HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2003-04-07REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
' ; MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2003 AT 5:30 P.M.
^ 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, NEW YORK
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Report of the Tompkins County Board of Representatives - Mike Koplinka-Loehr
4. Report of Fire Commissioners
5. 6:00 p.m. - Persons to be Heard
6. 6:15 p.m. - Matthew Braun, DeWitt Historical Society
7. 6:45 p.m. - Lake Source Cooling Consultant
8. Consider Award of Contract for the Purchase of Double Drum Vibratory Compactor (Roller)
^9. Consider Recommendation to the Mayor and City Council for Town Conservation Board
Member appointment to the City Natural Areas Commission (Jon Meigs)
I \
10. Consider Setting Date for Local Assessment Review
11. Consider Appointment of Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review
12. Consider Setting a Public Hearing regarding the Addition to the Bolton Point Facility
13. Consider Designation of Polling Places and Approval of Election District Map for 2003
14. Consider Closing lacovelli Park Capital Project Fund
15. State Comptroller's Annual Report Complete and Received by Town Clerk for Filing
16. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of February 27 and March 10, 2003 Town Board Minutes
b. Town of Ithaca Warrants
c. Bolton Point Warrants
d. Records Disposition List
17. Report of Town Officials
a. Town Clerk
b. Highway Superintendent
nc. Director of Engineering \
d. Director of Planning ) ^
e. Director of Building/Zoning ~
f. Human Resources Manager
g. Budget Officer
h. Network/Records Specialist
i. Receiver of Taxes
j. Attorney for the Town
18. Report of Town Committees and Boards
a. Bolton Point
b. Capital Planning Committee
c. Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization
d. Codes and Ordinances Committee
e. Personnel Committee
f. Purchase of Development Rights Committee
g. Public Works Committee
h. Records Management Advisory Board
i. Recreation Partnership
j. Safety Committee
k. Sewer Contract Committee
I. Sewer Joint Subcommittee
m. Special District Benefit Assessment Committee ^
n. Transportation Committee , ^
19. Review of Correspondence
20. Consider Adjournment
( )
f )
TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN BOARD
SICN-IN SHEET
DATE: Monday, April 07, 2003
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE />yWA/rADDRESS/AFFILIATION
FgI 3(^L^a/r))h///^y/ 3r,j(c) '
/
KxrU.
Frorne.( 1
F A P-'F ,-F
3CO Lc^i'' ccc
XFlA/i Ar^.
Cerv-c,i\ T^^ilij Fh
f^y 3yoo<^c(<F Hdk Ot^cP sr, l-jifihuA- A-"
A:/^HS I i/Pi f( I 3V£, CoCc( y
V ' ' '
T S <r
\ y / ^ ^iJ ^ 7"P/^ ^ 1 (ui pn xA
, 0fo. C^ • Cjc^f-^/£< —,
J^i Ciy>^ Oo/X^ C2---K——i'^l CAjJirCLpLt^ (F^, f^.
^)IW->.CKS
j/iH AncfAwi
Ta p<ac One'Cfx T'tV«-«, l^r
^ L.o.idiy
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2003 AT 5:30 P.M.
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, NEW YORK
THOSE PRESENT: Supervisor Valentino, Councilwoman Russell, Councilwoman Grigorov,
Councilman Klein, Councilman Lesser, Councilman Burbank, Councilman Niederkorn,
STAFF PRESENT: Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Fred Noteboom, Highway
Superintendent; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Judy Drake, Human Resources
Manager; Andy Frost, Director of Building and Zoning; Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk
OTHERS PRESENT: John Bamey, Attorney for the Town; Herb Engman, 120 Warren Road;
Ted Bassani, WHCU Radio; Kirk Sigel, 223 Highgate Road (Zoning Board Chair); Matt
Drennan, 503 Triphammer Road; Matt Braun, DeWitt Historical Society; Elizabeth Moran,
Ecologic, LLC; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Brian Tsau, Comell Daily Sun; Fay Gougakis,
406 Utica Street; Hans Van Leer, 5340 Cold Springs Road, Trumansburg; Michael Barylski
EXCUSED: Al Carvill, Budget Officer
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. and Supervisor Valentino
led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3 - Report from Tomokins County Legislature
County Representative Mike Koplinka-Leahr was unable to attend the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4 - Report of Fire Commission (Attachment #1 - Written Report)
Mr. Romanowski appeared before the Board on behalf of the Fire Commission.
Agenda Item No. 8 - Consider Award of Contract for the Purchase of Double Drum
Vibratory Compactor (Rolleh (Attachment #2 - Results of Bid Opening)
Mr. Noteboom reported the Town received 5 bids. Tracy Road Equipment was the lowest bid
and the bid met the specifications. Mr. Noteboom recommended awarding the contract to
Tracy Road Equipment.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-036: Acceptance of Bid for a Used Double-drum, Tandem,
Vibratorv Compactor {Roller)
WHEREAS, five (5) bids were received for a used double-drum, tandem, vibratory
compactor (roller); and,
WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent has reviewed the bid specifications, and
Tracey Road Equipment is the lowest bid who met the bid specifications; and.
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
WHEREAS, upon the Highway Superintendent's findings, he recommends that the
Town Board of the Town of Ithaca accept the bid of a used double-drum, tandem, vibratory
compactor (roller) from Tracey Road Equipment; now, therefore be it,
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board accepts the respective bid from
Tracey Road Equipment; and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Highway Superintendent is hereby authorized and directed to
purchase a used double-drum, tandem, vibratory compactor (roller) with the $ 76,463 to be
taken from the DB5130.200 account.
MOVED: Councilwoman Russell
SECONDED: Councilman Klein
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkorn, aye.
Agenda Item No. 9 - Consider recommendation to the Mavor and City Council for Town
Conservation Board Member Appointment to the City Natural Areas Commission
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-037 : Appointment to the City of Ithaca Natural Areas
Commission
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby recommends
and requests that the City of Ithaca Mayor and Common Council appoint the following
individual for the term of oflfice indicated to serve as a Town of Ithaca Representative on the
noted commission:
CITY OF ITHACA NATURAL AREAS COMMISSION:
(three vear term)
Jonathan Meigs (Conservation Board member)
235 Culver Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
MOVED: Councilman Burbank
SECONDED: Councilwoman Russell
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkorn, aye.
n
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Agenda Item No. 10 - Consider Setting a Pate for the Local Assessment Review
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-038: Setting Date for Local Assessment Review
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca holds an annual Local Assessment Review at the
Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York to hear grievances concerning property
assessment; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca's Local Assessment Review is held during the second
week of May; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca set Wednesday, May 14,
2003 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. as the date of the 2003 Local Assessment Review.
MOVED: Supervisor Valentino
SECONDED: Councilwoman Russell
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkom, aye.
Agenda Item No. 11 - Consider Appointments to Local Advisory Board of Assessment
Review (Attachment #3 - Memo from Mary Russell) & (Attachment #4 - Matthew
Drennan's Curriculum Vltae))
Matthew Drennan was present at the meeting to introduce himself to the Board and answer
any questions. There were no questions for him from the Board. Supervisor Valentino
offered to also serve on the local advisory board.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-039: APDointments to Local Advisory Board of Assessment
Review
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review will hold
their review proceedings on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., at the
Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca appoint two
representatives to attend the said proceedings; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Matthew Drennan
and Catherine Valentino to serve on the Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review; and,
be it further
RESOLVED, the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified
copy of this resolution to the Tompkins County Assessment Department.
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
MOVED: Councilwoman Russell
SECONDED: Councilman Lesser
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkorn, aye.
Supervisor Valentino thanked Mr. Drennan for his willingness to serve
Agenda item No. 12 - Consider Designation of Polling Places and Approval of Election
Map for 2003 (Attachment #5 - Election District Map as approved)
Ms. Hunter told the Board that the polling place map before them designated the Public
Works Facility as the District 2 polling place instead of the Veterans Volunteer Fire Station;
and Ellis Hollow Apartments as Districts 4 and 11 polling place instead of Reis Tennis Center.
Not reflected on the map is an additional proposed change. That change is to bring district
12 to the Ellis Hollow Apartments where it can share a voting machine during the years that
County Board representatives are not up for election with district 11. When there is a County
Board election, there will be three voting machines at Ellis Hollow.
The Board of election will send out a postcard to all affected voters telling them the change.
The mailing will cost about $620.00 and be billed in 2004.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-040: Designation of Election District Pollinci Places &
Approval of Corresponding Election District Mao
WHEREAS, in conformity with Election Law it is necessary that the governing Town
Board designate the names and addresses of Election District Polling Places for voting within
the Town of Ithaca; and
WHEREAS, in conformity with Election Law it is necessary that the governing Town
Board approve a corresponding "official map" which outlines and describes the said Election
District Polling Places within the Town of Ithaca; and
WHEREAS, the governing Town Board wishes to be in compliance with the Election
Law with regards to the same; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby designates the
following listing of election district polling places, as the official "Town of Ithaca Election
District Polling Places for the Year 2003"; and be it further
RESOLVED, the said "Election District Polling Places for the Year 2003" are all in
compliance with the Election Law and are accessible to the handicapped; and be it further
4
n
n
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
RESOLVED, the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts the
attached corresponding "Election District Map" as the official map, which outlines and
indicates the location of the said polling places for voting within the Town of Ithaca; and be it
further
RESOLVED, the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified
copy of this resolution, and a certified copy of the corresponding "Election District Map" to the
Tompkins County Board of Elections.
ELECTION DISTRICT POLLING PLACES FOR THE YEAR 2003
District #1 - West Hill Fire Station, 1242 Trumansburg Road
District #2 - Town of Ithaca Public Works Facility, 106 Seven Mile Drive
District #3 - South Hill Fire Station, 965 Danby Road
District #4 - Ellis Hollow Road Apartments. 1028 Ellis Hollow Road
District #5 - Hasbrouck Apartments Community Center, 121 Pleasant Grove Road
District #6 - B.C.C.E.S., 555 Warren Road
District #7 - Cayuga Heights Fire Department, 194 Pleasant Grove Road
District #8 - Cayuga Heights Fire Department, 194 Pleasant Grove Road
District #9 - Boynton Middle School, 1601 North Cayuga Street
District #10 - South Hill Fire Station, 965 Danby Road
District #11 - Ellis Hollow Road Apartments, 1028 Ellis Hollow Road
District #12 - Ellis Hollow Road Apartments, 1028 Ellis Hollow Road
District #13 - Hospice Care, 172 East King Road
MCVED: Councilman Lesser
SECCNDED: Councilman Niederkorn
VCTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkorn, aye.
Agenda item No. 12 - Consider Closing locavelli Neighborhood Park Carpital Project
Fund
Mr. Noteboom reported that the project was complete. In response to a question from
Councilwoman Russell, Mr. Noteboom stated that the unused funds will be go back to fund
balance.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-041: Notice of Completion and Authorization to Close
Capital Prelect -- lacovelll Neighborhood Park
WHEREAS, at the July 10, 2000 Town Board meeting, this governing Board
established and funded the lacovelli Neighborhood Park Capital Project. Monetary funds
came from the General Townwide Fund, and
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent is advising this governing Board that
construction of this local neighborhood park is complete, and therefore be it
RESOLVED, after discussion with the Highway Superintendent this governing Board
declares this project complete, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and Town
Budget Officer to close the accounting and financial records of this capital project by
recording any and all necessary and appropriate transactions with any balance therein to be
transferred back to the General Fund.
MOVED: Supervisor Valentino
SECONDED: Councilwoman Russell
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkorn, aye.
Agenda item No. 5 - Persons to be Heard
There was no one wishing to speak with the Board
Agenda Item No. 14 - State Comptroller's Report Complete and Received for Filing
Board members received copies of the State Comptrollers Annual Financial Report
The Town's outside auditors Sciarabba and Walker will begin their audit April 21, 2003.
Supervisor Valentino asked if there were questions from the Board. There were none.
Other Business
Supervisor Valentino reported that she received a phone call from Emily Grayson of the
Finger Lakes School of Massage. The school recently went through the Planning Board and
Zoning Board of Appeals and got approval for a sign. They put up the sign. The school then
received a notice from the State Department of Transportation that the sign was in the State's
right-of-way and they had 30 days to move it. She was told she also needed to get a State-
issued Highway Work Permit. Supervisor Valentino reported that Ms. Grayson had come
through the approvals of the Town, had paid for the approvals and all the inspections, and
had not been told she was in the State Right-of-Way and had a violation of a new sign that
they had spent $2,3000 to have. Supervisor Valentino had spoken with Andy Frost and
Kristie Rice. The sign has always been in the same spot, all these years, and all the signs up
along there are in the State-Right-of-Way. Ms. Grayson told Supervisor Valentino to move
the sign so that it is not in the State Right of Way will cost $150.00 and she is requesting that
the Town pay that $150.00 because she felt that, seeing as she had come in here, we should
have at least given her a heads up. Supervisor Valentino agreed with her even though she
p
n
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
does not fault the staff. She stated she feels people come into the Town with the
expectations that if there are permits or other things they need to get from the State or
anyone else we are going to give them the information they need to take care of those things.
Mr. Frost stated he had spoken to the Department of Transportation who acknowledged they
even have pictures of some older signs that go back eight years in this same location. The
individual who cited them is about a year on the job. Supervisor Valentino stated when there
are other jurisdictions' right-of-ways we should alert people they may need to get other
permits. Councilwoman Russell asked about the applicant's consultant and whether she
should have alerted the school. Supervisor Valentino agreed that the consultant probably
should have. Attorney Bamey stated when the Town does a variance they are dealing with
Town laws and it is usually up to the applicant to demonstrate whether the sign is in or out of
the right-of-way. Mr. Bamey commented that the State right-of-way fluctuates and we don't
really know where it is unless we do a record search down at the Clerk's office. Supervisor
Valentino agreed that we don't want to take that responsibility, but the Town should tell
applicants that it is a State road and there might be a right-of-way issue and tell them they
should check on it; the Town has more information on this than the applicant does. Mr. Frost
added that there are other State regulations and applicants may need to check with the State
about a variety of things beyond just right-of-ways.
Mr. Barney stated that the Town is not involved in the location. One does not even have to
come to the Town if you have a sign that meets Town requirements, regardless of where it is
placed, in the right-of-way or othenwise. If we know that it's in the right-of-way we will say
something, but if we don't know that the only thing our Boards are looking at is whether it is
proper to grant a variance for a larger than permitted sign. He stated he was a little
concerned about setting a precedent where people come in and make a mistake and the
Town assumes the responsibility for what is clearly their mistake.
Mr. Kanter stated the Town would normally require a site plan to show the basic location of
the sign, but because the applicant represented that this was simply replacing an existing
sign, it was not required. There's an assumption by the Town that the applicant knows what
their rights to do it are. We try to waive certain requirements like that to make the process
reasonable and smooth. When things like this happen it makes Mr. Kanter realize all the
more often that maybe we shouldn't be waiving things like that as often as we do, but we try
to make the process smooth and easy for the applicant. And now when something like this
happens it gets sort of turned around on the Town. There's no right answer to it, but Mr.
Kanter feels it's incumbent on the applicant to know if their sign is or isn't on their property. It
is probably also the responsibility of the property owner's that they are leasing from.
Councilman Klein stated that initially he was very sympathetic, but as the discussion has
progressed he thinks people should be aware of where their property is and not construct
something in the right-of-way.
Councilwoman Russell was concerned about setting a legal precedent. Supervisor Valentino
was not concerned about setting a precedent.
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Mr. Kanter stated that there have been legal cases in zoning and site plan reviews like this
where, regardless of whether correct information was even given to an applicant, if they
proceed with an application, get it approved and it turns out that it was based on incorrect
information, it's the applicant's responsibility.
TB RESOLUTION NO, 2003-042: Reimbursement of Fees to the Finger Lakes School of
Massage
WHEREAS, the Finger Lakes School of Massage received proper approval from the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to replace an existing sign; and
WHEREAS, it was unknown during the approval process that the sign was located in a State
Right-of-Way; and
WHEREAS, the Finger Lakes School of Massage has incurred additional costs due to having
to move the sign out of the State Right-of-Way; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca reimburse the Finger Lakes School of Massage $150 to
cover the additional costs of moving the sign out of the State Right-of-Way to a legal location
on the property.
MOVED: Supervisor Valentino
SECONDED: Councilman Niederkorn
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, nay; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, nay; Councilman Lesser, nay; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkorn, aye. Motion carried.
Agenda Item No. 6 - Discussion of Contract with the DeWitt Historicai Societv
(Attachment #6 - Proposed Contract)
Matthew Braun, Director of the DeWitt Historical Society, appeared before the Board to
discuss the proposed contract between the Town and DeWitt Historical Society. Board
members received a copy of the proposed agreement in their packets.
Supen/isor Valentino stated it had been many years since the Town had reviewed their
contract with DeWitt Historical Society. That review produced a revised agreement and a
new Schedule A, which quantifies and makes measurable the services performed.
Mr. Braun told the Board that the DeWitt has been changing over the last few years,
restructuring their staff and restructuring their programs and this is a great time to look at their
relationship with the Town. Discussions between Supen/isor Valentino, Ms. Hunter, and n
himself have been helpful in refining the language to meet the needs of the partnership. He ! 1
felt the DeWitt was in a better position to provide the specific services and the Town is in a ! '
better position to measure the products and services.
n
8
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Mr. Burbank commented that there were not any specific target goals. Are there any
expectations on the part of the Town of some level of services? Are you planning any
celebratory events?
Supervisor Valentino stated that the Town Clerks department will be working on Town
Historian projects and is looking forward to working with the DeWitt. Councilwoman Russell
stated the Clerks' office will be working on a series of exhibits for the lobby of Town Hall and
will be looking to the DeWitt for help.
Mr. Braun told the Board about current educational projects at DeWitt that integrate historic
record collections with teaching in the high schools. One of the projects that they do right is
called the student historian, where high school students come in and do research in the
DeWitt's collection. Students take an object from their shelves, they learn how to write an
article for the Ithaca Journal, they're published, they get tours of Mann Library, and they get
tours of the Ithaca Journal. Mr. Braun felt that program could be opened up to government
records. High school students could come in and pick artifacts or records from the
government collection and do the same thing.
Tom Niederkom voiced his support for the Town doing something cultural stating it is the kind
of thing that Towns ought to be involved with.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-043: Aooroval for 2003 Funding and Authorization to Enter
Into Agreement with DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County
RESOLVED, that the Town Board ratifies and authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign
the revised contract for the year 2003 with the DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County;
and, be it further
RESOLVED, the governing Town Board does hereby approve the payment of
$8400.00 in the year 2003 to the DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County.
MOVED: Councilman Niederkom
SECONDED: Councilman Burbank
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkom, aye.
Agenda Item No. 15 - Consent Agenda
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-044: Consent Agenda items.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby
approves and/or adopts the resolutions for Consent Agenda Items Numbers (a) through (d)
as presented.
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
MOVED: Councilwoman Grigorov
SECONDED: Councilman Lesser
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkorn, aye.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-044a: Town Board Minutes
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has presented the minutes for the Special Town Board
Meeting held on February 27, 2003 and Regular Town Board Meeting held on March 10,
2003, to the governing Town Board for their review and approval of filing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the governing Town Board does hereby
approve for filing the minutes for the meeting held on February 27, 2003 and March 10, 2003
as presented at the April 7, 2003 board meeting.
MOVED: Councilwoman Grigorov
SECONDED: Councilman Lesser
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkorn, aye.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-044a: Town Board Minutes
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has presented the minutes for the Special Town Board
Meeting held on February 27, 2003 and Regular Town Board Meeting held on March 10,
2003, to the governing Town Board for their review and approval of filing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the governing Town Board does hereby
approve for filing the minutes for the meeting held on February 27, 2003 and March 10, 2003
as presented at the April 7, 2003 board meeting.
MOVED: Councilwoman Grigorov
SECONDED: Councilman Lesser
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkorn, aye.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-044c: Bolton Points Warrants.
10
n
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake
Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for
approval of payment; and
WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town
Board; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the
said vouchers.
Voucher Numbers : 144 - 210
Operating Fund $ 111,269.71
SCADA $ 34,422.79
Office Space $ 8.000.00
TOTAL $ 189.753.55
MOVED: Councilwoman Grigorov
SECONDED: Councilman Lesser
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkorn, aye.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-044d: Records Management Disposition Listing
fAttachment #7 - Disposition List)
WHEREAS, the Records Management Officer has determined that the attached listing
of outdated and duplicate copies of records are eligible for disposition according to the State
Archives and Records Administration (SARA) Records Retention and Disposition Schedule
MU-1;and
WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor, Records Management Officer (Town Clerk), and
Department Heads have reviewed and approved the disposition of the said records; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, the goveming Town Board does hereby authorize and direct the Records
Management Officer to dispose of the records as described in the attached listing according
to the procedure developed by SARA.
MOVED: Councilwoman Grigorov
SECONDED: Councilman Lesser
11
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Russell, aye; Councilwoman
Grigorov, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye;
Councilman Niederkorn, aye.
Agenda Item No. ~ Report of Town Officials (Attachment #8 - Monthly Reports)
Town Clerk
Ms. Hunter reported on troubles her offices was having with The SPCA regarding ticketing
people who have failed to renew their dog licenses. She explained the Town had arranged
with the SPCA that we would write the tickets and the SPCA would serve them. It appears
that tickets for January and February were not served until March, after the court appearance
dates had come and gone. Additionally, the SPCA wrote up and served in March, tickets that
should have been served in December, prior to the new arrangement. Ms. Hunter has been
in contact with SPCA Director Nathan Winograd and he has told her he will make sure this
does not happen in the future.
Highway Superintendent
Mr. Noteboom stated he had attached the proposed changes to the Capital Plan for this year.
They have looked at them at Public Works and will be looking at them at Capital Planning
Committee and bringing them to the May meeting for Town Board approval.
