HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2013-07-08 F f Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
i„„ Monday,July 8, 2013 at 5:30 p.m.
g� 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca,NY 14850
Approved Minutes
Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Bill Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor;
Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, and Rod Howe
Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement;
Mike Solvig, Director of Finance, Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Paulette
Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town
Agenda Item 1 Call to order and pledge of Allegiance
Meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m.
Mr. Engman pulled item #14 from the agenda, noting that a lot of information being gathered
and there is time to wait while that is done.
Mr. Engman went on to explain that the notice of public hearings was not publicized within the
legal timeframe required but the board would like to hear from comments from those residents
present under Persons to be Heard. The public hearings will be rescheduled where necessary and
re-advertised.
Agenda Item 2 Report of Tompkins County Legislature and Ithaca Common Council
Legislator Peter Stein reported that the point of no return has been reached with the Hanshaw
Road project; bids were solicited and came back within the expected range except for the green-
shoulders because the State changed the rules and requirements between the time the estimate
was done and the bid. The green-shoulders was the County's attempt to reduce speeding and in
fact, they did a trial on a section of Ellis Hollow Rd and although it was not done as well as
hoped for, there was no evidence that they had an effect on traffic. The County is thinking about
what else can be done but green-shoulders seem to be out of the question financially.
Mr. Stein went on to report that the legislature has been spending a lot of time on the affordable
wage issue and reviewing what that means to the County. The County itself pays a living wage
but many of the contractors who do non-industrial type work or are not for profit companies with
contracts for services to the County generally do not pay a living wage. It has been estimated
that requiring them to do so would cost an estimated $2 million dollars to the County.
Mr. Stein noted that the vacancy at the 911 Center is close to being filled with an experienced
person and he looks forward to improvements.
Board Comments — Mr. Engman noted that he met with Mr. Proto and the Supervisors of the
Towns of Carolin and Danby to discuss youth services which are in a crisis right crisis right now
1
due to lack of funding. The group is trying to restructure and regroup youth services with the
decrease of at least $175K over the last couple of years. Mr. Engman state that he felt the
County has precipitated the crisis by cutting funds over the past 2-3 years and now those towns
are asking, in effect, for us to subsidize youth services in their towns. He stated that the Town
cannot do that and suggested to them that it is really up to the County to reinstitute some of the
funding they have cut. This is not a town problem, but a county problem. Mr. Stein responded
that he had heard that and the way he understood it was that the Town of Ithaca was going to
have a lot less input than it has now and pay a lot more for someone else's services and he had
talked to Mr. Mareana, the County Administrator, who told him that there was a
misunderstanding and that was not the case. Mr. Engman respectfully disagreed, stating that the
Administrator misunderstands in this case; it would cost the Town between $40 and $60
thousand more a year and instead of having total control over the entire $112K we now put into
youth services, we would have 2 votes out of 7 of a new Board that would make these decisions
and that is unacceptable. Mr. Stein responded that he would look into it.
Agenda Item 3 Persons to be Heard and Board comments
Janet Wagner, 206 Winston Dr. Ms. Wagner noted that her backyard abuts the park. She
stated that the noise was perfectly acceptable Sunday and she didn't think they were amplified
and it was a small group of about 25. She did want to mention 2 issues though: in general she
felt that amplification is not acceptable for that park. It is a tiny park in a dense neighborhood.
The other issue is that the tent was up from Weds through this morning which interferes with
groups using the park for pickup sports or organized sports and the tent was in the middle of
right field. She asked if there was a permit for that and whether there was a time limit for that.
She felt the tent should go up just prior and down just after the service.
Danny Fox 306, Tareyton on the southwest corner of the park. Mr. Fox stated that he is
concerned about noise in the park because they are so close they see everything that goes on in
the park and they intentionally sat on our front porch on Sunday to observe the service. The only
thing they heard which, was of no consequence, was the singing once in a while and so we would
say that the noise level was low compared to other groups that use the park from family picnics
and games that are held there. He said that they thought they were all very respectful and we
talked to some of them after and we are supportive of their continued use of the park.
Howard Howland, 205 Winston Dr Mr. Howland seconded what everyone said about the noise
level but he was concerned about the precedent of allowing amplified sound in that park. He
stated that he would be horrified if something like Slope Day would happen in the park with
amplified sound. He also was concerned about the precedent and what is involved with getting a
tent permit. It seemed to him it was one thing if a group wants to pop up a tent for a family thing
but using a tent for a business or organization to use public property to carry on there regular
business is another and he wondered what the requirements were.
Luke Calovitto, 204 Winston Dr. Mr. Calovitto said he had no problem with the sound but
agrees with the others about the tent and he was concerned about the portable facilities that were
placed and where they were placed right next to someone's home and he was concerned that they
2
were going to be permanent. He also was concerned about precedent and allowing large tents on
a regular basis which use a large portion of the park
Vera Calovitto — Ms. Calovitto thought the tent would intimidate children who may be coming
to use the field to play ball and added that if she was a child, she would be intimidated and
probably go home.
Board Comment — Mr. Engman began by stating that it seems the issue of noise seems to not
be an issue. The original request was for amplification but apparently the group discovered they
didn't need it. Scott Hathorn of the Calvary Church responded that they only wanted to be able
to hear themselves and after hearing the neighbors' concerns and hearing how loud the
amplification was, they decided that it was not needed.
Mr. Engman asked Mr. Engman to explain the tent permit process and Mr. Bates explained that
in this particular case due to the holidays the tent went up on Wednesday but the remaining dates
the tent will go up on Friday and down on Sunday or Monday. The law requires that anything
over 400 sqft of canopy be inspected and they are triple that. Ms. Cavolitto asked if there was a
way around that and Mr. Bates responded that they have a Park Use Permit and if sports events
wanted to happen they could reserve the park also. Ms. Cavolitto responded that these are pick-
up games not organized. This is a casual place that is used for sports and the tent stops people
from using it all weekend. Mr. Bates responded that this is a town park and the town allows the
use that was permitted and if others want to reserve the park they could but under the current
rules and regulations, special reservations can be made. Mr. Engman asked if the application
was just for Sundays and Mr. Engman responded that was the dilemma. Mr. Fox spoke, stating
that they see everything that goes on in the park from Frisbee games to baseball and soccer and
the way they placed the tent up against the woods did not obstruct anything they usually see go
on at the park. He added that he did think about that when he saw the tent going up and there
really was no problem and he could not see how it stopped anybody that usually uses the park.
Mr. Engman asked if a ball game could happen and Mr. Fox responded that in his opinion it
could. Mr. DePaolo added that he spent many summers taking part in pick-up games and kids
are adaptable and they can incorporate obstructions into their games whether it be right field is
dead, or you hit the tent and it's an automatic double; it is a shared public space and people have
to share it and kids will find a way. Under the circumstances, we have to hope that people are
sensitive and keep the tent out of the way as much as possible but he stated that he went up on
Sunday and he thought there was plenty of room for the average kid to have a game.
Mr. Engman brought it back to the general point noting that if there is not going to be amplified
sound a noise permit is not required and the tent permit and park permit have been issued.
Ms. Hunter asked if there were provision in our law or permitting process about tents and
portajohns to think about these things. Mr. Bates explained that he looked at this application
very closely and if they didn't have the tent they could reserve and use the park and obstruct a
section and the tent is just an added item which happened to need permitting and inspections but
is still allowed under our current guidelines. Ms. Hunter thought it was something that we
should think about and review because of the time of the use. Mr. Weber noted that his
department encourages the use of portajohns for any group over 25 people.
3
Mr. Levine commented that we need to think about whether tents are allowed; but we are here
for a noise permit so the permit has to be withdrawn, denied or granted. Some discussion
followed on the technicalities and Mr. Hathorn withdrew his Noise Permit application.
