HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2004-09-30 September 30, 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30TH AT 7 : 00 P . M .
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, NY 14850
THOSE PRESENT : Supervisor Valentino , Councilwoman Grigorov , Councilman Lesser,
Councilman Burbank , Councilman Engman , Councilman Stein
STAFF PRESENT : Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk ; Al Carvill , Budget Officer; Marnie
Kirchgessner, Youth and Human Services Coordinator; Judy Drake , Human Resources
Manager
OTHERS PRESENT : Allen Green , City of Ithaca Youth Bureau ; Carolyn Peterson , City of
Ithaca Mayor; Nancy Zahler; Tompkins County Youth Commission ; Tim Joseph , Tompkins
County Board of Representatives ; Dooley Kiefer, Tompkins County Board of
Representatives ; Liz Vance , City of Ithaca Youth Bureau ; David Licari , 1855 Danby Road ;
Stevi-Jo Stracener (address not given)
EXCUSED : Councilwoman Gittelman
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7 : 00 p . m . and Supervisor Valentino led the assemblage in
the Pledge of Allegiance .
Francine Montemurro was present to facilitate the meeting .
Supervisor Valentino reported the Tompkins County Legislature voted to include $ 38 , 110 for
the Recreation Partnership in their proposed 2005 budget , and to include that expenditure as
an ongoing expenditure . Representative Tim Joseph cautioned that the final budget was far
from passed .
2005 Tentative Budget
Board members received copies of the 2005 Tentative Budget . Supervisor Valentino advised
the Board of a software problem that pulled 2002 numbers for the 2004 adopted budget
figure . All other numbers , including 2004 modified budget numbers are correct .
Recreation Partnership
The board discussed and agreed upon how to order the evening 's presentation and
discussion items .
Agenda Item IIIA -Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca : Five year history of payments
(Attachment #1 — Pie Charts , Recreation Costs Spreadsheet, Approximate Possible
Cost Shraing Options )
Supervisor Valentino presented a graphic depicting the Town ' s total 2004 expenditures and
the percentage of the expenditures that go to the City; 31 % of the Town ' s expenditures go to
the City of Ithaca . Another graphic depicted the City of Ithaca 's total 2004 revenues and the
percentage of revenues that come from the Town ; 9 % of City revenues come from the Town .
1
September 30, 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
In answer to questions from Councilman Burbank , Supervisor Valentino stated that the
figures presented include water, sewer, and fire protection
Supervisor Valentino then reviewed the initial Recreation Partnership Agreement with the
board and provided a history of the Town 's involvement in and contribution to the partnership
since 1997 .
Councilman Stein asked Supervisor Valentino if it was the feeling of the Town that from 1997
through 2003 the Town was overpaying the City for the recreational services Town residents
were using . Supervisor Valentino responded telling him the City never provided us with any
real numbers to comfortably determine the cost of the services provided . Councilman Stein
asked again if the Supervisor Valentino felt the Town was overpaying and she responded
stating yes she felt the Town was overpaying .
Councilman Lesser stated his understanding that the 1990 agreement indicated that Town
residents would not pay more in costs than City residents . He then asked : how we got from
a per unit, per child , per event cost to an aggregate amount ; did we know how many Town
residents were using City facilities at that time ; and where did the $ 152 , 205 number come
from ?
Nancy Zahler told him that since 1980 they have been tracking who is using Ithaca Youth
Bureau recreation programs . By 1990 when the agreement was signed , the trend was pretty
consistent that Town of Ithaca residents represented about 1 /3 of the participants in Ithaca
City Youth Bureau recreation programs . Ms . Zahler was uncertain about the rationale behind
the $ 152 , 000 amount ; this was something arrived at by Shirley Raffensperger and the Ithaca
City Youth Bureau directors .
Councilman Lesser asked if indeed it has been established over a decade that the Town
residents are about 1 /3 of the users of the facilities why was it considered necessary this past
year to do additional survey at additional expense to generate what I understand are similar
numbers .
Ms . Zahler and Mr. Green better defined the 1 /3 , stating it is the percentage of Town of Ithaca
residents that enroll in Youth Bureau programs , not the percentage that utilize the facilities
and therefore does not include individuals at the open skating or open swim .
Mr. Green then distributed summary data entitled Waterfront Parks — Where Users Live .
Councilman Engman asked if the numbers in the study done in 2002 by Economics Research
Associates were accurate regarding the relative participation rate of Town of Ithaca
participants in City facilities . Mr. Green told him that the data used came from the Ithaca
Youth Bureau . Ms . Zahler added that they had done no independent information gathering .
Mr. Green spoke of the complexities of gathering data relative to park use citing as an
example the use of the Cass Park fields , which are used by people from all over. Similarly
Stewart Park offers services to everyone in the area but to whom and to how many is difficult
2
September 30, 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
to quantify . The City has been discussing implementing a card-swipe system that would
allow them to count the number and residence of people using the rink and the pool .
Mr. Green commented that it has been difficult that there really hasn 't been a sense of
specifics ; no contract between the City and the Town that says here ' s how much the Town
pays for these services under these circumstances with these conditions . It' s really been a
handshake agreement. Mr. Green stated his hope that current discussion would result in a
formal arrangement so that 10 years from now people won 't look back and say why did they
decide to do it this way and not some other way.
There was discussion of the fact that Stewart Park was not a part of the initial agreement.
Supervisor Valentino reviewed the arrangement for the summer intern who conducted a
survey at Cass Park pool . The City paid for 2 hours per week ; the Town paid for 10 hours
per week . The survey asks questions aimed at learning just more than how many people are
using the pool . It also tries to get information regarding what people like and dislike about the
pool . The analysis of the collected data is still a work in progress . Supervisor Valentino felt
the survey would open the door to some good conversations when we get some of that data
back .
Agenda Item IIIA -Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca : Management of City Facilities
and Follow-Through on Consultant's Recommendations
Mary Russell appeared before the Board to present a history of the Recreation Partnership .
She had served as part of the Recreation Facilities group from March 2000 until 2003 . The
group was generated from the whole renegotiation of the partnership and the problems with
addressing the facilities issues . When the group first began meeting they decided to hire a
consultant to help with the issues that everyone in the group decided were out there . At the
time City representatives were interested in exploring a total County take over of the City
facilities and a variety of other possibilities for shared ownership or funding of the facilities .