Director of Engineering
Supervisor Valentino reported a productive meeting with Eco Village and movement towards
and agreement to place the Town water tank on a site at Eco Village. Supervisor Valentino
stated she was hopeful they would have a proposal in front of the Board at the May meeting.
Supervisor Valentino reported that the easements for the South Hill connector look like they
are falling in place pretty well. Mr. Walker and Mrs. Valentino met with the Emerson people.
Director of Planning
Mr. Kanter reported the Planning Board met and discussed their recommendation on the
zoning revisions and came up with a positive recommendation to move forward with the
zoning revisions. They asked to be involved in review of the Environmental Impact
Statement when it is ready. They supported the idea of further study of a new transition
residential zone, which Codes and Ordinances will be looking into. They also supported the
idea of a "bed and breakfast" in the conservation zone.
Councilman Lesser asked Mr. Kanter if he had any information regarding Cornell's plans to
develop the former East Hill Sailing site. Mr. Kanter stated they had some preliminary
discussion with Cornell, but there has been nothing submitted by Cornell. Mr. Kanter stated
the preliminary indications are that Cornell has been thinking about building a small inn and
restaurant and classroom facility, and continuing the marina operation. This has been very
informal and the Town has not received any plans.
n
n
12
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Human Resources Manager
In answer to questions from Councilman Burbank regarding the Town's required contribution
to the State Retirement system, Ms. Drake stated the State Comptroller has been looking at a
way to even out the level of employer contribution by setting a minimum of an annual 4.5%
and having some adjustment on top of that as needed.
Supervisor Valentino reported that the Town had not been as hard hit as some other
municipalities because we're not carrying any past debt on retirement costs and we pay
somewhat ahead on people that are retiring.
Councilman Klein asked Ms. Drake to explain the health insurance recoupment. She stated
the insurance company gives us the rates early in the year, sometime around October, and
then they file rates with the State Insurance Department for approval. The difference
between the quoted price and the approved price is the recoupment. For the past five years
it has typically been around $5.00 / $6.00. Ms. Drake stated she was surprised to get a figure
of $20.00 per family (approximately $8,000.00) this year.
Agenda Item No. - Report on Lake Source Cooling (Attachment #9 - Comments from
D.R. Bouldin)
Mr, Paul Werthman from Benchmark appeared before the Board to report on the
environmental monitoring being done on Cornell's lake source cooling project. The Board
received his written report in their packets.
The Lake Source Cooling project basically is designed to cool buildings on Cornell's campus
and the equipment, all the related piping and pumping that goes with it Water is withdrawn
from the deep portion of the lake, about 250 feet deep and it's circulated through a closed
loop system on shore, basically to remove the heat from the warm water from the plant
buildings and transfer it into the re-circulating water back to the lake. The outfall, or the
discharge from the lake source cooling is located about 150 meters offshore.
This isn't a very good picture, but at least it kind of puts things in perspective. This is the
entire Cayuga Lake basin and the little dots down in the southern end of the basin, down in
this area here, is where the lake source cooling plant is. The intake is there, Taughannock
Point is up t here, and then you'll see a blow up in just a minute of all the monitoring points in
what we call the southern shelf of the lake, the shallow part of the lake. This isn't all of the
parameters, and again in your package you can see it in a little more detail, this is a little
busy. Basically, the university is required to monitor for dissolved oxygen on a weekly basis.
They have to monitor fiow on a continuous basis, they have to monitor total insoluble reactive
phosphorus on a weekly basis in the discharge waters from the lake source cooling. They
also have to monitory ambient or in iake total phosphorous and soluble reactive
phosphorous. Soluble reactive phosphorous being that portion of the phosphorous nutrient
that's basically available to promote algae growth in the lake. The ambient temperature on a
daily basis, again, in the lake, and I'll show you where that data is collected. And they also
have 7 day monitors in the iake and then they have to monitor the effiuent on a continuous
basis. Originally the permit was issue from New York State DEC for this discharge for the
period of f/larch 1, 1998, which was prior to the plant starting up and that's because they
13
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
required the university to collect data from the lake before the plant became operational
through March of this year. The permit was modified by the State it became effective on
May of2002 and basically went through that same period of time, through March of
2003. And the modification was generally just administrative, it also took into account that
the way the intact structure was built on the lake source cooling project actually included a
screen which precluded fish and biota from entering the screen and therefore eliminated,
originally the intact was planned to have a sonic deterrent which Cornell ultimately decided to
go with a screen as a more positive way to keep fish and biota out of the intact. And then
there was some administrative and reporting changes, nothing significant.
More importantly New York State DEC just reissued, in March of this year, just a month ago,
basically the same permit to Cornell. The only significant difference is it basically now runs
through March of2008 and basically doesn't have any substantive changes. All of the
permitting requirements, all of the monitoring requirements, all of the special conditions,
basically are just carried forth from the original permit.
Besides these specific monitoring requirements in the permit, there's a number of special
conditions attached to the original permit and they're still now attached to this revised permit.
Basically requiring Cornell to do in lake temperature monitoring. The key thing there being
that the ambient lake temperature be unaffected by the lake source cooling project.
Biological monitoring, and this is the year since the special condition required that a report be
issued after three years, a minimum of three years, analyzing fish and myces relative
entrayment in the plant and that will be issued by Cornell this year. And then finally resource
monitoring or in lake monitoring, monitoring the water quality in the lake. And again the key
parameters there are total phosphorus, for delay, sechi disk which is basically a monitor of
clarity of the lake, and then all of these parameters have no statistical increase, and if they do
the permit requires a re-evaluation of the outfall configuration of the lake source cooling
project. It also requires this in lake monitoring be performed twice per month and that it be
performed on at least two locations on the southern shelf.
This is a blow up of the southern end of the lake. The north being to the top of the page, and
Cayuga Inlet and Fall Creek coming into the southern part of the lake also shows where the
Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall and Cayuga Heights wastewater treatment
plant outfall and just a little bit north of that the lake source cooling discharge. And then
these are the in lake monitoring locations. 1, 7, 2,3, 4, 5 and then we move off the shelf.
These contours show the depth of the lake. 6 meters then it kind of falls off. This is kind of a
cutaway showing how the lake deepens right after monitoring 5 right here as you kind of
come off the shelf this is monitoring point 6 and then farther up the lake in the deep water is
the lake source intake and then a monitoring location 8 slightly north of that.
The purpose of the work we're performing for the Town is basically to review the
environmental impact statement that was performed and prepared by consultants for Cornell
prior to the construction and permitting of the plant, which is really a very comprehensive set
of data that pre-exists the plant. All the background information, discharge monitoring reports
from the very beginning, from the start up of the plant. And the annual reports that have been
issued from Cornell and the Upstate Freshwater Institute, their consultant since 1998. We
also participate with various members of the Board and the
14
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Deputy Town Supen/isor on the Data Sharing group with Corneli, generaily we meet right
around this time of year we talk about the monitoring data and we've had a few other
additional meetings as well. And then most importantly to render an independent
assessment of the data as we see it and the our findings as well as the findings by Cornell
and their consultant the Upstate Freshwater Institute. The primary questions that we're trying
to address is are the findings and conclusions by Upstate Freshwater Institute and Cornell
supported by data and sound science? Does the data support alternative scientific
interpretation, in other words is there more than one potential interpretation of the data? Are
data and statistical methods used by Cornell and Upstate Freshwater Institute adequate and
appropriate to determine whether or not there are adverse water quality impacts on the lake
resulting from the operation of the Lake source cooling project? And finally, are permit
monitoring requirements, again I'm talking about State Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (SPEDES) the State Discharge Elimination System, the discharge permit issued by
New York State DEC, are those permit monitoring requirements adequate and appropriate to
determine whether or not there are adverse, or may be adverse water quality impacts related
to the lake source cooling project?
First we'll talk about some of the noteworthy observations by Comell and Upstate Freshwater
Institute during the pre-operation period, this would be 1998 99 and early 2000. The plant
started up in July of2000 while they were collecting data. One of their key observations is
that site #2 as you recall site #2 is down near the fall inlet and also where the wastewater
treatment plant discharges are. That site is enriched in all the nutrients, phosphorous,
compared to the other sites that are monitored in the lake. And that substantial special
variations from point to point on the southern shelf. That there are substantial special
variations for most of the parameters, that monitor water quality parameters (tum tape
...concentrations from site to site are in pretty good agreement, but on any given day there
can be differences. And finally, the temperatures were relatively uniform in the upper waters
of Cayuga Lake accept during October and that's when you get a substantial temperature
currents that basically result in rapid and significant temperature changes.
Some conclusions that Cornell and Upstate Freshwater Institute drew from this pre-operating
period data is that the sechi disk that's required in the permit is not really a valid measure for
clarity particularly on the southern shelf where the waters are shallow. The reason for that is,
the disk basically measures, you look at how the disk looks at a certain depth in the water
and because the shallow waters on the shelf are too shallow you can't really get repeatable
data from a clarity perspective using that measure. They also concluded that turbidity, in
particular we call it TN, it's nestle metric turbidity, it's a way to measure the particles in the
water and the ability of light to scatter from it, is a viable and basically a more scientific and
precise measure of the clarity of the lake. The turbidity and total phosphorous are
systematically flawed trophic indicators on the southern shelf because of non-plankton
particles. Basically what they're saying is that there's a lot of non-algae particles in the
southern shelf that effect the turbidity and phosphorous determinations that are not
necessarily an indicator of trophic state of the southern shelf, that there's a lot of inert
particles that effect that, and because of that those are not good trophic indicators on the
southern shelf. The key observation by Cornell and Upstate Freshwater Institute for the 2000
- 2002 operating period, first of all the total phosphorous in the lake source cooling effluent, I
15
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
should say the concentration of total phosphorous in the lake source effluent, is less than the
total phosphorous measured in average on the southern shelf. That the soluble reactive
phosphorous in the lake source cooling effluent, that portion of the phosphorous that is
soluble and available as a nutrient for bio to grow, is greater in the effluent from the plant
compared what it is on the south shelf. And that the average total phosphorous and turbidity
on the south shelf were similar for years 1998 pre-operation, 2000 which was partly in
operation and partly prior to the operation on the lake source project, and 2001. In 1999 the
total phosphorous and turbidity in that year before the plant was started up was significant
lower on average. Conclusions that Cornell and UFI and again my reports summarizes more
these, I tried to hit on just the ones I think that are significant and kind of lead up to where I'm
going with recommendations, are that the lake source cooling phosphorous input, we're
talking about the number of pounds of phosphorous that are discharged into the lake from the
lake source cooling project are far less than what they were modeled to be in the DEIS.
According to Cornell and UFI, the phosphorous load from the plant was 3% versus what the
environmental impact statement predicted to be 4.8%, not vastly different but lower. They
also concluded that there was no conspicuous changes in water quality observed on the
southern shelf of Cayuga Lake since the lake source cooling start up. Again this was in their
2001 report. Now moving on to some of our key independent findings and conclusions.
Generally the monitoring that was done by Cornell and UFI was very extensive, beyond what
was called for as minimums in the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPEDES)
permit, was done in a professional manner, and was generally in conformance with the State
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPEDES) terms and conditions. The lake source
cooling effluent consistently conformed; basically it always conformed with the permit
discharge limits. There was no permit violations during this period of time when we've
monitored their data. The intake screens that were basically a design change by Cornell,
basically it's a very fine screen that was put on the intake in the deep water as opposed to the
sonic deterrent that was going to try to keep fish and these tiny crustations out of the intake
and therefore not take them up and destroyed in the pumps and piping in the plant. That
design change greatly diminishes the potential for fish and biota and trey men. We're still
waiting to see this year Cornell / UFI's actual results of all their biological monitoring, but
because of that screen because there's no physical way for any fish and mysis to get into the
plant we would really expect there would be very little entrainment of those organisms into
the plant but we have seen that data yet, but that's our expectation. We concur with Upstate
Freshwater institute and Cornell that the sechi disk is not an appropriate measure of clarity on
the southern shelf and that the nephelometric turbidity is a better and more reasonable,
scientific alternative to measure clarity on the southern shelf. Cornell and the Upstate
Freshwater Institute have not demonstrated whether the lake source cooling discharge
exceeds 6 NYCFIR part 704 thermal criteria. I'm going to talk a little bit more about what that
regulation is all about in just a second. And they also have not demonstrated whether or not
the permit conditions regarding thermal impacts from the lakes source cooling have been
obtained. This is a very quick overview of what part 704 says. It governs thermal discharges
of all kinds into all waters of the State of New York and the ones that I'm going to talk about
specifically have to do with thermal discharges, anything with hear or anything that the heat
has been raised or the heat has been reduced related to the natural environment in any
lakes. The criteria requires that the permitee assures protection and propagation of a
balance indigenous fish population. Corneli, at least from a modeling perspective in the DIS
predicts that they can indeed do that but the data they're collecting you cannot tell one way or
16
n
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
the other whether or not that's been achieved. The criteria also requires avoiding large daily
temperature fluctuations. From the data collected by Cornell, and I'll talk a little bit more
about where that it is, there are no observed daily fluctuations but as you can see as I'll
demonstrate in a minute, I think there are some ways to improve our ability to see fluctuations
by looking closer to the discharge point. Basically that their monitoring points are too far
away from the outfall in order to measure those potential fluctuations. It also requires that
there be no routine shutdowns of any artificial heat source during December or March. And
that lake surface temperatures not be raised or lowered by greater than 3 degrees farenheit
and the DEC is supposed specify the limits of a mixing zone. I have not determined in my
assessment of the EIS any mixing zone ever being established for the lake source cooling
project so one issue is where is the mixing zone that we have to achieve this less than 3
degree farenheit change in water temperature. And I am going to show you a little bit more
about why I'm making some of these observations.
Some of the deficiencies in the thermal monitoring, I'll flip ahead for a second. The closest
points where Cornell is monitoring lake water temperature is minimum of 800 feet away from
their outfall and their thermal cluster, the only one location in the lake where they
continuously monitor temperature is 3,000 feet, more than a half a mile away from the
discharge. This just shows, just trying to put things in perspective here, here's the lake
source discharge, this location here is 800 feet away from this. This thermal cluster in what
they call the piles here, that's the only recording continuous thermal monitoring point in the
lake and it's 3,000 feet away from the lake source discharge. The currents in the lake
change but they're predominately in this direction and Cornell has designated location 1 and
7 as sort of bracketing, being the closest monitoring points to the discharge. These are
monitored twice per month during the summer and it's basicaliy at a fixed depth. They take a
temperature measurement and again 3,000 feet away they're taking continuous temperature
measurements, but based on Cornell's own modeling August is when, and intuitively you
know this is true because the cool water from the lake is the greatest temperature differential
from what it's being returned into on the southern shelf and that's the warmest during August
when it's had all summer to basically heat up. So the greatest differential in temperature
between the cool waters being returned to the lake and the warm waters in the southern shelf
are in August. This is what the predict from their models in the EIS of how far they would get
a negative .2 degree centigrade impact from the lake source cooling project under average
conditions. On any given day it could be different than this, but when you're monitoring over
here no where near this and your closest is 800 feet away from this where the predicted
temperature drop is far below the 3 degrees the question is there a plume in August in
particular closer to this intake that may exceed the 3 degree farenheit temperature change.
Because they don't collect any data on the surface of the lake anywhere in the vicinity of the
outfall we can't say conclusively whether or not they comply with the criteria for governing
thermal discharges and that's exactly the point that I'm trying to make. To a lesser extent, we
have the flip flop situation where the temperatures in the outfall from the lake source cooling
project are warmer that the cold lake temperatures on the southern shelf in the winter and
now we have a positive .2 degree thermal plum, which is again .2 degree C is predicted by
the EIS based on models that this is what the plume would be. So based n your own plume
modeling you should be monitoring closer to the outfall somewhere in this zone to prove that
the models are in fact correct. I'm not saying that there's a problem in terms of the thermal
discharge from the lake source cooling. I just can't say whether or not it absolutely conforms
17
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
ry
with the law and so we're making a recommendation regarding a change to this part of the j I
monitoring that is done by Cornell in accordance with the State Pollution Discharge '
Elimination System (SPEDES) permit.
Some other conclusions. Peek monthly total phosphorous loads from lake source cooling at
a monthly basis in July, August, and September. And those are the key months because
that's when your other flow sources that contribute phosphorous. Fall Creek and the Cayuga
Inlet, where those flows are down because you don't have as much rain during those months.
And also when the flows and the thermal impact from the flows from the lake source cooling
project are higher because you have higher demands on their cooling at the University. The
key thing is looking at those monthly lows of total phosphorous from the lake source cooling
project. We calculate them to be about 5.1% of the total load from all sources to the southern
shelf. Which again it's different than the numbers that are, if you recall earlier I say Cornell
basically was saying the average discharge is about 3.8 which is lower than what was
predicted in the EIS. I'm looking at it on a monthly basis and comparing it to the monthly
predictions in the EIS, it's within the range that was predicted in the EIS. They predicted 3 to
7 percent we calculated it to be 5.1 percent based on actual data. But again the lake source
cooling project is operating at about 40% capacity so as the capacity picks up that
percentage could change in the future.
Another finding of our independent findings are the continued monitoring of the, and this is
really the real thrust of our findings, is that the continued monitoring of the lake source
cooling source itself, all the tributaries to the southern part of the lake, the wastewater ' i
treatment plants, and the lake itself is necessary to quantify phosphorous load to the
southern shelf from all of the major point sources. It is very difficult on a very complex and
dynamic environment that's happening in Cayuga Lake that isn't the same from year to year.
The weather is not the same, it doesn't rain the same, everything is different from year to
year, it's a very dynamic system and unless you really look at all of those point source and
non point source loads to the lake and what's going on over a reasonable period of time you
cannot draw statistically valid conclusions.
Our observation in conclusion is that there are no obvious or statistically significant increases
in chlorophyll A on the southern shelf during the 2 years following the lake source cooling
start up. That's good news. We really focus on the chlorophyll A as being what we believe to
be the best and most scientific and reproducible measurement of really the water quality, the
trophic state of the lake as opposed to, and again that's not necessarily a disagreement with
what Cornell and UFI are saying because they're basicafly saying that total phosphorous and
turbidity can't use those. I don't think Cornell or UFI debate the fact that chlorophyll A is in
fact a good indicator of the trophic state of the lake and, and again based on limited data 2
years since it's been running, there doesn't appear to be any statistical increase in that key
indicator. I mentioned before natural variability renders trending of the data extremely
difficult. It's very difficult to say with any degree of certainty over a very short period of time,
a couple of years, what's really happening in the lake and whether or not you can with a high
degree of certainty there's no impact whatsoever, no statistically significant impact on the
lake from this project or any other project. If monitoring were discontinued, and again this is
leading up towards what the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPEDES) permit
calls for and what we think is necessary going forward. If monitoring were discontinued in
18
I
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
what I called extra, because the state pollution discharge elimination system (SPEDES)
permit only requires Cornell to monitor a minimum of 2 locations. As I said before, they're
monitoring 8 locations starting in 1978 and running right up through current to determine
what's happening in the lake. They're not required to, but if they were to discontinue that and
only drop down to what they're required to in the State Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (SPEDES) permit, a minimum of two on the shelf, in our opinion the ability to detect
statistically significant changes in lake water quality going forward may be compromised. We
don't think we could do it and because of that, I'm leading up to one of our recommendations.
I guess I'll key in on that one. First of all there'd be lake source outfall monitoring to continue
the permit. That's sort of a no-brainer, I mean the State requires them to monitor through the
permit, and Cornell's going to have to do that through at least 2008. I couch this next one
because we want to see the data, but we really expect that the biological monitoring and the
impingement studies will show there's no significant impingement in the lake source cooling
and that that's not likely going to be required of Cornell going forward. So that's something in
our opinion we need to see the data this year to confirm it, but they're not likely to have to
continue that going forward, in our opinion. To address the thermal issue that I talked about
just a few minutes ago, we propose or recommend that a short term thermal evaluation be
undertaken in the vicinity of the lake source cool outfall to demonstrate conclusively that it
conforms with Part 704 so we can answer that question once and for all. I didn't get into too
many specifics about how that could be done and I expect we'll have more discussion with
the university. There's more than one way to do that. I think a short term, if Cornell can
prove during August when it's kind of a worst case situation where the differential
temperature between what's being discharged and what's in the lake is the greatest and that
doesn't cause a contravention of Part 704 it's pretty safe to assume you're not going to have
that situation happen any other time. That's what I'm saying, this isn t something they need
to do year after year at a bunch of locations. If they do enough monitoring locations in the
vicinity outfall during that peak situation I would be satisfied and presumably the State would
as well, but they are in fact conforming to Part 704. If they're not conforming with Part 704
they're going to have to look at how to reconfigure that outfall. Along those same lines, the
recording thermistor that's our in piles, out in the middle of the lake should be relocated, it
doesn't serve any real purpose as far as I'm concerned. If it's going to do anything it needs
to be closer and inside with the predicted thermal plume impact of the outfall, it should be
moved closer to it. And the DEC should specify what that mixing zone is and then that
thermistor should be placed on the edge of it so that you can see day to day, hour to hour,
minute to minute, whether or not there's any 3 degree farenheit variation on the temperature
at that edge of the mixing zone. You can say conclusively you're in conformance.
As I mentioned earlier the sechi disk measurements, I don't they're very useful. The problem
is the permit requires Cornell to do it going forward. I would recommend to the State that
they drop that from the permit and substitute the nephelometric turbidity, which Cornell is
doing on their own, they're not required to but that's what they're doing and we're basically
saying is just memorialize it. Also we agree with Cornell and UFI that monitoring at site #2
should be discontinued. It's not really representative of the entire shelf and theirs is not need
for Cornell to continue to monitor that location, they don't really enter that into their
calculations when they compare the different data points and so save them money.
19
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Monitoring of all the other sites on the lake, and again the permit only requires 2, we're
saying we think the permit should be modified to required Cornell going forward, they've done
it so far, we just want to make sure they keep doing it, to monitor through at least 2004, two
more seasons of discharge so that a thorough statistical assessment can be performed on all
of those water quality parameters and then we can have a high degree of confidence that in
fact the lake source cooling project is not impacting water quality on the lake.
