HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Packet 2019-02-11 MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, February 11, 2019
Agenda
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
2. Persons to be Heard
3. 5:30 p.m. Public hearing regarding a proposed local law"Authorizing a monetary gift to
the City of Ithaca to support Cass Park and Stewart Park recreational facilities
a. Consider adoption
4. Discuss and consider an application to the DEC for a Deer Management Permit
a. SEQR
b. Consider adoption
5. Discuss and consider authorizing a survey of the Mallon property
6. Discuss correspondence relating to North Campus Residential Expansion
7. Department Head & Supervisor's Year End Reports
8. Discuss and consider Tickle List and set priorities for 2019
9. Discuss and consider amending the Town of Ithaca Fee Schedule—Codes
10. Discuss and consider renewing the Tompkins Shared Services Electronic Records
Repository (TSSERR) Group Agreement
11. Discuss and consider acquisition of real property from Alfred C. Eddy
a. SEQR
b. Consider adoption
12. Consider setting a public hearing regarding a Proposed Water Improvement for the Town
of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, to be
known as the Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Water Improvement, and
establishing the Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Water Improvement Area
13. Discuss and consider a cooperative purchase with the City of Ithaca of two code
enforcement hybrid vehicles
14. Consent Agenda
a. Town of Ithaca Abstract
b. Bolton Point Abstract
c. Appointment of Administrative Assistant I—Torres
d. Ratify appointment of two laborers —Public Works
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Paulette Rosa, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of
the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper,Ithaca Journal:
❑ ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE
❑ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
❑ NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL
Tin oIthaca
'
❑ NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST Public Hearing
ORDER The Town Board will hold a
public hearing at 530 p.m.
at its meeting on February
11, 2019 regarding a,pro-
Proposed Local Law "Authorizing a Monetary Gift to Posed local law "Authoriz-
ing a monetary gift, to the,
the Cit of Ithaca to Support Cass Park and Stewart City o °thnd to support
Park
Y PP Cass Palk and.Stewart Panic
recreational Facilities" at
Park Recreational Facilities" which time any interested
person may comment. The
draft local law is available
on the Town's website`or
by contacting the Town
Clerk.
Paulett "Ross,
Town Clerk
214/2019
Location of Sign Board Used for Posting:
Town Clerk's Office
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Town website at www.town.ithaca.n
Date of Posting: February 1, 2019
Date of Publication: February 4, 2019
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of
2019.
....-..m'1..E.-+^ ....
otary Public
Debra De -ijj st@ne
Notary Public-State of New York
No.01 DE6148035 .,...
Clualified in Tompkins County"
My Cornmission Expires June 19,20
gE,'ir][('1,3 IItE,ir IC�o, 3
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, February 11, 2019
TB Resolution 2019-xxx: Adopt Local Law XXX of 2019: A local law authorizing a monetary gift
to the City of Ithaca to support Cass Park and Stewart Park Recreational Facilities
Whereas, the Town Board discussed the need for monetary support for the Cass Park and
Stewart Park Recreational Facilities during its budget process, and
Whereas, the Town Board adopted a budget for 2019 including an amount of $55,000.00 for a
contribution towards City Parks, of which approximately S 38,000 would result in a special benefit to
Town residents,but the remainder would be considered a gift., and
Whereas, pursuant to the Town's New York State Municipal Home Rule powers, a local law
may be adopted to authorize the Town to make a gift to another municipality where the gift
furthers a public purpose of the Town,
Whereas, at its meeting on January 11, 2019, the Town Board discussed the proposed local law
and set a public hearing for February 11th at 5:30 p.m. to hear all interested parties on the
proposed local law entitled "Authorizing a Monetary Gift to the City of Ithaca to Support Cass
Park and Stewart Park Recreational Facilities", and
Whereas, said public hearing was duly advertised and held on said date and time and all parties
in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said
proposed local law, or any part thereof, and
Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and
its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board
that approval of the local law is a Type H action because it constitutes "routine or continuing
agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of
priorities that may affect the environment," and thus approval of the local law is not subject to
review under SEQRA, now therefore be it
Resolved, that the Town Board hereby adopts Local Law XXX of 2019 entitled
"AUTHORIZING A MONETARY GIFT TO THE CITY OF ITHACA TO SUPPORT CASS
PARK AND STEWART PARK RECREATIONAL FACILITIES," and it is further
Resolved, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the
Secretary of State as required by law.
Moved: Seconded:
Vote: Ayes—
TOWN OF ITHACA
LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2019
A LOCAL LAW AUTHORIZING A MONETARY GIFT TO THE CITY OF ITHACA
TO SUPPORT CASS PARK AND STEWART PARK RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. Authorization. This local law is adopted pursuant to New York
Municipal Home Rule Law §10(1)(i), which grants local governments the power to adopt
local laws not inconsistent with the New York State Constitution or any general law,
relating to their property, affairs or government. The New York State Constitution,
Article VIII, §1 does not prohibit municipalities from making gifts to or in aid of public
entities for public purposes.
Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this local law is to authorize the Town of
Ithaca to make a gift to the City of Ithaca to support the City's Cass Park pool and skating
rink, and the City's recreational facilities at Stewart Park. The Town of Ithaca intends to
give the City of Ithaca Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($55,000.00)in 2019 to support these
facilities, which are used by Town of Ithaca residents and serve a Town of Ithaca public
purpose. In exchange, the City of Ithaca will offer Town of Ithaca residents a discount on
recreation programs valued at approximately Thirty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($38,000).
This law authorizes the Town of Ithaca to make a gift to the City of Ithaca to the extent
the Town's payments to the City exceed the monetary benefit of the discounts received
by Town residents.
Section 3. Gift to City of Ithaca. Upon execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca is
authorized to make a gift to the City of Ithaca,pursuant to the Memorandum of
Understanding's terms, in the amount and for the purposes described in Section 2 above.
Section 4. Partial Invalidity. In the event that any portion of this law is
declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining
portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity.
Section 5. Effective Date. This local law shall take effect immediately upon
its filing with the New York Secretary of State.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: MICHAEL SMITH, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2019
RE: DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
- ESTABLISHMENT OF DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
- AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT DEER DAMAGE PERMIT APPLICATION
Please find attached updated material related to the establishment of the Town of Ithaca's
Deer Management Program and for the authorization to submit a Deer Damage Permit (DDP)
application to NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. The documents have been
revised to remove the proposed farm locations and most of the references to agricultural
related deer damage. The DDP application is now requesting to start implementing the
program this year on 3 properties (though there could be more than one bait location on the
large properties) from approximately February 15th through April 15th. Listed below are the
various documents that are attached. Many of the documents apply to both the establishment
of the Deer Management Program and the submission of the DDP application.
Attached:
• Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts 1, 2 and 3
• Draft resolutions for the SEAR determination and authorization of the Town's program
and the DDP application
• "Town of Ithaca - Deer Management Program Proposal" (dated January 31, 2019)
• NYSDEC Deer Damage Permit application form
• Attachment to the DDP: "Justification for use of Deer Damage Permits" (dated February
5, 2019)
• "NYSDEC Deer Damage Permit Application — Parcels where Activities will Occur" Map
(dated February 6, 2019)
• "Vehicle Collisions with Deer 2012—2016" map (dated February 2018)
I have not attached a copy of the Conservation Board's 2017 report ("Deer Management:
Recommended Actions for the Town of Ithaca") that was previously provided to the Town
Board. If you would like a copy, it is available at http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/conservation-
board or let me know and I can get a paper version to you.
Please contact me if you have any questions prior to the February 111h Town Board meeting.
gE,'ir][('1,3 Ill::,ur IC�o, ,,.
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, February 11, 2019
TB Resolution 2019-xxx: SEQR: Establishment of a Town of Ithaca Deer Management
Program and Authorization to Submit Annual Deer Damage Permit Applications to the
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Whereas, this action is the establishment of a Town of Ithaca Deer Management Program and
authorization to submit annual Deer Damage Permit (DDP) applications to the NYS Department
of Environmental Conservation; and
Whereas, this an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as lead
agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to this action; and
Whereas, the Town Board, at a meeting held on February 11, 2019, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Parts 1, 2 and 3, for this action,
prepared by Town Planning staff,
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review, and Chapter 148
Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above-referenced action as
proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF
Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
Moved: Seconded:
Vote:
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part I - Project Information
Instructions for Completing
Part 1—Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the
application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on
information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as
thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1.You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the
lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1–Project and Sponsor Information
Name of Action or Project:
Town of Ithaca Deer Management Program
Project Location(describe,and attach a location map):
Located on multiple parcels throughout the Town of Ithaca
Brief Description of Proposed Action:
The Town of Ithaca proposes to establish a program to engage in deer population control by culling deer living within the Town of Ithaca boundary.
This program,once fully implemented,is designed to initially reduce the size of the deer population over the first few years,and then provide stability in
population numbers thereafter. The Town would apply annually to NYSDEC for Deer Damage Permits(DDP)-also known as nuisance permits-to
reduce the deer numbers. This approach is not considered regular hunting and the Town program proposes to use archers(including crossbows)at
baited locations. Firearms could also be used at selected sites in the rural and agricultural areas of the Town.
All healthy deer venison culled will either be consumed by the participants and landowners,or donated through the Venison Donation Coalition Inc.
See attached"Town of Ithaca-Deer Management Program Proposal"for detailed information about the program.
Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone:p 607-273-1721
Town of Ithaca E-Mail:
bgoodman@town.ithaca.ny.us
Address:
215 North Tioga Street
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Ithaca NY 14850
1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES
administrative rule,or regulation?
If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that
may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2.
2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES
If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Deer Damage Permit ii—I Z
3. a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 19,392 acres Town-wide
b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 0 acres
c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? N/A acres
4. Check all land uses that occur on,are adjoining or near the proposed action:
5. m Urban Rural(non-agriculture) Industrial Commercial m Residential(suburban)
R1 Forest Agriculture Aquatic ❑ Other(Specify):
m Parkland
Page I of 3 SEAF 2019
5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A
a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑ ❑ ❑✓
b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑ ✓❑ ❑
NO YES
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape?
NUA ❑ ❑
7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES
The program could occur within the Coy Glen Critical Environmental Area.
If Yes,identify: ❑
NO YES
8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? ✓❑ ❑
b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? NUA 11 0_
c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed
action? �w�� ❑ ❑
9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES
If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: NU
The proposed action does not involve the construction of any permanent structures,only very small temporary ground blinds(tents) El 1:1will potentially be installed.
10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing potable water:
The proposed action does not involve the construction of any permanent structures and will not require any new utilities. Only very EZI ❑
small temporary ground blinds(tents)will potentially be installed.
11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment:
The proposed action does not involve the construction of any permanent structures and will not require any new utilities. Only very W1 ❑
small temporary ground blinds(tents)will potentially be installed.
12. a.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,abuilding,archaeological site,or district NO YES
which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the
Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the NUN ❑ ❑
State Register of Historic Places?
The proposed action is Town-wide. Locations could occur on properties that contain historic or archaeological resources.
b.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for NUA ❑ ❑
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory?
13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency?
NUA ❑ ❑
b. Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? ❑ ❑
If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres:
The proposed action is Town-wide. Locations could occur on properties that contain wetlands,streams or other waterbodies.
Mage 2 of 3
14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply:
❑Shoreline m Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands m Early mid-successional
R]Wetland 2] Urban 2] Suburban
15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed by the State or NO YES
Federal government as threatened or endangered? El 1:1The proposed action is Town-wide.Locations could occur on properties that contain animals or habitat listed as threatened or endangered. Tq U
16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan? NO YES
The proposed action is Town-wide. Locations could occur on properties that are located within the 100-year floodplain. T'wJ// ❑ ❑
17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES
If Yes, ❑-7 ❑
a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑ ❑
b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? ❑ ❑
If Yes,briefly describe:
18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO YES
or other liquids(e.g.,retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)?
If Yes,explain the purpose and size of the impoundment: ❑ ❑
-19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES
management facility?
If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑
20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES
completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/sponsor/name: Town of Ithaca/William Goodman Date:
Signature: Title:Town Supervisor
PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3
Agency Use Only [If applicable]
Project: Ithaca Deer Management Program
Date: February 11,2019
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 2 -Impact Assessment
Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency.
Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by
the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by
the concept"Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?"
No,or Moderate
small to large
impact impact
may may
occur occur
1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning
regulations? Z El
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? ✓❑ ❑
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? ✓❑ ❑
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
establishment of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)?
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway?
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate
reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
7. Will the proposed action impact existing:
a.public/private water supplies? Z El
b.public/private wastewater treatment utilities? ✓❑ ❑
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,archaeological,
architectural or aesthetic resources? Z El
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands,
waterbodies,groundwater, air quality,flora and fauna)?
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainage
problems?
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? ✓❑ ❑
PRINT FORM Paget of 2
SEAF 2019
Agency Use Only[If applicable]
Project: Ithaca Deer Management Program
Date: February 11,2019
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 3 Determination of Significance
For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur",or if there is a need to explain why a
particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please
complete Part 3.Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that
have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency
determined that the impact may or will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,
probability of occurring,duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-
term,long-term and cumulative impacts.
There are no anticipated negative environmental impacts related to the proposed deer management program. As
outlined in the May 2017 report (Deer Management: Recommended Actions for the Town of Ithaca)from the Town
of Ithaca Conservation Board, the Town is proposing to address the overpopulation of deer by pursuing a culling
program. The Town program would apply to NYS Department of Environmental Conservation for Deer Damage
Permits (DDP)and use proficient volunteer archers (firearms could also be used at select sites in the rural and
agricultural areas of the Town)at baited locations. Locations for the baited sites will be scattered throughout the
Town, and could include residential properties, cemeteries, and in natural areas. Detailed information about the
proposed program can be found in the attached document titled "Town of Ithaca - Deer Management Program
Proposal".
The existing overpopulation of deer are creating a significant ecological impact (deer forage of native vegetation,
little forest regeneration), health and human safety issues (ticks/Lyme disease), agricultural losses (crop damage,
diseases and parasites transmitted to animals), and vehicle/deer collisions. Deer overpopulation is a product of the
ideal food and shelter offered by the urban and suburban landscape, inadequate predation pressure, and protection
from hunting in some areas. Deer management efforts by adjacent municipalities and Cornell University have made
modest gains towards their goals, but the addition of a similar program in the Town would enhance their efforts.
Based on the experience of Cornell and other local municipalities, deer management programs are safe, and
support public health and the environment.
All healthy deer venison culled will either be consumed by the participants or donated through the Venison Donation
Coalition Inc.
While the program may operate with locations in a CEA, in or near wetlands, streams or floodplains, or in or near
areas containing threatened or endangered species, the program will not alter or damage any of these resources
and the reduction in deer numbers should benefit these resources.
Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an
environmental impact statement is required.
Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Town of Ithaca Town Board
Name of Lead Agency Date
William Goodman Town Supervisor
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(if different from Responsible Officer)
PRINT FORM Page 2 of 2
gE,'ir]K'1,3IItE,ir IC�o, 4I
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, February 11, 2019
TB Resolution 2019-xxx: Establishment of a Town of Ithaca Deer Management Program
and Authorization to Submit a Deer Damage Permit Application to the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation
Whereas, in May 2017, the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board presented a report(titled"Deer
Management: Recommended Actions for the Town of Ithaca") to the Ithaca Town Board
regarding the overabundance of White-tailed deer in the Town of Ithaca; and
Whereas, this report outlined the history and justification of deer management (health and human
safety, ecological, agricultural losses, car-deer collisions,NYSDEC Deer Management Focus
Area),provided a review of local deer management programs in Tompkins County (Village of
Trumansburg, Cornell University, Village of Cayuga Heights, Village of Lansing), and provided
recommendations for a potential Town of Ithaca deer management program (form sub-
committee, utilize NYSDEC Deer Damage Permits for a Town program, measure impacts of
deer to asses effectiveness of program, coordinate efforts with adjacent municipalities and
Cornell University, etc.); and
Whereas,in September 2017 the Ithaca Town Board established a Deer Management Committee
which met several times in spring and summer 2018; and
Whereas, the Deer Management Committee held a public meeting in May 2018 seeking feedback
on the report and the potential of starting a deer management program, with the feedback
received being very positive; and
Whereas,pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") and
its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, the establishment of this Deer Management
Program and submission of annual Deer Damage Permit applications is an Unlisted Action for
which the Town of Ithaca Town Board, acting as lead agency in an uncoordinated environmental
review with respect to these actions, has, on February 11, 2019 , made a negative environmental
determination of significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3;
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the establishment of the
Town of Ithaca Deer Management Program as outlined in the"Deer Management Program
Proposal" (dated January 31, 2019) and other related documents, and it is further
Resolved, that William Goodman, as Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca, is hereby authorized and
directed to file a Deer Damage Permit application with NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation, including any associated future documents, forms or reports.
Moved: Seconded:
Vote:
January 31,2019
Town of Ithaca
Deer Management Program Proposal
February 15th through April 15th 2019
Approved by the Town of Ithaca Town Board on
Ithaca Town Board Resolution No.
In May 2017, the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board presented a report (Deer Management:
Recommended Actions for the Town of Ithaca) to the Ithaca Town Board regarding the overabundance
of White-tailed deer in the Town of Ithaca. This report outlined the history and justification of deer
management (health and human safety, ecological, agricultural losses, car-deer collisions, NYSDEC Deer
Management Focus Area), a review of local deer management programs in Tompkins County (Village of
Trumansburg, Cornell University, Village of Cayuga Heights, Village of Lansing), and provided
recommendations for a potential Town of Ithaca deer management program (form sub-committee,
utilize NYSDEC Deer Damage Permits for a Town program, measure impacts of deer to assess
effectiveness of program, coordinate efforts with adjacent municipalities and Cornell University, etc.).
The Ithaca Town Board reviewed and discussed this report and in September 2017, formally established
a Deer Management Committee. This Committee met several times in the spring and summer of 2018
and held a public meeting in May 2018 seeking feedback on the report and the potential of a deer
management program. The public feedback received was very positive regarding deer management in
the Town and the Town Board agreed to move forward with establishing a program. The Town Board
designated $4,000 in the 2019 Town budget for this program.
Based on input from the Town's Conservation Board, the Town's former Deer Management Committee,
representatives from Cornell University and other local municipal deer management programs, and the
new Town Deer Management Oversight Committee, the use of New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) approved Deer Damage Permits (DDP) — also known as nuisance
permits — is recommended to reduce deer numbers. This approach is not considered regular hunting
and for the Town of Ithaca program it proposes to use proficient archers (including crossbows) at baited
locations as the preferred low cost method. Firearms could also be used at selected sites in the more
rural areas of the Town. What follows is believed to be the best approach to significantly reduce the
deer population and negative impacts of the high deer level in the Town of Ithaca.
It is anticipated that for this initial year, 5 or less properties will be used. Since two of the properties are
very large (70 acre sand 103 acres), there is the potential that more than one bait site could be located
on each of those properties. The Town program, once fully implemented, is designed to initially reduce
the size of the deer population over the first few years, and then provide stability in population numbers
thereafter. It is proposed (pending DEC approval) that implementation of the deer management
program will start on February 15, 2019 and continue until April 15, 2019 at the latest. Once the final
list of sites is determined, a map showing the locations will be available at Town Hall and will be posted
on the Town of Ithaca's website (http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Deer).The Deer Management Oversight
Committee will continue to review properties across the Town that are ideal locations given their size,
expected deer traffic, and availability of trees and cover for this first year. The following is detailed
information on the Town of Ithaca deer management program.
1
January 31,2019
1. Activities are proposed to occur from February 15, 2019 to April 15, 2019. The Town's Deer
Management Oversight Committee will review the success of the program and will reduce or
expand activities as needed based on deer harvests and assessment on ecological and other
indicators. All landowners will be kept informed about management activities (including who
the participants are on their property) in regular updates.
2. Tree stands will be placed (no screw insteps, ladder stands are preferred) at landowner
approved locations prior to the start of the program. A few branches may need to be trimmed
to improve shooting lanes. Shooting from elevated positions directs arrows/bullets into the
ground after passing through a deer. Trail monitoring cameras may be installed to capture deer
activity. If needed, locations may need to be shifted slightly or abandoned. Each landowner will
be informed about any activities on their properties, as indicated by landowner preferences. If
an elevated position cannot be used and the area is found to hold deer, the use of a ground
blind can be implemented.
3. For this initial trial year, the properties the Town has selected to use already have participants
available and familiar with the properties. Participants will primarily be using vertical bows or
crossbows, but could potentially use a firearm in selected locations in the more rural areas of
the Town. The activities are coordinated by Michael Smith, Senior Planner, Town of Ithaca, and
he is assisted by members of the Town of Ithaca Deer Management Oversight Committee.
4. Activities will occur as needed to allow for variations in weather conditions, deer movement
patterns and participants' availability. There will be the use of supplemental lights after dark
that will allow for safe, highly accurate shots at very close range. All of the participants are
experienced in using this approach and any new ones will be trained. Deer use patterns at bait
will be monitored using infrared trail cameras to target the best possible times to utilize
locations.
5. All participants are required to follow all Town rules and laws, NYS laws, and any expressed
landowner preferences. It is the right of each landowner, if so desired, to select individuals
among approved participants who may be permitted access to their property, the times or dates
participants are allowed on properties, stand locations, parking locations, or access routes as
desired. The agreement to use properties can be terminated by landowners at any time by
notifying the Town of Ithaca Town Clerk(townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us).
6. Which days and stands will be used cannot be predicted in advance, as this will depend on
individual time schedules, wind direction, weather, and previous use of stand locations. To
prevent overuse, the use of resting periods of 1-2 weeks between activity periods will allow deer
to fall back into their usual use patterns. Baiting will continue during the resting periods.
7. Participants will be in trees using camouflage and will use flashlights to locate shot deer or to
walk in or out of the woods; therefore landowners may notice a slow moving flashlight. If deer
can't be readily retrieved due to poor blood trails, approved tracking dogs are available to help
in locating the wounded deer. In very rare circumstances, tracking may occur the next morning
with better light. Landowners will be alerted to any of these possibilities and will have access to
cell phone numbers of participants.
2
January 31,2019
8. Occasionally a mortally wounded deer may run beyond property boundaries. All participants will
have information about property boundaries when in the field. This information will include
phone numbers of landowners and neighbors who need to be notified if a search extends
beyond the approved properties. If necessary, the participant or member of the Deer
Management Oversight Committee will call and ask permission to retrieve a deer, unless pre-
authorization to retrieve deer from a property exists. An attempt will be made to inform all
immediate neighbors on these activities, regardless of whether a deer ever leaves an approved
property.
9. Participants will keep track of and report all shots (arrows/bullets) using a secure website
(Qualtrics website). Arrows usually pass through deer and fall close to the spot where a deer
was hit, but occasionally will remain in the deer. Every effort will be made to retrieve arrows
(they are expensive), aided with the help of a metal detector when needed.
10. All shot deer will be removed discretely and not be field dressed on properties, unless previously
approved by the landowner.
11. All harvested deer will be consumed by participants, landowners, or donated. As many deer as
possible will be dropped off to an approved venison donation processor for distribution to local
food banks and pantries for families that can benefit from the meat.
12. In most instances, landowners and neighbors will not notice activities or the killing of a deer,
since it happens fast. However, despite all precautions and skills, deer may be wounded, may
not expire immediately, collapse on neighboring properties or may not be found. Every effort
will be made (including the possible use of a trained dog)to recover all animals.
13. The Town Deer Management Oversight Committee will review activities and success in regular
intervals and determine if activities should continue or be terminated based on activities and
number of deer harvested.
14. The Deer Management Oversight Committee will provide regular updates to the Town Board,
including the number of deer harvested, which will also be posted on the Town's website
(http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Deer).
15. The goal of the program is to reduce deer numbers to levels where forest regeneration and
survival of browse sensitive plants within the Town of Ithaca is once again possible. In addition,
the program seeks to reduce deer tick populations to levels where Lyme disease risks are
minimized, reduce vehicle collusions with deer, and reduce agricultural crop damage. With
assistance from the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, the ecological success of deer
reductions in the Town may be assessed using oak sentinels or other plants.
16. Given the high deer densities and the articulated ecological and health goals, the program will
aim to target both antlered and antlerless deer. This requires approval by the NYSDEC.
Participants shooting bucks will be required to saw off antlers and antlers will be delivered to
the NYSDEC by the Town.
3
January 31,2019
Town of Ithaca Contacts:
William Goodman,Town Supervisor
Email: bgoodman@town.ithaca.ny.us
Office Phone: 607-273-1721
Cell Phone: 607-229-8142
Michael Smith, Senior Planner
Email: msmith@town.ithaca.ny.us
Office Phone: 607-273-1747(ext. 123)
4
NEWlf"ORK Department of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation STATE
PPORT
F
OPPi]FETUNJI1fX Environmental Division of Fish and Wildlife
Conservation. Bureau of Wildlife
DEER DAMAGE PERMIT APPLICATION
Reg.Year Rec. Number
Regional Wildlife Office: Cortland-Region 7
Landowner/Lessee/Organization Representative Name: Organization/Business Name(if applicable):
William Goodman, Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca
Street Address: Daytime Phone:
215 North Tioga Street 607-273-1721
City/State/Zip: E-mail address:
Ithaca, NY 14850 bgoodman@town.ithaca.ny.us
Location Where Damage Is Occurring:
County: Tompkins Town: Ithaca Village/City(if applicable): N/A
WMU:711S/71 Physical address/location:various-please see attached map for parcels where activities will occur
Type Of Damage Occurring (check all that apply):
❑ Agriculture ❑ Tree Farm/Orchard/Nursery Community/Residential Park/Preserve
Other: damage occuring Town-wide Estimated Annual Damages: $ unknown #of Acres Affected: 19,370
Description of Most Significant Damage: see attached
Damage Abatement Methods Tried (check all that apply):
❑� Fence ❑� Repellent ❑Visual or Auditory Scare Device ❑Alternate Plantings ffl Dog ❑Non-lethal Shot ❑Other
Do you allow deer hunting on this property? Yes ❑ No If no, why not? hunting is permitted throughout the Town
Do you use DMAP on this property? ❑� Yes ❑ No If no, why not? some landowners may be using DMAP in the Town
Approximately how many deer were taken on this property last year? 135 in Ithaca 2 years ago? 157 in Ithaca 3 years ago? 183 in Ithaca
Permit Implementation:
Principal Proposed Permit Agent(if other than applicant): Street Address:
Michael Smith, Senior Planner 215 North Tioga Street
Daytime Phone: City/State/Zip:
607-273-1747 / msmith@town.ithaca.ny.us Ithaca, NY 14850
Tax Map ID#s for all parcels where permit activities will occur(or attach map identifying parcels):please see attached map
for parcels where activities will occur
Will shooting occur within 500' (firearm), 250' (crossbow) or 150' (vertical bow) of homes other than yours? ❑ Yes 8 No
If yes, do you have permission from the owners of those homes? ❑ Yes ❑ No
APPLICANT AGREEMENT/CERTIFICATION
I affirm by the signature below,under penalty of perjury,that the information in this application is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. lam
aware that false statements made herein are punishable as Class A misdemeanors under Penal Law 210.45. 1 further understand that,upon filing of this
application with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(DEC),DEC has the right to inspect any property listed on this
application at any time up until the permit expiration date in order to confirm the information provided. Any findings of false statements may lead to
immediate permit revocation.1 have read and fully understand the permit conditions and agree to abide by them.
Applicant signature: Date:
-------------------------------------------------------------*NYS DEC USE ONLY*-------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Taken: 0 Information and education 0 Field visit 0 Recommended DMPs/DMAP 0 DDP issued
0 Repeat Complaint 0 Applicant failed to comply with previous DDP conditions:
0 Enforcement action taken:
Field Inspector: Date: Notes:
Application Reviewer: Date: Notes:
February 5,2019
Town of Ithaca
Deer Management Program
Justification for use of Deer Damage Permits
February 15th —April 15th, 2019
In May 2017, the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board presented a report ("Deer Management:
Recommended Actions for the Town of Ithaca") to the Ithaca Town Board regarding the overabundance
of White-tailed deer in the Town of Ithaca. This report outlined the history and justification of deer
management (health and human safety, ecological, agricultural losses, car-deer collisions, NYSDEC Deer
Management Focus Area), a review of local deer management programs in Tompkins County (Village of
Trumansburg, Cornell University, Village of Cayuga Heights, Village of Lansing), and provided
recommendations for a potential Town of Ithaca deer management program (form sub-committee,
utilize NYSDEC Deer Damage Permits for a Town program, measure impacts of deer to asses
effectiveness of program, coordinate efforts with adjacent municipalities and Cornell University, etc.).