There were also questions of consolidation of the County Youth Bureau with the City Youth
Bureau . There was a lack of information on the facilities the group felt needed to be
addressed . There was some interest in privatization of the facilities and most of all , interest
in efficiencies and alternative management structures for the facilities and other funding
sources that could be developed in order to make the facilities more cost efficient . Basically ,
how should the facilities be owned , funded , and managed .
Ms . Russell highlighted language from the Consultant' s Facilities report to indicate some of
problems they were seeing .
Addressing the Cass Park Pools , the consultant says in the report the review of expenses
indicated several areas with unusually high costs for the limited operating season of the pool .
Specific areas included lifeguard salaries , the percentage of administrative support , utilities
and maintenance costs for pool operations , and water quality management . Allocation of
administrative costs to the pool appears to be unusually high . 30 % of the manager' s time
and 33 % of assistant manager' s time are allocated to the operation of the pool , yet the pool
operation represents only 12 % of the operating season .
3
� z
September 30 , 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
In the next paragraph .
More critically to the operation of the pool , the maintenance staff are the only certified pool
operators . Neither the manager, nor the assistant manager, or the summer assistants and
head lifeguards are certified pool operators . This requires the use of significantly more
expensive labor costs .
Ms . Russell stated that her notes from the meeting with ERA Consultants indicated that they
told us at that time that 60 , 00 to 90 , 000 was more typical for operating expenses for a similar
size pool . The pool expenses that they noted from the Cass Park pool were significantly
higher. They were 214 , 000 a year.
The consultants believed that the City represented the most logical organizational structure
for the parks and recreation services . They noted that the organizational structure
recommendation shouldn 't be confused with the funding , but to that end they were
recommending implementation of better accounting practices and increased focus on
individual facility performance to enhance the potential to expand the spirit of the current
partnership agreement to achieve great equity. That was another point that we really wanted
to emphasize .
There were several pages of recommendations to improve the operations and management
of the facilities . The Consultant' s report came out in final form in what Ms . Russell believed
was August of 2002 .
The facilities committee did not meet in the fall of 2002 . They reconvened in February of
2003 . At that time Supervisor Valentino , Ms . Russell , and Mr. Burbank made sure they
asked what had happened to the Consultant' s recommendations that were meant to make
the facilities more affordable because at that point it was clear that the City was seeking more
funding to support the facilities . They did not get a real answer on that ; they got an answer
from John Doyle that you can 't make money on a nine- hole golf course and there was no real
follow-up as to what they had been doing to implement those recommendations . Ms . Russell
reported that the lack for follow- up was disappointing .
The City then presented their funding scenarios for cost sharing those facilities , and the
County , at that point , had not made it clear that they were not in a position to increase their
funding of the facilities so that was still up for discussion . The County didn 't make that clear
until the end of February . The City was asking for a three-way split of the costs of the
facilities at that point and the scenarios that they presented for the split of that cost would
have increased the Town 's contribution to the facilities from 113 , 000 and the numbers that
they were asking for varied under different scenarios but the lowest one was 66 , 000 more
and the highest one was 148 , 000 more . Ms . Russell had copies of those proposals for Board
review.
Ms . Zahler stated the entire facilities report included looking at Cass , Stewart, and the golf
course . When all three parties reconvened to look at the cost sharing options the expectation
was they' d be looking at cost sharing options for all three facilities . At the first meeting , the
4
September 30 , 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
City indicated that the golf course should be removed from discussion and the remaining
discussion should focus on Cass and Stewart from their perspective .
Supervisor Valentino stated that there was no doubt that they had included Stewart Park in
the study , but it had never been part of the Town ' s payments , nor did the Town say that they
would include it .
Ms . Russell continued stating when it became clear that the County was not going to
increase their funding amount and they looked at the numbers that the City was proposing , it
became clear what the City was proposing was not an affordable number for the Town . A 1 %
increase in taxes was raising less than $ 10 , 000 a dollars a year. Also we have in this Town ,
a very ambitious capital plan to develop our own parks and trails and to protect open space .
We have to try to set money aside for those projects , and the fact that those benefited City
residents as well , it just didn 't seem like anything the Town could implement at that time . The
management recommendations were many of the ' same ideas that had been suggested for
years , and not seeing those implemented at the facilities it just didn 't seem like there was any
point to any further discussion . So the group stopped meeting at that point.
Councilman Stein asked if the specific recommendations made by the consultant had been
implemented .
Mr. Greene responded . There were six recommendations for the rink and eight for the pool .
Regarding the Ice Rink
The City has already made a number, which taken together they thought would reduce the
net operating expenses at the rink by about 25 , 000 to 30 , 000 . They've looked at all of the
recommendations and have made a series of changes that have resulted in an overall
reduction of net operating expenses at Cass Park of about 84 , 000 , that includes the pool and
the fields , the overall operation since 2002 .
# 1 - Increased programming and diversity of skating activities ,
Some of the additions include a new youth hockey program , a new figure skating program , a
new skating program co-sponsored by the Youth Bureau ' s recreation mainstreaming services
program for youth and adults with disabilities , a new learn to play hockey program for 5 to 9
year olds , and a new open ice hockey program . Jim Dialtirio , the new recreation supervisor
at Cass , served as the coach of the Ithaca College ' s men 's hockey team from 1995 until
2002 , and has lots of ideas for new programming at the ice rink .
#2 - Evaluate the amount of complimentary use .
Complimentary use has been eliminated . There is a barter agreement with the school district
that does live on . That includes the Ithaca High School girls varsity team ' s use of the rink .
There ' s no charge to the school district in the sense of a bill being sent but there is a trade
agreement that benefits the Recreation Partnership significantly.
#3 - Increasing fees both for daily admission and for season pass rates .
Done that in categories .
5
� Z
September 30, 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
#4 - A capital improvement program to modernize the ice rink .
This work hasn 't been done , but the examination of the need for it has been done . A report
was done by Thomas Associates that outlines a series of recommendations for
improvements to the rink .
#5 - Relates to the barter agreement /revenue sharing agreement with the school district .
ERA looked at this and found it to be equitable and similar to agreements in other
communities . Last year the value of the trade as it relates to the rink was about $7 , 5000 . Mr.
Green felt what the consultant was getting at was moving towards a more traditional billing
system or just accounting for those dollars more effectively . The City hasn 't moved away
from the barter agreement, but the administrative staff at Cass Park has been tracking the
value of the various components of that barter agreement more carefully .
#6 - Increased off-season utilization .
