Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2012-03-26 Study Sessionof the Ithaca Town Board Monday, March 26, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Agenda Call to Order at 4:30 p.m. Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting – No comments Town Official’s Reports Sue Ritter – Planning Ms. Ritter stated that they have received a request for a 40-acre site on Mecklenburg Road to go from Low Density Residential to Agricultural. They feel that they will have a better chance at doing what they want, namely a fruit/produce stand and small farm production under agricultural zoning because they intend to build several small outbuildings for washing, packing, storage etc. and possible worker-housing. The land is currently in a County Ag District and the uses fall under the 1993 Comprehensive Plan vision as well as the Comprehensive Plan under revision. This is a down-zoning which is unusual and lands nearby are proposed for Conservation Zoning which they are aware of. There are no tax implications because it is already in a County Ag Zone. The Board felt it was straightforward and Ms. Ritter will prepare a resolution to set a public hearing and will ask them to appear at the Town Board meeting in May and then they may appear before the Planning Board. Ms. Ritter also reported that the Conservation Board has established a Coy Glen Committee to discuss and brainstorm boundaries for the Coy Glen Conservation Zone proposal. A study and report has been started and this Committee will help finish that report and then work with the Planning Committee to submit a proposal to the Town Board. The Board felt this was a good idea. Jim Weber – Public Works Mr. Weber reported that they have completed work identified by the State Parks on the Black Diamond Trail, so we’ve fulfilled our obligation. The work included replacing four culverts at road crossings and putting in additional ditches. Mr. Engman added that other municipalities are working on their culverts and there is some private funding for a couple of footbridges and a request for funding for another bridge is submitted to the Governor for his budget. Hopefully this will take some of the pedestrians and cyclists off of Route 89 because you can get from Cass Park to Taughannock now.. His assumption was that the road improvement down from the hospital to the trail will remain since both the hospital and the museum were in favor of the connections. Report from Committees Budget Committee : 3-26-2012 Page 2 of 12 Mr. Levine reported that last month they reviewed the presentation to staff regarding health insurance contributions and discussed union negotiations. Codes and Ordinances Committee : Mr. Goodman reported that they started to look at future projects and talked about changes in definitions of garages as accessory structures and working on an issue of woodsheds that a resident brought to the Town Board a few months ago. They also need to tweak sections of codes that deal with mining as they relate to the local law just passed on fill and fill permits. Bill. Apr 9 will be the public hearing for the stream setback law. They also talked about complaints regarding the sprinkler law to consider making it more in line with the NYS law. The Town law is much more restrictive. In April the committee will work in earnest on the sign law and continue discussing the sprinkler issue. Comprehensive Plan Committee Mr. Engman reported that he felt they were at a very important stage right now. We are talking about land use, particularly land-use map with growth scenarios. We’ve covered West Hill and South Hill and will be working on East Hill at the next meeting. Once that is done, the rest is less of discussion items than what kind of growth we envision in each are. We’ve been talking about that which should be protected and that which can be developed without affecting the town. There has been some tension in the group concerning development and there is an even- numbered committee and might come to a 4-4 tie if it comes to a vote. If that happens, it was decided that that item would be sent to the Town Board for final decision. Planning Committee Mr. DePaolo reported that Tom Mank from ITCTC was in to present his revisions and updates to the traffic modeling for West Hill. He moved the map to the east to include the Fulton St/Meadow St corridor. There were not a lot of surprises, the intersections that are already bad will get worse and the growth projections for the County would lead to increased traffic and the question remains whether the nodal pattern would lead to better traffic and the larger question of what we intend to do with the data. Mr. Mank is going to provide maps that can be incorporated into a summary of his efforts and the Committee is going to draft a statement of findings. Mr. DePaolo continued saying that they asked Mr. Mank to do some additional color coding to show differences in trend-growth associated with the County’s projections versus having nodal plans. Mr. Horwitz asked which intersections are the worst and roughly how much worse his projections are going to make it. Mr. DePaolo responded that the Taughannock Blvd and Buffalo Street was the worst and the cut through intersections such as Campbell Ave suffered a lot. There was less of an affect on westbound traffic than expected but greater affects on the cut through intersections. Mr. DePaolo emphasized that these are projected numbers for looking out long-range and we can’t “sound alarms” on what may never happen, but, it is good planning to look to the future than wait for things to be really bad. Ms. Leary added that the projections were out 20 years and the baselines were a few seconds, and the delays were a minute or a little more in addition to the light. Ms. Ritter noted that the projections used were a 20-year population-based projection based on the County’s numbers and a 40-50 year West Hill development projection with full build-out. A combination of the two was used to draw and discuss figures and impacts. 