Discussion continued on the placement of the tent and Mr. Hathorn noted that the neighborhood
is welcome to use the tent while it is up and the group also would be using the tent after the
service as they relax and play games etc. He also stated that they would remove the tent after the
event or Monday morning.
Agenda Item 4—Pulled and Withdrawn
5:30 p.m. Public Hearing Regarding a Noise Permit for Calvary Chapel Outdoor Service
and Fellowship at Tareyton Park on Sunday July 14, 21, and 28 from 11a.m.-1p.m.
Agenda Item 5—Pulled—Rescheduled for July 22nd at 4:30
5:30 p.m. Public Hearing Regarding a Noise Permit for St. Catherine of Sienna's Annual
Festival on Sept. 14"' and 15tn
Agenda Item 6—Pulled—Rescheduled for July 22nd at 4:30
5:30 p.m. Public Hearing Regarding Entering into a 5-Year Contract with the Village of
Cayuga Heights on Behalf of the Town of Ithaca Fire Protection District, which covers the
Northeast Portion of the Town Outside the Village of Cayuga Heights, for Fire Protection,
Hazardous Material Incident and Emergency Medical First Response Services
Agenda Item 7—Pulled—Rescheduled for July 22nd at 4:30
5:30 p.m. Public Hearing Regarding a Proposed Local Law to Override the Tax Levy
Limit Established in General Municipal Law 3-C
Agenda Item 8
Consider Approval for Becoming an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court)with the Towns
of Dryden and Middlefield in Actions Involving Municipal Home Rule in the Court of
Appeals of the State of New York
Mr. Engman noted that this is continued support for the suit against hydrofracking.
TB RESOLUTION 2013- 096 : Approve Becoming An Amicus Curiae In Actions
Involving Municipal Home Rule In The Court Of Appeals Of The State Of New York
WHEREAS, the Towns of Middlefield and Dryden have recently revised their zoning
laws to prohibit heavy industrial uses (including natural gas drilling) in their communities and
such laws were challenged in court by opponents claims that the Towns did not have the power
to regulate natural gas drilling as a land use through zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ulysses filed an amicus curiae or "friend of the court" brief in
both lawsuits in support of its sister Towns in order to reassert the right of each municipality
4
throughout New York State to determine what land uses are appropriate in its community
through municipal home rule law powers granted by the NYS Constitution and the NYS
Municipal Home Rule Law; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca joined with the Town of Ulysses and a coalition of over 50
other municipalities from across the State to file these amicus curiae briefs in the Appellate
Division, Third Department in 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Appellate Division, Third Department, ruled in favor of the Towns of Dryden
and Middlefield in the matters of Norse Energy Corporation USA v. Town of Dryden et al., and
Cooperstown Holstein Association v. Town of Middlefield; and
WHEREAS, the Norse Energy Corporation and the Cooperstown Holstein Association
("Appellants") recently filed motions for leave to appeal each decision to the Court of Appeals —
the State's highest court; and
WHEREAS, if the Appellants are granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Town of
Ulysses will seek leave to file amicus curiae briefs) with the Court and will file such briefs) if
leave is granted; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ulysses has requested that other municipalities in the State consider
joining the municipal coalition supporting the Ulysses' amicus brief(s) to send a powerful
statement to the Court of Appeals, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the
NYS Legislature about the importance of protecting municipal home rule in New York State and
a municipality's right to decide, for itself, whether natural gas drilling - or any other land use - is
appropriate for its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Town of Ithaca hereby determines that it is in the public interest of the citizens of the
Town/Village/City to support municipal home rule by joining in the amicus brief(s) if one is
filed in the Court of Appeals by the Town of Ulysses and a coalition of municipalities from
across the State, and
2. The Town if Ithaca hereby authorizes and directs the Supervisor to complete or cause to be
completed any and all such further documents and papers in the name and on behalf of the Town
as the Supervisor deems necessary or appropriate to carry into effect the foregoing resolution,
and
3. The Town Clerk will promptly send a certified copy of this adopted resolution to the Town of
Ulysses, 10 Elm Street, Trumansburg,NY 14886.
5
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Pat Leary
Vote: Ayes—DePaolo, Leary, Hunter, Howe, Engman, Levine and Goodman
Agenda Item 9
Consider Approval of an Agreement for Snow and Ice Removal
Mr. Weber explained the pricing and payment and how it follows the actual amount of materials
used and is dependent on the weather.
TB Resolution No. 2013 - 097: Approval of Three Year Snow and Ice Agreement with
Tompkins County
Whereas the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County have contracted with each other for removal
of snow and ice from County and Town roads since October 2002; and
Whereas the previous contract will expire on September 30, 2013; and
Whereas a new agreement for snow and ice removal from Town and County roads is proposed
for a period commencing October 1, 2013 and ending September 30, 2016; and
Whereas the Tompkins County Legislature approved this agreement at its May 21, 2013
meeting through Resolution No. 2013-81; and
Whereas upon approval by the Town Board, and submission of the signed contract to the
County, Tompkins County will pay the Town four equal installments of$3,783.20 through April
2014, for a total contractual payment of$15,132.80 for the first year of the agreement; and
Whereas the amount paid per mile will be adjusted each year by an amount equal to the
percentage change in the County's per mile costs for snow and ice removal performed,
comparing the two preceding winter seasons (October— September); and
Whereas each parry to this Agreement may request a change to the level of reimbursement
based on a formula taking in a comparison of the last two year average of the fixed payment with
the payment that would have been due under a time and material basis;
Now Therefore Be It
Resolved that the Ithaca Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to enter into the
proposed agreement with Tompkins County for the purposes of snow and ice removal
commencing, October 1, 2013 and ending September 30, 2016, subject to the approval of the
attorney for the Town.
Moved: Tee Ann Hunter Seconded: Rod Howe
Vote: Ayes—Hunter, Howe, Levine, Leary, Engman, DePaolo and Goodman
6
Agenda Item 10
Consider Award of Contract for the Trumansburg Road Sewer Rehabilitation Project
Mr. Goodman asked about the total amount which did not seem to add up correctly and Mr.
Solvig responded that there are funds remaining in other capital projects which will also be used
for this project and Mr. Weber explained where the leftover funds came from. Mr. DePaolo
asked procedurally how that happens; if there are extra funds how is the Board made aware of
that and Mr. Engman suggested that the details be explained in the resolution in the future so the
Board is aware of it.
