the Concept and Locations of the Proposed Public Utilities (water and sewer) to be dedicated to the Town in Conjunction with the Cleveland Estates Subdivision Proposal WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on August 3, 2010, has granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located at 1044 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 39-1-9.3 and 39-1-11.1, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves combining the two existing parcels into one +/- 5.4 acre parcel which will then be subdivided into 13 new building lots, one new lot containing the existing residence at 1044 Danby Road, and one lot for the stormwater facilities and open space. The project will also include the construction of a new road, stormwater facilities and a bike / pedestrian path. Birds -Eye View Properties, LLC, Owner; Travis & Kathy Cleveland, Applicants; Wayne C. Matteson, Jr., P.E., Agent, and WHEREAS, the applicant for the above -referenced subdivision has proposed to dedicate to the Town of Ithaca the public utilities (water and sewer) as shown on the plan titled "Utility Plan and Details" (Sheet S-3) dated Sept 2010, prepared by Wayne C. Matteson, Jr., PE, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Public Works Committee has reviewed the plans for the above -referenced improvements proposed for dedication to the Town, and have found them generally acceptable and voted to move the request to the Town Board for consideration, now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby accepts the concept and locations of the above-described improvements, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Final Subdivision Approval be granted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, prior to the Town Board accepting the conveyance of said improvements and easements, and TB 3-7-2011 Page 8 of 16 2. Completion of proposed utility lines to the satisfaction of the Town of Ithaca Director of Public Works, prior to the acceptance of said improvements by the Town Board, and 3. That the specific surveyed locations, deeds, and abstracts showing good and marketable title for the proposed improvements and easements be submitted in a form acceptable to the Attorney for the Town, the Director of Public Works, and the Director of Planning, prior to dedication and acceptance of the improvements by the Town Board, and 4. Acceptance by the Town Board of the proposed utilities and easements to be dedicated to the Town. MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Eric Levine VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Discuss and Consider Acceptance of the Concept and Locations of the Proposed Public Utilities (water and sewer) to be dedicated to the Town in Conjunction with the Belle Sherman Cottages Subdivision Proposal There were no questions from the Board TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 041: Acceptance of the Concept and Locations of the Proposed Public Utilities (water and sewer) to be dedicated to the Town in Conjunction with the Belle Sherman Cottages Subdivision Proposal. WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on January 4, 2011, has granted Preliminary Site Plan and Subdivision Approval for the proposed Belle Sherman Cottages subdivision located on Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 59-1-1, 59-1-2, 59-1-3, 59-1-4 and 63-2-10.3, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the development of 19 single-family houses and 10 attached townhouse units on 3.1 +/- acres. The proposal will involve a new private road between Worth Street and Clover Lane, new stormwater facilities, a play area, landscaping, sidewalks, and a new connection to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. Susan J. and Harold Mix, Owners; Agora Homes and Development, LLC, Applicants, and WHEREAS, the applicant for the above -referenced subdivision has proposed to dedicate to the Town of Ithaca the public utilities (water and sewer) as shown on the plan titled "Utility Plan" (sheet 3) dated February 2011, prepared by O'Brien & Gere, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Public Works Committee has reviewed the plans for the above -referenced improvements proposed for dedication to the Town, and have found them generally acceptable and voted to move the request to the Town Board for consideration, now TB 3-7-2011 Page 9 of 16 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby accepts the concept and locations of the above-described improvements, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Final Subdivision Approval be granted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, prior to the Town Board accepting the conveyance of said improvements and easements, and 2. Completion of proposed utility lines to the satisfaction of the Town of Ithaca Director of Public Works, prior to the acceptance of said improvements by the Town Board, and 3. That the specific surveyed locations, deeds, and abstracts showing good and marketable title for the proposed improvements and easements be submitted in a form acceptable to the Attorney for the Town, the Director of Public Works, and the Director of Planning, prior to dedication and acceptance of the improvements by the Town Board, and 4. Acceptance by the Town Board of the proposed utilities and easements to be dedicated to the Town. MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Tee -Ann Hunter VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Consider Setting a Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Code Chapters 270 (Zoning) and Chapter 271 ( Zoning: Special Land Use Districts) to Provide a Planned Development Zone for the Belle Sherman Cottages Project located off Mitchell Street There was some discussion on the availability of the proposed changes submitted by Ms. Brock to the applicants. After some discussion, it was decided that the proposed law should be ready for discussion at the study session and any changes from there completed prior to the legal deadline before the public hearing at the April regular meeting. TB Resolution No. 2011- 042: Consider Setting Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Code Chapters 270 (Zoning) and Chapter 271 ( Zoning: Special Land Use Districts) to Provide a Planned Development Zone for the Belle Sherman Cottages Project located off Mitchell Street BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the 11 th day of April 2011, TB 3-7-2011 Page 10 of 16 at 6:00 pm for the purpose of considering a proposed local law to amend Zoning Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town Code to Provide a Planned Development Zone for the Belle Sherman Cottages Project located off Mitchell Street; and it is further RESOLVED, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed local law may be heard concerning the same; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal published in the City of Ithaca, Ithaca, New York, and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca, said publication and posting to occur not less than ten days before the day designated above for the public hearing. MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Eric Levine VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously. Consider Setting a Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Relating to Historic Resources and the Possible Adoption of a New "Limited Historic Commercial" Floating Zone Mr. DePaolo asked about when this local law was going to be discussed because he did not see changes regarding his concerns about properties being required to revert back to previous zoning if they fell into disrepair and he did not like the definitive language which did not give the Board any latitude for decisions regarding the reversion. Discussion followed with Mr. Goodman recapping what was discussed at the Codes and Ordinances Committee regarding Mr. DePaolo's concerns. Discussion followed. The additional uses only add value and changing the zone does not take away the responsibility of the owner to upkeep a historical building. Mr. DePaolo did not like limiting the ability of the Board to decide and Ms. Brock asked what criteria would be applied. Discussion continued and the majority of the Board could see no downside to changing the zoning from a property owner's view. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 043: Setting a Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Relating to Historic Resources and the Possible Adoption of a New "Limited Historic Commercial" Floating Zone BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the 11th day of April, 2011 at 6:15 p.m. to consider proposed amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan relating to historic resources and the possible adoption of a new "Limited Historic Commercial" floating zone, pursuant to Section 272-a of New York State Town Law, the above referenced public hearing to be the second of two public hearings to be held on this matter. The first public hearing required by Section 272-a was held on January 10, 2011 for the purpose of providing full opportunity for citizen TB 3-7-2011 Page 11 of 16 participation and input in the preparation of said Comprehensive Plan amendments; and it is further RESOLVED, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed amendments to the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan may be heard concerning the same; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal published in the City of Ithaca, Ithaca, New York, and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca, said publication and posting to occur not less than ten days before the day designated above for the public hearing. MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Eric Levine VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Levine and Horwitz Nays: DePaolo Hunter — absent Motion passed 5 to 1 Consider Setting a Public Hearing Regarding Two Proposed Local Laws Amending the Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 (Zoning) to (1) Add Article XVIII - A, Titled "Limited Historic Commercial Zones" (2) Amend Article XIII, Titled Commercial Zones Generally, to Add Provisions Related to Limited Historic Commercial Zones, to Revise Additional Special Requirements, and to Clarify Drive -Through Operations Requirements TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 043: Setting a Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Relating to Historic Resources and the Possible Adoption of a New "Limited Historic Commercial" Floating Zone BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the 11th day of April, 2011 at 6:15 p.m. to consider proposed amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan relating to historic resources and the possible adoption of a new "Limited Historic Commercial" floating zone, pursuant to Section 272-a of New York State Town Law, the above referenced public hearing to be the second of two public hearings to be held on this matter. The first public hearing required by Section 272-a was held on January 10, 2011 for the purpose of providing full opportunity for citizen participation and input in the preparation of said Comprehensive Plan amendments; and it is further RESOLVED, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed amendments to the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan may be heard concerning the same; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal published in the TB 3-7-2011 Page 12 of 16 City of Ithaca, Ithaca, New York, and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca, said publication and posting to occur not less than ten days before the day designated above for the public hearing. MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Eric Levine VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Levine and Horwitz Nays: DePaolo Hunter — absent Motion passed 5 to 1 Consider Approval of Agreement for Legal Defense and Settlement Costs Associated with FirstEnergy TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011-045: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL DEFENSE AND SETTLEMENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF ITHACA REGARDING THE ITHACA AREA WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY SITE RELATIVE TO NYSEG V. FIRSTENERGY CORP.; FIRSTENERGY CORP. V. CITY OF ITHACA, ET AL WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca, the City of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden did agree, by Agreement dated December 29, 2009, titled "Agreement As to Legal Defense Costs and Damages (if any) Associated with a lawsuit against the City of Ithaca Regarding the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility Site" to share the costs associated with this litigation, including special counsel attorneys' fees and final settlement costs or damages and WHEREAS The Town of Ithaca, the City of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden negotiated the allocation of payments among themselves in the following proportions: Town of Ithaca - $80,000 City of Ithaca - $200,000 Town of Dryden - $4,249 :lav RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca approves the attached agreement titled "Post Litigation Settlement Agreement As to Legal Defense Costs and Settlement Costs Associated with a Lawsuit Against the City of Ithaca Regarding the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility Site: NYSEG v. FirstEnergy Corp.; FirstEnergy Corp. v. City of Ithaca, et al." and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Supervisor is authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Town of Ithaca. MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Eric Levine VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Levine, DePaolo and Horwitz Hunter — absent Motion passed. TB 3-7-2011 Page 13 of 16 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 046: Requesting New York State to Maintain Funding Streams for Youth Bureaus and Further Urging Elimination of Competitive Bid Funding WHEREAS Governor Cuomo has submitted his proposed 2011-2012 Executive Budget recommending the development of a Primary Prevention Incentive Program (PPIP) and WHEREAS this proposal actually slashes the current allocation of funding for Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention (YDDP), Special Delinquency Prevention Program (SSPP), and Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA), by 50% and WHEREAS this proposal eliminates these funding streams and offers the distribution of funds on a competitive basis to counties resulting in the elimination of funding to many rural counties thereby promoting inequities in prevention and positive youth development services across New York State and WHEREAS the proposed competitive bidding process will also result in a loss of local planning and control and WHEREAS the aforementioned proposal will dismantle the current youth bureau system, structure and funding streams and will be especially detrimental to all municipal youth bureaus and WHEREAS current youth development and prevention services are provided through a fair and equitable formula -driven allocation through the New York State Office of Children and Family Services and WHEREAS the current funding through youth bureaus structures ensure appropriate local monitoring, evaluation and accountability and