And then finally, again, chlorophyll A is required as a special permit condition to be trended,
but it's not required as a routine monitoring. I think its just sort of one of those administrative
things in the permit. We would like to see chlorophyll A be added as a regular, required
ambient parameter in the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPEDES) permit
even though Cornell does it right now and they're required as a special permit condition again
it's not clear how long these special conditions go forward and I would feel a little more
comfortable if I knew it was a routine monitoring requirement in the lake throughout the
duration of the permit.
I guess with that, I can entertain any questions.
Supervisor Valentino invited the public to question Mr. Werthman.
Faye Gougakis, 406 Utica Street, Ithaca
Ms. Gougakis - I've been following this project from day one and so have a number of
concerned citizens.
One of the things that stunned me about this presentation is that Cornell doesn't have a
monitoring system near the outfall. That kind of blows me away, because you said that's
where the plume is and that is a very critical area and for a university like that not to put it in
such a critical area makes me very skeptical and skeptical of their updates and the
information that they're giving us. You're asking for that information. We shouldn't be
begging from them to have that there. They should be doing that. For them to have the
system in place, that's what needs to be done. There is no question in my mind that that
should be asked of them. And from day one I was very skeptical of this project because one
of the things that they said is you know, you can't pin us on the phosphorous issue because
there are other sources of phosphorous going into the lake, which is true. Which is why it
makes this whole situation so difficult. And the other thought that I have, or question, is that
global warming is such a reality and the output is at the lowest, the shallowest part of the lake
which is something people, I remember Dooley Kieffer who I respect very much and her
wisdom, had mentioned wanted the output to be further out into the lake. As that diagram
shows that output is on a very shallow part of the lake. And when you talk about global
warming and algae problems that to me is a big Pandora's box. So I'm going to just stop
there and I guess maybe I'll come back later. I find a real problem with this. I don't feel
they're giving us adequate data. And for them to put that motoring system far from where it is
needed, I don't think that we have adequate data to work with. And I find the DEC also to be
very sort of, first of all the DEC should have never given them a permit because the lower
end of the lake was being looked at as a very sensitive area and part of list of endangered
lakes, or endangered part of lakes, and the DEC went and ahead and gave them this permit
and now they can't put a monitoring system. I think there is something wrong. Thank you.
20
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Mr. Werthman - These locations here, 1 and 7, are on either side, north and south of the
discharge and you're correct they are located at a substantial distance, about 800 feet. I
guess in deference of Cornell I think what they're trying to do with the way that they've laid
out their monitoring they do have quite a few stations in total on the southern part of
Ms. Gougakis - What's to keep them from having another one by a critical area?
Mr. Werthman - What they're measuring and what they're presenting is basically the water
quality in the whole shelf which I think is appropriate from the perspective that there is no
doubt that there are some small impacts in close proximity, you know, the closer you get to
the plume, that's where you're going to see the larger impacts from a temperature
perspective, from a difference in water quality. I guess from my perspective the issue really
is if they're only changing the water quality a few feet from the outfall, that's not significant.
At some point that does become significant. And temperature is one thing I'm concerned
about because the temperature is dissipated and it becomes a non-issue when you get far
enough away from the outfall, and that's why I'm saying I absolutely agree with you from a
temperature perspective, they're not collecting, in my opinion, appropriate data close enough
to the source to say that they are absolutely, positively not raising the temperature of the lake
at the surface right there where the impact is 3 degrees Fahrenheit. Where ever the State
sets that mixing zone, which they haven't done, in my opinion the State hasn't done their job
on that issue, where ever they set that mixing zone whether its 50 feet, ICQ feet, 500 feet, if
they exceed that 3 degree Fahrenheit they're going to have to change this outfall (inaudible)
do a better job of diffusing that (inaudible), but on the other (inaudible) I mean does it really
matter that right there there's a little higher soluble reactive phosphorous than there is there.
In my opinion, no. If they're changing on the whole southern shelf such that it effects the
growth of algae and the water quality of the whole southern shelf, that's an issue, but I really
think Cornell's monitoring locations addresses the bigger water quality picture even though
they're not measuring it right there. I think that they're doing a more than adequate job and
gone beyond the State requirement. I think their data will, in fact, allow us to determine
whether it's significant or not.
Ms. Gougakis - What happens if the temperature there is higher and you don't know that?
And the other thing I forgot to say is that my concern too in terms of global warming is you
said that, okay there's no conspicuous changes, there's no obvious changes. Well a lot of
times things happen very slowly so right now it's not obvious in the lake, but it's a cumulative
thing so that's like ten years from now when all these monitoring things are going to be taken
away, we might have a problem. It will surface ten years from now versus now.
Mr. Werthman - Certainly global warming is a big issue, but anything you do to cool
buildings, whether you're buying electricity to run air conditioners, and you're burning the
fossil fuel, to me that's creating more global warming than this project is because you're not
burning any fossil fuels, you're still (inaudible) the number of btus (inaudible) keep this
transfer out of the buildings to the air doesn't really change and the beauty of this system is
that you're not buying electricity to run your air conditioners and you're not putting carbon
dioxide, which is really the real bad egg on global warming. So from my perspective this is
helping global warming not hurting.
21
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Ms. Gougakis - But the output is in a very shallow part of the lake and this is what a lot
people are concerned about That is really a critical problem to this project that Cornell
doesn't want to acknowledge. Other places that do have this kind of method they don't
discharge Into a shallow area. This Is like so critical, so critical.
Mr. Werthman - I'm agreeing on a large temperature basis lake source cooling has no
significant Impact on the lake. Local to this we don't know and that may be significant and
the law requires that you have to be able to maintain the diversity of biota, wildlife, and the
propagation of that and that's the Issue Is whether or not, and the State basically says you
got large temperature variations of say 3 degrees Fahrenheit for significant periods of time,
they consider that significant, so there may an Issue there regarding environment, fishes,
biota, wildlife, but on global warming unfortunately I disagree with you.
Supervisor Valentino - Thank you Fay
Ms. Gougakis - / appreciate It. More than appreciate It.
Supervisor Valentino - You voiced a lot of concerns that a lot of people have and we
appreciate you doing that. Thank you.
Rich DePaolo, 126 Northview Road, Ithaca
First of all I want to thank the Board for making the Information available and for allowing us
to speak. I think It Is valuable considering that the project Is so complicated. First I have a
few general comments and then I wanted to get Into a few of the Issues that I read In the
report. First of all I think It's Important that people realized that regardless of the way these
numbers are crunched and regardless of how the project relates In terms of Its percentage of
phosphorous loading, whatever, the project Is definitely having an Impact on water quality
and I don't think that you would disagree with that just by virtue of the fact that It's discharging
a fairly high amount of soluble reactive phosphorous to the southern basin which makes
algae. I don't think you need to go too far Into the statistical analysis to know that In the
middle of the summer the southern lake Is choked with algae and weeds. That's one thing; I
just wanted to get that out of the way. I think the other thing Is that something In the report
that I found was missing In the background by way of background Is that the project, I think
needs to be analyzed In terms of the regulatory backdrop which Is currently consists of a high
priority TMDL development. The project was permitted at a time when the lake was
preliminarily listed, the southern 5,000 acres of the lake was preliminarily listed, and It was
considered at that time to be for verification listing. Well here we are now 4 or 5 years later
and we basically have all of the verification that we need by virtue of the fact that the lake has
been prioritized for a TMDL development. So I don't that you can look at this project or any
project In a vacuum without keeping that backdrop In consideration. The thing that I find most
fascinating about the way that the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPEDES)
permit Is structured Is that there are some mechanisms In the permit that allow for changes to
be considered based on post operational data. At that point there Is post operational data.
There Is enough data In my opinion to conduct a statistical analysis that could potentially
trigger these outfall reevaluatlons and what have you. But what we have here Is a situation
where the current permit was essentially rubber-stamped, you have all this data and as of this
22
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
point in time, the DEC isn't doing anything with it. So, I mean I strongly advocate that the
data that exists now, assuming that we get all the 2002 data, the data that we get now be
thoroughly analyzed at this time, more or less in conjunction with the permit renewal rather
than extending the permit essentially indefinitely while the DEC decides whether, when, or
not to conduct this analysis.
Mr. Werthman - Richard, could I interrupt for just a minutes apparently you have several
issues here and I can't remember all of them. They're veiy good points. If I could interrupt
you for a second a try to just address those ones you've identified so far and then maybe we
can do the same going forward. As far as the water quality impacts, I don't disagree. There's
no question when you remove that much water from one portion of the lake that's got
different characteristics that what it is being returned to, yes it has impacts and the questions
is whether those are significant or not. And the only scientific way to look at that is from a
statistics perspective. And the permit does call for statistical evaluation. If that was to be
done today, I think that the statistics would basically say there is no impact. But the power
and the certainty associated with that statistical evaluation renders it practically worthless.
This is a very large dynamic lake with inherent natural variability of water quality and until we
build a sufficient database to say with a high degree of confidence that the lake source
cooling project is or is not significantly impacting water quality. So I respectfully disagree with
you that we could do the evaluation now, but it wouldn't be of much merit. And that's why I'm
saying in 2 years from now I think that the data will render a much better statistical evaluation
than what we have right now and we can say with a much higher degree of certainty than if
y^Q were to perform the test right now. And also I've stayed away from things like TMDLs or
regulatory terms, but I'm not disagreeing with the basic premise that basically say I'm saying
that unless you evaluate all of the point sources and non-point sources of phosphorous to the
southern end of the lake and the water quality in the lake you cannot reasonably figure out
which of those sources or non-point sources are really having a significant impact. So I
absolutely agree with you on that point.
Mr. DePaolo -1 totally agree with you, but I also need to stress the point that I don't think it
can be disagreed that there's too much getting in at the present time. That's the key issue,
regardless of where it's coming from when you have a project that arrived basically on the
scene after the lake was already identified as impaired and allow it to discharge into a
shallow part of the lake.
Mr. Werthman - And I think a related issue there is how much should the university shoulder
in terms their project which is only a one point source discharge into the southern end of the
lake in evaluating this broader. I think Cornell should be thanked in terms of getting their
permit having to do a broader study. Maybe it's not totally comprehensive, but much broader
than their discharge in order to basically get and maintain their permit.
Mr. DePaolo - I think that the key difference there without going over every little detail the key
difference there is that the benefits of the project are primarily for a private institution versus
the public nature of a wastewater treatment facilities, and so forth. But moving on. I agree
that the report is incomplete. There's no soluble reactive phosphorous data in he 2002.
Mr. Werthman - We're waiting. That will be in the annual and that's a key parameter.
23
n
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Mr. DePaolo - That's a key parameter so I don't know that you can draw too many
conclusions. I think that a fundamental issue that's been raised here is that a lot of these
permit issues, a lot of these conclusions that you are getting to, rely upon a terminology that
has yet to be defined. The term statistically significant change, okay. What constitutes a
statistically significant change? I mean back when this issue was being negotiated behind
closed doors between EPA, DEC, and Cornell in 1999 the EPA proposed that one of the
things that DEC do was to develop a definition of what would constitute a statistically
significant change in numerical terms (turn tape) repeatedly with people in region 7 and as far
as I can teil it's not even on the table at this point. How do you determine what's statistically
significant or not?
Mr. Werthman - It's one of those who's on first base kind of things. You're correct in that the
State has not defined that and quite frankly I'm not sure they know how to define what's
statistically significant or what test to perform and how much data you need to do that. And
they basically put the onus back on the permitee, namely Cornell, to basically say you tell us
how you're going to statistically evaluate the data, what tests you're going to perform, how
you're going to evaluate the data. And Cornell has produced a report of how they're going to
do that and what they consider to be statistically significant or not and we're waiting to see
that report and, quite frankly, I'll resen/e my comments until I've seen it and seen the data
and checked the numbers to whether or not I would agree with the basic outcome. But they
have defined it; Cornell has defined it, and as far as I know the State hasn't said that's
incorrect. | '
Mr. DePaolo - But the EPA charged the State with the job of defining it as a balance, as a
check and balance to Cornell, that's the whole purpose of defining a numerical threshold as
far as I see it. What good is it if the permit holder is allowed to define it's own threshold. I
think there's a potential conflict of interest there. I have maybe two more points to make.
Now you did put on the table the issue of the thermal discharge criteria. This is an issue that
I've raised with the department as early as four years ago. I think that most people don't
understand, the public at large anyway, even though the project adds heat to the lake it's
primarily during its highest flow rate periods it's mostly a cold-water discharge. Now Part
704.2 basically specifies that any cold-water discharge, any discharge that will lower the
temperature of the receiving waters be returned to the hypolimnia, which is the lower strata of
the lake. Cornell performed a limited thermal plume model for an alternate discharge location
in the deeper water. Essentially the criteria can only be varied or modified in one way, that's
through a variance or modification procedure that involves EPA, a joint review between EPA
and DEC and the variance, and this is the key point, is to be conditioned on post operational
data. So the discharge is in the wrong place. Cornell knew that they were going to need a
variance. They expected to apply for a variance when the State Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (SPEDES) permit was originally applied for and the State essentially
waived its hands and said well we don't really know what is going to happen because some
of the time it is cold water, it's colder than the ambient waters, some of the time it is warmer. i—^
So we're not really sure what to do. But I would say that the discharge is in the wrong place \
to begin with. And all these issues having to do with nutrient re-circulation, this whole I
monitoring program, all that is essentiaily a moot point if the discharge was returned to a
strata of the lake where the reintroduction of the soluble phosphorous wouldn't have this
24
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
synergistic effect between the sunlight and warmer ambient water temperatures in summer. I
don't expect you to respond to that particularly but you raised the issue of Part 704 as it
relates to the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPEDES) permit, but I would say
that the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPEDES) permit itself is a erroneous
because it allows the discharge to be in a shallow, what is essentially a cold water discharge
to be in a shallow part of the stratified lake. Are you willing to comment on that?
Mr. Werthman - Yes. I mean, you're right. The 704 does basically say cold water is
supposed to be returned to the hypolimnia except under certain circumstances and so forth. I
really can't comment on the administrative aspects of the permit. Whether it was appropriate.
I'm not a lawyer first of all and I'm not familiar with every detail in terms of how the permit was
issued by the State and whether those procedures were appropriate or not. But as far as
being able to ascertain whether or not that's having an impact on the lake near the discharge,
as far as a thermal impact, I'm recommending a short-term study to prove that. I guess from
my perspective if it can be demonstrated that there's no significant variability and no
significant significant large temperature swings proximity, in the mixing zone, an appropriate
mixing zone yet to be defined by the State, that I would say that's satisfactory from an
environmental perspective. Although you're also correct that if the outfall was basically
returned to the hypolimnia there would be no issue at all from either a phosphorous or a
thermal perspective, but obviously Cornell opted to do it this way and it may be okay from a
thermal perspective, but they haven't demonstrated it at least to my satisfaction yet.
Unknown - For low-tech types, can you define what the hypolimnia
Mr. Werthman - That's the deep water. Hypo low, hyper high. It basically takes the water
out of the hypolimnia, deep water, if it returned it to the same location there would be no
environmental impact. But it returns it to the warm shallow waters of the shelf and there you
can grow algae. So that's the issue when you take cool, deep water, with higher
phosphorous and return it to a shallow environment in the southern shelf is that impacting the
water quality. And that's sort of in a nutshell the whole debate about the lake source cooling
project at least from a water quality perspective.
Mr. DePaolo - Just to close the 704 issue, I advocate that Cornell with the DEC undertake
the alternate outfall study that the EPA also advocated in 1999. Basically at that point the
EPA advocated that Cornell conduct an outfall relocation study in the event that any of these
parameters warranted moving the pipe. That way they wouldn't have to go through 6 months
of study and evaluation and everything else. I think that in conjunction with the thermal
dynamic study that you are proposing I think that an alternative outfall location study should
be conducted as well.
Mr. Werthman - If I could respond to that, I'd say there's kind of a cart and a horse issue
here, at least from my perspective, I wouldn't recommend that they perform that evaluation of
aiternatives until it's been demonstrated that there is in fact a thermal impact. If there is a
thermal impact related to that diffuser then they're required by their State Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (SPEDES) to evaluate alternatives, which might include a deep-water
return or a different length or more diffusers. I mean there's a whole bunch of engineering
25
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
ways to deal with it, but at this point in time I don't know if that's required and I think you have
to do the study first.
Mr. DePaolo - You mentioned that there's a quote in the report, I could refer to pages if you
want, but I think it's fairly explanatory. On page 11 it says that there were not obvious
statistically significant, again there's that term, statistically significant increases in chlorophyll
A and then you end the same paragraph by saying "such a statistical evaluation cannot be
performed at this time". Because of the variability you a situation where...
Mr. Werthman - It's important words because I'm basically saying there isn't any obvious
from a graphical perspective but from a statistical perspective you still can't make a...
Mr. DePaolo - Are you or are you not willing to draw a conclusion about chlorophyll A at this
point. It seems to me that that's saying, you know, when you say that there aren't any
statistically significant increases and then you say that a statistical evaluation cannot be
performed it seems to me, you know, there's a contradiction there. Because as you explain
the variability in the statistical method, and the sampling machine allows for these wild
variations in the results. A) Are you or are you not drawing a statistical...
Mr. Werthman - I guess it would be more appropriate to say there's no obvious increases,
but I mean since I didn't perform a statistical evaluation and we're still waiting for Cornell to
perform one, I guess it's inappropriate to really say there's no statistical increase, but I would
venture a guess that if we used the methodology that Cornell called for and we cranked
through the numbers there probably would not be a statistically significant increase based on
the first two years of data.
Mr. DePaolo - Assuming that the discharge isn't going to be moved to the proper location
and this monitoring machine needs to continue to verify what isn't happening in the southern
basin I disagree with you that site 2 should be discontinued and I would say that site 2 should
continue to be analysed if for no other reason that there are a few years of data on it. And
also I think it should be analysed with respect to changes in the Ithaca Area Wastewater
Treatment Plant outfall over the same period of time. If, for example, the phosphorous
contributions of the wastewater treatment plant were essentially flat over the same period and
you see fluctuations in the figures from that sampling station then that tells you that those
influences are coming from somewhere else. I still think it's invaluable sampling.
Councilwoman Russell - Dan, do you know what we're monitoring in terms of the outfall from
the wastewater treatment. Are all these parameters being currently monitored?
Mr. Walker - Yes. Temperature measurements, there are phosphorous measurements,
measured at the plant going into the outfall pipe. So we can assume that's going to be
discharged at the end of the pipe if it goes into it. Nitrogen. Then the bacterial. So these
elements are being measured.
Mr. Werthman - The only thing that I think isn't being measured Mary would be the soluble
reactive phosphorous.
26
n
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Mr. Walker - We probably have less soluble reactive phosphorous coming out,
Mr. Werthman - So most of the data is being collected.
Mr. DePaolo - But the in-pipe grab is going to be different that the ambient water.
Mr. Walker - Oh yes. We are doing some sampling at different point out there. Actually,
Cornell sampling is picking up the impacts of that outfall already too.
Mr. DePaolo - With respect to other sampling sites, I think that I have a problem personally
with calculating the mean of certain sampling sites. I think that there's an attempt, I don't
know whether it's an attempt I don't mean to sound conspiratorial here, but I think it
potentially overly broadens the zone of influence of the project when you could be looking for
more acute influences closer to the project. I think that averaging sample sites, such as
sample site 1 and 7, 1 is immediately north and south of the outfall, I think it basically takes
away certain components. For example there could be a northerly current and a southerly
wind, for example, so averaging those two I don't know whether that's necessarily, I would
rely more on the current that the wind in the summer. So I don't think that's a viable thing to
do.
Mr. Werthman - I made a point in our report talking about the averaging of data. The way
Cornell presents that and as long as you're presenting all of the data so that I can look at the
individual data points and compare individual data points as well as averages, you know, I
guess I'm hedging my bets. I'm not totally comfortable with the way they averaged the data
points although I guess, I'm not saying it's wrong buy I'm not convinced that that's, as long as
we have all of the data we can look at the data in different ways and when we see that data
and do the statistical evaluations I want to look at the averaging as well as the differences
between individual and a comparison of individual data points. And personally I also feel
more comfortable with the individual data points than the averages that they do. Like they
combine 1 and 7 to be their near source, and then they average the rest of them. I stili
struggle with that.
Mr. DePaolo — And they throw out number 2. I think there's a little bit of manipulation going
on here. I think that if you start with a sampling you should continue it for a long enough
period of time that you can then decide whether to pitch something or not. I think you re sort
of like advocating that one of the sampling stations get pitched kind of admit mid-stream, for
lack of a better metaphor
Mr. Werthman - But that's the beauty of statistics. If we had ten different statisticians we'd
get ten different opinions.
Mr. DePaolo - I just have two really brief points and then I'll relinquish the throne here. First
of all, I just think that most people need to realize that when you say that the permit is not in
contravention and that they're complying with the permit that there are No State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (SPEDES) permit limits for nutrients in this case. Simply a
flow limit and a temperature limit. Those are the only two parameters that are actually
governed by the permit. Pretty much what you get on the way in is what you're going to get
27
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
on the way out There's no phosphorous treatment so I think that it's fairly easy in this case
to comply with the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPEDES) permit. At think
it's fairly easy to comply with those parameters of The State Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (SPEDES) permit. The last point that I'd like to make is that I don't necessarily agree
that total phosphorous isn't a good trophic indicator, but I'm willing to suggest that the
narrative water quality standard in the State of New York is still the best way of telling
whether a water body is in trouble and is utrophic. And I would say in this instance the
narrative standard basically says that there shall not be, in this case, phosphorous in
amounts that will cause algae, weeds, slimes, and otherwise impair the waters for their best
uses. That means if your sailboat gets stuck out there in the middle of the lake in a mound of
weeds then basically the water is in contravention of these standards. So I think the narrative
standard is the best. I think that most people who live around here realize that the lake is in
contravention of those standards and rather than going back and forth over the fine
particulars of the monitoring regime, I think that Cornell ought to pony up the 1 and a half
million dollars and basically put the pipe where it should have been to begin with. That's my
closing comment.