In addition to the day camps ' use of the rink during the off season , they have also written a
grant proposal which may enable them to purchase in- line skates to rent out for roller-blading
on the water front trail . They just had a big community celebration ; scheduled off-season as
far as the rink is concerned and a great example of that kind of seasonal utilization . They are
happy to explore some of the other ideas and have actually tried some of the things that the
consultant mentioned .
Regarding Cass Park Pool
Municipal pools , and supervised waterfront beaches , particularly those that are north of the
Mason Dixon line are typically subsidized . This was an area where the City was particularly
disappointed in some of the comparisons that the consultant was using because many of the
pools they looked at were in the South . Nevertheless , they've looked at each of the
recommendations and implemented several of them . One that is particularly interesting and
has the potential to further reduce net operating expenses is #8 , which involves examining
the feasibility of a capital improvement program . Zero depth 'interactive spray parks are
bringing new life to traditional pools . Geysers , tumble buckets , popcorn jet , steamed play
features are some of the attractions that are boosting municipal pools in the north as well as
in the south . A pool renovation plan that includes the addition of a water play park could be
quite an exciting enhancement of Cass for this community .
Regarding certification , the City really has to pay close attention to New York State
certification considerations . All pool operators are fully certified . If you are going to talk
about certification you have to talk about safety . The reason the Cass Park pool was built in
the first place was the result of a drowning at Stewart Park in the 1960s .
Regarding the metering issue , the City does have separate water and sewer meters for the
pool and the rink . What they don 't have and what Mr. Green thought ERA was getting at is
meters that enable us to separate the electrical usage of the day camp versus the pool the
maintenance building . That' s not been implemented . It would cost money up front to add
additional meters and on a monthly basis it would increase our electrical costs because of the
peculiarities of peek demand billing .
6
September 30, 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
Supervisor Valentino stated she was specifically concerned about certifying the pool
management and what the consultant talked about as the excessive costs for the way it was
managed for lifeguards . She asked if the City had addressed these issues .
Regarding the specific recommendation that had to do with certification , Mr. Green stated the
City focused on NY State regulations . The organization that the consultant referred to and is
a member of, is a national organization and it' s great as far as it goes . However, New York
State is very specific with respect to the number of guards a facility needs . All of the City' s
folks are fully certified in terms of the chemicals that we use in the water. Supervisor
Valentino asked if this included the manager and the assistant manager? Mr. Green told her
it included the maintenance people , who do all of the chemical work . The City does not have
the manager and the assistant manager doing anything with the chemicals .
Councilwoman Griogorov asked how long the pool season was saying she had heard it
ended early . Mr. Green said over the years it's been mainly July and August . In the last few
years , instead of running through Labor Day they've closed in the middle of August.
Councilwoman Grigorov asked why .
Mr. Green stated it was partly because of budget cut backs . Over the last 10 years the
budget for the pool has been cut pretty steadily. It also has something to do with the weather
at the end of August and the fact that families are gearing up for the school year and are a
little less likely to go down to the pool . Business kind of drops off, but you have to have a
certain number of lifeguards in those chairs and you ' re paying people to be there but you
don 't have enough revenue coming in to make it cost effective . Mr. Green said he would love
to see the pool stay open longer.
Mr. Engman brought the board ' s attention to a paragraph he said perplexed him : "While
program participation indicates that the City of Ithaca under penetrates its expected fair share
that is a 100 % fair share of program participation would be equal to 30 . 3 % of the program
participants , the same ration of the City' s population of the total . Contrasting this relationship
is the Town of Ithaca with a population equal to 18 . 9 % of the County total but accounting for
29 . 8 % of the program participants . The Town of Ithaca ' s 158 % penetration rate indicates it
exceeds its fair share by a factor of 1 . 58 . " Mr. Engman stated he did not know how to
interpret that .
Ms . Russell was similarly perplexed .
Mr. Stein stated it just means that all citizens of the County , their fair share is proportional to
their youth population , total population . Ms . Zahler .felt the consultant was using the total
population . Mr. Green thought it was probably not a good number to use because you have
a lot of college students that wouldn 't be in Ithaca in the summer months . Mr. Stein went on
to say that if in fact it's true that the Town uses roughly 1 /3 of the facilities ; certainly the Town
is not 1 /3 of the population of the County .
Supevisor Valentino stated that one of the problems she has when she looks at these
percentages is that she does not know what is the data that is behind them .
7
September 30, 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
Common Council member Whitmore state he has , over the last two years , heard this issue
not just from the Town and the City but from the County as well . How many people from
other municipalities and outside the County are really using facilities? They do not have
numbers Mr. Whitmore would feel comfortable hanging his hat on . The City is looking into
getting a system with swipe cards so that when people come in , they swipe their card and
provide information about which residents have been using the facilities and how many times
per year. Mr. Whitmore thought it would be worth investing the $ 30 , 000 dollars to determine
without any questions who exactly is using at least the - rink and the pool .
Agenda Item IIIB — Town of Ithaca and the Recreation Partnership (Attachment #2 —
Alternative Directions for the Recreation Partnership Board )
Ms . Zahler distributed copies of the Recreation Partnership goals adopted the Tuesday past.
The goals are largely comprised of what had already been on the drawing board and include :
creation of a 501 (c) 3 ; exploring transportation options ; program evaluation .
Program evaluation was the lion ' s share of the work of this year' s board . An evaluation
committee developed an evaluation matrix and got information about each of the programs
so that all members of the partnership board could weigh in if in fact programs had to be cut .
A coordinator position was referred to in the original Intermunicipal agreement . Words were
put in that said within two years there shall be a coordinator position , but at the time different
people had different understandings of what that position could be . Part of what the
committee will tackle is defining the role of that position and identifying what kind of support is
needed . This will include looking at coordination among the recreation programs that exist in
other towns .
These goals have been assigned to internal committees of the Recreation Partnership Board
that will have staff support from the County Youth Bureau . Ms . Zahler stated there were
about 5 committees that have very ambitious work plans because they know that June is their
deadline for reporting back on what direction they think makes sense on all these goals .
Ms . Zhaler distributed a handout on the role of the County Youth Bureau in relationship to the
Recreation Partnership .
Reporting as a member of the Evaluation Committee , Mr. Whimore told the Board they have
started to look at the idea of decentralized programming . Over the next six months they will
be developing a request for proposal process to look for program providers in other
municipalities and create a more decentralized system . He reminded those present that this
is entirely a volunteer board with some staff support , but they don 't have anything as far as a
coordinator or someone who can go out and do the work of the board as much as they have
board members who do their best to put as much energy as they can into developing these
proposals and processes .
