HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1992-03-09 �Ty oF'I T
TOWN OF ITHACA �
.41 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Meeting
Harch 9, 1992
5 : 30 p. m.
AGENDA
1 . Tompkins County Reapportionment Committee presentation on
reapportionment alternatives . ( 5 : 30 P. m . )
2 . Report of Town Officials :
a) Town Supervisor
b) Town Engineer
c ) ' Town Highway Superintendent
d ) Town Building Inspector/Zoning Officer
e ) Town Planner
3 . Report of Town Committees .
4 . Report of County Board of Representatives .
5 . Consider nomination to Tompkins County Board of
Representatives for Town of Ithaca representation, Economic
Opportunity Corporation Board of Directors for term expiring
March 31 , 1993.
6 . Consider speed limit request of Glenside Neighborhood
Association for Rt. 13A.
7 . Authorization to participate in Cornell summer job network ,
program for four ( 4 ) positions.
S . Authorization to hire one Summer . Intern for Conservation
Advisory Council.
9. Discussion on Forest Home Bridge Replacement - Jim
Kazda, Tompkins County Public Works. ( 6 : 30 p. m. )
10. Discussion on Forest Home Bridge Replacement Karen Baum;
President, Forest Home Improvement Association . ( 7 : 00 p.-m. )
11 . PERSONS TO BE HEARD
r
Town Board Meeting
Agenda
March 9, 1992
Page 2 .
12 . PUBLIC HEARING - 7 : 30 P . M.
Consider local law amending the Traffic Ordinance
changing the yield sign on Tudor Road at Park Lane to a
stop sign .
13. PUBLIC HEARING - 7 : 45 P . M.
Consider local law amending the Seater Rate Schedule for
the Town of Ithaca to establish minimum quarterly
charges , and to also amend the Southern Cayuga Lake
Intermunicipal Water Commission agreement.
14 . Consider approval of agreement with Coddington Road Community
Center.
15 . Consider benefit assessment refunds .
16 . Consider budget transfers .
17 . Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council - Discussion of
the Resolution regarding purchasing recycled paper products .
18 . Consider water - and sewer refund.
19 . Consider approval of contract for Cornell University GEIS
Consultants .
20 . Authorization to establish Petty Cash Fund for Town Clerk.
21 . Consider authorization for municipal membership in
Metropolitan Planning Organization, ( Transportation) .
22 . Consider acceptance of Whitetail Drive and Marcy Court, Deer
Run.
23. Consider approval of specifications and authorization to
purchase Highway Plow Truck.
24 . Designation of Town of Ithaca 1992 Polling Places .
25 . TOWN OF ITHACA WARRANTS
26 . Consider approval of Bolton Point - Budget Tranfers .
27 . BOLTON POINT WARRANTS
28. Adjournment.
FINAL
Town of Ithaca
Town Board Meeting
March 9 , 1992
At a regular meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York, held at the Town Hall, 126 East Seneca
Street, Ithaca, New York, there were :
PRESENT : Shirley Raffensperger, Supervisor
John Whitcomb , Councilman
Patricia Leary, Councilwoman
David Klein, Councilman
Frank Liguori , Councilman
Catherine Valentino, Councilwoman
Karl Niklas, Councilman
ALSO PRESENT: John Barney, Town Attorney
Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk
Andrew Frost, Building Inspector/Zoning Officer
Dan Walker, Town Engineer
Scott McConnell , Highway Superintendent
Floyd Forman, Town Planner
Linda Nobles, Assistant Budget Officer
Beverly Livesay, Tompkins County Board of Reps.
Mary Call, Tompkins County Board of Reps .
Stuart Stein, Tompkins County Board of Reps .
Harry Missirian, Tompkins County Planner
James Kazda, Tompkins Co. Senior Civil Engineer
Forest Home Iprovement Assn . Representatives
Forest Home Residents
Ithaca High School Students
Pledge of Allegiance : Supervisor Raffensperger led the assemblage
in the Pledge of Allegiance .
Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 5 : 31 p . m.
Supervisor Raffensperge.r began the meeting by welcoming three
students from the Ithaca High School Government Class .
Agenda Item #1-Tompkins County Reapportionment Presentation :
Supervisor Raffensperger introduced Stuart Stein from the
Tompkins County Board of Representatives Reapportionment Committee
who explained the three proposed alternatives to the Board.
Mr. Stein asked the Board if they each had received a copy of
the maps needed for tonights presentation . Supervisor Raffensperger
stated that the Board each had copies, and that copies had been sent
to each of the Civic Associations .
Mr. Stein began by saying that every ten years the County
reapportions because there is a census. The County is required by
law to adjust the boundary lines of election districts so that as
closely as possible each of the districts elected officials represent
the same amount of people .
This is a requirement which applies throughout the country, in
Tompkins County the only two legislative organizations that have to
meet these requirements are the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County.
These are the only two organizations that elect their representatives
by district .
Changes are necessary because population has grown unevenly
throughout the County. The County has established a Reapportionment
Committee consisting of five people ; Mr. Stein is Chairman, Mary
Call, Debbie Dietrich, Dan Flinch, and Charles Evans also are members.
The Reapportionment Committee has been meeting since June 1991 .
Minutes are kept of these meetings and they are sent to each Town and
Village within the County. The Town of Ithaca has also been
represented at these meetings .
The Reapportionment Committee is now going to each Town in
Tompkins County to present three plans that the committee has focused
on to review them and ask for a response .
Mr. Stein requested that after his presentation the board
comment and offer their feelings concerning the reapportionment, and
the committee would like a response from each town by the end of
March.
During the month of April the Reapportionment Committee will
select a reapportionment plan that will then be presented to the
County Board of Representatives . The Tompkins County Board of
Representatives will be the legislative body that acts on the plan .
There will be Public Hearings at the County level so that all
the towns and villages will be able to have input about the
reapportionment.
Mr. Stein explained that there are certain key items that guide
the committee in making their recommendations . The County Charter
has a description of what has to be done concerning reapportionment.
There is a set of guidelines the County Board of Representatives has
adopted officially to give direction about the districts . These are
essentially the same guidelines that were used ten years ago , with a
few minor changes.
The two critical points which are sought to be met are equality
of population among representative districts as consistent as
possible with the second item, which is maximum practical consistency
with existing municipal boundaries of various local governmental
units.
They are trying to draw the lines so that they are coterminous
with existing lines wherever possible . This is not entirely possible
}
in all areas of the County, and this is where some of the conflicts
have became apparent.
Single member districts are being used in comparison with what
the City of Ithaca does , The City has two representatives per
district , the County has one .
They will attempt to insure that the lines do not go through any
hamlets or neighborhoods . Compactness and contiguity of areas is
hoped for, weighted voting will not be considered , and consideration
of fifteen County members only. The County Charter does allow for a
15 to 20 member Board, but the County has chosen to remain with the
15 member hoard .
In relation to equality of population , there should be an
overriding reason for the deviation spread to exceed 12% . This means
the ideal redistricting plan would have an equal number of population
living in each district. To conform to municipal, boundary lines we
can not meet that requirement, therefore we must deviate from that .
The courts of law who have adjudicated reapportionment have
stated that if you deviate around 12% you are pretty safe . You can
go over that amount, but you then may be open to a challenge .
Mr. Stein explained the deviation format to the Board using the
chart he provided, ( see attached ) . MjC . Stein stated that the
reapportionment in 1980 showed a deviation of 16 and this was
unchallenged . He further explained that if the County did not make
any changes and kept the same districts , the deviation would grow to
33% because of unequal population growth .
Mr. Stein stated that the committee had looked at many maps and
that they decided' to use R-28 , R-29 , and R-30 to take to the towns
and villages .
Mr. Stein proceeded to explain the critical issues of these
three maps .
Essentially two thirds of the County districts do not change .
The districts of Ulysses , Newfield , and Enfield are exactly the same
in this proposal . In 1980 a drastic move was made to split the Town
of Enfield in half.
In 1992 there are two critical problems that do not allow a
reapportionment proposal that everyone agrees with .
One of the key problems is the Town of Groton , it didn ' t grow
fast enough. In order to increase the population we must add to it ,
Since Groton is surrounded by only two towns , Lansing and
Dryden there are only two places to get that population . Either take
it from the Town of Lansing by mooring the line from the west, or take
it from the 'down of Dryden in the hamlet of McLain.
The second sensitive area is the boundary line between the Town
of Ithaca and the Town of Lansing on the south in the Village of
Lansing .
The Village of Lansing has expressed itself in wanting to
include as much as possible of the Village within District 10 . The
Village of Lansing has gone on record supporting R-29 .
To comply with the wishes of the Village of Lansing to get
population in balance in the remainder of the Town of Ithaca the line
from the south out of Danby would have to include the southeast
portion of the mown of Ithaca together with the Caroline District .
In all of these proposals the deviation is greater than 12% ,
they County was taken to court because it can be justified .
Ho decisions have been made concerning these proposals, except
that they have been narrowed dawn to these three . The
Reapportionment Committee expects to make their decision by the end
of April , and the County Board should make their decision by the and
of May or June .
The decisions that will be made are only being made on the
County reapportionment districts only, They do not have anything to
do with the Town lines or the town governmental operations . This is
only for the election of County Representatives .
Supervisor Rappensperger mentioned that there are letters and
communications from other municipalities concerning this issue which
the Town Board has received . She has received a phone call from a
Councilman Dan Schwartz of the Town of Danby ,
The Danby Town Doard has authorized Mr. Schwartz to prepare a
resolution opposing R-29 , the version has a portion of South Bill in
the Town of Ithaca combined with Caroline and Danby.
The resolution they are preparing will discuss the very big
differences in the Town of Ithaca on South Hill , those being that
DanbylCaroliae are sparsely populated, and that the different needs
and philosophies would make it hard for one County Representative to
represent the proposed district well .
Lawrence Lever from the Village of Lansing sent the Hoard a
proposal called R-29L an alternative approach to R-29 .
There have been a group of municipal representatives meeting,
from the Town of Ithaca, Town of Groton, Village of Lansing , Town of
Lansing , and the Town of Dryden .
In an attempt to come up with some kind of a compromise that might
suit everyone .
Mr. Lever' s summary of the proposed alternative approach is to
change only to a small extent the Northern boundary in R-29 and not
take a portion of the Southern part of the Town of Ithaca.
His theory is that it is unreasonable , since Groton is the basis
for the problem, to ask that the Groton District be any larger than
a the smallest district in the City of Ithaca, Mr . Lever contends that
if a city district can be that small , then a town district should be
able to also .
Mr. Lever has sent his proposed alternative to the Hoard for
their comments and thoughts,
Supervisor Raffenspez}er father reported that she had received a
phone call from a resident of the South Hill area living on Ridge
Crest Road , Marian Kosak.
Mrs . Kosak is very much opposed to R-29 based primarily on the
lack of similarity of neighborhood , between Danby, Caroline and that
part of Ithaca. she feels that South Hill is unique neighborhood
within the Town of Ithaca.
Supervisor Raffensperger reported that she had sent a copy of
the maps to.- all of the Civic Associations , along with a letter
expressing her personal apposition to R-29 .
Supervisor Raffensperger opposes R-29 because over 500 people
in the Town of Ithaca will have diminished influence on the decisions
of the County Board of Representatives . There is a difference in the
interests represented in that part of the town along with Danby and
Caroline .
Supervisor Raffensperger opened a question and answer period
from the Hoard to Hr. stein and Mr. Missirian .
Councilman Whitcomb stated that he wished to go on record as
opposing R-29 for all of the reasons that have been stated thus far .
Councilman Whitcomb further stated that the County Board of
Representatives would also be receiving a letter from the South Hill
Community Association registering its opposition to R-29 ,
Councilman Whitcomb asked if King Road was the dividing line of
the R-29 proposal , and if that line was the center of King Road. Mr.
Stein responded that it was the center of King Poad .
Mr. Stein interjected that there are now rules requiring that
definite boundary lines on the landscape be used for districting ,
something that is visible on the landscape .
Councilman Niklas asked how do you respond to respecting the
boundaries of existing municipalities as much as you can With R-29 .
This is the plan that takes two sections out of the town .
Councilman Niklas stated that R-29 is the most vulnerable of the
three plans in consideration of respecting existing boundaries .
Councilman Niklas pointed out that with R-29 they are shifting
two boundaries from what was already a municipalities prescribed
boundary . Councilman Niklas showed that this is the only plan that
does that, making it in his estimation the least desirable ,
Councilman Niklas stated that as a resident of South dill he
would also like to see the integrity of South Hill maintained and he
is also opposed to R-29 ,
Councilman Liguori asked Supervisor Raffensperger what exactly
the R-29L proposed by Mr . Lever would mean to the Town of Ithaca .
Supervisor Raffensperger responded that it means we remain
flexible about the lines on the Northern border of the Town of
Ithaca, we accommodate the needs of Lansing and all of the other
results of shifting lines there , and in exchange for that flexibility
it is no longer necessary to change the southern portion of the Town
of Ithaca . However , one of the basis of Mr. Lever ' s proposal, is that
the Groton District should not have to be any larger than the
smallest City District.
A question was asked from the floor if the R-29L plan was drawn
out for the whole County, Supervisor Raffensperger stated that it
deals with Gorton, Dryden , the Town of Lansing , the Village of
Lansing, and the Town of Ithaca.
Supervisor Raffensperger mentioned that she is not sure that all
of the members of the group that met are in favor of this alternative
proposal .
Possibly the Town of Dryden will not be because they felt that
the Town of Lansing should , " share the pain of making up the
numbers" , for Groton . Because the numbers are so diminished it is
easier to use a line keeping the hamlet of McLean with Groton .
This group looked at school district lines, as well as fire district
lines , and this plan is consistent with those .
Supervisor Raffensperger pointed out that it is very complicated
and will have to be mapped. The group hopes to meet with the Town
Hoard whether to see if there is a way to compromise .
The group would then like to have some professional help and
advice from people at the County to look at it and see if it is
realistic and fonts the basis for a solution that isn ' t imposed on
the towns but is forte through a cooperative effort,
Mr. Stein stated that the Reapportionment Committee would be
delighted to help ,
Supervisor Raffensperger commented that the Town Board needs to
discuss what R-29 would coo to the town, because at this point R- 9L
is theoretical .
Supervisor Raffensperger personal opinion is that the Town
should remain flexible as far as the northeast district is concerned ,
but that we should oppose the idea of combining a small portion of
the Town of Itaca with Danby/Caroline .
A resident from the floor stated that he had come to find out
exactly what reapportionment meant and what it effects .
Supervisor Raffensperger explained that it has only to do with
the County Board Representative that represents you, it doesn ' t have
anything to do with municipal boundaries .
The Town of Ithaca will have to take a look at this for their
own election districts to see how it will effect election districts .
The Board discussed how they can communicate with the
Reapportionment Committee in a timely manner so that they can
understand the Board ' s intent.