Mr. Werthman - If I can just address the one aspect on the total phosphorous. I'm not
suggesting that they drop total phosphorous because I think total phosphorous is a significant
part of the equation and it's important. And soluble reactive phosphorous is maybe even
more important in terms of the formation of algae. But I really like the chlorophyll best as
what I think is the number one, or best, or true most scientific indicator. But unless you really
look at the whole picture of not Just what the chlorophyll in the lake is but what all the
phosphorous inputs are, where they're coming from, whether it's soluble reactive, dissolved,
or total and the clarity of the lake, because it is a holistic way to look at things. That's not
inconsistent with what you're saying, and I think some of the terminology that's used by
Cornell and by us, you can't look at total phosphorous alone and say that's the trophic
indicator.
Mr. DePaolo - I agree, I agree 100%. The beauty of the narrative standard is in its simplicity.
If there's too much algae, if there are too many weeds, then the water quality standard is
being contravened and you need to be doing whatever you can to reduce the phosphorous
going into the water. That's kind of the beauty of it. Thanks for allowing me to take up so
much of your time.
Han VanLeer, Ulysess
My concern is a little bit about the fact that we're going to start drawing water from the lake to
drink. I haven't been concerned about this lake source cooling whatsoever so I attended this
meeting to see. I have three questions, basically. What other water-cooling companies has
your company checked out of this new technology? As I understand it, it's being installed
maybe around Rochester in Lake Ontario. What other companies can you compare with,
since this is such a new technology?
Mr. Werthman - We haven't looked at any other ones, and each one is unique from the
perspective of its impact on the lake or whatever source of water it is pulling the water out of
and where it is returning it to. So each one is very unique. The technology or the concept of
removing cool, deep lake water for cooling and then returning it back not necessarily to the
28
n
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
same location is being looked at in Toronto and some other lakes and some other cities and
facilities, but I haven't studied those directly. We've focused strictly on Cayuga Lake and this
lake source cooling project by Cornell.
Mr. VanLeer - This being one of the deepest fresh water lakes around the world, it would
seem like it might be just a drop in the bucket, what's coming out and what's going in this
closed circuit. That's just a comment. Number two: How can water in a closed circuit add
any appreciable phosphorous if the water is going in a closed circuit? How does it pick up
anything from the piping before it discharges it? I know about the mixing argument, but what
about water changing anything from what it came in that would be detrimental?
Mr. Werthman - There's virtually no chemistry change of phosphorous or anything else as it
passes through the pipe. Basically what we are talking about is the phosphorous content in
deep water from deeper in the lake having a higher soluble reactive phosphorous content and
a lower total phosphorous content than the water that is being returned to the shallow
environment of the southern shelf. So that's why we're talking about phosphorous loads.
We've got high flows of water with slightly different, we're talking parts per billion differences
in total and soluble reactive phosphorous. But when you add them up over large flows they
become potentially significant, and that's what we're talking about. But there's virtually no
chemistry change from the piping or the system. It's simply phosphorous from deep in the
lake being different in terms of the amounts than the environment that it's returned to on the
southern shelf. That's all it is.
Mr. VanLeer - If that's the case, and I don't want to open a can of worms, however, Ithaca
Waste Water Treatment Plant now is going regionalized pretty well, has increased to 14
million gallons of lake-effect discharge at the southern shelf of this lake also. This is not part
of your subject, but that flow is headed out there to the same discharge and intake points for
not only that, but for our water intake at Bolton Point.
Mr. Werthman - And that's why part of my recommendation is the monitoring be continued in
the southem lake as well as all of the major inputs including the waste water treatment plants
for phosphorous, both total and soluble reactive, so we can see what all of the phosphorous
loads are to the lake, not just the lake source cooling project, but the waste water treatment
plants and non-point runoff from storm water and other sources along the lake to get a picture
of what the relative contributions of these compounds are and how they impact the water
quality in the southem part of the lake. I'm with you on that.
Mr. VanLeer - As you know wastewater treatment plants are continually being upgraded and
updated but their capacities also are soaring all around. It would seem to me that would be
creating much more problems with your monitoring even out at this intake (indicating on map)
and outlet for lake source cooling. It's like a drop in the bucket what we're talking about as
far as what Cornell is doing. But this 14 million gallons a day capacity is not a drop in the
bucket.
Mr. Werthman - How we figure out if it's a drop in the bucket or not, we measure the flows
and we multiply that by the concentrations of the phosphorous in it and then we can tell how
many pounds per day, or pounds per month, or either total phosphorous or soluble reactive
29
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
n
phosphorous or dissolved phosphorous, because they all have different impacts, are from all )
these different sources. And that data is being collected and that's part of our assessment
even though the focus in our report is whether or not the lake source cooling facility is having
a significant impact in and of itself. We're not looking at all these others; we're looking at
these other sources as other inputs but we're not focusing on them, we're focused on the
lake source cooling project.
Mr. VanLeer - Okay, I think that's the major things that I'd like to have brought up here.
Thank you.
Walter Hang, 212 Fall Creek Drive, Ithaca
I've made a map of the southern end of the lake. I appreciated your comments about the
averaging. What you basically see (indicating on map) is that the entire southern end of the
lake from just south of Taughannock Park all the way down to basically Stewart Park, that's
an impaired body of water. It is now on the national 303-D listing of impaired water bodies. It
has too much phosphorous. It's had too much phosphorous for decades and it's got too
much silt, it's got too much turbidity, it's so muddy that you can't swim in Stewart Park.
Phosphorous is the growth-limiting factor in freshwater lakes, like Cayuga Lake. If you add
more phosphorous, you get more algae, and that's a problem. We have so much
phosphorous in the water that we have algal blooms in the summertime and people can't
swim, they can't boat, and all this bio-material washes up on Stewart Park's beach and it rots
and that's how come we've basically been concerned about this problem for a long time.
With all due respect, the problem with this permit is that it allows Cornell to discharge 3% to \
7% more phosphorous into the lake and that violates a very specific provision of the national
law that says, "prohibits the issuance of permits to 'a new source or new discharger' if the
discharge from its construction or operation will cause or contribute to the violation of water
quality standards". As Rich DePaolo pointed out there's an applicable narrative standard for
water quality that says that phosphorous will be limited to "none in amounts that will result in
algae, weeds, and slimes that will impair their waters for their best usages". It doesn't say
statistically significant, it says "none in amounts". So the problem is that this permit
essentially is allowing Cornell to discharge phosphorous. Not monumental amounts, but it's
making the existing water quality violation problems worse. In addition to violating the
narrative standard this is the responsiveness survey from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation when they said that they were going to put the southern end of
the lake on 303-D, the National Impaired Water Body Listing. It said that data from Upstate
Freshwater Institute for 2001, these are the data that I've mapped, indicate the 20 part per
billion value, and this is a guideline to protect recreational best use, was exceeded in 2 of the
past 4 years (based on seasonal averages) and fell just below the standard in a third year in
the southern end of the lake. So we have a lake that exceeds the narrative standard and
according to the DEC actually exceeds the 20 parts per billion guideline and yet we have a
permit that's just been renewed that will allow this continued discharge. So my question is
when you looked at the data did you actually see any increase in the ambient water quality
data for phosphorous for either soluble reactive phosphorous or total phosphorous from prior _
fo when the project went into operation and after it went on line. I
{
Mr. Werthman - That's a good question and it's a very difficult one to answer because it's a
question of how do you compare, and again it gets back to statistics. There's a natural
30
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
variability from year to year, point to point, time to time, at each one of these monitoring
locations of what the chlorophyli concentration is, of what the phosphorous concentration is,
and there's two issues going on here. Is there any change, a trend, something more than just
on one occasion, something that repeats itself at any one location or any one time that you
couid say, there's a change? Very difficult to say. And second of all, what's the causative
factor. Is it the lake source cooling? There's a lot of other things that have changed in the
course of the past 5 years around the iake in terms of wastewater discharges, amounts of
rainfall, surface runoff, and so forth. It's an extremely difficult question to answer and the only
way I can attempt to try to answer it is getting back to the statistical issue and it's easy for me
to focus because that's what the permit calls for and right now I would say I can't definitively
say whether there's a statistical increase or not in any of the indicators, whether it's total
phosphorous, soluble reactive phosphorous, or what I think is the true and best indicator, the
chlorophyll A concentrations in the lake. So, I don't know.
Mr. Hang - The reason I ask that question on a final note is because last fall I met with Cliff
Caianan in the Watershed Management Group at the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. Mr. Caianan was the person who wrote a grant application at
the Environmental Protection Agency's request. EPA had offered the Department of
Environmental Conservation I believe $80,000 to do monitoring in the southern end of the
lake in preparation for this total maximum daily load effort. The southern end of the lake is
going to get a TMDL to improve water quality. Cliff Caianan was offered $80,000 to do a
study to help to fill the data gap so that the lake can be protected from these phosphorous
sources and the like, and then the Department of Environmental Conservation didn't actually
submit the grant and didn't get the $80,000 and Cliff Caianan as you can imagine was very
very concerned about that. I'm going to give you his draft applications and some of the
correspondence with US EPA. The reason I met with Mr. Caianan was because I wanted to
find out how he was going to assess these water quality issues in the southern end of the
lake. He told me something that I thought was very important. He told me last fall in a
meeting in Albany that the Department of Environmental Conservation was not going to
renew the discharge permit for iake source cooling when it expired earlier this year until a
very rigorous statistical analysis was going to be completed to find out whether or not it was
possible to discern an increase in phosphorous in the ambient quality that could be attributed
to lake source cooling. He told me that they were going to wait until the 2002 data was
available. As you indicated in your report that's supposed to come out later this month. The
last thing I'll mention, when I read your first page and saw that the permit had been pro-forma
granted a 5-year extension I was totally flabbergasted and I called Mr. Barylski from the DEC
who I think is here tonight, i called Mary Jane Peachy, I called Steve Eidt who is the original
permit writer for this project, and I called Mr. Caianan. So I believe that the best time to try to
plug these data gaps, to try to figure out whether or not this project is having a discernabie
impact on water quality, is right now. As Rich DePaoio indicated these permits are just
rubber-stamped. When the 5-years is up typically they're reissued. But i believe when the
2002 data are available, I believe that they're going to show that there is an increase in
phosphorous which can be attributed to lake source cooling because I would beg to disagree
a little bit. I don't think there have been very significant changes in phosphorous discharges
to the lake. The DEC saw something that prompted them to propose to undertake this
statistical analysis. We're going to be looking at it very very carefully and if there is in fact an
increase in phosphorous we hope the Town will review those data with their consultant and
31
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
make appropriate recommendations to try to return the southern end of the lake back to a J '
state when it's not impaired and when the best usages are fully allowed. We can swim in the
water, we can boat in the water, and we can drink the water without risk. Thank you.
Mr. Werthman -1 think your comments are very much to the point, but as far as the reissuing
of the permit i was also flabbergasted when the permit was reissued, almost as you say
rubber-stamped, it's basically a continuation of the other one. I think in one regard that's
good because one of our concerns on behalf of the Town was that the monitoring might stop
or substantially change which would really put the whole issue about whether a determination
of whether there's a statistically significant increase to the water quality in the lake in
jeopardy. And the continuation of that from one perspective made me very comfortable that
at least going forward we'll be continuing to collect data, Cornell will continue to collect data,
although I'm still concerned with some of the loop holes namely that they only have to do it at
a minimum of two. Cornell could say okay we're just going to do two not the eight, which
would also jeopardize our ability to statistically evaluate things. So I am concerned about
things from that perspective. While I think two years from now we'll be in a much better
position to make a much more statistically reasonable or with a higher degree of power or
confidence in the statistics, I don't necessarily disagree that it wouldn't be appropriate to look
at the data now and make appropriate changes in the monitoring going fon/vard.
Mr. Hang - I would just close with a final thought. I've been looking at these State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (SPEDES) permits, these State Pollutant Discharge n
Elimination System permits, for more than 25 years. When I originally started looking at the ^
Lake Source Cooling permit I immediately ran into N.G. Call and Phil Degatano. These were
people that I met when I first started looking at these permits in 1976 and they were still
planning to deal with point and non-point source problems that were causing and contributing
to existing water quality violations. Unfortunately nothing has happened in 25 years. The
permit program just simply doesn't deal with the kinds of problems we have in southern
Cayuga Lake and that's how come these problems have been around for so many decades
and that's how come most of the people in this area have forgotten that we used to be able to
swim at Stewart Park.
Supervisor Valentino -Some of us haven't and I'll comment on that in a minute.
Mr. Hang - What we want to do is try to solve these problems. Our lake is not the only lake
that's impaired. It's not the only impaired water body, but it happens to be the one that I'm
focused in on the most so we would hopefully be able to look at the data. We're happy to
share with you any analysis that we might undertake and try to see if we can get steps
implemented now to try to alleviate and perhaps eliminate these phosphorous discharges.
Supervisor Valentino - Thank you and I want to make my comment about Cayuga Lake
because I have lived here long enough to remember and actually swim off of Stewart Park
many many years ago. I think it is good for us to make all the analysis of phosphorous and
all the other things that are having an influence on our lake, but the reason swimming was |
stopped at Stewart Park was because of the natural silt that comes down. The water was so ' '
clouded, severely clouded, all the time, that a smali child drown in very shaliow water.
Because the water was so clouded no one could recover or find the child quick enough to get
32
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
that child out of the water. Swimming was stopped at Stewart Park at that point because of
that cloudiness of the water and only because of the cloudiness and has never been used for
that purpose again because of the unsafe cloudiness of the water, not because there s
phosphorous or algae or any other reason. That keeps coming back to haunt us and I think
that it covers up some of the other issues that we should really be looking at when we look at
what's wrong with the southern end of Cayuga Lake.
Paul, you had some questions. A gentleman came to the office today and handed in 4
questions that he wanted answered tonight.
Mr. Werthman - I'd be happy to. These are comments on the review of the Cayuga Lake
Water Quality March 2003 report by D. R. Boldwin, 208 Forest Home Drive, Ithaca.
His first questions is, "My understanding is that the permit required both total phosphorous
and soluble reactive phosphorous yet soluble reactive phosphorous is not listed in the data
reported here. Would you discuss your understanding of the significance of total
phosphorous versus soluble reactive phosphorous?"
I think what he's referring to in one of the appendixes to our report we gave the tabular
preliminary data from 2002 as given to us from each of the in lake monitoring locations, 1
through 8, at each monitoring date. And again that hasn't been quality assured. And he's
also correct that the soluble reactive phosphorous is missing. I don t know why it hasn t been
reported and that's one of the reasons why I couldn't really do a thorough analysis of the
2002 data presented by Cornell because it was missing. So I don't know why they didn't give
that to us. Presumably they analyzed it because it's required in their permit. The significance
of that from a water quality perspective is that total phosphorous has both the soluble reactive
component and then the particulate component, the part that isn't dissolved, its suspended.
Generaily that suspended, or the non soluble, fraction of total phosphorous generally is not
available at least immediately. It ends up in the sediments. It can later on become available
to the water column as a nutrient to grow algae, but generally it's soluble reactive
phosphorous is what triggers and is what is immediately available for bio growth and that's
why we're concerned with it. And it's very important, and it is a concern because the
concentration of soluble reactive phosphorous is higher in the lake source cooling discharge
compared with the total phosphorous and so forth. It's a very good question. I don't know
why the data wasn't given to us it and review it in the annual report that's coming out this
month. (Turn tape)
...discharge and basically I can give you a more technical rationale as given by the
Freshwater Institute, but basically that has a much higher variability than all of the other
monitoring points. It varies from time to time. It's higher. It's close to the Fall Creek Outlet.
It's close to the wastewater treatment plants. And generally, and Cornell basically doesn't
even include it in the averaging that they do because they're saying it's not representative of
the entire southern basin. We can do our evaluation of the impact whether site 2 is in there
or not. I really don't think site 2 in and of itself changes the overall equation. More data is
better. The more data we have, the easier it is to get comfortable with the data, but I think
that data point is suspect and we can certainly do a statistical evaluation of the south basin
without looking at it.
33
n
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Why are you recommending discontinuance of Site 8 since it is supposed to represent the
lake beyond the intake?
Mr. Werthman - The reason, and again I guess I'm conscious about the cost of monitoring
going forward to Cornell, I think the value relative to the cost of that monitoring is limited
because they are collecting data on a daily basis on what's being pulled into the intake and
run through the plant and discharged back to the lake as far as soluble reactive phosphorous.
So we've already got that data. I don't need site 8 to tell me what the water quality is in the
deep part of the lake, I've got the data coming right out of the influent and the effluent from
the lake source cooling project to tell me that. That's why I say we don't need it, it's
redundant
On page 10 loads of phosphorous are discussed. How are the changes in loads calculated?
Input concentrations versus output concentrations? But unless something unexpected
happens in the piping system they should be the same.
Mr. Werthman - It's not a change. A load simply a mass per unit of time. Its how many
pounds or how many grams of phosphorous are discharged over the course of a day and it's
a very simple calculation. You just calculate the concentration, which is the mass per
volume, times the volume per day, the flow. And then you calculate how many pounds of
phosphorous are discharged. So it's not a change in phosphorous it's just how many pounds
of phosphorous come out of the pipe. '
Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal
Do you have a recommendation for where the 2 monitoring point and discharge pipe 1 and 7
should go if you think they are too far away now to adequate measure temperature changes?
Mr. Werthman - We don't want to change these as far as monitoring ambient total
phosphorous and soluble reactive phosphorous in the lake so we want to continue that
because in order to really evaluate the data we don't want to start mixing up these points.
They've got to stay right where they're at. The only thing we're saying is that those are too
far away from the discharge to be able to tell whether or not you've got a localized
temperature impact around the outfall and, therefore, I'm basically saying I want to do a short
term evaluation. Basically take water temperatures at several depths at increasingly greater
distances away from the outfall over a couple of days so we can see, you know at the surface
at a couple meters down, kind of a snap shot of how that cool water is basically being
dissipated and what sort of temperature gradients or differences in temperature we have
close to the pipe and then have the State determine what's an appropriate mixing point to
make sure that we're not increasing the temperature of the lake more than 3 degrees in that
mixing zone so we can say we're in conformance with the criteria governing thermal
discharges. I'm not recommending we change 1 or 7 as far as in-lake ambient water quality.
I just want to collect some thermal data in August right around that outfall pipe. And if that
shows it's okay then from my perspective I'm saying they've met the criteria and there's no
need to look at it further. If it says that there is a thermal impact then that's going to trigger
them having to re-evaluate the design or the placement of that outfall to make sure that
thermal impact is mitigated.
34
n
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Ms. Bishop - Do think you would expect to see a thermal impact right around?
Mr. Werthman - Right. The question is how far out from the pipe you have to go before
you're less than that 3 degrees Fahrenheit that's called for in part 704.
Attorney Barney - Are there criteria as to have away you have to go?
Mr. Werthman - It's whatever the mixing zone the State defines, and they haven't defined on
for this. The mixing zone might be 100 feet. It might be 500 feet. It's basically saying there's
some distance from that pipe that it's okay. You're not going to have an instantaneous drop
or raise in the temperature. It's okay to have some distance. The larger that distance is, the
greater potential impact that is on fish propagation and so forth. So they've got to define
what's an appropriate mixing zone around that pipe. They have not done that.
Supervisor Valentino - Fay passed up a little not to me. She says she has one very short
basic questions she wants to ask concerning your not having studied any other systems like
this and she's promised me that it's going to be very short, and I know Fay always keeps her
word.
Ms. Gougakis -1 really want to thank all of you because this doesn't happen in City Hall. I'm
delighted. One of the things that was talked about when this whole issue started is this is a
new kind of system, who else has done this. And there was only like a few people like in
Sweden, somewhere in Europe. Now Toronto. Those are the ones that I know of and none
of their output is in a shallow body of water. I actually find it very puzzling that you haven't
compared this. I'm not trying to disrespect you but like this year I went to Common Council
with this concern, there were dead fish all over Stewart Park and the stench was horrible.
I've been here 20 years, I've never seen anything like. That's just a little diversion, but really
for you to analyze this and say to me well this is great because we're not burning fossil fuels,
hey listen, I'm an environmentalist. I want what's best for the planet too, but I'm just looking
at a project that might not have been done right. Like I said County Board members talked
about the outflow being at that location and not further in. Again, I want you to comment on
that because I really feel really upset that you haven't studied another source.
Mr. Werthman - I think that, first of all, there aren't that many of these projects to study
because there aren't that many of them out there. And each one is unique. In order to work
they have to be pulling cold water in which means by their very nature, their intakes are going
to be in deep water where it is cold. The only issue is where is it discharging to and whether
or not there's an impact. As I said earlier to Richard's question, if the discharge was backed
to the hypo-limnian there wouldn't be much of this discussion because you're taking water out
and you're returning it to the same place and you haven't changed anything. You have had
any significant environmental impact. The whole issue here is unique from the perspective
that we're pulling deep cold water out and we're putting it back into a shallow and I don't
believe there are any other projects out there like that. This one is unique and that's why it's
being looked at. That's why it's been studied to the degree it has prior to permitting. That's
why we're looking at it now and quite frankly if there's other projects where they're pulling out
35
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
of deep water and returning they're not going to have this debate because it's a whole
different issue.
Rich DePaolo - With respect to the location of sampling site 8, that's significantly farther
north than the intake site and to my understanding that's actually a surface sample. I don't
think it's a deep water sample.
Mr. Werthman - You're correct, it is.
Mr. DePaolo - So then your analogy a few minutes ago that it represented the water at the
intake isn't necessarily
Mr. Werthman - Well, that's correct. If that's a surface point, which is different from what's
being taken in the intake. However, that's in deep water far removed from the southern shelf.