3-26-2012 Page 3 of 12 The full Board will be getting additional information and reports from the Planning Committee and more discussions will happen. Personnel and Organization Committee Mr. Goodman reported that they talked about a possible community garden going up on East Hill and continued discussion on job classification and point systems as well as the increase in Code fees, a SmartWork update and comments from the survey of the Codes Department. Public Works Committee Mr. Goodman reported that they will be continuing working on a road preservation law and Mr. Horwitz is going to the Town of Caroline to sit in on their working group. The PWC is recommending following the County model versus the DELTA model and we need to determine the threshold number of trips; the county is using 1,000 but we would probably want to go lower than that and there is the size of the vehicles also Ad Hoc Committees Fire : Mr. Levine reported that they met with the Varna Fire Department and learned that they run an operation with 62 volunteers. They operate a bunker project and built a house behind the fire hall. Their budget is $250,000 and they have 1200 calls a year. They don’t have a fire district, instead they established a 501C(3) corporation that contracts with the Town of Dryden. They have a strong EMS program and they will certify anyone who is interested in becoming an EMT. They suggested looking at the Cortlandville Department also. Mr. DePaolo asked what the population was and Beth Harrington was present and answered that Dryden divvies up between Varna, Freeville, Dryden and Etna and each has their own territory that they cover in the Dryden Fire District. Youth : Mr. Engman talked about the survey being done by Cortland University and noted that by the end of this year, we have to have an extension for the Recreation Partnership and it is important that all the municipalities hang together and keep this going and hopefully the survey will give some good information to notice. Employee Relations : Mr. Goodman reported that they talked about lunches with staff and thought of doing them quarterly and having them open to all members instead of signing up for one. Consider Approval of Teamsters Union Contract Mr. DePaolo asked about the monthly contribution indicated. The negotiating team explained that this is a symbolic contribution to start off and reopen the door. It will eventually be a percentage. Mr. Goodman noted that the Personnel Committee will be discussing non-union contributions and Mr. Engman added that a possible sliding scale will also be discussed. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-059: Approval of Collective Bargaining Agreement with Teamsters Local 317 Public Works Department Unit. 3-26-2012 Page 4 of 12 WHEREAS, effective January 1, 2008, the Town Board recognized Teamsters Local 317 as the exclusive representative for collective bargaining purposes of all full-time probationary and full- time post-probationary Department of Public Works employees in the following position titles: Laborer, Motor Equipment Operator, Heavy Equipment Operator, Working Supervisor, Maintenance Worker, Engineering Technician I, Senior Engineering Technician, Heavy Equipment Mechanic, and Assistant Automotive Mechanic; and WHEREAS, the term of the expiring contract with Teamsters Local 317 was through December 31, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Town’s negotiations team, comprised of the Town Supervisor, Deputy Town Supervisor, Highway Superintendent and Human Resources Manager, and Teamster’s negotiations team have come to a tentative agreement on the changes to the collective bargaining contract for the term of January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Personnel & Organization Committee reviewed the changes to the contract on March 6, 2012 and recommend approving the collective bargaining agreement; and WHEREAS, the employees in the collective bargaining unit met on March 14, 2012 and voted affirmatively to ratify the contract; Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby accept the recommendation of the negotiation team and Personnel & Organization Committee and approves the signing of the collective bargaining agreement between the Town of Ithaca and Teamsters Local 317; and be it further RESOLVED, the contract is effective January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014, with retroactive pay for the employees dating back to January 1, 2012. MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Pat Leary Vote: Ayes – DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, and Horwitz Motion passed unanimously Discussion Items Emergency Response Q&A with a Representative from the Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response Beth Harrington, Department of Emergency Response. Ms. Drake noted that Mr. Horwitz submitted some questions and she asked Ms. Harrington to give a brief overview of what her department is responsible for and how that relates back to the Town when there is an emergency. Ms. Harrington stated that the Department of Emergency Response is a County Department with 4 primary responsibilities. The 911 