Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2013-07-22 MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD Monday, July 22, 2013 Approved Minutes Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Bill Goodman, Eric Levine, Pat Leary, Rod Howe, Rich DePaolo and Tee Ann Hunter Staff Present: Mike Solvig, Paulette Terwilliger, Susan Ritter, Bruce Bates, Judy Drake and Dan Tasman Meeting was called to order at 4:34 p.m. Mr. Engman added an item to the agenda. He explained that there is a coalition looking at applying for a Cleaner Greener Grant and since Nick Goldsmith would be the point person it was suggested that the town be the lead agency and municipality submitting the grant. He asked if there were any objections to that idea. There were none. Agenda Item 1 4:30 p.m. Public Hearing re.: Noise Permit Application for St. Catherine of Sienna's Annual Festival on Sept. 14th and 15th Public hearing was opened at 4:35 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak to this topic and the hearing was closed. TB Resolution No. 2013-103: Approval of a Noise Permit for the Saint Catherine's Parish Festival, September 2013 WHEREAS a noise permit application has been received by St. Catherine of Sienna Parish for their annual festival to be held on September 14 and 15, 2013, and WHEREAS the Town Board held a public hearing on July 22, 2013 regarding the event and request for a noise permit and Now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves a noise permit for the festival on the dates specified above. Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Bill Goodman Vote: Ayes— DePaolo, Goodman, Engman, Leary, Levine and Howe Agenda Item 2 4:30 p.m. Public Hearing re.: 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. Public hearing was opened at 4:36 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak to this topic and the hearing was closed. 1 TB Resolution 2013 - 104: Authorizing the Town Board to enter 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, and is for the provision of Fire Protection Services, Hazardous Material Incident Services, and Emergency Medical First Response Services WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca, New York (the "Town") on behalf of the Town Fire Protection District, which covers the Northeast portion of the Town outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights, has negotiated with the Village of Cayuga Heights, New York (the "Village") regarding a new fire contract for the provision of fire protection services, hazardous material incident services and emergency medical services, pursuant to New York Town Law § 184, and WHEREAS, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board for a public hearing to be held by the Town on July 22, 2013 to hear all interested parties in connection with such proposed fire contract, and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly advertised in the official newspaper and held on said date and time at the Town Hall and, WHEREAS, the Town Board believes it to be in the best interests of the Town to enter into such fire contract negotiated by Town and Village representatives, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board that approval of the fire contract is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment," and thus approval of the contract is not subject to review under SEQRA, NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Town Board approves the above-referenced fire contract and hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute such contract, subject to approval by the Attorney for the Town, on behalf of the Town of Ithaca Fire Protection District. MOVED: Rod Howe SECONDED: Eric Levine VOTE: Ayes— Howe, Levine, Leary, Hunter, Engman, Goodman and DePaolo Agenda Item 3 4:30 p.m. Public Hearing re.: A Proposed Local Law to Override the Tax Levy Limit Established in General Municipal Law 3-C Public hearing was opened at 4:38 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak to this topic and the hearing was closed. 