HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2019-04-22
Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday, April 22, 2019
Agenda
1. Report on Sustainability Efforts Nick Goldsmith
2. Cayuga Lake Blue Way Trail Presentation
3. Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization (IO) Report
4. Update on Form Based Zoning
5. Discuss and consider a Bond Resolution for the Winthrop Drive Watermain
Replacement Project
6. Discuss and consider award of the Winthrop Drive Watermain Replacement Project
7. Discuss proposals for the Forest Home Walkway Project
8. Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding the proposed purchase of
property on Culver Rd for a preserve using Parks, Recreation and Open Space funds
9. Discuss the draft revisNoise
10. Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding a proposed a local law amending
the yard and principal building requirements for publicly owned properties and private
institutions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code
11. Committee Reports
a. Planning
b. Public Works
c. Budget
d. P&O and Employee Relations
e. COC
f. STR
g. Other Discuss NCRE Planning Board recommendations
12. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of Minutes
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract
Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday, April 22, 2019
Minutes
Board Members Present: Bill Goodman, Supervisor; Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine,
Rich DePaolo, and Rod Howe Absent: Pamela Bleiwas
Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement;
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent and Susan Brock, Attorney for
the Town
1. Report on Sustainability Efforts Nick Goldsmith (Attachment 1)
Mr. Goldsmith went over his memo outlining accomplishments in 2018.
2. Cayuga Lake Blue Way Trail Presentation Nick Helmholdt (Attachment 2)
Mr. Helmholdt reviewed the Trail concept
The idea is to establish a water trail along the lake and help paddlers enjoy our lake and
encouraging longer paddling trips along the lake as well as novice paddlers to get out on the
lake and water experiences throughout the State.
The plan is to improve water access sites and install potential new ones as well as a consistent
brand so visitors could easily recognize access sites.
Mr. Helmholdt said the improvements are 100% grant funded and he was open for questions.
Mr. DePaolo asked about the East Shore
land.
Some discussion followed and it was thought that there would have to be coordination with
Cornell and the parking restrictions with that location were discussed.
Mr. Howe asked if other Finger Lakes are looking into to this.
Mr. Helmholdt said we are slightly ahead of the curve in the Finger Lakes, but a few are
established in NYS.
The Board was in favor of pursuing this and have Public Works coordinate with Cornell and ask
for access to the area.
Mr. Weber said it is a constrained site with extremely limited parking.
3. Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization (IO) Report
Ms. Hunter gave an overview saying that this update is two parts; one is a report from Jennifer
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 1
Karius as part of the deliverables of her project and the other is an update on the grant.
(Attachment 3)
The highlight is to develop a plan to better manage the IO and collect ideas for projects which
will be analyzed for ones to move forward with.
Ms. Karius reviewed her report in which she canvassed and collected information on key
stakeholders and departments in all of the watershed municipalities and projects they have done
or would like to do.
She said everyone had the same comments; we have limited staff, deteriorating infrastructure
and need help to move forward in any meaningful way.
Mr. DePaolo asked if there is a way to rank projects to get the biggest bang for the buck and
Ms. Hunter responded that is what Kathy Bertuch is doing as part of the grant and she has done
a wonderful job in getting the contacts and citizen involvement studying the lake.
Ms. Hunter said we have the science, the problem is the administrative challenge. The policy
makers throughout the watershed need to start thinking watershed-wide and collaborating to
take care of the lake and get what we need from the State by working together.
Mr. DePaolo wanted to acknowledge that Ms. Hunter has really revitalized this organization
over the past several years and it is really good to see the fruits of those labors coming through.
Ms. Ritter commented that many rural areas are getting huge grants and loans for installing
municipal water and it is an issue the IO might want to look into because there is going to be a
lot more development if it continues and what does that do to the lake. The sediment level is
incredible.
Ms. Hunter agreed. She said that Owasco Lake is in the process of reviewing and updating and
trying to advance updated Watershed Rules and Regulations which is something that water
purveyors are allowed to draft and adopt subject to State DOH review to help regulate their
watersheds. That is something we are also looking at in the beginning stages.