Agenda Item IIIC — Recreation Partnership and the City of Ithaca : Overhead payments
to the City (Attachment #3 — Waterfront Parks — Where Users Live)
8
� G
September 30, 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
Supervisor Valentino and Councilman Lesser stated they did not have sufficient information
to determine whether the overhead payments were excessive .
Supervisor Valentino stated that she was hoping to get the daily counts from the City on the
pool . Neither that information nor the names and addresses of the season pass holders have
been passed on to her. Upon receipt of that information the Town can get a sense of what is
their fair share . In addition , the Town needs to look at its revenues and determine it' s
financial ability to make these payments to the City. There ' s no way the Town of Ithaca has
anywhere near the budget that the City does nor does it have the wherewithal to pay an
equal amount for facilities . That has to be taken into the equation . These are City facilities
and the Town wants to pay a reasonable amount in proportion to its budget and to the
number of residents that use the facilities . There has to be an equation that takes all of this
into consideration and while Supervisor Valentino did not think the group could arrive at that
this evening she felt certain the people present at the meeting would be willing to work on a
committee to try to get there .
There was discussion between Councilman Burbank and Supervisor Valentino about the
need to arrive at a figure for the 2005 Town Budget , Supervisor Valentino stated an
estimated figure could be put in the budget and the Board could do a later budget
modification when a final decision has been made .
Mr. Green mentioned that the City budget for 2004 has zero dollars of revenue coming from
the Town for facilities ; no contract has been signed ; no agreement has been made .
Supervisor Valentino told him there was a memorandum of understanding from the City on
her desk for $50 , 000 and that is in the Town ' s 2004 budget.
Mr. Green explained that the only reason the City went to the Recreation Partnership for
facilities costs was that they felt the facilities were not being sufficiently supported throughout
the County . The City felt it was unfair to their taxpayers to say ; okay we' ll just keep
swallowing everything with the exception of the . contribution from the town .
Councilman Lesser asked if the group could decide upon the information that was needed to
determine the Town 's contribution ; determine what they meant by "fair" , is it based on use ,
ability to pay , or a combination of both ; and determine how to tackle the question of what City
costs the Town should contribute to .
Councilman Stein did not like the use of the word "fair" stating he did not think it was helpful .
Regarding the data , Councilman Stein felt the group should deal with the data they and do
the best job they could .
Mr. Stein went on to say that he had heard time and again the statement the City
overcharges on overhead and facilities charges and wondered where that statement came
from . In response , Mr. Green described work done Mr. Carvill and prior Youth Bureau
employee Alice to determine "general administration " costs and charges . They defined the
recreation department' s percentage of general administration as being 44 % of the total
general administrative costs of the Youth Bureau . Then they defined the Recreation
9
September 30, 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
Partnership ' s share as 44 % of that. Mr. Green did not know how they got to those specific
numbers , but it was an attempt to look at the amount of time that people were spending on
programs in this category as opposed to some of the other things the bureau does , like youth
development and recreational mainstreaming services . Mr. Green calculated that 44 % of
44% is about 19 % of the total general administration costs . Since that time administrative
overhead charges to the Recreation Partnership have remained at 19 %
Regarding the issue of facilities costs , Mr. Green thought that was a little more complicated .
The group would have to go through and talk about what the costs are and which ones
should be shared by the Partnership . He stated it is also important to clarify that other than
the Town of Ithaca , there has essentially been zero contribution from other municipalities and
the County towards facilities until 2004 ; that was the first year. Previously , there were no
payments for facilities costs because when the partnership was created there was this hope
that somehow the City and the Town and the County would . sit down and grapple with this
issue and come up with a resolution .
Supervisor Valentino stated in order to cost things out a lot of components have to go into the
analysis to come up with what the Town can afford to pay including the value of all the fees
that are paid by Town residents .
Supervisor Valentino briefly went over some figures she had regarding City expenses and
told the group this was one of the things she 'd really like to sit down and go into depth about .
There' s a grand total of $709 , 665 ; Cass administration at $ 57 , 975 and fringes which make
sense ; Youth Bureau administration , this is for facilities of $44 , 810 ; Youth Bureau operation
and maintenance that' s not a big number but she 'd be interested in discussing it ; and the
thing that she found out when she started really analyzing the Town ' s partnership with the
City in the sewer thing when she looked at the indirect service and City Hall overhead which
in this case of the $709 , 000 is $64 , 262 . Supervisor Valentino stated she would really like to
look at the breakdown of that, because when they looked at that in the sewer contract they
found that there were a lot of things in there that had nothing to do with the Town . She told
the group she was not saying that they' re excessive . She stated they appear to be , but she
doesn 't know that unless she can get the detail behind them to really look .
Councilman Stein questioned the use of the word "excessive" and Councilman Lesser
suggested it might be better if they just dropped the term excessive and just said if you ' re
expecting somebody to pay a share of costs that it is not unreasonable that they may wish to
have some understanding of what constitutes those costs .
Councilman Engman wondered if a lot of these problems might simply disappear if the
County took over Cass and Stewart Parks , then all of the taxpayers of the County would be
paying for those facilities . Mr. Joseph stated some County Legislators have suggested that
there out to be a County Park and Recreation that owned facilities . If there ever were such a
thing Mr. Joseph thought it would not be simply taking over the City facilities and cautioned
that once it was County-wide the County will start hearing residents asking why the County
has facilities in the City and not out in Groton , and Dryden , and Danby . Personally Mr.
Joseph thought , in the long term , this is a goal worth aspiring to , but cautioned that right now
the County is not taking on something new of that size .
10
September 30, 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
Councilman Lesser asked again if the group could come to an agreement about what data
both the City and the Town feel is necessary to resolve proportional use for the non-
programming costs for the Park and the rink , and when it could reasonably be assembled .
Nancy Zahler suggested a joint committee for this purpose . Supervisor Valentino stated that
is what she and Robin Korrher have been working on , trying to set up just such a committee .
Mayor Peterson stated from the City' s side they are willing to sit down to try and figure out
what the questions are that need to be answered adding there are some policy discussions
they have to have . Mayor Peterson thought the County Youth Bureau could identify who
should be participating in the committee , what size it should be , and take it from there . It
sounded to her as though the parties did want to work together and thought it would be the
positive way to go , but felt the group needed to somehow first figure out what they want to
talk about first and prioritize what these things are and what decisions need to be made first.
Ms . Russell felt one of the things that would be helpful is to actually get the names and
addresses of the people that are participating .
