Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2012-07-23Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, Jiily 23,2012 at 4:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Aurora Room—Please Use Back Door * Please contact the Town Clerk at 273-1721 or DterwillieerCa)town.ithaca.nvMs with any questions. Agenda 1. Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting 2. Ken Lansing, Tompkins County Sheriff 3. Town Official's Reports 4. Report from Committees a. Budget Committee b. Codes and Ordinances Committee c. Comprehensive Plan Committee d. Planning Committee e. Personnel and Organization Committee f. Public Works Committee Ad Hoc Committees 5. Discussion Item Conservation Board's Facebook Page project and request Changes to the Ethics Law and Disclosure Form from the Ethics Board Job Classification Point Factor System Town Law 280a Issues re.: Property Road Access and Possible Referral to Planning Committee 6. Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes July 9,2012 b. Town of Ithaca Abstract 7. Review of Correspondence 8. Consider Adjournment Meetingof the Ithaca Town Board Monday, July 23, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Aurora Room—Please Use Back Door Minutes Mr. Engman opened the meeting at 4:32 p.m. Board Members Horwitz and Leary were absent. Mr. Engman introduced the new Sustainability Planner Nick Goldsmith. Mr. Goldsmith gave a brief personal history and overview of what he will be doing the next 20 months. He is in contact with Ms. Stoner and will be continuing her work on the Action Plan for the Town. The Towns of Dryden and Ithaca share Mr. Goldsmith’s services under a grant from the Park Foundation and Mr. Goldsmith will be working on their Sustainability Plan. Mr. Engman introduced Sheriff Ken Lansing. Sheriff Lansing gave an overview of his experience and explained that he is meeting with all the municipalities to introduce himself, listen to concerns and let them know that he has and open door policy and would like to establish straight lines of communication between himself and municipal boards so issues or concerns can be dealt with before they become large problems. He added that no concern is too small and by communicating directly to him he is both aware of it and able to channel it to the appropriate person to deal with it, including other agencies that he knows the correct person to contact where a municipality might not. He gave the example of our concern regarding the firing range. He is aware of it and he knows the people to contact that we may or may not have access to and he is doing that. He stated that it has worked for him for the many years he has done this and he hopes it will continue to work now. Mr. Engman explained the issue surrounding the Route 79 parking situation and noted that a letter has gone out soliciting comments and it looks like the residents are pleased with what is being proposed and the next step would be going back to the state. Mr. Lansing commented that he has heard from Penny Lane residents that are happy with the results and he has told others that are concerned about their own guests parking that his office can work with them to some extent. He added that his department can not do anything until no-parking signs are up. Mr. Engman asked Sheriff Lansing about hydrilla and the law that the County is considering and Sheriff Lansing responded that he had quite a discussion with the legislature but the key is education; give a warning and educate. He also noted that the actual fine is left up to the judge and in his experience, judges do not impose the maximum. Mr. Bates asked about the state ban on burning and Sheriff Lansing responded that he has to get with County Attorney Wood to find out what his department’s role is and the county’s expectations. Mr. DePaolo asked Sheriff Lansing to elaborate on what the arrangements are regarding the shooting range and Sheriff Lansing responded that it was his understanding that the shooting TB 7/23/2012 range is for professional training purposes only and that shooting stops at 9pm. He added that he has talked to the Chief of the City of Ithaca Police and he thought that although in the past, recreational shooting might have happened, it was not happening now and in fact very few people have keys to the range and there is a schedule for its use. Mr. DePaolo explained that the recent incident involved automatic weapon fire and might have been a recreational occurrence attended by a law enforcement agent and his son. Sheriff Lansing agreed that that is always an issue and he will continue to talk with his counterparts about it. Mr. Engman noted that this is the first complaint they have had and he believes it is because it was automatic weapon fire and not normal shooting. Sheriff Lansing reiterated that he would talk to the Chief again and review the expectations. He was not aware of any written rules or agreement regarding the use of the range but maybe that is something to talk to the other agencies about. The range is in the City and the City keeps the schedule for the different agencies who use it for training. The Board thanked the Sheriff for coming and the Sheriff thanked the Board for their time and reiterated his wish to keep the lines of communication