2 TB Resolution No. 2013-105: Adopting Local Law No. 6 of 2013 to Override the Tax Levy Limit Established in General Municipal Law§3-C. WHEREAS, municipalities of the State of New York are limited in the amount of real property taxes that may be levied each year under the tax levy limit established in General Municipal Law §3-c, and WHEREAS, subdivision 5 of General Municipal Law §3-c expressly authorizes a municipality to override the tax levy limit by the adoption of a local law approved by vote of at least sixty percent (60%) of the governing body, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on June 10, 2013 the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca reviewed and discussed a proposed local law to override the tax levy limit and adopted a resolution for a public hearing to be held by said Town on July 22, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A LOCAL LAW TO OVERRIDE THE TAX LEVY LIMIT ESTABLISHED IN GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW §3-C; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment," and thus this action is not subject to review under SEQRA, NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts Local Law No. 6 of 2013 entitled "A LOCAL LAW TO OVERRIDE THE TAX LEVY LIMIT ESTABLISHED IN GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW §3-C', and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes— Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Goodman, Levine, Howe and Engman Agenda Item 4 Review Agenda for August Meeting No comments. 3 Agenda Item 5 Consent— Moved to the last item Staff Comments/Reminders Mr. Solvig reminded the Board that the Budget Committee focusing on Capital Projects will be next Weds and he handed out some information for their review. Agenda Item 6 Continue Review of draft Comprehensive Plan Ms. Ritter noted that she sent the compilation of public comments regarding the Comp Plan. She went on to say that at the last meeting we left off at the Coddington/King/Troy Road triangle which has been identified as a New Neighborhood which means we are considering increasing the density, allowing mixed use and residential types there and we wanted to talk about that a little bit more, especially with Mr. Levine's perspective since he lives there. Mr. DePaolo started the conversation, saying that his take on the map in general is that that area is and outlier and he didn't understand conceptually why it is on the map and wondered what the Committee's thought process was for the designation. He did not see the kind of synergy the Town seems to be advocating in that area. Ms. Ritter explained that the Committee discussed this at length and the choice was semi-rural and keep it low density, in which case you would lose opportunities for additional housing in for more efficient use of the land, or do you up the density, allow some mixed use in the future thinking that this be the best place for densification because you are not near the octopus but you are near Ithaca and Cornell College as well as trails which hopefully will connect with the South Hill Center. She went on to say she understands the concerns, but staff and the Committee felt it was better to identify it now as opposed to losing the opportunity and it possibly becoming part of a large lot subdivision. Mr. DePaolo thought that the other option would be to not allow either of those to happen. It doesn't have to be a large lot subdivision; he doesn't understand why the alternative to a New Neighborhood always has to be this large lot sprawl. He felt that there were too many areas identified for increased density and the viability of each is questionable. He did not see a connection, pedestrian or otherwise, to the Neighborhood Center. Ms. Ritter responded that the Park and Recreation Plan shows a connection at the Deer Run/Chase Lane area to South Hill Center. Mr. DePaolo didn't think the topography was conducive to that. Discussion followed. Ms. Leary thought it was not necessary to get specific about what is planned in every single area of the Town and there is nothing compelling about the area to make it open space or conservation so you have to designate it something. Mr. Levine said that he has spoken with a number of residents and they are concerned about large scale rental development going in there. There is a part of the triangle that is very old houses and Troy Rd. has large expensive homes so the character of the home neighborhoods is a concern. He didn't understand what level of density was being contemplated there but his is worried about changing the character there. Mr. Tasman responded that the character of a 4 neighborhood is like a living breathing thing and change has to happen. When the first few people moved in the character was one thing, as more residences came and different residence types came the character changed to something else. Unless a building freeze is implemented, the character is going to change. Everybody would like to see their views left alone, but they don't own that land and can't expect it to remain the way it was when they bought their place. Mr. Levine said that he was not in implying that it remain green; it would be appropriate to keep growing the way it is but residents are worried about large scale rental. Mr. Tasman said that is not