4. Discuss proposals for the Forest Home Walkway Project
A representative from Barton and Loguidice (B&L) was present.
Mr. Goodman gave an overview saying that this was discussed at the Public Works Facility
resulting from the RFP and subsequent interviews of those responding. The interview
committee suggested Barton & Loguidice.
Mr. Weber added that tonight is also to talk about the specific scope of the project because the
true costs of the study are going to be tied to how many options are reviewed. We have
identified three other than the default of
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 2
The community has identified that they would like to see something a little bit more and so the
question is do we want to expand the scope to more options; do we want to look at adding
additional meetings other than the public hearing for the board to get comments and the staff
meetings and PWC meeting. More options increase costs. More meetings increase costs.
designing.
Mr. Howe thought three options would be fine because we have identified meetings with the
adjacent land owners and the larger community.
Mr. Goodman said we might want to look at having some of the staff meetings be joint
meetings between staff and community rather than separate ones. He said we need to look at
the current path which goes onto Cornell land simply by usage and we need to figure out if we
the options.
Mr. Goodman said to him, the big question is how to hold the community meeting; separately
or at a Town Board or committee meeting?
Mr. DePaolo said we are not constructing an elaborate thing here, and because it is in Forest
Home, it is going to be subject to an unprecedented level of scrutiny anyway with a level of
involvement that creates, in his mind, a semi-adversarial tone and it is important that we
establish that input is important, but there is not veto power over the design. He thought the
Town has enough meetings and this item could be added to any one of those without scheduling
a separate meeting.
Mr. Goodman added that because of the slope, it is going to be fairly expensive and he is
talking about establishing a Park District to help pay for this by the people who use it.
The Board was in favor of proceeding with negotiations with B&L.
5. Update on Form Based Zoning
Mr. Ritter updated the Board saying that she has met seven or eight times with Building/Codes
staff to review the language and also met two or three times with the Public Works Department.
We captured all of their comments and went over them last Thursday with the Working Group
and we will be editing the document based on those comments.
The next action will be to meet with some of the property owners that are in those P&D zones
where we would like to apply this law. After that, we would be ready to go public with this and
get input from the public.
Mr. Goodman commented that the Working Group has been working on this for almost two
done by next year.
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 3
Ms. Ritter commented that this Form Based Code has been incorporated into the Maplewood and
Chainworks PDZs so we have been implementing the Comprehensive Plan in that way in that we
are requiring certain types of development now and this would be completing the larger intent.
Mr. Goodman added that after this passage the Group would start looking at Institutional zones
and the Inlet Valley area so a lot more zoning coming up.
6. Discuss and consider a Bond Resolution for the Winthrop Drive Watermain
Replacement Project
TB RESOLUTION 2019-061: BOND RESOLUTION - In the Matter of the Proposed
Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Replacement Water Improvement Area
Improvements, in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, pursuant to Town
Law and the Local Finance Law.
At a regular meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, held
at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, in Ithaca, New York, in said Town, on the 22nd day of
April, 2019, at 4:30 o'clock P.M., Prevailing Time.
The meeting was called to order by Bill Goodman, and upon roll being called, there were present:
Supervisor Bill Goodman; Council Rich DePaolo, Rod Howe, Tee-Ann Hunter, Patricia Leary,
and Eric Levine Absent: Pamela Bleiwas
Moved by Tee-Ann Hunter, seconded by Rich DePaolo
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $700,000 SERIAL
BONDS OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK, TO
PAY THE COST OF WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE TOWN OF
ITHACA WINTHROP DRIVE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT WATER
IMPROVEMENT AREA, IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY,
NEW YORK.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the proceedings heretofore duly had and taken in accordance with
the provisions of Article 12-C of the Town Law, and more particularly a resolution dated March
11, 2019, said Town Board has determined it to be in the public interest to establish the Town of
Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Replacement Water Improvement Area
make certain improvements therefore at a maximum estimated cost of $700,000; and
WHEREAS, said improvements have been determined to be an Unlisted Action pursuant to
the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, will not result in any significant
adverse environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to provide funding for such improvements for said Area;
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York, as follows:
Section 1. For the specific object or purpose of paying the cost of water system
improvements, for the Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Replacement Water
water main wi
border with the Village of Cayuga Heights, together with related ancillary facilities, as well as
other original equipment, machinery, apparatus, appurtenances, furnishings, incidental
improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $700,000
there are hereby authorized to be issued $700,000 serial bonds of said Town pursuant to the
provisions of the Local Finance Law.