A motion was made by Councilman Whitcomb, seconded by
Councilwoman Valentino concerning this issue , see the attached
resolution . '
A discussion ensued among the board members as to the context of
a letter to the Committee . Supervisor Raffensperger stated she would
make sure the letter reflected the concerns and intent of all the
members of the board .
Agenda Item #4-COUNTY BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT :
Representative Mary Call reported to the Board that the County
is working on fiscal plans that will effect everyone . Supervisor
Raffensperger asked the County Representatives if the County Board
had applied to the State legislature for the additional one percent
sales tax. Representative Call stated that they had through a
resolution.
Supervisor Raffensperger requested a copy of that resolution.
Agenda Item #2-REPORTS OF TOWN OFFICIALS :
Supervisor Raffensperger reported that she has attended a number
of meetings of an informal group of representatives on the
reapportionment options as reported tonight. She will continue to
attend those meetings, and will inform the Board if anything from
those meetings effects the letter she will be sending to the
Reapportionment Committee .
Supervisor Raffensperger spoke to the Board concerning the
increasing problem of the handling of raccoons . A year ago the Town
passed a resolution asking Tompkins County to take the lead in
setting up a strategy of dealing with the increasing dangers and
complexities of the problem. To the best of the Supervisor ' s
knowledge that has not been done .
On Friday, March 6 a dead raccoon was located along Warren Road
in proximity to Dewitt and Boces near the walkway used by the
Northeast school children .
The only solution that could be found during a prolonged
investigation to make sure that a problem did not occur with contact
to the children was to have the Town call a Wildlife Control Officer
and have the animal removed at town expense .
It is evident that better systems must be set up for the removal
of such animals. Supervisor Raffensperger believes that this system
should be set up by Tompkins County. She stated that it makes no
economic or other sense for each town and village to attempt to cope
responsibly with the complexities of this situation.
Supervisor Raffensperger told the board that she would write a
letter to Tompkins County and present it to them, asking for their
development of a system to deal with this problem. Supervisor
Raffensperger also stated she would solicit other towns and villages
to join her in contacting the County with our concerns .
The Supervisor asked the board for their consensus in taking
this approach.
Mary Call asked how the Town has handled such matters in the
past. Supervisor Raffensperger commented that our Town Highway
Department has in the past handled this by picking up deer, and
taking them to the landfill paying to dispose of them.
The Highway Department has picked up raccoons before . However,
Supervisor Raffensperger did not want to ask one of the highway
employees to do that as they have not had their pre-exposure shots
for rabies .
A question was asked as to hoar the residents outside of the
Village of Cayuga Heights take care of this problem. Supervisor
Raffensperger commented that they call the town .
Supervisor Raffensperger further stated that the Department of
Health will do something about these animals if the person calling
says that the raccoon has had contact with a pet, child, or other
person.
Supervisor Raffensperger mentioned that this particular raccoon
was on a County Highway, and that the County Highway Department would
not respond to the complaint .
She further stated that she could not in good conscience allow
the animal to be left there when it was in an area where children
pass by to school .
I
The complexity of the problem is that you have to take different
procedures depending if the animal is dead or alive , or if the animal
has been in contact with someone . or if they haven ' t.
Supervisor Raffensperger expressed her concern for both the
residents and the town employees with the potential health
j implications that are evident.
Councilman Liguori stated that he had a conversation with a
Wildlife Control Officer who was very concerned that there is no
procedure whereby a licensed officer has the authority to shoot an
animal that is obviously ill .
Councilman Niklas requested that the letter to be sent to the
County Board include the suggestion that they explore the policies
and guidelines that have already been put in place by some of the
other southern counties who have already had to deal with this issue .
Supervisor Raffensperger offered that the Town is not
necessarily opposed to paying for the services needed, the problem
lies in the fact that the town does not even know how to get these
services at the present time .
Representative Call suggested that Supervisor Raffensperger may
wish to present the letter on the floor of the County Board. The
Chairman would probably then turn the issue immediately over to the
appropriate committee .
Councilwoman Valentino noted that it would make common sense for
the issue to be handled as suggested by Representative Call .
Councilwoman Leary stated that she felt it was the total
responsibility of the County Health Department and that she was
concerned with their lack of concern before rabies hit the County.
Supervisor Raffensperger explained that at the time the County
Health Department made the presentation and explained the services
they were willing to provide , the town asked the County to set up
some kind of coordinated plan to help each town with this growing
problem.
Agenda Items #9 and #10-FOREST HOME BRIDGE REPLACEMENT:
Supervisor Raffensperger welcomed the residents of Forest Home ,
and introduced James Kazda, from the Tompkins County Public Works
Department.
Mr. Kazda has requested to address the Board concerning the
bridges located within Forest Home . Mr. Kazda informed the Board that
he would like to first provide some background concerning the bridges .
Last year in June the Tompkins County Board approved the budget
including design money for the downstream Forest Home Bridge . Both
of the bridges in Forest Home are located on roads within the Town of
Ithaca.
The Supervisor offered the floor to Karen Baum of the Forest
Home Improvement Association. Mrs . Baum started by thanking the
Board for allowing the Association to address the board . They have
come to present their case for the preservation of the single lane
bridges in Forest Home specifically for the repair and preservation
of the downstream bridge .
Mrs . Baum further stated that they had come to make a case for
the preservation of a bridge that is not only integral to life at
Forest Home , but also to make a case for a small bridge and community
that are considered integral to the character, history, and
definition to the larger Ithaca area.
They will show that the single land downstream bridge has a good
accident safety record. The bridge helps to reduce vehicle speeds to
safe levels , and additionally platoons traffic for the benefit of
pedestrians and motorists alike .
Each day this bridge handles more traffic than anyone would
believe that an area such as Forest Home could handle with only minor
delays , even in rush hour traffic .
Replacing this bridge with a two lane structure would eliminate
all of the mentioned safety advantages and would increase the traffic
in Forest Home and other surrounding overburdened residential areas .
The Forest Home Improvement Association strongly opposes any
plans for building a two lane bridge and requests the Town and County
take the steps necessary to preserve this bridge .
Mrs . Baum explained that the Executive Committee would be
covering portions of the information packet presented to the Board,
( see attached) .
Lars Mashburn, Vice President made a presentation on the history
of Forest Home . Bruce Britton, Chairman Traffic Committee spoke
about the engineering aspects of the bridge ; William Goldsmith made
points concerning traffic projections and future problems with a two
lane bridge ,
Mr. Shipe pointed out that many people are under the assumption
only the people in Forest Home are concerned with preserving the
community.
The Forest Home Association decided that they would test this
assumption by circulating a petition stating their position, and find
out how many outsiders would support them .
Mr. Shipe then presented the petitions with over 2000
signatures , ( see attached ) . Mr. Shipe pointed out that the
signatures are those of individuals who work and live all over
Tompkins County.
Mr, Shipe further stated that they share the frustration of
their friends who travel through Forrest Home about the safety and
congestion through Forest Home , The Forest Home Association wishes
that these people had a safer and less congested route to use to get
to their destinations .
Mrs . Baum concluded the presentation by explaining to the Board
that the information packet included all that was presented tonight
as well as additional information ,
The Supervisor asked if any of the Board Members had any
questions that they wished to ask of the Forest Home Improvement
Association ,
Supervisor Raffensperger asked if the Forest Mome Community
would support the new construction of a single lane b2�idge .
Mrs . Baum stated that their first choice would be the repair and
restoration of the existing bridge . They are not sure why the
construction of a new single lane bridge would be necessary unless
the Town and County felt that they had additional money they wished
to spend.
Supervisor Raffensperger stated that her impression was that
restoration might be more expenslyi� than new construction .
Mrs . aaum restated their position of seeing the bridge repaired
and preserved .
Councilwoman Leary asked , regardless of the cost? Mrs . Baum
said nn, not regardless of the cost .
Super visor Raffensperger Mentioned that txiere is a cost benefit
analysis that has not been done yet.
Mrs. Baum interjected that in her conversations with James Kazda
he stated the coat of restoration of the bridge is far less than new
construction ,
Supervisor Raffensperger asked Hr . Kazda to explain ,
Mr . Kazda stated that the repair option varies considerably with
the options chosen . For example , if just the steel stringers were
rehabilitated without the trusses, the price would be substantially
lower than a new ]aridge .
If they rehabilitated the existing trusses which serve only an
ornamental function the cost would he in the same range or higher
than a new bridge . But we would still end up with an old bridge .
To paint the upstream bridge would cost approximately $ 50 , @ @0.
The downstream bridge would cost approximately 580 , 000 to
because it is higher , although shorter.
Mr. Kazda continued saying that if the bridge were replaced they
would remove and replace it with prepainted or steel that did not
require painting.
Just one aspect of the rehabilitation would probably consume one
third of the replacement budget.
Mr. Barney asked if the rehabilitation of the stringers was what
the County would do , and the deck and sidewalls would be the
responsibility of the Town?
Mr. Kazda responded that was correct.
Mr. Barney asked if the entire bridge were replaced , who would
pay for that? Mr. Kazda stated that it would be the same breakout.
Mr. Kazda explained that there is a cloud over the issue of the
deck. In 1946 decks were predominantly wooden decks with an asphalt
covering meaning as a wearing surface .
To construct a bridge with a concrete deck that has an inner
roll wearing surface , (meaning the structure is part of the wearing
surface ) , figuring a cost breakdown would be difficult. The sidewalk
would almost probably be the responsibility of the Town .
Scott McConnell asked hir. Kazda if the rehabilitation should
also include the walkway, the stringers, deck, the abutments, the
wingwalls, and if all of this would bring the bridge up to nearly the
same life expectancy as a new bridge . What would that cost?
Mr . Kazda stated that they could not give an estimate at this
time because there are so many options . He stated that they were
hoping to limit the choices so that they would not have to do a cost
analysis on all the options .
Mr. Kazda reported that rehabilitation would probably cost about
$200 ,000, the only thing that would not be replaced would be the
stringers which cost approximately $30, 000 to $40,000 .
Superintendent McConnell asked if this would give the community
a bridge with the same life expectancy or the same maintenance long
term cost?
Mr. Kazda responded no, if you are using the old steel whichhas
already gone through some of its useful life . They are usually
designed for a fifty to seventy year lifespan, but they do go far
beyond that .
This bridge through rehabilitation may last fifty years , whereas
a new structure may last seventy to one hundred years . We are
looking into the Future , how we spend the money now will determine
how money is spent in the future .
Councilwoman Leary mentioned that based on this information we
are looking at an approximate cost for rehabilitation around
$200,000, versus new construction of around $275,000 to $300,000.
Councilman Niklas added that the cost factor includes an issue
of longevity. If you install a bridge that doesn ' t last as long as a
rehabilitated one you have to factor in the cost of that in its
functional lifetime .
Councilman Niklas stated that we must define the parameters of
the bridge before an analysis of cost could be done . He recommended
that the Board make a decision on what type of bridge will be
rehabilitated or replaced .
Councilman Klein questioned the issue of longevity of the bridge
depending on maintenance . A bridge designed for seventy years will
fail in ten years if it is not maintained .
1•ir. Kazda stated that hopefully with a bridge that is either
rehabilitated or replaced a bridge will be created requiring very
little maintenance .
Superintendent McConnell asked Mr. Kazda if in his opinion the
concerns of the community as far as aesthetics, traffic volume , and
safety between the interfacing with pedestrians and the vehicular
traffic could be dealt with on either a one lane or two lane bridge?
Mr. Kazda responded that it is possible to address all the
concerns with a one lane or two lane . It is at what level you
address them, it is really difficult now to access whether there
would be a higher accident rate or a lower accident rate .
If you replace the bridge with a one lane bridge , and someone
unfortunately gets injured on the bridge , whether or not there would
be an increased liability on the town because we were not prudent to
go with a one lane versus two lane is questionable .
These are really difficult decisions to make , we can do the best
that we can in both the designs of one lane and two lane . We are
trying to separate the vehicles from the pedestrians and bicyclists .
Councilman Niklas asked Mr. Kazda what was his most compelling
argument, your strongest advocacy for changing this bridge to a two
lane bridge . ?
Mr. Kazda responded that it will limit the possibilities in the
future . The roadways are seventeen feet wide they handle at times
their peak capacity, should they handle more . As a highway engineer I
say no , this is not the community for traffic . It does not have the
road configurations nor the bridge configurations for traffic .
Supervisor Raffensperger interjected that the Town has long had
a policy of wishing to provide to forest Home a bypass , our decision
about the bridge might be very different if that had not been the
In 1946 Tompkins County passed a resolution that stated that the
County would be responsible for all bridge structures over 25 feet
that are on town roads . Both of these bridges are over 25 feet, with
the downstream bridge being 83 feet.
The bridge rating now is rated a four out of a possible seven .
meaning it is considered to be deficient structurally and
functionally obsolete . The ranking on functionally obsolete is
ranked from 1000 down to 0. there 1000 is a new bridge meeting all
the current standards . The bridge ranks at 464 , anything below 500
is considered to be functionally obsolete .
The upstream bridge ranked on functional obsolescence is rated
at 182 , primarily because of its five to posting .
Only a portion of the structure is considered a responsibility
of the County. The Town is financially responsible for the deck,
(wearing surface ) and the sidewalk.
The current County budget has $30,000 available for design .
There are many factors that determine what type of bridge would
be recommended through the' design process . The design process has
not yet begun.
The most significant issue for the residents is the discussion
of a one lane bridge versus a two lane bridge . The most important
issue to the County is safety. The safety factor must be considered
not only for the people who walk through the area, but also for the
over 5000 vehicles a day that cross the bridge .
In 1979 the State of New York indicated the traffic flow across
the bridge as 3000 cars a day. In 1989 it has gone up to over 5000
cars a day.
Although the residents of Forest Home do not appreciate the
amount of traffic each day, the County and Town must provide for
those 5000 cars to safely pass through the area.
Between 1983 and 1989 at the bridge there were seventeen
accidents . Only one of those was a personal injury accident.
The majority of the accidents go unreported, and are filed with the
insurance companies and the State Department of Transportation .
The County understands the need to preserve the integrity of the
Forest Home Community but must consider both factors ; the community ' s
quest for Historic designation, and the need for those other
vehicles, pedestrians , and bicyclists who do use the bridge .
Current standards for bridge widths are the width of the bridge
deck should not be less than the approach roadway. The approach
roadway on the Judd Falls side of the bridge is 17 feet. The current
bridge is 14 . 2 feet between curbs .
There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether or not
the present bridge can be rehabilitated, from an engineering
standpoint we can rehabilitate just about anything .
The more specific issue is what it is going to cost to
rehabilitate , and what it is going to cost to replace . Current
bridges of that approximate length have a replacement cost within
Tompkins County in the neighborhood of $275 ,000 to $300,000 . A
portion of that amount would be the responsibility of the Town of
Ithaca.