WHEREAS youth development, prevention and intervention are essential for critical services to children and youth and WHEREAS if adopted this portion of the Executive Budget would result in the minimal loss of over $200,000 of youth services dollars for Tompkins County and WHEREAS the proposed property tax cap on local governments will make it difficult if not impossible for local governments to make up the state youth services cuts from local resources and WHEREAS if adopted New York State will be abandoning its long-time national leadership and partnership in youth prevention, intervention and development services as articulated in Article 19-A of the Executive Law and WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca believes that providing services and programs for children and youth is an investment, not only in delinquency prevention, but also in the TB 3-7-2011 Page 14 of 16 development of all our young people in all ways thus enriching our society and nation as a whole BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca hereby requests that Governor Cuomo and the New York State Legislature maintain the current youth bureau funding streams, albeit with proportionate reductions, and eliminate the concept of competitive bid funding and further RESOLVED that Governor Cuomo and the New York State Legislature be directed to uphold Article 19-A of the Executive Law and to maintain the current youth bureau system and structure which is in the best interest of the 26,000 children and youth of Tompkins County, including the young people of the Town of Ithaca, and of the children and youth of New York State as a whole and further RESOLVED that the Town Clerk is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to Governor Cuomo, Assembly Speaker Silver, Senate Majority Leader Skelos, Chair Senate Children and Families Committee Senator Savino, Chair Assembly Children and Families Committee Assembly Member Paulin, Senator O'Mara, Assembly Member Lifton, and the New York State Association of Towns. MOVED: Herb Engman SECONDED: Rich DePaolo VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously Consider Consent Agenda Items TB RESOLUTION NO. 2010- 047: Consent Agenda BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the resolutions for the following Consent Agenda items: a. Approval of Town Board Minutes (pulled) b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract d. Setting Fee for Fireworks Permits (pulled) e. Setting of Brush and Leaf Pickup MOVED: Tee -Ann Hunter SECONDED: Bill Goodman VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously TB 3-7-2011 Page 15 of 16 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 048: Adoption of Fee Schedule for Fireworks Permit Applications WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted a resolution on November 8, 2010 establishing procedures for processing permit applications for the display of fireworks, and WHEREAS, the procedures established did not include a fee schedule for fireworks permit applications, Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca establish the following fee schedule for Fireworks Permit applications: Value of Display Fee $1 _$10,000 $150 $10,001 - $50,000 $300 Over $50,000 $500 MOVED: Eric Levine SECONDED: Tee -Ann Hunter VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously Report of Town Officials Ms. Brock reported that Tompkins County received an answer on the eminent domain issue regarding the Hanshaw Rd Walkway eminent domain and the county prevailed it was a unanimous decision and she did not know if this could or would be appealed. Mr. Levine added that it is not as of right to appeal but there is a time frame so we will know within 30 days whether the Court would even entertain an appeal. Report of Town Committees Public Works Committee-- Mr. Goodman discussed the Staging Policy stemming from the Christopher Circle issue. He stated that he did not agree with Mr. Merill's interpretation of the guidance from NYS because we have not specified that we have bound ourselves to our zoning law and ordinance so we fall into the second paragraph as opposed to the first and would therefore fall into the use of the balancing test. Mr. Goodman went on to explain that as he saw it, the site has been routinely used for multiple projects but the Board was never aware of it. To address that, the policy would have staging areas brought before the Public Works Committee which would then report to the Town Board options and suggestions for staging areas associated with non- emergency projects. Mr. Weber noted that this step will allow staff to provide cost assumptions especially when submitting grants that generally have time restraints. Discussion followed regarding possible alternate sites and costs associated with different options. The question of whether the Town's Public Works Facility could be a TB 3-7-2011 Page 15 of 16 r0111 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 048: Adoption of Fee Schedule for Fireworks Permit Applications WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted a resolution on November 8, 2010 establishing procedures for processing permit applications for the display of fireworks, and WHEREAS, the procedures established did not include a fee schedule for fireworks permit applications, Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca establish the following fee schedule for Fireworks Permit applications: Value of Display Fee $1 _$10,000 $150 $10,001 - $50,000 $300 Over $50,000 $500 MOVED: Eric Levine SECONDED: Tee -Ann Hunter VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Levine and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously Report of Town Officials Ms. Brock reported that Tompkins County received an answer on the eminent domain issue regarding the Hanshaw Rd Walkway eminent domain and the county prevailed it was a unanimous decision and she did not know if this could or would be appealed. Mr. Levine added that it is not as of right to appeal but there is a time frame so we will know within 30 days whether the Court would even entertain an appeal. Report of Town Committees Public Works Committee-- Mr. Goodman discussed the Staging Policy stemming from the Christopher Circle issue. He stated that he did not agree with Mr. Merill's interpretation of the guidance from NYS because we have not specified that we have bound ourselves to our zoning law and ordinance so we fall into the second paragraph as opposed to the first and would therefore fall into the use of the balancing test. Mr. Goodman went on to explain that as he saw it, the site has been routinely used for multiple projects but the Board was never aware of it. To address that, the policy would have staging areas brought before the Public Works Committee which would then report to the Town Board options and suggestions for staging areas associated with non- emergency projects. Mr. Weber noted that this step will allow staff to provide cost assumptions especially when submitting grants that generally have time restraints. Discussion followed regarding possible alternate sites and costs associated with different options. The question of whether the Town's Public Works Facility could be a TB 3-7-2011 Pagc 16 of 16 staging area for projects was discussed and Mr. Weber felt that the staff time and level of efficiency involved in staging there would definitely keep it from being an option for most projects. Mr. DePaolo asked if jointly owned infrastructure would be considered town -owned when considered for this policy. Mr. Weber thought they would be considered town - owned for these purposes but noted that most if not all jointly -owned infrastructure is