what the Town wants to see there. The idea is to have mixed use with the lowest density on the outskirts with the density progressively higher in the center. Mr. Engman responded that Ms. Ritter was correct in that the committee had the same discussion and struggled with this but they had to come to this recommendation. He reiterated that if we do not have a better idea, the default should be the recommendation by the Comprehensive Planning Committee presented in the draft Plan to the board. If there are no proposals, then the default is the draft otherwise we redo the conversation held at the committee level and we will take months to move this along and in that time the current zoning is in place and proposals could come in and have to be considered and we want that to change. Discussion followed on the amount of acreage involved and what could happen now and what types of mixed uses were being envisioned and how many units per acre etc. a lot of which would be determined at the Site Plan stage of the development process as well as the zoning regulations as this moves forward. Ms. Ritter noted that this property is for sale and there have been proposals brought in to the Town for mixed residential at market rate and staff has told the proposers what the tentative plan is for the area. A planned development zone would be needed if the rezoning was not done by that point but development of some sort is going to happen and we would rather have some control and input than having X amount of houses on single lots. Mr. Engman suggested that this be put in the "parking lot" and if there is a proposal for something different, that can be discussed at a later time. Public Comments Mr. Engman brought the Board's attention to the packet of comments sent out by Ms. Ritter. The last page contains the excerpts that had specific recommended changes and the County had 4 that would need a super majority to override. 1. The County would like to see higher density in the Neighborhood Center Focus Area First comment. Mr. Engman thought this was fundamental and the Committee discussed this at length and recommended the 8-12. The Board discussed what the density ranges would look like by using existing neighborhoods such as Fall Creek and Belle Sherman and Gateway. The Board felt comfortable with our 8— 12 range rather than the County's 10—20 and the ability to have a super majority. 5 2. The County recommends the inclusion of a Neighborhood Center in the West Hill area. Mr. Howe asked what the reasoning was for not having one and Ms. Ritter responded that the idea of a heavy commercial node was not what we wanted and we looked at proposed development, the traffic, the City boundary and how commercial ventures are not organically happening there now so it doesn't feel right. Staff started looking at the lighter way of doing it with the New Neighborhood which was more residential but had mixed use with small commercial ventures. Mr. DePaolo wanted to discuss the alternate scenario for West Hill that had an additional Neighborhood Center and fewer New Neighborhoods as a way to focus the development in certain areas and limit it in others. Having a Neighborhood Center between Routes 79 and 96 and not extend the New Neighborhoods along the entire strip south. He wondered what the upshot of that discussion was in the Committee. Ms. Hunter responded that the idea seemed to be around the Town Park and the ranges between the New Neighborhood and the Neighborhood Center is not dramatic and the hope was to densify along the new road around Bundy and Mecklenburg and have the commercial along the park. Mr. Tasman noted that the development envisioned for this area is not like Overlook but rather smaller complexes tucked into the neighborhood. Mr. DePaolo was concerned about making the neighborhoods work and thinking about the possibility of fewer neighborhoods to make those fewer more successful. Mr. Ritter thought there would be an adolescent stage for any neighborhood this is conceptual because the limited land available will not become available all at once. Discussion followed along those lines. Mr. DePaolo asked how one can limit development without going to the extreme of zoning sections Conservation or Agricultural. He didn't hear anyone talking about downzoning around the New Neighborhood areas. Mr. Goodman responded that we are; 59% of the Town is Agricultural or Conservation Zone. Mr. DePaolo responded that it isn't so much the number of acres but whether the New Neighborhoods and Neighborhood Centers are going to make it. Discussion followed on reasons for not making some areas Established Neighborhood. Ms. Hunter talked about the priorities