Center is part of the department and they are responsible for 3-26-2012 Page 5 of 12 the emergency planning for the county and that extends to the municipalities. They have a Fire Coordinator who deals with the fire departments, and an Emergency Medical Services Coordinator. TCCOG also requested that a template of an Emergency Plan be developed that municipalities could use. The department has an indirect responsibility for public information and education in terms of preparedness. The rule of thumb is that everyone needs to be self- sufficient for 72 hours and any significant amount of help other than what you can get locally is going to take that amount of time. Last year there were 98 declared presidential disasters in the United States including several in our area. She stated that they are really resources to municipalities as we need them. Ms. Drake noted that we have just designated the Red Cross as one of the emergency providers and she asked Ms. Drake to explain how that works. Ms. Harrington responded that if it is an isolated incidence with a small number of people involved, the Red Cross will put people into hotels etc. With a larger disaster such as the Owego flood, they work with the Red Cross to help. The Red Cross has reorganized recently and at the county level, they have some capabilities, but limited on a widespread area. A main focus of this year is to work with the Red Cross to identify emergency shelters and she noted that animal sheltering is a legal responsibility of a municipality. Ms. Harrington stressed that what they try to get across to every municipality, is identify what your resources. Mr. Horwitz worried about a tornado scenario where maybe 1000 people are homeless and how could they be self-sufficient for 72 hours. Ms. Harrington said they encourage people to depend on friends and family and a plan such as everyone looks to their neighbor on their right and if this is done right down the line, it works well for coverage. Then know your faith-based organizations and what is available in your community. It would be good for the Town to start conversations with them and find out what they could offer in an emergency situation. Mr. Horwitz agreed but felt that the Town has not done any of that and our Emergency Preparedness Plan does not address this. There is no one tasked with doing this and his impression is that the Town is relying on the County to do this and now he hears the County saying we are supposed to be self-sufficient for 72 hours. Ms. Harrington talked about the template they had prepared which is a template or a skeleton for a plan and with a widespread emergency there is limited capacity for aid. It starts with individual and family planning, then municipal then county then state then federal and there are a lot of resources out there that they have not looked into yet or tapped yet. Mr. Engman noted that our plan we adopted was just a start to begin a process of deciding what the Board wants to do and how much they want to do. For example, TCCOG has talked with businesses, farms and the SPCA regarding pets and livestock. Now we have to figure out the next steps and who is responsible for what. Ms. Harrington stated that her best suggestion is that the board form a planning committee that is representative of your demographics bringing in some of your businesses, churches, fire dept, citizens, etc. A committee can do a lot of the research and outreach within the community. 3-26-2012 Page 6 of 12 Response is taken care of by emergency response but mitigation and ongoing recovery takes a lot longer. Ms. Harrington used the example of a massive flood at Taughannock Blvd. which washed out that area. In recovery, you might rebuild it differently; planning incorporates looking at mitigating problems that are present now and thinking about what you could do if you could or had to start over. She added that donated goods and services are a huge issue and getting the word out; people want to help. The more you put into it the more you will get out of it in the event of an emergency. She used the recent example of the search for the missing woman and coordinating that and getting shelter and refreshments and such and how that went really well because they had a plan for such an occurrence. Ms. Drake asked about the county-wide committee that was started after 9-11 and Ms. Harrington responded that that is the County’s Comprehensive Planning Committee actually started in 2000 and still meets quarterly and they are the keepers of the plan and responsible for looking at the county facilities. They are close to signing an MOU with Cornell for backup in an emergency. Mr. Goodman asked what the board wants to do going forward and put this with an existing committee or make a new one to see what we need to do. Maybe have the people who we have listed as having responsibilities begin to have a discussion. Mr. Engman noted that this is one of those things that continually gets put down on the list and it is time to notch it back up a couple. Discussion followed. Ms. Harrington noted that there are trainings coming up and offered assistance in planning any time. Mr. Engman suggested this be brought to the Personnel and Organization Committee to take a first look at it. There was a discussion on educating the public to be prepared for an emergency because priorities will be set. Ms. Harrington gave the example that in the Town of Caroline she has 50 firefighters and there were 2,900 residents affected by the tornado. Some planning is simple and some is complex. Presentation on Agricultural District Addition/Ithaca