Rehabilitation costs vary widely based upon how the
rehabilitation takes place . The bridge is a three girder bridge and
at one point it was a truss bridge .
In 1975 the State of New York in the process of turning the
bridge over to the Town and County went through a rehabilitation
process . During that process the bridge was supposed to be shortened
by six. feet, and it was supposed to be widened as a two lane bridge .
However, because of the local opposition to that proposal we
have the situation that we have today. A bridge both structurally
deficient and functionally obsolete .
Mr. Kazda cautioned the Board and the residents not to make the
same mistake again because we do not want to be back within twenty
years asking for additional money to rebuild or rehabilitate this
bridge .
Most of the design considerations are going to be presented in
the design report, which is part of the consultants responsibility.
Vie have not yet contacted a consultant for the design phase , because
we need an agreement with the town that they are willing to support
whatever the final results of replacement or rehabilitation will be .
We also need to know what is planned to be done, we need to
limit the scope for the design professional . We don ' t want to get a
design professional involved in lengthy discussions with one lane
versus , two lane , or rehabilitation versus replacement.
The local level must fully understand what is intended to do and
carry that through the design and construction .
Mr. Kazda then asked the Board if there were any questions .
Supervisor Raffensperger asked Mr . Kazda to gave an exact
definition of functionally obsolete . Mr. Kazda responded that no one
exactly knows . It is a number that is assigned to the bridge based
upon a lot of factors such as lane width.
Mr. Kazda further explained that he brought up the subject of
both bridges because there is a great disparity between the two . The
primary reason the down stream bridge is rated about 460 , versus the
180 for the upstream bridge is the fact it is posted for 5 ton.
This is an indication that load carrying capacity of the structure is
of primary importance , secondary to that is width.
Supervisor Raffensperger asked if the lower bridge were posted
at 5 tons would its functional obsolescence diminish? Mr. Kazda
stated that it would be more obsolete , 1000 is a good score 100 is
bad.
Supervisor Raffensperger mentioned that they are proposing to
replace the bridge that has a score of 464 , and not replace the one
that a score of 180 . Mr . Kazda responded, yes .
The cost of replacing the upstream bridge is tremendous, and the
benefit is very little . The traffic counts on the upstream bridge is
much higher. The 1989 counts on the upstream bridge were 8000 versus
the lower bridge which is 5000. There was a problem in that count
because they had trouble keeping the hoses on the road . Fir. Kazda
estimates that the loiter bridge actually had a higher count than that.
A true count on the upstream bridge is 8000 .
Counilwoman Leary asked if that would not support the argument
of replacing the upstream bridge because it has more use?
Mr. Kazda explained that functionally obsolete is one category,
they also look at structurally deficient. There are major concerns
about the structure itself. The bridge that was put in was old steel
from another structure . It was originally six feet shorter it was
thought that the abutments were going to be raised inside the current
abutments reducing the width by six feet. But because of the
opposition locally the beams were extended by six feet.
They took one of the four members that they were supposed to install
to make it a two lane bridge, then cut it into three pieces and
welded it on the ends . This created fracture critical details which
are primarily welding detail which over time through fatigue could
propagate a crack.
The down stream bridge was reviewed because it is a three girder
bridge it is not a truss . A few years ago the State of New York had
a program to inspect two and three girder bridges to see if there
were a failure of one member would that cause a catastrophic failure .
The downstream bridge was removed from that index only because
it is a three girder one lane bridge . If it were a three girder two
lane bridge it would remain on the inventory as a fracture critical
structure .
The workmanship on the structure is extremely poor, the entire
structure is in poor structural shape as indicated by the four in its
grading by the State of New York. Four out of seven where anything
below five is considered to be structurally deficient.
Councilman Niklas asked if it were safe to say that any bridge
becomes functionally obsolete as the volume of traffic it will
experience increases through the normal evolution of traffic in an
i
area, whereas structural deficiency talks about the engineering
safety factors that are consistently being eroded under any volume ,of
traffic it would experience?
Mr. Kazda responded that being functionally obsolete has nothing
to to with the volume , it has to do with the width and its capacity
to carry traffic . Not the amount that it has but the amount that it
can have . This bridge is considered to be a high volume County bridge .
Councilman Liguori asked if this bridge were a two lane bridge
would it have the tendency to have even more traffic? Mr. Kazda
responded that any change is going to have an effect on the traffic
flow. With the roadway width at 17 feet, and the turns within Forest
Home it is highly unlikely that one change would effect the volumes
of traffic through Forest Home .
Councilman Whitcomb asked Mr. Kadza to explain what would be
involved in the restoration or rehabilitation of the bridge? Mr.
Kazda stated that what needs to be addressed is the failing abutments
and wing walls . The wing walls on the Judd Falls downstream side
which supports the walkway is a laid up stone wing wall which is
failing.
The Town is aware of the problem that is being experienced by
the open steel grating . The grating has failed and there are cover
plates that run the entire length. There can be things done to
enhance the life expectancy of the steel itself . If we did
rehabilitate the three stringers strong recommendations would be made
for deck types because of the fracture critical details .
The County would like to insure that there won ' t be a
catastrophic failure of the entire structure .
Supervisor Raffensperger mentioned that with this kind of
description of rehabilitation, and replacement costing between
$275 ,000 and $300,000 does that mean replacement no matter how wide
it is?
Mr. Kazda explained that the number he quoted is based on the
two lane approximately that length . They would recommend that the
roadway width be no less than 20 feet.
Supervisor Raffensperger asked if it were possible to replace
the bridge with a 14 . 2 foot bridge? Mr. Kazda responded yes .
Councilman Niklas if the bridge width were made to be the same
width as the approach would this help to eliminate the bottleneck of
traffic? Mr. Kazda mentioned that the standards for a one lane
bridge is anything less than 14 feet, so if it were 17 feet wide it
would be considered a two lane bridge .
Supervisor Raffensperger stated that in the Board members
folders were copies of the resolution from the Forest Home
Association. (See attached . )
i
long standing policy of the Town . The only effective solution to the
problem of the volume of traffic through Forest Home is a bypass . . -
Councilman Whitcomb asked if a rehabilitated bridge would be as
safe as a new bridge in terms of structural integrity?
Mr. Kazda responded that is an unknown with the existing steel .
He stated that he could not say that it would be the same as far as
safety with a rehabilitated bridge .
Councilman Whitcomb asked if a new bridge could be built that
would resemble the existing bridge?
Mr. Kazda responded yes , if it were a three girder bridge and
you are talking about the ornament, but we would not know how much
that would cost.
Mr. Barney asked if it were replaced with a new one lane bridge
would be it the same type of three girder bridge? Hr. Kazda said it
would probably be a steel girder bridge with either a rolled section
as we have now, or a built up section depending on the analysis .
Mr. Barney questioned if the bridge would still have a
catastrophic failure protection?
Mr. Kazda said yes, with the structural deck limit someone would
notice something wasn ' t, right such as the deck shifting . When you
combine that with maximum traffic you may then have a failure , but it
is highly unlikely.
]-fr. Walker said that the County ' s primary concern is the
structure of the bridge , the girders that support the traffic, and
the Town ' s primary concern is the super structure and the wearing
surface . The girders were state of the art in 1904 when they were
built, they are riveted cast iron. In the limited inspections that
Mr . Walker has performed on the bridge , the integrity of those iron
members is severely questioned, thus the closing of the walkway.
From a safety point we have a very serious situation ifthe
guiderails that are attached to those structural members should
sustain any impact, one of the structural trusses could fall off .
Mr. Walker further explained that when the wooden deck was
replaced this year on the walkway, the highway crew did some
remarkable patching of some structural members . There was a
structural member, which had no steel left, you could see through it.
It had to be replaced with other I-Beams . Should that be indicative
of what else is under the bridge that we can ' t see , I as Town
Engineer cannot recommend leaving that structure in place strictly as
an ornamental feature . It serves a structural safety mechanism to
support the guiderails from keeping the cars from bumping off and
keep the people from falling off the walkway.
Councilwoman Leary asked what was the possibility of avoiding a
headon collision as the bridge is now? Mr . Kazda stated that the
warning devices and the curves coming in from the Judd Falls area
prevent that.
Councilman Niklas made a recommendation that a feasibility study
and cost analysis be made by an engineer. This study should include
making a comparison of rehabilitation versus replacement with as
close a facsimile as possible . Then we can continue our discussion
with the residents and the Forest Home Community Association once we
have this report from our Engineers .
Councilman Whitcomb felt there are really two issues . One is
should the bridge be replaced with a two lane bridge , and if the
answer to that is no . Should we have a new one lane bridge or repair
the bridge that is there .
Re further stated that as far as he was concerned the first
issue is simple . Keep the one lane bridge both for the historic
reasons that have been sited , and also because if a two lane bridge
lane goes in there it takes the pressure off the Town and County to
solve the long term traffic problem in Forest Home . It is
unconscionable that that amount of traffic has to proceed through
Forest Home .
The second issue we do not know the answer to , whether the
existing bridge can be repaired safely and economically, or whether
we have to build a new bridge .
The Supervisor asked 1•1r . Kazda if the opinion of this Board this
evening were that a one lane bridge is what we are talking about, but
that we do not have the technical information nor the financial
impact information to know whether or not we should support a
rehabilitation of the existing bridge, or reconstruction of a new
bridge , how do we get that information?
Mr . Kazda stated that the County has taken the responsibility
for all of the design costs . There will be no need For Town
involvement, but the Town must be involved during construction .
Prior to the County proceeding with any design contract the County
needs a contract with the Town to guarantee funding during
construction of the Towns portion of the bridge .
Mr. Barney asked at what point the contract would be needed?
The County will give the Town an estimate of the cost prior to
the construction so that a contract can be entered into .
Typically it is dictated as a percentage of the total cost, and is
given as an approximate estimate . A replacement of the bridge would
cost approximately $275 , 000 to $300,000.
The Supervisor stated that what the Town is asking is for some
understanding of the financial and technical feasibility of the two
alternatives .
i
Councilman Niklas asked what is the time frame for this
information being supplied to the Town ?
Mr. Kazda stated that the schedule for this project is, design
in 1992 and construction in 1993 . The County can probably get that
information to you within three months .
Councllman Liguori asked if the agreement between the Town and
County would be based on the approximate figures? Mr. Kazda
responded the County will be making the decision as to whether or not
to proceed with any of the design or feasibility without an agreement.
Since it all is construction costs , it would seem reasonable that we
would design and then go through the contract phase . But I cannot
speak for the Board of Representatives or the Public Vlorks Committee .
Mrs . Baum asked if the Town Board can pass a resolution favoring
a one lane bridge versus a two lane bridge when the feasibility study
of repairing or new construction has not been done .
Supervisor Raffensperger responded that they are two separate
questions. If the Board feels that the continuation of a one lane
bridge is something that they have enough information about they can
entertain a resolution, but the board does not have enough
information to pass a resolution on repairing the existing bridge or
building a new one .
Supervisor Raffensperger at this time made a motion that the
Town Board is in support of the lower bridge in Forest Home remaining
a one lane bridge , and that the Town Board requests additional
information be provided to them from Tompkins County so that a
decision can be made as to the financial and technical feasibility of
reconstruction or replacement of the present bridge , and the Town
Board recognizes the solution to the traffic problem in Forest Home
does not depend on the width of this bridge , and it is the Town ' s
intention to continue to investigate a long term solution to the
traffic problem in Forest Home through alternatives such as a
by-pass . Motion was seconded by Councilman Niklas . Carried
unanimously. ( See attached . )
Supervisor Raffensperger thanked James Kazda for coming ,to the
meeting and for his presentation . The Supervisor stated that it was
a pleasure for the Board to have information presented to them that
was so forthcoming and as constructive .
Councilwoman Leary asked to comment on the petitions presented
by the Forest Home Community Committee . She stated that she would
have been more impressed with the amount of signatures , if the
information given in the petition had been presented more fairly.
She stated the petition said nothing about replacement, the
petition only speaks of demolition of the bridge . She feels that
many people might not have understood what they were signing, because
the petition only spoke of demolition.
Mr. Shipe responded that the Association left the petition open
on the grounds that there were more qualified persons to make a
judgment as to the exact solution, that is why the petition stated,
"the appropriate solution" .
Mr. Kazda asked to make a closing statement. The responsibility
and decision lies with the County Board of Representatives through
their delegation to the Public Works Committee . There are still many
steps to follow.
Agenda Item #12-Public Hearing : Traffic Ordinance
At this time the Supervisor interrupted to open the Public Hearing
on the Local Law Amending the Traffic Ordinance Changing the Yield
Sign on Tudor Road at Park Lane to a Stop Sign. Proof of publication
and posting has been noted .
The Public Hearing was opened at 7 : 30 p . m. Supervisor
Raffensperger asked if there was anyone present wishing to address
the Board .
Steven Zinder, 108 Park Lane , Eastern Heights addressed the
Board . Mr. Zinder presented to the Board a petition that was signed
last summer by 51 people . The residents wish to have more than a
single stop sign . The residents would like stop signs along Park
Lane as there are so many children playing along those streets .
The petition is specifically asking for stop signs at Park Lane and
Tudor, Park Lane , at Joanne and Eastern Heights, and
Eastern Heights and landmark. The petition also asks for watch
children signs at the entrance of Joanne Drive , the entrance of
Charlene Drive , and from the entrance coming up Park Lane from Route
79 .
Supervisor Raffensperger stated that the Board would be happy to
accept the petition and would like to discuss it.
Supervisor Raffensperger remarked that she had been aware that
the petition had been circulated . The Town did traffic counts in
order to access what will happen when the road to Rt. 79 is opened .
It was recommended by the Highway Superintendent that we not proceed
with all the stop signs, until we were aware of what would happen
once Park Lane Extension is opened .
This proposed change resulted from a comment made at an Civic
Association meeting where the proposed amendment to the traffic
ordinance was the one that residents felt would address the immediate
problem until Rt . 79 were open and we could access the other areas .
Mr. Zinder requested that a stop sign be placed on Park lane
itself . Mr. Zinder pointed out that drivers will be coming at a very
fast pace up the hill .
The Supervisor asked the Highway Superintendent to look at this
situation and make a recommendation to the Board as to what is
appropriate and reasonable .
On the matter of the children playing signs, the Supervisor
stated that the town attempts to reserve those signs for areas where
one would not expect to see children playing . The town does this
because there are situations where children are handicapped , mobility
impaired, deaf , etcetera. If these signs were placed
indiscriminately, no one would pay any attention to them.
The town tries to balance placement through the community and
not overuse the signs . The standard that the Town uses is if you are
in a residential area where you would assume there are children,
and there are not special circumstances that require a sign we prefer
to reserve those signs for other areas.
Superintendent McConnell stated that the basis for the decision
concerning the watch children signs is found in the manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices .
Superintendent McConnell reported that in his dealings with the
County Highway Manager it has been brought to his attention that
problems can be created by anticipating a bad situation and then
acting on it before it is actually substantiated as undesirable .
Superintendent McConnell states he is going to take the stance
that we wait until Park Lane is actually opened to Rt. 79 and see
what the effect is, monitor those effects to adjust what is to be
done in accordance with manual . He further stated that most people
either live there or are building there . If those people are having
trouble conforming to driving safely in a residential area then we
should police ourselves .
Councilman Niklas commented that the Board cannot act on Mir.
Zinder ' s other recommendations since there has already been a notice
of the Public Hearing. To modify it would require stopping the
process now and then advertise for another Public Hearing.
Supervisor Raffensperger asked if they were opposed to the
action the Town Board could take tonight concerning the advertised
notice . bar. . Zinder stated that they were not opposed to it.
Joyce Jones of 104 Joanne Drive , asked to address the Board.
Mfrs . Jones commented that the residents are not opposed to what the
Board is doing tonight, but that they would be much happier to see a
stop sign placed in the other direction at the intersection .
The reason for that is there is an intersection near a park
located in that area . She stated it would be much safer for the
children going to and from the park if the stop sign was at the same
Supervisor Raffensperger commented that whenever Park Lane is
opened it can be determined at that time after traffic counts have
been made to see if there is a necessity for Children at Play signs.
The Supervisor stated that at this time the Board would accept
the petition and consider what has been asked of them tonight.
Supervisor Raffensperger commented that it would probably be in
the best interests of the Town and the residents that the Board not
act on the Public Hearing as advertised since it will not accomplish
what has been discussed this evening .
Supervisor Raffensperger asked the attending residents if they
would be willing to accept the situation as it is with the yield sign
only until the board has a chance to look at any changes that might
take place when Rt. 79 is opened.
Mr. Koslo asked if the board could act on the proposed Public
Hearing this evening . Supervisor Raffensperger stated that it is
very difficult to do with so many small additions to the Traffic
Ordinance because it makes the ordinance hard to understand.
Supervisor Raffensperger stated that the town would proceed with
the three way stop to accomodate the request of the residents to
provide a method of slowing down the traffic in this area with the
summer months coming on .
The Town Clerk was authorized by the Board to advertise for a
Public Hearing to be held on April 13, 1992 at 7 : 30 p . m. to amend the
Traffic Ordinance for the placement of stop signs on all three
approaches to the intersection of Tudor Road and Park Lane .
Motion to hold Public Hearing as stated by Councilwoman
Valentino, seconded by by Councilman Niklas . Carried unanimously.
Public Hearing to Amend the Town of Ithaca Traffic Ordinance was
closed at 8: 13 p. m.
Agenda Item #13-Public Hearing to Amend the dater Rate Schedule for
the Town of Ithaca to Establish Minimum Quarterly Charges and to
Also Amend the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission
Agreement.
Public Hearing was opened at 8: 15 p . m. The Town Clerk has
proof of posting and publication .
Kevin Kaufman, Executive Director of Bolton Point stated that
became tonight to answer any questions the board may have about the
new rate structure .
Supervisor Raffensperger asked if there were any other member
of the public who would like to comment on the subject of the Public
Hearing.
intersection, but instead of being on Tudor coming down if it went
the other way.
Superintendent McConnell stated that placing the stop sign as
Firs. Jones recommended would not conform to the manual, if we did
something it would have to be an all way stop.
Superintendent McConnell said that he would be receptive to the
all way stop, but he would not like to start putting all tray stops on
Park Lane , Regency, and Joanne the entire way to make people stop and
go, that could create a more dangerous situation than a smooth
progressive traffic at a reasonable speed.
Councilman Niklas asked the Highway Superintendent if he was
recommending a three way stop there . Mr. McConnell replied, yes .
Fred Koslo, of 1 05 Park Lane addressed the Board . Mr . Koslo
stated. that he agreed the stop sign should be placed from both
directions as Tudor Road is a steep hill at that point . When Park
Lane is opened up from Rt. 79 , there certainly would be a danger of
cars speeding down Tudor, and in inclement weather going right into
Park Lane without a stop sign.
Mr. Koslo stated that he is also concerned about having to
observe the traffic patterns and waiting until Park Lane opens up to
determine if there should be stop signs at Landmark and Joanne . When
Park and Rt. 79 opens traffic will be measured coming onto Park Lane ,
and going onto Rt. 79 from Park Lane . Will that allow you to
determine the flow of traffic further up .
Superintendent McConnell asked if the fear is that when Park
Lane opens onto Rt. 79 that there will be a lot of through traffic?
Mr. Koslo commented that it could defin ately increase the
traffic levels.
Superintendent McConnell responded that he has done a traffic
count on Regency, Charlene , and Skyview to see what the difference in
total traffic counts will be after another count when the roads open
up to Rt. 79 .
Mr. Koslo stated that Eastern Heights is asking that serious
considertion be given to stop signs on Park Lane both ways . Then if
it is determined to be necessary and feasibile to have three way
stops at those intersections, they would not argue with that .
He further stated that they are very concerned about their
children and not the smooth flow of traffic .
He further commented on the Children at Play signs . People that
would be coming from Rt. 79 and using Eastern Heights as a thruway
may not necessarily be aware of the character of the neighborhood .
No one asked to address the board . Supervisor Raffensperger
closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 17 p . m.
Supervisor Raffensperger asked if any board members had any
questions of I•tr. Kaufman , and stated that these amendments dealt with
a reduction of some rates having to do with the necessary perfection
of a new rate schedule as well as the minimum charges for meter sizes .
Mr. Barney asked Mr. Kaufman that in the suggested changes that
the 3/4 inch meter be deleted , and that it be changed to read the
appropriate meter. Mr. Barney was not sure just what that meant.
Mr. Kaufman responded that he was not sure how the 3/4 inch
meter would be interpreted, so that was why it was stated the
appropriate size .
' Supervisor Raffensperger mentioned that the primary change in
the meter size calculation had to do with the 30 ,000 number, and also
the 350 ,000 .
Mr. Kaufman explained that the previous table adopted in 1988
was 24,000 per quarter for the one inch size meter. With the
adoption of the new rates last fall that was raised to 40,000 , they
are adjusting it back to 30,000 .
Supervisor Raffensperger further explained that people were
getting a very large percentage increase which was not intended .
That is why the change was made .
Councilwoman Valentino stated that in previous years when the
rates were reviewed that it was her understanding that in the future
the meter rates would change so that people who were using less would
pay less.
Supervisor Raffensperger explained that there would be a
constant rate for eveyone . This will take approximately two years to
accomplish in order that the change not be too abrupt for the largest
users . There will be a flat rate , meaning that every gallon of water
would be sold for the same amount no matter how many gallons are used.
Councilwoman Valentino felt that is a definate improvement over
the schedule as it is now. She also feels that in the future we
should consider people who use less and are conserving should pay
less.
Mr . Kaufman interjected that the Commissions intention was to do
away with the minimum charges besides the size of the meter, but
before they did that they wanted to make sure it wouldn ' t have too
much effect on the revenues including the municipalities .
Mr. Barney suggested that some clarifying points needed to be
made that would not change the substance of the law. In the metered
water consumption on the table it should be rates per 1000 gallons .
In allowable consumption put a parenthetical under that in gallons .
Under multiple housing in home parks over two dwelling units, the
calculation of water consumed per dwelling, and then if there were 20
dwelling units, and so on . Section 1 , is further amended by deleting
for as set forth below.
Supervisor Raffensperger signed a Certificate of Necessity
before the vote .
Motion made by Councilman Niklas approving the changes to the
Water Rate Schedule To Establish Minimum Quarterly Charges . Motion
made by Councilman Niklas . Seconded by Councilman Liguori . Roll call
vote taken. All Town Board Members voted yes .
See attached.
Supervisor Raffensperger brought up the changes to the Southern
Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Plater Commission agreement. She asked Mr.
Barney,, to explain these changes .
Mr. Barney stated the changes are typographical and the other
changes were the same referenced in gallons and dwelling units in the
water rate change .
Mr. Barney suggested a resolution authorizing the Supervisor to
execute this agreement on behalf of the Town of Ithaca with such
minor changes therein as may be necessary in the course of
negotiating or completing the agreement .
Motion made by Councilman Liguori , seconded by Councilman
Niklas . Roll call vote taken. All Town Board Members voted yes .
See attached.
Agenda Item #22-whitetail Drive and Marcy Court
Mr. Barney explained that this is an authorization to accept
Marcy Court and the balance of Whitetail Drive . The town has already
accepted and received conveyance of title to approximately two
hundred feet of it. This would extend Whitetail' Drive all the way
around and complete the loop back to Saranac Way and off of the
extended part where Marcy Court runs .
The roads are not yet constructed. There was a discussion at
the last meeting that Mr . Holford ' s group would construct the roads
and post $125,000 for completion of the roads in accordance with the
Town specifications .
By accepting the roads now it will allow Mr. Holford to get the
needed building permits for the areas where the roads are not in
place .
Supervisor Raffensperger asked for any questions or comments
from the board.
Supervisor Raffensperger made a motion to accept Whitetail Drive
and Marcy Court. Seconded by Councilman Niklas . Carried
unanimously.
Agenda Item #2-Report of Town Officials :
Supervisor Raffensperger reminded the Board that they had asked
the Town Department Heads written reports and if the Town Board had
any questions they could be answered in the meeting, it would not be
necessary to read the written reports.
Town Engineer Report-Dan Walker the Town Engineer reported that he
and members of the Building Department, Highway Department, and
Engineering Department have been attending a thirty hour OCHA
training course on Safety in the Workplace . One of the issues that
they are addressing has to do with blood born viruses , and the fact
that if we anticipate in any activity where an employee could come in
contact with these that we have to provide adequate barrier
protection or immunization.
Therefore , if the town employees are going to handle the
complaints of dead animals these guidelines must be used .
Mr. Frost reported that with immunization the body develops what
is called a blood tighter level , the immune ability. This should be
tested on an annual basis, and when the level falls reimmunization
should be done .
An initial immunization will have to be followed up on.
Councilwoman Valentino asked how expensive the immunizations
were . Superintendent McConnell remarked that the immunizations can
be gotten through the State contract for about $100 . 00 each .
Without the State contract it costs approximately $115 . 00 to $130. 00 .
Superintendent McConnell mentioned that he is in the process of
establishing a policy with the Safety Committee that will dictate how
we will handle these complaints. In the meantime , two men from the
Highway Department have volunteered to become pre-vaccinated and to
go to the proper training so as to provide this service .
This course of action will allow us to prohibit any other
employee from dealing with animal alive or dead .
Superintendent McConnell will be informing each department of
this and then a policy will be set up to include how these complaints
will be handled.
Mr. Barney asked if there were possible side effects from the
immunizations . Superintendent McConnell stated that the two
volunteers will be made aware of any possible side effects .
Mr. Barney recommended that from the Town ' s standpoint these
vaccinations should be done with open knowledge and consent to the
employees . They must be made aware of any risk no matter how small. .
Building/Zoning Report-Mr. Frost added to his report that on the
second page for sign permits issued, one permit was issued to the
rear entrance to the Ides Plaza off of Mitchell Street.
Town Planner Report-Report was submitted in writing .
Agenda Item #11-Persons to Be Heard : There were no petitioners to
the board.
i
Agenda Item #5-Nomination of Representative to the Economic
Opportunity Corporation Board of Directors for the Town of Ithaca
Supervisor Raffensperger stated that she had a resolution
prepared and apologized to the Board for not providing it to them
prior to the meeting. The resolution as per the attached
recommended Patricia A. Driscoll as the Town of Ithaca ' s
representative on the referenced board.
Supervisor Raffensperger moved the resolution. Seconded by
Councilman Liguori . Carried unanimously.
Agenda Item #6-Speed Limit Request by Glenside Neighborhood
Association for Rt. 13A.
Supervisor Raffensperger reported that a letter has been
received from the Glenside Neighborhood Association requesting that
the Town apply for a reduction in the speed limit on Five Mile
Drive/Rt. 13A from the current 30 mph area at CoyGlen Creek south to
Route 13. The speed limit goes from 55 mph to 30 mph and a case can
probably be madefor an interim speed limit in that area.
The Supervisor asked for authorization for tier to proceedwith
this application and to include such supporting documentation as
necessary in the application .
Motion made by Councilman Niklas authorizing the Supervisor to
apply, and to include supporting documentation. Seconded by
Councilman Whitcomb. Carried unanimously. See attached.
Agenda Item #7-Participation Cornell Summer Job Network Program
One position is a Planning Aide , two positions are for
Engineering Aids , and one position for Financial Assistance Aide .
Motion made by Councilman Niklas authorizing the participation
in the Cornell Summer Job Network Program. Seconded by Councilman
Whitcomb.
Councilman Niklas asked if this program has been successful in
the past? Dan Walker responded that they have had very good luck
with the people that are hired . Carried unanimously. See attached.
Agenda Item #8-Summer Intern for Conservation Advisory Council
i
Supervisor Raffensperger suggested that the prepared resolution
be amended in the last Resolve to state that the Town ' s share of the -
cost shall not exceed 50% or $1750 . 00 .
Motion with amendment made by Councilman Whitcomb. Seconded by
Councilwoman Valentino . No discussion. Carried unanimously. See
attached.
Agenda Item #14-Agreement Coddington Road Community Center:
Supervisor Raffensperger began by saying that the Town of
Ithacahas had a very long relationship with the Coddington Road
Community Center, going back to the 1940 ' s and 1950 ' s and has from
time totime provided payments to them.
This has always been an informal agreement. In recent year ' s
the town paid utility bills and some repair bills on a very
i unpredictable basis.
Mr. Barney has drawn up an agreement which recognizes the
contributions of the Community Center to the Town of Ithaca and set
up an annual payment to the Coddington Road Community Center .
Supervisor Raffensperger asked to make one change in the
agreement. To reduce the amount to $5000 . 00. The reason for the
change is because we have a budgeted amount this year, and we have
already paid one repair bill out of this year' s budget.
This does not include the summer program.
Supervisor Raffensperger called the President of the Community
Center to say that this would be on the agenda and to assure her this
was not a unilateral step, but for the Board to review this and
authorize the Supervisor to come to an agreement with them based on
the elements of the agreement as presented.
Councilman Niklas made a motion authorizing the Supervisor to
enter into this agreement with the amendment to the amount. Seconded
by Councilwoman Valentino .
Councilman Liguori asked if this is the only agreement that we
have with this kind of an organization. Supervisor Raffensperger
responded that the Community Center is the only agency that we have
ever had this kind of relationship with .
This agreement will also be of benefit to the Community Center.
When they wanted to do some remodeling at the Center, if they had a
definite agreement with the Town that could have been a part of the
application for the loan. As it was they only had an informal
agreement to pay utility bills which did not advantage them in anyway
in negotiating a loan .