The Ithaca Town Board reviewed and discussed this report and in September 2017, established a Deer
Management Committee.This Committee met several times in the spring and summer of 2018 and held
a public meeting in May 2018 seeking feedback on the report and the potential of a deer management
program. The public feedback received was very positive regarding deer management in the Town and
the Town Board agreed to move forward with establishing a program. The Town Board designated
$4,000 in the 2019 Town budget for this program.
The Town of Ithaca is proposing to address the overpopulation of deer by pursuing a culling program.
The Town program would use proficient volunteer archers (firearms could also be used at select sites in
the rural and agricultural areas of the Town) at baited locations. Locations for the baited sites will be
scattered throughout the Town, and could include residential properties, cemeteries, and in natural
areas. The Town has obtained interest from three landowners to host bait locations on their property
for the initial 2019 program. Since two of the properties are very large (70 acres and 103 acres), there is
the potential that more than one bait site could be located on each of those properties. The proposed
Town program, once fully implemented, is designed to initially reduce the size of the deer population
over the first few years, and then provide stability in population numbers thereafter. Detailed
information about the proposed program can be found in the attached document titled "Town of Ithaca
- Deer Management Program Proposal" (dated January 31, 2019).
The existing overpopulation of deer in the Town are creating a significant ecological impact (deer forage
of native vegetation, little forest regeneration), health and human safety issues (ticks / Lyme disease),
ornamental landscape damage, and vehicle/deer collisions (see attached map showing "Vehicle
Collisions with Deer") as further described below.
• Ecological Impact— Deer suppress not only the perennial herbaceous layer of the forest through
grazing the understory, they also alter the succession trajectories of forests via browsing. Native
plants, including tree species, are disappearing from the Town landscape only to be replaced by
unpalatable non-native and invasive plants. In a series of 2017 ecological assessments for the
Town of Ithaca parks and preserves, Newleaf Environmental LLC consistently documented that
tree regeneration is very low (less than 100 seedlings per acre) with heavy deer pressure and
competition from invasive shrubs impeding young tree growth. The photo below is from the
1
February 5,2019
Finger Lakes Land Trust's Sweedler Preserve at Lick Brook (located in the Town of Ithaca on
Townline Rd) taken in 2017 of a deer exclosure they have been maintaining for several years.
��1 k
L�
Jiy
I�r
A o
114 �
• Health and Human Safety Issues— Deer serve as the primary host for the adult blacklegged tick,
the vector for Lyme disease. In a pivotal Connecticut study, the rates of Lyme disease in a
community were tracked over 13 years in conjunction with the implementation of a deer
management program. There was a strong correlation between deer population reduction and
decreased incidence of the disease. In Tompkins County, the incidence of Lyme disease has
increased by 50% since 2011. The Town of Ithaca has posted signs at the entrances to most the
Town parks and trails as a warning about the possibility that ticks are present and how to avoid
them.
• Ornamental Landscape Damage — In the residential and higher density areas of the Town, the
overpopulation of deer are negatively impacting the ornamental landscapes and gardens at
residences, business, college campuses and cemeteries. The deer are causing damage by heavy
browsing and rubbing their antlers on ornamentals throughout the year. Since there is limited
opportunity for regular hunting in these high density areas, there are limited options to
eliminating deer in these areas. Some private landowners have installed fencing or used
repellents, but that is only helpful for those individual properties.
• Vehicle / Deer Collisions—According to data obtained from the Ithaca Tompkins Transportation
Council (crash data from NYSDOT Accident Location Information System) for the years 2012
through 2016, 439 accidents involved deer in the Town of Ithaca. This database utilizes all
crashes reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles. The attached map, "Vehicle Collisions
with Deer— 2012 — 2016", shows the approximate location of any accidents that involved deer
and is broken down by each year.
While some deer hunting is occurring in the rural and agricultural areas of the Town and there is the
Tompkins County Deer Management Focus Area hunting available throughout the Town, the issues
above are still occurring.
2
February 5,2019
Deer management efforts by adjacent municipalities (Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights) and
Cornell University have made some gains towards their goals, but the addition of a similar program in
the Town would enhance their efforts.
We respectfully request approval of the Town of Ithaca's DDP application, starting as early as possible
after February 15, 2019 and continuing to April 15, 2019. We request the ability to take deer of either
sex (with any antlers delivered to the NYSDEC every 10 days), using archery, crossbows or firearms, with
shooting over bait during a 24 hour period. The specific parcels where activity will occur are shown on
the attached map ("NYSDEC Deer Damage Permit Application — Parcels where Activities will Occur",
dated February 6, 2019). The Town has established a Deer Management Oversight Committee to help
implement this program.
Attached:
- "NYSDEC Deer Damage Permit Application—Parcels where Activities will Occur" Map (February
6, 2019)
- "Town of Ithaca—Deer Management Program Proposal" (January 31, 2019)
- "Vehicle Collisions with Deer 2012—2016" Map (February 2018)
- "Deer Management: Recommended Actions for the Town of Ithaca"Town of Ithaca
Conservation Board (May 2017)
3
NYSDEC Deer Damage Permit Application
Parcels where Activities will Occur
Town of Ithaca
February 6, 2019
fV
iI I
�f
Hayts Rd �i -. � Hansha i Rd
d) �
a
Y
i f
n i �
P
F
/� King Rtl E
5
I
ri.
/,% � i il: �}� � �j fi,a l/ a t r✓.l/. r, 1`�� fi �'� � �,
N
[.SOF fq9
Miles
E 0 0.5 1 2
s
Deer Management Area Boundary (+/- 1.5 Miles from the City Boundary)
....OmOi EY.....................................OWNERS....—.......................................LOCADDR.......
..�ACRES
16.-2-5 11 Lake View Cemetery 605 EAST SHORE DR 15.59
28.-1-20.2 YMCA 1349 RD 103.2
28.-2-6.302 Rancich Family Ltd Partnership NIECKLBJBURG RD 7011
Map Prepared by Town of Ithaca Planning Department
Data from Tompkins County GIS Division and Town of Ithaca Planning Department
Aerial Image Taken Spring 2018
Vehicle Collisions with Deer
bi
2012 - 2016
Town of Ithaca, New York
i
i
I
/; 1II III
1.
1
U I
f
t, ', �'i' ��a.J.�.I i;1 ,f.„
i
L..
i
k
r
r ,
r
L.� I
i.�..�......� ,.J�
as
t
i
/
F
t
� 1
.... a
i
439 accidents involving deer
in the Town of Ithaca
3,106 accidents involving deer
.. / in Tompkins County
Y
s
Map Prepared February 2018 by Town of Ithaca Planning Department
Data from Tompkins County GIS Division and Tompkins County ITCTC N1-
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: MICHAEL SMITH, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2019
RE: AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT—AUTHORIZE SURVEY
JOSEPH S MALLON & MARIA D MALLON
471 BOSTWICK ROAD/TAX PARCEL NO. 32.-2-2.2
As you will recall, in spring 2018 the Town of Ithaca received an application from Joseph
& Maria Mallon to potentially participate in the Town's Agricultural Land Preservation
Program. In May 2018, the Town Board authorized an appraisal be completed to
determine the value of the agriculture conservation easement. The appraisal was
completed in August 2018 and provided to the landowners and Town's Planning
Committee (October meeting). The landowners were comfortable with the value and
the Planning Committee recommended moving forward with the easement, which was
also confirmed by the Town Board in October 2018. The next step is to have a new
survey completed for the property. T.G. Miller, P.C. has provided a proposal with a cost
estimate of$3,100. The work would be completed within 3 weeks from notice to
proceed. A draft resolution to authorize the survey is attached for the Board's
consideration.
Please let me know if you have any questions prior to the meeting.
gE,'ir]K'1,3 IItE,ir IC�o, 5
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, February 11, 2019
TB Resolution No. 2019-xxx: Authorization for Town Staff to Proceed with Contracting
for Survey Services for Potential Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement at 471
Bostwick Road
Whereas, the owners of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32.-2-2.2 (471 Bostwick Road)have
expressed interest in the potential sale of the development rights to their property through the
purchase of an agricultural conservation easement by the Town of Ithaca; and
Whereas, an appraisal has been completed for the property and owners are comfortable with the
value of the conservation easement; and
Whereas, a draft agricultural conservation easement and preliminary site plan have been
prepared for the project; and
Whereas, the Planning Department has solicited a proposal from a qualified surveyor to provide
professional survey services for the property at 471 Bostwick Road; and
Whereas, the Planning Department has received a proposal from T.G. Miller, P.C., with a total
cost of$3,100; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the hiring of T.G. Miller, P.C.
to prepare the survey for the property at 471 Bostwick Road (Tax Parcel No. 32.-2-2.2)which
the Town of Ithaca may purchase an agriculture conservation easement on, at a cost not to
exceed $3,100, to be allocated from the Open Space Plan Account.
Moved:
Seconded:
Vote:
Town of Ithaca Board
Bill Goodman, Supervisor
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Dear Bill, February 5, 2019
This is a follow-up communication to my request that the Town
demonstrate in some way its support for fair comprehensive environmental
review processes. Despite the size and complexity of the North Campus
Residential Expansion project, the University decided prior to the submission of
its application that it did not intend to prepare an EIS. I met with Senior Vice-
Presidents Burgess and Malina in Day Hall and requested that they prepare an EIS
as the University had done with all its previous major dorm construction projects.
They indicated that the decision was not reversible. Apparently the Provost
responded to a request for an EIS from Cornell students similarly.
The only opportunity for the public to influence the outcome of a project is
having its concerns included in a public scoping document and addressed with an
EIS. Even then, protecting the public interest rests wholly with a Planning Board.
The public hearing occurs only after all major decisions on a project have been
made, is primarily a formality, and an opportunity to vent one's dissatisfaction
with the outcome of the process. Without the comprehensive EIS, folks in various
communities such as Forest Home, Community Corners, and west of Triphammer
Rd. believe that their concerns will not be adequately addressed by the
University. The significance of greenhouse gas emissions from the project were
dismissed as small in relation to the total emitted nationally.
Historically there have been very useful interventions by the Town in such
major issues. In 1996 Cornell had a plan to construct a Regulated Medical Waste
Incinerator at the Vet School. The designs had been prepared and contracts
signed. The Supervisor and the Deputy Supervisor of the Town actively
participated in our negotiation with the University. Residents of the Town were
concerned that burning plastics would discharge highly toxic products such as
dioxins and furans onto the campus and into the surrounding neighborhoods.
After 2 years of intense negotiations, it was agreed that an alkaline hydrolysis
digester would meet the Vet School's needs. The University was so satisfied with
the outcome that they asked us to co-author op-eds with them. Similarly, we have
cited to many local residents the Planning Board's excellent work on the
Maplewood project.
Despite large public attendance at the City's Planning & Development
Board meetings, their comments received almost no attention from the Board.
The Board had a widespread lack of familiarity with SEAR provisions (e.g. 'SEQR is
complete when you (Board members) have no more questions"). The City's Board
has a very heavy workload and attendees felt that their presence was considered
an intrusion into an orderly process. Despite the statement on each agenda notice
that folks would have 3 minutes for public comment, if you were commenting on
the NCRE project, you were limited to 90 seconds. Ultimately almost none of the
public comments were discussed by the Board. The thrust of my comments
focused on improved energy performance of the buildings. If the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions is in the public interest and this is both technically
feasible and cost effective, why would the Board not be willing to discuss it or
request Cornell to study it? Despite several submissions (see attached) on the
Passive House design model. there was no discussion of this mitigation
opportunity.
The City retained Adam Walters as an outside legal counsel. Given the
"unusually large amount of public interest", Adam is tasked with "producing the
most defensible environmental record". Rather than directing him to provide the
Board with an orientation to the relevant SEQR provisions for an improved
process, he was only asked to ensure that the Board made a rational elaboration
of their decision. Planning Director Cornish admitted during questioning by a
Common Council member that her intention for retaining Walters was to protect
the City from possible litigation by its residents.
Most of us are incredulous that the 4 Cornell employees including the one
whose department is sponsoring the project would not seriously consider
recusing themselves from participating in the discussions and the voting on the
project's environmental significance. This is a $175M project on which their
employer has strongly indicated that they do not wish to prepare an EIS. This
establishes a very negative precedent. The developer's employees represent a
majority on the Board. Would their employer be dissatisfied with them if they
were to recuse themselves? There are some scientific papers on why good people
fail to recognize their own biases. I don't believe that Board members decision to
not recuse themselves was the product of a critical thinking process.
The recusal issue so significant here that the City should have invited an
ethics professional to address the Board members on the appropriate
consideration of their responsibilities to avoid the appearance of a conflict of
interest (Recusal Best Practices?). I am aware of the Town's previous litigation on
this issue. Ethics Code provisions are written in broad terms such as the
appearance of conflicts of interest. Unfortunately these provisions have been
construed very narrowly by the courts. This issue is much more profound than a
mere matter of legality. It's a matter of government accountability to foster
greater faith in our democracy. Is the Town representing my interests in this
proceeding? Who is protecting the public interest?
The Town as an Involved Agency participated in this environmental review.
My request to you is that by resolution or letter disassociate yourself from this
flawed process. I must rely on my representatives to support principles of good
government. All previous efforts to encourage the City's Planning and
Development Board to provide some consideration to non-applicant sources of
information have failed.
We have observed a complete collapse of ethics principles by the current
Federal Administration. We need this Board to demonstrate sufficient civic
courage to address the failures of democratic process that have occurred during
this environmental review.
Sincerely,
Brian Eden
P.S. Please distribute my materials to other Board members prior to your agenda
setting meeting tomorrow. I'd be happy to respond to any Board member
questions. Thank you.
City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
Brian Eden
December 18, 2018
Over 3 years ago I participated in a team that presented to the City's
Planning & Economic Development Committee, Building and Heating
with the Climate in Mind. The power point featured a case study of 2
university dorms constructed in the same time period, one to LEED
standards, the other to Passive House. The latter used 62% less energy
than the LEED dorm and 74% less than Code. It also had a lower square
foot cost than the LEED building.
submit this information to you again tonight. I am disappointed that
not one Board member has shown an interest in this superior building
design. I submitted a 6-page technical comment on Passive House at
your October 22 meeting and, having attended every Board meeting
that reviewed this project, I have not heard a word from you on Passive
House as a plausible, indeed logical, mitigation option. Not only have
you not given this technologically feasible and cost- effective mitigation
strategy a "hard look," you don't appear to have looked at it at all.
Technological feasibility? Here is a booklet, From Small to Extra Large,
Passive House Rising to New Heights. It lists 51 Passive House buildings
built in NYS including mixed use, multi-family buildings. Recently the
Dormitory Authority of NYS presented a webinar on Net Zero Energy
Residence Hall Building Hall Development. Here in Ithaca, one proposal
for the Green Street Redevelopment project utilized Passive House
design. That developer is committed to constructing a multi-family
building to Passive House standards in the City at the first opportunity.
In the FEAF Part 3 (p.15) it is stated that "after careful evaluation, the
Lead Agency has determined that the applicant is minimizing the use of
energy". That statement is factually incorrect. The Passive House design
model is far superior to that of LEED. I would like to believe that you, as
a responsible Lead Agency, would be willing to study this model. An EIS
will almost certainly demonstrate the major value-added when the
applicant's LEED design is rigorously compared with that of a Passive
House building.
PO Box 2369
Glens Falls NY 12801
(518) 882-3252
claudia@braymerlaw.com
January 20, 2019
Via E-mail Only
Planning and Development Board
City of Ithaca
City Hall
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca NY 14850
Re: Proposed North Campus Residential Expansion
Site Plan Review application (Cornell University)
Dear Planning and Development Board Members:
I represent a group of citizens who are concerned about the adverse environmental
impacts of the North Campus Residential Expansion ("NCRE")proposed by Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels Landscape Architects for Cornell University. It continues to be the position of this
group of concerned citizens that the preparation of an environmental impact statement is
necessary to ensure that the adverse impacts of the proposed NCRE project can be fully reviewed
by this Board, all involved and interested agencies, and the public.
Although the Planning and Development Board ("the Board") determined that this
proposed project may proceed without an environmental impact statement, that decision was
made by a Board with a majority of members who had impermissible conflicts of interest. It was
also made at a meeting for which proper notice was not provided.
We demand a rehearing and a new vote on the determination of significance, at a properly
noticed meeting, with the conflicted Board Members recused. We further demand that the Board
proceed hereafter, in full compliance with State and local laws.
I. The Hearing was Fatally Flawed b3� Impermissible
And Numerous Conflicts of Interest
First, we want to acknowledge that the Board is made up of hard-working individuals.
We are not accusing any Board member of intentional wrongdoing. Conflict of interest rules are
not, however, simply meant to prevent intentional corrupt behavior. They are also meant to
protect decisionmakers from bias and to protect public processes and respect for the rule of law.
By making a significant environmental decision where a majority of members were employed by
the applicant, the Board has fatally injected bias into its decision making. Where the applicant
itself further failed to identify and disclose these conflicts, as it is required to do, the applicant
has compounded the conflict issue. This concern was raised by a member of the public at the
meeting on December 18, 2018. That person, a retired Sociologist, noted the problem of human
bias, whether it be conscious or unconscious, as it relates to the Members employed by Cornell.
As stated in the City's Code of Ethics, "City officials and city employees must exercise
their official duties solely in the public interest and must avoid actual conflicts of interest to the
greatest extent possible." Code of Ethics § 55-7. "City officials and city employees should avoid
circumstances which compromise their ability to make impartial judgments solely in the public
interest and should, to the greatest extent possible, avoid even the appearance of conflict of
interest." Code of Ethics § 55-7.
Each Board Member must avoid"potential conflicts of interest when voting or taking
other discretionary action regarding all matters with which he or she deals on behalf of the city."
Code of Ethics § 55-7. A Board Member
"shall exercise particularly careful diligence in avoiding any actual or potential conflict of
interest when voting or taking other discretionary action on any matter brought before
any element of the city government by any entity that employs said [Board Member]. In
any such case, the involved [Board Member] should attempt to avoid taking any action
that could reasonably be interpreted as benefiting his or her career advancement, salary or
standing within the entity that employs him or her." Code of Ethics § 55-7.
Being in the direct employ of the applicant is a clear conflict. Under analogous state law,
a municipal officer"shall be deemed to have an interest in the applicant when he, his spouse, or
their brothers, sisters, parents, children, grandchildren, or the spouse of any of them . . . is an . . .
employee of the applicant". See Gen. Mun. Law § 809. Accordingly, where a Board Member is
employed by the applicant in a matter pending before the Board, the Board Member"shall
immediately declare the nature of the conflict of interest and shall refrain, where appropriate,
from taking any action or inaction that would affect the outcome of the matter." Code of Ethics §
55-8.
2
Here, four of the seven Members of the Board are themselves employed by Cornell,
so those Members have an interest in the applicant." To date, they have all participated in the
review of the project, and have shaped the deliberation on the SEQRA question of determination
of significance. Where the number of impermissibly biased members forms a majority, the
decision is fatally infected with bias, and the public can have no confidence in the resulting
decision.
In fact, when hearing issues related to this project, the Town of Ithaca properly noted and
avoided this exact conflict. The Planning Board's Vice Chair, Liebe Meier Swain, is Cornell
Health's Director of Benefits& Finance, Assistant Director of Administrative Services. Unlike
here, she recused herself, and did not participate in the discussion of this project, so as not to
improperly influence the Town Planning Board's decision making.
Cornell management has impressed upon its faculty, staff, students, and the public that it
does not want to spend the time to prepare an environmental impact statement for this important
project, estimated to cost$175 million. Cornell hoped to have at least part of the project
completed for occupancy in the fall semester of 2021 to: ". . . address a significant deficit of
on-campus housing for Cornell students, as well as accommodate an anticipated increase in
enrollment". The Ithaca Voice, May 15, 2018, quoting Kimberly Michaels, Principal for
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP. According to Cornell: "Vice Presidents
Ryan Lombardi and Rick Burgess held an open forum for faculty and staff, during which they
discussed the NCRE." Kimberly Michaels' October 12, 2018 letter to Planning Board, p. 13.
The message of Cornell's urgency to complete the project quickly would have been
conveyed to the four Members of the Board who are employed by Cornell. In fact, Ms.
Michaels, representing the employer of four Board members, actually conveyed that message to
the Board Members at the Board meetings.
Upon information and belief, Board Member Matthew F. Johnston is employed by Cornell as a
Manager of Facilities in the Division of Facilities and Campus Services, which is the Division of
Cornell that oversees the proposed project. Mr. Johnston's Division provides oversight of
planning and maintaining university buildings, utility infrastructure, and energy and
sustainability efforts for the physical camps. Mr. Johnston has a direct conflict of interest and
should have recused himself from all review of the project, including the vote on the negative
declaration.
2 Upon information and belief, Board Member Jack Elliott is employed by Cornell in the
Department of Design and Environmental Analysis. Upon information and belief, Board
Member Mitch Glass is employed by Cornell in the Department of City and Regional Planning
and Landscape Architecture. Upon information and belief, Board Member Garrick Blalock is
employed by Cornell as an Associate Professor in the Dyson School of Applied Economics and
Management. These Board Members have a clear conflict based on their employment by
Cornell.
3
Given Cornell's status as the employer of the majority of Board members, the Board
Members employed by Cornell must refrain"from taking any action or inaction that would affect
the outcome of the matter." Code of Ethics § 55-8.
Therefore, we demand that the Planning Board re-take its vote on the SEQRA
determination of significance of this project. Failure to do so will result in any subsequent
consideration of the project to rest upon a fatally flawed initial determination. Failure to do so
would, in our view, provide grounds for a legal challenge to the Planning Board's decisions, and
perhaps more importantly will result in a lack of confidence in the Planning Board Members'
"ability to make impartial judgments solely in the public interest." Code of Ethics § 55-7.
II. Public Notice
City Code § 78-5(A)requires public notice of a meeting to be given at least one week
prior to the meeting. See City Code § 78-5(A). One member of the public expressed concern at
the December 18, 2018 meeting that adequate public notice of the meeting was not given as a
result of the meeting being moved up from December 24 to December 18. We recognize that the
Board was likely juggling holiday obligations, and was not wanting to delay the meeting. Again,
we are not accusing you of intentional wrongs. However, in a case like this where the public has
a clear interest in the meeting, and where the project is significant, it is fair to ask that the board
strictly adhere to the rules put in place to ensure fairness.
In addition, there have been several meetings (e.g., October 30, 2018)in which the space
was not large enough to sufficiently and safely accommodate all of the people who were
interested in observing the Planning Board's deliberation on this matter. See City Code §
78-1(A). Also, despite the notice provided in the agenda that those wishing to speak during
privilege of the floor would have three minutes to do so, the Planning Board has limited speakers
to 90 seconds if they were commenting on the NCRE project. This is just one of several subtle
ways that the Planning Board has hindered public participation.
The NCRE project is important to many members of the public. The Planning Board
must make every effort to ensure that the public is given the opportunity to participate in, as well
as observe, the Planning Board's review of the proposed NCRE project. The Planning Board
must give adequate notice and then must conduct the meeting in accordance with the notice
provided.
III. Conclusion
A rehearing and new vote are necessary so that any subsequent decisions are not based on
an illegal foundation. In addition to the legal issues outlined above, we have some substantive
comments on the Board's site plan review of the project. Those comments are enclosed
herewith.
4
Thank you for your consideration and careful deliberation in this matter.
Sincerely,
/s/Claudia K. Braymer
Claudia K. Braymer
cc: City of Ithaca Common Council
Town of Ithaca Town Board
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Village of Cayuga Heights Trustees
Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board
Clients
enc.
5
PO Box 2369
Glens Falls NY 12801
(518) 882-3252
claudia@braymerlaw.com
January 20, 2019
Enclosure to January 20, 2019 Letter from Braymer Law, PLLC
Comments to City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
Re: Proposed North Campus Residential Expansion
Site Plan Review application (Cornell University)
I. The Planning Board Should Obtain an Independent Consultant
The City Code allows the Planning and Development Board ("the Board") to use
consultants"to aid [your] decision on the proposal". City Code § 276-6(C)(2). However, the
Planning Board failed to engage the services of an independent technical consultant to assist with
the review of this large and environmentally complex project. The Planning Board's failure to
use its own consultant further compounded the bias present in the review of the proposed project.
The proposal is a massive project that will impact 25.6 acres of land, and will include
2,000 new student beds, a dining hall, and central student lounge/social spaces across a total of
five buildings, between two and six stories in height(with the tallest building being 77 feet high),
covering 767,400 square feet of space. Energy use and its environmental impacts are clearly
complex and in question for this project.
Cornell paid its own consultant, Taitem, for assistance with evaluating the project's
impacts. In addition, at its meeting on December 5, 2018, the Common Council approved the
Planning Division's request to retain Adam Walters, for a sum of up to $20,000.00, to provide
legal counsel to the Planning Board for your review of the proposed NCRE project. The
rationale for approval was that the "project spans three municipalities and consists of two
residential complexes with 2,000 beds, a 1,200-seat dining facility, and associated program space
. . . [and that] the potential environmental issues of the project are particularly complex and have
generated an unusually large amount of public interest [, and to] produce the most defensible
environmental record possible".
Similarly, the Planning Board should have its own expert, independent technical guidance
to review a project of this magnitude. Several names of qualified consultants have been provided
to the City's Sustainability Coordinator Nick Goldsmith. The City Code specifically allows for
the Planning Board to hire an independent consultant. Therefore, the Planning Board should
have an independent technical consultant review the proposal and provide its comments to the
Planning Board to aid in your decision making.
II. The Project as Proposed Does Not Meet the Site Plan Review Criteria
As the Planning Board proceeds with reviewing the proposed project, you should
remember that the goals of site plan review include:
A. Preserving and enhancing neighborhood character.
B. Achieving compatibility with adjacent development and uses.
C. Mitigating potentially negative impacts on traffic, parking, drainage, the
landscape and similar environmental concerns.
D. Improving the design, function, aesthetics and safety of development projects and
the overall visual and aesthetic quality of the City.
E. Promoting environmental sustainability in new development, redevelopment and
long term planning.
City Code § 276-1. The project as currently proposed does not satisfy the goals or
criteria for granting site plan review approval. Therefore, the project application must be
modified or denied.
A. Impacts on Trees
The site plan review criteria emphasize the"protection of existing mature vegetation,
especially trees over eight inches DBH(diameter-breast-height)". City Code § 276-7(A)(1)(b).
The proposed project would result in at least 291 trees, including 41 trees over 12" DBH, being
cut down. Even the applicant's Arborist Report provided recommendations for specific,
important trees or tree stands to be preserved, but that were presently slated for removal. See
Cornell's Application Appendix. The applicant must be required to avoid the removal of the
existing trees, particularly those trees over 8" DBH. See City Code § 276-7(B).
B. Impacts on Community Character and Historic Resources
The site plan review criteria also emphasize the"[p]rotection of, and compatibility with,
other nearby features and areas of importance to the community, including but not limited to
parks, landmarks, neighborhoods, commercial areas, and historic districts". City Code §
276-7(A)(1)(c). The project is adjacent to the Cornell Heights Historic District, an historic site
in the City of Ithaca. As demonstrated by the applicant's visual simulations, the proposed project
will be visible from the Cornell Heights Historic District and has the potential to cause
significant adverse impacts on the historic district and the character of the community in that
neighborhood. Moreover, the proposed project will be highly visible from Jessup Road and
Pleasant Grove Road, and will be in sharp contrast to the current land use visible from those
public rights of way.
2
The Planning Board's environmental assessment form, Part III(p. 7), already recognized
that"much can be done to minimize any potential impact to views during Site Plan review
through the selection of building materials and colors, and the development of a landscape plan
that incorporates year-round screening in particularly sensitive areas". Therefore, at the very
least, the applicant must be required to incorporate compatible building materials and colors and
develop a landscape plan with year-round screening. The applicant's new building and
landscaping plans must be made available for the public to review.
Additionally, the project has the potential to negatively impact the Fuertes Observatory,
an important nearby community asset. The Planning Board must review the project's lighting
plan carefully to"confirm that all lighting is dark sky compliant, no spillage occurs onto adjacent
properties, and that nighttime lighting of buildings does not impact adjacent city neighborhoods"
(environmental assessment form, Part III, p. 18) or the Fuertes Observatory.