listed for both categories and why areas couldn't be Established Neighborhoods and rezone if the need becomes apparent. Her concern was our inability to phase anything in to help get through the adolescence stage and not open everything up to a densification that may not work ultimately. Leave the area closer to the City as Established Neighborhood and see. Mr. Tasman did not agree saying that instituting form- based building would in essence turn the area to New Neighborhood no matter what you call it. He suggested moving the line to end at Elm St. as a compromise. Ms. Leary did not feel that we have to downzone to make up for densifying in other areas. Mr. Engman added that the Comprehensive Plan Committee relied on staff and their expertise and again, unless someone has a specific proposal for a change, the Board needs to keep moving or this review will take months and revisit everything that was done in excruciating 6 detail by the Committee and developers will come in under current zoning. Mr. DePaolo responded that with all due respect, this is not revisiting to those who were not involved in the Committee and the Land Use Map is probably the single most important piece of the Plan in his opinion and although he appreciates that we need to pick up the pace, he felt the Board was having a constructive conversation and we ought not to take having staff look at a particular piece again off the table. Mr. Engman agreed but wanted to get through the comments and then go back to what the Board wants staff to reevaluate. Ms. Ritter clarified that the triangle area around Coddington Road and the West Hill area are in the "parking lot" to be talked about again later. The Board agreed. 3. The County wanted us to eliminate office and small scale commercial on the Inlet Valley Corridor and that is actually exactly what we want. The Board agreed. 4. The County wants us to limit development to only where current TCAT service exists and this is back to Ms. Leary's point; everything would be frozen and that is not going to happen and transit should go to where people are not the opposite. The Board agreed. Forest Home Comments Ms. Ritter noted that the Board should look at the complete comments also but these are the very specific comments with suggested changes. She made typographical changes but specific word changes may also need to be discussed. 1. Suggested beefing up the Introduction with an expanded narrative about the natural and cultural landscape of the Town and its heritage. Mr. Engman stated that he would take this on and bring a revision to the Board. 2. Noise pollution should be an important and separate goal especially in the Institutional zones where the baseline keeps increasing. The Board agreed with this and staff will look into adding a bullet point or expanding on it. The cumulative noise of buildings is the key here, not one time noise events covered by our Noise Ordinance. 3. Comments on removing lights and looking at spectrums. Mr. Engman thought this suggestion was too detailed and we have an existing lighting ordinance that is very specific. Ms. Ritter noted that the new Energy and Climate Protection section was reviewed and revised and changes were made applicable to times when lights were replaced when necessary or with construction etc. The Board discussed enforcement of this and the associated difficulties but the thought of thinking about taking out lights has not been addressed. Mr. Engman noted that we keep increasing light and no thought is given to reducing existing lights. Ms. Ritter responded that through site plan review and building permits the Town strictly enforces our lighting ordinance but unless there is a complaint from a neighbor, existing residential and commercial lights are not reviewed. She added that neither commercial nor residential were grandfathered into the abiding by the law so a complaint would have to be made to make the Town aware of a specific violation which could then be looked into. Ms. Hunter suggested that 7 4. Suggest expanding Goal TR-1J2 regarding reducing traffic through Forest Home. This goal talked about volume during specific times of the day and ways to reduce SOV. Ms. Ritter felt the whole plan addresses traffic in our encouragement of pedestrian friendly roads and encouraging TCAT use etc. The Board felt it was already in there. 5. Suggestion regarding emphasizing the positive by changing the identification of"Area of Special Concern" to something like "Areas of Unique Challenges and Opportunities." There was no support for this change. 