TB Resolution No. 2013 - 098: Authorization to Award the Contract for the Trumansburg
Road (S.R. 96) Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project
Whereas: The adopted 2013 Ithaca Town Budget included monies for the Trumansburg Road
Manhole Repairs (Project) consisting of the rehabilitation of the existing manholes and related
ancillary facilities,with a maximum amount of$50,000.00, and
Whereas: at its regular meeting on July 8, 2013, the Town Board has determined approval,
construction and implementation of the Improvement are a Type II Action pursuant to the
regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, because the Action constitutes
"replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind, on the same site,"
and thus approval, construction and implementation of the Improvement are not subject to
review under SEQRA; and
Whereas: On June 27, 2013, the Director of Public Works/Highway Superintendent (Director)
received bids for the Project; and
Whereas: The Director has reviewed the bids and qualifications of the bidders and has
recommended award to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of
$118,790.00 made by Green Mountain Pipeline Services, Inc., 224 Waterman Road, Royalton,
VT 06068; and
Whereas: a review of the 2013 Sewer Fund budget indicates that additional funds will need to
be budgeted to meet this expenditure, and the Town Supervisor and Town Finance Officer are
recommending to this governing Town Board the approval of a Budget Amendment increasing
account G8120.564 (Sewer Lining) by the amount of $75,000, such funds to be appropriated
from current year reserves,
Now therefore be it
Resolved: That the Town Board hereby authorizes the award of the contract for the Town of
Ithaca Trumansburg Road (S.R. 96) Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project to Green Mountain
Pipeline Services, Inc., and be it further
Resolved: that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute such contract subject to approval of
the final contract documents by the Town Engineer and Attorney for the Town; and be it further
7
Resolved: that the Director is authorized to approve change orders to such contract upon receipt
of appropriate justification provided the maximum amount of such change orders shall not in the
aggregate exceed $12,000.00 without prior authorization of this Board, and provided further that
the total project cost, including contract, engineering, legal, inspection, paving, site restoration
and gravel purchase completed by Town forces, and other expenses, does not exceed the
maximum authorized cost of$130,790.00 for the project; and be it further
Resolved: that the Town Board approves a Budget Amendment increasing the 2013 Sewer Fund
budget, account G8120.564 (Sewer Lining), by the amount of $75,000, and authorizes and
directs the Town Finance Officer to record the appropriate budgetary amendment.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Herb Engman
Vote: Ayes—Hunter, Howe, Levine, Leary, Engman, DePaolo and Goodman
Agenda Item 11
Consider a Resolution Encouraging Cornell University to Continue the Local Roads
Program
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2013- 099: Supporting Cornell Local roads Program
WHEREAS The Cornell Local Roads Program has been providing technical assistance and
training for local Highway officials since 1951 and
WHEREAS the Cornell Local Roads Program has seven capable and professional staff, and
generates sufficient income to pay for all costs of the program, and
WHEREAS the annual Highway School, presented by Cornell Local Roads,bring over 600
Highway Officials, from across the state, to the Ithaca area, supporting the local economy and
WHEREAS Every five years NYSDOT solicits proposals for the LTAP program, and Cornell
Local Roads program has been chosen each time since 1984 and the current agreement expires
on September 30, 2014, and
WHEREAS a request for proposals will be sent out by NYSDOT by the end of July 2013, to
allow time to choose the agency and negotiate the five year contract, and
WHEREAS the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences has decided to terminate the Local
Technical Assistance Program(LTAP), the outreach program of the Local Roads Program
effective September 30, 2014 and therefore a proposal will not be prepared for submittal to
NYSDOT for the next five year LTAP cycle, now therefore be it
RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca recognizes the benefit of the Cornell Local Roads
Program, for all Highway Officials and the contribution to our local economy, and be it further
8
RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca encourages Cornell to reverse its decision to terminate the
Local Technical Assistance Program, the outreach program of the Cornell Local Roads Program
and submit a competitive application to NYSDOT.
RESOLVED that the Town Clerk send a certified copy of this resolution to the Dean Kathryn J.
Boor and President David Skorton.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Herb Engman
Vote: Ayes—Rich DePaolo, Herb Engman, Bill Goodman, Eric Levine, Pat Leary, and Tee
Ann Hunter Abstained—Rod Howe
Agenda Item 12
Consider Resolution of Support for the Tompkins County Clerk's Application for Funding
from the New York State Consolidated Funding Application for Shared Services Under the
Local Government Efficiency Grant
TB Resolution No 2013 - 100: Support for the Tompkins County Clerk's Application for
Funding from the New York State Consolidated Funding Application for Shared Services
Under the Local Government Efficiency Grant
Whereas the Tompkins County Clerk's Office intends to apply for funding through the New
York State Consolidated Funding Application(CFA) for monies to continue its efforts to
increase efficiencies in local services delivery of services and through shared services and
support related to records management systems and
Whereas the Town Board has supported the County Clerk's Office in previous funding
applications and looks forward to future opportunities for shared services and intermunicipal
cooperation which result in savings for its constituents and
Whereas the Town anticipates cooperating with and joining in future shared services offered
and/or supported by the County whenever feasible.
Now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board does hereby fully support the Tompkins County Clerk's Office in
its pursuit and application for funding for shared services through a Local Government
Efficiency Grant
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: Ayes—Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Rod Howe, Eric Levine, Tee Ann
Hunter and Herb Engman
Agenda Item 13
Consider Authorization for the Town Clerk to Enter into a 5-Year Agreement with
Tompkins County for the Tompkins Shared Services Electronic Records Repository
(TSSERR)
9
Ms. Brock had questions about the cost to the Town and if there was a way for the Town to leave
before the 5-year contract end. Ms. Terwilliger responded that she thought the escape clause was
in the by-laws and the licenses are $250 each with the Town having 3 licenses for a total of$750.
Discussion followed on the Town's experience with working with the County on these types of
grants and intermunicipal agreements and the Board felt that it was not an issue given the
number of municipalities that are signing this agreement and the time that would be involved if
every municipality made changes. Given the logistics of implementing changes to the agreement
and the minimal amount of money and relative low risk experienced with the County in these
types of agreements,the Board was comfortable moving forward and authorizing the Town
Clerk to sign the Agreement. Ms. Terwilliger noted that she would share the concerns and
suggested that changes may be made afterwards but having this contract helps in securing the
second grant. She also explained that all of our minutes and building permits have been scanned
in association with this shared services.
TB Resolution No 2013 - 101 : Authorization for the Town Clerk to Enter into a 5-Year
Agreement with Tompkins County for the Tompkins Shared Services Electronic Records
Repository (TSSERR)
Whereas Tompkins County has initiated and secured grants for the Tompkins County Shared
Services Electronic Records Repository(TSSERR)which is a shared service hosted by the
County and made available to all municipalities within the County and
Whereas the Town Board supported the grant application for TSSERR in 2013 and
Whereas the participating members of the TSSERR have drafted a set of By-Laws and a Group
Agreement which have been presented to its members and the Tompkins County Operations
Committee and
Whereas the Town Clerk has presented and discussed the TSSERR agreement and by-laws with
the Town Board
Now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board does hereby authorize the Town Clerk to enter into the Tompkins
County Shared Services Electronic Records Repository Group Agreement on behalf of the
Town subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town.
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: Ayes—Howe, Goodman, Engman, Leary, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Agenda Item 14 PULLED
Consider Resolution Requesting the Cayuga Power Plant Convert to Renewable Energy
Sources
Agenda Item 15
Continue Discussion on Budget, Capital Projects and Asset Inventory
10
Mr. Engman reviewed what information was sent to the Board and their sources; all information
had been sent prior to other meetings and then resent electronically together for this meeting.
Mr. Engman continued saying that looking at the 5-year plan goes along with what is looked at at
the State level and he quoted from the Empire Center for NYS Policy Ideas booklet"longterm
financial plans are not binding commitments, they are guidance documents reflecting where a
government is headed if current reasonably foreseeable trends continue by showing where and
when revenues diverge significantly from expenditures. Long term plans provide an early
warning of potential trouble ahead giving local leaders time to make adjustments." Mr. Engman
thought that was what Mr. Solvig had shown us in year 5 of the 5-years; that if we don't do
anything with the General Fund then we would have drawn down our reserves to a point where
we are virtually broke in that account. So that means that starting now, or by next year,we have
to start making some adjustments to make sure that doesn't happen.
Mr. Engman continued with another quote, "maintaining a balance of as you go and debt
financing is important. While this balance is dependent on many factors and is affected by the
fiscal and/or economic situation of a particular local government, it is important that the ratio of
cash vs. debt financing be monitored and periodically evaluated. Generally, when economic and
fiscal times are good, more capital financing should be done with pay-as-you-go finances. In
contrast, a declining tax base erodes debt capacity so debt financing should be used cautiously
for high priority projects only."
Mr. Engman thought part of the conversation he would like the Board to have is the question of
should we be saving money for certain things in our budget or should we be bonding or should it
be a mixture and there are different philosophies on all of these things. One philosophy is that
you should save and then have money to pay as you go but the problem with that is you have to
raise taxes to the point where you can do that and save and right now, you put money in the bank
and get less than I% and the rate of inflation goes up 2% and in effect you have collected money
from the public but you lose money until the interest rates go up. The other philosophy is that
you go ahead and bond for things, at least when the rates are low because then it is not just the
people who are using whatever is fixed or built but it is all the future people that are going to use
it over the next 30—40 year bond period.