Beer Property – Debbie Teeter Ms. Teeter had a handout explaining the process of adding a property to an Agricultural District and this year they have had two. Being in an Ag District is a protection tool for supporting agriculture. Mr. Mitchell, the owner Ithaca beer purchased 82 acres that borders for his project and those acres are near other agricultural land and his plan is to continue farming and to bring some land that is out of production back into production in support of his project. The issue was that last year a part of the parcel was subdivided and the Board was concerned about that amaller parcel being included in the Ag District. The 10 acre parcel has now been subdivided off and the remaining 73 acres is what Mr. Mitchell is requesting be added to the County Agricultural District. Ms. Teeter explained the process: the Ag and Farm Protection Board makes a recommendation to the County Legislature and the County will act on that. Tompkins County reaches out to the municipality to see if they have any concerns that they are not aware of. 3-26-2012 Page 7 of 12 The Board discussed the regulations and restrictions that would be placed on the Town in regards to controlling what would happen on the parcel. Ms. Teeter noted that Ag and Markets does not always side with the farmer if they are not really farming and the municipality has an issue. The support for small-scale agriculture is huge in this area and going to Ag District is very attractive. The Board talked about livestock and our zoning but Ms. Teeter noted he only has 5 acres of pasture and you need a lot more acreage than that. Mr. Goodman noted the differences between agricultural exemptions, agricultural districts and agricultural zones and they all have their own nuances and tax implications. The Board did not have any major concerns or objections and Ms. Teeter stated that she would convey that to the County and the process would move forward. Discuss Possible Support for Raising the Minimum Wage to a Living Wage Mr. Engman started the discussion noting that the Board already passed a resolution stating that they wanted to support an increase in the minimum wage. Since then, the Working Center in particular, has suggested that maybe we shouldn’t be talking about the minimum wage but the living wage. The minimum wage was kind of designed to provide a minimum standard of living and we have gotten away from that over the years. Inflation has eaten away at the minimum wage and it has not kept up and locally the minimum one needs to provide a minimum standard of living has been called a living wage. Ms. Leary added that the Board has gone back and forth about this via email and she noted that Mr. Horwitz has stated that this is a 76% increase and that is over the current minimum and she wanted to point out that we are already on record as supporting most of the 76%. The resolution passed in February did support the proposal in the State Legislature to raise it to $8.50 and our second resolve urged the governor to consider a higher wage than is being proposed by Sheldon Silver. The actual inflation adjusted is $10.39 and $12.78 is the Workers Center’s living wage of which $1.11 is to allow people to purchase Healthy New York health insurance so the difference between what has already been supported and passed by resolution and what we are considering now is tiny. She added that she has spoken to Pete Myers and asked him if he was actually proposing an increase to $12.78 and he said he was not but he wants support for the principle of a living wage. Ms. Leary gave more history on the Fair Labor Act and how the minimum wage has lagged behind because doomsday is predicted, but some states that have raised the minimum wage have not experienced the doomsday predictions that have been used as arguments every time an increase is considered. Mr. DePaolo asked if there were any studies of areas that have raised the minimum wage by $5 an hour and Ms. Leary said that this would be the biggest jump but usually the standard is that the increase is done over a span of 4 years. Mr. DePaolo responded that he can not come to the logical conclusion without studies or models that show that the cost of goods and services would remain the same and the cost of living wouldn’t go up also. Ms. Leary responded that she has not seen any and we are not talking about the majority of people here. Mr. DePaolo responded 3-26-2012 Page 8 of 12 that personnel is a significant part of a businesses’ costs and either you are going to decrease your profit margin or increase your prices. He stated that he felt that the living wage model assumes that prices would stay the same and he was not going to assume that if the minimum wage went up $5. Ms. Leary felt that it is not a majority of businesses and not a majority of people and a lot of what we purchase isn’t made in this country anyway. Mr. DePaolo’s next point was that a living wage is designed to enable people to buy health insurance and what do you do for companies that either provide health insurance or subsidize health insurance. Do they get an exemption from a portion of the minimum wage? Ms. Leary responded that that has not been worked out. It is in the mix for what is being proposed and once it got to the State level, she doubted there would be different exemptions and Mr. DePaolo responded then maybe companies would stop offering or subsidizing health insurance. His last point had to do with geography and supposing that there were geographical areas where the living wage was different, would people be paid according to where they worked or