Mr. Barney stated that tie questioned the legalities of paying
someone else ' s utility bills . We now are agreeing to purchasing
services which we can clearly do for a flat fee .
Motion was carried unanimously. See attached.
Agenda Item #15-Benefit Assessment Refunds :
Supervisor Raffensperger asked Dan Walker to speak concerning
this issue .
Inlet Valley Cemetary-There is an old cemetary in Inlet Valley
which has no source of revenue and they do not intend to ever put a
building up where they would need water.
In the process of the water/sewer expansion that property was
picked up and one unit was assessed .
Benefit assessments to cemetarys have been modified by
convention, but not by approval of the Town Board. If they have
frontage that if assessed would be charged three or four units for
developed or undeveloped acreage we have in the past limited the
benefit assessment to one unit based on the fact they would have
limited water useage .
Mr. Walker stated that he wants to propose to the Public Works
Committee some modifications and additions to the benefit formula to
bring us into conformance on these issues .
Regarding the Inlet Valley Cemetary, it is obvious that they
will never benefit from the water and sewer because they have no
vacant land to build on.
Mr. Walker recommended to the Board that they refund the money
to the Inlet Valley Cemetary for the benefit assessment and that in
the future they not be charged a benefit assessment.
Mr. Walker futher explained that if in the future that property
were transfered to some other use , it would not exempt that property
from being charged the benefit assessment .
West Hill Cemetary Benefit Assessment:
Mr. Walker explained that the West Hill Cemetary Association has
two parcels . The one parcel was assessed for one unit, and this
should stay at one unit.
There is a large parcel of land adjacent to the cemetary which
they have still not produced a deed for . This parcel was charged
seven benefits units based on frontage and acreage .
The Town Attorney has suggested that even restrictions placed on
deeds may not be binding, and that parcels may benefit considerably
from water and sewer.
Mr. Walker requested that this parcel be changed to one benefit.
Motion made by Councilman Niklas that the benefit unit
assessment for West Hill Cemetary be changed from seven to one .
Seconded by Councilmen Liguori .
Mr. Barney suggested that the motion be made contingent on the
West Hill Cemetary Association providing us appropriate documentation
that the property is used limited solely to cemetary purposes .
There was no further discussion. Motion with the amendment
suggested by Attorney John Barney carried unanimously.
See attached .
Motion was made by Councilman Whitcomb , seconded by Councilman
Liguori that the Inlet Valley Cemetary Association receive a refund
of their benefit assessment for the property on Elmira Road, and that
in the future the proporty show no units for benefit assessments.
There was no further discussion. motion carried unanimously.
See attached .
Supervisor Raffensperger explained the last matter of benefit
assessment is an apartment where an attic apartment was converted to
the use of a single family. Paul Hansen has inspected this as the
regulations require . There is an authorization for a refund of
$36 .00 for water and $27 . 90 for sewer.
Motion made by Councilman Niklas to approve the refund, seconded
by Councilwoman Valentino . Carried unanimously. See attached.
Councilman Whitcomb informed the Board that the Public Works
Committee is considering making some changes in the benefit formula
for special circumstances . Councilman Whitcomb requested that Public
Works Committee look carefully at those property ' s which have deed
restrictions placed on them.
Agenda Item #16-Budget Transfers :
Linda Nobles , Assistant Budget Officer, explained that the
resolution deals with the end of year 1991 appropriation transfers to
offset unencumbered balances .
She further explained that the New York State Department of
Audit and Control requires that no line item can be over budget.
These in no way change the total budgeted numbers, it merely adjusts
to show where expenditures actually occurred.
Motion made by Councilman Niklas, seconded by Councilwoman
authorizing the budget transfers . Carried unanimously. See attached .
Agenda Item 417-Recycled Pater Products :
Supervisor Raffensperger explained that the Board had received a
resolution from the Conservation Advisory Council which asks that the
town consider purchasing recycled paper when that cost did not exceed
10% more than virgin paper.
Sally Alario, Accounting Supervisor investigated this request.
Even if it were legal for us to buy recycled paper at the 10% premium
it is not possible for us to get it at that low a premium. Mrs .
Alario found that it would cost approximately 25% more .
Supervisor Raffensperger went on to say that there can be
problems with recycled paper as it sometimes does not work in the
copy machines as well as virgin paper.
Supervisor Raffensperger stated that the memo reflects that if
it is possible for us to use recycled products we will make every
effort to do so .
Councilman Whitcomb mentioned that he would take this
information to the Conservation Advisory Board .
Supervisor Raffensperger asked the Board that if any of them
have any further information about recycled products priced within
the 10% limit to speak to Mrs . Alario .
Agenda Item #18-Water and Sewer Refund :
Supervisor Raffensperger told the Board that there is a water
and sewer refund due on a property at Muriel Street due to a change
in ownership and an incorrect billing for a previous quarter.
Supervisor Raffensperger moved motion to authorize the refund
for this property. Seconded by Councilman Niklas . No discussion
followed. Carried unanimously. See attached.
Agenda Item #19-Cornell University GEIS Consultants :
Supervisor Raffensperger commented that basically this is a
resolution authorizing the Supervisor to enter into an agreement with
Larsen Engineers who will do the review on the GEIS .
The Supervisor stated that she did not have for the agreement
tonight an amount to be inserted after, "an amount not to exceed" .
i
The Board disussed the SEQR Law and whether that law would be
applicable to the amount needed .
Councilman Niklas suggested that it may be possible for the Town
Attorney to amend the wording to say the , " amount agreed upon by the
Town Supervisor and the Town Attorney" .
Councilman Niklas felt that the Supervisor can come back to the
board if she feels uncomfortable with any amount that seems
excessive .
Attorney Barney stated that is possible, and under the
circumstances that may be the sway to go .
Councilman Niklas remarked that lie felt comfortable with this
arrangement.
Councilman Liguori asked Floyd Forman, Town of Ithaca Planner
why we did not have a number at this time .
Mr. Forman responded that they are are in the process of
negotiating the amount with Larsen Engineers .
The Supervisor feels that we can not get an amount until Cornell
presents draft GEIS . She stated that a consultant can not give us a
good estimate , unless he has seen the document he is going to be
dealing with .
Mr. Forman commented that Larsen Engineers will be billing the
Town on a monthly basis. Mr. Forman feels that we may receive a bill
before the GEIS is actually completed sometime in mid-April .
The Supervisor suggested that we say, " for an amount not to
exceed $10,000 for the initial phase of the review" .
Councilwoman Valentino asked if the Town of Ithaca was going to
pay for all the costs . Mr . Forman responded that the money comes
from Cornell and goes into an escrow account that the Town of Ithaca
pays to the consultant.
Supervisor Raffensperger explained that further in the
resolution it states that we will communicate with Cornell University
concerning the terms and costs.
Councilman Niklas made a motion to approve the resolution with
the amendments suggested by Supervisor Raffensperger. Seconded by
Councilman Liguori . No further discussion . Motion carried
unanimously. See attached .
Agenda Item #20-Town Clerk Petty Cash Fund :
The Town Clerk reported that at times there is a problem with
having enough cash when making change for customers . The cash on
hand is also shared with the accounting department . It is
appropriate for the Town Clerk to have established a Petty Cash Fund.
This will enable the accounting department to have available cash
without the Town Clerk ' s funds being depleted.
Councilman Niklas moved to authorize the development of a Petty
Cash Fund for the office of the Town Clerk in the amount of $100. 00 .
Seconded by Councilwoman Valentino . No further discussion . Motion
carried unanimously. See attached .
Agenda Item #21-Membership Metropolitan Planning Organization
The Supervisor asked Mr. Forman to explain this item. Mr.
Forman explained that since the Ithaca area has now gone beyond the
population of 50,000 people the local area can now designate itself
as an MPO .
The designation would involve four communities, the Town of
Ithaca, the Village of Cayuga Heights, the Village of Lansing, and
t11e City of Ithaca.
The MPO would allow these communities to do a variety of things
such asto plan locally. The Federal Government would be allocating
funds, nothing from the town budget. The MPO would be receiving
approximately $115,000 in the first year alone .
The staff at the MPO would be responsible to the Policy
Committee which would include the Chief Elected Official of each of
the communities mentioned; as well as the County Board of
Represeotatives, and the Regional Department of Transportation
Representative .
Each of the six people on the Policy Committee would have the
right to veto . The Town would not be forced to accept anything that
it didn ' t want.
Councilman Niklas moved that the Town of Ithaca become a member
of the Metropolitan Planning Organization , and that the Supervisor
will be the towns representative . Seconded by Councilwoman
Valentino .
Councilman Whitcomb expressed his concerns about the
proliferation of committees in the County. There really needs to be
cooridination from the County or another entity on some of these
issues.
Fir. Forman stated that he felt that the Organization would,
because it will force the Chief Elected Officials to get together and
make decisions on transportation planning. This organization will
not be under the auspices of the County.
Councilman Niklas moved the resolution that the Town of Ithaca
become a member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and that
the Town of Ithaca be represented by the Town Supervisor. Seconded
by Catherine Valentino . No further discussion . Motion carried
unanimously. See attached .
Agenda Item 423-Highway Plow Truck:
Superintendent McConnell told the Board that he mailed the
specifications to the Public Works Committee members . The Town Board
has copies of the specifications in their folders .
Councilwoman Valentino asked if there were sufficient funds in
the budget to pay for the truck. Supervisor Raffensperger assured
her that the funds were available in the budget.
Superintendent McConnell stated that the truck would cost around
$90,000 and that it would be payable in two installments .
A discussion ensued with the Superintendent explaining to the
Board the type of truck and its options .
Attorney Barney asked Mr. McConnell to explain the specification
packet and if the bidders would with the yes/no columns be complying
with the specifications .
Mr. McConnell felt the general paragraph would make it clear to
the bidders as to how the specification bid works .
Mr. Barney expressed his concert, the the specifications that
with the yes/no you give the implecation that it is not necessary to
meet all the specifications .
Mr- Barney advised the board to approve the specifications, and
that he would add a sentence which would clarify more completely the
general paragraph .
Motion made by Councilman Niklas to accept the Highway Plow
truck specifications and authorize the Town Clerk to advertise for
bids, with the adendum by the Town Attorney. Seconded by Councilman
Liguori . No further discussion . Carried unanimously.
Additional Addenda Items :
Supervisor Raffensperger asked the Board to approve her
attendance at a Supervisor ' s Forum in Albany on March 22 - March 24 ,
1992 at an estimated cost of $350 . 00 .
Motion made by Councilman Niklas approving the authorization of
the Town Supervisor to attend the annual Supervisor ' s Forum on March
22 - March 24 in Albany. Seconded by Councilwoman Valentino. No
discussion . Carried unanimously.
The Supervisor stated that she would like to appoint Peter Scala
a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Codes and Ordinances
Committee on the recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals . This
does not require a vote of the Board.
The Supervisor asked to review items to be picked up in the Town
of Ithaca, Landfill Clean Up Day.
The Supervisor and the Highway Superintendent have reviewed the
list provided by the County and they were astonished that they would
pick up what is considered to be demolition and construction
materials.
The Supervisor requested that the acceptable waste to be picked
up in the Town of Ithaca consist of carpets, furniture ,
non-recyclable appliances . Empty containers and drums not be picked
up as each would have to be opened to determine they were empty.
i
Corrogated cardboard flattened, mixed paper, not leaking car
batteries , white goods , tires , and plumbing and electrical fixtures
will be picked up.
'Phone recyclables that are picked up at the residence curb every
other week will not be picked up .
The Board approved the list, the Supervisor mentioned that this
list will be advertised so that the residents will be aware of the
date , time , and allowable items to be picked up.
Agenda Item #3-Town Committee Rencrt.s -
Councill�-roman Valentino reported on the Intermunicipal Youth
C4�mmission stating that she is very pleased with the work the group
has been doing on the questions they want to ask the City of Ithaca .
She felt that thence needs to be a great deal of discuzzion
concerning t he contract with the City of Ithaca before the next
budget process takes place .
Councilwoman Valentino was upset that even though the Town of
Ithaca ' s budget amount is more than what has been given to the City
of Ithaca before , the City is going to chaacge the youth that play
iwanis Baseball this year $ 10 . 00 .
Councilwoman Valentino stated that she understood that one of
the reasons the Town was contibuting a greater amount to the City was
to insure that these kinds of programs would continue with no charge
to the youth that needed them.
There will be a meeting next week and Councilwoman Valentino
asked the Board how they felt about the questions that were going to
be asked of the City of Ithaca .
The Board felt that all the questions mentioned on the list she
gave them should be asked .
Councilman Whitcomb stated all the questions needed to be
answered, and wondered hov, long should this Board wait to proceed
Without these answers .
COuncilwornan Valentino explained that we do not need to concern
ourselves until the budget process starts .
Supervisor Raffensperger stated that the City has their problems
with Budget, and that they charged for the Kiwa,nis Baseball to try
and make up some of their deficit , she felt it was not a great deal
to charge for the program,
Agenda Item #25-Town of Ithacs, Warrants :
i
Councilman Niklas moved the approval of the March warrants to be
paid . Seconded by Councilman Liguori . No discussion . Motion
carried unanimously . see attached .
Agenda Item #26-Bolton Point Budget Transfers :
Supervisor Raffensperger explained these transfers were being
made to offset unencumbered balances in the budget fox this fund as
described previouf5ly in the meeting for the other funds .
Motion made by Supervisor Raffensperger to approve the Bolton
Paint Budget Transfers . Seconded by Councilman Liguori . No
discussion . Carried unanimously .
Agenda Item #27-Bolton Point Warrants :
Hoti.on made by Councilman Niklas to approve payment of the
Salton ,Point Warrants , seconded by Councilman Liguori . Carried
unanimously.
Additional Agenda Items :
G
Superintendent McConnell asked the Board to approve the the
hiring of an additional, Highway Mechanic as per the discussion Of the
previous month.
Councilman Niklas moved the resolution approving the hiring of a
Mechanic for the Highway Department.. Seconded by Councilman
Liguori. .
Superintendent HcConnell told the Heard they had twenty two
applicants and interviewed five people . The gentleman he hired has
some very good training -
No further discussion , Motion carried unanimously . See
attached.
Agenda Item #28-Adlournment :
As there was no further business to come before the Board,
Councilman Liguori Moved to adjourn , Seconded by Councilman
Whitoomb . Carried unanimously . Meeting was adjourned at 10 : 17 p . m ,
Respectfully submitted ,
Joan Lent Hamilton
Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca
TOWN OF ITHA CA
�� �E- rt�� EA�7 ENEMA TREE7, lTHAA, �l. . 148�Q
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-14356 PARKS 273-6035 ENOINEEAING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Meeting 3!9/92
Agenda Item No. 1
Tompkins county Reapportionment —
Resolution No. (12
[,7H REAS, the Town Board of the `I'nwn of TLhace has heard a report Ero1n
the Tompkins County Reapportinument Committee having to do win the County
reapportionment alternotives, now therefore he it
RESOLVED, that the Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to draft
a setter to the Tompkins County Reapportionment Committee stating the 'Town
Board wishes to go on record as opposing the R-29 alternative, particularly
that part which takes a portion of the Town of Ithaca on the southern border
and combines it into District 9 , and be it further
RESOLVED, the Town Board expresses a desire to have the minimum number
assigned to the Town of Croton reexamined, and he it furthei,-
RESOLVED,, that the 'town Board will be flexible as Co their input
concerning; the boundaries for District 10 to the North.