Section 2. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of said specific object or
purpose is by the issuance of the $700,000 serial bonds of said Town authorized to be issued
therefore pursuant to this bond resolution.
Section 3. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid
specific object or purpose is forty years, pursuant to subdivision 1 of paragraph a of Section
11.00 of the Local Finance Law. It is hereby further determined that the maximum maturity of
the serial bonds herein authorized will exceed five years.
Section 4. The faith and credit of said Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, are
hereby irrevocably pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest on such bonds as the
same respectively become due and payable. There shall be annually apportioned and assessed
upon the several lots and parcels of land within said Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main
Water Improvement Area 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 said
bonds as the same become due, but if not paid from such source, all the taxable real property in
said Town shall be subject to the levy of ad valorem taxes without limitation as to rate or amount
sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on said bonds as the same shall become due.
Section 5. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize the
issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the
serial bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes, is hereby delegated to the
Supervisor, the chief fiscal officer. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents, and
shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by said Supervisor, consistent with the
provisions of the Local Finance Law.
Section 6. The powers and duties of advertising such bonds for sale, conducting the sale and
awarding the bonds, are hereby delegated to the Supervisor, who shall advertise such bonds for
sale, conduct the sale, and award the bonds in such manner as he or she shall deem best for the
interests of said Town, including, but not limited to the power to sell said bonds to the New York
State Environmental Facilities Corporation; provided, however, that in the exercise of these
delegated powers, he or she shall comply fully with the provisions of the Local Finance Law and
any order or rule of the State Comptroller applicable to the sale of municipal bonds. The receipt
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 5
of the Town shall be a full acquittance to the purchaser of such bonds, who shall not be obliged
to see to the application of the purchase money.
Section 7. All other matters, except as provided herein relating to such bonds, including
determining whether to issue such bonds having substantially level or declining annual debt
service and all matter related thereto, prescribing whether manual or facsimile signatures shall
appear on said bonds, prescribing the method for the recording of ownership of said bonds,
appointing the fiscal agent or agents for said bonds, providing for the printing and delivery of
said bonds (and if said bonds are to be executed in the name of the Town by the facsimile
signature of the Supervisor, providing for the manual countersignature of a fiscal agent or of a
designated official of the Town), the date, denominations, maturities and interest payment dates,
place or places of payment, and also including the consolidation with other issues, shall be
determined by the Supervisor. It is hereby determined that it is to the financial advantage of the
Town not to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial bonds any charges for
mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged by the fiscal agent, and
accordingly, pursuant to paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the Local Finance Law, no such charges
shall be so collected by the fiscal agent. Such bonds shall contain substantially the recital of
validity clause provided for in section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in
such form and contain such recitals in addition to those required by section 52.00 of the Local
Finance Law, as the Town shall determine.
Section 8. The Supervisor is hereby further authorized, at his or her sole discretion, to
execute an application, a project financing and/or loan agreement, and any other agreements with
the New York State Department of Health/or the New York State Environmental Facilities
Corporation, including amendments thereto, and including any instruments (or amendments
thereto) in the effectuation thereof, in order to effect the financing or refinancing of the specific
object or purpose described in Section 1 hereof, or a portion thereof, by a serial bond or note
issue of said Town in the event of the sale of same to the New York State Environmental
Facilities Corporation.