6. Country Club designation and development. The concern was that the Cornell Golf Course is not given the same attention and it should. The Cornell site is institutional in nature similar to other athletic fields owned by Cornell although there was a concern that Cornell could buy the municipal course and develop there. Mr. Tasman argued for leaving the Cornell site alone and Ms. Ritter said that we will look closely at the Institutional zoning to ensure that sites such as the golf course and Cornell Plantations will stay the same. We don't know what the public course is going to be yet but it will be thought out in detail during the zoning process. Bruce Brittain Comments 1. Agritourism and the Sign Law LU-2-D— Board was fine with the way it was. 2. HN-1-B change provide locations to designate locations so as not to imply that the Town is providing housing. Board agreed. 3. Subsidizing Housing HN-2-G — He felt that we were implying that the Town would be subsidizing the developers' profits. The Board discussed the verbiage and questioned the word "bonding" and "housing trust fund" in the section. The Board decided to remove the first part of the first sentences and replace it with "Consider establishment of a housing trust fund or a land bank that could be used to support housing projects in the Town....." 4. Noise—Already addressed 5. Ground Contours NR1—Suggestion to protect the contours and limit cut and fills. The Board felt this was too strict because there are times where we may want to change the landscape. 6. Invasive Species— Deer The Board had no interest in attempting to get into the deer control issue. 7. Pollution NR-8-B—Air pollution from agriculture and industrial. The Board felt this really was covered and we are staunch advocates of agriculture. They did agree to remove the word "large" before "industrial." 8 The Board thought this was a good place to stop and will take up Mr. Brittain's comments on Energy and Climate Protection next meeting. Agenda Item TB Resolution No. 2013- 106: Consent a. Town of Ithaca Abstract b. Bolton Point Abstract c. Minutes of July 8, 2013 PULLED Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Pat Leary Vote: Ayes—Howe, Leary, Hunter, DePaolo, Engman, Goodman and Levine TB Resolution No. 2013 -106a: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. 3996-4083 General Fund Town wide 34,387.68 General Fund Part Town 15,125.33 Highway Fund Part Town 16,271.85 Water Fund 147,882.23 Sewer Fund 41,486.44 Danby Road Water Tank Replacement 335,503.70 Town Hall Parking Lot Improvement 102,598.39 Fire Protection Fund 234.00 Forest Home Lighting District 41.88 Glenside Lighting District 16.64 Renwick Heights Lighting District 22.14 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 28.74 Clover Lane Lighting District 3.84 Winner's Circle Lighting District 5.74 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 13.37 West Haven Road Lighting District 53.12 Coddington Road Lighting District 30.92 Trust and Agency 57.38 TOTAL 6931763.39 9 TB Resolution No. 2013-106b: Bolton Point Abstract WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunlcipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing 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. Voucher Numbers: 1778-1843 Check Numbers: 14657-14669,14671-14723 Burdick Hill Tanks Project $ 31,375.93 N. Trip Rd T-main Project $ 73,294.00 Operating Fund S 121.116.54 TOTAL $ 225,786.47 Less Prepaid $ 36,750.92 TOTAL $ 189,035.55 Meeting was adjourned upon motion and a second at 6:45 p.m. Submittec Paulette Terwilliger 11 TOWN OF ITHACA FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2013 REPORTS: BALANCE SHEET REVENUE & EXPENSE SUMMARY and CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS DETAILED CASH LISTING FOR FIDUCIARY FUNDS SUMMARY OF BANK COLLATERAL TOWN OF ITHACA r\ BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30. 2013 GENERAL GENERAL HIGHWAY CAPITAL DESCRIPTION TOWNWIDE PART-TOWN PART-TOWN WATER SEWER PROJECTS FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUNDS ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH; CASH INVESTMENTS PETTY CASH $ 3,114,842 $ 725 588,723 $ 1,415,227 $ 200 801,142 $ 1,512,036 $ 357,879 TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH $3,115,567 $568,723 $1,415,427 $801,142 $1,512,036 $357,879 RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN $757,825 $.$.$.$$. GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT 106,506 38,658 56,765 8,222 5,806 - HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT --105,332 --- FIDUCIARY FUNDS n ----- TOTAL - RESERVED CASH $864,332 $38,658 $162,097 $8,222 $5,806 $- OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $2,238 $3,955 $150 $-$-$- WATER & SEWER RECEIVABLES ---153,347 104,225 - DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS 5,000 -250,000 500,000 -- .