Mr. DePaolo - You mean the water under it?
Mr. Werthman - Correct. Nevertheless, location 8 is so far removed from the discharge and
everything that's happening on the southern lake that I really think it's irrelevant.
Mr. DePaolo - Doesn't that constitute their mid-lake sampling point.
Mr. Werthman - It does, but I don't think it serves any purpose because what am I comparing
it to?
Mr. DePaolo - I agree. I think it's way to far away from anything that matters in this case.
Mr. Werthman - Yes, it doesn't do anything.
Supervisor Valentino thanked the people for coming and expressed her appreciation for them
taking the time. Supervisor Valentino asked if the Board had any questions.
Councilman Niederkorn - How long do you imagine, under normal circumstances, this
monitoring will have to continue? In other words, 5 years from now are we going to be
presented with another presentation like this? Or is it finally going to be tuned to the point
where it works okay?
Mr. Werthman - Well our contract with the Town basically runs 5 years and also I think in 2
more seasons, 2003 data, we're waiting for the 2002 data right now which should be 2 full
years of operation and a half. It started in July 2000 so we didn't have quite a full year in
2000. We got a complete year in 2001. We're waiting for 2002 data. I'm basically saying
when we get 2003 and 2004 data in hand I think that's plenty of data to do a good statistical
evaluation and be able to say definitively, with good statistics to back it up, whether or not the
lake source cooling project is having a water quality impact on the lake. So it's not for ever.
It's 2 more years.
36
r
n
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Councilman Niederkom - When they do finally have it working the way everyone thinks it
ought to be, is there any kind of deterioration that takes places over the next 25 or 30 years in
the system. Or could you anticipate that it would be working the same in 2050 as it when
they finally get it the way they want it
Mr. Werthman — It's a dynamic system. The lake source cooling project won t change the
way it works. It basically functions the same way today as it did when it started. The only
change is that every year as they add more load on the system, more buildings that they re
cooling, they're running at about 40% capacity right now so as they add capacity they
basically take greater flows through the plant and therefore it has a greater impact on the
southern lake because higher and higher flow means higher and higher phosphorous
loadings to the lake. You can sort of project that out, but it's a very gradual addition of
capacity, as we understand it, something like 4% per year, at least it has been over the past
few years. So it will be a very gradual increase in flow through the lake source cooling
project. And the thing that really complicates things though is this a dynamic system. We get
a different number of sunny days, we get different temperatures, we get different wind
currents, you're going to have different things going on. So it's this natural variability that
happens in the lake and we're trying to figure out what this one source, whether or not that's
significantly increasing / changing this natural variability that s happening in the lake. Thats
why you can't just with one year's data say with any confidence whether or not this is, is this
just a natural variation or is this caused by the lake source cooling project.
Councilman Klein - I guess the fact that the renewal is rubber-stamped and it runs to 2008
can we have any influence? The whole idea of this monitoring process obviously we just sort
of have a polling pulpit here, I guess, as the Town Board to bring it to DECs attention if there
are some problems and obviously inform the public. But the fact that theyve issued the
permit that runs to 2008, would they reconsider modifications if we come up with some
recommendations or at least highlights some problems with that renewal.
Mr. Werthman - We're hoping that they'll take our recommendations to heart. The way the
permitting system works the State can make minor modifications almost at will. They did that
once already. We were a little taken aback by the fact that they, that's why we were in
earnest trying to get this data so we could make an assessment and have an input to the
renewal that was scheduled to happen this March f^. That's why, with Mary and Jon we
were trying to move faster than we were getting the data so we could at least say based on
what we've got here's our recommendations. And they just sort of rubber-stamped it for a
short description. And that's good and bad. The fact that they're requiring Cornell to
continue to monitor means that we can continue to see what these impacts are going
forward. We're hopeful that they will take our recommendations to heart and that they will be
considered in whatever and whenever those renewals happen in the future and when these
statistical evaluations are made. Unfortunately, we haven't had any direct communications
with the State other than asking them what data they've got. They send the data from the
discharge monitoring reports, Jon sends them to us, and they've been cooperative. But we re
not part of the permitting process. We're not involved in the dialogue so all we can do is
make recommendations to them and hopefully they take them into consideration as I said
whenever and however they issue changes to the permit going forward.
37
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Councilwoman Russell - But Paul you did have some communication with Steve Eidt and he
said that they would consider modifications when new information comes to the fore.
Mr. Werthman - How that happens and what that is we don't know? They seem to be
receptive to our comments.
Councilman Klein - The other issue, you mentioned the phosphorous is actually, even though
it's less than what it's been projected the plant is only operating at 40% capacity.
Mr. Werthman - It just means there can be more phosphorous down the road. And the
problem is there are other changes going on too. They're talking about phosphorous removal
projects as well as expansions at the wastewater treatment plants and other things so that's
why you've got to look at everything that's going on in the southern basin to really understand
what's happening, not just the lake source cooling project.
Councilman Klein - If the wastewater treatment plant lowers their phosphorous discharge
and lake source cooling gets up to 100% capacity and they may be contributing to an
increase the net effect may be removed by the sewer plants doing a better job.
Councilwoman Russell - There may actually be a lower number of pounds that are being
contributed to the southern basin even though the percentage increase with Cornell
Mr. Werthman - And I think that's why the EPA has gone to the TMDL methods. They're
basically looking at pounds of these substances from all of the different sources. And that's
really a smarter way from a scientific perspective to look at things, total inputs to the basin,
not just any one. I think when you look at any of these projects, like just the lake source
cooling in and of itself you're only getting a very small piece of the picture. You really have to
look at this as a whole basin-wide study and fortunately the Cornell fills a lot of the data gaps,
but not all of them.
Councilman Burbank - Do we have a clear idea of the relative importance of the lake source
relative to the sewage treatment plant.
Mr. Werthman - I guess to put it into perspective we're talking about in the peek months,
July, August, September, the amount of total phosphorous discharged from the lake source
cooling project is about 5% of all of the phosphorous inputs to the lake, in the southern end of
the lake. That puts it into perspective. You look at it from a soluble, we don't have as good
data from a soluble reactive perspective, but it's a greater impact because more of it is
soluble reactive. That's about the magnitude of the significance from a nutrient perspective.
Councilman Burbank - Once again that's based on its current
Mr. Werthman - Based on current capacity.
Councilman Burbank - Do we know how fast Cornell anticipates moving that up? Are they
going up to 100%.
38
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Mr. Werthman - I think the numbers and don't quote me on this, but I thirik they said it's
around 4% per year is what their projected increases in flows and cooling loads going
forward. I'm sure that could change in the future but that's what they're projecting.
Councilman Burbank - And are they anticipating going up to somewhere approaching full
capacity.
Mr. Werthman - I think eventually they'll reach full capacity. The question is how long is it
going to take to get there.
Councilman Burbank - As I recall, remember about a year you were quite frustrated by the
lack of information you were getting from Cornell.
Mr. Werthman - Yes, I was.
Councilman Burbank - Can you say unequivocally that has changed?
Mr. Werthman - I think it's gotten a lot better. I don't think Cornell was purposely withholding
information from us I think that maybe the communication wasn't that good and we were
frustrated that we weren't getting the data sooner. They want to make sure the data is
correct. I'd say they've worked harder to try to accommodate us and get us the data sooner,
but the bottom line is it takes what it takes. Here we are, even though I think they've made
efforts and we've tried to run faster, we're still waiting for the annual report to see the whole
thing. And until you see all the data.
Councilman Burbank - As I recall you were not given the raw data, you were getting
Mr. Werthman - About 2 months ago we got most of the raw data, but it wasn't complete it
was missing the soluble reactive phosphorous so we're still trying. It would be better if we
had all the data as soon as it was available, but I'm less frustrated than I was a year ago.
Councilman Burbank - This may be a question for John or Mary or somebody else, but what
control do we have as a Town over the kinds of concerns that we've heard tonight? Do we
have any levers that we grab on in terms of encouraging some of the recommendations?
Attorney Barney - In terms of control, the legislative, regulatory rights that the Town normally
has in some areas are very little. I quite frankly don't know what impact recommendations
from the Town Board based upon fairly thorough and data review, (inaudible)
Councilwoman Russell - I think the DEC was receptive to listening to what Paul had to say
and he did have some communication with them, so we could request that DEC take a
serious look at this report and get back to us.
Mr. Werthman - I think that basically the next step, my recommendations are basically you're
my client, the Town, I'm making these independent assessments and recommendations to
the Town and I guess my expectation that the Town will consider that and pass those, if you
agree with my recommendations or some of my recommendations, that they would be
39
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
forwarded on the Town's behalf to the New York State DEC saying these are what the Town
concerns, or questions and recommendations the Town has relative to the State Poiiution
Discharge Elimination System (SPEDES) permit going forward. And i think as any
governmental agency, the DEC is going to listen to other government bodies that represent
local citizens and what you want and I think, you don't have any other legal say, but I think
that's the power of, if you pass on some or all of my recommendations I think the State will
take them into serious consideration going forward with the State Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (SPEDES) permit. That's why we've been doing what we've been doing.
Mr. Kanter - Could I just add on that point. We have already forwarded the report that Paul
put together to DEC and In fact Michael Barylski from the Cortland office of DEC is here so
he's heard the whole presentation. I think the communication has started already so it's
largely also a matter for us as the Town to really keep pressing on, continue with the data
sharing group and Just keep moving ahead with that.
Councilman Burbank - My only final comment is I really want to thank the members of the
public who took it on themselves to come out on an awful, typical spring night in Ithaca, New
York and the intelligence of the comments and the concern that was expressed. The point
that Rich DePaolo made that there is an observable problem in our lake and how we much
we contributed to the lake source versus our own sewage treatment plant versus other points
I think is unknown, but it behooves us to pay attention to this and do what we can.
Councilman Lesser - Just to pick on the last point. There was clearly a visible problem on
the lake or more algae or more weeds, I had a rowboat right down there so I'm well aware of
it. However, there was an article in the Ithaca Journal over the summer which indicated that
because of the light snowfall the prior winter, low melt off, and hence low silt in the lake that it
was a lot clearer which independent of every other change in the lake could promote algae
and weed growth. In your opinion is that explanation at least a credible possible description
of what happened.
Mr. Werthman - Absolutely. And I think there's other things going on to. If you look at some
of the more details like in freshwater Institute's reports and so forth. Zebra mussels. All of
these things are impacting. That's what makes this so difficult to try to sort out. Not just
what's going on in the lake, but what's the causative factors of it because all of these impact
it. How much rainfall we get, how dry of a year it is, how many sunny days we have, how
much phosphorous is discharge, how many zebra mussels and how much things they're
filtering out of the lake water effecting. All of these thing together add up to what we see.
The bottom line is you can predict all these things, you can try to ascribe this or that
happening, but it's only through real hard data collection that you can really say are things
getting better or are they getting worse. And then try to ask the next question, which is okay
why is it getting better or worse. It's not easy to really figure out what's going on.
Councilman Lesser- If it's somehow determined and agreed upon that this project is
contributing too much total or soluble phosphorous to the shallow end of the lake, clearly one
resolution would be to extend the discharge pipe, but it's a relatively expensive one. Is it
plausible that another resolution might be to add to the phosphorous reduction from say the
sewage treatment plant, which might then be able to accomplish the same overall goal.
40
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Councilwoman Russell - I'd like to comment on that, Bill. What we are doing in terms of
reducing phosphorous load from the Ithaca Area Plant is state-of-the-art. There's no more to
be gained there.
Mr. Walker - The bulk of that phosphorous is suspended phosphorous. It's not soluble
reactive. In the long term the suspended phosphorous that's discharged by the treatment
plants and which naturally comes down from the streams ends up getting deposited in the
bottom lake where it has enough time to become soluble reactive phosphorous because it
dissolve into the water from the sediments and then we're recycling it.
Councilman Lesser - When one thinks about other significant discharges into the lake Miliken
an Station Power Plant somewhat further up the lake. Are there any reasonable parallels
there which might give one any prior hint as to long term impacts.
Mr. Wethman - I'm not familiar with all of the structure of Miliken Station in terms of where it's
pulling the water from and where it's discharging to. I guess the only parallel really would be
that has to meet the same criteria regarding thermal impacts because the same concerns
about fish propagation and wildlife, not raising the temperature of the lake more than 3
degrees and them having to do the demonstrations just like lake source cooling would have
to do, but unless they're pulling from deep water, which I doubt that they and discharging to
shallow water which they're not on the southern shelf so I also doubt that they are you're not
going to have this phosphorous concern that we have down on the southem shelf.
Councilwoman Grigorov — I just wanted to thank Paul for not only doing the good professional
analysis, but being able to talk to everybody and answer questions so well. I also wanted to
mention that the natural state of that end of the lake is swamp. It was artificially drained to
make Stewart Park. It would take an enormous invasion of the environment to make that into
a swimming place again.
Mr. Werthman - That's an interesting obsen/ation because that probably had more of an
environmental impact than anything we're talking about because those wetlands are naturally
purifying all this stuff that comes through those wetland would be cleaned up but since it's not
there any more it can't do that. So now what goes in there has to be taken care in the bigger
body of water.
Agenda Item No. 17 - Report of Town Committees
Capital Planning Committee
Councilwoman Russell told the Board the Committee has begun meeting on a regular basis
to formulate their annual recommendations, which should be available for Board review in
June.
Codes and Ordinance Committee
Councilman Klein told the Board that citing of west hill water tank had implications involving
the Planning Board, Codes and Ordinances, Capital Planning, the Zoning Ordinance. It also
has major financial implications.
41
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
Approved 5/12/2003
Records Management Advisory Board
Councilwoman Russell reported that they are moving the records database along and are
working on a proposed software contract. They are also working on moving the codification
project along. Councilwoman Russell invited the Board to look at the map storage project.
Recreation Partnership
Supervisor Valentino stated the biggest struggle here are the financial troubles of the County
and the City and how the Partnership is going to continue funding programs. Councilman
Burbank added the problem of continued funding for the facilities for things such as Cass
Park Pool, the ice rink, Stewart Park. There is a crisis looming.
Sewer Joint Subcommittee
The Subcommittee has turned the Sewer Agreement over to Susan Brock to rewrite and
make the appropriate changes as follows: take the Public Works out of the loop, make it a
real partnership were members have equal votes, the budget process having an independent
audit and having it be separated out from the City budget. Just about everything that we
really wanted looks like it's coming around.
Mr. Walker told the Board that there is a phosphorous removal capital project that the SJS is
doing. They will have to talk to this Board about forming the capital project, but they have not
been able to get good financial numbers. Total cost for the project is 4 million dollars plus.
They are having difficulty defining what the Town's contribution should be, the timing of bond
act money coming from the State and how that will impact borrowing.
Adiournment
On motion by Councilwoman Russell the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tee-Ann Hunter
Town Clerk
Next Regular Meeting - May 12, 2003
42
rZ.uAj y, ^^ia'S
ATTACHMENT #1
/M$P£^C'4J y^s6^^Ay oced/^^H/Cies' - /J./. 5Mre z?^
A-0\/tSoA-Y C60i^ £>z^ycr^//.^ ^/- /7/^/j^ J^j£.,<^zt>AySf3/ZjTfC^ Tifu
CO^^l, 77^/5 ^'>7 5, f 5SU£7> /i5 77ZZL yC^/cyZTZ^tc.e /Ai k(t:^rU/^^uJfCAL^uz*Li
/?5 Tz^d AJs czfiifcz^jQ . //"^y- ^/"O /-/-ys yc'>A-^/>y-/£-c> /^s
Z^/tL. -Z/^iiS..^ ^'AZ'>yiy^cy/^^S i'/G. c"'/'?/^-^ Co^^
^£'ZfUlZltf'^/2^'/S 6UC^ 4-'ii Z^/P-K <D C.zZL>Z>Z^d.^C</Z-ZZZ/ A'S ,
y^^To Oa/I^ 2£fi?Mrs_ - yr^O ^C/P^^S /^zl z^:>g3 Z^^ue. etere'^j at/^ 72^ . 2z:}02'
CV/<hZ) CqaZcMoczCO UPi'Tti A zZf/AL. zZ^/o9 S /AJ<:^/Oi'-''Oy5 yjLe:.t>zLZ>yy> z<ZZrzz<£>c>(:.A
r^-it^ /UUzZ'&i^/^ JS Sc^S^£cjr /2? C'itAz\/^j^ OzZ(S^Zf-7'Z.y yzzZfZ. A D^Zf C €>j^/^<./fcaJs A'S^
^ Mc^^L Ail> ~/Ifif /AJyz'£/>z^i zpi^TlzzA/X:. /^L'yy'>zfZ zp/ip Acz^yiz^zzS'eJrC^yy
? \
Qiy^zjo 7z> f)t!/p(^'. \fAi-£jcr/AJc^ S^y/U yzs^co/t/) Luirr-f rz-fe. C^ytz^s^ zf&/s&rs /^/yy 2>£y?7T
TTifS A^yyez^y/ur' /^cp/TzePz&zze-s i>/6/oAyczzy>e^ 7^ /^y^zzATzcy/Acntz^/^ T^y (^yj&A
H£/c^/Z7s f.p- fyy. A yg-TPyDcwSj^ /y coyyzi^ ^■^/>z>x.'a 7Z> 7^ o-CC4.^Sj izjzzyz.^ JlPO
T?QAfl7SM/7s A y^UspZT/ij ^z7cyAC aizzy^f^ ALWzcA OZ/oZyzZPS /FO Azr^SczzAcys To 77Zy
SzCf^/ur WAF^LPFF7<^/yAJ7^ /9/^AAAn'S aajt: /JFrjFezP/zy /^y/A/zAAzy
/7/U\/ ^OB-yiZqu^s.Ajr 4lAyF7.
^^7 f S j4c / f^ZJ /S ho A A 7^ ^<1C.OA.O A'ZiO UzZCP£.A. TTiZy. ^eZZTZtZZL/Ty TAy/-^'Ay yZZ/C^ Z
4y>h I'T^AA/Oy^^S 4^ -^-'iPZ^Atf 'TVylX^^Tyztyz'yCy -CAZLCMieP-^zzcCoUtA.OffzcyA, /z4z<es AZz. Ai(^oi
,S£04iZ5€ OA r?H:. Co/L)77z,fo/A/e P/FA/cozAyy Syz/s/(S £z/2ZAZf£,i.tyy> u^jta my Cozr/f- p^/stZacz^Ajl^ rzzz:
F7M't 4c) OAx>£A. zl' 4£(^U£iT' Ffiz714l AfO Cc\7yyzfzb£. ZiAy Z^cT^yzL Azrc^tZ^O zy Z?z^
F(7A6oaj Fza^ zfij/r/AFATc. TAy^^L Z)e:z7c£.is y^-Ac'z£a£izuz.J7s • Li7£- 4A$'c AA77cip^/e Z/c^/Z> //uAzzlz'/A£.
T^L'Th 4 L A/I? 4-Ce>A.yi£A£^9 ^ kZ7T4f C'TAyA. AAzZA F/zSyFTZyr-^ A/uD AT~ A AL-'Zoz^ 77>A7£
fo 47/4<^AiAz/ezJr up/TU ScWiP Fc.7z£fO /tyq-o/AiO Fc/c^ Ayy/l^FAL.
SpAct ^ PZt/fO/C yytyiC>SzpL<^ AAH zzz rH^p/9C wnJ 0C/7hCry^F4£ FAAzz/AzS 4hu£>
Fzi'AJAA Afi^/'j^fjaTT'ZA.
TOWN OF ITHACAUSED DOUBLE DRUM ROLLERBID OPENING - 03/27/03 @ 3:30 p.m.COMPANY NAME & ADDRESSSPEC#NON-COLLUSIONTOTAL BIDAPPARENT LOW BIDDERAnderson Equipment, Co.101 Great Arrow AvenueBuffalo, NY 14216YES$83,880.00Monroe Tractor7300 Eastman RoadN. Syracuse, NY 13212YES$86,740.008.0. Hansen, Inc.110 Old Ithaca RdHorseheads, NY 14845YES$86,321.00Tracey Road Equipment6803 Manlius Center RoadEast Syracuse, NY 13057YES$76,463.00xxxxx
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT #3
I \Memorandum
To: John Barney
CC:
From: Mary Russell
Date: 3/19/2003
Re: Town Appointments to the Local Board of Assessment Review
We have received a letter from the Assistant Director of the Tompkins County Dept. of
Assessment reminding us to appoint members to our Local Advisory Board of Assessment Review
containing the prohibition that "the Town Supervisor or any Town Board Member are not permitted
to sit on this board."
Real Property Tax Law §523 l.(a & b) states "Ineach local government there shall be a board
of assessment review...The board of assessment review shall consist of not less than three nor more
than five members appointed by the legislative body of the local government or village. Members
shall have a knowledge of property values in the local government or village.. .A majority of such
\ board shall consist of members who are not officers or employees of the local government or
village."
Section 522 defines "local government" for the purposes of Article 5. "'Local government'
shall mean, unless otherwise expressly stated or unless the context otherwise requires, a county, city
or town with the power to assess real property for the purposes of taxation." Section 528 states
'This title shall apply to...all ...towns in the state except...a town in a county having the power to
assess property for purposes of taxation." Thus, it does not appear that §523 applies. Therefore,
the County Charter language would govern.
§C-4.03 (b)Local Advisory Boards of Assessment Review. There shall be a Local
Advisory Board of Assessment Review for each city and town in the County, consisting of
three members, two to be appointed annually by the respective local government legislative
body and who shall be qualified electors and owners of real property in such city or town
and, a third to be a member of the Board of Representatives elected from a district within
which all or part of such city or town is located. A member of the professional staff of the
Division of Assessment shall be present at each meeting in a consulting capacity.