open in both directions. Conservation Board’s Facebook Page Susan Perry, Conservation Board member explained the test project stating that they were envisioning a 3-month test period with the goal of increasing outreach and education about issues the board is discussing as well as education on issues that are affecting the town such as hydrilla, stream setbacks, Ash Borer etc. This seems to be the most cost effective as well as least labor- intensive. Mr. DePaolo asked about whether the site would have public access, oversight and administration and Ms. Perry responded that there would be a moderator, probably herself and maybe someone at Town Hall who would act as a moderator and filter the content so that any abuse or abusers would be blocked. Mr. DePaolo asked if she felt it was more effective than simply putting a separate link to the Conservation Board page on the webpage and Ms. Perry stated that it would be faster because Facebook is instantaneous where a webpage has a webmaster and take a lot more time to post things to. For example; the Fischer Award pictures could have been uploaded instantly at the event whereas if they were to be added to the website page, they would have to be sent to our IT person and that person would have to load them. Mr. Hamilton, Conservation Board member stated that the board really wanted to get the education and information out to the public and although the board is an advisory board for the town, a lot of information comes out at meetings and gets lost and this would give a chance to disperse some of that. He gave the example of the invasive species garlic mustard weed. There are certain times when if a person were to try and weed it out, just the physical act of pulling them would disperse a lot more seeds than were it to be left alone for another month. Ms. Hunter asked if someone would be making sure that messages were answered or forwarded and also how we would know if it was being used or accessed and what the time commitment was to keep it going. Ms. Perry responded that they plan on running the diagnostics to quantify the results and she would be tracking the time. Again, this will be a 3 month trial and we can evaluate in 3 months but they were hoping that it would spur comments and ideas and also add another layer of help for residents who might have questions particular to their residence. Page 2 of 9 TB 7/23/2012 Mr. Levine noted that our insurance company might have some best practices such as disclaimers, settings etc; not necessarily that we would take all their suggestions, but there are risks involved, so we should know what they are. He enjoys Facebook and hopes it is successful. Mr. DePaolo expanded on that and asked how the town would make sure that what is linked or posted agrees with our policies or consensus of the board? Ms. Perry explained that the disclaimer that the Conservation Board is not a town board but strictly an advisory board would be very clear but that being said, she couldn’t imagine that any would stray too far from what is discussed at their meetings. This would be an informational site and not political. This would also be where the second layer of oversight from someone at the town would kick in. The consensus of the board was to go ahead with it and see what happens at the end of the trial period. Mr. Engman thanked them for taking the initiative. Ms. Drake noted that the Personnel Committee would be reviewing social network policies for employees. Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting A discussion on the invasion of Hydrilla and potential funding for the eradication and/or education regarding the invasive species. Mr. Engman will invite someone to address the board at the next study session. Ms. Hunter requested that Mr. Engman invite someone who is unbiased and can explain both options of funding; education or eradication efforts. Report of Officials Mr. Engman reported that he attended the Novomer grant presentation from Senator O’Meara and it was very interesting to see what they make and right now they have the chemistry lab/ research and development here and their headquarters are in Boston but the lab is here. They make film out of carbon dioxide which is added to paint which makes it longer lasting and the lining of yogurt containers etc. It is a very complex lab and he also remarked on the fact that South Hill Business Campus is 95% full and Novomer actually leased additional space in expectation for expansion. He asked Novomer if the location of Ithaca was a factor in recruiting and they responded that it was a positive factor in their recruitments. Mr. Engman added that he spoke to Ms. Filiberto from TCAD and asked if she thought the Emerson Development and South Hill Business Campus would be competitors and she felt that they would not. South Hill is more research and Emerson will be more manufacturing or construction of products and she also confirmed that there is a business waiting to go into Emerson as their “anchor” business, a spin off of Cornell. The sale is moving along and there is an official offer for the property and the name will be made public soon. Some people have been concerned that the town and city were not working together, but we have it just could not be made