Section 9. The power to issue and sell notes to the New York State Environmental Facilities
Corporation pursuant to Section 169.00 of the Local Finance Law is hereby delegated to the
Town Supervisor. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents as may be prescribed by
said Town Supervisor consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law
Section 10. The intent of this resolution is to give the Supervisor sufficient authority to
execute those agreements, instruments or to do any similar acts necessary to effect the issuance
of the aforesaid serial bonds or notes without resorting to further action of this Town Board.
Section 11. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested only if:
1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said Town is not
authorized to expend money, or
2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this
resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 6
validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of such publication, or
3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution.
Section 12. This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for purposes of
Treasury Regulations Section 1.150 - 2. Other than as specified in this resolution, no monies are,
or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside
with respect to the permanent funding of the object or purpose described herein.
Section 13. This resolution which takes effect immediately shall be published in summary
form in the official newspaper, together with a notice of the Town Clerk in substantially the form
provided in Section 8l.00 of the Local Finance Law.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call,
which resulted as follows: Supervisor Bill Goodman, aye; Councilperson Rich DePaolo, aye;
Councilperson Rod Howe, aye; Councilperson Tee-Ann Hunter, aye; Councilperson Patricia
Leary, aye; Councilperson Eric Levine, aye
The resolution was thereupon declared duly adopted.
7. Discuss and consider award of the Winthrop Drive Watermain Replacement Project
TB Resolution 2019 - 062: Authorization to Award Contract for Construction of the Town
of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Replacement Water Improvement Project
Whereas on April 8, 2019, the Town of Ithaca Director of Public Works/Highway
Superintendent received bids for the Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Replacement
feet of existing ductile
connections and related ancillary facilities, and
Whereas the Director of Public Works has reviewed the bids and qualifications of the bidders
and has determined that the lowest responsive bid of $693,000.00 for the total project was made
by the lowest responsible bidder, Chicago Construction Co. Inc., 1788 Union Center Hwy.,
Endicott, NY 13760, and
Whereas at the March 11, 2019 Town Board meeting, the Town Board adopted a Public Interest
Order (Resolution No. 2019-033) authorizing the maximum amount of $700,000.00 be expended
by the Town of Ithaca for this Improvement, now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the award of the contract for the
Town of Ithaca Winthrop Drive Water Main Replacement Water Improvement project to
Chicago Construction Co. Inc., subject to final approval of the contract documents by the Town
Engineer and Attorney for the Town, and be it further
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 7
Resolved that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute such contract upon such approval;
and be it further
Resolved that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve change orders to such
contract upon receipt of appropriate justification provided that the maximum amount of such
change orders shall not in the aggregate exceed $7,000.00 without prior authorization of this
Board, and provided further that the total project cost, including the contract, engineering, legal
and other expenses does not exceed the maximum authorized cost of the project, and be it further
Resolved that the Town Finance Officer is directed and authorized to record all necessary and
appropriate budgetary and cash transactions and transfer $693,000.00 bid amount plus a $7,000
contingency to the construction account, for a total capital project fund budget of $700,000.00.
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: ayes Howe, DePaolo, Hunter, Goodman, Levine and Leary
8. Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding the proposed purchase of
property on Culver Rd for a preserve using Parks, Recreation and Open Space funds
Mr. Goodman explained that this is the parcel we bought from and subsequently got a grant for
and we need to hold a public hearing to expend the funds.
TB Resolution 2019 - 063: Setting a public hearing regarding the proposed purchase of
real property on Culver Rd for a preserve using Parks, Recreation and Open Space Funds
Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby sets a public hearing to be held at its
May 13, 2019 meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m. local time at 215 N. Tioga St, Ithaca regarding the
proposed purchase of real property on Culver Rd for a preserve using Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Funds. All persons interested in the proposed purchase will be heard at that time.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter
Vote: ayes DePaolo, Hunter, Levine, Leary, DePaolo and Goodman
9. Discuss the draft revisNoise
Mr. Goodman began the discussion by referring to the results of calls to trash and recycling
companies because the two issues he wants to discuss are garbage collection and authorization
for permits.
Mr. Goodman started with the garbage collection issue saying the Committee had suggested
changing the start time for commercial collection in residential areas from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.