C. Impacts on the Visual Quality of the Site and its Vicinity
The proposed project would alter 26 acres of land, add six new buildings, and reorganize
existing parking lots, vehicular access and recreation fields. The illustrated site plan and
renderings of the proposed layout of the buildings show that the project lacks a"perceivable
form and order", and that there is no"relationship between the proposed development and the
nearby streetscape, landscape, and the [existing] built environment". City Code §
276-7(A)(3)(a),(d). The Planning Board must require changes to the project to ensure that the
layout of the project's elements is orderly, proper and effective, and appropriate in arrangement,
form, scale, proportion, color, pattern and texture of buildings and other site improvements. City
Code § 276-7(A)(3).
D. Impacts on Traffic
The proposed project would reduce the level of service at four intersections, result in the net
removal of 396 parking spaces from North Campus, and would increase pedestrian and bicycle
traffic. The Planning Board must ensure that the parking areas meet the requirements of Code §
276-7(C), that the project has the required bicycle parking spaces in appropriate locations and
designs per City Code § 276-7(D), and that the project provides sidewalks for safe student
pedestrian access and circulation. See City Code § 276-7(A)(5)-(8). Merely exploring the
"possibility" (environmental assessment form, Part III, p. 12) of improved vehicular and
pedestrian traffic plans is not sufficient; the applicant must be required to incorporate actual
traffic improvements into its proposed site plan.
E. Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, and Green Design
The proposed project would increase the physical footprint of the campus, and would
"increase overall energy usage on campus by 1.4%" (environmental assessment form, Part III, p.
14). The Planning Board's review so far has not discussed design alternatives in any meaningful
way. Merely accepting the mitigation proposed in the report provided by Cornell's expert,
Taitem, does not satisfy the Planning Board's obligation to conduct its own, independent review
3
of alternatives and mitigations measures. The Planning Board must require Cornell to examine,
in the site plan review process, the use of alternative building designs (including Passive House
design principles), positioning, and alignment in order to increase the energy efficiency of the
proposed project. See City Code § 276-7(A)(10).
Even with a continued reliance on Cornell's Combined Heat and Power plant, the
project's gas consumption could be reduced by using an enhanced building envelope. A case
study was previously provided to the Planning Board showing that a Passive House dorm was
constructed at a lower cost than a LEED dorm, while substantially reducing energy demand.
Cornell should be required to examine this alternative because it could reduce energy demand,
without increasing the cost of construction.
In addition, the Planning Board must require Cornell to examine the use of these
renewable energy sources to power the new buildings, rather than the proposed use of the
Combined Heat and Power Plant, which is fueled by a non-renewable energy source (natural
gas). See City Code § 276-7(A)(10). This is a major new construction project that can be
designed to use renewable energy sources, which are available to Cornell now. Cornell has the
capabilities and resources to accomplish the goal of using renewable energy, and it should be
required to use this fuel source for this new construction project.
Furthermore, the use of a non-renewable energy source for the proposed project would
not be compatible with the City's Climate Smart Community Pledge, the City's Green Building
Policy, or Cornell's Climate Action Plan. See City Code § 276-7(A)(11). Therefore, the project
as proposed must be modified to use renewable energy sources, or it should be denied.
III. An Environmental Impact Statement Is Needed
A project of this magnitude, in terms of its size and impacts, needs an environmental
impact statement("EIS"). The proposed project is classified as a Type I action, which"carries
with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment"
requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement. 6 NYCRR § 617.4(a).
Previously, in recognition of the potential for significant adverse impacts due to its major dorm
construction projects, Cornell prepared an EIS.
Here, instead of preparing an EIS, Cornell prepared a report of the environmental impacts
of the project and its proposed mitigation measures. The Planning Board adopted Cornell's
assessment of the environmental impacts of the project and incorporated Cornell's report,
including the discussion of impacts and mitigation measures, into its State Environmental
Quality Review Act("SEQRA") environmental assessment form ("EAF")Part III.
The Planning Board's environmental review was inadequate and legally flawed because
the SEQRA EAF cannot"legitimately serve as a substitute for an EIS and the attendant analysis
and public discussion entailed in a proper SEQRA review". S.P.A.C.E. v. Hurley, 291 A.D.2d
563, 565 (2d Dept. 2002) quoting Matter of West Branch Conservation Assn. v. Planning Bd. of
4
Town of Clarkstown, 207 A.D.2d 837, 840 (2d Dept. 1994). In Matter of West Branch
Conservation Assn., the Court held that the"the Planning Board should have issued a positive
declaration and required the preparation of an EIS." Matter of West Branch Conservation Assn.
v. Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 207 A.D.2d 837, 841. In that case, the Court found that
in"discussing mitigation techniques and manners in which to protect the environment, the
Planning Board inherently acknowledged that the project may cause significant environmental
impacts". Id. at 840-841. Therefore, the"Planning Board's negative declaration was arbitrary
and capricious and unsupported by the record." Id. at 841. The Court remitted the matter to the
Planning Board for the preparation of an EIS.
Here, the Planning Board's rationale for issuing a negative declaration discussed in detail
the project's impacts and the proposed mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. In doing so,
the "Planning Board inherently acknowledged that the project may cause significant
environmental impacts". Id. at 840-841. Accordingly, the "Planning Board's negative
declaration was arbitrary and capricious". Id. at 841.
Notably, the Planning Board's negative declaration was also arbitrary and capricious
because the board ignored or misconstrued the SEQRA criteria for determining the potential
significance of the impact of the applicant's proposed energy use, including making a spurious
comparison between the project's emissions and nation-wide emissions in the Planning Board's
EAF Part III findings.
More generally, the Planning Board failed in its findings to address the many comments
describing missing information necessary to a competent SEQRA analysis, and failed to provide
substantive responses to the many relevant comments documenting faults in the SEQRA process
and determinations.
Upon reevaluating the determination of significance for this project, the Planning Board
should issue a positive declaration and require the preparation of an EIS, which will allow all of
the project's impacts to be fully and properly examined and mitigated or avoided.
IV Conclusion
This Board must diligently and fairly review and consider the proposed project, and work
to avoid and mitigate the project's negative impacts as part of the site plan review process. See
City Code §§ 271-1, 276-7(A)(1). We look forward to observing a robust review process by the
Planning Board. Hopefully Cornell will embrace this opportunity to improve its project and
demonstrate that it is a global leader in responsible project design. If we can be of any assistance
to the Planning Board, please let me know.
5
Town of Ithaca Planning DepartmentgE,1Ir][d,3 ItEIiln No,
February 6,2019
Planning Department 2018 Year End Report
& Proposed 2019 Priorities
The following provides an overview of the Planning Department's accomplishments/highlights in 2018
and proposed priorities for 2019.
Activities & Accomplishment for 2018
DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS
The Planning Board considered a relatively small number of individual projects this year. A total of 16
individual projects were considered and included six site plans, eight subdivisions, two sketch plans,
along with an additional three SEQR-only related actions. This compares with 28 individual projects in
2017 and 26 in 2016. The Cornell North Campus Residential Expansion project was the most significant
project for the Board to consider,with 6 meetings,including a special meeting, devoted to reviewing the
project and considering a SEQR determination. In addition,the Planning Board reviewed the Chain
Works District Final GEIS.
GRANT FUNDED PROJECTS
Transportation Related
• Gateway Trail: staff continued efforts on securing an access easement from the Widewaters Group and
Home Depot to create a trail access via the Home Depot parking lot, as well as, finalizing the license
agreement with the City to utilize the bridge crossing at Route 13/Elmira Road.
• Route 96/Trumansburg Road Pedestrian Corridor Study: staff has been coordinating work efforts with
consulting firm Barton &Loguidice. A scope of work was prepared, an analysis and preliminary
survey of the corridor undertaken, traffic counts were collected, and a survey questionnaire prepared.
• Route 96B/Danby Road sidewalk project— staff has been working with consulting firm Erdman
Anthony,NYSDOT, and PWD staff on the project. A scope of work was prepared,preliminary
designs developed and multiple meetings held with Ithaca College representatives.
Park,Trails& Environmental Related
• Removal of invasive plants and replacement with native trees and shrubs along the South Hill
Recreation Way: staff,in cooperation from PWD staff, submitted a grant application for funding that
was subsequently awarded to the town. The project is estimated at$51,000 and the town received
$38,250 in grant funding.Work will be get underway in 2019.
• Funding for acquisition of 73.6 acres on Culver Road: staff prepared a grant application to the NY
Environmental Protection Fund for Parks, Recreation and Heritage program that was successfully
awarded. The award of$137,250 will fund the acquisition of land adjacent to the Coy Glen Unique
Natural Area for a town preserve (total project cost is $183,000).
Corridor/Area Planning
• Inlet Valley/Elmira Road Corridor Economic Development Feasibility Study and Strategic Plan: the
project was concluded with a public presentation and acceptance by the Town Board of the Inlet
Valley Ithaca Plan: Economic Development Feasibility Study and Strategic Plan,prepared by Consult
Econ, Inc.in association with Behan Planning and Design. The town subsequently sought and
received reimbursement of$30,000 from the Empire State Development for the project.
1
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
February 6,2019
ZONING-RELATED PROJECTS
New and Modified Zoning Regulations
Completed &Adopted
• Modification to the Stream Setback provisions to clarify that an approximate location of the stream
setback was acceptable on site plans and subdivision plat drawings. The action also included language
requiring verification of the setback location when development activities were proposed in close
proximity of a regulated stream.
• Rezoning for the Amabel Subdivision Project, at 617 and 619 Five Mile Drive, from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential.
• Special permit and special approval criteria were amended and updated to eliminate redundancies,
clarify the criteria, and make it easier for the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to
formulate findings.
In Process
• Chain Works District Planned Development Zone continued to be reviewed and revised via oversight
by the Planning Committee.
• Drafting of the New Neighborhood Code containing comprehensive specifications for developing
mixed use walkable neighborhoods utilizing a form-based zoning approach. The code would be
applicable to areas of the town recommended for traditional neighborhood development,per the
Comprehensive Plan. An internal working group has been drafting language with assistance from
consultants Randall+West and Rob Steuteville.
• Inlet Valley/Elmira Road Corridor rezoning effort. ConsultEcon,in association with Behan Planning
and Design,were hired to continue their work and implement the recommendations for development
of new zoning and design standards,with oversight by the ad hoc Economic Development Committee.
• East Hill Village mixed use development proposal. Cornell selected a team of developers, architects,
and planners to work on a development plan for the East Hill Plaza area. The team held a multi-day
visioning/engagement charrette in April to get input from the community. Meetings with town staff
and officials were held prior, during, and after the event. The project will require rezoning by the
town, anticipated as a regulating plan utilizing the New Neighborhood Code.
GENERAL PROJECTS&ACTIVITIES
Agricultural
• Staff coordinated a farm tour for Town Board members in early fall. Farms visited this year included
Three Story Farm, Tree Gate Farm, Sheffield Farm, and Casper's Farm.
• Coordination of the application and drafting of the agricultural conservation easement and associated
documentation for the purchase of development rights for 471 Bostwick Road.
• Annual inspections were performed for Indian Creek and Laughing Goat Fiber Farms conservation
easements; both found to be in compliance.
Parks&Trails
• Coordination with PWD staff and T.G. Miller,P.C. on development of final trail and park design
drawings for the park land off King Road.
• Successfully compiled the necessary documentation to receive grant funding reimbursement from
NYSDEC for the tree/forest inventory project($22,500) and two playground structures ($48,000).
Miscellaneous
• GIS support provided to the town,including the maintaining of GIS databases and coordination of
updates with the county GIS staff, as well as development of maps and information as needed.
2
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
February 6,2019
• Conducted annual inspection of Ithaca College's Raponi and Rich Road Wetland Mitigation Sites
conservation easement. All areas found to be in compliance.
• Coordination of the Richard B. Fischer Award; awarded in 2018 to Tony Ingraham and Liz Bauman.
• Staff support to the newly created Deer Management Committee,including public outreach and
meeting coordination.
• Town-wide sign inventory data was added (per parcel)to the town's Municity database.
• Staff from the Planning Department attended the Upstate NY American Planning Association annual
conference held in Ithaca.
Planning Department Proposed Priorities for 2019
DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS
Major development projects anticipated in 2019 include:
• Chain Works District: next steps include completion of the GEIS process and adoption of findings
statement(by Town and Planning Boards),rezoning from Industrial to new Planned Development
Zone, and site plan approval for phase I of the project.
• CU North Campus Undergraduate Housing project: next steps include site plan review by the Planning
Board.
• East Hill Village:planning efforts are anticipated to get restarted sometime in 2019. The project will
require rezoning and site plan approval.
GRANT FUNDED PROJECTS
In Process -Transportation Related
• Gateway Trail Phase I—trail construction and access across the "blue bridge"anticipated for 2019.
• Route 96B/Danby Road sidewalk project(IC entrance to city/town line) —next steps include a public
meeting/open house to obtain comments on the preliminary design plans, followed by development of
final design and construction plans. Construction is anticipated to get underway in early 2020.
• Route 96/Trumansburg Road Pedestrian Corridor Study—public outreach efforts are to get underway
early in 2019 and include a public questionnaire survey and public meeting. This will be followed by
completion of a report outlining recommendations with cost estimates for pedestrian facilities.
In Process—Park/Trail/Environmental Related
• Invasive vegetation removal along the South Hill Recreation Way: this project will get underway in
the spring and includes the hiring of a specialist to remove invasive plants, conducting education and
outreach efforts to make the public aware of the project, and replanting with native trees/shrubs. The
project involves both planning and PWD staff.
• Funding for acquisition of 73.6 acres on Culver Road: Contract with NYS Parks will need to be
finalized and approved by Town Board prior to acquisition of the property from the Finger Lakes Land
Trust.
Future Applications
• Seek funding opportunities for implementation of recommendations in the Inlet Valley Ithaca Plan,
including grant funds to conduct a pedestrian/bicycle corridor improvement study,implement
beautification projects, and/or to obtain zoning development assistance.
PROJECTS GENERAL(non-grant funded)
New Zoning Regulations
• Complete the New Neighborhood Code. Continue to hold meetings with town building department
and engineering/PWD staff to get feedback and input on the language. Initiate education and outreach
efforts with stakeholders and the public,hold public hearing(s), and consider enactment. Following
3
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
February 6,2019
enactment, the Board can then consider applying the code, through creation and approval of regulatory
plans,in those areas of town recommended for tradition neighborhood development.
• Continue work on drafting new zoning regulations for the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road corridor.
Parks& Trails/Environmental Related
• Coordinate with PWD staff, and T.G. Miller,P.C, on development of final King Road East park/trail
design drawings and construction documents.
• Time permitting,possibly pursue development of a management plan to address anticipated Emerald
Ash Borer infestation using the databases from the 2017 tree inventory(for town right-of-way and
parks) and 2017 forest assessment for parks and preserves.
• Time permitting,possibly initiate of an inventory of existing conditions and a needs assessment in
anticipation of an update to the town's Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan.
Agricultural Related
• Finalize the agricultural conservation easement(purchase of development rights) for the Bostwick
Road property.
Committee/Board Support&Regular Ongoing Activities
• Continue staff support and coordination for the Planning Board, Conservation Board,Planning
Committee, Codes and Ordinances Committee, Agricultural Committee, Deer Management Oversight
Committee and Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee.
• Continue staff representation on Ithaca Tompkins Transportation Council, Tompkins County Parks
and Trails Network, Tompkins County Conservation Partners, and other interagency initiatives as
needed.
4
TOWN OF ITHACA gE,'ir][('1,3 IItEH' IC�Jo,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2018 Annual Report
2018 presented a number of weather challenges for the department. Substantial fall rains and
premature snow gave us some wet environments. Two long time employees left the Town which
resulted in new approaches to past practices; however the Public Works Department had a very busy
year in which the following maintenance and Capital projects were accomplished:
Highway:
• Purchase our complete order of salt, (2750 tons) thus providing a full salt barn for the
beginning of the next winter season.
• Worked with other Town Departments to address concerns with Inter-municipal Utility
Agreements.
• Employed 12 seasonal workers for the summer providing assistance on Highway,
Engineering, Water and Sewer and Parks projects.
• Informed of the potential retirement of two long time resulting in the internal and external
recruitment process to fill the resulting vacancies.
• Added three new staff members to the Public Works Staff.
• Provided training sessions for staff on topics including: construction site safety, snow
removal operations, motor vehicle laws and CDL requirements, and storm water.
• Purchased equipment and tools, as approved within the budget including; Ford Explorer
4x4, Volvo Double Drum Roller, Ford F150 4x4 with plow, Ford F350 4x4 with plow,
Freightliner Refuse Packer, Freightliner 10 wheel dump truck with plow, Grasshopper
mower, steel utility trailer
• Completed drainage maintenance work at various locations throughout Town which
included, ditch cleaning, driveway culvert replacement/installation,
• Completed pavement reconstructions/repairs to Chase Lane, LaGrande Court, Saunders
Rd, Strawberry Hill Rd, and Wildflower Rd. This work was completed with Town CIP,
operations, CHIPS and NYS Emergency Roads monies.
• Completed pavement maintenance work, stone/oil and asphalt overlays, on 6 miles of
roadway in the South Hill and West Hill areas of town.
• Crews responded to 51 "call-in" events for winter maintenance and plowing.
• New operator for mowing completed two rounds of roadside mowing throughout the
Town.
• Completed mowing and clearing along trails and utility easements.
• Cooperated with other municipal agencies to provide manpower and equipment support
through our mutual aid agreements.
• Continued to provide staff support and representation to Town committees and
intermunicipal organizations.
• Provided for and responded to the daily maintenance needs of the Town's vehicle,
equipment and small tools, utility infrastructure, buildings and facilities, roadways parks
and trails.
• Continued dealings and service to the citizens of the Town.
• Installed sound-proofing at Town Hall in the PEZ and Clerk's offices.
• Removed old steel walkways and replaced with new steel rails and heavy duty fiberglass
mesh covers at Troy Road and Coddington Road water pump buildings.
• Built new oil containment room at the Public Works facility.
• Rewired and replaced lights and wiring in cold storage building and added lighting and
electrical fixtures in the salt storage overhang.
• Obtained owners approval to move forward with modifications of the existing easement to
provide for an access easement at six mile creek vineyard.
• Began/completed space study for PW Administrative addition.
Parks/Trails/Preserves/Cemeteries:
• Provide weekly grounds maintenance at 65 Town owned sites (parks, trails, preserves, tank
sites, pump stations, Town Hall and the Public Works Facility).
• Completed year-round weekly site checks at park and trail facilities.
• Completed the restriping of all cross walks and stop bars within the Town.
• Continued administration and maintenance of the use of Tutelo Park and Valentino Field
for Cal Ripken Little League and pavilion picnic use. Completed a renovation of the infield
dirt and warning track on Valentino Field.
• Continued to support volunteers doing grounds maintenance at the Inlet Valley Cemetery,
West Hill Community Garden, East Ithaca Recreation Way (Honness Lane section) and
Tutelo Park.
• Assisted Town's Conservation Board with the annual Richard Fischer Award tree planting
at Tutelo Park near the pavilion, planting a locally-sourced, native White Pine.
• Continued Pale Swallow-wort eradication efforts at the East Ithaca Preserve. Intensified
our mowing in highly infested meadow area at same preserve to try achieving better
control of the spread of the invasive plant.
• Worked closely with Jim Engel, owner of White Oak Nursery in Geneva, as our invasive
species control contractor to rid several sites of woody invasive trees and shrubs. Extensive
elimination of these invasive species was done at the East Ithaca Recreation Way (Honness
Lane and Game Farm sections); the East Ithaca Preserve and adjacent Pew Trail alignment;
Eastern Heights Park,; Troy Park; East Shore Park; and Northview Park during 2017. At
many of these sites we planted a wide selection of native trees and shrubs, along with
various herbaceous seed mixes. Park staff also cleared invasive woody plants along several
other trails and at several parks during the course of the year.
• Mulched beds and no-mow areas were refreshed with new woodchip mulch at all park and
trail sites.
• Continued administration of the Town's "Adopt-a-Park/Trail" program.
• Coordinated work by volunteer Master Gardener at Town Hall. She continued working on
rehabilitating the planting bed, adding new plant material and mulch.
• Continued on-going removal of hazardous trees along our trails and in the parks. This
included several of the trees identified by our contractor as part of the grant to do a tree
census of all Town-owned rights-of-way.
• Annual inspection of Pine Tree Preserve was completed with the representative of Finger
Lakes Land Trust.
• Assisted with the review of the Town's Tree Inventory grant administered through
NYDEC's Urban Forestry Program.
• Acquired a new preserve on Culver Road named the "Babcock Preserve". Inspected the
property and will continue to conserve the area.
• Continued maintenance of the Pine Tree Paths trail linking our trails and sidewalk along
Maple Avenue.
• Started labor at new park site on East King Rd. Removed numerous woody invasive plants
on the property and began the construction of the lower trail. Put together a planting plan
as well as coordinating the final depictions with TG Miller.
• Created a new and enhanced stone dust path along the entire South Hill Trail walkway.
• Paved a trail overlay along the entire East Ithaca Recreation Way from Honness Lane to
Mitchell Ave. Worked with Cornell to start a trail overlay on Game Farm section to be
finalized in 2019.
• Retitled the pavilion at Tutelo Park in honor of recently retired Parks Manager Rich Schoch.
"Schoch Pavilion" will be up and running in spring 2019 along with a new sign at the park
site.
Water:
• Ellis Hollow Water Main and Tank inspections and contractor accommodations to facilitate
the project.
• Replaced faulty water pump at the Coy Glen water pump station.
• Maintenance at Sapsucker Tank, site maintenance.
• Maplewood inspections of water terminations and construction of new watermains.
• Cleared miscellaneous easements on Danby Rd., Slaterville Rd., and areas of Inlet Valley.
• Responded to and repaired 16 water main breaks, replaced/repaired water valves, and
water curb boxes.
• Blacktop repair and lawn restoration from winter water main breaks.
• Installed 40 new high visibility markers on hydrants around town.
• Repaired failing steel floor grating with state-of-the-art non-slip fiberglass floor grating at
Coddington Rd. and Troy Road Pump Stations.
• Water easement maintenance mowing.
• Summer workers pressure washed, painted and weed wacked around hydrants townwide.
Sewer:
• Responded to and repaired 4 sanitary sewer emergencies.
• Facilitated 20 different temporary sewer meter sites for the Townwide Sanitary Sewer
Study.
• Responded to 1463 NY Dig Safely utility "mark out" requests.
• CCTV (closed circuit TV) Southwood's sanitary sewer system.
• Maplewood inspections for demolition phase of sewer utility using CCTV of existing mains
and inspections of new mains.
• Started drainage project that resulted from capping abandoned line at #200 East King
Road.
• CCTV of South Hill Trunk Lines to facilitate I&I issues.
• Camera inspections and cleaning of sanitary sewer mains in the lower northeast sector of
town.
• Completed preventative maintenance on the 9 sanitary lift stations throughout the Town.
• Cleared sanitary sewer easements at Linderman Creek Apartments
• Raised 80 +/- sanitary sewer manholes throughout Town to facilitate the Townwide
Sanitary Sewer Study.
• Investigated 70 +/- sanitary sewer accounts for billing purposes.
• Bypass pumping and repairs at the Waldorf pump station on NY Route 13A.
• Repairs of sewer connections at #975 Route 89.
• Repairs to sanitary main on South Hill to accommodate spot repair for reline contractor.
• Preventative Maintenance on the 9 sanitary sewer Town owned lift stations, oils changed,
pump amperage checks, impellor checks, seal checks.
• Sewer Inspection and cleaning in the "Lower Northeast".
• Sewer easement mowing.
• Terminated a pipeline at #200 East King Rd. that was found to be causing major
infiltration.
• Investigated another 70 +/-Sanitary Sewer customers identified by the Townwide Sanitary
Sewer Study that were not being billed.
• Replaced major culvert going over sewer on South Hill Trail.
• Started reviewing Cornell's sewer system in anticipation of the North Campus Housing
Project and Thurston Avenue Sewer Interceptor.
• Reviewed and attended meetings to accommodate East State Street Sewer Interceptor
Project.
Engineering:
• Administered 40 Simple SWPPP permits, managed 9 full SWPPP's.
• Represented the Town at the Tompkins County Storm Water Coalition.
• Represented the Town at the Multi-Jurisdictional FEMA Flood Plain Review and Analysis.
• Represented the Town of Ithaca at the Bolton Point Engineering and Operation Meetings.
• Represented the Town of Ithaca at the "Meeting of 6' relative to intermunicipal
cooperation, review, and coordination for sewage flows to the VCHWTP and IAWTP.
• Represented the Town of Ithaca at the IAWTP SJC monthly meetings
• Attended meetings with the VCH, City, and Cornell to review/update existing/outdated
sanitary sewer contracts.
• Attended design/coordination meetings for ongoing town/city sidewalk projects: RT 9613;
Trumansburg Rd.; Hector St.
• Attended monthly/bi-monthly Town Planning Board meetings to facilitate ongoing
Engineering/PWD review and approval of projects.
• Completed engineering support and design review for 12 development submittals.
• Completed design, construction and project administration of the Ellis Hollow Water Tank
and Watermain, Perry Lane Reconstruction, and Townwide Sanitary Sewer
Manhole/Sewer Main Rehabilitation Projects.
• Onsite inspection on various construction sites Townwide to review installation and testing
of Town infrastructure and stormwater management facilities. (Cayuga Meadows,
Maplewood, Clare Bridge, Larisa Lane/Westview Subdivision)
• Assisted Town Parks staff for installation, layout, or survey of 3 play structures and/or
Town Preserve Facilities.
• MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System): Townwide inventory of Illicit
Discharge/End Section review and classification. Townwide Stormwater Management
Structure inventory and data collection. Stormwater pipe inventory.
• Initiated site survey and analysis for future 2019 Town projects
• Began design for 2019 projects including Lower Bundy Reconstruction, Winthrop Drive,
Muriel St., and Salem-Winston Dr/Winston Ct. Watermain Replacement and Sanitary
Sewer Rehabilitation.
• Installed and monitored temporary traffic counters in various locations throughout the
Town.
• Installed and monitored temporary and permanent sanitary flow meters. Attended
numerous meetings with City of Ithaca to discuss ongoing sewer meter
issues/coordination.
• Completed ongoing Water Study with GHD for South and West Hills.
• Prepared RFP and awarded the 2018 Townwide Sanitary Sewer Study. Larson Design
Group in conjunction with town staff continue to investigate, survey, and model the
existing sanitary sewer system relative to existing and future development.
• Prepared RFP and initiated preliminary design of the Public Works Facility office
expansion project.
Yard Waste Management:
• Completed the biannual town wide pick up of leaves, brush and annual Christmas trees.
• Realized over 580 visits by Town Residents to either drop off leaves and brush or take
compost and mulch.
• In cooperation with the Village of Cayuga Heights, facilitated the storage and processing of
woody debris. Grinding of the brush pile was completed in July and again in November.
• Management of yard waste stockpiles, composting and topsoil mixing.
• Cooperated with Tompkins County Soil and Water staff by donating well-decayed
woodchips used in their mulch spreading equipment obtained by a grant from NYS DEC.
They assisted us with mulching and revegetating the area disturbed by a large culvert
replacement project on South Hill Trail which was done in late summer and early fall.
Overall Town staff was able to meet the expectations of the community by providing services and
representation and being fiscally responsible by staying within approved or modified budgets.
2019 Priorities
The year 2019 will provide many challenges for the Public Works Department as we continue to meet
the expectations of the community. We will continue to work with development,pursue and
complete the projects identified within the approved 2019 Town Budget.
2018 Eui ment Process Vendor Budgeted Cost
2019 Freightliner 10-Wh. Three Quotes —Tracey Road Equip. $250,000.00 $236,544.49
Roller Bid Process Vantage Equipment $ 155,000.00 $ 123,978.00
Mower Three Quotes Martin's Outdoor $ 17,000.00 $ 15,202.25
2018 Ford F450 Onondaga Bid/Piggyback VanBortel Ford $ 65,000.00 $ 55,426.28
2017 Freightliner/Packer Three Quotes Tracey Road Equip. $ 150,000.00 $ 128,365.00
2018 Ford F350 Onondaga Bid/Piggyback VanBortel Ford $ 45,000.00 $ 43,524.01
2018 Ford Interceptor Onondaga Bid/Piggyback VanBortel Ford $ 40,000.00 $ 32,125.28
Codes Vehicle $ 32,000.00
$754,000.00 $635,165.31
Less Trade Value for Mower -$10,000.00
$625,165.31
Income from 2018 Auctions = $27,016.