Ms . Zahler felt there were two levels of discussion that were being discussed , one is
between the Town and the city as it relates to the Town ' s contribution for facilities , the other
is Mayor Peterson 's suggestion to include the County which is a way of addressing the bigger
question . Supervisor Valentino that involving the County in the discussion had not worked in
the past. .
Councilman Stein thought that another way to start, rather than to put together a joint
committee , is to see how much divergence there is between the two parties . He would be
very interested in having both of those organizations sit down by themselves and answer
what they thought was the proportional share of the Town 's use City recreational facilities ,
see how far apart they are . The question of how much the Town can afford to pay is an
independent question . He felt this would be faster than to have a committee where people
have to argue about every little thing .
Mr. Carvill commented that when he and Alice sat down and analyzed these numbers they
struggled with the phrases what's excessive and what's equitable . One of the things
discovered within the financial base were imputed values . That' s what they attempted with
the departmentalized accounting and financing ; it was based on a service per diem , service
cost versus benefit . What Alice and Mr. Carvill discovered imputed into the overhead costs
was what Mr. Carvill feels is the evolution of the excess overhead . E . g . When the City
borrowed a 5 million dollar general-purpose bond covering water, sewer, Cass Park
equipment , and that debt service ratio is infused into the facility and program charges we get
a distortion . When you look at a youth program and you ' re looking at that youth facility, we
can isolate that cost and we can isolate its productivity . But what also has to happen is to
examine the indirect or the imputed resource values that get into the facility and program
charges in determining the cost of operation . Mr. Carvill believed that's where some of these
numbers become very enlarged , and that' s where the question arises , "What's equitable?" .
11
September 30, 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
Councilman Stein agreed with Mr. Carvill , but wanted to see both sides write the numbers
down and then you can point your finger at that and say this number is not right it' s
unreasonable then you can have a more intelligent conversation .
Mr. Carvill told Mr. Stein that imputed facility values come exclusively from finance (City
Comptrollers Office) not from youth personnel . Mr. Carvill thought this was another avenue
that must be examined . We can 't impose upon our youth programs and our youth personnel
to give us those numbers , they can give them , but we have got to also have the banker tell us
what's the interest charge you ' re charging us .
Councilman Lesser felt a sub group was needed to continue this discussion and asked the
group to agree that at least initially it would be most expedient to have that group consist of
City and Town representatives and not try to include the County at this particular point in
time . Supervisor Valentino agreed stating this is what she and Ms . Korrher were working on
putting together. Once that group has met they will report back to their boards and can
evolved from that. Councilman Engman asked that Councilman Stein be included in that
group . Supervisor Valentino felt that she , Al Carvill , Allen Green , and Councilman Stein
should be included . Councilman Lesser suggested that Ms . Kirchgessner be included .
Supervisor Valentino stated that she and Common Council member Korherr would work out a
date when that group could meet .
Letter from Caroline Supervisor Don Barber (Attachment #4 - September 30th letter to
the Ithaca Town Board from Don Barber)
f
Councilman Stein read a letter from Don Barber to the group .
Consent Agenda
TB RESOLUTION NO . 2004-144 : Approval for Town Staff to Attend American Planning
Association New York Upstate Chapter Conference , Rochester, New York
WHEREAS , there are many new developments impacting the Town regarding land
use , zoning and other regulatory issues ; and
WHEREAS , the American Planning Association New York Upstate Chapter is holding
its annual conference (" Planning on the Edge") from October 27th through October 29th , 2004 ,
in Rochester, New York , which provides programs and workshops on a number of current
planning and zoning topics and continuing education credits for AICP members ; and
WHEREAS , it will be beneficial to the Town to send staff to this program ; and
WHEREAS , the current Planning Department budget includes sufficient funds for this
purpose ;
BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve
the attendance of Jonathan Kanter, AICP , Director of Planning , at the American Planning
Association New York Upstate Chapter Conference from October 27th through October 29th
12
September 30, 2004 Special Town Board Meeting
Approved November 15, 2004
2004 at a cost not to exceed $400 . 00 , which includes registration , accommodations , meals ,
and other travel expenses , charge to Account B8020 . 403 .
MOVED : Councilman Stein
SECONDED : Councilman Burbank
VOTE : Supervisor Valentino , aye ; Councilwoman Grigorov , aye ; Councilman Lesser, aye ;
Councilman Burbank , aye ; Councilman Engman , aye ; Councilman Stein , aye . Motioned
carried .
ADJOURNMENT
On motion by Councilman Lesser, the meeting was adjourned at Adjourn on motion by
Lesser at 9 : 00 p . m .
Respectfully `submitted ,
l�
Tee-Ann Hunter
Town Clerk
NEXT MEETING — October 4, 2004 Budget Meeting
13
September 30 , 2004 Town Board Meeting
ATTACHMENT # 1
mho
K AM169
rn
0 a)
0 LTI0
m �
OXO
Om >
mz
� �
I
c O
G)
N Z
O O I
O
w 'I mn
CT1
X 0 2
N0° D
°o n
sP D
D m
mm0
z Z l o x 2
O (j =imp,
T D X O j
2 0 ((MY)
n �
X z � o
DOmU) 0
�
0
= m0
M (n D
C-) m r
Z
1
D
o
w z m
z
� coO �t m
00 o = O Z
D = m
m C 0 i
v -
G� -<
m �
� 0
mn 44h _
o =
00
0 o n
o
A
0
co
A o = <
iv � m
Z
c
m
i
1
O
2
m
X
--i
O
rn z
om
x
v
m
z
v
00
C Z
D
m , �o Z� K
m m D m
� � > cnz —�
� = o `nv D
:—a Z > r—
;o O m —•1
go a: m
Z40 �
"Ma Z
oo
==maw/
m0D
y I
mn
O D
N
�
O O
--1 n � vp OTZ f
En- Z0 > TZ NTH
N -
I � Om � � O � - 0 �7 �
NwX � v0 � �' � JoD °oomm
� C � (7 � Z D � � ° � Z
oo � ln _I � � oo° � Dm D.
/ z z ? m o °o Z m � n 0
go x
2 D O O m
m m -a z
X _
M
i
I
O r� O r O O tom" 1
LO co (O O: (C) O r N O LO O O ('!) � O;
Or� (O O 14M L O O co I t ' I* u
(fl �O NJ !
Q Q r� LA O 'IN LO (D? r 00 '
ell
O
r r Ml
Mm
Me
b9 V3 EA EA: S fA
O M Od' ' N O ' O (D.