The Committee had long discussions about this and eventually they were pretty much in favor of
making it a blanket time for commercial and residential zones beginning no earlier than 7:00
a.m. The Committee thought we should check in with the companies and Ms. Balestra made the
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 8
calls and there is a print out of those results here tonight. Mr. Goodman said he wanted to check
in with the Board about that change.
t
Ms. Hunter said she would let them go out at 6am due to traffic. Traffic starts to get bad at 7:30
earlier time.
y are contracted to do the recycling and as
he is going into work he is passing their trucks.
Ms. Ritter added that on Rte 89 they are out early and people trying to go around them and
busses trying to get around them at the later time would not be safe.
Mr. Bates said Pennsylvania Ave has lodged a lot of complaints about the early noise and
Casella changed their route in response to come later. He thought the 4:30-5:00 am start times
they sometimes do is not good.
he was in favor of having 6:00 a.m. and working
with the companies regarding the few localized areas that have complained.
The discussion turned to the current law which calls out specific types of trucks and the Board
seemed to be in favor of removing those and making it 6:00 a.m. for all types in all zones.
Mr. Goodman turned to the next question which was the Authorization for Permits, Article 3.
where the applicant demonstrates that the waiver is necessary for a valid purpose, that the
proposed waiver is the minimal intrusion needed, that on balance the need for and benefits of the
waiver outweigh the needs and rights of the surrounding neighbors to a peaceable and quiet
purpose.
The thought of the COC was to take out the first sentence and leave the second sentence that
details the factors that would be considered and he wanted to check with the full Board before
finalizing the draft.
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 9
does lay out some criteria.
Ms. Hunter thought that as it is currently written it is similar to getting a variance by having a bit
of a test and
at were also subjective.
There is no criteria for level of noise or proximity to sleeping or time of day etc.
e also.
Ms. Leary said they were trying to make it less subjective by suggesting some standards but not
make it so narrow that it ties your hands. We were trying to find some more reasoning to apply
the second sentence suggests what the
valid purpose would be.
Mr. Goodman thought the second sentence was to get into more items to consider and it is up to
each board member to decide how to weigh each but removed the valid and also the minimal
intrusion because how do you determine that? Saying that the waivers can only be granted if the
applicant met all of those items was to restrictive but by listing the different factors that the
board would consider gives a better indication of what criteria we can use.
Mr. DePaolo thought a reference to 184-5 which already lists the criteria
know why they were reiterated here. It is the same criteria cleanly stated as what to use to
determine unreasonable noise.
Mr. Goodman said the Committee thought that it would be helpful to those just looking at the
permit process.
Mr. DePaolo said the list in 184-5 is more exhaustive than the criteria in the permit section so
you may want to put in a reference to that section so you are not making the provisions weaker.
Mr. DePaolo said the permit section is saying that you may be allowed to create unreasonable
noise under some circumstances if the benefit outweighs the rights of the residents, etc. That is
why the permit exists; we are going to allow you to make what would otherwise be considered
unreasonable noise, provided that you can show there is a need to do so that outweighs the needs
allowing you to make it.
nd he is fine either
way.
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 10
sentence.
something like where the applicant
sure the balancing test was needed, it could be finished with a period.
umstances where the applicant
why someone wants the waiver? Such as they are getting married in their backyard, they are
having a band at the restaurant on a given day, etc.
Mr. DePaolo said that is all on the application.
Ms. Hunter thought it should be stated in the law but Mr. Goodman says they have to tell us in
pose
are getting it because you want to do this XXX. She thought we should
demonstrates that the proposed waiver is the minimal intrusion needed; that on balance the need
ence lists the criteria the Town
restrictive.
Mr. Bates said his notes removed the first sentence and left the balancing of the criteria.
Mr. Goodman tr
granted in those circumstances where the applicant demonstrates that on balance the need for and
e next
sentence gives us the factors that the Board uses to determine that balance.