Income from 2018 Sales to Other Municipality = $5,000.
Town Clerk's Office
2018 Year End Report and 2019 Goals
There are not many categories for which I have quantitative numbers for what we do.
Yes, we issued 79 marriage licenses, (the lowest number in my history here for some
reason) over 900 dog licenses/renewals and almost 200 handicap permits but what we
really do, day in and day out, is help everyone; staff, general public and residents.
Although we help almost all of the Town's departments, boards or committees in various
ways, the most important thing we do is interface with the public and our residents and
project a friendly, open and helpful atmosphere.
2018 Laserfische/Municity
The integration was completed in June. Jasmin and I worked closely with the
representative from Laserfische to make adjustments and develop workflows. The clean-
up and reorganization of Codes documents has now begun in earnest. As with any new
program or integration, things we thought we wanted turned out to be not so important or
correct and things we thought we didn't want, we really do. After many meetings with
Codes staff, changes and tweaks are being made. I anticipate finishing the Codes
Department documents by the end of 2019 and moving on to Planning Department.
2018 Shared Services Grant—Scanning
Tompkins County received and administered a SARA Grant for scanning of large
drawings. The County scanned approximately 650 of regular sized drawings associated
with building permits. I plan on discussing with the department heads whether to budget
next year to do the remainder ourselves. The County Clerk might submit another grant
application, although we are the municipality most interested in getting more scanned.
There is no opportunity for a grant for the Town without the County as the State is only
interested in Shared Services.
2019 Goals and Plans
Transition
Work through the retirement of Debra DeAugistine and transition Jasmin Cubero to full-
time Deputy Town Clerk.
Integration
Complete Codes Department documents and begin Planning Department.
Training
Attend the annual Laserfische Conference in Los Angeles. The quality and networking at
this training is like nothing I have seen at any other conference I have attended since
beginning at the Town of Ithaca.
Attend the Town Clerks Association's Annual Meeting with Jasmin being held in
Syracuse to help with the transition.
gE,'ir][('1,3 II EH' IC�o,
CODE ENFORCEMENT/ZONING DEPARTMENT
2018 YEAR END REPORT
Quick Look
• The Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement and Zoning Department enforces The NYS Fire
and Building Code and The Code of the Town of Ithaca.
• We hired an addition administrative assistant.
• Monthly reports are given to the Board at their regular monthly meetings.
• A total of 768 permit applications were filed in 2018, with 503 building permits issued.
• We did an average of 331 inspections per permit (skewed by the Maplewood project).
• Complaints numbers fell but so did the percentage that were closed.
• We started the new rental operating permit program and started inspections of such but
we are still struggling to meet all operating permits and fire safety inspections; this can be
contributed to the many labor hrs. spent on the Maplewood project.
• We continued to update the 911 addressing system.
• We continued to explore the features of Municity, our data base system, and moved more
records to Laserfiche, the County's document repository.
• The Zoning Board heard 15 appeals in 2018.
• 2019 goals are a continuation of previous Items.
• Anticipated projects for 2019 include many of the same as last year as well as ongoing
development, major or small.
THE DEPARTMENT
The Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department's task is to enforce The Code of the Town of
Ithaca and The New York State Fire and Building Code, which includes the 9 series of Codes:
building,residential, fire, existing, plumbing, mechanical, fuel gas,energy conservation and
property maintenance code. We are also responsible for assigning 911 addresses and
investigating complaints within the Town of Ithaca(excluding the Village of Cayuga Heights).
Our current budgeted staff consists of(1) 37.5 hrs. /wk. Administrative Assistant 1, (Chris
Torres); (1) 37.5 hrs./wk. Administration Assistant IV, (Lori Kofoid); (3) 40 hrs./wk. Code
Enforcement Officer/Electrical inspectors, (Dana Magnuson,Martin Kelly and, Mark Stonier).
(1)40 hrs./wk. Code Enforcement Officer(Steven Williams); (1) Senior Code Enforcement
Officer, (Marty Moseley) (1) Director of Code Enforcement and Zoning (Bruce W. Bates);
Monthly reports are given to the Town Board at their regular Town Board meetings.This report
includes the number of applications submitted, permits issued; Certificate of Occupancy(C of O)
and Certificate of compliance (C of C) issued, complaints received, and complaints closed.
BUILDING PERMITS
There were a total of 768 applications received, 332 were for the rental registry. 503 permits
issued. As of Jan 1, 2019 there were 154 building permits open.
Reported Construction value of the 2018 permits was an estimated$21,970,246.00.
PERMIT RENEWALS
There were a total of 44 permits renewed in 2018.
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS
The average number of inspections per permit jumped to 131,this can be contributed to the
Maplewood project that averaged 136 per permit and averaged just fewer than 10 inspections per
day. Somedays we had 4 officers inspecting at this project.
COMPLAINTS
There were 126 complaints filed in 2018, this is down from thel58 the previous year,of those 21
were closed out. This is down percentage wise, as it represents only 16% closed compared to
2017 when we had a closure rate of 56%.
FIRE/SAFETY/OPERATING PERMITS INSPECTIONS
Fire Safety and Operating Permit inspections are being done by both Code Staff and the Ithaca
Fire Department (IFD) in the area of the town for which they are contracted to provide fire
protection services. This year single family and two unit rentals were added to the operating
permits.Those along with the increased demand of our time at Maplewood, fire safety
inspections and Operating Permits were a low priority. We put our emphasis on just getting them
entered into our data base.
The total Operating Permits issued for 2018 were 58. Operating Permits are issued per section
125-8 of The Code of The Town of Ithaca; mandated by Part 1208 Rules and Regulations of
NYS. Operating Permits for rented single family and two units dwelling are good for five years,
all other operating permits are good for three years and all are subject to passing a current safety
inspection.
911
The Codes Office is assigned the responsibility of monitoring changes and assigning addresses
for the 91 lEmergency Response System. Toward the end of 2018 we tried to put on a push to
update the 911 addressing with in the town. Error problems still arise and we continue to correct
them and sometimes this involves changing the addresses along a whole road. This will continue
into 2019. The County's new program that was set up last year is working out well in updating
these addresses. Our rental register is also helping to identify addresses that need correcting.
Also in 2018 the county had referred other municipalities to our office to advise them on how
our addressing is done to use as a model.
ZONING BOARD
The Zoning Board had 15 requests for variances, 10 less than 2017. 4 sign variances, 3
fence/height variances and 8 area variances. 1 was withdrawn and 14 granted.
The Zoning Board consists of five full members who are appointed by the Town Board and they
serve five year staged terms; Rob Rosen was reappointed chair(term expires 2021 ). Christine
Decker resigned and Carin Rubin alternate was appointed to finish out her term(term expires
2019), Other members of the Zoning Board are: Bill King (term expires 2020), is acting
representative to the Codes and Ordinance Committee, George Vignaux (term expired 2022),
Chris Jung (term expires 2023), alternate William Highland resigned and two alternates, David
Squires and David Filiberto were appointed to complete Carin's and William's term. (1 year).
OBJECTIVES/GOALS
Our goals for 2018 were few, but a major one was to implement the Maplewood project. This
has taken a large number of labor hrs. But the project is almost completed, and by spring of 2019
all Certificates of Occupancies should be issued.
2019 objectives/goals;
Finish the Maplewood Project
Continue inspections for the new rental registry program.
Complete updating of the 911 addressing.
Current ongoing developments and major projects
• These are a continuation of last year's ongoing developments
• Rental registry operating permit inspections.
• Maplewood—Cornell's 27 apartment and townhouse buildings completed in the spring
• Continue to refine and implement programs in Municity and Laserfiche.
• Birds Eye view—development.
• Southwoods—development.
• West View- development.
• Cayuga Medical Center- addition of 2nd story to east wing.
Anticipated major projects
• Cayuga Medical Center Radiation Medical addition (West Hill)
• Schickel Road Subdivision.
Have been added to the list of projects, many of the previous listed projects never materialized
for 2018 they are still in the pipeline at different levels.
• Sleep In Hotel (Elmira Rd.).
• Ithaca Town Houses (former Holochuck development) (West Hill).
• Chain Works development. (South Hill).
• Cornell undergraduate housing (Jessup Rd.).
• Amabel Pocket Neighborhood development. (Five Mile Dr.).
• East Hill Plaza(Pine Tree Rd.).
• Coddington Rd Community Center expansion (Coddington Rd.).
• Several smaller projects that are on the Planning Board's schedule.
CONCLUSION
2018 for the Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement and Zoning Department was another year of
growth, the department added another clerical position, Maplewood continued well into the end
of the year. Other major projects failed to materialize. 2019 right now looks like it might be a
catchup year. We are hoping the department can take a breath and fine tune its ongoing operation
to be able to maintain the public safety in the building environment.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bruce W. Bates, Director
Code Enforcement and Zoning Department
Human Resources 2018 Year End Report, by Judy Drake
■ Civil Service: Maintained compliant requirements
o Received approved payroll certification as required by civil service law.
o Reviewed changes for positions and reclassifications
o Position changes at the Town and SCLIWC due to deaths, retirements,
resignations/terminations. 3 retirements, 3 resignation, 1 termination, 9 internal
promotions and 14 new hires. 4 new positions filled- Admin Asst I-Codes, Principal
Account Clerk-BP, Working Supervisor, Laborer, Civil Engineer
o Staff levels as of 12/31 (see page 2-3) (not including new positions budgeted for 2019)
■ Town: 57 FT/ 1 PT (30 hrs) Vacant 12/31: 2 MEO —back filled by Laborer -1
Laborer
■ BP: 20 FT/ 1 PT (30 hrs) Vacant: none
■ Human Resources support to Bolton Point Commissioners and staff —attend weekly
management team meetings.
■ Town and BP Personnel Committee and Employee Relations Committee staff support
o Consistent meetings with each committee monthly- prepared minutes/agendas
o Discussed and recommended revisions to policies approved- Sexual Harassment
Prevention Policy, Sick Leave, Personal Leave, Bereavement Leave, Longevity
o Continued review of Personnel Manual- completed section 1 and 2
o ERC reviewed suggestion box comments and reviewed policies
o Scheduled and arranged for Board/staff lunches, picnic and other events.
■ Town Hall management representative on Safety Committee- reviewed 5 injury claims
■ Benefits Administrator for:
o Health, Dental, Life, Short Term Disability, Flex Spending, Workers' Compensation,
Deferred Compensation & NYS Retirement System
o Greater Tompkins County Municipal Health Insurance Consortium
■ Serve as the Director representing the Town and serves as Board Chair
■ Member of sub committees-Joint Committee on Plan Structure & Design, Audit &
Finance Committee and the Executive Committee
■ Commercial Insurance coordinator for Town and Bolton Point - Worked on 2 insurance claims
against the town and 2 claims the town filed due to accidents on town roads.
■ Payroll management and law compliance — ran payroll collaboratively with Debby Kelley
o 123 w-2's issued, 1095 and 1094 C forms regarding health insurance coverage were
completed and sent with w-2's — Completed budget work for 2019
■ Worked on UAW negotiations —1/1/18-12/31/20 contract- approved and provided to members
■ Worked on Teamsters negotiations —1/1/19-12/31/22 contract- approved and provided to
members
■ Coordinated town and Bolton Point staff trainings, including the tri-annual defensive driving
course
■ Represent Town on TCCOG Training Academy, TC Diversity Consortium and PW
Apprenticeship program.
2019 Priorities:
Revisions to Personnel Manual
Succession planning for retirements in 2019 through 2021
TOWN OF ITHACA
EMPLOYEES AND STAFFING CHANGES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2009-2018
Based on Full Time Equivalent(FTE)for non-elected positions as of December 31s`
lip/
Town Board
Town Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Town Board Members 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
Justices
Town Justice 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Court Clerk 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Town Clerk
Town Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
First Deputy Town Clerk - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Town Clerk 1.00 - - - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00
Budget&Finance
Budget Officer 1.00 1.00 - - - - - - - -
Finance Officer - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Bookkeeper to the Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Receiver of Taxes(Dec. -March) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Human Resources
Human Resources Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Principal Account Clerk-Payroll 1.00 1.00 - - - - - - - -
Information Technology
Network/Records Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parks&Recreation
Recreation Coordinator 1.00 1.00 - - - - - - - -
Sub-Total-General Government 19.25 19.25 17.25 17.25 17.25 17.25 17.25 18.25 18.25 18.25
Code Enforcement
Director of Code Enforcement 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr. Code Enforcement Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - 1.00 1.00
Code Enforcement Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Electrical/Code Enforcement
Officer - 0.75 0.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 2.00 3.00 3.00
Administrative Assistant IV - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Assistant I - - - - - - - - - 1.00
Senior Typist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - -
Sub-Total-Code Enforcement 4.00 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 5.00 7.00 8.00
Planning
Director of Planning 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Asst. Director of Planning 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - -
Senior Planner - - - - - 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Environmental Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - -
Planner 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Typist 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sustainability Planner(Grant
funded) - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sub-Total-Planning 6.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
NUNN77t
TOWN OF ITHACA
EMPLOYEES AND STAFFING CHANGES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2009-2018
Based on Full Time Equivalent(FTE)for non-elected positions as of December 31"
i7m .0
Public Works Department
Highway Superintendent/Director
PW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i 1.00
Deputy Highway Superintendent 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i 1.00
Parks Maintenance Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i 1.00
Water/Sewer Maint.Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i 1.00
Maintenance Supervisor - - - - - - - - 1.00 i 1.00
Maintenance Worker 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i 1.00
Working Supervisor 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1 4.00
Heavy Equipment Operator 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 4.00
Motor Equipment Operator 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 8.00 8.00 1 8.00
Laborer 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 1 4.00
Sr. Heavy Equipment Mechanic - - - - - - - - - i 1.00
Heavy Equipment Mechanic 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i 1.00
Automotive Mechanic Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i -
Sr. Civil Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i 1.00
Civil Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 2.00
Sr. Engineering Technician - - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Engineering Technician 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 2.00
Administrative Assistant IV 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
i
Administrative Assistant 1 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
i
i
Tickler List
Update Official Map (find out what the issues were)
Sidewalk Maintenance—Policy discussion and development(ad hoc comm 2016)
Forest Home Wall—(after sidewalk policy is decided)
Pump Stations —Policy discussion and development
Gateway Trail Presentation and approval to go to bid
Encroachment License fees —discuss and implement
General changes to the PDZ code section
Water and Sewer in Town Code
Abandonment of certain sanitary sewers —subj to permissive referendum so done separately
Safety and Fire Drills
Developer paying for inspections of infrastructure—make it clear
Review and update policies
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, February 11, 2019
TB Resolution 2019-xxx: Amend the Town of Ithaca Fee Schedule—Code Enforcement
Fees
Whereas, TB Resolution 2009-227 adopted the establishment and setting of fees by town board
resolution; and
Whereas, the Ithaca Fire Department (IFD), by contract, assist in the fire safety inspections for
the covered benefit area within the town, and the town pays IFD their fee for such inspections at
the Ithaca Fire Departments' rate; and
Whereas, the Town then processes the inspection paperwork and bills the property owner for
such inspection; and
Whereas, the IFD recently increased their fees to $55 per hour for fire safety inspections; and
Whereas, the Director of Code Enforcement has reviewed the fee increase and made
recommended changes to the Personnel and Operations Committee; and
Whereas, the Personnel and Operations Committee, at its January 28, 2019 meeting, reviewed
the recommendations of the Director of Code Enforcement and recommends to the Town Board
modifying the Code Enforcement fees of the Town of Ithaca fee schedule to cover the cost of the
IFD fee and the cost of the town handling the billing and paperwork; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve and directs the
Director of Code Enforcement to amend the Town of Ithaca Fee Schedule to show Fire Safety
inspections and re-inspections shall be at a rate of$65 dollars for the first hour(1-hour
minimum), and $55 per additional hour. These changes are effective immediately.
Moved: Seconded:
Vote
Ayes:
gE,'ir][('1,3 IItE,ir IC�o, 10
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, July 8, 2013
TB Resolution 2019-xxx: Authorization for the Town Clerk to renew the Agreement with
Tompkins County for the Tompkins Shared Services Electronic Records Repository
(TSSERR) for an additional 5-year term
Whereas TB Resolution 2013-101 authorized the Town Clerk to sign an agreement with the
County for the Tompkins County Shared Services Electronic Records Repository (TSSERR)
which is a shared service hosted by the County and made available to all municipalities within
the County which has a renewable term of five years, now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board does hereby authorize the Town Supervisor to renew the
Tompkins County Shared Services Electronic Records Repository Group Agreement on behalf
of the Town.
Moved: Seconded:
Vote: Ayes —
gE,'ir]K'1,3 IItE,ir IC�o, 11 a
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
February 11, 2019
TB Resolution 2019-xxx: SEQR: Acquisition of Eddy property at 827 Elmira Road
(part of Tax Parcel No. 35.4-10.1)
Whereas, this action is the acquisition of approximately 10.75+/- acres of an 18+/- acre
property owned by Alfred C. Eddy, located at 827 Elmira Road (State Route 13), Tax
Parcel No. 35.-1-10.1, in the Town of Ithaca; and
Whereas, the Town has entered into an agreement with Alfred C. Eddy to purchase the
above-referenced property, which immediately adjoins the lands of Buttermilk Falls State
Park owned by New York State; and
Whereas, the property will be acquired in order to assist the State in the development of
the southern portion of the Black Diamond Trail; and
Whereas, it has been determined that the above-described action is an Unlisted Action,
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town
of Ithaca Code, Chapter 148 —Environmental Quality Review, for which the Town of
Ithaca Town Board is acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to
the property acquisition; and
Whereas, the Town Board, on February 11, 2019, has reviewed and accepted as adequate
the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts 1, 2 and 3 prepared by Town staff for
this action; now therefore be it
Resolved, that the Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance based on the information in the Short EAF Part 1 and for the
reasons set forth in the Short EAF Parts 2 and 3 in accordance with the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the
above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental
Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
Moved: Seconded:
Vote:
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 1 -Project Information
Instructions for Completing
Part 1—Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the
application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on
information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as
thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1.You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the
lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1—Project and Sponsor Information
Name of Action or Project:
—
Project Location(describe,and attach a location map):
JX* E- l~ra � T--Va -A.
Brief Description of Proposed Action: y n
Q l ��� ��+-rte , r�
t�- w.5 '�1-��-�-��'i• .s�O.n� ��.,�µIL.I,ee.� � _�, �p.� Yta .,c
� P
Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: �—r3
-r®4,)tk Ck . dCQ . E-Mail l v�@'koWat.e�v►�ta.w :c�S
Address:
1:5
• did a� �fre��
city/PO: T��
1
Zip Code:r y y s®
7
aca
1, Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES
administrative rule,or regulation?
If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed actio;and the environmental resources that IQ
may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2. IDI
2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES
If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval: ❑ y�
,�-�a[.AT4wv►�oatr� p4trc�•ase. Aptrotla.
3, a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? acres
b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? „r acres
c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? _31 acres
4. Check all land uses that occur on,are adjoining or near the proposed action:
. ❑Urban Rural(non-agriculture) ❑ Industrial Commercial Residential(suburban)
❑Forest Agriculture E] Aquatic ❑ Other(Specify):
Parkland
Pae 1 of 3 SEAF 2019
5. Is the proposed action, NO YES NI'A
a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑ ❑
b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑ ❑
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? NO YES
7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES
If Yes,identify:enhfy. ❑
B. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present Ievels? NO YESF-1b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? ❑
c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed ❑
action?
9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES
If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies:
❑ ❑
10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing potable water „mm
El F-1
,n... .,.,... ........................... .
11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? �A NO it YES
If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,„,,,...,.. .......
.,a......,.,.........,,.,.,. m,,nn.
11 ❑
12. a.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district NO YES
which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the ❑
Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the
State Register of Historic Places?
b.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designate as sensitive for El
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory?
13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? -p[ ❑
b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? ❑
If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres:
Page of 3
14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site.Check all that apply:
❑Shoreline ❑ Forest R Agricultural/grasslands R Early mid-successional
(Wetland ❑ Urban ❑Suburban
15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed by the State or NO YES
Federal government as threatened or endangered? ❑
16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan? NO YES
❑ Li
17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES
IfYes, ❑
a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑
b, Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? ❑ ❑
If Yes,briefly describe:
........... . ... .... ..
18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO / YES
or other liquids(e.g.,retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)?
If Yes,explain the purpose and size of the impoundment, ® ❑
19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES
management facility?
If Yes,describe:
20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES
completed) for hazardous waste?
If Yes,describe:
1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE
A licant onsoriname
PP sP
Signature:, _,,, R ! ., Tale: ! .-� U i 5cs�e`
PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3
Agency Use Only elf applicablel
Project: Town/Eddy 2-Lot Subdivision
Date: 1PB 215/19;TB 2/11/9
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 2 -Impact Assessment
Part 2 is to be completed by the Lcaid.Agienicy.
Answer all of the following questions fin Part,2 using the infikn,iiinakkm contained in Part I aniii o:ther:materi4s submitted by
the proJect sponsor or otherwise available w the ii-eviewer, 101hen ans%vefing the qucsdomthe rtWicomr should be gi,lided'li:)y
the concept"Have my responses beein, ii-ii:1asoinabie ii::*nsidering the scale and context OFthe proposed action?"
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
No,or Moderate
small to large
impact impact
may may
occur occur
................................................................................................................................................................................... .
-...........................
1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning
regulations?
...................................................................................................................................
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? ❑
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? Z 0
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ....................................................................
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
establishment of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)?
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway?
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate
reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 21
7. Will the proposed action impact existing: 21 F-1
a.public/private water supplies?
b.public/private wastewater treatment utilities? ❑
................................................................................................................................................................................................................
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,archaeological,
arirh iteclii,im,1 10;'aesthetic rts ources? El
.............................................................................................................................................I.................
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands,
waterbodies,groundwater,air quality,flora and fauna)? Fv1 El
................................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainage
problems? El
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health?
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Pagel of
Agency Use Only(if applicable]
Project.. Town/Eddy 2-Lot Subdivision
Date: PB 215119;TB 215119
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 3 Determination of Significance
For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur",or if there is a need to explain why a
particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please
complete Part 3.Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that
have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency
determined that the impact may or will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,
probability of occurring,duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-
term,long-term and cumulative impacts.
The proposal involves subdividing an 18+1-acre parcel along Elmira Road into two parcels: Parcel A,7.55+1-acres,
contains the Eddydale Farm store, and Parcel B, 10.75+1-acres,contains vacant land.The intent of the subdivision
is to convey Parcel B to the Town of Ithaca,who will ultimately convey it to NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation (SHPO)to consolidate with their existing lands that surround the parcel. This
conveyance/consolidation is expected to be a positive impact on the community,as it will result in the preservation
of natural resources and will help enable the future siting of the Black Diamond Trail.
Regarding Part 1,#12b-According to the SHPO Cultural Resources Information System,the entire area
surrounding and including Elmira Road,from the City of Ithaca to the Town of Newfield,could potentially contain
archaeological sites deemed sensitive and on the NYS Historic Preservation Office archaeological site inventory.
However,this specific property does not appear to contain any items on the inventory.The portion of the parent
property that fronts on Elmira Road (Parcel A)has been largely disturbed, so it is presumed that any
archaeologically sensitive materials would have been discovered with the prior disturbance.
Regarding Part 1,#13a-There are no wetlands or water bodies on proposed Parcel A,whereas proposed Parcel B
contains a portion of the Cayuga Inlet,along with wetlands that are listed on the National Wetlands Inventory.The
majority of Parcel B is also located within Tompkins County Unique Natural Area#147(Cayuga Inlet Floodplain).
These natural resources will not be negatively affected by the proposed subdivision. Rather, the subdivision and
conveyance of Parcel B to the Town of Ithaca(and ultimately to NYS Parks)will preserve the property in its natural
state, thereby protecting the existing wetlands and water bodies from future commercial or residential development.
Regarding Part 1,#15-A portion of Parcel B is located within Flood Zone"AE,"which is defined as an area that has
a 1%probability of flooding every year(aka 100-year floodplain). Under the National Flood Insurance Program,
properties within Zone AE have a high risk of flooding.Although the proposed action is within the 100-year
floodplain, there is no development proposed and therefore no negative environmental impacts anticipated.
Check this box if
,,,,„,,.,,,.,„_.,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_.�.,, on the information analysis above, supporting
° you have determined,based. ................................m.........V.......................-.....................�_...-.,,,,,,,_,,, ,.,,,,,,,, ,,, -.-,.,, .,,,,, �c , ,,_„,ttran ,.
that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an
environmental impact statement is required.
Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Town of Ithaca Town Board
Name of.Lead...A....enc....y................................................................................. ..................................................................................................Date...................................................................................................,, .
g
William Goodman Town Supervisor
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead A. gency ., .T.....i...t...l..e.............�................................�..mm.......................................................................
of Responsible Officer
r, _
Si ature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Prepare ' rent from Responsible O
fficer)
Page 2 of 2
gE,'ir]K'1,3 IItE,ir IC�o, 11
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
February 11, 2019
TB Resolution 2019-xxx: Authorization for the Acquisition of Approximately
10.75+/-Acres of Real Property at 827 Elmira Road from Alfred C. Eddy and for
the Completion of the Transaction
Whereas, the Town Board has determined that certain property owned by Alfred C.
Eddy, located at 827 Elmira Road (State Route 13), Tax Parcel No. 35.-1-10.1, is of value
to the future development of the southern portion of the Black Diamond Trail; and
Whereas, this newly subdivided parcel immediately adjoins the lands of Buttermilk Falls
State Park owned by New York State, and will be acquired by the State from the Town in
the future for the construction of the Black Diamond Trail; and
Whereas, the property was approved for subdivision by the Town Planning Board at its
meeting on February 5, 2019, with the condition that the State consolidate the parcel with
State's neighboring parcels after it acquires the parcel from the Town; and
Whereas, the Town Board has determined that $60,000.00 is a fair market price for the
parcel; and
Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, the acquisition of
this parcel is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board, acting as
lead agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the property
acquisition, has, on February 11, 2019 , made a negative environmental determination of
significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town acquire said parcel and pay $60,000.00 for same after receiving
a proper deed fully executed and evidence satisfactory to the attorney for the Town on
this matter that the title to such property is marketable, with said funds to be made
available from the General Fund, which has sufficient funds to cover the costs of this
acquisition, and be it further
Resolved, that the Town Supervisor be, and hereby is, authorized and requested to take
such steps (including the expenditure of Town funds for the purchase, survey, recording
fees, filing fees, and other customary real estate fees and expenses), and to execute such
documents, as deemed necessary to effectuate such purchase and the purposes of the
forgoing resolutions.
Moved: Seconded:
Vote:
1
3 3!�a4 _�'. \� _ _
.� N 4 ~q� � � 1RllE
Wit
ELAfj
A4 ROWD
5;&
s ® ga
$baa. g
- 21
rn
x h7
o �
fix'
0g
4
es
oar ~~~ �
lu
ILL
Xt Rggggggfi»W � � � �a M1� r�.
1R
LOCATION MAP
G i
Eddy/Town 2-Lot Subdivision
Elmira Road
Planning Board, February 5,2019 N
Tentative location of future
Black Diamond Trail
(yellow dotted'line)
V
Parcels owned by NYS Parks
(green highlighted areas)
250 500 1,000 Fee
gE,'ir]K'1,3 IItE,ir IC�o, 1
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
215 N. Tioga St., Ithaca, NY Tompkins County
February 11, 2019 at 5:30 p.m.