--^STATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE n ----- JUE FROM OTHER GOVTS •----- PREPAID EXPENSES 8,084 ----- TAXES RECEIVABLE - CURRENT .-n --- TOTAL - OTHER ASSETS $15,323 $3,955 $250,150 $653,347 $104,225 $- TOTAL ASSETS $3.995.221 5 611.336 ?1.827.673 $1.462.711 ?1.622.067 $357.879 1 LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $46,515 $1,736 $9,770 $10,592 $362,646 $- ACCRUED LIABILITIES 59,736 57,405 77,403 -79,935 - DUE TO OTHER FUNDS -----755,000 BAN PAYABLE ------ DEFERRED REVENUE ------ RESERVED FUND BALANCE 864,332 38,658 162,097 8,222 5,806 - UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 3,024,638 513,537 1,578,403 1,443,897 1,173,680 (397,121) TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $ 3.995.221 $ 611.336 $ 1.827.673 $ 1.482.711 S 1.622.067 $ 357.879 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2013 Add: REVENUE Less: EXPENSE $ 2,498,468 $ 665,921 $ 1,445,688 $ 1,344,526 $ 1,296,128 $ (397,526) 3,436,244 493,512 1,567,222 2,109,706 1,147,016 778 2,045,743 607,238 1,272,409 2,002,112 1,263,658 374 FUND BALANCE • 06/30/2013 $ 3.888.970 $ 552.195 $ 1.740.500 $ 1.452.119 $ 1.179.486 $ 1397.121) Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2013 RISK FIRE LIGHTING DEBT TRUST &INLET DESCRIPTION RETENTION PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE AGENCY VALLEY FUND FUND FUNDS FUND FUND CEMETERY ASSETS UNRESERVED CASH: CASH $ 128,771 $ 2,584,985 $ 14,511 $ 780,313 $$ INVESTMENTS ------ PETTY CASH ------ TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH RESERVED CASH: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT FIDUCIARY FUNDS TOTAL - RESERVED CASH OTHER ASSETS: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $ CUSTOMER RECEIVABLE DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS •ESTATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLE DUE FROM OTHER GOVTS PREPAID EXPENSES TAXES RECEIVABLE. CURRENT TOTAL - OTHER ASSETS $ $ 128,771 $ 2,584,985 $ 14,511 $ 780,313 $ - $ 113.139 9,065 $ 113,139 $9,065 11,325 $11,325 $$- $ TOTAL ASSETS $ 128.771 $ 2.584.985 $ 25.836 $ 780.313 $ 113.139 $9.065 LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ACCRUED LIABILITIES DUE TO OTHER FUNDS BAN PAYABLE DEFERRED REVENUE RESERVED FUND BALANCE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 128,771 17,891 $ 2,567,094 25,836 . $ . $ 113,139 9,065 780,313 TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $128.771 S 2.584.985 S 25.836 S 780.313 $113.139 $9.065 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2013 $103,717 $502,768 $9,807 $460,684 $- $9,061 Add: REVENUE 25,054 3,496,251 11,332 572,051 -4 Less: EXPENSE -1,431,925 6,628 252,422 -- FUND BALANCE - 06/30/2013 $ 128.771 S 2.567.094 $ 14.511 S 780.313 $9.064 Page 2 of 4 TOWN C. -ITHACABALANCE SHEET for ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTSFOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2013ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTSDESCRIPTIONFUND H4Hanshaw RoadWalkwayFUND H5Pine Tree Rd.WalkwayFUND H8Gateway Trait(Grant Fundinq)FUND H9NorthvlewWater TankFUND HIDDanby RoadWater TankFUND H14Forest HomeUpstrm BridqeFUND H15H.B.Dates DriveImprovementsFUND H16Town HailParking LotTOTALCAPITALPROJECTSASSETSUNRESERVED CASH:CASHINVESTMENTSTOTAL n UNRESERVED CASHRESERVED CASH:FIDUCIARY FUNDSINVESTMENTSTOTAL - RESERVED CASH$ 100,405 $ 35,054 $ 87,965 $9,294 $5,938 $ 102,636 $ 11.735 $4,853 $ 357,879100,405 $ 35,054 $ 87,965 $$- $9,294 $- $5,938 $ 102,636 $ 11,735 $4,853 $ 357,879- $$OTHER ASSETS:ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE $CUSTOMER RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER FUNDSSTATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER GOVTSPREPAID EXPENSESBAN LOANSTOTAL - OTHER ASSETS $- $$$- $$- $• $- $$$$- $- $$- $$$$ITOTAL ASSETS$ 100.405 £ 35.054 $ 87.965 $ 9.294 $ 5.938 $ 102.636 $ 11.735 $ 4.853 $ 357.879LIABILITIES and FUND BALANCEACCOUNTS PAYABLEACCRUED LIABILIITESDUE TO OTHER FUNDSRETAINAGEBAN PAYABLERESERVED FUND BALANCEUNRESERVED FUND BALANCEn $ - $490,000 10,000100,40535,05487,965(480,706)(4,062)102,636250,000(238,265)5,000 755,000(147) (397,121)ITOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $ 100.405 S35.054 S 87.965 $9.294 $5.938 $ 102.636 $ 11.735 $4.853 $ 357.879ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE • 01/01/2013Add: REVENUELess: EXPENSE$ 100,359 $ 35,038 $ 87,309 $ (480,710) $46 16 656 4(3,720) $3345102,589 $ (238,270) $47 5(120) $ (397,526)2 77829 374IFUND BALANCE - 06/30/2013$ 100.405 $ 35.054 $ 87.965 $ f480.706^ $ (4.062) $ 102.636 £ /238.265) S (1471 $ f397.121^|Page 3 of 4 TOWNHACABALANCE