public. The Town should start discussing our ideas for the property and also find out if there are other brownfield sites in the town of Ithaca. Page 3 of 9 TB 7/23/2012 Report from Committees Budget Committee Mr. Levine reported that Mr. Solvig presented the revised budget and all department requests have been received except one. They are meeting this Friday and discussing the Public Works budget. Codes and Ordinances Committee Mr. King reported that the meeting was cancelled last week for the first time in years due to a lack of a quorum. The next meeting agenda will have the sign law review and starting to look at other smaller items that have been on the waiting list for a while such as lot line adjustment procedures and a plastic bag ordinance to name a couple. Comprehensive Plan Committee Mr. Engman reported that the meeting was also cancelled; noting that they have been meeting twice a month for a while and the idea is to give time for residents to look at the plan online and comment. Mr. Engman asked Ms. Ritter if any of the larger players such as Cornell or Ithaca College made any comments and she responded that they had not, but that she was meeting with TCAT next week and she has asked Cornell whether they would like to meet. She thought we would get comments from the County and the City is planning on getting a date to meet but not until September or so. The Ithaca Times will also have a large article with pictures of staff on the front which should solicit some comments. Mr. Engman added that he has heard Ms. Ritter on the radio also so the publicity may solicit the comments we are waiting for. Mr. Engman thought we might want to submit our own article for the Journal to get the word out. Planning Committee Mr. DePaolo reported that they did meet and discussed the changes for EcoVillage and they were also working with Dan Tasman on the final report of the West Hill traffic analysis the committee has been undertaking with the help of Tom Mank. They expect to discuss that th report at the August 16 meeting and then on to the full board. Ms. Hunter asked when the moratorium was over and staff thought it ended in July and she asked if that’s what we want. Mr. Bates and Ms. Ritter did not think anything new was coming down the pike and Holochuck is still not ready. Ms. Ritter thought Carrowmoor might be resurfacing in the near future. Mr. DePaolo reported that Jon Ranchich has turned representation of the Carrowmoor project to another person and we would be hearing from her in the near future. Discussion returned to the moratorium having expired with no further discussion by the board. Board members felt that they had been waiting for the traffic study and Ms. Ritter wondered about the process and/or legality of extending it. The Board requested a copy of the local law establishing the moratorium and the topic will be revisited. Page 4 of 9 TB 7/23/2012 Personnel and Organization Committee Mr. Goodman reported that they continued discussion on the job classification and point system project which is a discussion topic later tonight as well as wage increases and dental insurance recommendations were forwarded to the Budget Committee. As an aside, the codes position interviews were held and the position offered and accepted and we are waiting for her start date. Her name is Lori Koiford and she had worked with the Community Dispute Resolution Center for 12 years as well as the GEEK Squad at Best Buy. Public Works Committee Mr. Goodman reported that the July meeting was canceled and the agenda for the next meeting includes discussing a number of requests from the Forest Home Neighborhood Association regarding safety for pedestrians, crosswalks, lighting etc. Waiting to hear from Public Works regarding the cost(s) and feasibility of the various requests. They are also going to continue the discussion on the road preservation law. Mr. Horwitz was going to talk to the Town of Caroline, but with his recent hospitalization, Mr. Goodman will follow-up on that. Mr. Engman noted that Gov. Cuoma might announce a decision on hydro-fracking this summer and we need to have something, rather than nothing, in place because traffic will be going through the Town of Ithaca. Ad Hoc Committees Fire – Mr. Levine reported that the last meeting was canceled due to Mr. Horwitz’s injury. Mr. Engman added that the committee had been talking about fire corporations which are set up to run fire departments and whether on of the options might be to have the city and the town create a fire corporation. The city and the town would appoint the initial board of directors and after that it would become self-sustaining. The difference between that and a fire department is that a fire corporation does not have taxing authority, so they would have a contract with the city and town of Ithaca to fund the fire department. He went on to say that he spoke with Svante Myrick and Mayor Myrick said that he has had conversations with an attorney who knows quite a bit about fire corporations and they have been talking about having that person come and talk to the town and the city about the possibilities etc. Recreation and Youth – Mr. Engman reported that they are waiting for the report from SUNY Cortland. Ms. Hunter noted that the one thing she