TB Resolution 2019-xxx: Order Setting a Public Hearing Regarding a Proposed
Water Improvement for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,
pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, to be known as the Town of Ithaca
Winthrop Drive Water Main Water Improvement Project, and establishing the Town
of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Water Improvement Area
Present:
Moved: Seconded:
Whereas, a map, plan and report, including an estimate of cost, have been duly
prepared in such manner and in such detail as has heretofore been determined by the
Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, relating to the
establishment and construction, pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, of water
system improvements to be known and identified as the Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive
Water Main Water Improvement Project, (the "Improvement"), to provide such water
Improvement to the present Town water system, such water system Improvement to be
constructed and owned by the Town of Ithaca; to serve a benefitted area in said Town to
be known as the Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Water Improvement Area
(the "Water Improvement Area"); and
Whereas, said map, plan and report, including estimate of cost, were prepared by
a competent engineer, duly licensed by the State of New York and have been filed in the
office of the Town Clerk of said Town, where the same are available during regular
office hours for examination by any person or persons interested in the subject matter
thereof, and
Whereas, the area of said Town determined to be benefited by said Town of
Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Water Improvement Area consists of the entire area
of said Town excepting therefrom the area contained within the Village of Cayuga
Heights; and
Whereas, the Improvement proposed in connection with the establishment of the
Water Improvement Area consists of the replacement of approximately 3,510 LF of
existing 6"water main with new 8"water main under Winthrop Drive from Warren Road
to the Town border with the Village of Cayuga Heights, and other related ancillary
facilities, at an initially determined maximum estimated cost to said Water Improvement
Area of$750,000.00; and
Whereas, said $750,000 maximum estimated cost, which is the cost of the project,
shall be authorized to be financed, at the option of the Town, by temporary financing
1
under use of available reserves or a bond anticipation note, and upon maturity of a bond
anticipation note, the issuance of serial bonds with a maximum maturity not in excess of
the forty (40) year period prescribed by the Local Finance Law, or directly by the
issuance of such bonds; and
Whereas, it is proposed that the cost of the aforesaid improvements shall be borne
by the real property in said Water Improvement Area by assessing, levying upon and
collecting from the several lots and parcels of land within such Water Improvement Area,
outside of any village, which the Town Board shall determine and specify to be
especially benefited by the improvements, an amount sufficient to pay the principal and
interest on serial bonds and bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance
of serial bonds, as the same become due and payable; and
Whereas, it is now desired to call a public hearing for the purpose of considering
said map, plan and report, including estimate of cost, and the providing of the
Improvement, and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the
same, all in accordance with the provisions of Section 209-q of the Town Law;
Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York, as follows:
Section 1. A public hearing shall be held by the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, in
Ithaca, New York, in said Town, on the 25th day of February, 2019, at 5:30 o'clock P.M.,
Prevailing Time, to consider the aforesaid plan, report and map, including estimate of
cost, and the question of providing the Improvement, and to hear all persons interested in
the subject thereof concerning the same and to take such action thereon as is required by
law.
Section 2. The Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish a
Notice of Public Hearing regarding the aforesaid Improvement to be published once in
the official newspaper, and also to post a copy thereof on the town signboard maintained
by the Town Clerk, not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty (20) days before the day
designated for the hearing as aforesaid, all in accordance with the provisions of Section
209-q of the Town Law.
Section 3. This Order shall take effect immediately.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing Order was duly put to a vote on roll call,
which resulted as follows:
The Order was thereupon declared duly adopted.
2
ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR
WINTHROP DRIVE WATERMAIN
REPLACEMENT PROJECT 2019
LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA
TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY
PREPARED BY:
TOWN OF ITHACA DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC WORKS
106 Seven Mile Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
ENGINEERING REPORT
TOWN OF ITHACA
WINTHROP DRIVE WATERMAIN
REPLACEMENT PROJECT 2019
Table of Contents:
A. Purpose ................................................................................................... 3
B. B ackground .............................................................................................. 3
C. Conclusions .............................................................................................. 3
D. Project Costs ............................................................................................. 3
E. Certification.............................................................................................. 3
Appendices:
Exhibit A-Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Watermain Replacement Project Plan-Sheet 1 of 1
Exhibit B- Town of Ithaca Northeast Water System Improvements Report prepared by GHD Consulting Services,
dated April,2014
Exhibit C-Winthrop Drive Watermain Replacement Project Engineering Cost Estimate
2
Enuineerinu Report
A. Purpose
The purpose of the Report is to outline the Engineering calculations and conclusions for replacement and
upgrade of the existing/failing Winthrop Drive water distribution main. The Winthrop Drive Watermain
Replacement Project will begin at the existing water valve connection at Warren Road-Winthrop Drive
intersection and run west approximately 3510 LF to the Cayuga Heights/Town of Ithaca municipal boundaries.
(See attached map: Exhibit A). The watermain from Warren Road to Brandywine Drive is fed via the
Sapsucker Woods Tank Zone, the watermain from Brandywine Drive to the Cayuga Heights/Town of Ithaca
municipal boundary is fed via the Christopher Circle Tank Zone. This portion of the Town of Ithaca Water
System is supplied from the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (SCLIWC), hereafter
called"Bolton Point."
B. Background
The Town of Ithaca commissioned a water study of its Northeast Area in August of 2013. The purpose of
this study was to analyze and quantify existing and future needs within the Northeast Water System. (Refer
to Town of Ithaca, Northeast Water System Improvements Report prepared by GHD Consulting Services,
dated April,2014: Exhibit B). This report outlines existing and proposed serviceability and reliability issues
within the Northeast Water System.
The major observation(s) derived from this analysis indicate existing fire flow(s) along Winthrop Drive do
not meet the town's requirement of 1500 GPM (A 20 psi minimum), therefore it is recommended that this
main be upgraded to an 8-inch diameter main. This upgrade,in conjunction with Sapsucker and Christopher
Circle Tank/Pump Station upgrades (previously completed 2014-2015), will provide this area with adequate
fire flow serviceability for existing and future demands.
The watermain was placed in circa 1960 as part of the Northeast Water District watermains.The main is now
60+/-years old and has reached the end of its life cycle. The watermain has also experienced many failures
leading to numerous breaks in the main(see attached map:Exhibit A).
C. Conclusions
The New watermain will replace approximately 3510 LF of existing 6-inch cast iron watermain.The new main
will be 8"ductile iron placed in close proximity to the existing main. New services and curb boxes will be
installed up to the existing curb boxes. It is anticipated that the resulting upgrade and replacement(along with
previous tank and pump station upgrades performed in 2014-2015)will provide reliable upgraded fire flow of
approximately 2000 GPM along Winthrop Drive.
D. Project Costs
The Engineering Cost Estimate for construction of the 8-inch watermain and associated appurtenances is:
$746,138.40. (Refer to, Winthrop Drive Watermain Replacement Project 2019 Engineering Cost Estimate:
Exhibit-C)
E. Certification
I certify that the map(s),plan,and report were prepared by an engineer duly licensed by the State of New York
and conform with NY Town Law Section 209-c's requirement related to the proposed water improvement(s).
3
Exhibit-A
0
m OL z+ .�
-n 1' idi / / yrJ N
V)
rNY/
/i/ SC � kvr a r 1 /f ' r r Ill r✓ m` ~ o
fa c m
E E a E
y��/ a ,w,,,;� avnr�i r!�f /�r��r��i�rr I! l'J;, {llr� � �✓ �� /; 1, � �
>�%�✓,,,1, 'YP,r����//����� I >' � !�� fk�i�� ,{{..� ,�;i�l � r�'✓'�� (ryf������� 1���� ;,;� ,/� ✓�l ����/i/�/i�r
/////rr'skin,,..91, � ������ i r,. � r I fir✓ r r ,,
l 9r i/ ✓ r /
�J��� riJ III � ��f �� wr' hr%,/ r ��� ��� , � 1 {l 9 ,mh r✓ !I i! r i i
rr � l �;� L,✓ ✓/i '�l �✓ � /J! I� il" r
'J�,�,� �i LI ��y✓W � ✓tr arp �Ji/�Ir �•�" 1 rl ✓��&IJl
Nl r r �G i r/i� /�/!I n���, �rr✓rIG l r / r
LU �r✓✓ 4 .. ✓ 1 r ry r 1 r /i
r"1 / ii/rp`�U � �),, y �✓ f P J /i 1"""i/� r , Irk (r rri'�`��j� e � i/ '�,.
l,� � � � ,. �fi �11� ✓ .. � i, �r �/ % rii.. r err rr/i 'r" ,�, ii;
m
l
LU
1 ;
LULU
Q
r� � U I� 1) I illi �I I � r� V ✓1 >l4 r G o
ZLL
�--� 0 %/� ✓I �/ a 1„
CE
LU p " °�r
ra �,
/
W
1 l
1 D
/t
/r l ' /f,0 �, ✓ ;,� � ,✓� � l�r'll l� �, J r 11� r rl� 1 ��%rj �
t l n ji � J � ✓' IJ r �I
� ( I i ✓ �� � �II r {;fir iii
✓
,/fll�� �rr�/ G i ✓ 1 r� � o
51f
Exhibit-B
�urKNNd �'Nlfl ��i�uN�d���a�
ro
Town of Ithaca, NY
Northeast Water System Improvements
April 2014
NORTHEAST WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY
Prepared for
TOWN OF ITHACA, NY
Prepared by
GHD CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
One Remington Park Drive
Cazenovia, NY 13035
March 2014
Project No. 8616205
Table of Contents
1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of Study......................................................................................................................1
1.2 Scope of Services.....................................................................................................................1
2. Existing Conditions..............................................................................................................................3
2.1 Overview...................................................................................................................................3
2.2 System Description...................................................................................................................3
3. Data Collection....................................................................................................................................6
3.1 Record Documents...................................................................................................................6
3.2 Hydrant Flow and Pipe Condition Tests ...................................................................................6
4. Model Development............................................................................................................................8
4.1 Software Selection....................................................................................................................8
4.2 Model Inputs and Boundary Conditions....................................................................................8
4.3 Evaluation of Demand Data....................................................................................................10
5. Model Calibration ..............................................................................................................................11
5.1 Calibration Methodology.........................................................................................................11
5.2 Pipe Age and Internal Roughness..........................................................................................11
5.3 Calibration Summary..............................................................................................................11
6. System Analysis................................................................................................................................13
6.1 Capacity and Fire Flow Analysis of the Existing System........................................................13
6.2 Evaluation of Existing Water Storage.....................................................................................16
6.3 Summary of Analysis Results of Existing System..................................................................18
7. Improvement Alternatives .................................................................................................................19
7.1 Alternative A............................................................................................................................19
7.2 Alternative B1..........................................................................................................................23
7.3 Alternative B2..........................................................................................................................24
7.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................25
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 1 i
Tables
Table 2-1 Northeast Water System Storage
Table 2-2 System Pipe Summary
Table 3-1 Hydrant Flow Test(Performed November 22, 2013)
Table 3-2 Pipe Condition Tests (Performed November 22, 2013)
Table 4-1 Pump Data, Christopher Circle Pumps
Table 4-2 Demand Summary
Table 5-1 Steady-State Calibration Summary
Table 6-1 Existing Distribution System Pressures (Model Estimate)
Table 6-2 Fire Flow Analysis of Existing System Results (Maximum Day Demand)
Table 6-3 Required Water Storage Volume
Table 7-1 Estimated Water System Demands, Alternative A
Table 7-2 Required Water Storage Tank Volume, Sapsucker Woods Tank
Table 7-3 Fire Flow Analysis, Alternative A(Maximum Day Demand)
Figures
Figure 2-1 Northeast Water System Map
Figure 4-1 Model Schematic
Figure 6-1 Pressure Distribution, Existing System (Average Daily Demand)
Figure 6-2 Pressure Distribution, Existing System (Maximum Day Demand)
Figure 6-3 Pressure Distribution, Existing System (Peak Hour Demand)
Figure 6-4 Estimated Available Fire Flow, Existing System
Figure 7-1 Modeled Improvements, Alternative A
Figure 7-2 Pressure Distribution, Alternative A(Average Daily Demand)
Figure 7-3 Pressure Distribution, Alternative A(Peak Hour Demand)
Figure 7-4 Estimated Available Fire Flow, Alternative A
Figure 7-5 Modeled Improvements, Alternative B1
Figure 7-6 Pressure Distribution, Alternative B1 (Average Daily Demand)
Figure 7-7 Pressure Distribution, Alternative B1 (Peak Hour Demand)
Figure 7-8 Estimated Available Fire Flow, Alternative B1
Figure 7-9 Modeled Improvements, Alternative B2
Figure 7-10 Pressure Distribution, Alternative B2 (Average Daily Demand)
Figure 7-11 Pressure Distribution, Alternative B2 (Peak Hour Demand)
Figure 7-12 Estimated Available Fire Flow, Alternative B2
Appendices
Appendix A Breakdown of Costs for Each Improvement Alternative
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 ii
1 . Introduction
The Northeast water system is located in the northeastern portion of the Town of Ithaca, NY and
represents only a portion of the Town's overall water system. The Northeast water system supplies
a total of 1,040 water services and has an average daily demand of 308,000 gallons per day(gpd).
The system is supplied by pressure reducing valve (PRV) connections to water transmission mains.
This report provides a study of the Northeast water system.
1.1 Purpose
The Northeast water system consists of two water service zones, Christopher Circle and Sapsucker
Woods, each with one water storage tank. The existing water storage tanks were constructed in
1958. The Town desires to make improvements to the water system, and the existing tanks have
been identified for rehabilitation or replacement as part of the Town's Capital Improvement
Program. As part of the rehabilitation or replacement of these tanks, the Town established goals of
achieving a minimum pressure of 35 pounds per square inch (psi)at all locations in the distribution
system and providing a minimum fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm)at all hydrants.
The purpose of this study is to develop and calibrate a computer-based hydraulic model and
provide a hydraulic analysis of the existing Northeast water system to determine the performance of
the system under varying demand conditions and fire flow conditions. The hydraulic analysis assists
in evaluating the adequacy of the existing water storage tanks, locating aging facilities, and
identifying capacity restrictions in the distribution system. The model was used to identify ways to
improve system pressures and increase fire flow. In addition, it identifies and evaluates potential
improvements for the Northeast water system to address system deficiencies and aging facilities.
1.2 Scope of Services
GHD Consulting Services Inc. was retained to develop a computer-based hydraulic model and
capital improvement alternatives for the Northeast water system. The model was used to evaluate
the existing water storage tanks and overall system hydraulic capacity, identify system adequacy,
and develop alternatives for water system improvements. The scope of services is as follows:
1. Data review of information provided by the Town.
2. Perform two pipe condition tests at strategic locations in the distribution system to assist in
calibrating the model.
3. Development of a computer-based hydraulic model of the Northeast water distribution
system.
4. Calibration of the model based on data provided by the Town and collected in the field.
5. Evaluation of the adequacy of the existing Northeast distribution system and water storage
tanks.
6. Identification and evaluation of distribution system deficiencies.
7. Development and analysis of alternatives for water storage tank replacement and water
system improvements.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 1
8. Development of opinions of cost for construction of the improvement alternatives.
9. Delivery of the calibrated water system model to the Town.
10. Presentations of GHD's findings and identified improvement alternatives to the Town's Public
Works Staff, Public Works Committee, Planning Board, and Town Board.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 12
2. Existing Conditions
2.1 Overview
The Town of Ithaca, NY is a member of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water
Commission (SCLIWC), a commission of five communities formed to create a new jointly owned
water supply to serve each of the member communities. The member communities include the
Town of Ithaca, Town of Dryden, Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing, and Village of Cayuga
Heights. The SCLIWC water supply consists of a lake supply from Cayuga Lake, a water treatment
plant, and transmission mains to each member community. Each member community owns and
operates its own water distribution system within its municipal boundaries. The SCLIWC water
system is also commonly referred to as the Bolton Point water system (which is the convention this
report will use).
The Northeast water system is located in Northeast Ithaca and is bordered on three sides by the
Village of Cayuga Heights, Town of Lansing, and Town of Dryden. In addition to supplying all of
Northeast Ithaca, the system supplies water to portions of the Village of Cayuga Heights and the
Town of Dryden. The system serves a total of 1,040 water services and is supplied by PRV
connections to Bolton Point Water System transmission mains.
2.2 Systems ri i
The majority of the Northeast water system was constructed under a single contract in 1958 which
included the construction of two pressure zones, each with a 500,000-gallon water storage tank.
The Christopher Circle Pump Station and approximately 50 percent of the water mains in the
Northeast system were also constructed under this contract. The two pressure zones in the
Northeast water system are Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods. The Christopher Circle
service area serves the western portion of Northeast Ithaca and part of the Village of Cayuga
Heights. The Sapsucker Woods service area serves the eastern portion of Northeast Ithaca and
part of the Town of Dryden. Figure 2-1 provides a map of the Northeast water system.
2.2.1 Christopher Circle Service Area
The Christopher Circle service area is supplied by the Spruce Lane PRV, located in the Village of
Cayuga Heights. The Spruce Lane PRV is supplied by Bolton Point's East Hill tank through a
16-inch Bolton Point transmission main and is automatically controlled based on the water level in
the Christopher Circle tank. The PRV opens and closes based on tank high and low level setpoints.
The Christopher Circle service area supplies approximately 590 water services at an average daily
water demand of 88,000 gpd. The Christopher Circle tank is a 500,000-gallon welded steel
standpipe that provides all of the water storage for the Christopher Circle service area. The
Christopher Circle Pump Station, located on the tank site, has the ability to pump from the
Christopher Circle tank into the Sapsucker Woods service area. The pump station contains two
horizontal split case pumps and has a capacity of about 250 gpm.
2.2.2 Sapsucker Woods Service Area
The Sapsucker Woods service area is supplied by the Apple Orchard PRV station, located on
Dryden Road in the Town of Ithaca. The Apple Orchard PRV is also supplied by the East Hill tank
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 13
through a 16-inch Bolton Point transmission main. A single 8-inch water main provides the supply of
water from the Apple Orchard PRV to the Sapsucker Woods tank. This water main also supplies the
Varna Pump Station and supplies water services in the Town of Dryden before reaching the
Sapsucker Woods tank. The Sapsucker Woods service area supplies approximately 450 water
services at an average daily demand of 221,000 gpd.
The Apple Orchard PRV is automatically controlled based on the water level in the Sapsucker
Woods tank. The PRV opens and closes based on high and low level setpoints for the tank. In the
event that water demands exceed the capacity of the Apple Orchard PRV, and the Sapsucker
Woods tank level drops to a low low level setpoint, the Christopher Circle Pump Station
automatically turns on to fill the tank. During periods of high water demand, the Christopher Circle
Pump Station operates as frequently as once or twice per day.
The Sapsucker Woods tank is identical to the Christopher Circle tank, except the elevation of the
Sapsucker Woods tank is 93 feet higher than the Christopher Circle tank. Table 2-1 provides
statistics on the water storage tanks in these two service areas.
Table 2-1 Northeast Water System Storage
Christopher Circle Tank
Year constructed 1958
Type Welded steel standpipe
Total capacity 500,000 gallons
Tank height to overflow 70.0 feet
Inside diameter 35 feet
Overflow elevation 1,066 feet
Sapsucker Woods Tank
Year constructed 1958
Type Welded steel standpipe
Total capacity 500,000 gallons
Tank height to overflow 70.0 feet
Inside diameter 35 feet
Overflow elevation 1,159 feet
The Northeast water system consists of about 25 miles of water main constructed of cast iron and
ductile iron. The majority of the existing pipe network is constructed of cement-lined cast iron with a
predominant diameter of 8 inches. In addition, the Northeast water system contains 150 hydrants,
99 of which are in the Town of Ithaca and the remaining in the Village of Cayuga Heights or the
Town of Dryden.
Table 2-2 summarizes the diameter and approximate total length of each type of pipe in the system.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 14
Table 2-2 System Pipe Summary
Cast iron 4 2,400
6 28,500
8 29,800
Ductile iron 6 100
8 3,800
10 4,600
12 4,000
Uncertain material 6 18,400
8 41,600
TOTAL 133,000 feet
25 miles
(1) Pipe lengths are according to GIS data supplied by the Town.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 15
3. Data Collection
The first task in this study was the collection of information on the existing water distribution system.
Sources of information included record documents provided by the Town, field testing, and
meetings with Town personnel to clarify any outstanding questions or uncertain items from the
record documents.
3.1 Recordis
The Town has maintained numerous records of the water system which were combined with field
testing data to create the water system model. The Town provided the following records which were
used in this study:
1. Pipe sizes, locations, and age.
2. GIS contour data.
3. Locations of valves and hydrants as well as valve status and pressure settings.
4. Record drawings of initial water system installation during 1958.
5. Average water consumption for each tank zone from 2011 to the present.
3.2 HydrantiCondition Tests
The Town assisted in conducting four hydrant flow tests and two pipe condition tests at strategic
locations in the Town's distribution system. The hydrant flow test locations were selected to provide
a distribution of tests across the system. A map of the hydrant flow test and pipe condition test
locations is provided on Figure 3-1.
Each hydrant flow test was conducted using two adjacent hydrants. One hydrant was used as the
flowing hydrant(fully open), and the static pressure and residual pressure was measured at the
other hydrant. The hydrant flow rate was measured at the flowing hydrant using a diffuser with an
integral pitot tube and gauge. Town of Ithaca personnel were present and operated the hydrants for
each test. The results of the hydrant flow tests are presented in Table 3-1.
Table - (Performed November )
® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®
Muriel Street F0370 F0380 50 734 44 1,750
Winthrop/Simsbury E0060 E0050 60 666 48 1,280
St. Catherine Circle E0450 E0470 48 711 31 930
Salem/Hanshaw F0232 F0230 55 738 49 1,910
A pipe condition test is similar to a hydrant flow test, except the residual pressure is measured
across two or three adjacent hydrants and flow is restricted to one direction. The result is a
measurement of the pressure drop through a particular section of water main, which can then be
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 16
used to estimate the C-value roughness coefficient for that section of water main. To provide an
accurate measurement of flow, the test must be performed on a section of pipe that can be isolated
such that water can only flow through the section of pipe from one source, in one direction. If the
pipe is part of a loop, one of the ends of the loop must be isolated.
In addition to meeting the above requirements, the locations of the two pipe condition tests were
selected because of their close representation of each pressure zone (Sapsucker Woods and
Christopher Circle). The two pipe condition tests were performed on Muriel Street and
Winthrop/Simsbury Drive. The results of the pipe condition tests are presented in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 PipeCondition (Performed November )
mllmmli-
Muriel
Street F0360 1018 889 52.6 43.6
F0370 1035 1043 50 35 86
F0380 1043 -- -- -- 666
Winthrop/ E0070 945.8 747 61.3 48.3
Simsbury E0060 919.6 783 60 35 92
Drive
E0050 898 -- -- -- 495
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 17
4. Model Development
A water distribution system model is used to mathematically simulate hydraulic conditions in pipe
networks. The hydraulic analysis was performed using WaterGEMS Version V8i, designed and
distributed by Bentley Systems, Inc. Figure 4-1 provides a schematic of the existing water
distribution system used by the model.
A steady-state simulation was performed for the existing network. This analysis is based on
constant demand and boundary conditions. To establish boundary conditions, the model includes
distribution pipe information, customer demand data, pump performance curves, and storage tank
level data. The model of the system is based on the following:
1. Two pressure zones (water service areas).
2. Distribution mains.
3. Two standpipe-type water storage tanks.
4. One pump station.
5. No projected water demand increase.
6. Town-supplied GIS contour data.
7. Pressure reducing valves.
4.1 SoftwareSelection
WaterGEMS Version V8i software by Bentley Systems was selected as the preferred modeling
software. WaterGEMS allows for simultaneous integration and use of geospatial software. Since the
Town currently utilizes WaterCAD, WaterGEMS was selected based on the ease of opening the
model in both programs. Also, due to the majority of the data being GIS centered, WaterGEMS was
selected based on its ability to provide a hydraulically calibrated model for system analysis while
being fully integrated with GIS data.
4.2 Model Inputs and Boundary Conditions
Model inputs were based on imported data from the GIS map developed using ArcGIS. The model
incorporated all hydraulic features and relevant asset fields from the GIS map as a basis. The GIS
data was then supplemented with any additional data required for model analysis using available
Town records. Additional model inputs are summarized below.
4.2.1 System Pipe Network
Distribution pipes 4 inches and larger were included in the model. Pipes smaller than 4 inches
generally consist of individual water services and do not have a significant impact on system
capacity. The general layout of the system pipe network was interpreted from hydraulic GIS data
provided by the Town (Chapter 3). Pipe diameters were based on record drawings and other input
from Town personnel.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 18
4.2.2 Hydrants
All known hydrants in each service area were provided in the form of GIS data and included in the
model. Hydrants were numbered using the WaterGEMS numbering system. The modeling software
was used to assign elevations to the hydrants based on contour GIS data provided by the Town.
4.2.3 Hydrant Branches
Hydrant branches were included in the Town-supplied GIS data and were therefore included in the
model. Hydrant branch sizes were obtained from the Town's GIS data and record drawings.
4.2.4 Mainline Valves
All of the Town's mainline valves, which were provided by the Town in the form of GIS data, were
included in the model. Valves were numbered based on the WaterGEMS numbering system. Valve
elevations were determined from the same contour data used for the hydrants. All valves were
modeled open except for those that separate the two pressure zones.
4.2.5 Junction Nodes
Junction nodes were developed automatically at major pipe bends, pipe intersections, and all
hydrant branches. Water demands were allocated to junctions (see Section 4.3).
4.2.6 Christopher Circle Pump Station
In order to model the Christopher Circle pumps, multiple sources were reviewed, including record
drawings and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)data. Physical elevations and
pump manufacturer's performance curves were entered for the modeled pump station. Table 4-1 is
a summary of additional pump details.
Table 4-1 Pump Data, Christopheris
Pump rated speed 3500 rpm
Shutoff head 139 feet
Operating discharge head �'� 165 feet
Operating discharge flow�'� 254 gpm
Pump horsepower 15 HP
(1) Based on model analysis.
4.2.7 Water Storage Tanks
The configuration and geometry of the standpipe and piping arrangement at the tank site were
based on record drawings and GIS data provided by the Town. Further details on the existing water
storage tanks are provided in Chapter 2.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 19
4.2.8 Water Supply and PRVs
Both the Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods service areas are supplied by a Bolton Point
transmission main through PRV connections. This transmission main is supplied by Bolton Point's
East Hill tank. The Sapsucker Woods service area is fed off of the Apple Orchard PRV and the
Christopher Circle service area is fed off of the Spruce Lane PRV. Both PRVs were modeled and
the downstream pressure of each PRV was set based on the following Town-supplied setpoints:
• Apple Orchard PRV downstream pressure setpoint- 87 psi
• Spruce Lane PRV downstream pressure setpoint- 90 psi
The transmission main was modeled as an infinite water supply to each PRV with an elevation of
1,188 feet.
4.3 Evaluation
Once the model was constructed in WaterGEMS, demand data was allocated throughout the
system to simulate actual conditions. Average daily water demands were allocated to nodes in the
model using GIS data of parcels combined with water account records.
4.3.1 Average Daily Demand
The average daily demands for the water system were determined over the period of 2010 through
2013. These demands were determined from quarterly water billing accounts recorded by the Town
of Ithaca. The average daily demand is the sum of total water delivered for the entire year divided
by 365. From 2010 through 2013, the Sapsucker Woods water system used an average of
221,000 gpd and the Christopher Circle system used an average of 88,000 gpd.
4.3.2 Demand Allocation
The Town demand was distributed throughout the piping network based on GIS parcel data
provided by the Town. The demands were allocated to the nearest junction of each parcel. This
provided accurate demand distribution across the system, which best represents demand
conditions in the Town.
4.3.3 Demand Conditions
The maximum day and peak hour demands were estimated by applying commonly used peaking
factors to average day demands. The maximum day demand factor used was 1.7 times the average
daily demand. The peak hour demand factor was 2.0 times the maximum day demand. These
maximum day and peak hour factors were used to create the demands in the model. Table 4-2
summarizes the peaking factors and associated demands.
Table 4-2 Demand Summary
SEEM
• r • { ISI
Average daily demand (average of 221,000 88,000
quarterly data from 2010-2013)
Maximum day(1.7 times average daily) 376,000 150,000
Peak hour(2.0 times maximum day) 752,000 300,000
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 110
5. Model Calibration
5.1 Calibration
After the model was constructed and demand was allocated to appropriate junctions in the model,
the model was calibrated based on field-obtained test data. Hydrant flow tests and pipe condition
tests, performed as discussed in Chapter 3, were used to compare the model output versus actual
system conditions. This data was used to calibrate the model based on static and residual
pressures. Calibration was performed by adjusting model parameters until model outputs generally
agreed with field-measured information.
The model was calibrated for a steady-state scenario, which models a single point in time and is
used to check static and residual pressures in the water system. Both demand and SCADA records
received from the Town were used as criteria for the steady-state calibration. The calibration goal
used for the model was to be within ±10 percent of the static and residual pressures from field tests
for pressures above 50 psi and ±5 psi for pressures less than 50 psi.