SHEET for LIGHT DISTRICTSFOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2013FUND SL-1FUND SL-2FUND SL-3FUND SL-4FUND SL-SFUND SL-6FUND SL-7FUND SL.8FUND SL-9TOTALDESCRIPTIONForestGlensideRenwfckEastwoodClover LaneWinner'sBurleighWesthavenCoddingtonLIGHTHomeHeightsCommonsCircleDriveRoadRoadDISTRICTSASSETSUNRESERVED CASH:CASH$ 1,673$ 1,030$ 1,793$ 2,698$ 426$ 988$ 1,004$ 3,112$ 1,785$ 14,511INVESTMENTS----n-----TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH$ 1,673$ 1,030$ 1,793$ 2,698$ 426$ 988$ 1,004$ 3,112$ 1,785$ 14,511OTHER ASSETS:ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE$$$$$$$$$$CUSTOMER RECEIVABLEDUE FROM OTHER FUNDSSTATE & FEDERAL AID RECEIVABLEPREPAID EXPENSESTAXES RECEIVABLE n CURRENTTOTAL - OTHER ASSETS- $$$- $. $$$TOTAL ASSETS1.673 S1.030 $ 1.793 $2.698 $426 $988 $ 1.004 S3.112 S1.785 $ 14.51LIABfLITieS and FUND BALANCEACCOUNTS PAYABLEACCRUED LIABILIITESDUE TO OTHER FUNDSDEFERRED REVENUERESERVED FUND BALANCEUNRESERVED FUND BALANCE- $1,673- $1,030- $1,793- $2,698- $- $4269881,004- $3,1121,78514,51ITOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE $ 1.673 S 1.030 £ 1.793 $ 2.698 $ 426 $9881.004 $3.112 S 1.785 i 14.51ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE - 01/01/2013Add: REVENUELess: EXPENSE1,382 $2,1011,810734 $6503551,335 $9514931,784 $1,901987319225118623700336609 $8004051,945 $2,5011,3341,0741,5017899,80711,3326,628[FUND BALANCE-06/30/20131.673 $1.030 $1.793 $2.698 $426 $988 $1.004 $3.112 $1.785 $ 14.511Page 4 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2013 GENERAL GENERAL HIGHWAY CAPITAL DESCRIPTION TOWNWIDE PART-TOWN PART-TOWN WATER SEWER PROJECTS FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUNDS REVENUE BUDGETED REVENUE $ 4,925,500 $ 1,257,650 $ 3,711,300 $4,286,212 $ 2,274,169 $ ACTUAL & ACCRUED 3,436,244 493,512 1,567,222 2,109,706 1,147,016 778 REVENUE OVER (UNDER)$ (1,489,256)$ (764.138)$ (2,144,078)$(2,176,506)$ (1,127,153)$ 778 % EARNED 69.8%39.2%42.2%49.2%50.4%0.0% EXPENSE BUDGETED EXPENSE ACTUAL & ACCRUED $ 5,422,907 $ 1,470,110 $ 3,777,660 $ 4,016,137 $ 2,476,540 $ 2,045,743 607,238 1,272,409 2,002,112 1,263,658 $ $ f3.377.164^ $ (862.872^ $ f2.505.251) $ f2.014.0251 $ f1.212.882) $ 374 EXPENSE OVER (UNDER)374 % EXPENDED 37.7%41.3%33.7%49.9%51.0%0.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE-01/01/2013 Actual & Accrued Add: REVENUE Less: EXPENSE $ 2,498,468 $ 665,921 $ 1,445,688 $ 1,344,526 $ 1,296,128 $ {397,526) 3,436,244 493,512 1,567,222 2,109,706 1,147,016 $ 778 2,045,743 607,238 1,272,409 2,002,112 1,263,658 $ 374 FUND BALANCE-06/30/2013 $ 3,888,970 $ 552,195 $ 1.740.500 $ 1.452,119 $ 1.179.486 $ (397.121) CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS)$3,114,842 $568,723 $1,415,227 $801,142 $1,207,096 $357,879 CASH - SJC OPERATING ----304,939 - INVESTMENTS ------ PETTY CASH 725 -200 --- TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH $3,115,567 $568,723 $1,415,427 $801,142 $1,512,036 $357,879 RESERVED CASH PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN $757,825 $-$- $-$-$- GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT 106,506 38,658 56,765 8,222 5,806 - HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT --105,332 --- INVESTMENTS ------ FIDUCIARY FUNDS .----- TOTAL n RESERVED CASH $864,332 $38,658 $162,097 $8,222 $5,806 $- TOTAL CASH - 06/30/2013 $ 3.979.898 $ 607.381 $ 1.577.523 $ 809.364 $ 1.517.842 $ 357.879 Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA REVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2013 RISK FIRE LIGHTING DEBT TRUST &INLET DESCRIPTION RETENTION PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE AGENCY VALLEY FUND FUND FUNDS FUND FUND CEMETERY REVENUE BUDGETED REVENUE $ 25,000 $3,507,700 $11,325 $572,579 $-$ ACTUAL & ACCRUED 25,054 3,496,251 11,332 572,051 -4 REVENUE OVER lUNDER)S 54 $111.4491 $7 $(5281 $-$ 4 % EARNED 100.2%99.7%100.1%99.9%0.0% EXPENSE BUDGETED EXPENSE $ 15,500 $3,307,500 $13,020 $750,229 $-$ 1,500 ACTUALS ACCRUED -1,431,925 6,628 252,422 -- EXPENSE OVER (UNDERl $ 115,5001 5 f1.875.5751 $16.3921 $(497.8071 5 -$ (1.5001 % EXPENDED 0.0%43.3%50.9%33.6%0.0% ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE FUND BALANCE - 01/01/2013 Actual & Accrued Add: REVENUE Less: EXPENSE $ 103,717 $ 502,768 $ 25,054 3,496,251 1,431,925 9,807 $ 460,684 $ 11,332 6,628 572,051 252,422 - $9,061 4 FUND BALANCE-06/30/2013 $ 128.771 $ 2,567,094 $ 14,511 $ 780,313 $- $9,064 CASH and CASH EQUIVALENTS UNRESERVED CASH CASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) CASH - SJC OPERATING INVESTMENTS PETTY CASH TOTAL - UNRESERVED CASH RESERVED CASH PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN GENERAL PURPOSE BENEFIT HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT INVESTMENTS FIDUCIARY FUNDS TOTAL - RESERVED CASH $ 128,771 $ 2,584,985 $14,511 $ 780,313 $ $ 128,771 $ 2,584,985 $ 14,511 $ 780,313 $ $ - $ . $ . $ . $ - $$$ - $ - $ - $ 113,139 $ 113,139 $ 9,065 9,065 TOTAL CASH - 06/30/2013 128.771 $ 2.584.985 $14.511 $ 780.313 $ 113.139 $9.065 Page 2 of 4 ).TOWN Or'ITHACAREVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTSFOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2013ACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTSDESCRIPTIONFUND H4Hanshaw RoadWalkwayFUND H5Pine Tree Rd.WalkwayFUND H8Gateway Trail(Grant Fundinq)FUND H9NorthviewWater TankFUND H10Danby RoadWater TankFUND H14Forest HomeUpstrm BridgeFUND HISH.B.Dates DriyeImprovementsFUND H16Town HallParking LotTOTALCAPITALPROJECTSREVENUEBUDGETED REVENUEACTUAL & ACCRUED$46$16$656$4$3$47$5$2$778REVENUE OVER /UNDER!S 46S 16S 656$ 4$ 3S 47$ 5S 2CO% EARNED0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%EXPENSEBUDGETED EXPENSEACTUALS ACCRUED$$$$$345$$$29$374lEXPENSE OVER fUNDER>.i-L345 $- $- $29 S374% EXPENDED0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE - 01/01/2013Actual & AccruedAdd: REVENUELess: EXPENSE100.359 $ 35,03846 1687,309 $ (480,710) $ (3,720) S 102,589 $ (238,270) $656 4 3 47 5345(120) $ (397.526)229778374^UND BALANCE - 06/30/2013$ 100.405 $ 35.054 $ 87.965 S f480.7G61 S /4.0621 $ 102.636 $ (238.2651 $ f147I $ f397/i^CASH andCASH EQUIVALENTSCASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 100,405 $ 35,054 $ 87,965 $ 9,294 $ 5,938 $ 102,636 $ 11,735 $ 4,853 $ 357,879INVESTMENTS .........ITOTAL CASH. 06/30/2013 $ 100.405 $ 35.054 $ 87.965 S 9.294 S 5.938 $ 102.636 5 11.735 S 4.853 S 357.879Page 3 of 4 TOWN. ),ITHACAREVENUE and EXPENSE SUMMARY for LIGHT DISTRICTSFOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2013FUND SL-1FUND SL-2FUND SL-3FUND SL-4FUND SL-SFUND SL-6FUND SL-7FUND SL-8FUND SL-9TOTALDESCRIPTIONForestGlensideRenwfckEastwoodClover LaneWinner'sBurleighWesthavenCoddingtonLIGHTHomeHeiqhtsCommonsCircleDriveRoadRoadDISTRICTSREVENUEBUDGETED REVENUES2,100$650$950$ 1,900$225$700$800$ 2,500$1,500$11,325ACTUAL & ACCRUED2,1016509511,9012257008002,5011,50111,332REVENUE OVER fUNDERI¥1¥0¥1S 1¥0¥0¥0$ 1¥1¥7% EARNED100.0%100.1%100.1%100.1%100.1%100.1%100.1%100.1%100.1%100.1%EXPENSEBUDGETED EXPENSE$2,400¥750$1,100$ 2,200S270$800$900$ 2,900$1,700$13,020ACTUAL & ACCRUED1,8103554939871183364051,3347896,628EXPENSE OVER /UNDER1$/S90)¥f395)¥oCO$ f1.213l¥(152)¥/464I¥(4951$ (1.5661¥(9111¥(6,3921% EXPENDED75.4%47.3%44.8%44.9%43.9%42.0%45.0%46.0%46.4%50.9%ESTIMATED FUND BALANCEFUND BALANCE - 01/01/2013$1,382$734¥1,335$ 1,784$319$623$609$ 1,945$1,074¥9,807Actual & AccruedAdd: REVENUE2,1016509511,9012257008002,5011,50111,332Less: EXPENSE1,8103554939871183364051,3347896,628FUND BALANCE - 06/30/2013¥1.673¥1.030¥1.793S 2.698¥426¥988¥1.004$ 3.112¥1.785¥14.511CASH andCASH EQUIVALENTSCASH (CHECKING/SAVINGS) $ 1,673 $ 1,030 $ 1,793 $ 2,698 $ 426 $ 988 $ 1,004 $ 3,112 $ 1,785 $ 14,511INVESTMENTS ..........ITOTAL CASH-06/30/2013 S 1.673 $ 1.030 S 1.793 S 2.698 $ 426 S 988 $ 1.004 $ 3.112 S 1.785 $ 14.51?Page 4 of 4 TOWN OF ITHACA DETAILED CASH LISTING - FIDUCIARY FUNDS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2013 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TRUST & AGENCY FUND TA200C DISBURSEMENTS CHECKING $- TA200P PAYROLL CHECKING 17,112.27 TA202 ON-LINE COLLECTIONS 434.17 TA205 NEXTEL SITE LEASE DEPOSIT 4,497.17 TA206 ITHACA TOWERS OPTION ESCROW 11,831.64 TA207 WIRELESS ONE 4,588.63 TA209 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING 8,656.50 TA210 STORMWATER COALITION 58,484.57 TA211 VERIZON WIRELESS ESCROW 270.97 TA212 CAYUGA LAKE WATERSHED INTERMUNICIPAL ORG 7,262.93 TOTAL CASH: TRUST & AGENCY FUND $113,138.85 INLET VALLEY CEMETERY FUND TE202 INLET VALLEY CEMETERY - EXPENDABLE TRUST $9,064.81 TOTAL CASH: FIDUCIARY FUNDS $ 122,203.66 TOWN OF ITHACA SUMMARY OF BANK COLLATERAL FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2013 TOMPKINS TRUST COMPANY: CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS $ 12,480,671 INVESTMENTS 1 TOTAL CASH ON DEPOSIT $ 12,480,671 LESS: FDIC INSURANCE $ 250,000 LESS: FMV OF COLLATERAL ON DEPOSIT @ 06/30/2013 U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS $ 15,838,633 OVER (UNDER) COLLATERALIZED $ 3,607,962 CASH ASSETS COLLATERALIZED @ FMV 06/30/2013 129% Collateral Is held by the Bank of New York, pledged for the Town of Ithaca, New York, for all deposits and/or repurchase agreements of Tompklns Trust Company. NOTE: For deposits In excess of FDIC coverage. General Municipal Law, section 10 requires that the excess amounts are to be secured by eligible collateral.