in outside of the Town and would therefore not be applicable. Ms. Brock noted that public utility uses are as -of -right regardless who owns them. Mr. DePaolo asked what the actual process was going to be for bringing these options to the Board. He was looking for the mechanism for approval and whether it would be a Town Board decision from Committee recommendation and if so, that should be detailed in the policy. Discussion followed with Mr. Goodman explaining that the Public Works Committee would be the initial step to explore possibilities and Mr. DePaolo noted that there were no details on whose responsibility it would be to make the ultimate decisions. He felt what Mr. Goodman was saying was that the Public Works Committee would offer suggestions after review but that is an assumption that is not spelt out in the policy. Mr. Goodman asked for suggested language and Ms. Leary suggested adding the Public Works Committee will make a recommendation to the Town Board and the Town Board will make the final decision with Ms. Brock adding based on the County of Monroe balancing test where the activity is not a permitted use in the zoning. Discussion followed with Mr. Goodman not wanting the Monroe County specifically noted since there may be others. Mr. DePaolo suggested adding the following to the first sentence in the second paragraph: as plans are developed for potential improvement projects, including grant -funded projects, Staff will provide the Public Works Committee with an assessment of staging options after which process the Public Works Committee will recommend possible strategies to the Town Board for consideration and approval. Discussion followed. Added verbiage... as the project design progresses, the options shall be better defined, including impacts to the adjacent property owners, estimated costs for each option and consideration of applicable balancing tests. Discussion then turned to whether to adopt this as a resolution now or by simple Board action. It was decided to put it on the April regular meeting for a vote by resolution. Intermunicipal Organizations Mr. Engman noted that there is a public hearing scheduled for Monday, March 14'" at City Hall regarding the remedy for the former manufactured gas site clean up. Rer►'ew of Correspondence — None eetin was adjPurned upon otion at 8:40 p.m. Pa(uiette Terwilliger, To L _'Z JAMES A. COON LOCAL GOVERNMENT TECBNICAL SERIES MQ\ Governmental Immunity from Zoning Governments often undertake development activities within their own or other communities. Local governments may find their community to be the site of a development action by another nearby municipality or another level of government, such as the county or the state. For example, a county may construct a new building in a town, village or city. When this happens, questions are often asked about how zoning regulations affect these development activities. This paper is a guide for local government officials faced with these questions. Certain acts of government may be exempt, or "immune," from zoning. Before 1988, New York courts recognized that certain entities were entitled to absolute immunity from zoning regulations, including the federal government; state government; state urban development corporations; and public schools. These entities were not required to comply with local land use regulations. Other governmental entities, such as towns, villages, cities, counties and fire districts, are accorded only a limited immunity, and may be subject to local land use regulations. In making a determination as to whether the actions of governmental units are "exempt" from local zoning regulations, the New York Court of Appeals in the 1988 case of Matter of County of Monroe v City of Rochester, 72 N.Y.2d 338, 533 N.Y.S.2d 702, established a new method for resolving inter -governmental land use disputes using the "balancing of public interests" analytic approach. Unless a statute exempts it, the encroaching governmental unit is presumed to be subject to the zoning regulations of the host community where the land is located. Working from that premise, a host community then considers several factors to determine whether or not it is in the public interest to continue to subject the encroaching government to its land use regulations. The host community is to weigh the following nine factors: 1. the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity; 2. the encroaching government's legislative grant of authority; 3. the kind of function or land use involved; 4. the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned; 5. alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas; 6. the impact upon legitimate local interests; 7. alternative methods of providing the proposed improvement; 8. the extent of the public interest to be served by the improvements; and 9. intergovernmental participation in the project development process and an opportunity to be heard. Neither the New York Court of Appeals nor the New York State statutes specify which board in the host municipality makes the determination of governmental immunity. This raises two questions — when in the development approval process is this determination made, and who makes it? The following are some alternative scenarios which may lead to a determination of governmental immunity. A Municipality Developing Within its Own Jurisdiction When a local government proposes to establish a facility or undertake an activity within its own geographic boundaries, the courts have held that it is subject to the County of Monroe "balancing of interests" test. In other words, the local government is presumed to be subject to its own regulations. (Dunn v. Town of Warwick, 146 AD2d 601 (2°d Dept. 1989); and Armenia v. Luther, 152 AD2d 928 (4`h Dept. 1989) Which board conducts the balancing analysis to determine whether this is in the public interest has been a matter of speculation. Some suggestions: A municipal governing board may choose to bind some or all actions of its own municipality to the requirements of its zoning regulations by specifying so within the zoning law or ordinance. Where a municipality has done so, a zoning permit should be applied for. A referral to the planning board or zoning board for a special use permit or site plan review may be necessary as well. Any immunity challenge that the municipality wishes to make may be brought before the zoning board of appeals. Where a local government has not bound itself to the requirements of its zoning regulations, the municipal governing board must protect the public interest by examining the nine factors as applied to the current project. It must determine whether it is immune from the requirements of the zoning regulations, and whether a zoning permit is necessary. Even where a municipal governing board has declared an action immune from zoning, it may still wish to comply with the requirements of zoning, where practicable, and with public notice and hearing requirements. A Municipality Developing Within Another Jurisdiction In the absence of a statute to the contrary, where a municipality or other governmental unit proposes a project in another community, the two governments should assume that the action is subject to the host community's zoning requirements. One key unresolved question is whether the host community or the encroaching government should apply the nine factors set forth in the County of Monroe case to determine the extent to which the host community's regulations will actually apply. One court recently discussed this matter: Whether the intruder or the host should be entitled to a first instance review of a proposed project was not entirely resolved in County of Monroe. The issue has a long and contentious history (4 Rathkopfs The Law of Zoning and Planning, § § 53.03-53.05, 53.09). However, under the emerging majority view, where the intruder is not explicitly immune from the land use regulations of the host, and assuming the intruder cannot demonstrate that its interests are paramount in some important res publica sense, the host is permitted to scrutinize the intruder's project in the first instance. Thereafter, the intruder is entitled to pursue any available judicial remedy. The court may then review a developed factual record. Thus, it is argued, the prerogatives of the localities which have been given express land use regulatory powers are preserved, subject to modification in the interest of other compelling and transcending public purposes (4 Rathkopf s, supra, § 53.03 [3]). 