5.2 PipeInternal
An important parameter in calibrating the system model is the Hazen-Williams roughness value, or
C-value. This factor represents the roughness of the pipe interior and the pipe's resistance to flow.
A lower C-value represents more friction and greater resistance to flow. The C-value tends to
decrease over time due to corrosion and deposition inside the pipe. The C-value for new cement-
lined ductile iron pipe is typically 130. However, as the pipe ages, this value could potentially
decrease. This creates greater resistance to flow and reduces system capacity. In general, the
greater the pipe age, the lower the modeled C-value.
5.3 Calibration
The calibration used the results of the four hydrant flow tests and two pipe condition tests
performed on November 11, 2013. Hydrant flows measured in the field were simulated in
WaterGEMS using modeled hydrants corresponding to field-tested hydrants. Model parameters
were adjusted to achieve simulated hydrant flow test results within the goal of±10 percent of field
test data for steady-state model calibration.
The model was calibrated based on the average daily demand condition. First, the water storage
tank level information at the time of field testing was entered from SCADA monitored data.
Following static calibration, the second calibration effort used residual pressure data from fire flow
testing to calibrate the model under the field-recorded fire flow (see Table 3-1). The roughness
values, or Hazen-Williams' C-values, were modified across the system to correlate model residual
pressures with those observed in the field.
Table 5-1 presents the results from final model calibration and a comparison of model values with
fire flow test results. Three of the four modeled static and residual pressures are less than the
±10 percent goal for steady-state model calibration.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 111
Table - Calibration
ffim
0 .M- illi Is
Muriel Street S F0360 50 51 734 44 42 4.5%
Winthrop/Simsbury C E0050 60 58 666 48 42 12.6%
St. Catherine Circle C E0470 48 47 711 31 29 6.5%
Salem/Hanshaw S F0230 55 53 738 49 46 6.1%
(1) Field-measured residual pressures are ±1 psi.
C =Christopher Circle
S =Sapsucker Woods
Model calibration was undertaken separately in each pressure zone. The Sapsucker Woods
pressure zone calibrated with a final C-value of 96 for all pipes. Field-measured values versus
model values were all within the goal of 5 psi.
The Christopher Circle pressure zone was more challenging to calibrate. To do so, tools built into
WaterGEMS were utilized. The optimal solution was groupings of pipes with C-values ranging from
70 to 130. A low C-value could indicate slightly corroded or obstructed pipe, typically indicating
there could be a closed valve or other hydraulic restriction in the system. GHD worked closely with
the Town to locate a hydraulic restriction, and to date, none have been located. Regardless, the
model calibrated almost within the goal of 5 psi of field-measured versus model-predicted values.
The model is adequate for completing this analysis. Should a closed valve or hydraulic restriction
be discovered after the completion of this study, the model should be re-calibrated in this pressure
zone.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 112
6. System Analysis
Once the model was deemed to be calibrated, it became a useful tool for analyzing the existing
water system and identifying areas of improvement. The calibrated model was used to analyze
overall water system capacity and pressures, fire flow capacity, and the suitability of the existing
water storage tanks. Each of these analyses is discussed in more detail below.
6.1 Capacityit sis of the ExistingSystem
The model was used to simulate the existing water system under average daily, maximum day, and
peak hour demand conditions. The water system was then evaluated based on system pressure
and available fire flow for each of these demand conditions. The distribution system was evaluated
against the following criteria:
Pressure Evaluation Criteria
• Minimum of 35 psi at all points in the distribution system, under normal operating
conditions.
• Minimum of 20 psi at all points in the distribution system, under fire flow conditions.
• Maximum of 100 psi at all points in the distribution system, under all operating conditions.
• These pressures are in accordance with the Recommended Standards for Water Works
(Ten-States Standards, 2010)
Fire Flow Evaluation Criteria
• Minimum fire flow of 500 gpm at all hydrants in accordance with the Insurance Services
Office (ISO)guidelines.
• Minimum fire flow of 1,500 gpm at all hydrants, as requested by the Town.
It should be noted that ISO provides a general guideline that all hydrants provide a minimum fire
flow of 500 gpm; however, ISO is able to provide specific"needed fire flows"for individual hydrants
in the distribution system. An ISO evaluation of the Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods
pressure zones was not available at the time of this report. The evaluation of the existing system
and improvement alternatives discussed in the next chapter will be based on the fire flow criteria
listed above. It is recommended that the Town request an ISO evaluation of the Sapsucker Woods
and Christopher Circle zones in order to obtain specific needed fire flow criteria for these zones.
6.1.1 Water Distribution System Pressures
Based on the calibrated model, areas of low pressure exist and are generally located in the vicinity
of the tank in both the Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods pressure zones. In addition,
Sapsucker Woods has some areas with high pressures reaching over 100 psi. Figures 6-1, 6-2, and
6-3 show the existing pressures across the distribution system under average daily, maximum day,
and peak hour demand conditions, respectively. Based on this analysis, the following observations
have been made:
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 113
1. Within the Christopher Circle pressure zone, pressures are less than 35 psi on the eastern
leg of the road called Christopher Circle, which is immediately adjacent to the tank site.
Pressures are less than 35 psi in this location under all demands.
2. Christopher Circle has no areas that exceed 100 psi.
3. Within the Sapsucker Woods pressure zone, pressures are less than 35 psi in a larger radius
around the tank site, with the lowest pressures located on Sapsucker Woods Road, south of
the Sapsucker Woods tank.
4. System pressures are over 100 psi in the Sapsucker Woods pressure zone along Dryden
Road and Freese Road. The maximum system pressure in Sapsucker Woods is 105 psi
under average daily demands; the theoretical maximum pressure in Sapsucker Woods is 115
psi, based on elevations.
5. For both pressure zones, there are no instances where system pressures are below 20 psi
under normal operating conditions.
6. The distribution system pressures do not vary significantly from average daily demands up to
peak hour demands. This suggests that the water main capacity is not the limiting factor
causing lower system pressures. The low system pressures are a result of the elevations of
the existing tanks with respect to the water services they serve.
Table 6-1 summarizes the maximum and minimum distribution system pressures observed in the
model. Pressures are reported under their worst case demand conditions (i.e., minimum pressures
under peak hour demand and maximum pressures under average demands). However, as noted
above, the pressures do not vary significantly from average to peak demands. Maximum static
pressures are also provided, since static conditions can be achieved at night when demands are at
their minimum.
Pressures exceeding 100 psi have been shown to result in a greater occurrence of breaks in water
mains and residential water services. Pressures over 100 psi can also cause damage to water
heaters and pipes in residences. Ten-States Standards recommends installing a PRV on residential
water services where pressures exceed 100 psi, which will protect the homeowner's water system.
However, this does not reduce the risk of breaks in the water mains serving these areas. It is
recommended to reduce system pressures to below 100 psi, where possible.
Table 6-1 Existingi tri i (Model Estimate)
• r s , r - r
Christopher Circle 27 88 95
Sapsucker Woods 25 105 115
6.1.2 Available Fire Flow
The model is able to separately estimate the available fire flow at each hydrant in the system.
Available fire flows were estimated during the maximum day demand. The analysis does not model
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 114
the duration of each fire flow with respect to distribution system capacity. The duration of available
fire flow is impacted more by the volume of water storage than by the pipe capacity. An analysis of
the fire flow duration is discussed in greater detail in Section 6.2.
The maximum available fire flows were estimated in the model based on maintaining a minimum
pressure of 20 psi at all points in the distribution system. The available fire flows are also estimated
with the PRVs being active (not closed) and with the Christopher Circle and Varna Pump Stations
running. Figure 6-4 provides a map of the distribution system hydrants, color coded based on their
available fire flow. Table 6-2 is a summary of the available fire flows in these two service areas.
Table 6-2 Firei i i (Maximum )(')
fi f , r I •i • r I i.iii
•''ic • .4',',, HIMM
1 f fi ! ® IIIA f f el® I IIII
Christopher Circle 39 2 14 (36%)
Sapsucker Woods 60 0 7 (12%)
(1) Includes Town-owned hydrants only.
The majority of the hydrants in the Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods pressure zones
provide fire flows between 500 and 1,500 gpm. Christopher Circle generally provides greater fire
flows than Sapsucker Woods. Thirty-six percent of the hydrants in Christopher Circle provide fire
flows greater than 1,500 gpm, while only 12 percent of the Sapsucker Woods hydrants exceed this
flow. Only two hydrants provide less than 500 gpm fire flow, both in Christopher Circle. The two
hydrants are located at the end of 4-inch diameter water mains, which generally do not have
adequate capacity to meet fire flow needs. It is recommended these water mains be replaced with
larger diameter pipes.
Available fire flows in both Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods are reduced when the PRVs
are closed and the Christopher Circle Pump Station is off. Currently, the PRVs and pump station
are activated only on a low level signal from the water storage tank, so it is possible for there to be
a delay in the opening of the PRVs or starting of pumps when a hydrant is opened. In the event of a
fire, it is recommended the Town manually call the PRVs to open, and for the Sapsucker Woods
zone, to manually call the Christopher Circle pumps to run.
PRVs can also be modified to include a dual pilot system. This feature allows the valve to have two
different pressure settings. One pressure setting is active when the valve is called to open to fill the
tank. The second, lower pressure setting causes the valve to automatically open if the downstream
pressure drops below a pre-set low level. This could prevent a situation where distribution system
pressures are very low, due to a high demand, but the PRV is not open because the tank level has
not dropped to the low level setpoint.
Evaluation of the existing fire flows in this report is based on the criteria noted above. The report
does not provide recommendations for what the minimum fire flows should be in the distribution
system. It is common to reference the ISO's indication of needed fire flow rates as a baseline for
comparing water system performance. ISO recommends needed fire flow rates based on building
size, construction materials, and use in the area. For one-and two-family residences, ISO's needed
fire flows are typically within a range of 500 to 1,500 gpm, and can be significantly higher for other
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 115
building types and uses. As noted in Section 6.1, it is recommended the Town obtain an ISO
evaluation of Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods for the purpose of comparing ISO's needed
fire flows to existing fire flows.
6.2 Evaluationinti r Storage
Water storage in the distribution system must meet two basic requirements: (1) provide adequate
pressure to all water services; and (2) provide an adequate volume of water to meet worst case
demands.
The pressure requirements for the distribution system are defined in Section 6.1. These
requirements dictate the minimum and maximum water elevations for the water storage. The
volume of water storage necessary to meet regulatory requirements is based on supplying fire flow
and maximum day demands concurrently without interruption of supply to water services. In
addition to this, the Town desires to provide three days of water storage for all water storage tanks.
The distribution system must meet these demands without dropping below 20 psi at any point in the
system. These criteria will be used to evaluate the existing water storage tanks in both pressure
zones.
As discussed in Section 6.1, there are areas within both Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods
pressure zones that do not meet the minimum required 35 psi pressure. There are also areas in the
Sapsucker Woods pressure zone that exceed the maximum recommended 100 psi pressure. At a
minimum, improvements to the distribution system or changes to the water storage should be
provided to improve the areas of low pressure in both pressure zones.
The minimum storage volume for each tank is calculated based on the combined fire flow and
maximum day water system demands. For the Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods pressure
zones, this calculation will be based on the following assumptions:
1. The fire flow rate is equal to 1,500 gpm, as desired by the Town.
2. The duration of the fire flow is two hours (this is the duration selected by ISO for fire flow
rates up to 2,500 gpm).
3. The water demand during a fire is at the maximum day rate (the analysis assumes that one
hour of a fire occurs during the peak hour demand of the maximum day).
4. When calculating the volume for Christopher Circle, the Christopher Circle Pump Station is
running (pumping out of the Christopher Circle tank)for the entire duration of a fire.
5. When calculating the volume for Sapsucker Woods, the Varna Pump Station is running for
the entire duration of a fire.
6. The PRVs supplying each pressure zone are open.
7. The water storage tanks start at their maximum water level.
Once the total required water storage volume is calculated, it must be compared to the actual
usable volume in the existing water storage tanks. As noted above, the pressure in the distribution
system must not drop below 20 psi during a fire. The usable water storage in a tank is based on
providing this 20 psi minimum pressure. For Christopher Circle, the minimum water level in the
existing tank required to maintain 20 psi in the pressure zone is 1,037 feet, so the usable water
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 116
storage is the volume of water above an elevation of 1,037 feet. The same is true for the Sapsucker
Woods tank, except with a minimum water elevation of 1,136 feet.
Table 6-3 summarizes the water storage required for each pressure zone and the usable water
storage available in the existing tanks. The required volume for three days of storage is also
calculated, as requested by the Town.
Table 6-3 Required
Christopher Circle Tank
Peak hour demand (1-hour duration) 13,000
Maximum day demand (1-hour duration) 6,000
Fire flow demand (1) 180,000
Christopher Circle Pump Station demand (2) 31,000
Supplied to tank from Spruce Lane PRV(3) (96,000)
Minimum water storage volume required 134,000
Usable storage available in existing tank(4) 209,000
Water storage volume, 3 days' storage 263,000
Sapsucker Woods Tank
Peak hour demand (1-hour duration) 31,000
Maximum day demand (1 hour duration) 16,000
Fire flow demand(1) 180,000
Varna Pump Station demand(5) 26,000
Supplied to tank from Apple Orchard PRV(3) (15,000)
Supplied to tank from Christopher Circle Pump Station (31,000)
Minimum water storage volume required 207,000
Usable storage available in existing tank(6) 166,000
Water storage volume, 3 days' storage(7) 662,000
(1) Fire Flow- 1,500 gpm for 2 hours.
(2) Christopher Circle Pump Station -255 gpm for 2 hours, based on model.
(3) PRV flows calculated in model.
(4) Storage available above elevation 1,037 feet in Christopher Circle tank.
(5) Varna Pump Station -220 gpm for 2 hours, based on Town-supplied data.
(6) Storage available above elevation 1,136 feet in Sapsucker Woods tank.
(7) Under average daily demands.
The minimum water storage volume required for the Christopher Circle pressure zone is
134,000 gallons. The existing tank provides a usable storage volume of 209,000 gallons; therefore,
the volume of the Christopher Circle tank is adequate to meet fire flow and maximum day demands.
However, the tank does not provide three days of storage at average daily demands, as desired by
the Town. For the Sapsucker Woods pressure zone, the minimum water storage volume required is
207,000 gallons. The existing tank provides a usable storage volume of 166,000 gallons, resulting
in a storage deficiency of 42,000 gallons under the volume needed for fire flow and maximum day
demands. Even though the existing Sapsucker Woods tank has a total storage volume of
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 117
500,000 gallons, the usable volume is limited by the high elevation of the water services nearest to
the tank.
The Town has identified both the Sapsucker Woods and Christopher Circle tanks for rehabilitation
or replacement in their Capital Improvement Plan. If the low pressure areas in the Christopher
Circle pressure zone can be remedied by pipe modifications between Sapsucker Woods and
Christopher Circle, then the size and elevations of the existing tank could be adequate for this
pressure zone, although the Town may wish to provide a larger tank so three days of storage are
available. The Sapsucker Woods pressure zone requires additional usable water storage and
improvements to system pressures. A new tank may be the most effective solution to meet these
needs.
The improvement alternatives for both pressure zones are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.
6.3 Summary of Analysis Results of Existing
1. Both Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods have areas within the distribution system
where pressures are below 35 psi under normal conditions. We recommend making
improvements to increase the pressure in these areas.
2. The Sapsucker Woods pressure zone has areas that exceed 100 psi. Consideration should
be given to making improvements to reduce the pressure in these areas, if possible.
3. The available fire flow for both pressure zones is generally between 500 and 1,500 gpm.
Christopher Circle provides higher fire flows than Sapsucker Woods. Thirty-six percent of
hydrants in Christopher Circle and 12 percent of hydrants in Sapsucker Woods provide more
than 1,500 gpm of fire flow.
4. There are two hydrants with less than 500 gpm of available fire flow. We recommend
replacing the 4-inch water mains that supply these hydrants with a larger main.
5. The Town should obtain an ISO evaluation of the two pressure zones to determine actual
recommended fire flows.
6. The existing Christopher Circle tank provides an adequate volume of usable water storage
for system demands.
7. The usable water storage in the existing Sapsucker Woods tank is less than the minimum
required. When the Sapsucker Woods tank is replaced, we recommend providing more
usable water storage for the zone.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 118
7. Improvement Alternatives
Capital improvements were identified based on the results of the existing system analysis. The
goals of these improvements are to meet pressure requirements in the distributions system,
improve available fire flow, and meet minimum water storage requirements. Based on these goals,
three improvement alternatives were identified for the Town's consideration. Alternative A meets the
minimum regulatory requirements for the distribution system. Alternatives B1 and B2 provide
additional fire flow as requested by the Town. Specific goals for each alternative are summarized
below.
Goals of Alternative A
• Increase distribution system pressures to the minimum required 35 psi at all locations in
Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods pressure zones.
• Increase available fire flow to the minimum recommended 500 gpm for all Town hydrants in
both pressure zones.
• Increase the usable water storage in both pressure zones to meet minimum storage
requirements.
Goals of Alternatives B1 and B2
• Same minimum goals as Alternative A, plus:
• Increase the available fire flow to a minimum of 1,500 gpm at all Town hydrants in
Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods pressure zones, as requested by the Town.
These improvement alternatives were added to the water system model and their effects on the
distribution system were evaluated. A description of the specific improvements modeled and their
impacts on the distribution system are discussed in the following sections.
7.1 Alternative
To meet the minimum pressure, fire flow, and storage requirements noted above, the following
improvements are needed in the Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods pressure zones. Their
locations in the distribution system are shown in Figure 7-1.
Christopher Circle
1. Make piping interconnection from the Sapsucker Woods pressure zone to the low
pressure water services in the Christopher Circle zone.
2. Replace existing 4-inch diameter water mains with 8-inch diameter water mains.
Sapsucker Woods
1. Replace the Sapsucker Woods tank with a taller elevated tank.
2. Upgrade the pumps at Christopher Circle Pump Station to supply the new Sapsucker
Woods tank.
3. Install a new PRV station on Freese Road.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 19
7.1.1 Christopher Circle Improvements
The Christopher Circle pressure zone has an area of low pressure on the eastern leg of the street
named Christopher Circle. This area of low pressure is adjacent to the border of the Christopher
Circle and Sapsucker Woods service areas and serves 10 water services. We recommend
providing a pipe interconnection from the Sapsucker Woods service area to supply these water
services, since Sapsucker Woods is at a higher pressure gradient than the Christopher Circle
service area. Such an interconnection would increase the pressure for these water services from
about 27 psi to about 85 psi and would require minimal construction. The enlarged plan on Figure
7-1 shows the location of this interconnection. Anticipated work would include:
1. ±150 linear feet of new 8-inch cement-lined ductile iron pipe.
2. One tapping sleeve and valve (wet tap) connection to Christopher Circle water main.
3. One cut-in tee connection to the Sapsucker Woods water main.
4. One new 8-inch gate valve insertion.
5. Pavement restoration of the disturbed area.
There are also two hydrants in Christopher Circle with available fire flows of less than 500 gpm,
located near the southern end of Warren Road. These hydrants are supplied from 4-inch diameter
water mains. The water mains should be replaced with 8-inch diameter piping back to the existing
8-inch water main on Warren Road and would involve the following work:
1. ±1,300 linear feet of new 8-inch cement-lined ductile iron pipe.
2. Three new hydrants.
3. Two new 8-inch gate valves.
4. Reconnection of 14 existing water services to the new water mains.
5. Pavement restoration of the disturbed area.
With the above improvements completed, the Christopher Circle service area would meet minimum
pressure, fire flow, and water storage goals. No changes would be needed to the existing
Christopher Circle tank size or elevations.
7.1.2 Sapsucker Woods Improvements
The Sapsucker Woods pressure zone has an area of low pressure surrounding the Sapsucker
Woods tank. This area of low pressure affects approximately 70 water services at the highest
elevations in the pressure zone. To provide a minimum of 35 psi to all water services in the service
area, the minimum water level in the tank must be at or above elevation 1,175 feet. The existing
Sapsucker Woods tank has an overflow elevation of 1,159 feet.
We recommend replacing the Sapsucker Woods tank with a taller tank that has an overflow elevation
of 1,185 feet and provides an operating range of 10 feet. This would result in a tank that is taller than
the existing tank by 26 feet with an overflow elevation 99 feet above grade. At this height, the new
tank should be an elevated-type tank. Multiple types of elevated tanks are available. For this report,
we have based our opinions of cost on a waterspheroid-type elevated tank (welded steel
construction). Ultimate selection of the tank type would occur during a subsequent design phase.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 120
Currently, the primary supply of water to the Sapsucker Woods tank is by gravity from the East Hill
tank, through the Apple Orchard PRV. The Christopher Circle Pump Station currently provides a
secondary supply of water if water demands exceed the capacity of the Apple Orchard PRV. The
East Hill tank has an operating range of 1,175 to 1,190 feet and is located 2.5 miles away, and will
not be able to continue to supply the Sapsucker Woods tank by gravity when Sapsucker tank is
raised. The pressure losses between the two tanks would be too great.
We recommend upgrading the pumps at the Christopher Circle Pump Station so that the station
becomes the primary supply of water to the Sapsucker Woods tank and service area. The
Christopher Circle Pump Station currently has two 15 HP pumps that were installed in 1958 and are
nearing the end of their service life. These pumps would be replaced with two new variable speed
pumps (roughly 25 HP)with capacity to pump up to the higher tank level.
Lastly, the existing Sapsucker Woods system has an area of high pressure along Dryden Road and
Freese Road. Raising the elevation of the Sapsucker Woods tank would further increase the
pressure in this area. Therefore, we recommend installing a new PRV station on the water main on
Freese Road, which would allow the Town to reduce the pressures in this area. The water services
on Dryden Road and Freese Road would then be primarily supplied from the Apple Orchard PRV.
The new PRV station would provide a secondary supply from the Sapsucker Woods tank for fire
flow and redundancy. The approximate location of the new PRV station is shown on Figure 7-1.
Once the water services on Dryden Road and Freese Road are supplied from the Apple Orchard
PRV, the total demands on the Sapsucker Woods tank will be decreased. Table 7-1 shows the
estimated demands for Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods under Alternative A. The required
water storage volume for the Sapsucker Woods tank has been re-evaluated in Table 7-2 based on
these lower demands. The minimum estimated volume required to meet fire flow and maximum day
demands is shown, as well as three-day storage volume. In order to provide three days of water
storage we recommend the new Sapsucker Woods tank have a minimum usable volume of
360,000 gallons (between the elevations of 1,136 and 1,185 feet). Alternatively, the Christopher
Circle Pump Station could be provided with an emergency backup generator as part of the pump
replacement. A backup generator would eliminate the need for maintaining three days of water
storage. If an emergency generator is provided at the Christopher Circle Pump Station, then we
would recommend the new Sapsucker Woods tank have a minimum usable volume of
200,000 gallons (between the elevations of 1,136 and 1,185 feet).
Table 7-1 Estimatediv
s r r ® r
Christopher Circle
Average daily demand 88,000
Maximum day demand (1.7 x average daily) 150,000
Maximum day demand (2.0 x maximum day) 300,000
Sapsucker Woods
Average daily demand 118,000
Maximum day demand (1.7 x average daily) 200,000
Maximum day demand (2.0 x maximum day) 400,000
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 121
Table 7-2 RequiredSapsucker
Peak hour demand (1-hour duration) 17,000
Maximum day demand (1-hour duration) 8,000
Fire flow demand (') 180,000
Supplied to tank from Christopher Circle Pump Station(2) (30,000)
Minimum water storage volume required, fire flow(3) 175,000
Water storage volume, 3 days' storage(4) 354,000
(1) Fire Flow- 1,500 gpm for 2 hours.
(2) Christopher Circle Pump Station -250 gpm for 2 hours.
(3) Volume based on meeting fire flow and maximum day demands.
(4) Volume based on providing three days of storage at average daily demands.
Figures 7-2 and 7-3 show the modeled distribution system pressures during the average daily
demand and peak hour demand, respectively, after the Alternative A improvements are completed.
Figure 7-4 shows the available fire flows as a result of the Alternative A improvements. As
illustrated in these figures, all areas in the distribution system would be above 35 psi and all
hydrants would provide fire flows above 500 gpm. In addition, raising the elevation of the Sapsucker
Woods tank increases the available fire flow across this service area. There was no change in the
number of hydrants over 1,500 gpm in Christopher Circle, with the exception of one hydrant that
was moved to the Sapsucker Woods area.
Table 7-3 provides a summary of the available fire flows in these two service areas as a result of
the Alternative A improvements.
Table 7-3 Fire Flow (Maximum Day )(')
ERMHOMM SEEN
Christopher Circle 38 0 13 (34%)
Sapsucker Woods 61 0 36 (59%)
(1) Includes Town-owned hydrants only.
Our opinion of probable project costs for the Alternative A improvements is summarized below.
Engineering costs are included. A detailed breakdown of these costs is provided in Appendix A.
Piping interconnection to Sapsucker Woods......................................$60,000
Replace existing 4-inch water mains with 8-inch..............................$310,000
Elevated tank for Sapsucker Woods.............................................$1,800,000
Improvements to Christopher Circle Pump Station...........................$160,000
New PRV station......................................................................... $390.000
Total Cost, Alternative A.........................................................$2,720,000
(1) Excludes any electrical service upgrades, if needed.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 122
7.2 Alternative1
The Town has a goal of providing 1,500 gpm of available fire flow at all hydrants. After improving
the distribution system pressures and storage in Alternative A, 49 percent of the Town's hydrants in
Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods would provide a fire flow of 1,500 gpm or greater. In order
to increase available fire flow at the remaining hydrants, water main improvements will be
necessary to increase pipe capacities in the distribution system.
Alternative B1 builds on the improvements of Alternative A and provides additional improvements
needed to provide a fire flow 1,500 gpm at all Town hydrants in the Christopher Circle and
Sapsucker Woods service areas. The model was used to first identify hydrants that do not meet this
fire flow, and then to evaluate the minimum improvements needed to reach a fire flow of 1,500 gpm.
The improvements identified in Alternative B1 include:
1. Piping interconnection from Sapsucker Woods system to the low pressure water services in
Christopher Circle.
2. Replace the Sapsucker Woods tank with a taller elevated tank.
3. Upgrade the pumps at Christopher Circle Pump Station to supply the new Sapsucker Woods
tank.
4. Install a new PRV station on Freese Road.
5. Replace designated water mains with larger diameter mains as necessary to improve fire
flow capacity.
Figure 7-5 provides a map of the distribution system with each of these improvements identified.
Water mains to be replaced under this alternative are shown in thick line weights and are color
coded according to the diameter of the new water main. Replacement water main sizes range from
8 to 12 inches in diameter. The approximate total lengths of new water main piping are summarized
as follows:
8-inch - 12,500 linear feet
10-inch - 6,700 linear feet
12-inch - 10,500 linear feet
Figures 7-6 and 7-7 show the modeled distribution system pressures during the average daily
demand and peak hour demand, respectively, after the Alternative B1 improvements are
completed. Figure 7-8 shows the available fire flows as a result of the Alternative B1 improvements.
Following the implementation of the improvements, all hydrants in the Town would provide a
minimum of 1,500 gpm of available fire flow. The distribution system pressures do not change
significantly when compared to Alternative A, since pipe capacities are not a limiting factor for
distribution system pressures.
Our opinion of probable project costs for the improvements in Alternative B1 is summarized below.
Engineering costs are included. A detailed breakdown is provided in Appendix A.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 123
Piping interconnection to Sapsucker Woods........................................$60,000
Elevated tank for Sapsucker Woods................................................$1,800,000
Improvements to Christopher Circle Pump Station ............................$160,000
New PRV station.................................................................................$390,000
Replacement water mains ...............................................................$7,200,000
Total Cost,Alternative B1 ..........................................................$9,600,000
(1) Excludes any electrical service upgrades, if needed.
The above costs do not include modifications to or replacement of the existing Christopher Circle
tank, as this is not necessary to meet minimum pressure and storage requirements. If the Town
were to replace the Christopher Circle tank in-kind rather than rehabilitate the existing tank, our
opinion of the probable project cost to replace this tank is $1,100,000, including engineering.