heard loud and clear from the students was having an electronic presence. Discussion followed on what is on the webpage at this time and what could be added. Maybe making it clear that parks in neighborhoods are open for all as well as clarifying some of the links on our page for easier use by the public. Discussion Items Changes to the Ethics Law and Disclosure Form from the Ethics Board Ms. Terwilliger explained the recommendations from the Ethics Board. The Town Board discussed the listing of non-profit or other municipal work by our attorneys for the town. Mr. Page 5 of 9 TB 7/23/2012 Engman asked about the difference between the options in specifying “does business with the Town of Ithaca.” Ms. Terwilliger thought the Ethics Board was concerned that the public would not know who or who does not do business with the Town. The Board felt the second option was too broad and could include out of state non profits etc. Of the two options the Town Board decided to use option #1 which they felt kept it clearer. Mr. Engman asked if the attorneys had any issues with the options and Ms. Terwilliger responded that at first, there was a flurry of emails with concerns and they all stated that this type of disclosure is covered under their own ethical requirements; but, the Ethics Board was concerned about the public’s perception and the public coming to one place to learn these types of disclosures. Ms. Terwilliger will make the change to the form and send it to the Ethics Board and the attorneys for the Town for comment. The next change has to do with changing the actual Ethics Law regarding nepotism and whistleblower protections. These were brought to the Ethics Board’s attention because the County was changing theirs and we noticed that our law did not cover these two topics. Mr. DePaolo was concerned about cronyism which he felt was not covered under the proposed language and Mr. Engman noted that dating within the Town is not covered. Discussion followed on the dating aspect and Ms. Drake noted that we have not had an instance of that where it was subordinate and boss. We have had two instances of separate departments and equal ranks but not the other. Discussion followed on the ability to supervise someone you are involved with. Ms. Drake said that you could have a policy of no dating but the Board felt that was too strict and the definition of dating is too nebulous to enforce. Ms. Drake asked why these things need to be added to the disclosure form and Ms. Terwilliger noted that it is not for the form, but for the Ethics Law. Mr. DePaolo noted that the whistleblower section did not delineate between a persons’ personal time and professional time. Ms. Drake noted that it is a protection against retaliation and Mr. DePaolo stated that he understood that but that subsection i. needs the phrase “in the performance of official duties” added there also. The Town Board decided to refer the two items to the Personnel Committee for review and comments as well as listing relatives on the Disclosure form. Ms. Terwilliger and Ms. Drake will look into what is covered in our Personnel Manual, NYS law and Public Officers’ law and report back to the Board. Job Classification Point Factor System Ms. Drake brought everyone up to date on the changes to this final draft. There are two different parts establishing the criteria for the point system and then looking at the positions and their scores using this criteria and point system. The next step for the Personnel Committee is to look at the points assigned to each job description and this is the opportunity for the board to comment on what we have done so far. Page 6 of 9 TB 7/23/2012 There was some discussion about the difference between job descriptions and what you do and who you are. We might get someone who has a master’s degree, but the position only requires a bachelors degree; that’s great for the town but we don’t pay them at a masters degree level. We pay on what our job minimum qualification is. There are two types of reclasses; looking at a position and where duties are added to such an extent that the position should be reclassed to the next level and then there is looking at the position and the duties assigned and making sure the duties are weighted correctly. Ms. Hunter added that these are generic civil service job descriptions and that is what gets ascribed points; not the position in the town. Ms. Drake explained that the private sector is totally different from civil service. Classifications are used and there is no pay-for- performance system. Town Law 280a Issues re.: Property Road Access and Possible Referral to Planning Committee Mr. Bates explained that if a property does not border on a legal street or it has not been through a planning board process, we can not issue a building permit nor can the ZBA make a determination for any property that does not have access to a legal road. The particular property that this came to the forefront for is the Warren Rd former group home which had variances and building permits issued for it and has been empty and on the market fro a couple of years now. The problem is that no changes can be made to the structure at all because it does not have 280a access. It has a right-of-way only and the state doesn’t count