2 Town of Caroline et al v. County of Tompkins (Sup. Ct. Tompkins County)( Index #2001-0788) (9/20/01) p. 3. m'" 1 Where a municipality or other governmental unit undertakes development activities associated with a project without applying for a zoning permit, the host community will need to make a determination as to whether to initiate enforcement action against the developing municipality or governmental unit. Any disagreement between the parties may be resolved by the appeals process of the host community or by the courts. Extending State's Limited Immunity through Private Contracts The New York Court of Appeals recently held that the State of New York, following application of the County of Monroe "balancing" test, enjoys limited immunity from local zoning when installing telecommunication towers on State land and the State may extend that immunity to private partners through contractual agreements. In Crown Communication New York, Inc. V. Department of Transportation of the State of New York, 4 N.Y.3d 159, 791 N.Y.S.2d 494 (2005), the Court held that the holders of a contract to build towers on State owned land were similarly exempt from local zoning regulations which required applications for special permits. The Court stated "[though] the ... [contractors] will also realize profit from their services [it] does not undermine the public interests served by co -location. Such shared use and benefit is analogous to the ... development project in County of Monroe, which likewise served both public and private interests. Subjecting the private... [contractors] to local regulation ...`could otherwise foil the fulfillment of the greater public purpose of promoting' the State's public safety and environmental goals associated with its ... development plan." Id. at 167 (citation omitted). The decision made clear, however, that the State does not have "blanket authority" to allow contractors to bypass all zoning regulations. The grant of immunity maybe extended where the factors as outlined in County of Monroe weigh in favor of the State use . Unresolved Questions Although the County of Monroe case was decided almost twenty years ago, several questions regarding the application of the test remain unanswered. First, the case dealt with site plan regulations which were adopted as part of the local zoning law. Whether the decision of the court would apply to the application of site plan regulations adopted independently of zoning, or for that matter, to compliance with subdivision review or other land use regulations has not been resolved. Second, it is not clear which board in the host municipality weighs the nine factors and determines whether the governmental unit undertaking the development activity is immune from local land use regulations or not. Normally, the zoning administrator or zoning enforcement officer acts as the gatekeeper for applications and makes the first determination whether a land use can proceed as of right or whether it may require site plan or some other type of discretionary review. Under the state zoning enabling laws, the zoning administrator's determinations are appealable to the zoning board of appeals — which might then hear arguments based on the Monroe balancing test. In other instances, the governing board of the host (") municipality has applied the balancing test. Also ambiguous is when, during the development process, that decision is made. Finally, where a governmental unit is absolutely immune from zoning or other land use regulations, it is unclear what deference that unit of government should give to the host government's regulations. The courts have not answered the question, "Should the immune governmental unit nevertheless try to comply with the host municipality's regulations?" as a matter of governmental comity. Ultimately, resolution of these questions may lie with the courts or the State Legislature. 4 TOWN OF ITHACA FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2011 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 PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2011 GENERAL GENERAL HIGHWAY CAPITAL DESCRIPTION TOWNWIDE PART -TOWN PART -TOWN WATER SEWER PROJECTS FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUNDS ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH $ 3,756,651 $ 221,086 $ 1,158,450 $ 1,053,777 $ 375,462 $ 394,749 CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - - - . PETTY CASH 725 - 200 - - TOTAL UNRESERVED CASH $ 3,757,376 $ 221,086 $ 1,158,650 $ 1,053,777 S 375,462 $ 394,749 RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE S 628,692 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT 84,833 22,259 44,303 8,193 5,789 - HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT - - 27,198 - - - CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - - - TOTAL RESERVED CASH $ 713,525 $ 22,259 $ 71,501 $ 8,193 $ 5,789 S - OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $ 4,006 S 628 $ 150 $ - $ - $ - WATER & SEWER RENTS RECEIVABLE - - - 59,257 16,104 - DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS 467,289 - 72,214 - - - STATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE 21,142 - - - - - DUE FROM OTHER GOV'TS 11,147 107,799 43,777 - - PREPAID EXPENSES 180,809 61,317 79,201 9,319 7,809 BAN LOANS - - 71,501 - - TOTAL OTHER ASSETS $ 684,393 $ 169,744 $ 195,342 $ 68,576 S 23,912 S TOTAL ASSETS $ 5,155,294 $ 413,089 $ 1,425,493 $ 1,130,546 $ 405,163 $ 394,749 LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $ 115,001 $ 6,162 $ 15,903 $ 3,350 $ 6,635 $ - ACCRUED LIABILITIES 103,823 61,149 94,833 60,884 100,074 - BAN PAYABLE - - - - - 381,600 DUE TO OTHER FUNDS 53,650 - 9,907 26,511 136,446 312,989 DEFERRED REVENUE - - 8,003 - - - RESERVED FUND BALANCE 713,525 22,259 71,501 8,193 5,789 - UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 4,169,295 323,518 1,225,346 1,031,609 156,219 (299,840) TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $ 5,155,294 $ 413,089 $ 1,425,493 $ 1,130,546 $ 405,163 $ 394,749 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE -01/0112011 S 2,630,578 S 413,240 $ 881,661 $ 1,243,305 S 596,317 $ (365,402) ADD: REVENUE 2,863,900 139,493 772,880 696,038 154,557 100,013 LESs: EXPENSE 611,658 206,956 357,694 899,492 588,866 31,451 RESERVED FUND BALANCE 713,525 22,259 71,501 8,193 5,789 - UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 4,169,295 323,518 1,225,346 1,031,657 156,219 (299,840) FUND BALANCE - 02/28/2011 $ 4,882,820 $ 345,777 S 1,296,847 $ 1,039,850 $ 162,008 $ (299,8• Page 1 o, TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 201'1 DESCRIPTION RISK RETENTION FUND FIRE PROTECTION FUND LIGHTING DISTRICT FUNDS DEBT TRUST & INLET SERVICE AGENCY VALLEY FUND FUND CEMETERY ASSETS FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2011 $ 60,214 $ 13,131 $ 9,685 $ UNRESERVED CASH: - $ 9,034 ADD: REVENUE 10,034 3,369,905 CASH $ 137,780 $ 3,736,201 S 22,069 $ 740,468 $ - S - CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - 128,479 _ _ _ PETTY CASH _ _ - 9,037 TOTAL UNRESERVED CASH $ 137,780 $ 3,736,201 $ 22,069 $ 740,468 $ - $ - RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE $ - $ $ $ _ $ _ $ _ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT - FIDUCIARY FUNDS - - - - 110,111 9,037 CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - _ _ _ _ TOTAL RESERVED CASH $ - $ - $ $ - $ 110,111 $ 9,037 OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $ - $ - $ 13,150 $ - $ $ - CUSTOMER RECEIVABLE - _ _ DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS STATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE ,�QPE FROM OTHER GOWTS .EPAID EXPENSES _ iN LOANS )TAL OTHER ASSETS $ - $ - $ 13,150 $ _ $ S _ TOTAL ASSETS $ 137,780 $ 3,736,201 $ 35,219 $ 740,468 $ 110,111 $ 9,037 LIA ILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $ - $ 264,792 $ $ - $ - $ _ ACCRUED LIABILITIES 39,716 396,240 - 110,111 BAN PAYABLE _ _ DUE TO OTHER FUNDS DEFERRED REVENUE RESERVED FUND BALANCE - - - - - 9,037 UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 98,064 3,075,169 35,219 740,468 - - TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $ 137,780 $ 3,736,201 $ 35,219 $ 740,468 $ 110,111 $ 9,037 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2011 $ 60,214 $ 13,131 $ 9,685 $ 94,092 $ - $ 9,034 ADD: REVENUE 10,034 3,369,905 13,153 774,855 3 LESS: EXPENSE (27,816) 307,867 770 128,479 - - RESERVED FUND BALANCE - - - - 9,037 UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE -0. 98,064 3,075,169 22,068 740,468 - - AD BALANCE - 02/28/2011 $ 96,064 S 3,075,169 $ 22,068 $ 740,468 $ - $ 9,037 Page 2 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET for CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND H1 FUND H2 FUND H3 FUND H8 TOTAL DESCRIPTION First Street Forest Home Warren Road Gateway Trail CAPITAL Interceptor Traffic Calming Walkway PROJECTS ASSETS FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2011 $ 5,071 $ (262,831) $ (194,236) S 86,594 $ UNRESERVED CASH: ADD: REVENUE 2 20 99,963 29 100,013 ADD: RETAINANGE CASH $ 5,072 $ 15,727 $ 287,327 $ 86,622 $ 394,749 CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - - UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE - (297,262) - 86,622 - FUND BALANCE - 02/28/2011 - TOTAL UNRESERVED CASH $ 5,072 $ 15,727 $ 287,327 $ 86,622 $ 394,749 RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE - $ - $ - $ - $ - FIDUCIARY FUNDS CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - - - - TOTAL RESTRICTED CASH $ - $ - $ - $ - $ OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $ - $ - $ $ - S - CUSTOMER RECEIVABLE - - - DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS - - STATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE - - - - DUE FROM OTHER GOV'TS - - PREPAID EXPENSES - - - BAN LOANS - - - - - TOTAL OTHER ASSETS $ - $ - $ - $ - S TOTAL ASSETS $ 5,072 $ 15,727 $ 287,327 S 86,622 S 394,749 LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $ - $ $ - $ - $ - ACCRUED LIABILIITES DUE TO OTHER FUNDS - 312,989 - - 312,989 RETAINAGE - . BAN PAYABLE - - 381,600 - 381,600 RESERVED FUND BALANCE - - - - - UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 5,072 (297,262) (94,273) 86,622 (299,840) TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $ 5,072 $ 15,727 S 287,327 $ 86,622 $ 394,749 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2011 $ 5,071 $ (262,831) $ (194,236) S 86,594 $ (365,402) ADD: REVENUE 2 20 99,963 29 100,013 ADD: RETAINANGE - - LESS: EXPENSE - 34,451 - - 34,451 RESERVED FUND BALANCE - - - - - UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 5,072 (297,262) (94,273) 86,622 (299,840) FUND BALANCE - 02/28/2011 $ 5,072 $ (297,262) $ (94,273) $ 86,622 $ (299,840) Page 3 of 4 1 -1 ) ITHACA BALANCE SHEET for LIGHTING DISTRICTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2011 FUND SL -1 FUND SL -2 FUND SL -3 FUND SL -4 FUND SL -5 FUND SL -6 FUND SL -7 FUND SL -8 FUND SL-9L OTAL DESCRIPTION Forest Glenside Renwick Eastwood Clover Lane Winner's Burleigh Westhaven Coddington LIGHTING Home Heights Commons Circle Drive Road Road DISTRICTS ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH S 4,016 $ 1,436 $ 2,294 $ 3,855 S 561 $ 1,307 $ 1,422 S 4,570 $ 2,608 $ 22,069 CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - - - _ - TOTAL UNRESERVED CASH $ 4,016 $ 1,436 S 2,294 5 3,855 $ 561 S 1,307 $ 1,422 S 4,570 $ 2,606 S 22,069 RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE S - 5 $ - S - $ - $ - $ $ _ $ $ FIDUCIARY FUNDS CASH IN CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT TOTAL RESTRICTED CASH S - S - $ $ - $ - $ $ _ $ $ _ $ - OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE S 2,270 S 780 S 1,100 $ 2,200 $ 270 $ 800 $ 980 $ 3,000 S 1,750 $ 13,150 CUSTOMER RECEIVABLE - - - - _ DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS - STATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE - DUE FROM OTHER GOV'TS - PREPAID EXPENSES BAN LOANS - - - - _ - - TOTAL OTHER ASSETS $ 2,270 $ 780 S 1,100 S 2,200 S 270 $ 800 $ 980 $ 31000 S 1,750 $ 13,150 TOTAL ASSETS $ 6,286 $ 2,216 $ 3,394 $ 6,055 S 831 $ 2,107 S 2,402 $ 7,570 $ 4,358 S 35,219 -IJAt311 ITIES and FUND ,BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $ - $ - $ - $ - S - $ S _ $ _ $ $ ACCRUED LIABILlITES _ DUE TO OTHER FUNDS - - RETAINAGE BAN PAYABLE RESERVED FUND BALANCE - - - - _ UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 6,286 2,216 3,394 6,055 831 2,107 2,402 7,570 4,358 35,219 TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $ 6,285 $ 2,216 $ 3,394 $ 61055 $ 831 $ 2,107 S 2,402 $ 7,570 $ 4,358 $ 35,219 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE -01101!2011 $ 1,861 $ 699 $ 1,254 $ 1,797 $ 308 $ 562 S 499 $ 1,744 S 961 $ 9,605 ADD: REVENUE 2,270 780 1,100 2,201 270 800 980 3,001 1,750 13,153 ADD: RETAINANGE - - - LESS: EXPENSE 115 43 61 143 17 55 57 176 104 770 RESERVED FUND BALANCE - - - - _ UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 4,016 1,436 2,294 3,855 561 1,307 1,422 4,570 2,608 22,068 FUND BALANCE - 02/2812011 S 4,016 $ 1,436 $ 2,294 $ 3,855 $ 561 $ 1,307 $ 1,422 $ 4,570 $ 2,608 $ 22,068 Page 4 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2011 REVENUE GENERAL GENERAL HIGHWAY CAPITAL DESCRIPTION TOWNWIDE PART -TOWN PART -TOWN WATER SEWER PROJECTS S 2,927,886 FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUNDS REVENUE $ 4,549,125 $ 1,163,714 $ 2,855,841 $ 5,779,635 S 2,231,667 S 344,339 BUDGET $ 4,004,000 $ 1,023,364 S 2,927,886 $ 5,948,184 $ 1,797,330 $ 297,000 ACTUAL & ACCRUED 2,863,900 139,493 772,880 696,038 154,557 100,013 OVER (UNDER) $ (1,140,100) $ (883,871) $ (2,155,006) $ (5,252,146) $ (1,642,773) $ (196,987) % EARNED 71.5% 13.6% 26.4% 11.7% 8.6% -27.4% % UNEARNED 28.5% 86.4% 73.6% 88.3% 91.4% -53.9% EXPENSE BUDGET $ 4,549,125 $ 1,163,714 $ 2,855,841 $ 5,779,635 S 2,231,667 S 344,339 ACTUAL & ENCUMBRANCE 611,658 206,956 357,694 899,492 588,866 34,451 OVER (UNDER) $ (3,937,467) $ (956,758) $ (2,498,147) $ (4,880,143) S (1,642,801) S (309,888) % EXPENDED 13.4% 17.8% 12.5% 15.6% 26.4% 0.0% % UNEXPENDED 86.6% 82.2% 87.5% 84.4% 73.6% 0.