7.3 Alternative
The southern section of Warren Road consistently provides the lowest available fire flows in the
Christopher Circle service area, both under existing conditions and after the Alternative A
improvements. The available fire flows for these hydrants after Alternative A are all in the range of
500 to 1,000 gpm. These fire flows are limited because the southern end of Warren Road is only
supplied from one direction (north to south). Even though the water pressures in this area are
above 80 psi, available fire flows are comparatively lower because the water must travel a long
distance down a single water main on Warren Road.
Alternative B1's objective was to increase the fire flow in this area by increasing the size of the
water main on Warren Road. This results in a long distance of new 12-inch diameter water main.
Another alternative to increase fire flows in this area would be to provide a new supply of water to
the southern end of Warren Road. Alternative B2 considers this and other cost saving options in
more detail.
There is an existing transmission main on Pleasant Grove Road at the southern end of Warren
Road which is part of the Bolton Point system. This is the same transmission main that supplies the
Apple Orchard PRV. The Town could provide a new PRV station to connect the Bolton Point
transmission main into the water main at the southern end of Warren Road. This would greatly
increase the available fire flow in this area and eliminate the need to install a new 12-inch water
main along Warren Road. Figure 7-9 shows the location of this new PRV station connection and
which water mains would still need to be replaced to meet fire flow goals. The new PRV station
would be designed to only provide supply under high demand conditions (fire)and serve as a
backup supply of water to this area in the event of a water main break. Under normal operating
conditions, the entire Christopher Circle service area would still be supplied by the Spruce Lane
PRV.
In addition to the new PRV station on Warren Road, it is proposed to provide a new pipe
interconnection within the Sapsucker Woods service area from Birchwood Drive North to Sanctuary
Drive, as shown in Figure 7-9. The benefit of this interconnection is that it provides another route for
water to flow from the Sapsucker Woods tank into the distribution system. It also increases the
available fire flows in the northern portion of the service area and reduces the amount of existing
piping needing replacement. A disadvantage is that the piping may need to be routed through
private property, which would require an easement by the Town.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 124
The approximate total lengths of new water main piping required under Alternative B2 are:
8-inch - 9,500 linear feet
10-inch - 5,500 linear feet
Our opinion of probable project costs for the improvements in Alternative B2 is summarized below.
Engineering costs are included. A detailed breakdown is provided in Appendix A.
Piping interconnection to Sapsucker Woods........................................$60,000
Elevated tank for Sapsucker Woods................................................$1,800,000
Improvements to Christopher Circle Pump Station ............................$160,000
New PRV station on Freese Road......................................................$390,000
New PRV station on Warren Road .....................................................$390,000
Replacement/new water mains........................................................$3,400,000
Total Cost,Alternative B2..........................................................$6,200,000
(1) Excludes any electrical service upgrades, if needed.
Figures 7-10 and 7-11 show the modeled distribution system pressures during the average daily
demand and peak hour demand, respectively, after the Alternative B2 improvements are completed.
Figure 7-12 shows the available fire flows as a result of the Alternative B2 improvements. Similar to
Alternative B1, all hydrants in the Town provide a minimum of 1,500 gpm of available fire flow and
the distribution system pressures do not change significantly when compared to Alternative A.
By providing a new PRV station on the southern end of Warren Road and a pipe interconnection
adjacent to the Sapsucker Woods tank, the length of new water main required to meet 1,500 gpm of
fire flow is significantly reduced. This could reduce the overall project cost by approximately
$3.4 million compared to Alternative B1.
7.4 Conclusions
The existing water distribution systems in the Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods service
areas are generally strong with limited areas of low pressure or low available fire flow. Most of the
existing water mains are cement lined and do not exhibit signs of high roughness or pressure loss,
suggesting they are in good condition. The existing water storage tank in Christopher Circle is
adequate to meet pressure and storage requirements of the service area after making a minor pipe
interconnection to increase the pressure to roughly 10 homes. It is recommended the existing water
storage tank in the Sapsucker Woods service area be replaced with a taller elevated water storage
tank with an overflow elevation of 1,185 feet to increase low pressures in the service area. This will
require additional improvements as outlined in Alternative A.
The improvements in Alternative A are recommended to meet the minimum distribution system
pressure, fire flow, and storage volume requirements for the Christopher Circle and Sapsucker
Woods service areas. Alternatives B1 and B2 identify additional improvements to provide
1,500 gpm of fire flow at every Town hydrant in Christopher Circle and Sapsucker Woods.
Alternative B1 increases fire flow by replacing water mains in addition to the Alternative A
improvements. Alternative B2 provides a new PRV station on the southern end of Warren Road and
a pipe interconnection near the Sapsucker Woods tank to reduce the length of new water main that
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 125
would be required to meet this fire flow. These alternatives and the calibrated water model are tools
with which the Town may plan and prioritize future capital improvement projects.
The estimated fire flows determined by the model are based on the PRVs being open and the
Christopher Circle Pump Station running, all of which occur when the tank water level drops to a
low level. The available fire flows are less with the PRVs closed and pump station off. Since the
Apple Orchard and Spruce Lane PRVs and the Christopher Circle Pump Station are controlled by
level in the tank, it is important that the Town ensure these facilities become active during a fire.
The Town should manually open these PRVs and turn on the Christopher Circle Pump Station (for
the Sapsucker) at the start of a fire in one of these service areas. The PRVs can also be modified
with a secondary low pressure pilot that causes the valve to open when the downstream distribution
system pressure drops to a low level, even if the tank has not called the valve to open. The Town
should consider adding this secondary pressure pilot to the PRVs if it does not already exist.
There is a significant additional cost to provide 1,500 gpm of available fire flow to all hydrants in
these pressure zones. A fire flow of 1,500 gpm may not be needed at all hydrants in the service
area, and it is recommended that the Town obtain an ISO water system evaluation to determine the
ISO needed fire flows to help in prioritizing any future water main replacements.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 126
---- State Route 13
Christopher Circle Tank
and Pump Station
Village of Lansing
--------__'��.
IF
1
s
I
Spruce Lane - -
PRV - Sapsucker Woods Tank
- t -
� IS
1
Hanshaw Rd. i
T
1 �
:
O ! O
Sheldon Road Tank Z of
�(Cayuga Heights)
i
\` Varna Pump
e — Sfafion
i�
r
i
r
_ t
i
i
e �l—
� l
Cornell University.. 66l e
))) Water Filtration Plant �FLtie3 E
;
i"
F \
r
i
:
i
-.Apple Orchard PRV
{
E
i e
1 � E
i
_
1 s I
....+
�I/'. East Hill Tank
r
....................."
at
z
i
LEGEND .
M Pump Stations 0 Hydrants Municipal Boundary
Tanks Water Mains Christopher Circle
D Control Valves ---Roads �Sapsucker
Pa rsizenaCH D N Town of Ith ica Job Number 66-16205
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2 Doo Northeast Water System Improvements Revision A
Feet "�°H�61�01°"' Date 25 Mar 2014
MIP Pmie=Doe Fae=eeMe Me2amr �Wmi�mdln�u��
Northeast Water System Map Figure 2-1
G—AD 19 au smem M,Po-a�rws oee Remm0me Park onae cazee—,.my iaoas laisaPeseoo FaisaPeseoi e=azmau@0ha.=om w
...gha.=om
HD(aoa uvlm ho,yroraoyPamaoiar vomosa aoa mooma«evr r�aho�yaoa reayooa�ninyoraoykma
(caner isa�o ss 0�= e 'r orm e rmm aaa�l wniDh are or v i�arr v vvanvaza res�I�onna maP bane iia«para.i�oomviere or���irama i�awwava�a ror awreaso�.
Darasou—D-Cusomao.Data ser Name/rirle.-soNDare.Created roihyee
E
0 r
o v ,
N
O O
N ^^,,
of Q O W 2i
..................... L E
N C
E "NO .� r
Z
F w
z
Lu
LuLu
O
ry
a
Lu
Z Z U U
O � QY �
Q H Lu
W U Q LU
D
Q
O d ~U) z
Q J
Of Z y O= LLj
Y ? z �:of p
W � m dodZ O O
cu() Lu �p
ydo
TOWN OF DRYDEN w
SAPSUCKER WOODS RD —— ——————
r————— TOWN OF ITHACA
mums o`
Lu
oco
D Lu
mum
o L
0Lu 0
z f/J a
Of
U j
Lu
cr
2 1
O Z
0 I
U W0iab Nlb] 'M SPPSQSpRE�i�EPR�P M
-i a
J �
C7,N32i2ib44 w
oZ ,—
Lu
Of
r---,-.
w�
I��———-j 2 TOWN OF ITHACA
Of
I Q ----------- U)U)
2 --�--_ -- VI FCAYUGAHEIGHTS I ¢0
O
co
Of
o0
Z
oz
I I µ I �o �
wo
v
CY _ _ = U U U o
a I N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
Lucf) 4 —
Q I w
a_
I D I
II ----------------------------------------
I co I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I �
I
I
I
I
a
Northeast Water System - Existing System
Figure 6-1 - Pressure Distribution Existing System
(Average Daily Demand)
Christopher Circle Tank
4Lane -
PRV- I—�
_ I Sapsucker Tank
= I t
I
Color Coding Legend Varna Pump Station
I
1
Junction:Pressure(psi) I
<= 20
<= 34 /
• 1 i
• <= 40 —
<= 60 ♦ '
a <= 80 /
<= 100
• <= 120
Other
PRV-2 Apple Orchard
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
Ithaca Water Distribution System.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
3/26/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
Northeast Water System - Existing System
Figure 6-2 - Pressure Distribution Existing System
(Maximum Day Demand)
Christopher Circle Tank
li
PRV-3 Spruce Lane
Sapsucker Tank
� I
I I __
I
Color Coding Legend Varna Pump Station
I
1
Junction:Pressure(psi)
< 20
<= 34 /
• 1 i
• <= 40 —
<= 60 ♦ '
a <= 80 /
<= 100
• <= 120
Other
r— PRV-2 Apple Orchard
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
Ithaca Water Distribution System.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
3/26/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
Northeast Water System - Existing System
Figure 6-3 - Pressure Distribution Existing System
(Peak Hour Demand)
Christopher Circle Tank
li
PRV-3 Spruce Lane
t
II
I--
Sapsucker Tank
Varna Pump Station
Color Coding Legend I ,�
1
Junction:Pressure(psi) I �
< 20 I /
<= 34 /
• <= 40
<= 60 ♦ '
a <= 80 /
<= 100
• <= 120
Other
PRV-2 Apple Orchard
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
Ithaca Water Distribution System.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
3/26/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
Northeast Water System - Existing System
Figure 6-4 - Estimated Available Fire Flow Existing System
(Maximum Day Demand)
Christopher Circle TankT 6
�,,,
PRV-3 Spruce Lane ��oiwn�����p_—�iy `
�j Ili,
Sapsucker Tank
All
o�ur o�u
kp
Varna Pump Station
Color Coding Legend
Hydrant:Fire Flow(Available)(gpm) /71
<= 499
�M <= 1,000
<= 1,250 !—
jIIIIu
<= 1,499 . u
<= 2,000
<= 3,500
Other
4--4yPRV-2 Apple Orchard
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
Ithaca Water Distribution System.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
3/26/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
Ml Nla] eM ;
O
Y U O
Z W
w W ¢ oOW > 3
L e
U H- W Q N
O U > E
W
z (D a LL -
= z U) z Z 2
O d 0
00 U Q U) F w
U) w U) X z z
a 2E z w Q LU Q
� � O cwn 0
> >
OLU M
U (D a Q
Q Z
J
]lMJIO b3HdOlSIbHO Z w W
m
W ~
U) J M
................�.,. U) Q F
...�, w Z W W
¢ LDJ UQ WLU
> _
Lu O H- o
dQ a ¢ F� ;
O w z
O H- ¢ -
H- U) 0 w Q
U) z F Q•
O W d 0
_ ::D Z 00
C) z —
LU LU 16
0 J m
Q U
Y
Z U
0 �pWlllllp 4
W co QIlllllrt
Y Y U) rvnnooioi
VVui VIIIIII
::D Q Z
Qz ¢ �hu�uui
U) J Q ¢ o
LLJJ L>L >
Q --- W m
d, 0
o
m do
w O
z w
�,................::.. ........,,,z ................�............>... 0
. ..R WOODS R _.... �.... ...._...._...._...._...._...._...._.... �
SUCKER o
Z a a
_ w
Z_ Ow Z d
o O d x
z
::DU
Q w V of w
x0 U) C) z H0LLJ w
U) Q CD W a 0
Lu of
= W' a- W Z Q ¢ ¢
::D / of Q D w w
U) J U)x
}U
LLJ U)
O
_ _ �o
Mi N]76'7')\ z SN? S �P� E PREF
� � �I h♦
SSG
PNERG\RG o0 1 GNR\ Z¢
.,. ., o z
o
� I aN3aabM �s �
n
E
E
o �
..... ..
...... .....
¢ pI.
w �
w -
i
m
v
co
z
I' Z
z 1 x x x
z z z
w O d 6 c � z
w
U d
U
Northeast Water System Improvements
Figure 7-2 - Pressure Distribution, Alternative A
(Average Daily Demand)
Christopher Circle Tank
I _ �
I
PRV-3 Spruce Lane I--I [— �I Sapsucker Tank
I_
Proposed PRV
I
I Varna Pump Station
Color Coding Legend
Junction: Pressure(psi) I
<= 30 /
1
<= 34 —
<= 40
<= 60
<= 80
<= 100
<= 120 , PRV-2 Apple Orchard
Other
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
WaterGems.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
3/26/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
Northeast Water System Improvements
Figure 7-3 - Pressure Distribution, Alternative A
(Peak Hour Demand)
Christopher Circle Tank
I _ �
I
PRV-3 Spru4e /'
Sapsucker Tank
IProposed PRV
I Varna Pump Station
Color Coding Legend
Junction: Pressure(psi) I
<= 30 /
1
<= 34 —
<= 40
<= 60
<= 80
<= 100
<= 120 , PRV-2 Apple Orchard
Other
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
WaterGems.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
3/26/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
Northeast Water System Improvements
Figure 7-4 - Estimated Available Fire Flow, Alternative A
(Maximum Day Demand)
Christopher Circle Tank
ail pn,, i
PRV-3 Spruce Lane
Sapsucker Tank
iIIV
Proposed PRV
Varna Pump Station
Color Coding Legend
Hydrant: Fire Flow(Available)(gpm)
w <= 499
14" <= 1,000
<= 1,250 i
i" <= 1,499
+ <= 2,000
<=
3,500
PRV-2 Apple Orchard
Other
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
WaterGems.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
3/26/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
o
Ml Nla] eM ; r
O ,
Y O O
OLU W Q O W 2i
wJ ..................... L E
H- W
UU E .NO
W
Z C� LZ
= ZO U)Z Z E
a
00 U Q O F w
LU XZ w OD
= d 2E W W Q
0 d O Z LULU
00 LL O 0 > >
LU O —
U C� a Q LL
Z
Q �
J
310b10 b3HdOlSIbHO Z W WF
W U) J
�
Q
w z W W ~ <
Lu Z U
Q Q� 2
W ¢ J Q W
O H- o
O H o O > ~~n LU
z
w¢
H- U) U) O w 0 -
aT 10
U W d v
U d Z O Oz
LU LLj 16
0 J
Q U
Y Of ry
Z U
0
Z �llllp O
L o
W co
Y Y U) gum u
U Z � a N��IIIIIIII
U) H 0
Q
W Q o
LLJJ L>L >
z
Q --- W m
di
d H- Li o
do �
0
w
SAPSUCKER WOODS R
...z ...
......._......m....._._ f _ _.... Q............z ... .. ...
a w
w
0 H 0 w
Wco
w >
co Z d 0
LLJ of� d ¢ U
co Wco co
w w_
W J co cUn
d ¢O
W ~n O
z
�w
o
0 z
� � 42f N3a2fbM I / w o �
n
. E
o
... �..._..._...._..
w . .! . ....... .. .. ..
0
0
v
ZC5 C�l
Z Z
�0 ¢ d m o6 z z z
co
� pa
a
Northeast Water System Improvements
Figure 7-6 - Pressure Distribution, Alternative B-1
(Average Daily Demand)
Christopher Circle
I � Tank I —I
I
ISapsucker TankPRV-3 Spruce Lane
I
lL.
� t
' Proposed PRV
I
Color Coding Legend I Varna Pump Station
i
Junction: Pressure(psi) I
<= 30 _
I '
® <= 34
<= 40 '
<= 60
o <= 80
<= 100
<= 120 PRV-2 Apple Orchard
Other
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
WaterGems.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
4/3/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
Northeast Water System Improvements
Figure 7-7 - Pressure Distribution, Alternative B-1
(Peak Hour Demand)
Christopher Circle Tank I
'I
I
I
4Lane --A PRV-3 Spru —i I– �� Sapsucker Tank
k Proposed PRV
I
Color Coding Legend I Varna Pump Station
i
Junction: Pressure(psi) I
<= 30 –
I '
® <= 34
<= 40 '
<= 60
o <= 80
<= 100
<= 120 PRV-2 Apple Orchard
Other
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
WaterGems.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
4/3/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
Northeast Water System Improvements
Figure 7-8 - Estimated Available Fire Flow, Alternative B-1
(Maximum Day Demand)
Christopher Circle Tank
PRV-3 Spruce Lane �m�°°,�� U ° Sapsucker Tank
�m, oltilwn
41
SRH„n
Proposed PRV
u
Color Coding Legend Varna Pump Station
Hydrant:Fire Flow(Available)(gpm)
u <= 499
t <= 1,000
— 1,250111111 <= �
1,499
4)) <= 2,000
<= 3,500
Other
PRV-2 Apple Orchard
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
WaterGems.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
4/3/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
Ml Nla] eM �
O V iJ t
LLI
O W ¢ OW 2i
W ..................... L E
U H- LL Q N
UU > E .N D C;) r
LL
z =) CD = LL -
= z U) z Z 2'
aO d
00 U Q U) F w
"' LL U) XZ w m
= d 2E LL LL Q
U O Z LL dW LL
� ofO U) 0 0 >
LL rljU CD LLI a Q
Q Z
J
]lMJIO b3HdOlSIbHO Z w W
LL ~ F
U) J
�
Q
w z LL W ~
¢ J U Q LL
_
LL O H- > o
dQ a ¢ F� > z
O H- O O W¢ -
H- U) 0 w O
U) d z F Q•
2 O LL �:of a
_ ::D Z 00
U z —
0 J m
H _ ::D ::D
L Q Z O
Lim�oulip o`
Y Y co a ¢ IIIIII�
U) 0
mm000m
U Z � 0 U)U z Z O "' I
a O o �����
CO J Q z NOOLI�
w J LLJ LL U ¢ o
Q ~ Wz > O
J = O m m
d � LL U O ,......,, INN
LLQo 0
O d
do �
O
..
W
SAPSUCKER WOODS RD ....._.......... >
�.............
...s_.,.. ....
_.... O
a a
O W
0 z O
z
w
z ¢ ::D Q O w
o `) U a O
LLJ
O x of 5 ¢ �b
LL Of ¢
x
U
w U
m w J w w
Q 0
cf)O
as N-aaeM z a
~W
a o0
Z¢
0o
m
n
. I v
o
W Q ,
I �
_..._...._.. Z O _...._.....
W n .... ..
...._ 5
o c/)
LLJ of
v
cco > � o
„.,._,. LL J zz
Q U Z
- o Qw � o
W �\ z w tD c6 Z Z
a_
U �a
a
Northeast Water System Improvements
Figure 7-10 - Pressure Distribution, Alternative B-2
(Average Daily Demand)
'I
Christopher Circle Tank I I
I
PRV-3 Spruce I I [ �I Sapsucker Tank
Proposed PRV
I
Color Coding Legend Varna Pump Station
Junction: Pressure(psi) I
<= 30 i
1
® <= 34 —
<= 40
<= 60
e <= 80 Proposed PRV
<= 100 PRV-2 Apple Orchard
<= 120
Other
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
WaterGems-Tmain.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
4/3/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
Northeast Water System Improvements
Figure 7-11 - Pressure Distribution, Alternative B-2
(Peak Hour Demand)
'I
Christopher Circle Tank
PRV-3 Spruce Lane I I I [ �II
ISapsucker Tank
Proposed PRV
I -
Color Coding Legend Varna Pump Station
Junction: Pressure(psi) I
<= 30 i
1
® <= 34 —
<= 40
<= 60
e <= 80 Proposed PRV
<= 100 PRV-2 Apple Orchard
<= 120
Other
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
WaterGems-Tmain.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
4/3/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
Northeast Water System Improvements
Figure 7-12 - Estimated Available Fire Flow, Alternative B-2
(Maximum Day Demand)
Christopher Circle Tank
'RV-3 Spruce Lane ���m�,�„ �ti„��4@ � ���
Sapsucker Tank
,
Proposed PRV
Color Coding Legend Varna Pump Station
Hydrant:Fire Flow(Available)(gpm) ryV°
— 499
t — 1,000
— 1,250 —
<= 1,499 (�
# <= 2,000
<= 3,500
Other Proposed PRV
PRV-2 Apple Orchard
Bentley WaterGEMS V8i(SELECTseries 4)
WaterGems-Tmain.wtg GHD Consulting Services Inc [08.11.04.50]
4/3/2014 One Remington Park Drive,Cazenovia,NY 13035 Page 1 of 1
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
Appendix A - Opinion of Probable Project
Costs
Interconnection from Sapsucker Woods to Christopher Circle
Mobilization, demobilization, general conditions, traffic control $3,000
New installed 8-inch DIP (restrained joint, cement lined, Class 52)(includes $20,000
trenching, excavation, bedding, backfill, pavement repair, and fittings), ±150 LF
One tapping sleeve and valve water main connections $7,000
One live 8-inch valve insertion $6,000
Construction Contingency $11,000
Construction Subtotal $47,000
Fiscal, Legal, Administrative, Engineering $13,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $60,000
Replace Existing - -
® • !,i,,.SII; ;��"1111j111V,
Mobilization, demobilization, general conditions, traffic control $16,000
New installed 8-inch DIP (push-on joint, cement lined, Class 52)(includes $154,000
trenching, excavation, bedding, backfill, pavement repair, and fittings),
±1,300 LF
New installed fire hydrants (includes removal of existing fire hydrant when $14,000
necessary)
New installed isolation valves $6,000
Reconnect water services $20,000
Rock removal (5%of pipe trench length) $7,000
Construction Contingency $44,000
Construction Subtotal $260,000
Fiscal, Legal, Administrative, Engineering $50,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $310,000
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 1 A-1
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
New Sapsucker Woods Tank
Mobilization, demobilization, general conditions $98,000
360,000-gallon elevated waterspheroid tank $930,000
Demolish existing Sapsucker tank $120,000
Site work, water main connections, etc. $180,000
Construction Contingency $270,000
Construction Subtotal $1,600,000
Fiscal, Legal, Administrative, Engineering $200,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,800,000
Improvements to Christopher Circle
,,, Iulul
Mobilization, demobilization, general conditions, traffic control $7,000
Two new 25 HP Christopher Circle pumps (including demolition of existing $32,000
pumps_
Two 25 HP variable frequency drives $16,000
Electrical connections $11,000
Piping, supports, painting, and appurtenances $36,000
Construction Contingency $31,000
Construction Subtotal $133,000
Fiscal, Legal, Administrative, Engineering $27,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $160,000
Road)New PRV Station (Freese Road or Warren
Mobilization, demobilization, general conditions $20,000
Pre-engineered above-grade PRV building $200,000
Electrical service and connections $29,000
Site work, water main connections, etc. $24,000
Construction Contingency $53,000
Construction Subtotal $326,000
Fiscal, Legal, Administrative, Engineering $63,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $390,000
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 1 A-2
Water Main Improvements (Alternative )
IMMSEM
Mobilization, demobilization, general conditions, traffic control $450,000
New installed 8-inch DIP (push-on joint, cement lined, Class 52) (includes $1,450,000
trenching, excavation, bedding, backfill, pavement repair, and fittings), ±12,500 LF
New installed 10-inch DIP (push-on joint, cement lined, Class 52) (includes $860,000
trenching, excavation, bedding, backfill, pavement repair, and fittings), ±6,700 LF
New installed 12-inch DIP (push-on joint, cement lined, Class 52) (includes $1,470,000
trenching, excavation, bedding, backfill, pavement repair, and fittings), ±10,500 LF
New fire hydrants (includes removal of existing fire hydrant when necessary) $220,000
Five tapping sleeve and valve water main connections $36,000
New isolation valves $180,000
Reconnect water services $446,000
Rock removal (5%of pipe trench length) $130,000
Construction Contingency $1,000,000
Construction Subtotal $6,300,000
Fiscal, Legal, Administrative, Engineering $900,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $7,200,000
Water Main Improvements (Alternative )
Mobilization, demobilization, general conditions, traffic control $184,000
New installed 8-inch DIP (push-on joint, cement lined, Class 52) (includes $1,100,000
trenching, excavation, bedding, backfill, pavement repair, and fittings),±9,500 LF
New installed 10-inch DIP (push-on joint, cement lined, Class 52) (includes $700,000
trenching, excavation, bedding, backfill, pavement repair, and fittings),±5,500 LF
New fire hydrants (includes removal of existing fire hydrant when necessary) $96,000
Three tapping sleeve and valve water main connections $22,000
New isolation valves $61,000
Reconnect water services $216,000
Rock removal (5%of pipe trench length) $67,000
Construction Contingency $495,000
Construction Subtotal $2,950,000
Fiscal, Legal, Administrative, Engineering $450,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,400,000
General Notes (all tables):
(1) All pipe installation assumed to be within asphalt roadway.
(2) New pipe installed adjacent to existing pipe with abandonment of existing pipe in place.
(3) Assumes pavement restoration for trench width, plus milling and new top course pavement.
(4) Figures are rounded.
GHD I Northeast Water System Improvements,Town of Ithaca, NY-8616205.1 A-3
www .ghd . com
."maget"'.
Exhibit-C
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O LO O LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O � qqt
++
66 6 6 M — 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co O co
N O O — — (D 0) O LO 00 LO LO LO LO LO 0 0 L 0 LO 0 0 0 O M M
O o O rn cn 00 M 00 N — 00 00 00 00 00 — N M I-- N N N O O LO —
U M N MLf V V O O N M M M M M V M V M N N I� � O O L (O
N CO 00 O CO N M (f} (f} (f} (f} (f} 60- 00 (f} (f} (f} (f} (f} (f} — — M q-t
rte+ K) (f} (f} M
O
H
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
CD CD+, O O O O LO Op 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p O D O
N O O O O O O O O O O M O Lo O U
0 0 0 c) L � O In LO In In In In In 0 Lo � N O O O Z
U rn rn (D O � co co co co co (o — N N N (o W J
+, a0 N 64 (A -Cv) 60- O M M M M M N (A 6f 60- C:)
Q
(A (f) (f> (f> (f} (f} (f} (f} (f} (f} 60- Z O
I— N O M LO O N O O O O — N ~ ~
+- Z p
C B O O 00 � � CO 0 0 0 0 � J D
O O - - N N M Z
E N 0 o a'
Q � L-00
(n (n LL LL LL LL m m m m m m m m m m LL Z Z Ln m (n
? JJ J J J J W W W W W W W W W W —1 —0 H H w J
C U L "✓7 a) N a) a) -a
O CO a) N a) Q' U C O O O O U tip w w U a) L
Coco 70 U a) > a a C s s U U � CD CD '> U O
N o cn > o E E °� >' �_ �_ 0 0 0 + O O L
s o p U Q
O C co U U O O Y
.� J O co >, >, m M U U a) C (�6 (6 N
C > N U) "- M M a) a) O O O O
cu +' U
U 0 '- X a) a) o co C co co L +� -a m > SZ a)
0 o L co c m N N v C C a) a) a) o c`6 E cu
C a) U o o U U s a� L a�
o a 0 (A > o H a)
N m C °� 'co > c c > C 0) O u a
++ o c� \M m m o 0) C C C = o U a � C7 aE) �
V C C L / L L U .� O C C (n J CO
U O O
O C .. o � 2 2 �' x L. U U P o 0 o a
co v p c � o p p a -0 cn
d 2 v o N C Q Q
p a a) cu w
cu
3: = co O a
CL p
w E2 d a) U
O = a �'
0o a p
cC O d cu
E o bo
+°3 CL o
V
d d 00
> 0
0 E
Q w
O
L N M LO O r— 00 O O N M LO O S 00 O O N M
— N N N N
gE,'ir][('1,3 IItE,ir IC�o, 14a
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, February 11, 2019
TB Resolution No. 2019-xxxa: Town of Ithaca Abstract No. 1 for FY-2019
Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for
approval of payment; and
Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore
be it
Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in
total for the amounts indicated.