where they lived. Ms. Leary said that has not been discussed but in the history of minimum wage she was not aware of anyone looking at that. Mr. DePaolo summarized by saying what we are really talking about is the definition of a minimum wage. Ms. Leary said that was the original idea. She said we are talking about endorsing the principal that ties this as closely as possible to the original intent of the minimum wage. Mr. Horwitz stated that the issue this board has to confront and answer for itself is; will increasing the minimum wage to $12.76 an hour help or hurt. He felt that if the result is that on balance low-income workers will lose their jobs because they can no longer produce in one hour $12.76 of value or jobs that might have otherwise been available to unskilled workers will just disappear because owners will not expect that they can cover their $12.76 cost if they hire an unskilled worker, then the result is bad and we are doing a disservice to the low wage earners by passing such a law. He went on to say that he agrees that it is a shame that we have gone on for years and not increased the minimum wage by small amounts and that we have gotten behind, but that is irrelevant to the question we face now; will we help or will we hurt if we raise in one swoop the minimum wage by 76%. Doomsday never happens you said, but doomsday has never been tested because you have never raised the minimum by such a large amount. The studies he knew of were 10-% - 20% increase and there are economists on both sides and that suggests to him that if they are split on the effect at that low level, there is no doubt in his mind that at a 76% level, it would hurt. He felt the Board should not support demanding that kind of an increase. Mr. Goodman said that he is tending toward supporting the resolution as written and in actuality this is an academic discussion because the state is going to do what it is going to do regardless of the Town of Ithaca passing a resolution and to him it is a matter of principle and most Ithacans he knows would support the increase in principle. To him this is academic and the details do not have to be worked out because he feels his neighbors would support it. If we had to draft the minimum wage law ourselves, that would be different and there would need to be a lot more questions and a lot more discussions, but these resolutions we do in support of these causes and 3-26-2012 Page 9 of 12 having been an activist he understands from that aspect why these resolutions in support of a principle or concept are important. Mr. Levine agreed with Mr. Goodman and shares the concerns expressed by Mr. DePaolo and Mr. Horwitz, but he wanted to point out that an increase in the minimum wage does not necessarily represent a dollar for dollar increase in the cost of wages of the minimum wage. When the living wage was explained to him by Mr. Myers he was told that it was a compression of wages, not just an increase in wages in that the people at the top of the pay scale should expect to get paid less and so the increase cost is not dollar for dollar. Mr. Engman state that the last time the minimum wage law was changed there was a gradual increase; $5.15 in 2000 to $6.00 in 2005 to $6.75 in 2006 to $715 in 2007 and $7.25 in 2009. In that 10 year period it went up from $5.15 to $7.25 which is a pretty good increase so there is a catch-up going on and that is why an increase to the living wage would be substantial. He noted that other states pay more than NYS and there is no indication that businesses have fled those states. There might be some effect but he felt that businesses have shed as many workers as they could and kept their profit level and now if they want to make any profit, this is a wonderful time to raise the wage because they will be forced to pay a living wage instead of increasing their profits. He did not think there would be a loss of a lot of jobs and even if there were a few, the benefit to the many outweighs. Right now the costs for low income workers are being transferred to the whole because they use public services and the businesses force them to by making their fringe benefits too expensive. Mr. DePaolo summarized by saying that he believes the discussion is purely conceptual and has very little chance of going anywhere at the state level so it is inconsequential what we do with it so he was willing to support it, but he felt there were consequences if we were to get into the details and look at it as a policy decision rather than a conceptual show of support, it is much more complicated. Mr. Engman added that there is a lot of information on line at the NYS DOL. A resolution will be ready for the regular meeting in April Consider Resolution Urging Funding of Hydrilla Eradication Efforts and Funding TB Resolution no. 2012-060: Urging the State to Fully Fund Hydrilla Eradication Efforts in its 2012-2013 Budget WHEREAS last fall an invasive plant called hydrilla was discovered for the first time in an inlet to Cayuga lake in the city of Ithaca, NY and poses a severe economic threat to the Finger Lakes and the entire Great Lakes system, and WHEREAS this plant's stems can grow 6 to 8 inches per day and a single stem can produce 268 feet of growth in 5 weeks, and WHEREAS hydrilla's biomass typically concentrates in the top two feet of water where it clogs water movement and prevents recreational activities and other designated uses, some of which are already compromised, and 3-26-2012 Page 10 of 12 WHEREAS portions of Cayuga Lake and other Finger Lakes are classified as nutrient-impaired by the State of New York