The question is what is the balance and that is what we have to discuss. We have been borrowing
very aggressively lately to take advantage of low rates and low bids,but is it time to shift gears
and starting a new strategy?
Mr. DePaolo thought there was one more side that we need to look at and that is we have been
borrowing much more because we have been spending much more than we have and we need to
look at the expenditure side to minimize the need for borrowing or saving as well. Scrutinizing
high-ticket items as they come in is where to start and spend only what you need to spend. Mr.
Engman responded that that is exactly what the Budget Committee has been looking at and
asking whether we should start making some adjustments to the 2014 Budget. He used the
example that we have been paying $150K a year to support TCAT but yet whenever we
approach TCAT, we have the door slammed in our face and we have invested $250K over the
11
years and the Committee is looking at whether we should stop contributing and put it towards
something else such as our General Fund reserves.
Mr. Howe asked if the Budget Committee comes back to the Board with different scenarios for
evaluation such as conservative,middle and aggressive scenarios that would show the Board
what would happen with different paths or philosophies and how they would play out.
Mr. Engman responded that the Committee hasn't in the past but they do make
recommendations. The Committee started in January for 2014 and looking at numbers and the
5-year projection shows conservative budgeting and that we would be fine except for the one
account and it comes back to the philosophy of borrowing or saving and that is what we have to
figure out. Ms. Hunter thought it might be interesting to look at what the required increase
would be if we decided to save more. She went on to say that when she initially brought this up,
she wanted to establish line item accounts as an approach of saving and borrowing and so it
would remind the board that saving or a combination is an option. She thought if there was a
minimal amount kept in the line item, it reminds this board and future boards that the option is
there. She also was and is a proponent of developing a formula for replacement costs of capital
projects. Discussion followed with the example of the equipment list from Mr. Weber and if it
would be useful to find a standard number for each year since by the time we pay a piece off, the
first replacement is due for replacement. Mr. Weber stated that is what they are trying to do now
so it is a steadier number each year.
Mr. Engman noted that Mr. Solvig has suggested that road replacement be saved for and leave
the larger items for bonding. Mr. Solvig expanded on that saying that he didn't look at it so
much as a save or borrow but as a pay-as-you-go or borrow. He went back to what Mr. DePaolo
has said about us spending more money today than we had in the past; that's true,but in the past
the town has not spent as much as it should have been spending to keep up with the replacements
so now we are in the position of having to spend more to fix the things that should have been
fixed in past years and playing catch-up and this infrastructure in a continuous cycle so we will
be doing this into infinity. He stated that he doesn't like to bond for these things and in other
municipalities he has worked in there have been set amounts per year for roads,water mains and
sewers and we haven't done that. He would like to get the town to that point which would mean
increasing the tax levy in some funds but it would be a combination of increasing the levy and
the rates or fees. If we could get ourselves in a position over the next couple of years where the
budget was structured in such a way that what we have coming in in a year is going to equal
what we have going out that would leave us bonding options for large projects. Mr. Solvig
stated that he does not like saving for say a water tank in 60 years because the numbers are not
reliable. We have no idea what that will cost in 60 years but known infrastructure costs such as
watermains and roads can be estimated and saved for and particular projects determined each
year to be paid for from those funds. Mr. Engman added that one of the reasons we created the
highway fund and tax is to be transparent and show where the funds from that tax increase go.
Ms. Leary agreed that we have some catching up to do from deferred maintenance so it is fine to
say we are going to save but we do need to bond during these favorable times in terms of interest
and bids. She also felt that it isn't fair to tax current residents for things we are going to build in
50 years. Ms. Hunter responded that she was not suggesting we save whopping amounts of
12
money. She felt that we find ourselves in the situation we find ourselves in and not having an
asset management plan. She is suggesting line-item reminders in the budget to establish capital
reserve funds that would keep it in our minds and to correct an environment that got us to this
point where we didn't do what we needed to do.
Ms. Hunter turned her attention to the packet of information sent to the Board which has us not
borrowing in 2018 but it seems the discussions show that we will be. If that is the case, the
spreadsheets are not painting the correct picture. Mr. Solvig responded that there will always be
things we bond for and we can run all kinds of numbers but his objection is you get to a point
that the assumptions are too big because you don't know what the numbers are going to be in
more than 5 years. He gave the example that even the information given 2 weeks ago is out of
date because the interest rate has risen to a point where it is no longer advantageous enough to
refinance the bonds we were thinking about refinancing. Existing bonds can be shown to the
penny but new bonds or new debt involves a constantly changing environment and set of
assumptions.
Discussion followed on the trends, State contributions or lack thereof and economic factor as
well as impacts of things like the City exploring charging us for sidewalks and our fire
protection; if we can't find figure out how to reduce it we may have to cut back on our voluntary
contributions to programs like TCAT, the Library etc. Mr. Engman noted that the problem with
designated line items is once you have established them the funds can only be used for that
designated us. These are the types of discussions the Board should be having; how do we want
to keep our money. Do we want more flexibility and keep them in general funds or designate
them. Discussion followed on pros and cons of each, fees vs taxes and ways of estimating life
and replacement costs for improvements etc.
Mr. Engman noted that the next Budget meeting is on July 24th and all are welcome.
Agenda Item 16 Consider Consent Agenda Items
Consent agenda was divided into separate motions. No Bolton Point Abstract was submitted.
a. Approval of Town Board Minutes of June 10th and 24th 2013
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract
C. Bolton Point Abstract
TB Resolution 2013 - 103 :Approval of Minutes of June 24th, 2013
WHEREAS, the draft minutes of the June 24th, 2013 meeting of the Town Board have been
submitted for review and approval;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes, with
changes, as the final minute of the June 24th, 2013 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca.
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: Ayes—Hunter, Howe, Levine, Leary, Engman, DePaolo and Goodman
13
TB Resolution 2013 - 104 :Approval of Minutes of June l0Lhh, 2013
WHEREAS, the draft minutes of the June 10th, 2013 meeting of the Town Board have been
submitted for review and approval;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes, with
changes, as the final minute of the June 10th, 2013 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Tee Ann Hunter
Vote: Ayes—Hunter, Howe, Levine, Leary, Engman, DePaolo and Goodman
TB Resolution No. 2013 -102: 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. 3937 - 3996
General Fund Town wide 46,515.23
General Fund Part Town 1,735.65
Highway Fund Part Town 9,770.44
Water Fund 10,592.12
Sewer Fund 362,646.12
Fire Protection Fund 17,891.25
Trust and Agency 2,000.00
TOTAL 451,150.81
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: Ayes—Goodman, Levine, Leary, Engman, Hunter, DePaolo and Howe
Agenda Item 17 Report of Town Officials
Residential Sprinklers
Mr. Bates had distributed and article regarding the debate on new residential sprinklers
requirements being put forward and has been asked by the Southern Tier Building Officials for
input for a recommendation to the State.
Mr. Bates explained that basically every new residence would have to have a sprinkler system
with very few exceptions. These systems would not have all of the requirements of a
14
commercial system. The price for a typical house is around $2300. There is some reduction in a
homeowners insurance but the payoff would take at least 10 years and there are also implications
to our water infrastructure and the amount of pressure that would be required. Mr. Bates was
also concerned about the maintenance of the systems and the increase in staff time for
inspections etc.
The Board discussed the topic, noting that fires seem to be on the decrease and smoke detectors
are much more efficient and unfortunately those are not kept up so who is to say sprinklers
would. The Board was also concerned about the increase in costs to the homeowner and did not
feel that the benefits outweigh the costs and directed Mr. Bates to report to the Association that
they were not in favor of the requirement.
Update on NE Watershed Study
Mr. Weber reported that they have received 5 responses to the Request for Proposals and asked if
the Board was interested in moving forward with interviewing the responders and funding the
project. The high estimate now is $35K - $57K; the lower bids included a number of
teleconferences instead of in-person meetings and less experienced engineers. The Board
directed Mr. Weber to move ahead with the interview process.