O 6 i r� (O' r N O
O % t !* M OI O Nt CD 01 tn,
eee,F-
O LO LI)O C0 qee 1CA) T�O C N 4
O
Re
N l 4l 1 ,
m
x t .
xis �o
' r1'?;
', sa3�;s ?
-
vT.. %
co N co It tee, We lee e
(fl O tt ln l` LO Imp ae .
j N O N N N
,
LO
eel
ell
N
co iz ,t , I
ley
le
VT , YJJ _
ell
lee
N 1 � O t �_ 1 1 1 O 1 O: V
LO
M (fl O N f OD 00` 'L!!- el
ell
lee
O r LO O r
r r r r
O m ;y y
ej
N Q
ell 11 ell K,
ell Fz,
lee
9
(�r/ {//S ( I^� ice ? tt'tn •'.
J O LO Fk' Wl O ,�. 0 1 1 1 1 1 O O
V �1 .,.
O J O (D N O) LO CO O
O CM'
(6 0) N Ln LM N,< O d x ¢�h{cri �r
,O—
U O �-
N km
CC Q , v,
Wlee e
ell, 1
h
€ 3 v, • <
i dizvs
0 0 O O
N f� O r Q) O
„ O M t0 (D
ell l
e.
O r r r' � ell
N () k ell ss
ele
ell
Q � a
s
[e E lee �' Nr
ell e
O r O: M (D_Me e
J N f� l 0; r OD M O)' v
w w
k ell
ell
ell 9
le
ell
Q j`• 00
me
`e
1 S IA ,p
Ln LO `y O (0
N � O Ln ' m
J ..
Q N O�I1 LA a ,; F
e .TT � w
V! r d W � �/ f L++k Y.f t
U a 1 xa
lee
19 T S^ /
{(t,8�{j{ [. Y;._ 9
ell
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 F1 '
99 9
lee
O
LO � ` O LO
0 ,
J N ;O' OO,' z 1 ;
LO
(0 v s
r l Ts S� /e. k / Tit
O N � r G
T
eV
ere
Q a b-
ell lr
e ell
ll
lee
w ttilll : .
� 91 , EEC V} EA
ell
1:lz ai�' ? sa a l as e .
r =
t . a s ell, x '
ell 'r
e� ;
ell �l
1 lee
LU
Re Q � , O y ell
J O oC x W , l
Y
_ p U =r Y,
lee
0 Z Z V E p ��
w: w
F- w z z z Q >-
Q C3 <
OQ
f htn `
'
/IEh w , LLI O U J o K w �
iL) 2 Z Z
z O Oo .� (n O CL 0 = ti j z 0 C� T
w O = tea ` �- CO) _ z Uzi
Z H D O cr. J D w ` 1,
all
> w i— U = p V. O w c°o } w � Z ? ; lw �J 4� tL me I
- :
w o[ C/) _ `~ z ., Od o ¢ O e O CJ W
U Q � �
UQ w J U z o
W w F � < � w Q Z � :,. Q .
W ; 3:0 a °- p Z En AM
pJ i ' O rZ cn
D uQ ;Jr4 E . CI)
O f� f0a (n Q U � , �Cn W3Z
QzzXna# m Q U a w
t (3 g Y
1 , }([y Y ' Z IE, T
ell
CL
ti
1 Q w � Q
Z �V �� �
wd 3nx u Q
W Q a "a s I
W J a = � ell I a
U) as ell C) _ _
O
t , w f0aJ I ; <i
U U) fix? JF- • :y . . .
iwj
ad �
v �
l ^ C
1
0
L J
�^ 0 Ln N Ln d 0 N fn d to co Ln d O CO M Ln
N C ^ � O C o � ln C Nato C � � ,1 S
Ln (p M /0 N 10 i1
' Z � NM •_ � MT t , 4M � t co
U ifr r U i�r ifr U iPr Apr U ifr iFr
J N MNN O ID tD
M N N N I� 0000 M I%� 0000 Ln
W O � 00 C 0LMLn o Mtoto 0 O N ,M-{ ,M-i ce`qT
N A O Ln Ln � M M 7-1 p Ln N N ,1 p N .1 ri 00
N N M M Ln N O Ln Ln to N o Ln Ln to N A N N to 0
N ri rl {fr M rl ri ifr M " .-1 i r M *-1 •1 ifr
3 LOA ifr ifr Apr ifr ifr ifr ifr 4A 4A ifr it ifr
40 0 0001 d � m0 OM 00
a O1 ,1 M 0 u1 . i O^1 In C Ln
c n N M c O qt 00
06 (0 Ntp � m oC) m n0) 0 t N
U 4A � U � 4 U � � U � � �
d =
p 0 Oi of a% to 0) 0*1 OI to It qt qt M CF lit M
to to to O cc O N qT d' it M O 00 0 Ln 16
O O O N N N N Ln Ln Ln to .1 .-1 r1 Ln
L 000 O V [t v C MMM O C 000000 qt
N co O co qt N O O O ra N 0 0 0 *-1 N N N N co
Q►
71 rl ri Ln N N N to N N N to N N N to
low
ifr ifr ifr Apr iPr ifr ifr ifr ifl- ifr i{r ifr tfr ifr ifr ifr
o sc
U H
mw h
m CIO
m 3 00 0 00 2 00 0 00 Ln o Ln Ln O Ln
AD' NN C) pOL NN °o AO' ko � � A. o' t00on dM-
�+ A y O O (q O O y O O (� O
(A O 7 ^ M pr .1 p = N M yr 7--1 A 7 n fh ifr •1 O 3 I� M ifi ri
N a+ o ,1 N N ,Fa O .1 N N y f� ,-1 m N a+ N ,1 0)
3 �0 d' ,1 Ln �0 � .-i Ln M �T ,1 Ln m � r1 Ln
V
� ifr ifr Aft iA ifr ifr da ifr iPr ifr 40 ifr ifr irk J
ul
O
p ,
a �
O am
W co
Z 09
N L
Q Gl C L a !A
C♦ L W L c J
Lon LOO 4)Y d W L 7
{� (o (0 > S
u a a o 0 o c
o� o� a ai
LLI C = E c am a low
smoll m
mi a y '" �v O1 . c o SOMIN
W W Old W 'K
3 3 � 3 � Wv
{V N � N U � �' ~ � 3 d 4�
H L
6 J U M U U+ _+ M 0 U J (a 0 FA r0 0
_
J = LU a : = U 0 � U
M m iii IA (0 N m �'"-, In U Ln
K 3 ,mac 7 � ,mac 7Y we C 4. c
O C o C C o � c L o Y o
cC c cCL cQ moo. CM CCl c -� co-
a a 3 E Q � 3 E ° Qa � � E ° Qa T3 E
0• *' 00 0 ' 0 0 0 *-' o o x' 00 0
Q Q U H I- 1- m U H 1- F- U U I- H !- U
r
r
s
�- r °o
✓, v' N
o
. � N
a � p n
u N CO >,
m i rr c
LL O
i c Y
O L
ai
a
m N U
M LO IA
a to
U ° N 00 0
N N U
O' N It O O)
}, tR N U L
c
Lt N 'a mo
O) OD
L co Ln t0 to M M O O^ c
* !r p 00 t0 N r i tO Ln Ln N LO C
ON 0 OD M O Oqt Y N O ^ 0 p
N OV Ln to to l0 " U N M OL O
itr �r ,� 4A- � a� L a
r LT a
> � (m cL cn
O �' ° �_ ,o m
E a '
o a .0 c UJ a
w
ro
(A ` a� O v
o L
(A * ` p Ln oo oo Ln Ln Ln c O v Ln O
0 ON 00Itp N OO � M a 16 OONp +' m m 7
Oo ,..r 01 OC a p `� O. LL
ON DDO M 'art '- Ln W c ON Om
LN � � ' .�-i N LNn Ln Ln tD v 0 N � N d VA 40
O ti+ tR tPr tPr tiT fF? En m � 7 O t0
d y 2 E
E
L O� tea+ O) U 4) C
lT W
Q C C c N
3 °'
47 t m m L. m N
*+ Lai a3
* a U 3
in U m � c L.