Each Local Advisory Assessment Review Board shall consider each complaint and/or
grievance concerning assessments from property owners within the city or town for which it
is appointed, and shall conduct hearings in each such city or town at least annually, at which
time it shall consider each complaint and/or grievance and the owners of property instituting
each complaint and/or grievance shall have an opportunity to be heard thereon. Upon
completion of its hearing, each Local Advisory Assessment Review Board shall forward each
complaint and/or grievance and its recommendations concerning each complaint and/or
grievance to the County Board of Assessment Review, which shall proceed to consider each
' complaint and/or grievance, and the recommendation of each Local Advisory Assessment
^ Review Board thereon as provided in paragraph (a) of this Section.
March 19, 2C[/aAs^
Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the right to be heard only by the County ' '
Board of Assessment Review. Applications for review to the Local Advisory Board of ' ^
Assessment Review are optional, and presentation of a written complaint to the Local
Advisory Board of Assessment Review is not a condition precedent for consideration of or
hearing on a complaint by the County Board of Assessment Review.
Thus, the Charter requires that the members we appoint to the Local Advisory Board of
Assessment Review be residents and property owners in the Town, knowledgeable about real
property. There is no restriction regarding whether the members we appoint are Town officers or
employees. However, the Attorney General has opined that members of a legislative body, in these
opinions Town Boards, who appoint a board of assessment review and determine whether or not they
will be compensated and that amount may not also serve as members of the board of assessment
review, finding that these are incompatible public offices. 1987 Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 51, 1982 Op.
Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 159. These opinions would appear on their face to conflict with the Charter
language in §C-4.03 (b) regarding Local Advisory Boards of Assessment Review which requires the
County Board to appoint one of its members. They also, on their face, seem to require that we not
appoint a Town Board member to this Board. Is there an incompatibility of public offices here?
In both of the Attorney General's opinions cited, incompatibility was found because the
boards of assessment review were operating under Real Property Tax Law and RPTL §523 (g) allows
the legislative body to adopt a resolution authorizing compensation and fixing that amount for the
board of assessment review members—a "being your own boss" indication that the positions were
incompatible. Another basis for incompatibility was the fact that under §523 l.(b), the terms of
office for the board of assessment review members are five years, thus allowing currently serving
board of assessment review members who are also Town Board members to appoint new members to
a board of assessment review on which they would continue to sit.
Neither one of these bases for a finding of incompatibility seem to be present here. The term
of office for the Local Advisory Boards is one year only and there is no provision made for any ^ ^
compensation of the members in the Charter language. (I know the Town Board members who have
served on this board have not received any compensation for doing so.) Thus, there would not seem
to be any basis for a finding of incompatibility and, I believe, no restriction on our appointment of
Town Board members to these positions.
< ^
f \
2
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT #4
Matthew P. Drennan
Curriculum Vitae
EDUCATIONAL HISTORY
Ph.D. New York University, 1971 - Economics
M.A. University of Michigan, 1962 - Economics
B.S. University of Detroit, 1959 - Economics
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
Director of Graduate Studies
City and Regional Planning and Regional Science
Cornell University
2001-
Visiting Fellow
Yale University School of Management
1999-2000
Professor
Department of City & Regional Planning
Comell University
1992 to present
' PUBLICATIONS
The Information Economy and American Cities, Johns Hopkins University Press, June 2002.
"Sectoral Shares, Specialization, and Metropolitan Wages in the United States, 1969-1996," with Shannon Larsen,
Jose Lobo, Deborah Strumsky, and Wahyu Utomo. Urban Studies, Vol. 39, June 2002.
"A Simple Test for Convergence of Metropolitan Income in the United States," with Jose Lobo. Journal of Urban
Economics^ Vol. 46, pp 350-359, 1999.
"National Structural Change and Metropolitan Specialization in the United States." Papers in Regional
Science, Vol. 78, pp 297-318, 1999.
Methods of Interregional and Regional Analysis, with Walter Isard, Iwan Azis, Ronald Miller, Sid Saltzman, and
Erik Thorbecke, Ashgate, 1998.
"Reading in State & Local Public Finance, with Dick Netzer, editors, Blackwell Publishers, 1997.
"The Performance of Metropolitan Area Industries," Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Economic Policy
Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, February, 1997.
"The Dominance of International Finance by London, New York and Tokyo," in The Global Economy in
Transition, P. W. Daniels and W. F. Lever, eds., Longmans Ltd., 1996.
"The Changing Economic Functions of the New York Region," in Research in Urban Economics, Vol. 10, R.D.
Norton, editor, JAI Press Inc., 1996.
"The Interruption of Income Convergence and Income Growth in Large Cities in the 1980s," with Emanuel
Tobier and Jonathan Lewis, Urban Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1, February, 1996.
"Economic History of New York City," The Encyclopedia of New York City, ed. Kenneth T. Jackson, Yale
University Press, 1995.
REPORTS
"New York: Demography, Labour Force and Income," London-New York Study, The Corporation of London,
2000.
"New York: Business and Professional Services. "London-New York Study, The Corporation of London, 2000.
"Economic Benefits of Public Investment in Transportation: A Literature Review," study funded by New York
State Department of Transportation, September, 2000.
"Economic Change in Western New York, 1989 to 1998." Report to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
Buffalo Branch, December, 1998.
"The Impact of Northridge State University Upon the San Fernando Valley." Report to the Provost, California
State University at Northridge, April, 1998.
RESEARCH PROJECTS
"New York State's Competitiveness: A Scorecard for 12 States," Citizens Budget Commission, March, 2001.
"New York's Competitiveness: A Scorecard for 13 U.S. Metropolitan Areas," Citizens Budget Commission,
July, 2001.
COURSES TAUGHT
Public and Spatial Economics for Planners, CRP 512
Urban Public Finance, CRP 605
Urban Economics, CRP 404/504
Public Policy Analysis, CRP 321/545
Community and Regional Economic Development
( \
/ ^
f 1
f \
ATTACHMENT #5
T/^^*/n r»f 1 llVfiSeS-
Town 01 Ithaca
IRADELLRD
wocts
REEKRP
HftYTSftD
Tnwn^nf Ithaca
TOWN OF ITHACA
YEAR 2003
1 LECTION DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED
April 7, 2003
POLLING PLACES
-IRE STATION, 1242 Trumansburg Rd.
HACA PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY, 106 Seven Mile Dr.
FIRE STATION, 965 Danby Rd.
/ ROAD APARTMENTS, 1028 Ellis Hollow Road.
APTS. COMMUNITY CENTER, 121 Pleasant Grove Rd.
>55 Warren Rd.
1GHTS FIRE HALL, 194 Pleasant Grove Rd.
i^GHTS FIRE HALL, 194 Pleasant Grove Rd.
ODLE SCHOOL, 1601 North Cayuga St.
L FIRE STATION, 965 Danby Rd.
/.OW ROAD APARTMENTS, 1028 Ellis Hollow Rd.
OW ROAD APARTMENTS, 1028 Ellis Hollow Rd.
5,172 East King Rd.
- - Polling Place
TD = Town District
SS.
r. Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, do hereby
hed Election District Map is a true and exact copy of the boundaries
Town of Ithaca Districts and of Polling Places as duly adopted by■^aid Town of Ithaca at the regular Town Board meeting held on the
and that the same is a complete copy of the whole of such
HEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and the Corporate
Ithaca, New York this 7th day of April 2003.
•SEAL
> Ann Hunter
£
Tee Ann Hunter
Town Cle
Dated
Town of Newfield
.^'•lunty Election District # 1 contains Town Election District 1♦)unty Eiection District # 3 contains Town Election District 12
District# 5 contains Town Election District 9."
Town Board Meeting April 7, 2003 ATTACHMENT #6
DEWITT HISTORICAL SOCIETY & TOWN OF ITHACA
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT Is made as of the day of 2003, by and
between the TOWN OF ITHACA, a municipal entity existing under the laws of the State of
New York with Its principal office at 215 North Tloga Street, Ithaca, New York, hereinafterTeferred to Ts th?Town', and DEWITT HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF TOMPKINS COUNTY,
with offices located at 401 East State Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850, hereinafter referred to
as the "Contractor".
The DEWITT HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF TOMPKINS COUNTY agrees to function
as the historical society and public museum for the Town of Ithaca; to psist in the
discovery, procurement, preservation, and interpretation of materials relating to the
history of the Town; to advise on archival storage management for documents and
records pertaining to the Town's history; to assist In research regarding the
commemoration of historical events; to assist and guide genealogy research for Town
residents; to maintain a public meeting place and community or civic center f<x the
advancement of historical, cultural and educational Interests and concerns of Town
residents; to advise In the preparation of a historic resource survey identifying
significant historic buildings, structures and sites within the town; and to provide sucfi
other services as may be reasonably requested by the Town to promote the study of
local history within the Town.
, 1 WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Town has need of certain services related to its historical context
including maintaining historical records, assisting in creating historical indices, assisting with
some of the services normally provided by a Town Historian, and other similar services, and
WHEREAS, the Town does not have sufficient employee expertise, to provide such
services without the assistance of an outside agency; and
WHEREAS, Contractor is capable of performing such services for the Town and its
residents,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants and
agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows:
1. The Contractor agrees to provide to the Town the services enumerated on
Schedule A annexed hereto.
2. The Town shall pay to the Contractor pursuant to this agreement the sum of
$8.400. per annum. Payment shall be made on a quarterly basis based on
vouchers submitted to the Town at the address set forth above.
DEWITT HISTORICAL SOCIEY & TOWN OF ITHACA
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES^
PAGE 3^ ^
insurance company. Broker's signature is not acceptable. ^
Certificates of insurance shall be submitted at the time of the
execution of this agreement.
6. Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Town and its officers,
employees, agents and elected officials from and against any and all claims and
actions brought against the Town or its officers, employees, agents and elected
officials for injury or death to any person or persons or damage to property
arising out of the performance of this contract by the Contractor, its employees,
subcontractors and agents.
7 The relationship of the Contractor to the Town is that of an independent
contractor. As such, the Contractor shall receive no fringe benefits from the
Town including but not limited to medical insurance, retirement benefits,
workers compensation, disability, unemployment insurance or any other
remunerations other than set forth above. Contractor shall be responsible for
all income taxes, withholding taxes, PICA, and other payments due any
governmental authority or to be withheld for the benefit of any govemmental
authority form the wages of Contractor's employees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement the da>^^
ar first above
TOWN OF ITHACA
and year first above written. ^
By: ATTEST:
Catherine Valentino, Tee-Ann Hunter,
Town Supervisor Town Clerk
DEWITT HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF TOMPKINS COUNTY
By: ATTEST:
Matthew Braun, Director
I 1
f \
DRAFT - for discussion purposes only.
Town of Ithaca Schedule A - REVISED
March 2003
The DeWitt Historical Society of Tompkins County agrees to assist the efforts of the
Historian or other designated staff of the Town of Ithaca by providing the services
listed below.
Service Measurable factor(s)
1. Provide guidance to the Town Historian in the
discovery, procurement, preservation, and
interpretation of materials related to the history
of the Town the Town's diverse constituency.
• Number of requests by Town
Historian for assistance.
• Number of Town residents
served.
• Number of new accessions to
DHS collections of material
related to the history of the
Town of Ithaca.
2. Advise the Town Historian or other designated
Town staff on archival storage management
procedures for documents and records
pertaining to the Town's history.
• Number of requests by Town
Historian for assistance.
• Completed archival storage
management projects
accomplished with input from
DHS.
3. Assist the Town Historian or other designated
Town staff with research using historical
records managed by the DeWitt Historical
Society.
• Number of research projects
completed.
• Topics researched and results of
research.
4. Help Town Historian or other designated Town
staff with efforts to commemorate historical
events related to the history of the Town of
Ithaca.
• Production of celebratory event.
• Number of Town residents
participating in or attending
commemorative event.
5. Provide a public meeting place at no charge for
events or meetings related to the advancement
of historical, cultural, and educational interests
of Town of Ithaca residents. Such events or
meetings shall be scheduled in advance with
the DeWitt Historical Society and shall not
conflict with previously scheduled events or
meetings.
• Number of events/meetings
presented at DHS.
• Number of Town residents
participating in or attending
event/meeting.
6. Provide technical assistance to Town Historian
or other designated Town staff in the
preparation of displays in the lobby of Town
Hall related to the interpretation of historical,
cultural, and educational themes important to
Town of Ithaca residents.
• Number of displays prepared.
• Number of Town residents who
assist with the production of, or
view displays.
J:\GraiHs Fundraising MctnbershipXGrants 2003\Town of Ithaca 2003\TQwn of Ithaca Schedule A REVISED.doc
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT
'^sposition Listing - April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting
M. 2 Copies of 1 999 Steel Water Tank Repainting Contract Specifications
2. 2 Copies of Phase II Construction of Water and Sanitary Sewer Mains 1987
Improvements Schedule of Bid Items
3. Copy of Phase II Construction of Water and Sanitary Sewer Mains 1987
Improvements Bid Specifications
4. Copy of Phase I Construction of Water and Sanitary Sewer Mains I 987
Improvements Bid Specifications
5. Copy of Construction of Sanitary Sewer and Water Mains 1989 Water and
Sewer Improvements Contract No. 4
6. Copy of The Travelers Insurance Policy for West Haven Road Sewer Extension
7. 2 Copies of West Haven Road Sanitary Sewermain Extension Bid
Specifications
8. Copy of Warren Road Water Improvement Bid Specifications
9. Copy of Construction of Sanitary Sewer Main 1989 Trumansburg Road Sewer
main Extension Bid Specifications
10. 1988 Unsuccessful Bid for Professional Services for an Inflow/Infiltration
Study for the Northeast Portion of the Town (Lozier)
1 1. 1988 Unsuccessful Bid for Professional Services for an Inflow/Infiltration
Study for the Northeast Portion of the Town (Steams & Wheler)
12. 1988 Unsuccessful Bid for Professional Services for an Inflow/Infiltration
Study for the Northeast Portion of the TownjHunt Engineers & Architects,
P.C.)
13. 1988 Unsuccessful Bid for Professional Services for an Inflow/Infiltration
Study for the Northeast Portion of the Town (NB Instrument Rentals)
14. 1988 Unsuccessful Bid for Professional Services for an Inflow/Infiltration
Study for the Northeast Portion of the Town(John S. MacNeill, Jr., P.C.)
15. 1988 Unsuccessful Bid for Professional Services for an Inflow/Infiltration
Study for the Northeast Portion of the Town (O'Brien & Gere)
BP#HSE HSE STREET TP#FIRST LAST USE f i
ff #ADDR NAME NAME , s
398 602 Elmira Rd 31.-3-4 Nancy Dodd Add lac for nurs hm (record disposed of 4/7/03)
1818 602 Elmira Rd 31.-3-4 Nancy Oodd Convert to I'estaurant (record disposed of 4/7/03)
2145 602 Elmira Rd 31.-3-4 Michael Pan Extend kitchen (record disposed of 4/7/03)
Complaint file for 602 Elmira Rd
9/14/88 Zoning Board of Appeals file
9/10/86 Zoning Board of Appeals file
4/7/60 Zoning Board of Appeals file
Scu^er (6v^.^trxcho.v m ^
ZBA
DATES
ZBA EXPLANATION SIG.N #DATE
4/7/60
9/10/86
9/14/88
Build 2nd story onto nursing home (record disposed of 4/7/03)
Oper a rec vehicles & boats sales & serv bus (record disposed of 4/7/03)
Mod 9/10/86 to be 40' from highway r-o-w, 18 parking spaces (record disposed of 4/7/03)
7
35
64
2/28/75
6/13.-77
12.-19/78
77 2.-1 1/80
/ I
f \
Com of SKWtowotW *«»•« ">
Mun.ci pai} Tcaolic
^Oi'w '''>t'oi-^' 'Cij(p\^-Vyi. <0/ 'T(D^*'l Xfl'':0.(iK^ C''2-^
Cco<-i'S c->(
April 7, 2003 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT #8
TOWN CLERK ' S MONTHLY REE>ORT
TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK MARCH, 2003.
THE SUPERVISOR: PAGE 1
I
\ ant to Section 2?, Subd ) o! the Town Law, I hereh? lafes the following statement of all fees and moneys received by le
, onnecrion with my office during the month stated above, excepting only such fees and moneys the application and payment
of which are otherwise provided for hy law;
2002 SPORTING LICENSES
2003 SPORTING LICENSES
DECALS
2 MARRIAGE LICENSES NO. 03006 TO 03007 17.50
AGRICULTURE REPORT
COPY AERIAL PHOTOS
16 MISC. COPIES 10.40
1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 12.00
DRAFT ZO MAPS (PER MAP)
DRAFT ZONING MAP (EACH)
DRAFT ZO MAP SET
DRAFT ZO
2 DRAFT ZO PACKAGE 30.00
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SO
2 MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 20.00
NOISE ORDINANCE
RETURNED CHECK - CLERK
" _ _ RETURNED CHECK-TAXES
O _ RETURNED CHECK- W&S
' ^ OPEN SPACE REPORT 1984
' ^ POSTAGE
^ 2 PARK. OPEN SPACE EXEC SUM 10.60
PARK OPEN SPACE FULL RPT
SIGN ORDINANCE
SIX MILE CREEK REPORT
1 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 3.00
28 " TAX SEARCH 175.00
USE OF PARKS & BLDG
WETLAND GUIDELINES
WATER Sf SEWER SEARCH
ZONING MAP
3 ZONING ORDINANCE 25.50
2 ZONING ORDINANCE DRAFT 30.00
Ai255 TOTAL TOWN CLERK FEES 334^00
A1555 75 DOG ENUMERATION .7_5,..QO
A1556 1„. SPCA CONTRACT 332_^3„2
A1557 SPCA IMPOUND FEES
A2389 . VOTING MACHINE FEE
GAMES OF CHANCE LICENSES
BINGO LICENSES
I BINGO FEES 7,31
540 TOTAL A2540 l.tM.
A2544
A2701
B2110
B2115
75 DOG LICENSES
13
2
_ 3
1
4
11
2
i
i
REFUND PRIOR YEAR EXPENS
BUILDING PERMIT
BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSIN
FOUNDATION PERMITS
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
TEMP. CERT. OF OCCUPANCY
USE PERMITS
OPERATING PERMITS
FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS
SIGN PERMITS
ZBA AREA & USE VARIANCES
ZBA ADDITIONAL MTG. FEE
ZBA SPECIAL APPROVALS
ZONING SIGN APPROVALS
TOTAL B2110
SUBDV. REV. INITIAL APL.
SUBDV. REV. PRELIM. PLAT
SUBDV. REV. FINAL PLAT
SBDV. REV. PLAN REAFFIRM
SITE PLAN INIT. APL. FEE
SITE PLAN PRELIM. PLAN
SITE PLAN FINAL PLAN
ADD. MTG. FEE AGENDA PRO
ASS. MTG. FEE P.H. PROCE
TOTAL B2115
2,495.00
55.00
500.00
50.00
1,260.00
650.00
50.00
56.00
80.00
70.00
70.00
50.00
5^196.00
190.C
Paid to
Paid to
Paid to
Paid to
Paid to
Paid to
Paid to
Supervisor for General Fund
Supervisor for Part Town
County Treasurer for Dog Licenses
Ag & Markets for Dog Licenses
NYS Health Department for Marriage Licenses
State Comptroller for Games of Chance Licenses
State Comptroller for Bingo Licenses
- 898.6^
^...1,386,00
_ - 96^6?
9.00
22.50
Total Disbursements 6,412.81
APRIL 1, 2003
SUPERVISOR
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, TOWN OF ITHACA
HUNTER, being duly sworn, says that she is the Clerk of the TOWN OF ITHACAha. the oregni.ng is a fnJi and true statement of all Fees and Honeys received by her during the month above stated,
excepting only such Fees the application and payment of which are otherwise provided for by law ^ ^
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
dav of 20 Town Clerk
ueiiilpunoa/Diignd hii'm
TOWN OF ITHACA
Highway Department
March Town Board Report
for April 7,2003 Meeting
Public Works Facility
The construction project at the Public Works Facility has been progressing. We have
been having problems with the door company. The door company is a sub-contractor
of Streeter Associates, our general contractor. We also have had a problem with
Kimble, Inc., our HVAC contractor. They have a problem getting the heat exchangers
fired up.
We have a punch list and continue to monitor the progress of the elimination of items
on the punch list.
The budget for the Public Works Facility was set so that the Town forces would do
some of the work, although the labor costs were coming out of our regular annual
budget for personnel. We were also going to pay for some of the purchases (for the new
facility) out of our regular annual budget. After a discussion, it was decided that it
' would be more appropriate to have all the costs in the Capital Project. We are going to
use the Capital Project's contingency fund to cover these costs and charge back to the
appropriate line items (in the regular budget). This will require the Town Board's
approval. We will get the information together and present it to the Board soon.
Agreement for Expenditure of Highway Monies
Due to the extremely harsh winter, I have put together a list of road maintenance and
repair changes I feel will better benefit the Town's highway infrastructure. Please see
the attached list. I will be taking the changes to the Capital Planning Committee at their
next meeting for their input. The Public Works Committee has already reviewed the
changes and passed a resolution approving them. The resolution is attached. At the
May Town Board Meeting, I will be requesting an amendment to the Town's
Agreement for Expenditures of Highway Monies be approved.
Roads
The Highway crews have started to clean up brush and downed trees throughout the
Town. The official brush pickup does not begin until April 14,2003. We needed to get
a head start because of the large quantities of debris due to the ice and snowstorm
earlier this winter.
n'
Along with working on the Public Works Facility and, when necessary, snow removal,
the Highway crews worked on surveying for design work on Winthrop Drive and
Caldwell Road, installing a culvert at 4 Schickle Road, hauling stone for stockpiling and
grading around the Public Works Facility, and replacing street signs.
As mentioned above, brush and leaf pick up will be commencing in April and we will
start prelimenary work on summer paving projects.