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2011 $ 2,630,578 $ 413,240 $ 881,661 $ 1,243,305 $ 596,317 S (365,402) ACTUAL & ACCRUED ADD: REVENUE 2,863,900 139,493 772,880 696,038 154,557 100,013 LESS: EXPENSE 611,658 206,956 357,694 899,492 588,866 34,451 FUND BALANCE - 02/2812011 $ 4,882,820 $ 345,777 $ 1,296,847 $ 1,039,850 $ 162,008 $ (299,840) CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 3,756,651 $ 221,086 $ 1,158,450 $ 1,053,777 $ 71,471 $ 394,749 CASH - SJC OPERATING - - - - 303,991 - PETTY CASH 725 - 200 - - - TOTAL UNRESERVED CASH $ 3,757,376 $ 221,086 $ 1,158,650 $ 1,053,777 S 375,462 $ 394,749 RESERVED CASH PARKS & OPEN SPACE $ 628,692 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT 84,833 22,259 44,303 8,193 5,789 HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT - - 27,198 _ _ _ FIDUCIARY FUNDS - TOTAL RESERVED CASH S 713,525 $ 22,259 S 71,501 S 8,193 $ 5,789 $ - TOTAL CASH - 02/28/2011 S 4,470,901 $ 243,345 $ 1,230,151 $ 1,061,970 $ 381,251 $ 394,749 Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2011 REVENUE RISK FIRE LIGHTING DEBT TRUST & INLET DESCRIPTION RETENTION PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE AGENCY VALLEY 774,855 - 3 FUND FUND FUNDS FUND FUND CEMETERY REVENUE $ 11,500 $ 3,372,500 $ 14,150 $ 815,918 S BUDGET $ 10,000 $ 3,408,137 $ 13,150 $ 775,918 $ - $ - ACTUAL 10,034 3,369,905 13,153 774,855 - 3 OVER (UNDER) $ 34 $ (38,232) $ 3 $ (1,063) $ - $ 3 % EARNED 100.3% 98.9% 100.0% 99.9% 0.0% % UNEARNED -0.3% 1.1 % 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% EXPENSE BUDGET $ 11,500 $ 3,372,500 $ 14,150 $ 815,918 S - $ 1,500 ACTUAL & ENCUMBRANCE (27,816) 307,867 770 128,479 - - OVER (UNDER) $ (39,316) S (3,064,633) $ (13,380) $ (687,439) $ - $ (1,500) %EXPENDED -241.9% 9.1% 5.4% 15.7% 0.0% % UNEXPENDED 341.9% 90.9% 94.6% 84.3% 100.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/07/2011 $ 60,214 $ 13,131 $ 9,685 $ 94,092 $ - $ 9,034 " ACTUAL & ACCRUED ADD: REVENUE 10,034 3,369,905 13,153 774,855 - 3 LESS: EXPENSE (27,816) 307,867 770 128,479 - - FUND BALANCE - 02/28/2011 $ 98,064 $ 3,075,169 $ 22,068 $ 740,468 $ - $ 9,037 CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 137,780 $ 3,736,201 $ 22,069 S 740,468 $ - $ - CASH - SJC OPERATING - - _ _ PETTY CASH - - _ _ _ TOTAL UNRESERVED CASH S 137,780 $ 3,736,201 $ 22,069 $ 740,468 $ - $ RESERVED CASH PARKS & OPEN SPACE $ - $ - $ - $ - S _ $ GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT FIDUCIARY FUNDS - - - 110,111 9,037 TOTAL RESERVED CASH $ - $ - $ - $ - S 110,111 $ 9,037 TOTAL CASH - 02/28/2011 $ 137,780 $ 3,736,201 $ 22,069 $ 740,468 $ 110,111 $ 9,037 Page 2 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2011 ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND H1 FUND H2 FUND H3 FUND H8 TOTAL DESCRIPTION First Street Forest Home Warren Road Gateway Trail CAPITAL Interceptor Traffic Calming Walkway PROJECTS REVENUE 5,072 $ 15,727 $ 287,327 $ 86,622 BUDGET $ $ - S 297,000 S - $ - $ 297,000 ACTUAL & ACCRUED 86,622 $ 2 20 99,963 29 100,013 OVER (UNDER) $ 2 $ (296,980) $ 99,963 $ 29 $ (196,987) % EARNED 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.7% % UNEARNED 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.3% EXPENSE BUDGET $ - $ 33,622 $ 226,717 $ 84,000 $ 344,339 ACTUAL & ENCUMBRANCE - 34,451 - - 34,451 OVER (UNDER) $ - $ 829 $ (226,717) $ (84,000) $ (309,888) % EXPENDED 0.0% 102.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% %6 UNEXPENDED 0.0% -2.5% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2011 ACTUAL& ACCRUED ADD: REVENUE ADD: RETAINANGE LESS: EXPENSE FUND BALANCE - 02/28/2011 CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) INVESTMENTS TOTAL CASH - 02/28/2011 $ 5,071 $ (262,831) $ (194,236) $ 86,594 $ (365,402) 2 20 99,963 29 100,013 34,451 - 34,451 $ 5,072 $ (297,262) $ (94,273) $ 86,622 $ (299,840) $ 5,072 $ 15,727 $ 287,327 $ 86,622 $ 394,749 $ 5,072 $ 15,727 $ 287,327 $ 86,622 $ 394,749 Page 3 of 4 TG ) ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for LIGHTING DISTRICTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2011 REVENUE FUND SL -1 FUND SL -2 FUND SL -3 FUND SL -4 FUND SL -5 FUND SL -6 FUND SL -7 FUND SL -8 FUND SL -9 TOTAL DESCRIPTION Forest Glenside Renwick Eastwood Clover Lane Winner's Burleigh Westhaven Coddington LIGHTING 2,270 Home Heights Commons Circle Drive Road Road DISTRICTS REVENUE FUND BALANCE - 0':10112011 $ 1,861 $ 699 $ 1,254 $ 1,797 $ BUDGET $ 2,270 $ 780 $ 1,100 $ 2,200 $ 270 S 800 S 980 S 3,000 S 1,750 $ 13,150 ACTUAL & ACCRUED ADO: REVENUE 2,270 780 1,100 2,201 2,201 270 800 3,001 980 13,153 3,001 - 1,750 13,153 OVER (UNDER) $ 0 S 0$ 0$ - 1 $ 0$ 0$ 43 0$ 143 1 S 0$ 3 % EARNED 770 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2,294 $ 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1,422 $ 100.0% 2,608 $ 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % UNEARNED 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% EXPENSE BUDGET $ 3,270 $ 780 S 1,100 $ 2,200 S 270 S 800 $ 980 $ 3,000 S 1,750 $ 14,150 ACTUAL & ENCUMBRANCE 115 43 61 143 17 55 57 175 104 770 OVER (UNDER) $ (3,155) S (737) $ (1,039) $ (2,057) $ (253) $ (745) $ (923) $ '(2,825) $ (1,646) $ (13,380) % EXPENDED 3.5% 5.5% 5.5% 6.5% 6.3% 6.9% 5.8% 5.8% 6.0% 5.4% % UNEXPENDED 96,5% 94.5% 94.5% 93.5% 93.7% 93.1% 94.2% 94.2% 94.0% 94.6% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 0':10112011 $ 1,861 $ 699 $ 1,254 $ 1,797 $ 308 $ 562 $ 499 $ 1,744 $ 961 $ 9,685 ACTUAL & ACcRUEC ADO: REVENUE 2,270 780 1,100 2,201 270 800 980 3,001 1,750 13,153 ADD: RETAINANGE - - - - - - - - - _ LESS: EXPENSE 115 43 61 143 17 55 57 175 104 770 FUND BALANCE - 02/28/2011 $ 4,016 $ 1,436 $ 2,294 $ 3,855 $ 561 $ 1,307 $ 1,422 $ 4,570 $ 2,608 $ 22,068 CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH (CHECKINGISAVINGS) $ 4,016 $ 1,436 $ 2,294 $ 3,855 $ 561 $ 1,307 $ 1,422 $ 4,570 $ 2,608 $ 22,069 INVESTMENTS - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL CASH - 02128/2011 $ 4,016 $ 1,436 S 2,294 $ 3,855 $ 561 $ 1,307 $ 1,422 $ 4,570 $ 2,608 $ 22,069 Page 4 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA DETAILED CASH LISTING - FIDUCIARY FUNDS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2011 DESCRIPTION TRUST & AGENCY FUND TA200C DISBURSEMENTS CHECKING TA200P PAYROLL CHECKING TA202 ON-LINE COLLECTIONS TA205 NEXTEL SITE LEASE DEPOSIT TA206 ITHACA TOWERS OPTION ESCROW TA207 WIRELESS ONE TA209 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING TA210 STORMWATER COALITION TA211 VERIZON WIRELESS ESCROW TA212 CAYUGA LAKE WATERSHED INTERMUNICIPAL ORG TOTAL CASH: TRUST & AGENCY FUND INLET VALLEY CEMETERY FUND TE202 INLET VALLEY CEMETERY - EXPENDABLE TRUST TOTAL CASH: FIDUCIARY FUNDS AMOUNT 2,327.87 15,418.37 4,483.22 11,794.90 4,574.37 8,616.50 41,805.18 270.19 20,820.01 $ 110,110.61 $ 9,036.73 $ 119,147.34 VA t 6 TOWN OF ITHACA SUMMARY OF BANK COLLATERAL FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2011 TOMPKINS TRUST COMPANY: CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS $ 12,538,032 INVESTMENTS TOTAL CASH ON DEPOSIT $ 12,538,032 LESS: FDIC INSURANCE $ 250,000 LESS: FMV OF COLLATERAL ON DEPOSIT @ 2/28/2011 U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS $ 15,256,273 OVER (UNDER) COLLATERALIZED $ 21468,241 CASH ASSETS COLLATERALIZED @ FMV 2/28/2011 122% 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. TOWN OF ITHACA Public Works Department Month of February Board Report Roads: • Snow and ice removal on roads, including salt mixing. Crews were called in early for 16 out of the 28 days of the month. • Snow was cleared away from intersections, fire hydrants, catch basins, and drifted areas were pushed back. • Vehicle and equipment maintenance. • Cold patching potholes and water main break trenches. • Hazardous trees were removed along various town roads. • Stockpiled crushed stone for upcoming road, park, trail and water projects. • Some minor road flooding occurred after a thawing rain melted some of the snow pack. Frozen culverts and catch basins were thawed out where water had backed up onto the roadway. • Continued traffic counting program. • The