Hanshaw Road Construction
Mr. Weber reported that the project has tentative start dates for detours the week of July 22"''
with six 10-hour days to substantially complete the project by the due date of December lO"'.
Supreme Court Decision - Land Use
Ms. Brock reported on a recent court decision - Koontz vs St Johns River Water Management
District and it deals with land use and "takings" which is taking land without just compensation.
Ms. Brock noted that she is unsure what effect this will have on the processes of the Town but
she will continue to monitor and keep the Board informed. She went into some detail explaining
the case in point and the Nolan and Dolan criteria. She felt that the Town is very careful and
very good during site plan evaluations and so far she does not see a problem with our customary
practices.
Agenda Item 18 Continue Discussion of Comprehensive Plan
Moved to next meeting. Planning will be sending out the responses from the public that have
been received and highlighting those that have specific changes requested. Mr. Engman
suggested the Board come to the next meeting prepared for finishing the draft Land Use Map and
reviewing those comments.
Agenda Item 19 Report of Town Committees
Agenda Item 20 Intermunicipal Organizations
Agenda Item 21 Review of Correspondence
Agenda Item 22 Consider Entering Executive Session to Discuss Proposed Litigation
Against Time Warner Cable
15
At 8:32 p.m. Ms. Hunter moved to enter executive session and Mr. Goodman seconded.
Unanimous.
Motion made at 8:50p.m. by Mr. Howe, seconded by Ms. Leary to return to open session.
Unanimous.
Consider Adjournment
Motion made to adjourn at 8:51p.m. by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Ms. Leary. Unanimous.
Submitte
Paulette Terwilliger
Town Clerk
16
Paulette Terwilliger
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Danny Gene Fox <dgf4@cornell.edu>
Tuesday, July 09, 2013 7:25 PM
Paulette Terwilliger
Calvary Chapel noise permit
To: Town of Ithaca Board
From: Danny Fox and Karen Knudson
RE: noise permit given to Calvary Chapel Church
Our house (306 Tareyton Drive) is on the southwest corner of Tareyton Park. Living In such close proximity to the park,
we were concerned that amplified sound from the Calvary Chapel service might be disruptive. Thus yesterday we were
sitting on the deck on the front of our house during the Calvary Chapel Churc|i service. The Town of Ithaca Clerk, who
was there, asked us to give our observations relative to the level of noise created by their Church service. Other than
barely hearing them singing at the beginning of the service, the noise level was quite low compared to other groups that
use the park. We noticed individuals from their group standing on the walking path during the service; I spoke to the
minister after the service and he indicated they did not use amplification and those individuals were monitoring the
sound level. They were all very respectful and polite and not disruptive in any way. Therefore we are supportive of their
continuing to hold church services in Tareyton Park.
kf I ^WUI
Paulette Terwilliger
From: Janet Wagner <janetrwagner@msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 10:28 PM
To: E Levine; bill sonnenstuhl
Cc: Herb Engman; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Rod Howe; T Hunter; P Leary; Paulette
Terwilliger
Subject: RE: Noise permit for Calvary Chapel of Ithaca in Tareyton Park
Eric,
We did not hear any amplification--no problem with noise-l don't think they had more than 25 people there. I
don't know why they felt they might need amplification. But I'd like to mention two issues at your Board
meeting tomorrow evening:
First, Bill and I have talked to quite a few neighbors, and they all feel that amplification is inappropriate for
that park: It's just a pocket park wedged into a neighborhood of closely spaced houses. Any substantial
amplification would be unbearable. So we beg you not to issue permits for amplification in the future. If
Calvary Chapel's services remain as quiet as today's was, we certainly do not have any objection to their
continuing through the month of July.
^^s^econd. Calvary Chapel's large tent has been set up in the Park since Wednesday and is still up this Sunday
evening. It is in the middle of the baseball right field. The soccer goals were moved to accommodate the tent;
we don't know if the soccer teams have a full field as a result. There wasn't much use of the Park this
weekend, probably because people were away and the weather was so hot. But normally the Park is fairly
heavily used for both organized and pick-up sports, and the tent is essentially monopolizing the site. We ask
that Calvary Chapel not put up the tent until Sunday mornings and that they take it down immediately after
their service so that others can use the Park.
Janet
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 21:27:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Noise permit for Calvary Chapel of Ithaca in Tareyton Park
From: elevinetown@gmail.com
To: wis7(5)cornell.edu: ianetrwagner@msn.com
CC: HEngman@town.ithaca.nv.us: BGoodman@town.ithaca.nv.us: RDePaolo@town.ithaca.nv.us:
RHowe@town.ithaca.nv.us: THunter@town.ithaca.nv.us: PLearv@town.ithaca.nv.us:
PTerwilliger@town.ithaca.nv.us
Hi William and Janet.
I went to the event just after noon on Sunday and there was no amplification at that time. I believe Rich
^.^DePaolo had the same experience. Did you hear any amplification before that, closer to start time?
Eric
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, William James Sonnenstuhl <wis7@cornell.edu> wrote:
1
Dear Members of the Town Board:
We are writing to ask the Town Board to reject the Calvary Chapel of Ithaca's application for a noise permit
that would allow the church to hold an outdoor service and fellowship each Sunday in Tareyton Park.
We live at 206 Winston Drive, which backs onto the park, so we are well-acquainted with the park and its
normal use. The park is well used by members of the community as a children's playground and for sports,
including regular soccer and baseball games, picnics, sunbathing, Tai Chai, etc. We enjoy hearing people
enjoying the park, particularly the voices of children. It is part of our community.
That said, we have serious objections to loud noise in the park, especially amplified sound that would
broadcast speech and/or music into the surrounding neighborhood. Tareyton Park is not appropriate for such
activities because it is a very small site surrounded by residences. Any group that requires a noise permit to
hold its function will require us to stay indoors with our windows shut, interfering with our right to enjoy our
property, and will disturb the peace and quiet of our neighbors. We ask the Town Board to respect the
neighborhood's right to enjoy its peace and quiet by rejecting the Calvary Chapel's application for a noise
permit. If the Chapel wishes to hold outdoor Sunday services, they really must do so in a much larger space
that is distant from housing.
We also have deep reservations about religious groups using public property for religious purposes because
we support a strict interpretation of the separation of church and state. We are respectful of the religious
beliefs of other people and do not wish to impose our beliefs on them. In return, we ask that the Chapel not
pipe its religious services into our home, which is what will happen if they use any amplification.
Sincerely,
William J. Sonnenstuhl
Janet R. Wagner
206 Winston Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
Eric 5. Levine, Esq.
Councilperson, Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
TOWN OF ITHACA
2014 CAPITAL BUDGET
As part of the Fiscal Year 2014 budget process, Town staff has prepared this report on the 2014 Capital
Budget for use by the Town Board in the budget review process. The Capital Budget includes both
capital projects to be constructed and capital equipment items to be replaced/purchased that together
represent a significant portion of the Town's budget.
This report is being presented to the Town Board to facilitate discussion related to (1) the Town's Capital
Improvement Program for projects to be constructed during Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018; and (2) the
replacement of capital equipment as identified in the Capital Equipment Replacement Summary for this
same period. This report is presented in four sections:
1,Five-Year Capital Improvement Procram - A schedule of capital projects currently proposed to
be constructed during Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018. This schedule includes the estimated cost of
each project, and the total estimated amount to be financed by issuing new long-term bonded
debt for each year.
Fiscal Year 2014 Caoitai Proiect Descriptions - A listing of those capital projects currently
scheduled for construction in FY 2014 with a description of each project.
Five-Year Capital Eauioment Replacement Summarv - A schedule of capital equipment
(vehicles and other equipment) currently proposed to be replaced/purchased during Fiscal Years
2014 - 2018. This schedule includes the estimated cost of each item, and the breakdown of the
estimated cost between the various funds for each year.