a+ 4�
3 c o v 3 w o V)
V r ,gym E E � ° c m fn
a
v
{A w d # C O H O C M > o
O OE # OE a UE c a� °' E
U m y > W > °'� E W 33: w L o N c
U
IM m0tn E x Mc ~
O L U ,� c a� c v
C YI C Q 1� L 4 aJ v 'L° � tn
Q u► Q M M vD � rna m � m e rn
O 0 O •- o O � °' o 0 0 0 m° � c
U O1 C d 4W lT w v- tL o '� 40 N '++ 4O
t0 c >, a, aUc O 3C: °° th mf0 Ei x E
E C) '� c w, fA O) U N -W a) +' N
.� i a N O m O LO E L x > x O c 0 C N Of c
o d co fn U > 10 = � N . ° . . t0 Q +� v 3
CL cp a o a E
L O w O n' '-' E y a uL +�.' Ln N C vOi U W = vOi J
a H v (A �o 'c E m d— a ° m #
Q Z W U W Q ~ 0 a m U a m 3 * * # #
September 30 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 2
-o 0
N O
7 'r
C O O a)
a) +� _ O >
O 0 0 C
(a
O U
(a tC ca U) a)
O O
CL a cu
a) x 0 cu V N O
6 h 4 0 0 C
a -2 > 0 W' N 0 to
O N H U a) O-U .a ,V Yn
O a a) (D y O .0 O Co
N m O > w C
O C : + (tea O 7 7 C U
Q) _ O �- C
L ._ C E : ,
C i (a (�
O a) " C U O O N a) O
R Q C a) :. w C (D O
L- a) 7 O 7 U O O c: 0 N L C 7 O- a) O Q O
Q) 0 L .0 7 fa
C N (n h 0 U L
Q
a) Q)
cu 0 CD W a5 v7i
o
3 E ° �' _0 0
m m
L CO (a O 7
} O 0 U 0) a3 ca
v... . N
cl CL ° a) 0 'U >
� O 'U U N `- d CL a)
N ` U N C O
N O a) (a
L V
_N a p U E L
Q)
_L L C N •O C O L. Q' _0 E O O
= � U OD ° CL r. `CL
.O O O O 0 a
Jc
L.
L O
_ �
O
C O O U O
O OL cQ
O d L)
O ca t - Q >+ N
O L .= O_
m N � co L N 0 E Q a) N U V N
fl. 2 a) 0 06 C O (D O m 'C w
> �' L ' (a U C O
Z E 0 (a _O a) "�- a) O> >�`. 'a ca U E
L LM a 0 en O O u) a, c 0 � � N O
Q) _
O a) O U a d Q Q a) O U a) > fa >
LM (1) (n U LL LL a) x U O > O E O
IL U) ca cam � : a) 52 � � OD
R
a �
0
O ca '.r
M LL cu O 0)
..
v � o �x 3 c O Q))
Oaa)) o � c»r° O CL
c o
0 U 0 L .O C Q O C)
rte-+ 7 (tea 'O LD +' c L fn
L fOn a) C a) � C C i 0
L J O O a3 0 O
C C + �
0) !n C
0 0 0 7 C ` O v7
(n U O
C C (n C p ca a) '-� O O O
0 M U 0 0 ,_ E 0 C "C L C O
O
N C O Y U E C 0) O
V O " " C ` O - O C C
O ZN O o m O O a i O a� O a) Q
v°i
O ca a O ot
` u) C r CL O
C
� (LQQU O N WLLW E O C cc� 0
++
C N
Ln
iC
LM d M (�
LM
Q
m
>
C
O
(c9
C O
mo m
L
O p_,
O �.
U
O N
C -C
O M N
O O O
Q w U
O
L L L
Q4.
C O
O a_ C
Q a o
O cn O
u
o ca v
c a
O X c L
w o_ m
cc
U
L Y _
N N N 3
O)
_
a
O
Q D co O
O Un)
C �
06 d
a G cn cn
O
O O
U Q
O LO
CL C O
U O
E cu
O
a m O
Qj O cQ
C). a C: u�
o o
cu
N N U O t
-0 .:- O
_O i
p O w a_ w
E L O X
d 3 W
CD
L L C
O w O
LM CD 0
d O D U v ca O
a
c Y
n 0
L
C O
O L
cn
O N d
C ca
C cn O O O
0 y O) d O m
d cn U U E ch O Q C
0 r- Rm f
0 L 0L O -p L 0 N _
'6 _C
4O u O O d
0)
ch Y U -
(1) o o N
N O E o O n C O
Y cu (1) O
_
L
O O
co O
O '. O
co
1- U O O Co N p O
.tC o
C
U 0
O. C X C uj C O Q.0 O C o 0 Y C
O O r L D a E O
Q Q Q D x F- m UL . W wwo OUWU
O
�— N co WIT UM) co ti co
i
September 30 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 3
Where users
live
Waterfront Parks W
Data Source/ Description City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Other