Village of Cayuga Heights borrowed our excavator to repair a water break at their sewer treatment plant. • Nancy Flood began work as our part-time clerk/typist. Parks, Trails, and Preserves: ■ Snow and ice removal continued as required. ■ Weekly site checks at parks and trails. ■ Hazardous tree removals were done at several parks and trails. ■ Hand railings along the Forest Home Walkway were repaired. ■ Trees and brush were cut and chipped in preparation for constructing the concrete sidewalk and pedestrian bridge in the easement area at Warrenwood Apartments as part of the Warren Road Walkway project. Water: ♦ Snow removal at water tanks, pump stations and access roads. ♦ Water main breaks were repaired at Winthrop Drive and Vista Lane. ♦ Several staff members attended a training session on using trench shoring equipment during excavation work. ♦ Our new hydraulic saw for cutting ductile iron water pipe was delivered and its operation demonstrated to staff. /"� Sewer: ► Weekly sewer pump station checks were performed. ► A total of 23 Dig Safely New York mark outs were performed. ► Snow removal for accessing sewer pump stations. ► Repairs were made to Caldwell and Southwoods Sewer Pump Stations. Engineering: A Inspected 25 weekly simple SWPPPs. Managed 6 full SWPPPs. Development review on various projects. 4 Attended seminar on Green Infrastructure. 4 Received railroad permit for East Shore Drive water main project. 4 Worked on preparing bid documents for Hungerford Hill pump station, Snyder Hill and East Shore water main, Town Hall roof and Snyder Hill Road repaving projects. 4 Obtained final authorization from State DOT to advertise the remaining work on the Warren Road Walkway project. A Continued to work with other Town staff, to respond to concerns from the State Comptrollers Office, for authorization of the East Shore Drive Water Main Project. March Projects: 1. Continue snow and ice removal as required. 2. Flood prevention tasks. 3. Continue hazardous tree removals. 4. Weekly sewer and water pump station checks. 5. Weekly park and trails site checks. 6. Continue hauling materials for stockpiles. 7. Sign maintenance. 8. Cold patching of potholes. 9. Bluebird nesting box maintenance. 10. Annual safety awareness training on March29tn. 11. Continue upgrades and repairs to sewer pump stations. 12. Abandon Mitchell Street PRV Town of Ithaca Department of Code Enforcement Monthly Report for February 2011 Category Description Entries Building Permit Inspection In the Field inspection tied to a building permit 45 Building Permit Consultation In -office or in -field consultation w/project managers or contractors regarding building projects 19 Building Permit Review Review and processing of building permits 78 Complaint New Investigation New complaint investigation 6 Complaint Follow -Up Processing of complaints 12 Continuinq Education Training,seminars CEU's 4 Fire Incident Investigation Fire Incident Investigation following dispatched call 8 Fire Safety/Operating Permit Inspection Fire Safety inspection for and/or operating permit. Processing of notes and issuance of permit. 21 Fire Safety/Operating Permit Re -Inspection Processing of Fire Safety re -inspection notes and issuing op2rating permittfollow-up. 36 Legal Processing Order to Remedy, issuing Appearance Tickets and actual court appearances 4 Meeting Attendance at Departmental meetings, Board meetings, Committee meetings & Staff meetings, etc. 43 Miscellaneous Counter service, phone calls not associated with an active file. 109 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Review Field Inspection/Report 0 Zoning Hoard of Appeals Review and research of ZBA applications 3 Addresses 911 All related work for address changes 0 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 02/0112011 - 02/2812011 Building Permits BP # Date Value Descrlptlon fee category 8775 2/412011 $2,500.00 Replace garage door, replace 2x4s, $50.00 Renovations and 8540 1235 Trumansburg Rd replace/repair sheeting & install new 123 Addition to 1 & 2 8567 180 Kendall Ave shake shingles 101 Familv Homes 8721 2/412011 $6,000.00 Build 14'x 24' deck, create habitable $60.00 Renovations and 8607 950 Danby Rd space in basement 953 Addition to 1 & 2 Famitv Homes 8777 2/7/2011 $11,500.00 Demolition of building $75.00 Renovations and Addition to 1 & 2 Familv Homes 8776 2/10/2011 $32,000.00 10'x 12' addition, kitchen modifications $150.00 Renovations and Addition to 1 & 2 Familv Homes 8784 2/23/2011 $4,000.00 Repair concrete steps $55.00 Renovations & Additions to Commercial 8786 2/25/2011 $14,500.00 Reroof house, remove boat hoist, repair $150.00 Renovations and retaining walls Addition to 1 & 2 Family Homes 8783 2/25/2011 $1,500,00 Relocate demising wall between suites $50.00 Renovations & 212 and 214 Additions to Commercial BP # Address 8698 296 Birchwood Dr N 8649 105 Concord PI 8733 177 Synchrotron Or 8540 1235 Trumansburg Rd 8534 123 Christopher Cir 8567 180 Kendall Ave 8536 101 Hams B Dates Or 8764 85 Whitetail Dr 8758 12 John St 8607 950 Danby Rd 8055 953 Danby Rd Description Replace front steps Replace and enlarge two decks and add hot tub Install NFPA sprinkler system remove old shingles and recover with steel roofing on west side of building only remove pantry and non -load bearing wall Code upgrades to apartment renovation to 2nd floor lobby and reception for sleep clinic Install replacement window Repair minor fire damage Top out walls to deck -1 st floor factory, former foster woodwork space Creation and expansion of parking lots Co Temp 211/2011 C...i 2/112011 2/3/2011 2/3/2011 ❑ 2/4/2011 ❑ 277/2011 ❑ 2/11/2011 ❑ 2/16/2011 ❑ 2/23/2011 ❑ 2/23/2011 ❑ 2/24/2011 Tuesday, March 01, 2011 Page 1 Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report 02/01/2011 - 02/28/2011 8276 129 Updike Rd Construct a one story, one room log 2/24/2011 ❑ I camp (ZBA ruled no variance needed) 8576 111 Tudor Rd 2 story addition on front of house --ramp, 2/28/2011 U porch, entry, and larger master bedroom Complaints Date Address Complaint Type Disposition 2/9/2011 120 King Rd E other Local Law Abated i 2/7/2011 131 Textor Cir fire Abated 2/14/2011 114 Ridgecrest Rd fire Abated 2/14/2011 225 Pennsylvania Ave building code Pending 2/22/2011 117 Alumni Cir building code No Violation Found 2/23/2011 853 Taughannock Blvd building code Abated Existing Building CO f� Tuesday, March 01, 2011 Page 2 Town of Ithaca Codes Department Building Permits Received in February 2011 Date Recd CEO BP # St # Street Name Status 2/3/2011 SW 8776 421 Sheffield Rd Issued 2/7/2011 SW 8777 105 King`s Way Issued 2/14/2011 KG 8778 1413 Hanshaw Rd Pending 2/161201 i SW 8779 145 Pearsall PI Pending 2/17/2011 KG 8780 127 Westview Ln Pending 2/18/2011 SW 8781 155 Westhaven Rd Pending 2/18/2011 KG 8782 651 Dryden Rd Pending 2/22/2011 SW 8783 950 Danby Rd Issued 2/22/2011 KG 8784 391 Pine Tree Rd Issued 2/22/2011 SW 8785 126 Kendall Ave Pending 2/23/2011 SW 8786 853 Taughannock Blv Issued Tuesday, March 01, 2011 Page 1 of 1 I Town of Ithaca Codes Department Building Permits Issued in February 2011 Date Last name Street Number Street Name Description 2/4/2011 Dennis 128 Sapsucker Woods Replace garage door, replace 2x4s, replace 2/4/2011 Belbase 1020 Hanshaw Rd Build 14'x 24' deck, create habitable space 2!7/2011 Manley's Might 105 King's Way Demolition of building 2/10/2011 Daniel Grantha 421 Sheffield Rd 10' x 12' addition, kitchen modifications 2/23/2011 Ciser Building 391 Pine Tree Rd Repair concrete steps 225/2011 Mumford 853 Taughannock Btvd Reroof house, remove boat hoist, repair ret 2/25/2011 South Hill Busin 950 Danby Rd Relocate demising wall between suites 212 Tuesday, March 01, 2011 Page I of I