Parks and Trails
Trees damaged from winter storms were cleaned up and removed from South Hill
Trail. Other trails were cleaned up earlier, as we had time. Another project worked on
due to the ice and snowstorm was fixing damaged soccer nets at Tareyton and Eastern
Heights Parks.
Bluebird nesting boxes were cleaned out and repaired at all our sites. We cleaned up
the grounds and applied new woodchip mulch to the planting beds at Town Hall.
Park benches and picnic tables were constructed in our wood shop.
Regular spring clean up and maintenance of parks and trials will continue in April.
Water and Sewer
There were no water breaks during the month of March. We did, however, have a
sewer blockage to the sewer main at Candlewyck Apartments. This will be fixed as the
new sewer line replacement project continues on Trumansburg Road. This project is
progressing well.
We worked with Bolton Point to conduct confined space entry so the underground
meters, etc. can be monitored and/ or repaired.
Sewer pump station monitoring has continued this month.
We will start clean up and maintenance of water tank and sewer pump station sites in
April.
ghk
I I
f 1
o
! 1
' I
f \
Proposed Projects for 2003 Construction Year.
Proposed Amendment to Agreement for Expenditures of Highway Monies.
Amount Needed for
Account Number Road Name
DB5112.501 Whitetail Drive Paving $18,000.00 $18,000.00
DB5112.502 Evergreen Lane $30,000.00
DB5112.503 Whitetail Drive Recon.$50,000.00 $50,000.00
DB5112.504 Marcy Court Paving $10,000.00 $10,000.00
DB5112.455 Stone Quarry Road $125,000.00
Forest Home Drive $24,000.00
Chase Lane $40,000.00
Dove Drive $70,000.00
Compton Road $35,000.00
Hll-5112.260 Stone Quarry Road $63,000.00 $23,000.00
Totals $296,000.00 $270,000.00
* Town Engineer's Report for 3/10/03
Town Board Meeting ^ ^ ^
I
^ GENERAL
Records Management
The Engineering Staff has been working with other departments and our student interns to set up the map filing system in the
records storage areas. Map towers have been reconfigured and the new storage boxes have been set up for more efficient
rolled storage of large documents. Approximately 50% of the maps and drawings have been filed in the new system.
Student interns are continuing to transfer data from the paper record maps and field notes to accurately locate Town facilities
on the Arc View GIS. Approximately 80% of Town sewer mains have been mapped and mapping of approximately 75% of
Water mains has been completed to date.
Park and Open Space
Land acquisition for the Pew Trail is currently in process.
Survey Work is being scheduled for the summer for the Saponi Meadows and Tutalo park sites.
Public Works facility
Construction is substantially complete and the Town Engineer has been providing technical support on construction
inspection and contract administration. Several minor change orders are in process or have been approved for the various
contracts as follows:
General Construction - Strceter Associates
1. Changed Roof Panels to Butler Building CMR-24 Roof system, which is an equivalent roof system for a reduction
of Contract Price by $8,000.00. APPROVED
2. Repair concrete floor on each side of the existing trench drain due to conditions discovered during demolition for an
additional cost of $6,059.00. APPROVED
3. Remove and replace overhead doorframes at doors 100/4 and 101/1 for an additional cost of $5,435.00.
APPROVED
4. Change Trench Drain grate in main garage to 19W4 welded grating for a credit of $6,626.00 and Furnish and install
two 3'x7'2" Hollow Metal doors with 10"xl0" wire glass, 'B' labeled, One each office type Best lock and one each
Best passage set, reusing all other existing hardware, and furnish and install weather stripping with sweeps on two
existing HM doors and two new doors for a charge of $2,922.00, for a net decrease in contract cost of $3,704.00.
APPROVED
5. Remove and replace eave strut for a charge of $4,533, place one extra layer of roof blocking for a charge of
$2,415.00, Credit for siding for a reduction of $3,000.00, Installation of additional gutter for a charge of $1,007.00,
Change window in office to fire rated window for a charge of $864.00, resulting in a net increase to the contract
cost of $5,819.00. APPROVED
6. Add Gypsum partition in Room 107 and laminate gypsum to emu in Room for a cost of $630.00, install 6"metal
stud wall at corridor 9 for a cost of $176.00, Install column enclosure at W5 window for a cost of $145.00, Add
insulation at roof structure col. Line 4 for a cost of $180.00, Add flat metal for fastening metal siding at col. Line 4
for a cost of 538.00, 5% overhead cost of $83.00, for an increase to the contract cost of $1,752.00. APPROVED
The current contract cost as a result of change orders is $1,164,361, which is a net increase in contract cost of
$7,361.00 above the original contract cost of $1,157,000.00.
HVAC - Kimble, Inc.
1. Modify the infrared heating system for the Large Equipment storage area to avoid obstacles and improve area
heating control, estimated additional cost of $2,500.00. PENDING
Electrical - Knapp Electric
1. Add additional circuits and fixtures in original shop area not shown on plans for an estimated additional cost of
$4,500.00. PENDING
Plumbing - Buchanan, Inc.
No change orders to date
TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 3/10/03
Town Engineer's Report April 7,2003
Daniel R. Walker 4/1/2003
1
TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 3/10/03
Tompkins County Emergency Management Planning Committee
The Draft Tompkins County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan has been completed and under committee
review. The Town Engineer has a copy of the draft plan which is available for any Town Board members review.
Town of Ithaca Emergency Management and Fire Protection
Town staff is in the process of updating the Town emergency response plan.
Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Town has provided Hazard information to the Tompkins County Planning department for use in completion of the
Mitigation Planning Grant Application. The application will be submitted in April.
EARTH FILL PERMITS
No earth fill permits have been issued to date in 2003.
WATER PROJECTS
Integrated Water System
There has been no activity on the integrated water system in March. .
The Town Engineer and Bolton Point staff has met with the Cornell University Utilities department to evaluate opportunities
for cooperation.
The Town Engineering staff is preparing the Final design for a proposed transmission main and SCLIWC tank on Cornell
University Hungerford Hill Road property. This project is being done in conjunction with the design of a South Hill
Transmission line extension to provide water to the West Hill and Inlet Valley water service area.
West Hill Water System
The Contract for replacement of the watermain behind the Biggs complex and the Hospital has been awarded to G.
DeVincentis & Son Construction Co., Inc. of Binghamton. The Contractor has stockpiled pipe and has done layout work.
Several alternatives for a new water storage tank are being reviewed, including several sites on the EcoVillage property.
Site surveys and test borings have been completed and preliminary design is underway for development of an engineering
report with recommendations. The engineering report for the project is being completed and will be presented to the
Board.
Bums Road Water Main Extension
The Bums Road water main is complete except for restoration work to be completed in the spring.
Water Quality
Town Engineer's Report April 7,2003
Daniel R. Walker Page 3 4/1/2003
TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 3/10/03
SCLIWC mailed out the notice regarding Haa5 levels for Town of Ithaca customers on West Hill and in Forest Home.
The notice was similar to the last one with the addition of language stating that although the running annual average was
above the MCL, the current quarterly average is below 60 ppb. .
SEWER PROJECTS
Intermunicipal Sewer System
The Intermunicipal sewer Committee is continuing to work on the Draft Agreement for a regional sewage treatment
solution. This agreement would allow the Town of Ithaca to Divert flow from the Northeast Area of the Town and from
the Village of Cayuga Heights to the lAWWTF, freeing up capacity in the Village Treatment Plant. The agreement will
include provisions for the Town of Ithaca to be compensated for use of its capacity diverted from the VCH plant
generated by other users.
Steams and Wheler have developed the final Design of the Phosphoms removal project at the Ithaca Area Waste Water
Treatment Facility. The Contract Documents have been submitted to DEC in Syracuse for review.
West Hill Sewer System
The Contract for replacement of the sewer main behind the Biggs complex and the Hospital has been awarded to G.
DeVincentis & Son Construction Co., Inc. of Binghamton. The Contractor has installed the bulk of the sewer pipe and is
completing the connection to the existing sewer in Rte 96 at the south end of the Job near Candlewyck Apartments.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW I
PRI
Site work for the PRI Museum of the Earth is continuing with construction of the drive and parking areas, along with
building construction. The Town Engineering staff has been inspecting the site periodically to ensure compliance with
the approved site plan. The contractor has installed the required sediment and erosion control measures and is
maintaining them. No site related problems have been noted.
ECOVILLAGE
EcoVillage is nearing completion on the site work and buildings for the Second Residents' Group. Sediment and erosion
controls have been maintained adequately during construction. Final site work and landscaping will be completed as the
Buildings are finished.
COLLEGE CIRCLE
College Circle Phase 3 Site construction is continuing during the winter. The Storm Water Management plan for the site
is being inspected for compliance by the Engineering Staff.
BAKER INSTITUTE
The Town Engineering staff has been monitoring drainage work and sediment and erosion control systems at the Baker
institute expansion project which is nearing completion.
LINDERMAN CREEK PHASE TWO
Linderman Creek Phase Two is continuing. The Town Engineering staff has been inspecting the site periodically to ^ |
ensure compliance with the approved site plan. The contractor has installed the required sediment and erosion control . |
measures and is maintaining them with frequent inspection and reminders from the Engineering Staff. \
Town Engineer's Report April 7, 2003
Daniel R. Walker Page 4 4/1/2003
n V"' ]
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, riHACA, N.Y. 14850
Jonathan Kanler, A.I.C.P. (607) 273-1747
Director of Planning FAX (607) 273-1704
Planning Director's Report for April 7,2003 Town Board Meeting
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
March 4. 2003 Meeting:
College Circle Apartments - Building 13 Renovations, 1031 Danby Road: The Planning
Board granted preliminary and final approval for Site Plan Modifications and modification of a
condition from a previous approval for development at College Circle Apartments located at
1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43-1-2.2 and 43-1-2.3, Multiple Residence
District. The proposed modifications include renovating the existing office and laundry room in
Building 13 into one additional apartment and adding an asphalt walk from Building 13 towards
the Community Building. Also proposed is an increase in the approved number of apartment
units from 149 to 150 (149 units was approved on April 2, 2002 by the Planning Board), with the
maximum occupancy remaining at the originally approved 750 persons. South Hill Land
Associates, LLC and College Circle Associates, LLC, Owners; QPK Design, Applicant; Vincent
Nicotra, Agent.
March 18.2003 Meeting:
Longview Pavilion, Fill, and Sidewalks, 1 Bella Vista Drive: The Planning Board considered
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Approval for the proposed pavilion,
sidewalks, and the addition of fill at Longview, an Ithacare Community, 1 Bella Vista Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39-1-1.31, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7. The
proposal includes placing approximately 3,100 cubic yards of fill obtained from the College
Circle Apartments project to the west of the existing building, constructing a 2,900 +/- square
foot pavilion on a portion of the new fill, adding a restroom and storage area on to the existing
shed, and adding two sidewalk extensions with a total length of 471 +/- feet located along the
existing driveways. The proposal has been modified, with the addition of the fill and the
pavilion being shifted, since receiving Preliminary Site Plan Approval on October 15, 2002.
Ithacare Center Service Co., Inc., Owner/Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Agent. The Planning
Board adopted a negative declaration of environmental significance, and voted 3 in favor, 2
opposed to grant site plan approval, which was not a sufficient number of board members to
carry the motion. This will be scheduled again for the April 1, 2003 meeting for a new vote on
the matter.
Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Comprehensive Revisions to the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Map: The Planning Board considered a recommendation to the
Town Board regarding the proposed Town wide comprehensive revisions to the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance and Map. This revision follows many of the recommendations in the 1993
t^^wii-q^thacqilplanmng Director's^Reporf
April 7. 2003 Town Board Meeting I
Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. Key changes are proposed in areas such as Agricultural
and Conservation zones, simplified procedures for Special Permit uses, a new Lakefront
Residence zone with special provisions to protect the character of the Cayuga Lake shoreline, a
new Office Park Commercial zone, clarification of the purposes and revisions in the permitted
uses in the Business zones, and many other updates and clarifications. The Codes and
Ordinances Committee and the Town Board have accepted a revised draft of the Zoning
Ordinance (Jan. 15, 2003) and Map (Nov. 26, 2002), and have referred those to the Planning
Board for a recommendation regarding adoption. The public hearing was held and closed.
Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board will continue at the April 1, 2003
meeting.
CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECTS/FUNCTIONS
The following are accomplishments or issues that have been dealt with over the past month.
SEOR Reviews for Zoning Board: Two new SEQR reviews for the Zoning Board were done
since the March report: (1) variance to permit the construction of a second residential building on
a lot, where only one residential building is permitted (the applicant's intent is to convert the
existing residential building into a non-residential accessory structure upon completion of the
construction of the new building), located at 206 Dubois Road, Residence District R-30, Ken
Poyer, Appellant; and (2) special approval to allow for the occupancy of up to six unrelated
persons at two properties, located at 380 and 383 Pennsylvania Avenue, Residence District R-9,
Orlando lacovelli. Appellant.
Codes and Ordinances Committee: The Committee met on March 19, 2003 to discuss
confirmation of the work plan priority list and possible approaches to a new lower density
transition zone. The Committee agreed to modify the work plan priority list by elevating tree
preservation/tree cutting regulations to the "Next Priority" category, but keeping it at the #8 spot
on the priority list. Mary Russell distributed some background material and sample approaches
to tree cutting regulations, and the Committee will review these and have follow-up discussions
at future meetings to determine how to approach this subject. The Committee discussed how to
approach a lower density transition zone in terms of its purpose, density, permitted uses, and
criteria for determining locations. The Committee agreed that staff should first focus on
completing work on the proposed draft of the Zoning revisions, the Generic EIS, etc., before
spending time on the new transition zone, but that some initial map identification of potential
transition zone areas and site visits to targeted areas by Committee members might be a good
first step. The next meeting is scheduled for April 24, 2003 (this is a change from the regular
monthly date to accommodate the school vacation schedule).
Transportation Committee: The Committee met on March 27, 2003 to discuss enhanced speed
patrolling in the Town, proposed Caldwell Road improvements, ownership/maintenance issues
regarding Game Farm Road, possible trail link between Summerhill Lane and the East Ithaca
Recreationway, and the Town's sidewalk policies. The County Sheriffs Department and the
State Police in a cooperative venture will begin a program of enhanced speed and safety
patrolling and enforcement in selected areas of the Town beginning in mid-April. This will be
^pwn of hhacg Planning DifectWsM^
"ipr/Y 7, IDdi Town Board Meeting >
combined with traffic speed and volume measurements before and after patrol periods. The
Committee began a review of current sidewalk and walkway policies as part of the long-range
transportation plan, and hopes to come up with recommendations regarding how sidewalks
should be handled in new developments, locations for new sidewalks or walkways as part of a
town-wide pedestrian system, and a review of the existing sidewalk ordinance. The next
Committee meeting is scheduled for April 17, 2003.
Conservation Board: The Board met on March 6, 2003. Agenda items included a nomination to
fill a vacancy on the City's Natural Areas Commission (created by the retirement of Richard
Fischer - Jonathan Meigs was nominated); finalizing the Conservation Board's information
brochure; and discussion of work plan priorities for the upcoming year. The Environmental
Review Committee also reviewed the modified site plan for the Longview Pavilion. The next
meeting of the Conservation Board is scheduled for Thursday, April 3, 2003.
Municipal Officials Association Planning Coalition: The Planning Coalition met on March 26,
2003 to discuss several transportation and highway related subjects, with Fernando de Aragon,
Director of ITCTC, and Fred Noteboom, Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent, as guests.
Discussion focused on trail planning for a countywide system, road classifications and highway
maintenance issues, and follow-up on the County Freight Study. There was also a discussion
about a map showing municipal zoning districts in Tompkins County and how the County
Comprehensive Plan could address zoning consistency at municipal boundaries. The next
meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 30, 2003, where the agenda will focus on the County
Comprehensive Plan, a continuation of discussion regarding the Coalition's work plan priorities,
and an update on the Cayuga Lake Watershed Inter-municipal Organization's involvement in
storm water management planning.
Capital Projects and Fiscal Planning Committee: The Committee met on March 13, 2003 to
review the status of approved projects in the 2003 - 2007 Capital Budget and to begin
discussions regarding new projects proposed to be added to the 2004 - 2008 Capital Budget.
Possible new projects include Caldwell Road improvements proposed for 2004 and Buttermilk
Falls Trail (State Park through Emerson Electric connecting with South Hill Recreationway)
proposed for 2007 and 2008. The next meeting is scheduled for April 24, 2003 at 3:00 p.m.
Lake Source Cooling Monitoring: Benchmark Environmental Engineering is planning to have
their report regarding the Lake Source Cooling Monitoring data available for a presentation to
the Town Board at the April 7"' meeting.
Newsletter: The Spring 2003 Newsletter has been prepared, printed, and delivered to Challenge
Industries for preparation of the mailing to Town residents. Residents should have received the
Newsletter early in the first week of April.
Pew Trail - Appraisal Review: Northeast Appraisals has completed its review of the initial
appraisals for parcels necessary to implement the William and Hannah Pew Trail. The basic
conclusion of the review is that the original appraisals are not satisfactory and may not meet the
requirements of the State Dept. of Transportation (DOT). At DOT's suggestion, we have sent
Town of Ithaca Planning Director's Report
April J, 2003 Town Board Meeting , . . .
copies of the appraisals and reviews to DOT, and they will let us know if the appraisals should
be re-done.
ITCTC Policy Committee: As Chair of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council
(ITCTC) Planning Committee, the Director of Planning also attended the May 11, 2003 meeting
of the ITCTC Policy Committee.
Ellis Hollow Apartments - Conifer Realty Application for State Funding: As a follow-up to the
March lO"' Town Board meeting, Planning staff assisted with materials and information,
including the letter and resolution of support, for Conifer's application to NYS Division of
Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) for funding assistance to renovate the Ellis Hollow
Apartments. A copy of Conifer's application to DHCR is available in the Planning Department.
TOWN OF ITHACA REPORT OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2003
i MONTH ^'EAR TO DATE
'' V
TVP PERMIT YEAR # OF PERMITS AMOUNT n AMOUNT
SINf ■-AMILY
RHS ^ES
2003
2002
5 782,500
0 0
6 918,500
1 98,000
TWO I-AMILY RESIDENCES
2003
2002
1 150,000
1 95,000
1 150,000
1 95,000
RENOVATIONS
2003
2002
1 10,000
2 11,300
3 46,064
5 57,150
CONVERSIONS OF USE
2003
2002
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 34,584
ADDITIONS TO FOOTPRINT
2003
2002
0 0
0 0
1 15,000
0 0
MULTIPLE RESIDENCES
2003
2002
0 0
3 1,200,000
0 0
3 1,200,000
BUSINESS
2003
2002
0 0
0 0
1 1,300,000
2 10,700
AGRICULTURAL
2003
2002
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
INDUSIIGAL
2003
2002
0 0
0 0
oo
oo
EDUCATIONAL
2003
2002
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 14,000
0 0
I 14,000
1 2,800,000
MISCELLANEOUS
CONSTRUCTION
2003
2002
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 40'foot bridge 13,000
3 16,700
3 32.500
7 59,100
TOTAL NUMBER OF
PERMITS ISSUED
2003
2002
9 969,500
9 1,323,000
16 2,476,064
22 4,354,534
TOTAL FEES
RECEIVED
2003
2002
9 1,960
9 2,070
16 3,740
22 4,935
Date Prepared: April 1.2003
Dani L. Hollbrd
Building/Zoning Department Secretary
» ^
March 2003, Page 2
TOTAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCIIPANCY ISSUED THIS MONTH - 18
1. 215 Warren Road (CU) - Moakley House entry door replacement.
2. 107 Rich Road - add second story to existing single-family home - temporary.
3. Building E, #3, #4, #7, #8 Maplewood Park Apartments (CU) - roof replacement.
4. Dryden Road (CU) - Wilson Lab wall and door modifications.
5. 12 Saunders Road - new single-family modular.
6. 121 Eastern Heights Drive - two story, 900 square foot building addition.
7. 1485 Mecklenburg Road - remodel second floor of single-family home.
8. 142 Westview Lane - 17' x 20' carport
9. 272 Hayts Road - existing four-unit multiple dwelling.
10. 218 King Road East - existing two-family home.
11. 1335 Mecklenburg Road - add adjacent apartment to existing single-family home.
12. 203 Cypress Court (Linderman Creek Phase II) - new 8 unit multiple dwelling - temporary.
13. 214 Cypress Court (Linderman Creek Phase II) - new 8 unit multiple dwelling - temporary.
14. 216 Cypress Court (Linderman Creek Phase II) - new 8 unit multiple dwelling - temporary.
15. 229 Stone Quarry Road - residential building addition - temporary.
16. 1502 Slaterville Road - existing three-unit multiple dwelling.
17. 207 Tudor Road - recreation room in basement.
18. 108 West Haven Road - replace porch/back room.
TOTAL CERT1F1CATE.S OF OCCUPANCY YEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 44
TOTAL CERT1F1CATE.S OF OCCUPANCY YEAR TO DATE, 2002 - 43
INQUIRIES/COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATED THIS MONTH - 3
1. 108 Sapsucker Woods Road - building code - no violation found. ^ ^
2. 1031 Taughannock Boulevard - property maintenance - no violation found. / i
3. 110 King Road West - drainage - no violation found.
From December 2002:
1. 246 Renwick Drive - building code - abated.
From November 2002:
1. 329 Winthrop Drive - occupancy - enforcement deferred by ZBA until 6/30/03.
From August 2002:
1. 833 Coddington Road - building code - abated.
From December 2000:
1. 172 Calkins Road - property maintenance - (partially abated) - limited timefirame agreed to for complete abatement.
From May 1995:
1. 1152 Danby Road - zoning and building code - legal action pending.