ERA Report
1996 - 2000 5 Year Average
IYB Recreation Programming 32 % 30 % 38 %
Cass Park Skating
Survey 2000 28% 19 % 53 %
2001
IYB Recreation Programming 30 % 26% 44%
2002
0 0 0
IYB Recreation Programming _ 30% 27 /0 43 /o
2003
IYB Recreation Programming 31 % 26% 43 %
Stewart Park Entrance Survey 21 % 14% 65 %
1991
Cass Park Pool
Season Passes
1997- 2002 6 Year Average 48% 26% 26%
Cass Park Pool
Survey- Summer 2003 52 % 21 % 27 %
Cass Park Pool
Survey - Summer 2004
( Preliminary ) 35 % 25 % 40 %
OMO NO Q O no oo � W NOO W OMN1 M W
N N N W jN: M yQ
4,
tl, i3
0 0 0.0 0 ohm o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 ,
N. N u .
We
Sf }
s;s
i; O vn N
��"� 3• � O n m O O M W O M N M O N W O O O W W O O M W N W O P N N W W O 0 0 0 0
n P Q N W W ti 0
ti 0 W M O r N 0 0 0 0 O M N M O P 1� M O
M O
P N P (R I W W
3'. me
',3 N%
;(?= W (p r P 'h
t N N M P P "We co O 0) flx
Mh
rya a
O W O O '- OMOO � 000OOONP .- 00 �- � W BOO NO � � QQO O N M O O W O `SA
F _ _ IN I _
OO P I P M W W N W V l -W Ory(0) M N— —�M M m M O.N- �—N N W O —0W P O> n N P W O N h N N f� r �O M P� 0 W O WQ 0 O 0P. ) 0O O �O Q W P 0 Om N P M N M I 'iiy 1•f,M1r'pO 4MFS
ell T
1 vr=
s,
CO M�IW N�N
IIN 0M N�
L T
LO W yF
W
LO
010101 . 100l0 jolo O O O OOIO N 1
o O O OO � N OW 010 O O� O I 1
O1 0 M M N O OO O ON O O N P P W M O O O N O CO N W O N P O M O W co N M lO9QN
Fk v
P O N N O O N P M O m W O O m M 0 W P W W W O O Q O W O
Cl) N s
IY M In
J N Qh
N CO O
m i
N M D
)N
4 s
a
— N r0o M
Z 'NT N P W N W N e��} MN� N
p %M2 •- W N W N t� '(7 r O W
— .— � - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — _ — W x �:
'vG
w N N
co
Q N C
m m m Z r m
w U
O H N F U
a' ?'. Z Q LL
O a 0 2 N N
C p
W 0 a V) W' 0 N U
p } O C9
LL
U
a M g t W °
c � � 2J U Z1- OW 00 g Z m22 � a�
' '.m 0 Q W . o x p z 1- LL w O a a K
En a- aaWWcc:WW LL � I ° ' r > LL
Q " m Z � p � Q U U N Z Q Y H H M O J J `a � } H } w 0 M }
CL c'., 0 ¢ ¢ - � 0 } } W00 aaFa ¢ JJ OTU � cn w
°, � U � W ¢ ¢ a w w w ¢ ¢ W W w a O Y Y W z
z J J J ? ¢ o o x g x ¢ x x w o z ¢ z O p a W oe w a Z O z a
O � UYJJJoUYYU _ � F- F- F > a' � v� cnOU ' � O �' aap �' wQa < > OW � Z
F w7OJa a Q Q Qa. a. a' a' a' a' a' � w W W JJ W W W W OEr ZU � ZOOaaQ J (n U)
w J m m m W x } } } } } } J J W W (n a s Q J F f U (n w p LL
a d`� a FF- HJF. aa U � � U' Q aw WWU Q W Ua' K Ja' R a W J � ~
J id? m w W W a' - d ax X xx W � � z co c o EOOw0 W W Q as W LL J W W Zp
y3 � W YYY Wm (n WUUUUUUa 77UHF WOO ZZ J7w W < 3 ~ f ZZU (anU
U �+ W W (nW0) W D W W (n W V) (nW V) V) M W Z 0 -� pU � F- I- _JwQ~QUUW W W O
w
ff €MaQ Q QSJaQ a QQ QQaa QQwOpOQQ J » QUY 000E- V- CL WIZO �
:C)iQ m m m m U U U U W W W W W W W W W LL LL LL U' J _l U U U W W W (n W W W M W W W H
September 30 , 2004 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT # 4
Dear Ithaca Town Board, 30 September 2004
I' m sorry that I can't be at your meeting tonight. I have talked with many of you about the
opportunities and challenges for the Recreation Partnership (RP) and I wanted to make those same
statements to this group.
The challenges that I see before the,RP are: .
• Ana agreement between the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, and any other municipalities about
gr tY p
recreation facility costs has to be resolved. This lack of agreement has hampered budget deliberations
at the RP .
• It is my understanding that the City of Ithaca has not articulated a clear- overhead cost for each
recreation program or a collective overhead for all RP programs. Without this information, budget
deliberations become negotiations between the RP and City Youth Bureau. The RP needs objective
information on true program costs and participation counts on which to base their decisions.
• The RP only serves the portion-of-the the rural population that has the means to afford travel to Ithaca.
This makes the rural town boards decision to fund the RP a difficult choice, because the recreation
opportunities are skewed a certain portion of the population.
• The County put the RP on notice 12 months ago that it was terminating its contract with the RP .
Over the past year, neither staff nor. the. RP developed a plan to- operate. without County funds and with
the necessary change in voting. With apparent only one year funding from the County for 2005 , this
has to become the number one priority of the RP and its staff.
The opportunities that I see for the RP are:
• Explore anew framework such as a 5016 which would allow non-property tax funding for RP
programs
i
• Most municipalities have developed some recreation programs, many have recreation directors.
Collaboration of these programs and working to provide transportation both into the City programs and
out to the rural programs would truly be a recreation PARTNERSHIP .
• It is imperative that the RP know the effective financial costs and participation counts by
municipality of each program so they can make informed decisions. The RP needs this information
from its program suppliers.
• Urge the County to articulate its support for the RP by 'a certain date . Based on that input (and a
lack of policy should be viewed as input that they are not truly committed). If the County support is
different from that when the RP was formed, develop a new organizational structure for the RP.
Thank you for considering these comments .
Very truly yours,
letter from Don Barber
.y