MOVED: Councilman John t4hircomb
-SEAL-
SECONDED:Councilwoman Catherine Valentino
UATED:March 9 , 1992 Carried Unanimously.
Q""' 1-4
,Yuan Lent Hamilton, Town! Clerk
OF I" TOWN ITHA A
126 EAST SEN E A STREET, ITHA A, N.Y. 14850
to 1 0,
TOWN CLERK 273-172$ HIGHWAY 273-4656 PARKS 273-8035 E"GINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 27 1747 ZONING 273--T747
Town Hoard Meeting 3/9/92
Agenda Item No. 5
Nomination To Economic Opport"nity Corporation Board of Directors
Resolutinu No. 63
WHEREAS, Patricia A. Driscoll has expressed RP interest in nQrving
on the Economic Opportunity Corporation Board of Directors as the
representative for the Town of Ithaca, and
WaWAS, the Town Board has reviewed the letter of requast and resume
0L• MS. Driscoll, new therefore be it
RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of 10baca hereby nominates
Patricia A, Driscoll an the representative from the Town W T.thaca to serve
on the Fconomic Opportunity Corporation Board of Directors, for a term
expiring Ma ch 31 , 1993 , and be it Eu r. ther
RESOLVED, a rernified copy of this resolution along with Ms. Dr.:i-scoll' s
resume be sent to the Tompkins County Board of Represcntative8 , and the
Economic Opportunity Corporation Board of Directors, and be it further
RESOLVED, a certified copy of this resolution be geno to Patricia
A. Driscoll.
MOVED: Supervisor, Shirley Raffensperger
S13COND]ED. Councilman Frank Liguori Carried Unanimously,
DATED: March 9 , 1992
k
Joan 'Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk
OF 7?'
TOWN OF IT AC
z� 126 EAT SENECA STREET, ITHACA, fV_Y_ 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1655 PARKS 273A035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town RaW Meeting 3/9/92
Agenda Item No. 6
Rt . 13A Speed Limit
Glenside Neighborhood Association
Resolution No. 64
WHEREAS, the Clenside Neighhor,hood Association has requested Q writing
that the Town Board petition the appropriate agency For a reduction in the
speed 11mit on live Mile Dr.JRt. 13A in the Town of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the Olenside Neighborhood Association feels that it would be
advisable to have a reduction in the. 55 mph speed limit WoTe reaching
the current 30 mph zone as motorists are not traveling at the posted 30 mph
speed upon reaching a blind curve and the residential area, and
WWREAS, the 'log.*n Board deems the request of the Cl.enside Neighborhood
Association to be one that is prudent to insure the safety and wellbeing;
of the rhsidents of the Torn of Ithaca, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Supervisor, is hereby authorized and directed to
proceed with the application for a reduction & speed at said location, and
be it further
RESOLVED, that the Supervisor shall submit all necessary documentation
to support said request, and be it further
RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resulut;i,on be sent to the
Ol,enside. Neighborhood Association.
MOVED: Councilman Karl, Niklas
SECONDED: Councilman John Whitcomb carried Unanimously.
DATED: March 9 , 1992
-SEAL
Joan Lent flanLilt0l], '/.'own Clark
TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARIS 273-8035 ENGr!%! BRING 273-1736 PLANNING 273-1735 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board meeting 3/ 9192
Agenda Item No . 7
Participation Cornell Summer Job Program
resolution too . 65
WHEREAS , there is a need for additAon,-:k1 skilled employees
during the summer months in the Accounting, Engineering , and
Planning Departments , and
WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca has -an opportunity to particjpa,te
in the Cornell Summer Job Network ( formerly Cornell Tradition ) ,
whereby Cornell students can work for the Town in jobs relevant to
their course of study, and the "Town would 13e reimbursed for 50% of
their salarj.es , now therefore he it
RESOLVED , that approval is hereby given for the Town of Ithaca
to employ four ( 4 ) students through the Cornell SuiTlrner Job Network
in the f of lowiing areas :
Planning Aide - Planniny Depa'rtment, : Salary - 7 . 00 /h `. to be
charged to account 88020 . 10 - Planning Personal Services , ( Funds
were included in the 1.992 budget for this purpose , ) 1 position .
Engineering Aide - Engineering Department : Salary - S7 . 00 /hr .
2 positions - to be charged to account A1440 . 100 - Engineering
Personal Services ; (Funds were included in the 1952 budget for this
purpose . ) $7 . 041h1r . - 1 position - to be charged to accounts
H8120 . 2 and H8340 . 2 - Capital Projects - I-latex & Sewer ,
Financial Systems Aides - Budget/Accounting Departments -
Salary - 7 . 00jhr, t4 be charged to account A1344 . 1 - Budget
Personal services ; Funds to be transferred from Shared Services -
Computer Support..
Period of --Employment - May 18 , 7.992 to August 21 , 1992 .
' MOVED : Councilman Karl Niklas
Carried Unanimously .
SECONDED : Councilman John w1iXtcom13
` -SEAL-
DATED : Aarch 9 , 1992
Lan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk
OF 12
TOWN F ITH C
M 126 EAST SENE A STREET, fTHA A, N.Y. 14850
TOWN GI.ERK 2731721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARK$273A035 EN IN E-E R M,273-1717 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 2731747
Town Board HfI-atilxg 3/9192
Agenda Item No , 8
Conservation Advisory Council
Summer Internship
Resolution No . 66
WHEREAS , the, Town of Ithaca CoRSe ,,vation Advisory Council has
expressed a need for additional support staff to assist, with
various ongoing projects Xelated to protection of the natural
environment, and
WHEREAS , the Torn of Ithaca has in the past sponsored various
internships in ( 00pi*rELt> 017 with universities and colleges to the
benefit' of both, and
WHEREAS , it is desirable to Continue to PI`O Otc Cooperative
ventures between the Town of Ithaca and vazioues educational
institutions , and
WHEREAS , it is, an expressed goal of the Town of Ithaca to
promote and protect the natural. environment to the greatest extent
practicable , now thi .refore be it
RESOLVED, that the Tovdn Board will create and help fund a
summer irlternship for the Town of Ithaca ' s Advisory Council for a
college student in order to assist, with ongoilig project$ , and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the Torn of Ithaca ' s portion of funding costs
for said internship shall, not exceed fifty ( 50% ) percent or
1750 .00 .
14C}Vi;D : Councilman John Whitcomb
Carried Unanimously .
SECGJNDED : Councilwoman Catherjrne Valentino
--SEAL-
DATE : 11arCh 9 , 192
dl
Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk
y OF 1p
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENE A STREET, ITHA A, N,Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-$721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PAFiKS 273-1{135 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Meeting 3/9/92
Agenda Items 9 & 10
Forest Home Bridge
Resolution No. 67
WHEREAS, the residents of Forest Home have made a presentation to the
Town Board requesting thou the lower bridge in forest home remain n one lane
bridge and that said bridge not he demolished and replaced but be refurbished ,
and
WHEREAS, James Kazda, Senior Civil Engineer from the Tompki= County
M U Works has made an engineering and technical report as co the refurbishing
or replacement nf: said bridge, flow thQT&ore be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board is in support of the lower bridge in Forest
Home remaining a one lane bridge, and be it further
RESOLVED;- than the Town hoard hereby requests additional information be
provided to them from Tompkins County so that a decision can he male its to the
financial, and technical feasihil,iny of reconstruction or replacement of the
present bridge, and be it further,
RE OLMD, that the Town Board recognizes chat the solution to the rraffic
problem in Forest Home does not depend on chc width & this bridge, and that
the tOwa' s intoollion is to continue to investigate a long term solution
to this traffic problem through alternatives such as a by-pass for tr.alffi-o
through forest Flome.
MOVED: Supervisor Shirley baFfensperge,T
SECONDED: Karl Nikl,a Carried Unanimously.
DATED: G arch 9, 1992 -SEAL-
+v t
ZQan Lent Hamilton, Toun Cleric
TOWN OF ITHACA
�, _�i��� 126 EAST �E:NE � TREE=T, iTHAA, N. , 14850
TOWN!CLERK 273--1721 HICGHWAY 273-S656 PARKS 273035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Meeting 3/9192
Agendz Item No. 13
Adoption Local Law #11, 1992
Resolution i0v. 68
WHEREAS, the properly adverti zed Public -Hearing has hQcn held Lo
consider the a6eption of Local. Law III f.or, the year 1992 , and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed said Local_ Low and approved said
Local Law, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, the Town Board & the Town of Ithaca does hereby adapt Local.
Law V11 of the year 1992, A LOCAL LAW TO 02ND LOCAL LAW NO. 2 , 1976 , BY
ADOPTING A NEW WATER i{ATA SCHEDULE FOR WATER RATES, CHARCES, AND OTHER FEES
CHAVEAL'LE TO CONSUFFRS Of WATER IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA.
MDVEA: C;ounQillman Karl Niklas ROLE, CALL VOTE
SECONDED:Councilman Frank. Liguori Supervisor, Shirley A. Raffensperger- Yes
Councilman John. Whitcomb- Yes
DATED: Marcb 9, 1992 Councilman David Klein-Yes
Councilman Frank Liguori-Yes
Councilwoman Patricia Leary-Yes
Councilwoman Catherine Valent:inn--Ye5
Council.olau Karl Nitta.+-Yes
-SEAL-
Joan Lent damilton, Town Clerk
TOWN OF ITHAC
ai {6 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CI,ERK 273-1721 HIGH VIAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-6035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board 'Meeting 3/9/92
Agenda Item No. 13
Anendment to the :youth M Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Agreement
Revolution No. 69
WFEREAS, the properly advertised Public Hearing has been held to amend
LK Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunici,pal. Water. Commission agreement, and
UREREAS, the Town Beard has reviewers and agreed upon said amendments, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Town board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby adopt
the amendments to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal- Water Commission
Alreemant as per the attached .
MOVED: Councilman Drank Liguori loll Cali, Vote
SECONDED: C;ountflman Karl Nikl.as Supervisor - Shirley Raffensperger,-Yes
Councilman John Whitcomb-Yes
DATED: March 9, 1992 Councilman David Klein-Yep
Councilman Frank Liguori-Yes
Councilwoman Patricia Leary-Yes
Councilwoman Catherine Valentino-Yes
Councilman Karl. Niklas-Yes
Joan Lem Hamilton, Town Clerk -SEAL-
4
TWIT OF ITHAA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHA A, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-161i� PA.RYS 273-8Q�5 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Heeting 3!9/ 92
Agenda Item No . 14
Agreement Coddington Road Community Center
Resolmt.ion No . 69B
WHEREAS , the Coddington Road Community Center, Inc . ( CRCC ) and
the Town of Ithaca with to enter into an agreement whereby the Town
will compensate the CRCC for the use of its fanilities and services
at the CRCC PtOperty located at 920 Coddington Road , Ithaca , New
York; now therefore he it
RESOLVED, the EUpervisor is hereby authorized and directed to
enter into an agreement with the Coddington Road CommQnity Center
for the purchase of services ; and be it further
RESOLVED , for the serViCes other than the summer camp program
the Town agrees to gay to the CRCC for 1992 the sum of $3750 . 00
plus bill? already paid , the remaining $3750 . 00 to be paid in threp-
quarterly installments of 51250 , 00 each commencing upon execution
of this agreement and OntinuinJ on July 1 , 1992 and the last
installment for 1.992 to be clue on October 1 , 7,992 ; and be it
further
RESOLVED , unless the Towp of Ithaca and the CRCC othef wise
agree the fee for 1993 and years thernaftei� shEL11 ]�e S5000 . 00
payable $1250 . 00 quarterly commencing January 1 , 1993 with payments
to continue quarterly at the beginning of each quarter ,
MOVED : Councilman Karl, Niklas
Carried Unanimously
SECONDED : Councilman Catherine Valentine
DATED ; March 9 , 1992
i
Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk
i
o�rr
° TOWN OF IT AC
z� ^k 126 EAST SENE A STREET, ITHA A, N.Y, 14850
TOWN CLERX 27Z�-1721 XH',HWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-45035 EOMNEERING 273-1735 PLANMNC 273-1738 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Heeting 319192
Agenda Item No . 15
Benefit Assessment Refund
Resolution No . _
WHEREAS , Daniel and Lynn Walks , 1410 Slaterville Road , were
charged 2 . 70 units of water and 2 . 10 units of sewer on their 1992
tax bill , and
4
WHEREAS , the attic area of, their house was used as an attic
apartment by the previous owners , and
WHEREAS , Hr . and Ms . Wilk, have since converted the attic
apartment into a family room, and
WHEREAS , Paul Hansen , Assistant Building Inspector/Zoning
Officer has conducted an inspection of the residence and has
verified the use of the attic as a family room , and
WHEREAS , it has been determined by pan Walker, Talon of Ithaca
Engineer that the property should be assessed 2 . 25 units of water
and 2 . 25 units of newer based on the benefit assessment formula, ,
for a single family residence on a developed lot , now therefore be
it
MOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does
hereby authorize a refund of . 45 units of water in the amomnt of
$36 . 00 , and . 45 units of sewer in the amount of $27 . 90 , for a total
refund of $63 . 90 , to be made to Mr. and Ctrs . Daniel Walks as the
1992 Town and County taxes have been made in full .
MOVES . Councilman Karl A . Niklas
t Carried Unanimously
SECONDED; Councilwaman Catherine Valentino
DATED : Hatch 9 , 1992 -SEAL-
r
Joan Tent Hamilton , Town Clerk
OF I ZF`Y
TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN CLARK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 27Z-1658 PARS 273-4035 :NCrNUE-RING 273-1736 PLANNNG 273-1736 ZONING 27�--1747
Town Board fleeting 3/9!92
Agenda Item 00 . 15
Benefit Assessment Refund
ReS.olution No . 71
WHEREAS , the West Hill Cemetary Association , Trumansburg Road ,
Parcel too . 24- 1-25 . 23 was charged seven ( 7 ) units of water benefit
on its 1992 Town and County taxes , and
WHEREAS , the parcel has been dedicated for use as the Frear
Cemetary with restrictions on the deed limiting the use to cometar, y
Purposes , which limits the benefits of water to the parcel , and
WHEREAS , the Cemetary Association has no plans or intentions
to modify the restrictions to the Parcel to allow development other
than for Cemetary use , and
WHEREAS , the Cemetary Association has paid its 1992 Mixes in
full , now therefore be it ,
RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby
authorizes a .reduction of the benefit assessment for water f.rorn
seven ( 7 ) units to one ( 1 ) unit for the Parcel No . 24-1-25 , 23 , and
be it further
RESOLVED , that the Town Hoard of the Town of Ithaca hereby
authorizes a refund of S480 . 00 for the water benefit assessment,
total refund of $480 . 00 to be paid to the West Hill Cemetary
Association , Trumansburg road., Ithaca, New York.