TOTAL COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATED YEAR TO DATE. 2003-6
TOTAL COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATED YEAR TO DATE. 2002 - 4
7^
' \
' I
March 2003, Page 3
TOTAL FIELD VISITS THIS MONTH -90I TpjTA
rm Building Code - 56
f \ Law and Zoning Inspections - 7
.afety - 19 (16 apartments/properties [43 buildings, 209 units], 1 day care, 1 church, 1 business)
Fire Safety Reinspections - 8 (2 senior housing, 3 restaurants, 3 apartments)
Fire/Emergency Occurrences - 0
Fire Occurrence Reinspections - 0
TOTAL FIELD V ISITS YEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 219
TOTAL FIELD VISITS YEAR TO DATE, 2002 - 244
TOTAL SIGN PERMITS THIS MONTH - 0
TOTAL SIGN PERMITS YEAR TO DATE, 2003 - 2
TOTAL SIGN PERMITS YEAR TO DATE. 2002 - 2
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1 MEETING, 2 CASES, AGENDA ATTACHED
/ \
! I
Granted
Granted
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
MONDAY. MARCH 17.2003
7;00 P.M.
By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, March 17,
2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7:00
P.M.. on the following matters:
APPEAL of Ken Poyer, Appellant, seeking a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a second residential building at 206
Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22-1-1.22, Residence District R-30. Said Ordinance allows
only one residential building on a single parcel. The Appellant's intent is to convert the existing
residential building into a non-residential accessory structure upon completion of the construction for the
second building.
APPEAL of Orlando lacovelli. Appellant, Lawrence Fabbroni, Agent, requesting a special permit from the
Zoning Board of Appeals under Article III, Section 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for
occupancy up to six unrelated persons at two properties located at 380 and 383 Peimsylvania Avenue,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 54-7-33 and 54-5-30.2, Residence District R-9.
Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m., and said place, hear all persons in support
of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual
or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as
necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior
to the time of the public hearing.
Andrew S. Frost
Director of Building and Zoning
273-1783
Dated: March 5, 2003
Published: March 10,2003
I
' I
2003 YEAR-TO-DATE FEESCOLLECTED BY THEBUILDING/ZONING DEPARTMENTBUILDINGPERMITSZONING BOARDOF APPEALSSIGNSFIRESAFETYBUILDING PERMITEXTENSIONSCERTIFICATES OFOCCUPANCYFOUNDATIONPERMITSOPERATINGPERMITSTOTALSJAN1,370.00360.0036.8862.5050.00700.0050.0075.002,704.38FEB410.00260.0070.49395.0025.001,245.000.002,250.004,655.49MAR1,960.00160.000.0050.0055.001,310.00500.00650.004,685.00APR0.00MAY0.00JUN0.00JUL0.00AUG0.00SEP0.00OCT0.00NOV0.00DEC0.00TOTALS3,740.00780.00107.37507.50130.003,255.00550.002,975.0012,044.87JANUARY -MARCH 2002 TOTALSBUILDINGPERMITSZONING BOARDOF APPEALSSIGNSFIRESAFETYBUILDING PERMITEXTENSIONSCERTIFICATES OFOCCUPANCYFOUNDATIONPERMITSOPERATINGPERMITSTOTALSTOTALS4,935.00760.00163.00843.75100.002,348.50450.001,850.0011,450.25((
Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board, Monday, April 7, 2003
Human Resources Report for March 2003
Personnel Committee:
The committee continued discussion regarding offering an Employee Assistance
Program through Family and Children's Service of Tompkins County. It was
decided to make the recommendation to the Town Board and SCLIWC for this
service More information about this will be presented to the Board in May.
The committee was updated on the status of the Personnel Manual distribution
and training. The committee reviewed some benefit programs offered by AFLAC
that would be 100% employee paid. The committee decided to send information
about the programs to the employees to see if there is any interest, as it would
only take 3 employees in order to offer the benefit.
Safetv Committee:
The committee discussed what intersections should be evaluated for being a
hazard when snow plowing. There was also discussion around the plows
needing to back up when plowing. The committee will do a site visit in April.
The committee walked through the Public Works Facility to determine the best
locations for evacuation maps.
There were no incident/accidents reported to review.
Training and Development:
Town employees received the new Employee Handbook, which is comprised of
the revised Personnel Manual and the new Safety Policy and Procedures
Manual. All employees have attended an Employee Handbook Presentation.
Connie and I attended refresher training provided by the NYS Retirement System
on reporting member service time and contributions.
I attended seminar on Legal Updates, specifically on retaliation cases and HIPPA
(Health Insurance Portability Protection Act.) I also attended a training session
provided by Haylor, Freyor & Coon (Town's Insurance agency) on Workplace
Harassment and Mitigating Road Defects Allocations.
Personnel - Civil Service:
Amy Jackson was hired on a temporary basis to cover a medical leave for Cindy
Vicedomini, Court Clerk for Justice Bordoni. Amy has in the past been a court
clerk for the City of Ithaca.
Toby Brown, Laborer, has started at the Highway Department.
* ¨
NYS & Local Retirement: .
At the March Town Board meeting there was a correspondence from the State
Comptroller regarding the 2003 annual retirement employer
date we have received further correspondence indicating that the 2003 rate will
be around 4.5% of annual wages versus the 9 or 15% previously Indicated. The
Town will still have an estimated budget shortfall for the December payment of
$60 000 versus the $200,000. The Comptroller indicated in his correspondence
that'the 4.5% would be a minimum amount employers should expect to pay from
now on. The rate could be higher depending on the investments.
Health Insurance: . . ..
Employees enrolled with Town's health insurance should have all received
notification regarding HIPPA in the mail. The notification requirement of this law
is April 14, 2003. The notification detailed that employee's information is held
privately. Employees can authorize others to have the ability to obtain this
private information, but the employee must complete the proper form and file it
with the health insurance company.
When the town changed insurance provider from Univera to BCBS there was the
stipulation that there would be a recoupment of rates. Typically this recoupment
from one year to the next is folded into the current years monthly premiums.
Since, we have changed providers, we are responsible for the direct Pf ^ent of
this recoupment. The amount for 2002 is $18,176.01. including SCLIWC. This
amount is about $10.000 larger than what was anticipated. History has shown
the per month per employee recoupment being on average $5. The
that we have received is $10.20 for individual. $20.40 for Double and $28.29 for
Family coverage. These amounts are the difference between what we paid per
month versus the rate that was filed with and approved by the NYS insurance
Department.
Commercial Insurance: No new claims to report.
Workers' Compensation: No new claims to report.
nisahilitv Insurance: Cindy VIcedomlnl went out on March 20®' for an operation.
Cindy is expected to be out for about 6 weeks.
Submitted By:
Judith C. Drake. PHR
Human Resources Manager
Town of Ithaca - Micfosolt internet Explorer
File Edi View Favoiiies Took Help I
"Mt,- n '
Town of Ithaca, NY
^ Governmenl ^ Services ^ InforiDation [► Coinfnirlty ^Contact
Network/Record Specialist Report to Town Board
April 7, 2003
Feb & Mar Web Site Visitors
gFeb iiMar
B
Home GoVt Services
Pages
Information Community
Website
The Proposed Zoning page has been revamped and updated with the lastest changes. The pages have been
modified for lower screen resolutions and easier navigability. The search-by-term and indexed copy
links are still under construction.
Network
♦ New Public Works Facilitv:
Installation of the new network at Highway should be completed within a few weeks. The project was delayed
because of network cabling problems, which have now been resolved, and computers that had to be retumed to
Compaq/HP because they were shipped with the wrong operating system.
The Highway Department's new local area network (LAN) consists of a Windows 2000 server providing file and
print services for 10 Windows 2000 workstations, a network color printer, plotter, and Xerox machine.
Time Wamer Cable Road Runner connection provides the high-speed Internet for all users.
Additional Items
♦ Sherpa Technologies provided network design and support for the Highway's new network. During the
construction and implementation of the Highway's LAN, plans were made for a virtual private network (VPN)
/Wo be installed this summer. The VPN will connect the Town Hall network and Highway network via the Internet
hrough a secured encrypted tunnel. This VPN is being installed in order for staff to share resources and data
tetween facilities as well as remote management and support for these networks.
Downloading picture http://www.lownithacany.us/Jerived/conlaclus,htm_cmp_lwc-ithaca010.hbtn.gi[...
jSlartj IliCacheman Inbox'Mbosoft Outlook ^Town of Ithaca - Micr.
Internet
..
'It
2003 TAX COLLECTION
^ O RECEIVER OF TAXES
MONTHLY REPORT
AS OF MARCH 31,2003
/ \
TOTAL NO. OF TAX BILLS ON WARRANT: 5115
TOTAL TOWN WARRANT (LEVY): $ 4,049,790.61
01/21/03 PAYMENT: TOWN OFITHACA SUPERVISOR $ 2,400,000.00
01/27/03 2^° PAYMENT: TOWN OF ITHACA SUPERVISOR $ 1,000.000.00
01/29/03 FINAL PAYMENT; TOWN OF ITHACA SUPERVISOR $ 649,790.61
TOTAL WARRANT BALANCE DUE: $ 00.00
MISCELLANEOUS PA YMENTS TO TOWN OF ITHACA SUPERVISOR:
01/31/03 JANUARY INTEREST RECEIVER'S CHECKING ACCOUNT $ 786.27
02/28/03 FEBRUARY PENALTIES (PAID TO SUPERVISOR IN JUNE) $ 1,861.92
03/31/03 MARCH PENALTIES (PAID TO SUPERVISOR IN JUNE) $ 1,489.86
04/30/03 APRIL PENALTIES AND $2.00 SERVICE CHARGES
(PAID TO SUPERVISOR IN JUNE) $ 0,000,000.00
^/31/03 MAY PENALTIES AND $2.00 SERVICE CHARGES
(PAID TO SUPERVISOR IN JUNE) $ 0,000,000.00
)TAL TOMPKINS COUNTY WARRANT: $ 5,413,896.34
02/13/03 PAYMENT: TOMPKINS COUNTY BUDGET/FINANCE $ 4,000,000.00
03/03/03 2^"^ PAYMENT; TOMPKINS COUNTY BUDGET/FINANCE $ 100,000.00
04/01/03 3"° PAYMENT: TOMPKINS COUNTY BUDGET/FINANCE $ 115,000.00
01/01/03 4™ PAYMENT: TOMPKINS COUNTY BUDGET/FINANCE $ 0,000.000.00
0 I/O 1/03 5™ PAYMENT: TOMPKINS COUNTY BUDGET/FINANCE $ 0,000,000.00
0 I/O 1/03 6™ PAYMENT: TOMPKINS COUNTY BUDGET/FINANCE $ 0,000.000.00
BALANCE DUE TOMPKINS COUNTY WARRANT: $ 1,198,896.34
MISCELLANEOUS PA YMENTS TO TOMPKINS COUNTY BUDGET/FINANCE:
02/28/03 FEBRUARY INTEREST RECEIVER' S CHECKING ACCOUNT $ 874.41
03/31/03 MARCH INTEREST RECEIVER'S CHECKING ACCOUNT $ 24.88
04/30/03 APRIL INTEREST RECEIVER'S CHECKING ACCOUNT $ 0,009,000.00
05/31/03 MAY INTEREST RECEIVER'S CHECKING ACCOUNT $ 0,000,000.00
» 1
RECEIVER OF TAXES2003 ACCOUNT REGISTERTOTAL WARRANT AS OF 1/1/03$4,049,790.61DEPOSIT JOURNAL # 1$63,699.77DEPOSIT JOURNAL # 2$25,597.74DEPOSIT JOURNAL # 3$217,500.74DEPOSIT JOURNAL # 4$237,078.71DEPOSIT JOURNAL # 5$118,120.89DEPOSIT JOURNAL #6$4,056.32DEPOSIT OVER $906.83REFUND BILL # 2684$(182.00)BROWN - OK # 634REFUND BILL #1895$(724.83)AVELLO - OK # 635DEPOSIT JOURNAL # 7$153,033.48DEPOSIT JOURNAL # 8$159,991.92DEPOSIT JOURNAL #9$222,681.38DEPOSIT SHORT 40 CENTS - BILL # 2897DEPOSIT JOURNAL #10$208,918.66DEPOSIT JOURNAL #11$537,175.88TOMPKINS TRUST COMPANY BANK CODESDEPOSIT JOURNAL #12$101,280.57DEPOSIT JOURNAL #13$286,791.75DEPOSIT JOURNAL# 14$107,669.57PAID TOWN SUPERVISOR$(2,400,000.00)CK # 636 - FIRST PAYMENT OF WARRANTDEPOSIT JOURNAL #15$302,901.94DEPOSIT JOURNAL #16$334.574.25DEPOSIT OVER $3.00 - BILL # 3687REFUND BILL # 3687$(3.00)CK # 637 KENNETH & MARIE CARONDEPOSIT JOURNAL #17$1,818.90DEPOSIT JOURNAL #18$155,700.07DEPOSIT JOURNAL #19$201,340.48DEPOSIT OVER $1.00 - BILL # 1351PAID TOWN SUPERVISOR$(1,000,000.00)CK # 638 - SECOND PAYMENT OF WARRANTDEPOSIT JOURNAL #20$888,366.56DEPOSIT OVER $1627.39 - BILL # 4268 BANK CODESREFUND BILL # 4268 BANK M&T$(1,627.39)CK # 639 - M&T MORTGAGEDEPOSIT JOURNAL #21$343,524.25DEPOSIT JOURNAL # 22$634,988.89DEPOSIT OVER $2.00 - BILL # 2277REFUND BILL #2277$(2.00)CK # 640 - ROBERT COFERPAID TOWN SUPERVISOR$(649,790.61)CK # 641 - FINAL PAYMENT OF WARRANTDEPOSIT JOURNAL #23$560.98MCCLURE BILLS-REFUND DUE TO TOWN OF ULYSSESREFUND TO TOWN OF ULYSSES$(157.81)CK # 642 TOWN OF ULYSSES WATER DISTRICTDEPOSIT JOURNAL # 24$620,492.53DEPOSIT OVER 20 CENTS - BILL # 4528REMOVED BILL # 1460 1ST INSTALL$(467.07)OWNER PAID FULL PAYMENTDEPOSq" TOURNAL # 25$889.65BILL # 1460 FULL PAYMENTJ
DE. .JDRNAL#26 $ 696,319.02DEPOSIT JOURNAL #27 $ 484,946.78REUND BILL# 157 $ (200.00)RETURN CHECK BILL # 421 $ (1,981.29)RETURN BANK CHRG BILL # 421 $ (10.00)DEPOSIT JOURNAL #28 $ 807,052.74REFUND BILL # 2220 $ (2.00)REFUND BILL # 1289 & 1291 $ (290.99)JANUARY INTEREST TCT $ 786.27PAID TOWN SUPERVISOR $ (786.27)DEPOSIT JOURNAL #29 $ 121,051.50REFUND BILL # 1518 $ (13.04)DEPOSIT JOURNAL #30 $ 15,603.27RETURN CHECK BILL # 4826 $ (1,242.16)RETURN BANK CHRG BILL # 4826 $ (10.00)REDEPOSIT BILL # 4826 $ 1,260.16REDEPOSIT REFUND BILL # 4826 $ (3.00)RETURN CHECK BILL # 224 $ (1,314.53)RETURN BANK CHRG BILL # 224 $ (10.00)DEPOSIT JOURNAL #31 $ 13,789.67ELLIS HOLLOW IN LIEU OF TAXES $ 30.903.21PD TOMPKINS COUNTY $ (7,269.44)PD TOWN OF ITHACA $ (1,417.18)PD ITHACA CITY SCHOOL $ (22,216.59)RETURN CHECK BILL # 1208 $ (268.96)RETURN BANK CHRG BILL # 1208 $ (10.00)DEPOSIT JOURNAL #32 $ 12,813.77PD TOMPKINS COUNTY $ (20,427.65)PD TOMPKINS COUNTY $ (4,000,000.00)RETURN CHECK BILL #614 $ (2,261.85)RETURN BANK CHRG BILL #614 $ (10.00)REDEPOSIT BILL # 1208 $ 283.96DEPOSIT JOURNAL #33 $ 20,050.38REDEPOSIT BILL #614 $ 2,276.85DEPOSIT JOURNAL #34 $ 13,164.97DEPOSIT JOURNAL # 35 $ 15,665.29REFUND BILL #235 $ (141.37)DEP # 36 FRANCHISES PD TO TO $ 279,266.34FRANCHISES PD TO TO $ (279,266.34)DEPOSIT JOURNAL #37 $ 49,608.47FEBRUARY INTEREST FROM TCT $ 874.41PAID TOMPKINS COUNTY $ (874.41)DEPOSIT 5. ^HORT BILL # 4536DEPOSIT 200.00 OVER - BILL # 157CK # 643 - GREENWALDDEPOSIT OVER $292.99 - BILL # 1289 290.00 & Bill # 2220 2.00CK # 644 - PARKCK # 645 - STANTONINTEREST TO PAY TO TOWN SUPERVISORINTERNET TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUNDDEPOSIT OVER 13.04 - BILL #1518CK # 646 - HOME PROPERTIESDEPOSIT SHORT 2 CENTS)REDEPOSIT WAS 3.00 OVERCK # 647 - BILL # 4826CK# 648 - IN LIEU OF TAXES - ELLIS HOLLOWCK# 649 - IN LIEU OF TAXES - ELLIS HOLLOWCK# 650 - IN LIEU OF TAXES - ELLIS HOLLOWCK# 651 - FIRST INSTALL SERVICE CHARGESCK# 652 - FIRST PAYMENT OF 2003 WARRANTDEPOSIT SHORT 1 CENT - BILL # 874DEPOSIT OVER 141.97CK # 653 - SETTLEMENT CORPNO MONEY TO THE TOWNJUST RECORDING PURPOSESCK # 654 - FEB INTEREST FROM TCTPage 2
PAID TOMPKINS COUNTY$(100,000.00)DEPOSIT JOURNAL #38$37,417.46DEPOSIT CK FROM TC BUD/FIN$154.95DEPOSIT JOURNAL # 39$8,604.19DEPOSIT JOURNAL # 40$6,043.25REFUND BILL# 1063$(46.76)DEPOSIT JOURNAL # 41$12,514.32MARCH INTEREST FROM TCT$24.88DEPOSIT JOURNAL #42$25,360.55DEPOSIT JOURNAL #43$31,457.07PAID TOMPKINS COUNTY$(24.88)PAID TOMPKINS COUNTY$(115,000.00)CK # 655 - #2 PAYMENT OF WARRANTDEPOSIT 5 CENTS OVER - LUCENTE BILLSCHECK FOR 1ST INSTALL SERVICE CHARGES - NSFDEPOSIT OVER $46.77CK # 656 - MILLERDEPOSIT SHORT 2 CENTSDEPOSIT OVER 1 CENTCK # 657 - MARCH INTEREST FROM TCTCK # 658 - # 3 PAYMENT OF WARRANTTOTAL IN CHECKING ACCOUNT7,996.19 AS OF 4/1/03JJJ
33TOWN OF ITHACARECEIVER OF TAXES2003 SETTLEMENT OF MONEYJanuary 31, 2003TOWN OF ITHACA WARRANTPD TOWN SUP 1ST PAYMENTPD TOWN SUP 2ND PAYMENTPD TOWN SUPER FINAL PAYMENT$ 4,049,790.61 TO BE COLLECTED FOR 2003 TAX YEAR$ (2,400,000.00) CK# 636 1ST PAYMENT OF WARRANT$ (1,000,000.00) CK# 638 2ND PAYMENT OF WARRANT$ (649,790.61) CK# 641 FINAL PAYMENT OF TOWN WARRANT$ - TOTAL PAID TO TOWN SUPERVISOR 1/29/03PD TOMPKINSPD TOMPKINSPD TOMPKINSPD TOMPKINSPD TOMPKINSPD TOMPKINSCOUNTY 1ST PAYCOUNTY 2ND PAYCOUNTY 3RD PAYCOUNTY 4TH PAYCOUNTY 5TH PAYCOUNTY 6TH PAYTOMPKINS COUNTY WARRANTTOTAL PD TOMPKINS COUNTYFRANCHISES PAID TO TC2ND INSTALLS TO BE COLLECTEDUNPAID WHITE SHEETS4,000,000.00100,000.00115,000.00CK# 652 1ST PAYMENT OF WARRANTCK# 655 2ND PAYMENT OF WARRANTCK# 658 3RD PAYMENT OF WARRANTCK# 000 4TH PAYMENT OF WARRANTCK# 000 5TH PAYMENT OF WARRANTCK# 000 6TH PAYMENT OF WARRANT$ 4,215,000.00 TOTAL PAID TO TOMPKINS COUNTY AS OF 3/3/03$ 5,413,896.34 TO BE COLLECTED FOR 2003 TAX YEAR$ (4,215,000.00) TOTAL PAID TO TOMPKINS COUNTY AS OF 6/10/03$ (279,266.34) NO MONEY TO US-PD TO TOMPKINS COUNTY BUD/FIN$ (408,550.85) TOMPKINS COUNTY TO COLLECT IN JUNE 2003$ -^TOMPKINS COUNTY TO COLLECT$ 511,079.15 TOTAL LEFT TO PAY TOMPKINS COUNTY AS OF 4/1/03Page 4
Town Board Meeting 5/7/2003 ATTACHMENT #9
Comments on Review of Cayuga Lake water quality monitoring March 03"
D.R.Bouldin, 208 Forest Home Drive, Ithaca, NY
1. My understanding is that the permit required both total P (TP) and soluble
reactive P (SRP) yet SRP is not listed in the data reported here. Would you
discuss your understanding of the significance of Total P(TP) vs soluble reactive
P (SRP).
2. Why are you recommending discontinuance of sampling at location 2 . loc 2
completes the circle around LSC discharge (together with 1,3,7)?
3. Why are you recommending discontinuance of 8 since it is supposed to represent
the lake beyond the intake?
4. On page 10 loads of P are discussed. How are the changes in loads calculated:
input concentrations vs output concentrations? But unless something unexpected
happens in the piping system they should be the same.
7) e_ULLLI
AFR -7 2C0
n
ATTEST
i' HACA -^OWrfciTRK^