4.Fiscal Year 2014 Capital Eauioment Replacement Summarv
identified for replacement in Fiscal Year 2014.
A schedule of capital equipment
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
The Town's current Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies various capital projects to be
constructed in Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018. The total construction cost of all projects is currently estimated
at $16,925,000. A breakdown of this total by year, infrastructure category and funding source is shown
on the following table:
INFRASTRUCTURE 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE $2,050,000 $1,950,000 $1,050,000 $2,050,000 $500,000
SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE 635,000 635,000 635,000 635,000 635,000
STORMWATER DRAINAGE 200,000 ----
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 1,000,000 600,000 350,000 350,000 800,000
TOWN FACILITIES 200,000 600,000 200,000 250,000 -
PARKS & TRAILS 450,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 250,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $4,535,000 $4,085,000 $2,535,000 $3,585,000 $2,185,000
FUNDING SOURCE:
- Current Year Revenue $935,000 $735,000 $785,000 $785,000 $685,000
- Grant Funding 350,000 200,000 250,000 250,000 200,000
- New Long-Term Debt 3,250,000 3,150,000 1,500,000 2,550,000 1,300,000
TOTAL FUNDING $4,535,000 $4,085,000 $2,535,000 $3,585,000 $2,185,000
Of the $16,925,000 total estimated construction costs, $3,925,000 would be financed with current year
revenues, $1,250,000 with grant funding (if available), and the remaining $11,750,000 by the issuance of
new long-term debt. Please refer to pages 2 and 3 for a more detailed breakdown of the CIP.
))TOWN OF ITHACA5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM2014 BUDGETINFRASTRUCTURE2013Cost2014Cost2015CostWATER TANKS$Christopher Circle Tank Repl.$ 850,000Sapsucker Woods Tank Repl.$ 850,000SUB-TOTAL$Sub-Total$ 850,000Sub-Total$ 850,000WATER MAINSDanby Road Water Main Repl.$ 600.000(3oddington Rd Water Main - Ph. 1$ 1.200,000Coddington Rd Water Main - Ph. 2$ 1,100,000W King Road Water Main Repl.250,000SUB-TOTAL$ 850.000Sub-Total$ 1,200.000Sub-total$ 1,100,000SANITARY SEWERSLake Street Meter Station$ 50,000Sewer Rehabilitation$ 100,000Sewer Rehabilitation$ 100,000Penny Lane Sewer Rehabilitation30,000Manhole Rehabilitation50.000Manhole Rehabilitation50,000Trumansburq Rd Manhole Rehab.50,000SJC Projects:Jointly Owned Interceptors300,000Jointly Owned Interceptors300,000Jointly Owned Interceptors300,000lAWWTF Improvement Bonds185,000lAWWTF Improvement Bonds185.000lAWWTF Improvement Bonds185,000Sub-Total$ 615,000Sub-Total$ 635,000Sub-Total$ 635.000STORM DRAINAGE$[Winners Circle Drainage Imp.$ 200,0001$ -1ROAD IMPROVEMENTSWhitetail & Marcey Court$ 750,000Sand Bank Road - Lower End$ 750,000Roat Street$ 275,000Forest Home Drive (Postponed)-Winners Circle250,000Orchard Street100,000Forest Home at Flat Rock250,000Black Stone Avenue225,000Sub-Total$ 1.000,000Sub-total$ 1,000,000Sub-total$ 600,000Town Hall Parking Lot Rehab.$ 250.000Emergency Generator - PWF$ 100.000Public Works Fueling Station$ 400.000'''Salt Storage BIdq. Replacement800,000Town Hall Improvements100,000Town Hall Improvements200.000Sub-Total$ 1,050,000Sub-Total$ 200,000Sub-total$ 600,000PARKS & TRAILSTudor Park Playground$ 50,000Hunqerford Hgts Park Playground$ 50,000Troy Park Playground$ 50,000South Hill Trail Pipe Repairs50,000South Hill Trail Pipe Repairs50,000South Hill Trail Pipe Repairs50,000Gateway Trail (Grant Funded)350,000West Hill Community Park200,000Sub-Total$ 100,000Sub-Total$ 450,000Sub-Total$ 300,000ITOTAL ANNUAL COSTS:2013 TOTAL$ 3,615,0002014 TOTAL$ 4,535,0002015 TOTAL$ 4,085,000Bondina Grouo - 2013Bondina Grouo - 2014Bondina Grouo - 2015Danby Road Water Main Repl.$ 600,000Christopher Circle Tank Repl.$ 850,000Sapsucker Woods Tank Repl.$ 850,000Whitetail & Marcey Court750,000Coddington Rd Water Main - Ph. 11,200,000Coddington Rd Water Main - Ph. 21,100,000Forest Home Drive (Postponed)-Winners Circle Drainage Imp.200,0002015 Road Improvements600,000Forest Home at Flat Rock250,0002014 Road Improvements1,000,000Public Works Fueling Station400,000Town Hall Parking Lot Rehab.250,000Emergency Generator - PWF-Town Hall Improvements200,000Salt Storage BIdg. Replacement800,000Town Hall Improvements-Total Bonding • 2013$ 2,650,000Total Bonding - 2014$ 3,250,000Total Bonding - 2015$ 3,150.000
))TOWN OF ITHACA5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM2014 BUDGETINFRASTRUCTURE2016Cost2017Cost2018CostWATER TANKSPine Tree Road Tank Repl.$ 450,000Trumansburp Road Tank Repl.$ 1.200.000$East Kinq Road PRV100,000SUB-TOTAL$ 450,000sub-total$ 1,300,000Sub-total$WATER MAINSCliff Sreet Water Main Repl.$ 500,000Renvflck Drive Water Main Repl.$ 750.000Southwoods-Troy Water Main$ 500,000Cliff Sreet Pump Station Demo.100,000Sub-Total$ 600,000sub-total$ 750.000Sub-Total$ 500,000SANITARY SEWERSSJC Projects:Sewer Rehabilitation$ 100,000Sewer Rehabilitation$ 100,000Sewer Rehabilitation$ 100,000Manhole Rehabilitation50,000Manhole Rehabilitation50,000Manhole Rehabilitation50,000Jointly Owned Interceptors300,000Jointly Owned interceptors300,000Jointly Owned Interceptors300,000lAWWTF Improvement Bonds185,000lAWWTF Improvement Bonds185,000lAWWTF Improvement Bonds185,000Sub-total$ 635,000sub-total$ 635,000Sub-Total$ 635,000STORM DRAINAGE 1 1$ -I1 1$ -|| |$ROAD IMPROVEMENTSHopkins Place f3" Base 2''Top)$ 150,000Culver Road$ 200,000Bundy Road$ 800,000Campbell Avenue200,000Glenside Road150,000Sub-Total$ 350.000Sub-Total$ 350,000Sub-Total$ 800,000Replace Town Hall Boiler$ 200.000Public WofI®Wash Bay$ 250.000$Sub-Total$ 200.000sub-total$ 250,000Sub-Total$PARKS & TRAILSSaponi Meadows - Phase 1$ 250,000Saponi Meadows - Phase 2$ 250,000Poyer Trail to Woolf Park$ 200.000South Hill Trail Pipe Repairs50,000South Hill Trail Pipe Repairs50,000South Hill Trail Pipe Repairs50,000Sub-Total$ 300,000Sub-Total$ 300,000Sub-Total$ 250,000ITOTAL ANNUAL COSTS: 2016 TOTAL $2,535,0002017 TOTAL $3,585,0002018 TOTAL $2,185,000Bondino Grouo - 2016Pine Tree Road Tank Repl. $Cliff Sreet Water Main Repl.2016 Road ImprovementsReplace Town Hall Boiler450,000500,000350,000200,000Bondino Group - 2017Trumansburg Road Tank Repl. $Renwick Drive Water Main Repl.2017 Road ImprovementsPublic Works Wash Bay1,200,000750,000350,000250.000Bondino Group - 2018Southwoods-Troy Water Main $2018 Road Improvements500,000800,000Total Bonding - 2016 $1.500.000Total Bondino - 2017 $2.550.000Total Bonding - 2018 $1.300.000
Fiscal Year 2014 Capital Project Descriptions
General Fund:
• Town Hall Building Improvements - These are maintenance projects that were identified in the
HVAC/Air Quality study, or efficiency improvements that have been identified as potential
improvements. A total of $100,000 is proposed to be budgeted for the following listed projects, to
be funded from current year revenues.