MOVED : Counpilman Karl Niklas
Carried UnanirnausJ.y,
8Eg0NDED : Councilman Frank Liguori
-SEA.L-
DATED. March 9 , 1992
I'a-
Jo n Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk
I
OF 17-
TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN CLERK 273--1721 ]- CHWAY 2-73-T656 PARKS 273-800 LNGIN ING 273-5736 PLAxNINC 2731736 ZONING M-5747
Town Board Heeting 319! 92
Agenda Item too . 15
Benefit Assessment Rej'.urLd
Resolution No . 72
WHEREAS , the Inlet Valley Cemetary Association , Elmira Road,
Parcel No . 35- 1°20 was charged one ( 1 ) unit of water benefit and
one ( 1 ) unit of sewer benefit on its 1992 Town and Cournty taxes ,
and
IlEtREAS , the parcel known as the Fischer Cemetary has
historical significance with no remaining plots available , and
basically no revenues , and
WHEREAS, the Cemetary Association has no need or plans to
connect to either water or sewer , and
WHEREAS , the Cemetary Association has paid its 1992 taxes in
full , now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby
authorizes a refund of 580 . 00 for kiater and $62 . 00 for sever, total
refund of $142 . 00 to be paid to the Inlet Valley Cemetary
Associatiot'i, Elmira Road , Ithaca , New York .
MOVED : Councilman John Whitcomb
Carried Unanimously.
SECONOE4 ; Councilman 'Karl Niklas
-SEAL-
DATED- March 9 ;_ 1992
.Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk
F
OF I?
TOWN OF IT A A
TOWN CLERIC 273--1721 HIC,HWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-9035 ENGINEeRING 273--1734 PL.NNINC 273--1738 ZONIMd 27Z—t747
Town Hoard Meeting 319 /92
Agenda Item No . 16
1991 Year End Dudget Fran�.fers
Resolution No . 73
WHEREAS , there are insufficient amounts of appropriations an
some of tale lane items cf the General Townwi.de Fund , General,
Parttown Fund, Highway Fund , Water Fgnd , Sewer Fund, and Special
Lighting Districts Funds 1991 Budgets to meet the needs of these
fends, for the year - 1991 , and
WHEROAS , in conformity with Town Lane and good bookkeeping
pi`actices accounts should not be over appropriated, now therefore
be it
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca , Financial Officer is hereby
akithoriz.ed and directed to 'make the attached budget transfers from
unencumbered balances to offset any shortages in said budgets for
the year 1991 , and be it further %
RESOLVED , that the Sookkeeper of said funds be sent a
certified copy of this resolution so that said budget tzansfers can
be recorded .
MOVED : Councilman Karl Niklas
Carried Unanimously .
SECONDED : Councilwoman Catherine Valentino
-SEAL-
DATED . Ma27ch 9 , 1992
Le
"-
Joan Lent Hamilton , ' Town Clerk
1992 YEAREND 5UI)GET TRANSFERS
GENERAL TOtVN VIDE FUND
FROM: TO:
A1010,2 TOWN BOARD-EQUIP. 5190. 17 A1010.4 TOWN 5D.--COPTRACTUAL
A1220.2 SUPERVISOR-EQUIP. $500.00 A1220. 4 SUPERVISOR-CONTR. $500.V
A1330.4 TAX COLLECTION-CQNTR. $1,833.49 A1330. 1 TAX COLLECTION-PERS.SERV. $1,$33.41
A1340.4 8UDGET-00VTR. $83.02 A1340. 1 BUDGET-PERS.SERV, $80.01,
A1410.2 TOW CLERK-EQUIP. $1,000.00 A1410. 1 TOWN CLERK-PERS.SERV. $1,000.0
A1410.4-- . ._ 'TOY CLERK-CONTR. $1, 116.75 A1410. 1 TOUN CLERK-PER S.SERV. $1,116.7E
A1430.2 PERSONNEL-EQUIP. $99.75 A1430.4 PERSONNEL-CQNTR. $59.7`
AIJ50.402 ELEC'FTON.9-CON'TR. $790.00 A1450. 1 ELECTIONS-PERS.SERV. 5790,0�
SO.2 CROSSING GUARDS-EQUIP. $100.00 A3120. 1 CROSSING GUARDS-PERS.SERV $100.0c
$5,710. 18 $5,710.1
A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR, $327, 77 A1220.4 SUPERVISOR - CONTR. $327.71
A1910.4 INSURANCE GEW L-CQNTR. $460.00 A1320.4 IND.AUDITORS-CQNTR. $460.0Q
A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $562. 21 A1410. 1 "TOWN CLERK-PERS.SERV. $562. 21
A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $10,371. 74 A1420.4 TOW ATTORNEY-CQNTR. $10,371.74
A1910.4 INSURANCE GE� 'L-CQNTR. $108.00 A1920.4 RUNICZPAL DUES-CONTR. S108.0cc
A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $1,095. 56 A3127. 1 CROSSING GUARDS-PERS.SERV $1,095. 55
,-1°' 4 INSURANCE GEW L-CQNTR, $237.85 A3510.4 DOG CONTROL-CQNTR. $237.8
A19� .4 INSURANCE GENT'L-CQNTR, $3,251.57 A5010. 1 SUPT,H4•TY.-PERS.SERV. $3,251.5-3
A1910. 4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $1,804. 17 A5010. 4 SUPT.HWY. -CQNTR. $1,804. 17
A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $492. 89 A5132. 2 HWY.GARAGE-EQUIP S492.85
A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $2,351. 11 A5182.4 STREET LIGHTING-CQNTR. $2,352.11
A1910.4 INSURANCE GEN'L-CQNTR. $428. 20 A7320, 401 CITY YOUTH BUR.-CONTR. $428. 20
$21,491.07 $21,491.0
A9010.8 STATE RETIREMENT $1,412. 86 A9030.8 SOCIAL SECURITY 5] ,412.86
A9010,8 STAVE RETIREMZNT $375. 24 A9055.8 DISABILITY INS. $375.24
A9 @10.8 STATE RETIREMENT $1,053.63 A9060. 8 GROUP HEALTH INS. $1,053.63
$2,841. 73 $2,841. 73
GENERAL PARTTOWN FUND
FROM. TO:
3 4 CONTINGENCY-CQNTR. 57,000.00 31420.4 A'TT'ORNEY-CON'1`Ft. $7,0 @0.00
B .4 BUS OPERATIONS-CONTR. $3,486.83 B1420.4 ATTORNEY-CONTR. $3,486,83
880x0.401 ZONING-BD.74E3BER FEES $3,648.79 H8010. 1 ZONING-PERS.SERV. $3,648, 79
B8020, 2 PLANNING-EQUIP. $424,03 B8020. 1 PLANNING-PERS.SER'V. $424.03
57140.403 SOUTH HILL TRAIL $4,241.09 B1420.4 ATTORNEY-CQNTR. $4,241.09
37140.403 SOUTH HILL TRAIL $2,528.38 59050.8 UNEMPLOYMENT INS. $2,628. 38
$21,429. 12 $21,429.12
B9010.8 STATE RETInMENT $159. 50 51670. 408 POSTAGE ' $159. 50
890161.8 STATE RETIREMENT $803.96 83310, 4 TRAFFIC SAr'ETY-CQNTR. $803.96
390 8 STATE RETIREMENT $3,224.51 B9030.8 SOCIAl SECURITY 53,224. 51
B901+0, 8 STATE RETIREMENT SG,923. 58 B9060.8 GROUP HEALTH INS. $6,923. 58
B9010.5 STATE RETIREt)ENT $177.61 39 055.8 DISA$ILIT'Y INS. $177.61
$11,289. 16 $11,289, 16
a or wAA*we*M*Wwf4w rs lrw*yrw*wY1*A*arw*w xw ***r*w+YA kA*A*yrYr wrw f4wlr*lr**wY1 wYl fk#*a+Rwww k*yrW RAY YkWw**wxw* ,Www w,k lr,kxwYrwxX
GKWAY FUND
OM: TO
51 75 GEN'L.REPAIRS-DISASTER RP $19,079.62 DB511O.1 GER'L.RE PAIRS-PERS.SERV, $19,079.62
51 60 MACHINERY-VtH.NAINT. $6,649.29 DB5130. 1 MACHINERY-PERS.SERV,
$6,649-29
5142. 1 SNOW REMOVAL-PERS,SERV. $14,981. 51 x]85142.452 SNOW RE140VAL-SALT $14,981. 51
$40,710.42 $40,710.42
9010.8 STATE RETIREMENT $179.00 DB9O4O.8 WORKER'S COMPENSATION $179.00
9010.8 STATE FLETIRERENT $447.00 DB9055.5 DISABILITY INS 5447,00
9010.8 STAVE RETIRE14ENT $990.43 D$9060.8 GROUP HEALTH INS. S990,43
,x`1,616. 43 $1,616. 43
* �*yr Y4%'wwJrK fk.44yyrt*A *r Yr yrWwV**A 'r w,r vrw3k***ay**
TER FUND
014; TO
060.8 GROUT' HEALTH INS. $23. 25 x'9055.8 DISAHIL= INS, $23.25
,060.8 GROUP HEALTH INS. $644.71 r9O:3O. 8 SOCIAL SECURI'Z`Y 5640 -1
$567.96 $66. o
**#*i,yrwvr*wyrw*�**+.xwxwwve*ve**ir*7r�xwvee****,rrsxwvrw*k*+ **«*wrrwwwve*** ,yrresrwrw**a.*w,rwwxvex*�*,k*w,rvx�*****ww�
NER FUND
)M: TO:
120AWO BAFd. 5E$MR5-RP1S/14AINT. $2,050. 93 G812O. 1 SAN. SEWERS-PER$.SERV. $2,050. 93
12QMO SAN. SEWERS-RPRS l -#T. $302. 50 G1420.4 ATTORNEY Sf:RVS.-CONTR. $302. 50
12 IVO SAN. SEKSRS-RPjRSIMAINT, $692.00 G812O.2 SAN.SE4'E RS-EQU1P. $692.00
$3,045.43 $3,045.43
60.8 GROUP HEALTH INS. $289.25 G903O.8 SOCIAL SECURITY $289.25
60.8 GROUP HEALTH INN. ;24. 25 G9055.8 DISABILITY $24.25
$313.50 $313. 50
xwwpkVe*****yYrYwY4kYlwwl ee *7wYWxwvwwwk****fsvrwww *l ** *xrwxwiSVeA*y *wx*lwAe****fsxxw*w,xkY * k1e44*YaYtrYwlee**�
ECIAL LIGHTING DISTRICTS FUIgD
]GET AMEVOIENT:
vREASE: INCREASE:
3-599 FUND BALANCE $45.11 SL3-5182.4 REM=K HEIGHTS-CONTR.- 545. 11
i
Agenda Item #16 R s.Continued
Town. Board Mtn,. 3 9(92
WATER FUND
FPO": TO:
F9340.485 TRANS&DISTR-TANK SEC,IMPR $302. 50 F1420.4 ATTORNEY SERVICES S102, 5(
F8340.485 TRANS&DTSTR-TANK SEC.IMPR $8,173. 11 F8340. 101 TRANZ&DISTIR-PERS.SEEN. $8,173. 1'
F8340.485 TP MS&DYSTR-TANK SEC.IHPR $692.00 F8340.200 TRANS&D1_STR-EQUIPMENT $692.0
$9,167.61 $9, 167.6:
J
OF Ip
F-d TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-6035 ENGIREERINC ?73-1735 PLMNING 27:�°1736 ZONING 273-1747
Town Hoard HP-eting 3 !9192
Agenda Item No , 1a
VlaCer and Sewer Refund
Resolution Po . 74
WHEREAS , it has been determined that a refund is due on the
water and Sewer billing of the Property located at 3 HUriel Street,
ACCount No . T 1524 , as there has been a change in ownq�rshi.p and an
incorrect billing for the previous two quarters due to owner mis-
reading, and
WHEREAS , the amount of zefund should he $6 . 02 for water, $ . 83
for water surcharge , $32 . 32 for sewer, and . 42 for sewer surcharge
for a total xefund of $39 . 59 , now therefore be it
RESOLVED , that the 'town Board of the Toren of Ithaca does
heraby authorize a refund in the amount of $39 . 59 be made to Mr .
Salah Samed, 145 Si.mpang 'turnpike , Reading , Connecticut for said
overpayment. ,
MOVED : Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger
SECONDED .. Coun(-ilman Karl Niklas Carried Unanimously,
DA ED : March 9 , 1992 -SEAT,-
r
Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk
�- ip. TOWN OF ITHAC
126 FAST SENECA STREEC, ITHACA, N.Y. 14550
TCAM CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1856 PARXS 273-B0,)5 ENGINEERING 273-1736 PLANNJNrG 273-1736 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Meeting 3!9192
Agenda lCEm No . 18
Water and Sewer Refund
Resolution No . 75
WHEREAS , it has been determined that a refund is due on the
water and sewer billing of the property located at 2 Muriel Street,
Account 19o . T 1524 , as there has been a change in ownership and an
incorrect billing for the previous two quarters due to owner mis-
rea,di.ng , and
WHEREAS , the amount of refund should be $6 . 02 for wager, $ . 83
for Crater surcharge , $32 . 32 for sewer, , and $ . 42 for sewer surcharge
for a total refund of $39 . 59 , now tkterefore be it
RESOLVED, that the To%%Tn Board of the Town of Ithaca does
hereby authorize a refund in the amount of $39 , 59 he made to Mr.
Salah Samed , 145 Simpang Turnpike , Reading , Connecticut for said
overpayment.
MOVED : Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger
SECONDED : Councilman Karl Miklas Carried Unanimously.
DATED : March 9 , 1992 -SEAL-
I � r
Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk
Ns war A
ASOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION
1.NEW�O
TOWNS OF DRYDEN • ITHACA • LANSING — VILLAGES OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS • LANSING
P.O. BOX 178 r_ ;
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14851
2/5/92
Betty Poole
126 E . Seneca St.
Ithaca NY 14850
Re : Refund due on water account
Acct . #T 1524
3 Muriel St.
Dear Betty:
A refund is due on this account because a change of ownership
was done and the previous two quarters were billed incorrectly
because of the owner mis-reading the meter.
The amount of refund should be : $6 . 02 for Water. $ . 83 for
Plater Surcharge . $32 . 32 for Sewer and $ . 42 for Spwer Surcharge . The
total refu;id is x39 . 59 .