VOUCHER NOS. 136 - 203
General Fund Town Wide 57,564.27
General Fund Part-Town 2,926.47
Highway Fund Town Wide DA 41,674.29
Highway Fund Part Town DB 68,897.81
Water Fund 32,460.22
Sewer Fund 19,270.93
Gateway Trail—H8
State Route 96b Sidewalk—H7
Park Lane Water Main Improv—Hl 1
Sapsucker Woods Water Main—H12
Christopher Circle Water Main—H13
Ellis Hollow Water Tank—H10 216,514.60
Trumansburg Water Tank Replace—H9
Risk Retention Fund
Fire Protection Fund
Forest Home Lighting District 243.34
Glenside Lighting District 84.93
Renwick Heights Lighting District 108.31
Eastwood Commons Lighting District 212.72
Clover Lane Lighting District 25.31
Winner's Circle Lighting District 75.74
Burleigh Drive Lighting District 86.45
West Haven Road Lighting District 277.74
Coddington Road Lighting District 164.61
Trust and Agency
Debt Service
TOTAL 440,587.74
gE,'ir][('1,3 IItE,ir IC�o, 14I
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday,
TB Resolution 2019-xxxc: Bolton Point Abstract
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: 9-67
Check Numbers: 18170-18228
Capital Impr/Repl Project $ 8,211.91
Operating Fund $123,896.12
TOTAL $132,108.03
Less Prepaid $-____ ,689,
TOTAL $129,418.41
gE,'ir][('1,3 IItE,ir IC�o, 14c.
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, February 11, 2019
TB Resolution 2019 — : Appointment of Administrative Assistant I
Whereas, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, appointed Christopher Torres as
Information Aide as a temporary appointment title, effective April 16, 2018; and
Whereas, Christopher Torres has taken the Administrative Assistant I civil service exam
and is a reachable candidate; now therefore be it
Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby appoint Christopher Torres
as Administrative Assistant I, effective February 11, 2019; and be it further
Resolved, that this appointment does not create any change to Mr. Torres' hours, hourly
rate, benefit level or classification level; and be it further
Resolved, Mr. Torres is required to complete a twenty-six (26) week probationary period
associated with this title, with no further action by the Town Board if there is successful
completion of the probationary period as determined by the Director of Code
Enforcement
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, February 11, 2019
TB Resolution 2019 — : Ratification of Highway Superintendent's Appointment of
Laborer (2)
Whereas, there is two vacancies in the full time position of Laborer for the Public Works
Department; and
Whereas, the Interview Committee interviewed nine candidates from an open
recruitment; and
Whereas, the Committee has determined that Jessica Sill and Colin Fellows possess the
necessary knowledge and skills to satisfactorily perform the duties of Laborer; and
Whereas, Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works, appointed
Jessica Sill and Colin Fellows as Laborer, effective February 4, 2019; now, therefore be it
Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby ratify the appointment
made by the Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works, of Jessica Sill and Colin
Fellows as Laborer, effective February 4, 2019; and be it further
Resolved, this is a 40-hours a week position, at the hourly wage of$19.97, which is an
estimated annual salary of $41,163 from Public Works account numbers, in Job
Classification "I", with full time benefits; and be it further
Resolved, a mandatory twenty-six (26) week probationary period applies with no further
action by the Town Board if there is successful completion of the probationary period as
determined by the Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works.
CITY OF ITHACA
31.0 West Green Street Ithaca, New York 14550-5497
OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF
•. Telephone: 607/272-1234 Fax: 607/272-2793
MEMORANDUM
To: Svante Myrick, Mayor
Ithaca Town Board
City of Ithaca Common Council
City of Ithaca Public Safety and Information Commission
From: Tom Parsons, Fire Chief
Date: January 31st, 2019
Re: Annual Fire Chief's Report for 2018
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
Administration
1) Career Personnel Report
PERSONNEL STAFFING LEVELS
1 Chief
0 Deputy Chief(unfunded vacancy)
6 Assistant Chiefs
8 Lieutenants
50 Fire Fighters*'
65 Uniform Personnel
1 Administrative Coordinator
Total employees as of December 31st, 2018 — 66
a) Vacancies, Retirements, Hiring, and Promotions
• Firefighters Greg Stevenson and Mark Spadolini retired in March of 2018.
• Firefighters Tiffany Ho and Ryan Harding were hired in May of 2018.
• Lieutenant Chris O'Connor retired in July of 2018.
• Firefighter Jared Gebel was promoted to Fire Lieutenant in July of 2018
• Firefighter Zachary Babcock was hired in July of 2018
*Four firefighter positions are funded through May of 2019 by a FEMA Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response Grant.
'There is one firefighter vacancy due to a retirement on 12/29/2018 that is being filled on 2/11/2019
Page 2 of 6 -Fire Chief's Report for 2018 January 31st, 2019
• Firefighter Daryl Pace retired on December 29th, 2018. A new firefighter has
been hired and will begin work on February 1 lth 2019.
b) Firefighters on Injury Leave
• There are one firefighter and one fire lieutenant off work on injury leave. I
expect that they will be returning to work in February.
2) Budget Report and Labor Contract
a) The 2018 budget has not been closed out, but it is expected to be closed soon.
b) A summary of the 2018 budget is attached. It should be noted that the Staff Salary
Budget indicates a deficit. The reason for the deficit is that the Salary Budget
Line does not reflect an adjustment after the Firefighter and Fire Officer Labor
Contract was settled in March of 2018.
C) The Firefighter and Fire Officer Labor Contracts were settled in March of 2018.
The previous labor contract expired on 12/31/2015. The firefighters and fire
officers received a 1.5% salary increase retroactive to 1/1/2018 and another 1.5%
salary increase on 7/1/2018. The firefighters and fire officers received a 1.5%
salary increase on 1/1/2019 and will receive another salary increase of 1.5%
increase on 7/1/2019. The firefighters and fire officers will receive a 2.75%
salary increase on 1/1/2020. The current labor contracts expire on 12/31/2020.
4) Grants and Donations
a) In 2017 we received a$22,673 Assistance to Firefighting Grant from FEMA to
replace a twenty-year-old turnout-gear washer with two new turnout-gear
washers. The two new washers were installed this in November.
b) In 2017, I submitted grant applications to FEMA for $159,000 in funding to
replace portable radios and $750,000 to fund an aerial truck that would replace a
20-year-old vehicle that is scheduled for replacement in 2019. The department
was not awarded either grant.
C) In 2018, I submitted grant application to FEMA for $187,000 in funding to
replace the 25-year-old exhaust extraction systems in all of the fire stations. I also
submitted a second grant application to FEMA for $543,000 in funding to replace
our 30-year-old Heavy Rescue Truck. I expect to hear in the coming months from
FEMA if we receive funding for either of the grants.
5) Apparatus
Page 3 of 6 -Fire Chief's Report for 2018 January 31st, 2019
a) Our 1998 Aerial Platform Truck is scheduled for replacement this year.
Common Council and the Town Board have approved the purchase of a new
Aerial Platform Truck. It is expected to be delivered in early 2020.
5) Fire Training Center
a) In 2018, we received a structural report on our Rope Tower and our Fire
Training Burn building. The report indicates that repairs to the Fire Training
Burn Building are needed if we are to continue to use the building. The building
cannot be used for live fire training until repairs are made or the building is
replaced. We are considering different options for the repair or replacement of
the building
LIFE SAFETY DIVISION
Fire Prevention Bureau
1) Code Enforcement Division: The following is a list of Activities for 2018:
Complaints Received 402
Referred to the City Building Division 204
Referred to the Town of Ithaca 67
Investigated by the Fire Prevention Bureau 131
Inspections: 1253
City Fire Safety &Property Maintenance 422
City -Permit Required City Fire Safety 518
Town Fire Safety &Property 81
City - Sprinkler Inspections 69
City - Alternative Fire Protection Systems 4
City - Fire Alarm Inspection 105
City— Standpipe Hydrostatic Test 9
City - Standpipe Flow Test 12
City—Fire Pump Flow Test 2
City—Elevator 2
Permits or Certificates: 757
Operating Permit—Assembly Occupancy 228
Operating Permit—Large Assembly Occupancy 54
Operating Permit—Hazardous Occupancy 14
Operating Permit—Lumber Yard 4
Page 4 of 6 -Fire Chief's Report for 2018 January 31st, 2019
Operating Permit—Elevator 15
Operating Permit—Fireworks 2
Operating Permit—Install or Modify FPS 72
Operation Permit—Food Truck 32
Certificate of Compliance—Commercial Insp. 155
Certificate of Compliance— School 7
Certificate of Compliance - Fire Alarm 60
Certificate of Compliance - Fire Sprinkler 20
Certificate of Compliance - Fire Pump 1
Certificate of Compliance—Fire Standpipe 7
Occupancy Posting Certificate 35
Certificate of Compliance - Alternative Suppression 5
2) Fire Investigation Unit:
The Fire Investigation Team investigated 25 fires in 2018. There were 20 fires
investigated in the City of Ithaca, and five fires that were investigated in the Town of
Ithaca
3) Public Education and Special Events
Public Education Events: 28
Fire Drills Witnessed: 4
Child Safety Seat Inspections: 83
4) In January, the City Common Council passed a resolution to add Parking Garage Permits,
and to require structural inspections of existing Parking Garages. This change was brought
about new regulations from the NYS Department of State that require special inspections of
Parking Garages and operating permits to be issued by the Municipality for the occupancy of
Parking Garages.
Page 5 of 6 -Fire Chief's Report for 2018 January 31st, 2019
OPERATIONS DIVISION
1) Emergency Response:
2018 Responses - 5084 Incidents
City of Ithaca: 3606 Incidents (70.93%)
Fires: 92
Overpressure/Rupture 6
EMS/Rescue: 1430
Hazardous Conditions: 215
Service Calls: 198
Good Intent: 613
Alarms/No Fires: 1071
Severe Weather: 5
Other: 3
Town of Ithaca: 1460 Incidents (28.72%)
Fires: 24
Overpressure/Rupture: 0
EMS/Rescue: 830
Hazardous Conditions: 67
Service Calls: 66
Good Intent: 219
Alarms/No Alarm: 248
Severe Weather: 6
Other: 0
Mutual Aid: 18 Incidents (0.35%)
Fires: 3
Overpressure/Rupture: 0
EMS/Rescue: 3
Hazardous Conditions: 3
Service Calls: 5
Good Intent: 3
Alarms/No Fires: 1
Severe Weather: 0
Simultaneous Incidents: 931 Incidents (17.8%)
Page 6 of 6 -Fire Chief's Report for 2018 January 31st, 2019
Volunteer Recruitment and Retention
1) There are currently 10 Active Volunteer Firefighters and Fire Police. There is only one
active firefighter that is interior firefighter qualified. There are nine Volunteer Fire
Police members.
2) There are two volunteer firefighters in training. One firefighter is completing department
training to be an interior firefighter, and the second firefighter is in training to be a scene
support firefighter.
.......................... .. .......7— ........................7- ......LH.......-----------------—--------
L
n 'N 1 ri 6 1� 9)
P,
00 C.D P,
BUJUJI)LUGH V�� In 'o
jusojed
ff) 11)l" ro9 C) 0, l,, �o (1) 10 1,11 '1
I:: (N '0 114 In 't 0,
0, 3 "1 00 co
6 1 IN w0 cl,
M
pepuedxg C4
N�
'o
OSEZ;L c! cl�
ng BUJUIDJI
P,
C',
I,'n C,
OOCZL
JUGWOBDUOW 6 C,�
AaueBjeLug
r'4 vy Com. It Oro C) 2
Im I,
?^ 6 C4 N,
C,l 04 It
"0
O9ZZL
cw
W) uoliz)eS poddnS
C4
'N N 'o
00
OOZZ L
uol;oeS asuodsea
CN
Lg)
CD
OSLZL
uopj
aeS AjejDS
C4
C4
OOLZL maing 0, 10
UOI;UOAGJd GAIJ
v) I,crr
:5
osozi 15uluul)ld co
V1
eXY
7 UOIIDJISIUIW
PV i
sjeqtunN rn
c In an ca n n n n n 1`1 1") Cl LO
10
0
IN IN
IN I I
junoo
0 CD 11) 1,0 C.", C)
(D
�,I CI 0 C) (0 1.� 0
CZ 0 In
I az C� Ci CD q R IR
CX3 I, c 4 1 ,- -�t — 16 114, 14 1 C.. co
0 — 11) m
0 1,) IN ra CA (N 't
j9Bpnq CA c7 m 0.
I n
Ci
10
2
0 > U
co .4 W 0. 6 4� a CL :E
E u 0 U, > 0. t %
co 4) 2= r = = 3 0)
;5 o a tr a,
C4 0 0 0 0
U
u
N <
co
C)
LJL C4
1 �
ro.
U (0 100' y'
o � � 1 � '
� 0 C14
CL
11 I
I
0
i ol „
... .�
> „� p
s . w t w0.
c
w .fl Nt
O 00 00
OD
w �, uC's 0 , � 00
00
OL i ^4 r O O 1 of O= O O O O
O I I I I I I
CL % .m, cam . cr c� c �, c� c� c� O
w
Z
LLJ
> ®3 V �` �
wco
e eCt
N I
w
.r> O 04
Ih
a' w O O O O 1 O
03 10 r LO CY) (Y) O r O O O Imo, O (Y) Cl) RIT
r
00
O m 00 10 10 iLo C
N N CN Ln CcCo 7a 1010 r.
Cl)C14 C14 cv C14 � cv cV q N C14 C4 cw C14 I N
Iol I
�J � o C:r �) O ,U n Q3 �; j y �j LO
CL 04 w�
C4 o ' � ca ° u
fc� V) as 5 �' ai o .0 a,
>1 � rs
LU LU O a% O C: Z N
Ww a)p off$ va d O' t �i �I n vU>
iO .6 V) 015 06
O
co u
a) -C U
Q)
Q
O O
0) N o 0) N o
a) 0(
CR 0 0 e o 0 0 0 o O RO) C
e No O
,yTt0 C C a O O T a 00 CN O c Cl)N
a �NOOOOMOO M r- 'a . Cl 6
V U Op NOOOONN OOO O O 0 O O
V O
C
0) 0)
IL 3.
R R
O N O N O 00 W a N a W 00 a O w O 00 a
F 00N rN f, - 00 F OW- 00
a N O w ll O
M r N Cl) N
!- M 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O M O co O O M
y y to O OO OO (00 00 000 y y to COO
LL LL
Z_ _ Z_ _
N oO 0 0 0 I-O O O O O oO O
E to r �N O) N 0) V N
O) M E O N M
R R
N Q Q
N
0 C C
O y y
N C = C =
0) co
o U co co O 00 coO 00 00 M p U M_O)M M
O N O V 00 O CO N o
a
E
I= E — —
O O R R
Ra a U U
U_
N t 0 0 O O O t()O O O to M 00 CO to O)
i C CO CO O)CO CO
LL R O y r N y r N
L).0 w UI UI
0 ` a O a O_
T .a '- O .
C
R
R 0 r-pOOOOOCOMoOOOOM 00 R c tol-.M to
a N p O V of N p CO CO
.0 = U N N R U N N
7 7
N N
00 co O O N O O Co Lo N V CO M CO M O M CO
M N co N
W W
d 0)
N N N 0)
N 7 N 7
Q V N O O O O O O O O O O O CO = CO O O CO
O
LL O N O O O O CO r-cc O M O) LL N V M O)
CO O)N
a1
r
0) y
a�a1 O` N OO O
098 o d O O -15 0
a o m 0) -_ U 0 E a
- UY p 0) R R
E R E U
E R Y O L x 7 E
H osU o d UrtAC�F H
0 U :5 C7 ` . . . . . p
-R N U U U U U U U UU
U U CR)'a ` N R R R R R R R R
R R R R t t t t t t t r t
R ip 0 ()F�
0 0 oULLv�
T T T T T T 3 3 3 3 3 3 N R R R N R
UUUUUUFFFFFFOF ��0�
Q o
w Q
LL L L U °
z U a m Woo N N
_
m a -o Q
Q °o m � >
cn U) Q (7 cn x w O ii
/ Mill'7
%i% Gong
FOR %%% %%
%% eta
�a-
%%%
IN jo%%
o�`�ra Cl°age
INN
%%%%
°� G°o��ra ege
V1,
%!
LL
eG�ee
% %�� �� GO Goy tee\-
�°oG ale
OG�� Oee�
co %%% %%ml
mlml
ml
O <��' Go
N o%l I G aoa
10
0 fir �O�e
%% I IGoe
G\�ok��ra°a
000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
N—OM001--(OLOI-*MN—CDMM1—(OLo,..tMN—CDMM --(OLo,--tMN�
MMMNNNNNNNNNN��r-b�������
as
4�
co
C.)
co
CL
NO
a=
co
U) 0
O
-�-77777777 '777777777777 7777777777
CL
-a
Q
E
CL
Q
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
LL
0
MQ
U U)
M
Qo
T"
0
C4
�� viiia viiia viiia viiia
-.0
-00- -00- -00- -00- -00- -00- -00- -00- -00- -00-
C) C) CD CD CD CD CD CD C) C) C)
C) m co I-- (D LO qt CV) N
Ithaca FD
Incident Type Period Comparisons
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2018} and {12/31/2018}
Incident Type 01/01/2018 01/01/201 01/01/2016 01/01/2015
to 7 to to to
12/31/2018 12/31/201 12/31/2016 12/31/2015
7
100 Fire, Other 8 5 9 10
111 Building fire 35 42 37 49
112 Fires in structure other than in a building 0 0 0 1
113 Cooking fire, confined to container 18 16 17 25
114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 2 2 0 3
115 Incinerator overload or malfunction, fire confined 1 0 0 0
116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined 0 2 1 1
118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 1 1 3 1
120 Fire in mobile prop used as a fixed struc, Other 1 0 0 0
121 Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence 0 0 1 0
123 Fire in portable building, fixed location 1 0 0 0
130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire, Other 0 1 1 1
131 Passenger vehicle fire 6 11 12 14
132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 2 2 0 1
134 Water vehicle fire 1 0 0 1
137 Camper or recreational vehicle (RV) fire 1 0 0 0
140 Natural vegetation fire, Other 6 2 14 4
141 Forest, woods or wildland fire 3 0 0 0
142 Brush or brush-and-grass mixture fire 5 3 6 2
143 Grass fire 3 1 5 2
150 Outside rubbish fire, Other 2 6 6 3
151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 9 6 8 8
154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 6 5 5 3
160 Special outside fire, Other 5 2 4 6
162 Outside equipment fire 3 0 0 0
170 Cultivated vegetation, crop fire, Other 0 1 2 0
200 Overpressure rupture, explosion, overheat other 1 1 0 1
210 Overpressure rupture from steam, Other 0 1 0 0
212 Overpressure rupture of steam boiler 0 1 0 0
221 Overpressure rupture of air or gas pipe/pipeline 0 0 1 0
231 Chemical reaction rupture of process vessel 2 0 1 0
243 Fireworks explosion (no fire) 1 0 0 0
251 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no ignition 2 4 2 6
300 Rescue, EMS incident, other 9 16 6 14
300lGorge Rescue, EMS incident, Ground Evacuation 1 4 3 2
3002Gorge Rescue, EMS incident, Low Angle Rope Assist 2 1 0 0
311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 40 36 29 24
320 Emergency medical service, other 80 61 87 61
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 1928 1996 1959 2050
322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 74 78 85 74
323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped) 27 15 17 17
01/07/2019 14:45 Page 1
Ithaca FD
Incident Type Period Comparisons
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2018} and {12/31/2018}
Incident Type 01/01/2018 01/01/201 01/01/2016 01/01/2015
to 7 to to to
12/31/2018 12/31/201 12/31/2016 12/31/2015
7
324 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 36 30 42 31
331 Lock-in (if lock out , use 511 ) 0 0 2 4
33llLock-in / Knox Box Access Required 10 3 4 1
3312Lock-in / Force Entry Required 4 3 1 3
342 Search for person in water 0 1 0 1
350 Extrication, rescue, Other 2 3 2 3
350lGorge Rescue w/o Rope Systems 3 0 0 0
351 Extrication of victim(s) from building/structure 0 1 1 2
352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 2 2 2 0
353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 12 24 18 13
354 Trench/below-grade rescue 0 0 1 0
355 Confined space rescue 1 0 0 0
3561Gorge Rescue, w/ High-angle Rope Extrication 1 1 4 2
360 Water & ice-related rescue, other 0 0 1 1
361 Swimming/recreational water areas rescue 2 1 0 0
363 Swift water rescue 1 3 0 2
365 Watercraft rescue 0 1 3 2
381 Rescue or EMS standby 1 1 1 1
400 Hazardous condition, Other 30 37 54 45
410 Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition, other 4 6 3 2
411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 12 7 14 12
412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 93 65 86 76
413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 3 4 5 7
420 Toxic condition, Other 0 1 0 0
421 Chemical hazard (no spill or leak) 1 2 3 2
422 Chemical spill or leak 0 1 1 3
423 Refrigeration leak 0 0 1 0
424 Carbon monoxide incident 34 22 20 27
431 Radiation leak, radioactive material 1 0 0 0
440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, Other 21 12 17 13
441 Heat from short circuit (wiring) , defective/worn 2 5 5 7
442 Overheated motor 9 8 8 7
443 Breakdown of light ballast 2 1 2 1
444 Power line down 48 42 39 39
445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 18 13 13 18
451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 0 1 1 1
460 Accident, potential accident, Other 2 1 2 3
461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed 2 0 0 1
463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 3 2 9 6
471 Explosive, bomb removal (for bomb scare, use 721) 0 0 1 1
480 Attempted burning, illegal action, Other 0 1 0 0
01/07/2019 14:45 Page 2
Ithaca FD
Incident Type Period Comparisons
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2018} and {12/31/2018}
Incident Type 01/01/2018 01/01/201 01/01/2016 01/01/2015
to 7 to to to
12/31/2018 12/31/201 12/31/2016 12/31/2015
7
481 Attempt to burn 0 1 0 0
500 Service Call, other 126 125 101 123
510 Person in distress, Other 3 10 9 16
511 Lock-out 14 9 7 10
520 Water problem, Other 23 16 24 19
521 Water evacuation 5 10 11 3
522 Water or steam leak 17 14 15 22
531 Smoke or odor removal 11 9 10 8
540 Animal problem, Other 1 0 1 2
541 Animal problem 1 2 1 1
542 Animal rescue 7 1 2 1
550 Public service assistance, Other 6 14 7 19
551 Assist police or other governmental agency 22 20 22 16
552 Police matter 3 5 6 7
553 Public service 11 11 11 8
554 Assist invalid 7 7 7 13
555 Defective elevator, no occupants 3 1 0 1
561 Unauthorized burning 7 4 8 12
571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 2 1 4 3
600 Good intent call, Other 53 55 74 60
611 Dispatched & cancelled en route 12 8 9 8
6111Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Dispatcher 28 27 20 12
6112Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Bangs 265 347 304 261
6113Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CUEMS 29 26 40 66
6114Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CU EH&S 202 199 193 180
6115Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IC Safety 82 85 109 102
6117Dispatched & cancelled en route - By MA Dept 1 14 18 5
6118Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IPD 12 14 15 12
6119Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Other Police 4 3 3 1
621 Wrong location 0 0 0 4
622 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch address 85 60 41 41
631 Authorized controlled burning 1 2 1 0
641 Vicinity alarm (incident in other location) 1 3 0 1
650 Steam, Other gas mistaken for smoke, Other 5 0 1 1
651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 13 22 18 16
652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke 4 3 4 5
653 Smoke from barbecue, tar kettle 1 0 1 0
661 EMS call, party transported by non-fire agency 2 2 1 1
671 HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat 35 42 47 47
700 False alarm or false call, Other 15 6 38 24
700lFalse alarm or false call, Other - Medical Alarm 46 62 74 82
01/07/2019 14:45 Page 3
Ithaca FD
Incident Type Period Comparisons
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2018} and {12/31/2018}
Incident Type 01/01/2018 01/01/201 01/01/2016 01/01/2015
to 7 to to to
12/31/2018 12/31/201 12/31/2016 12/31/2015
7
710 Malicious, mischievous false call, Other 7 7 5 13
711 Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm 4 1 3 2
712 Direct tie to FD, malicious false alarm 0 1 0 0
713 Telephone, malicious false alarm 1 0 0 2
714 Central station, malicious false alarm 10 30 34 35
715 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 5 8 3 4
721 Bomb scare - no bomb 0 1 0 1
730 System malfunction, Other 40 43 41 25
731 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 16 6 11 16
732 Extinguishing system activation due to malfunction 0 0 0 1
733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 88 79 93 95
734 Heat detector activation due to malfunction 19 9 6 7
735 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 71 110 80 128
736 CO detector activation due to malfunction 20 32 31 30
740 Unintentional transmission of alarm, Other 119 112 92 26
741 Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional 25 23 18 24
742 Extinguishing system activation 0 3 0 0
743 Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 599 611 519 523
744 Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 70 66 98 88
745 Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 155 195 136 178
746 Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 10 12 13 14
800 Severe weather or natural disaster, Other 3 3 0 0
812 Flood assessment 5 3 0 2
813 Wind storm, tornado/hurricane assessment 3 1 0 1
900 Special type of incident, Other 2 4 3 0
911 Citizen complaint 1 2 2 0
Totals 5084 5229 5132 5149
01/07/2019 14:45 Page 4
M
N
V
9
Q
d
o Z
� Y
w�
� T
s m
m
E
Q
ti
pill
1@111
NINEN
C� 4`
{V
ry
{V
Ca
M
h
M'
C1
N
V
9
z Q
E�
[(o
O
5� Q
d �
e y
CJ
d
m
d
Q
h
p
Ithaca .W
Seco Eh!ii,.Lt Axxival Response Time An alt's „
Alarm Date Between (01/03„/20181 And f 3.2/11.J201.81
-...... -------- ---------,_l...... ...
...........m
Response
Mins Count Percentage
< 01 0 0.0
0:1.. 4 0.3 %
02 22 1.8 %
03 1.,2 1. :1..0 W 2. it
04 251 2:1 W 1..
0 c:) 2 4 7 20.8
06 196 16.5 %
07 1.50 12.6
03 04 7.0 %
09 02 3.5
1..0 22 1.8
10 4'°7 3.9
Overall Average response Time: 00:06:28
Incident Count for 2nd Arriving Unit: 1186
01/23/2019 17:35 Fuge 1
Ithaca ME)
First Unit Arrival Response Time Analysis (Ent)
NFIRS Alarm Date Between (01/01/20181 n
112/31/20181
........ ..... -------------- -------------- _ ,....... ............
Response
Hrs bfins Count Percentage
_................. p"qp............. /y qy.........ryA�./.�..........,.,.,.,.,.,.....,.,.,.....,.,...............................................................................,.,.,.,.,...........,�................,.......____............------------...__.._.._..........................................................................w w�_
331 145 3„2 %.
02 479 1.0.7
03 9644 2.1. .6 %
04 956 21. 33 %
33 666 1.4 . 9 %
06 449 10.3 %
417 31.13 7. 1 %
1113 129 2.8 %
11 :33 0m7 `1
Il2 2 2 0.�4. %
II.
1.5 1 0. 1 %
17 3 3.3.1.3 ai
1s "1 0.0 %
1...9 3 0.31 n
20 3 0.0 %
2.2. 1.. 3.0 `3s
29 2 0.0 %
^
37 1 0.0 %
44 V- 0.0 %
Overall Average Response Time: 00:04:57
01../23/201..9 1.7::.35 Page
Ithaca •
1FD Mutual. ,Aid TResponses by Department (Summary)
Alarm Date Between (01/01/2018) And (12/31/20181
Type Aid Count_.. ......
55002 Cayuga Heights Fire Department
Mutu.a.l aid given 4
4
55004 Dariby Fire Department
Mutual aid given
.1,
55006 Enfield Fire Department
Mutual aid given 1
1
55018 Trumar-.isburg JL.i re Department
Mutual aid received 1
Mutua.l a i.d given. 4
1'
55022 Tompkins County Airport
Mutual aid given 1
01/24/2019 13:57 Page 1..