- Modifications to the HVAC Building Control System (BOS).
- Repair Stairway to Boiler Room.
- Replace Drywell on Tioga Street and connect to City sewer.
- Modifications to Town Board/Court Room.
• Emeroencv Generator - The Public Works Facility (PWF) is identified as the Town's "Emergency
Management Operations Center", and currently there is no dedicated back-up power source to
the building. This project will provide for the installation of a fixed natural gas-powered generator
to provide such back-up power, allowing the PWF to continue providing critical services under
emergency conditions. This project is estimated to cost $100,000 and will be funded from current
year revenues.
• Plavoround Structure Replacement - This is a replacement of one of our aging wooden
playground structures. Right now the likely candidate will be the Hungerford Heights Park
playground structure, but that might change come next spring. $50,000 will be allocated for this
project, which will be funded from current year revenues.
n ^ • South Hill Trail Culvert Replacement - This is an ongoing program for replacement of the culverts
under the South Hill Trail. The alignment of the South Hill Trail follows an abandoned railroad
right-of-way, and many of these culverts were originally installed with the construction of the
railroad. $50,000 will be allocated for this work, which will be funded from current year revenues.
• Gatewav Trail - The Gateway Trail project is located on South Hill along the boundary of the
Town and City of Ithaca. The project involves the development of a multi-use trail that would
provide bicycle and pedestrian connections between the existing South Hill Recreation Way at
Hudson Street, Buttermilk Falls State Park, the existing bridge over NYS Route 13, the City of
Ithaca parklands, and the future Black Diamond Trail. The proposed trail covers approximately 2
miles, with approximately 90% of the trail alignment following an abandoned railroad right-of-
way. The project was awarded $544,000 in grant funding, including design, right-of-way
acquisition and construction, with a ratio of 80% Federal funds and 20% Town funds.
Phase 1 of this project will connect the City parklands area up to Stone Quarry Road (+/- 1
mile). The estimated cost for Phase 1 is $84,000 for engineering and design, and $350,000 for
construction. The Town currently has almost $88,000 set aside to cover its share of the costs,
and staff is not requesting additional funding at this time.
Phase 2, which crosses the Emerson Plant property, will be constructed in the future as the right-
of-way and additional funding becomes available.
Please see the next page for a map of the proposed route of the Gateway Trail.
• Winners Circle Drainaoe Improvements - This is a maintenance project to replace the original
metal storm pipes and repair catch basins. The inverts of the pipes had eroded away and the
basins are collapsing, contributing to the deterioration of the adjacent roadways. This work will
be done in conjunction with the Winners Circle Pavement Improvements project described below.
The estimated cost of this work is $200,000, which will be funded by issuing new long-term debt.
N /(.' giiiiS'Gateway TrailProposed RouteA Town & City of IthacaIthaca. New York^krnwmM,South HillRecreation Way—'—T"~C' J^y '7 '—sCity of; Ithaca7^'' y- /''Town of Ithaca/^} A\ >; nGateway BridgeApril 27,2007
Highway Fund:
Winners Circle Pavement improvements - This is a "mill and fill" maintenance project to address
deteriorating pavement conditions due, in part, to drainage failures and impacts from water main
breaks. This work will be done in conjunction with the Winners Circle Drainage Improvements
project described above. The estimated cost of this work is $250,000, which will be funded by
issuing new long-term debt.
Sand Bank Road (Lower End) Improvements - This is a maintenance project to address a variety
of issues from the top of the bend to the intersection with SR 13. The pavement structure includes
a variety of asphalt mix designs, including "cold mix asphalt", stone and oil and some "hot mix
asphalt". Each mix has its own benefits, however we are starting to see failures, "down-hill
pushing" and clumps of asphalt sticking to tires on hot days, as the mixes are not working
together. There are also issues with the overall construction of the original road being placed on
rock ledges creating drainage problems. The project will include drainage work, base repair,
overlay, "mill and fill" and guide rail extension. The estimated cost of this work is $750,000, which
will also be funded by issuing new long-term debt.
Water Fund:
Christopher Circle Water Tank Replacement - Constructed circa 1959, the existing steel tank is
35' in diameter by 70' in height, with a storage capacity of 500,000 gallons. This tank supplies
322 customers with an average of 110,000 gallons of water per day. Past inspections have
indicated the need for increasing levels of maintenance, and due to low pressure issues to
customers adjacent to the tank, the water level is allowed to drop only 7-10 feet (15% of capacity)
before the tank is refilled.
Staff is proposing to replace the existing tank with a new steel tank, greater in height and with a
slightly smaller storage capacity. This will provide improved water pressure and allow for a more
efficient usage of the capacity of the tank, therefore reducing any water quality concerns. The
new tank will be designed to meet the following requirements:
- 35 psi at water main for all service connections.
- 20 psi at water main for all service connections during fire flow conditions.
- Fire flow of 1500 gpm at 20 psi.
- Minimum of three days water storage capacity.
The estimated cost of this work is $850,000, which will be funded by issuing new long-term debt.
Coddinoton Road Water Main Improvements - The installation dates of the water mains along
Coddington Road range from 1954 to 1994 and the area is served by two separate tanks. The
newer sections of the mains have been plagued by corrosive failures and the older sections have
significant accumulations of sediment which impacts the ability to efficiently move water through
the lines. Tompkins County is planning the reconstruction of Coddington Road in 2015, and
replacement of the water main should take place prior to the road work. This project will provide
for the replacement of 14,100 lineal feet (2.67 miles) of water mains at an estimated cost of
$2,300,000, with construction being scheduled in two (2) phases. Please see the next page for a
map showing the location and phasing of this project.
Phase 1 will be constructed in 2014, replacing the existing mains from the Northview Tank to
Burns Road with polywrapped 8" ductile iron pipe. A total of 9,640 l.f. of pipe will be installed
during this phase at an estimated cost of $1,540,000.
Phase 2 will be constructed in 2015, replacing the existing mains from the Town-City boundary to
the Northview Tank with polywrapped 8" ductile iron pipe. A total of 4,460 l.f. of pipe will be
installed during Phase 2 at an estimated cost of $760,000.
Coddington Road Water Main
Water Main Service Area
Porject Phases
> >
Map Created 2/2013
V# > '•- ^
' t f »1111 i ^ *
# *** 1
•* It >
' *
• .
M 4» H M it
A •>
* S'' iW /V ^
s» ■• ■
X.
Northview Tank
>/
Coddlngtoti Rd
Troy Rd Phase 1
Troy Road<af1k
a
- 1 ^• • t «
Coddington Rd
..-■p.
■^.^^ • . .....
A V - ^ * ."
X ^
I - - . *
f" 1
I t
♦ ♦«. ,.N< % fy .i'
■»-' "•■• "•>■>•.-•
^ *
■a «la "* "" *
" I i
The $2,300,000 total cost of the Coddington Road Water Main Improvements will be funded
through issuing new long-term debt In Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015. The Town will also require
the approval of the Comptroller's Office prior to proceeding with this project.
Sewer Fund:
• Sewer Rehabilitation - This Is a maintenance project to eliminate water Infiltration Into the sewer
mains and reduce blockages. Selected sewer mains will first be thoroughly cleaned, and then
slip-lined with cured In-place plastic pipe. This project Is estimated to cost $100,000 and will be
funded from current year revenues.