Please send refund tot Salah Samed
1.45 Simpang Turnpike
Reading CT 06896
Sincerer.
Judy Bower
Billing Clerk
"vmmiSsion Offices
Plant Operations ( GEORGE J.CONNEMAN,Chairman JEFFREY CLEVELAND
1402 East Shore Drive COMMISSIONERS J LAWRENCE LEVER,Vice Chairman JEANNINE KIRBY
Ithaca, New York 14850 SHIRLEY RAFFENSPERGER,Treasurer THOMAS O'ROURKE
(607)277.0860 FAX(607) 277-3056 NOEL DESCH.Admin. Commissioner JAMES SCHUG
SHAILER PHILBRICK, Consultant GORDON WHEELER
STEPHEN LIPINSKI
fly OF 1 T�
TOWN OF ITHACA
,y�y 21 044- 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Meeting 3/9/92
Agenda Item No . 19
Cornell University GEIS Consultants
Resolution No . 76
WHEREAS , Cornell. University has submitted a proposal to the
Town Board to rezone a portion of the Town of Ithaca encompassing
an area commonly known as "the Orchards" from an R-30 District to
a Special Land Use District; and
WHEREAS , pursuant to the Planning Board ' s request, and with
the agreement of Cornell University, a Generic Environmental Impact
Statement ( "GEIS" ) is being prepared which will evaluate potential
significant environmental impacts , mitigation measures, and
possible alternatives associated with the proposed rezoning ; and
WHEREAS , the Town requested that proposals be submitted for
the review and analysis of the GEIS ; and
WHEREAS, after review of a number of proposals , Larsen
Engineers of` Rochester, New York, which has a diverse professional
staff and over 35 years of planning , engineering, and environmental
review experience , was determined to be the most qualified
candidate by the selection committee ; now therefore be it
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby selects
Larsen Engineers as the consultant to assist the Town Planning
Board and staff in reviewing the Cornell University GEIS; and be it
further
RESOLVED , that the Supervisor be authorized to execute an
agreement with Larsen Engineers for the provision of such services,
such agreement to be for an amount not to exceed $10 , 000 for the
initial phase of the review, without further approval of this
Board ; but otherwise to be upon such terms and conditions as may be
approved by the Supervisor with the assistance and advice of the
Town Planner, Town Engineer, and attorneys for the town ; and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the Supervisor be authorized and directed to
recover the costs of such services from Cornell University in the
amounts and to the extent permitted by applicable laws and
regulations ; and bP it further
RESOLVED, that if the Supervisor, deems it advisable to do so,
that there be communicated to Cornell University the proposed Lerms
and costs of the agreement with Larsen Engineers .
MOVED: Councilman Karl Niklas SECONDED : Frank Liguori
DATED:JMarch 9 . 1992 Carried Unanimously.
Joan Lent 1-facnilLon, Town Clerk
r by 0F1
TOWN OF ITHACA
,�,� 2104 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1736 PLANNING 273-1736 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board 1.9eet'ing 3/9/92
Agenda item No . 20
Town Clerk Petty Cash Fund
Resolution No . 77
WHEREAS , it has been determined that there is a need to
establish a petty cash fund for the making of change when
conducting cash transactions for the Town Clerk ' s Office , and
WHEREAS, the development of said fund is in conformity with
Town Law, now therefore
BE IT -RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize and
direct the Financial Officer to establish a Town Clerk ' s Petty Cash
Fund in the --amount of $100 . 00 .
MOVED: Councilman Karl Niklas
Carried Unanimously.
SECONDED : Councilwoman Catherine Valentino
-SEAL-
DATED: Harch 9 , 1992
CL"ill Jk-14" I t �.
Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk
OF 1 T�
TOWN OF ITHACA
�' 4� 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town Hoard Meeting 3/9/92
Agenda Item No . 21
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Membership
Resolution No . 78
WHEREAS, a portion of Tompkins County including most of the
Town of Ithaca has now become a federally designated urban area as
a result of the 1990 Census , and
WHEREAS , federal transportation law mandates that such
designated urbanized areas must create a Metropolitan Planning
Organization to coordinate and approve federal , state , and local
transportation planning projects and programs which receive federal
funding, and
WHEREAS , voting members of the proposed Hetropolitan Planning
Organization would include the Town of Ithaca Supervisor and
principal elected officials of the City of Ithaca , Village of
Cayuga Heights, Village of Lansing , and Tompkins County, as well as
the Regional Director of the New York State Department of
Transportation, and
I
WHEREAS, it is desirable to coordinate regional transportation
planning efforts with local concerns and plans, now therefore be it
i
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca will become a member of the
proposed Metropolitan Planning Organization and will be represented
by the Town of Ithaca Supervisor.
MOVED: Councilman Karl Niklas Carried Unanimously ,
SECONDED : Councilwoman Catherine Valentino
DATED: March 9, 1992 -SEAL-
Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk
OF 1 T,y
_ TOWN OF ITHACA
Ak 21 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-*1747
Town Board Meeting 3/9/92
Agenda Item No. 22
Acceptance of a Portion
Of Whitetail Drive and All Of Marcy Court
Resolution No. 79
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows:
That the Town accept all of Marcy Court (approximately 860 linear feet) ,
and all of Whitetail Drive from the portion previously conveyed to the Toum
in December., 1988 (Book 642, Deeds 101,3) westerly, southerly, and southeasterly
to the intersection of Whitetail. Drive with Saranac Slay (approximately 1,400 linear
feet) , all. as shown on a plat entitled "Subdivision plat for Doer Run Subdivision
Phase III-B and Marcy Court Subdivision" prepared by George Schlecht, P.E.L.S. ,
revised 1-28-1992, and filed in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office in Map
drawer Q, Sheet 107, on January 31„ 1992, subject to the following conditions:
(a) 'Completion of the road in accordance with an agreement between the
Town of Ithaca and the Developer. ;
(b) Posting with the Town the sum of $125,000.00 in cash, bond, letter
of credit or other similar security satisfactory to the Town Supervisor
and Town Engineer in a form approved by the attorneys for the Town;
(c) Approval of the construction of such roads by the Town Highway
Superintendent and the Town Engineer;
(d) Approval of the title to such roads, and the documentation provided
in connection with such road dedication by the attorneys for the Town;
(e) Execution of all agreements and documents required by the Town
Supervisor, the Town Engineer. , the 'Town Highway Superintendent, or
the attorneys for the Town by the Developer to assure completion of
the road, adequate security to the Towi1 for such completion, payment
of taxes on the roads by the Developer until the status of the road
is changed, and such other matters as may be reasonably required by
any of the foregoing Town officials..
MOVED: Supervisor Shirley A. RaFfensperger.
SECONDED: Councilman Karl, J. Carried Unanimously
DATED: Afar.ch 9, 1.992
e.v / tL-
Joan Lent Hamilton, 'Town Cleric
OF I T�
TOWN OF ITHACA
� � 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
. ��'J� •�pot
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 2734035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Fleeting 3/ 9/92
Agenda Item No . 23
Approval of Specifications and Authorization
To Purchase Highway Plow Truck
Resolution No . 80
WHEREAS , a snow plow truck is scheduled to be replaced this
year, and
WHEREAS , the maintenance cost on the truck to be replaced is
high and the reliability is low , and
WHEREAS, the moneys have been budgeted in the 1992 Highway
Fund Budget, the type of truck and equipment has been researched by
the Highway Superintendent. , and the specifications have been
written, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the specifications as drawn up by the Highway
Superintendent for the new 1992 plow truck and plow, wing, and
material spreader are hereby approved, and be it further
RESOLVED , that the Town be authorized to advertise and receive
bids for this new 1992 truck.
MOVED : Councilman Karl Niklas
Carried Unanimously.
SECONDED : Councilman Frank Liguori
DATED : March 9 , 1992 n , -�'�L{,,,.,.•c�,�.
-;EAL- Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk
4� OF 17,
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1736 PLANNING 273-1736 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Meeting 3/9/92
Agenda Item No . 24
Designation of Polling Places
Resolution No . 81
WHEREAS , in conformity with Town Law it is necessary that the
Town of Ithaca designate the names and addresses of Polling Places
for voting within the town, and
WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Town Board wishes to be in
compliance with the law, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does
hereby 'designate the following list by Districts of Polling Places,
as the official Designated Polling Places for the year 1992 , and be
it further
RESOLVED, said Designated Polling Places are all in compliance
with the law and are accessible to the handicapped .
District #1 West Hill Eire Station , 1242 Trumansburg Road
District #2 Machinist Local 1607 , 638 Elmira Road
District #3 South Hill Fire Station , 965 Danby Road
District #4 Ellis Hollow Elderly Housing, 1028 Ellis Hollow Rd .
District #5 Cayuga Heights Fire Station, 194 Pleasant Grove Rd.
District #6 Northeast School , Winthrop Drive
District #7 Cayuga Heights School , Corner E . Upland & Hanshaw Rd .
District #8 Boynton Middle School , 1601 N . Cayuga St .
District #9 BOCES , 555 Warren Road
District #10 Northeast School , Winthrop Drive
District #11 Ellis Hollow Elderly Housing, 1028 Ellis Hollow Rd.
MOVED : Councilman John Whitcomb
Carried Unanimously.
SECONDED : Councilman Karl Niklas
-SEAL-
DATED: March 9 , 199/2
Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk
OF 1p
ti TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town board Meeting 3/9/92 -
Agenda ;I:tem No. 25
Town of Ithaca Warrants
Resolution No. 82
WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the
Town Board off, the Town of Ithaca for approval. of payment, and
WHEREAS, said vouchor.s have been audited for payment by the Town Board,
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the payment of said
vouchers.
General Outside Village Vouchers- No. 42-73
Highway. Fund Vouchers- No. 45 - 75
Fire Protection Fund Vouchers- No. 1 & 2
Lighting; Fund Vouchers- No. 3 & 4
Capital. Fund Vouchers- No. 18 - 21
Water and Sewer Fund Vouchers- No. 27 - 47
General Townwide Vouchers- No. 76 - 133
MOVED: Councilman Karl Niklas
SECONDED: Councilman Frank Liguori
Carried Unanimously.
DATI�D: March 9, 1992 -SI-;AL-
Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk
0F1
TOWN OF ITHACA
,�,��04�- 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
rp Y
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1736 PLANNING 273-1736 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Meeting 3/9/92
Agenda Item No . 26
SCLIWC 1991 Year End Budget Transfers
Resolution No . 83
WHEREAS , there are insufficient amounts of appropriations in
some of the line stems of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal
Water Commission 1991 Budget to meet the needs of the fund for the
year 1991 , and
WHEREAS , in conformity with Town Law and good bookkeeping
practices accounts should not be over appropriated, now therefore
be it
RESOLVED, that the Treasurer of the SCLIWC is hereby
authorized and directed to make the following budget transfers from
unencumbered balances to offset any shortages in said budget for
the year 1991 , and be it further.
RESOLVED, that the SCLIWC Bookkeeper be sent a certified copy
of this resolution so that said budget transfers can be recorded .
From: SW8310 . 438 Insurance $ 2 , 958 . 52
51,18320 . 212 Tools/Equipment 740 . 98
SW8330 . 419 Buildings and Grounds 28 , 917 . 12
SW8340 . 405 Plumbing Insp . 4 , 054 . 84
SW8340 . 201 Equipment 236 . 70
SW8340 . 410 Office Supplies 53 . 29
SW9010 . 800 State Retirement 6 , 873 . 29
TOTAL: $43 , 834 . 74
To: SW8310 . 410 Phone/Telemete.r. $ 2 , 560 . 13
SW8310 . 435 Advertising 167 . 10
SW833.0 . 437 Data Processing 231 . 29
5118320 . 221 Maintenance B . P . System 740 . 98
S1 18320 . 402 Electric 6 , 623 . 32
SG18330 . 402 Electric 22 , 293 . 80
SW8340 . 101 Personal. Services 4 , 054 . 84
SW8340 . 212 Tools/Equipment/Parts 236 . 70
SW8340 . 418 Vehicle Equipment/Maintenance 53 . 29
SW9040 . 800 Workers Comp . 5 , 278 . 24
SW9060 . 800 Health Insurance 1 , 595 . 05
TOTAL: 543, 834 . 74
MOVED: Supervisor. Shirley Raffensperger DATEQ . -larch 9 , 1992
SECONDED : Councilman Karl Niklas ' ..A,-'W Carried Unanimously Unanimously ,loan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk
OF I Tg
TOWN OF ITHACA
,V41 04� 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
Y
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
I
Town Board Meeting 3/9/92
Agenda Item No . 27
Bolton Point Warrants
Resolution No . 84
WHEREAS , the following numbered vouchers have been presented
to the Town of Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment, and
WHEREAS , said vouchers have been audited for payment by the
Town Board, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the
payment of said vouchers .
Bolton Point Operating Fund Vouchers : No . :131 - 180
Bolton Point Capital Projects Fund Vouchers : No . H10 - H12
of Abstract No . 9 , dated 3/9/92 .
MOVED: Councilman Karl Nikla
Carried Unanimously.
SECONDED : Councilman Frank Liguori (y
DATED : March 9 , 1992
-SEAL- Joan Lent Hamilton , Town Clerk
qty OF 17,
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
A
I
i TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Meeting 3/9/92
Agenda Item No. Additional.
Supervisors Forum
Resolution No. 85
iNIIEREAS, the Sixth Annual Supervisors Forum, sponsored by the
Association of 'downs will be held in Albany, March 22-24, 1992, and
WHEREAS, the meeting will focus on legislative programs effecting
towns in New York State, including the state budget, transportation,
environmental conservation, and other matters of concern to the Town of
Ithaca, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the To%m Supervisor Shirley Raf£ensperger is authorized
to attend the Annual Supervisors Forum to be held March 22-24, 1992 at an
estimated cost of $350.00.
MOVED: Councilman Karl J. Niklas
SECONDED: Councilwoman Catherine Valentino Carried Unanimously
DATED: March 9, 1992 -SILAL-
Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Cleric
OF 1p
a TOWN OF ITHACA
21 04� 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747
Town Board Meeting 3/9 /92
Agenda Item No . Additional
Highway Mechanic Position
Resolution No . 86
WHEREAS , due to the announced retirement of the highway
mechanic , the position was advertised , 22 applications were
received and Eive people were interviewed, and
WHEREAS , it was determined that due to his experience ,
training , and attitude Scott A. Brown is the best qualified person
for the position, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that Scott A . Brown be hared as the highway mechanic
with a start. date of March 23 , 1992 , at a pay rate of $9 . 00 per
hour, with consideration for increase at the end of a six month
probation period.
MOVED: Councilman Karl Niklas
SECONDED: Councilman Frank Liguori Carried Unanimously.
DATED : March 9 , 1992
-SEAL-
Joan Lent Hamilton, Town Clerk