that. The only alternative is for the Town to make the property an Open Development Area. He noted that Ms. Brock and he have researched this in depth and there are other landlocked properties that are in the same situation. They are focusing only on the landlocked properties that have existing structures on them. A number of properties along East Shore Drive have this issue and there are a number of them that have had building permits and variances determined that shouldn’t have had. (map provided) Discussion followed on the two properties that are “active” right now and need immediate attention (Warren Rd and East Shore Dr.) and the process for doing it. The board was concerned about some of the larger parcels but Mr. Bates noted that they were only talking about the properties with existing buildings. Ms. Ritter added that the Town Board is only looking at the parcel, the Zoning Board would have to look at the use because it has a use variance that is proposed to be changed. Discussion followed on what it would do to the use of the property and who would decide. Mr. Goodman moved to refer the possible establishment of an open development area for this parcel to the Planning Board for comment. Seconded by Ms. Hunter. Ms. Hunter asked if the Planning Board would know what the plan for the property was and the answer was yes. Mr. Bates asked about the other property on East Shore Drive that is coming to the ZBA next month that needs the same designation. Mr. Goodman amended his motion to include the parcel on East Shore Drive. Ms. Hunter did not second the amendment because the question is very different on East Shore Drive than Warren Rd. Mr. DePaolo seconds the amendment to seek comments on the two areas. Page 7 of 9 TB 7/23/2012 Mr. Engman noted that he agreed with Ms. Hunter thinking that the two instances be dealt with separately. Mr. Goodman withdrew his amendment and moved the original motion to refer the property in the northeast to the Planning Board for review and comment. Mr. Engman seconded. Mr. Levine discussed the fact that Mr. Bates referred to Ms. Brock’s opinion that a property with an existing building is ok and only those with structures should be streamlined into one request. Mr. Engman responded that some with structures may have some issues that should be reviewed and this is for a property that is in need of a determination right now. Mr. DePaolo didn’t want to treat properties with structures preferentially because what about a resident who has the property but hasn’t yet built on it but nevertheless has been paying taxes on it. Mr. Bates responded that maybe he didn’t explain it well enough. There are two parcels on the lake that are affected right now and have been postponed from an appearance/decision from the Zoning Board until this is decided. There are numerous examples of variances and permits that have been issued for all properties on East Shore Drive so there is a bit of urgency here. Mr. Engman reiterated that the parcels with immediate need should be looked at. Mr. Bates was looking for direction from the board to continue the research and developing a plan of action for all the areas. The motion to refer the Northeast property to the Planning Board was passed unanimously. Mr. Goodman offered a second motion to send the question of the lots along East Shore Drive for advice on what the Board should do for them. Ms. Ritter responded that the Planning Committee should look at this first. There was some confusion on what the role of each board was and what the process should be. The motion on the floor by Mr. Goodman is to refer to the Planning Board for their advice on establishing an open development area for all of the lots on East Shore Drive. Mr. DePaolo seconded. Unanimous. Consider Consent Agenda Items TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -140: 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. 2431 - 2506 Page 8 of 9 TB immii General Fund Town wide 42,559.58 General Fund Part Town 8,199.78 Highway Fund Part Town 20,831.88 Water Fund 55,175.42 Sewer Fund 4,526.51 Fire Protection Fund 413.44 Risk Retention Fund 456.11 Forest Home Lighting District 42.79 Glenside Lighting District 17.00 Renwick Heights Lighting District 22.63 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 30.95 Clover Lane Lighting District 3.93 Winner's Circle Lighting District 5.86 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 13.66 West Haven Road Lighting District 54.28 Coddington Road Lighting District 31.60 TOTAL 132,385.42 MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Tee Ann Hunter VOTE:Ayes - Engman, Hunter, Goodman, Levine and DePaolo Unanimous TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-141; Approval of Minutes of July 9.2012 WHEREAS, the draft minutes of theJuly 23"* aild,[ltly_<^/'"jZdI2 meetings of the Town lave been subn THEREFORE BE IT Board have been submitted for review and approval; RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes as the final minutes of the July 9,2012 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Tee Ann Hunter VOTE: Ayes - Engman, Hunter, Goodman, Levine and DePaolo Unanimous Meeting \^a:^djourned at 7:30 p.m. 'fyy Submitted by Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk Page 9 of 9