• Manhole Rehabilitation - This Is a maintenance project to reduce water Infiltration Into manholes,
rebuild Inverts and reduce blockages. This project will be budgeted for $50,000 and will also be
funded from current year revenues.
• Jolntiv Owned Interceptors - Interceptor sewers carry sewage from the Town through the City of
Ithaca for treatment at the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant, located at the southern end
of Cayuga Lake. These sewer lines are jointly owned with the City, and the Town Is responsible
for a portion of the maintenance and replacement costs of these lines. The City of Ithaca and the
Town of Ithaca must Initially approve all capital projects and related expenditures before any
construction can take place. $300,000 will be budgeted In 2014, to be funded from current year
revenues.
Five-Year Capital Equipment Replacement Summary
The Town's current FIve-Year Capital Equipment Summary Identifies various vehicles and capital
equipment to be replaced during Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018. The total five-year replacement cost Is
currently estimated at $3,608,000. Please see pages 9 and 10 for a schedule showing the estimated cost
of each Item, and the breakdown of the estimated cost between the various funds for each year.
Fiscal Year 2014 Capital Equipment Replacement Summary
The following schedule Identifies the capital equipment scheduled for replacement In Fiscal Year 2014 at
a total estimated cost of $692,000. Funding of capital equipment replacements will come from current
year revenues.
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
j Fleet
1 No.
Year 1
i
Purchased|
USEFULL
Life
Original
Cost
Replacement
Cost
2014 REPLACEMENTS:
i
j
2004 Dodge Intrepid (Planning)1 29 2004 j 7 $ 14,875 $25,000
2002 Chevrolet Venture Van 1 28 2002 15 16,369 30,000
2006 Ford F350 One-Ton Truck 1 19 2006 10 25,731 45,000
2005 Ford F350 Utility Truck ! 63 2005 10 22,954 45,000
2003 Ford F150 4x4 Pickup Truck 1 16 2003 10 21,037 35,000
2001 Bobcat 863H Skid-Steer Loader 1 50 2001 10 31,266 42,000
1999 Daewoo Heavy Excavator i 40 1999 1 15 101,422 250,000
1985 John Deere Tractor 1 35 1985 1 10 17,000 55,000
2009 Grasshopper Mower (Diesel)1 55 2009 1 3 12,722 20,000
2002 OBD Leaf Vacuum 1 44 2002 1 10 17,150 35,000
1997 Atlas Copco Air Corrpressor i 70 1997 20 10,549 20,000
1990 Red River Flo-Boy Trailer 1 T4 1990 1 20 33,885 90,000
Jotai -2014 Capital Equipment $692,000
)TOWN OF ITHACACAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUMMARY- VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTS)2014 CAPITAL BUDGET^ ADITAl IIDMCMXYearOriginalReplacementEngineeringTown ParksStormwaterCodes &HighwayWaterSewerli^Arl 1AL cUUir McN 1PurchasedCostCostA1440A7110A8540PlanningDB5130F8340G81202014 REPLACEMENTS:Staff/Inspection Vehicle292004$ 14,875$25,000$$-$$ 25,000$ - ;E - 5ECargo Van28200216,36930,00030,000------2x4 Mechanic's Truck19200625,73145,000-9,0002,250-22,5006,7504,5002x4 Utility Truck63200522,95445,000-9,0002,250-22,5006,7504,500Lt-Duty Pickup Truck16200321,03735,000-7,0001,750-17,5005,2503,500Skid-Steer Loader50200131,26642,000-8,4002,100-21,0006,3004,200Heavy Excavator401999101,422250,000-50,00012,500-125,00037,50025,000Tractor w/Const. Broom35198517,00055,000-11,0002,750-27,5008,2505,500Grasshopper Mower55200912,72220,000-4,0001,000-10,0003,0002,000Leaf Vacuum44200217,15035,000-7,0001,750-17,5005,2503,500Air Compressor70199710,54920,000-4,0001,000-10,0003,0002,000Flo-Boy TrailerT4199033,88590,000-18,0004,500-45,00013,5009,000Sub-Total - 2014 Replacements$692,000$ 30,000$127,400$ 31,850$ 25,000$ 318,500E 95,550 iG 63,7002015 REPLACEMENTS:Highway Truck32004$ 134,664S250,000$$50,000$ 12,500$$ 125,000fi 37,500G 25,000Med-Duty Dump Truck4200671,662100,000-20,0005,000-50,00015,00010,000Med-Duty Dump Truck8200659,445100,000-20,0005,000-50,00015,00010,000Lt-Duty Dump Truck65200826.37245,000-9,0002,250-22,5006,7504,500"Toolcat" Utility Vehicle59201257,76975,000-15,0003,750-37,50011,2507,500Utility Tractor52200119,34150,000-10,0002,500-25,0007,5005,000Utility Tractor56200925,95532,000-6,4001,600-16,0004,8003,200Grasshopper Mower49201213,26620,000-4,0001,000-10,0003,0002,000Roller80200613,50030,000-6,0001,500-15,0004,5003,000Sub-Total - 2015 Replacements$702,000$$140,400$ 35,100$$ 351,000S 105,300 ;G 70,2002016 REPLACEMENTS:Staff/Inspection Vehicle262006$ 14,711$28,000$$-$$ 28,000$$5Highway Truck12002121.496250,000-50,00012,500-125,00037,50025,000Vibratory Roller39200176,463120,000-24,0006,000-60,00018,00012,000Shoulder Machine73N/A2,300350,000-70,00017,500-175,00052,50035,000Equipment TrailerTil20099,50615,000-3,000750-7,5002,2501,500Sub-Total - 2016 Replacements$763,000$$147,000$ 36,750$ 28,000$ 367,500$ 110,250S 73,500
)TOWN OF ITHACACAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUMMARY- VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTS12014 CAPITAL BUDGETYearOriginalReplacementEngineeringTown ParksStormwaterCodes &HighwayWaterSewerPurchasedCostCostA1440A7110A8540PlanningDB5130F8340G81202017 REPLACEMENTS:Highway Truck132007$ 140,073$275,000$$55,000$13,750$$ 137,500$ 41,250$ 27,500Lt-Duty Dump Truck17201024,93240,000-8,0002,000-20,0006,0004,000Med-Duty Pickup w/Plow62201131,78950,000-10,0002,500-25,0007,5005,0004x4 Backhoe/Loader48199765,907150,000-30,0007,500-75,00022,50015,000Grasshopper Mower55201420,00028,000-5,6001,400-14,0004,2002,800Motor Grader37199787,330150,000-30,0007,500-75,00022,50015,000Sub-Total - 2017 Replacements$693,000$$138,600$34,650$$ 346,500$ 103,950$ 69,3002018 REPLACEMENTS:Staff/Inspection Vehicle272003$ 18,337$28,000$$5,600$1,400$$ 14,000$ 4,200$ 2,800Highway Truck152009199,000300,000-60,00015,000-150,00045,00030,000Lt-Duty Dump Truck18201145,68965,000-13,0003,250-32,5009,7506,500Med-Duty Pickup Truck12200818,24130,000-6,0001,500-15,0004,5003,000Med-Duty Pickup w/Plow67200828,79250,000-10,0002,500-25,0007,5005,000Med-Duty Pickup w/Plow68201237,33850,000-10,0002,500-25,0007,5005,000Backhoe/Loader42200854,445125,000-25,0006,250-62,50018,75012,500"Toolcat" Utility Vehicle59201575,00080,000-16,0004,000-40,00012,0008,000Grasshopper Mower49201520,00030,000-6,0001,500-15,0004,5003,000Sub-Total -2018 Replacements$758,000$$151,600$37,900$$ 379,000$ 113,700$ 75,800TOTAL • CAPITAL EQUIPMENT$ 3,608,000$ 30,000$705,000$176,250$ 53,000$ 1,762,500$ 528,750$ 352,50010