and federal government and would provide an ideal growth environment for hydrilla, and WHEREAS if not stopped now, hydrilla will spread rapidly throughout the Finger Lakes system, choking the inlets, tributaries, canals, and shallow shorelines, making them virtually impassable and causing incalculable economic and environmental devastation, and WHEREAS if the shorelines of the Finger Lakes are choked by densely packed mats of hydrilla, property values of waterfront properties will be dramatically affected, and WHEREAS the State of Florida now spends $30 million a year to essentially mow a temporary path through the hydrilla weeds and that is what NY should expect if hydrilla takes hold in its waterways, and WHEREAS an effective eradication strategy will cost New York State between $700,000 and $1 million a year for the next five to eight years; if that investment isn't made beginning this spring, the cost will increase dramatically as will the damage to our environment, and WHEREAS hydrilla eradication is a state and not a local problem and must be met by action on the part of the state, RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca urges the New York Legislature to fully fund this effort at approximately $1 million per year for the next five to eight years, beginning in the 2012-13 State Budget. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes – DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, and Horwitz Vote passed unanimously Consider Consent Agenda Items a. (items pulled to make 2 individual items) TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-061: Promotional Appointment of Motor Equipment Operator WHEREAS, there is presently one vacancy in the full time position of Motor Equipment Operator in the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent has determined through interviews and evaluation that Patrick Barnes, Laborer, possesses the necessary knowledge, skills and ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the Motor Equipment Operator; and WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent promotionally appointed Patrick Barnes to the Motor Equipment Operator position, effective March 26, 2012; Now, Therefore, Be It 3-26-2012 ^ Page 11 of 12 RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby ratify the Highway Superintendent's regular promotional appointment of Patrick Barnes as a full time Motor Equipment Operator for Ae Public Worla Department, effective March 26,2012; and be it further RESOLVED, this is a 40 hours a week position, at the hourly wage of $22.36, which is an estimated annual salary of $46,508.80, in Job Classification "XT', with fiill time benefits; and be it further RESOLVED, if the said successfully completes the mandatory eight (8) week probationary period, ending May 21,2012, there will be no further action required by the Town Board. MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: EricLevine Vote: Ayes - DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, and Horwitz Town of Ithaca Abstract Mr. DePaolo had a question about a bill from TC3 for over $8K and he asked what it involved. Ms. Drake explained that it was a 3 day session with the Public Works Department which involved focus groups followed by 2 all-day programs. Mr. DePaolo asked how many people were hired and Ms. Drake responded one. Mt. DePaolo thought that that was this was very high. Ms. Drake and Mr. Engman responded that it is the going rate. Mr. Engman added that other attempts to fix some dysfunction at the department have not worked and so far, the feed back he has heard from the employees has been very positive. Mr. DePaolo stated that he was not questioning the need, but thought it was expensive. Mr. Engman agreed that when you first see die figure it is a little starding but if it helps the working environment, it is worth it and this seems to be really working. Ms. Drake added that the presenter they had was one who we have used before and he gets results; he puts the "elephant in the room" and discusses it. Ms. Hunter asked if there would be more bills associated with this that the Board would see and Ms. Drake responded that there would be one-on-one sessions but not at that rate. Mr. Engman noted that he is paid through TC3 so he is not getting all that money. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-062; Town of Ithaca Abstract WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 1854 - 1951 General Fund Town wide 51,041.11 General Fund Part Town 1,753.75 Highway Fund Part Town 16,728.89 3-26-2012 Page 12 of 12 Water Fund 375,955.63 Sewer Fund 2,400.48 Fire Protection Fund 265,261.69 Forest Home Lighting District 220.84 Glenside Lighting District 67.92 Renwick Heights Lighting District 94.49 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 190.11 Clover Lane Lighting District 22.78 Winner's Circle Lighting District 64.97 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 78.04 West Haven Road Lighting District 256.18 Coddington Road Lighting District 151.50 Tiiii ■eisi MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Eric Levine Vote; Ayes - DePaolo, Levine, Engman, Goodman, Leary, Hunter and Horwitz Executive Session At 7 p.m., Mr. DePaolo moved and Ms. Hunter seconded going into executive session to discuss the employment history of a particular person. Motion made by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Mr. DePaolo to reenter open session at 7:13 p.m. Unanimous Consider Adjournment Motion to adjourn made by Mr. DePaolo, seconded by Mr. Goodman at 7:14 p.m. Unanimous. Submitted b Paulette Terwilliger Town Clerk