Mr. DePaolo asked for the reference to section 184-5 and Mr. Bates said the COC eliminated the
pter would create
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 11
everything to get the waiver, because that is what everyone has been hanging their hat on; that
you have to prove a hardship instead of doing it as a balancing act. That would allow the Board
to say this is what is making the unreasonable noise, but this is what we are going to use to
decide if you can have the unreasonable noise. This was supposed to allow the Board to say you
The Board agreed.
10. Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding a proposed a local law
amending the yard and principal building requirements for publicly owned properties
and private institutions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code
Mr. Goodman explained that this was brought to light due to the North Campus Residential
Expansion project where the building is going to cross municipal lines so there will not be
setbacks from the property lines and technically that is not allowed.
Codes and Ordinances discussed this and it is a minor change that was actually in place back in
got left off in a subsequent iteration.
Some discussion followed and this really applies to educational properties given that they apply
to very limited situations such as the hospital and the colleges where there are multiple buildings
on large parcels of 6+ acres in size. This accommodates what educational institutes generally do.
Ms. Ritter added that is was interesting that Mr. Mosely, who is relatively new, came across this
Some discussion followed and the Board was comfortable moving forward, especially given the
anticipated rezoning coming up where the intent is to make Educational/Institutional zones.
density
Ms. Ritter added that Cornell seems to be very hesitant to come in for height variances because
of that and will instead build out instead of up and she hopes the new zoning will address that
also.
TB Resolution 2019 - 064: Setting a public hearing regarding a proposed local law
amending the yard and principal building requirements for publicly owned properties and
private institutions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 12
Whereas the Codes and Ordinances discussed the proposed change at its April 10, 2019 meeting
and recommended same to the Town Board, now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby sets a public hearing to be held at its
May 13, 2019 meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m. local time at 215 N. Tioga St, Ithaca regarding a
proposed local law amending the yard and principal building requirements for publicly owned
properties and private institutions in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code. All
persons interested in the proposed local law will be heard at that time.
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter
Vote: ayes Howe, Hunter, Goodman, Levine, Leary and DePaolo
11. Committee Reports
a. Planning Mr. DePaolo reported that they began looking at the finding statement for
Chainworks PDZ. The City has adopted a Finding Statement that the Town has used as
a framework and they got about half way through. As an involved agency, the Town has
to adopt a Statement of Findings to pave the way for consideration of the zoning change.
Mr. DePaolo noted that the amended record of decision or ROD by the DEC remains to
be seen so a lot of the circumstances that are being discussed in the Statement are
contingent on what the DEC requires so his personal preference would be to see that
document to make more accurate findings.
b. Public Works Mr. Howe reported that they discussed the Forest Home Walkway
RFPs as discussed earlier and about the guardrail and gave feedback to PW about what
we wanted to explore more fully in terms of determining what to do. Also started to
look at the capital improvement projects or CIP and fleet discussions for the next few
years.
Mr. Weber added that there was a quick presentation on the Bundy Rd project and we
have received minimal comments back from DOT so we are planning on advertising that
this week with a bid opening and award end of May which might require a special
meeting because there is not study session in May. He added that we will be using the
variable message board as discussed to identify to the users that the road will be closed
during construction except for emergency vehicles.
c. Budget Mr. Levine reported that they touched on the idea of Park Districts but Mr.
Franklin from TC Assessment was scheduled to be there but was out sick so that was
postponed.
Talked about the proposed budget amendment to pay some compensatory overtime for
some civil engineers because they have earned comp time but the department is to busy
to allow that time to be taken in the foreseeable future.
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 13
Also briefly discussed the voluntary payments we make every year and the consensus
was we would not seek to change anything
Also discussed the CD investments recently authorized.
d. P&O and Employee Relations Mr. Goodman reported for Ms. Bleiwas saying they
time he has received an email saying they are interested in signing a lease with us but
they are trying to figure out alternate parking.
Also started talking about future staffing needs as we do each year in preparation for
budget discussions.
e. Code & Ordinances (COC) Noise law discussed above
f. Short Term Rentals (STR) Mr. Goodman reported on the interactive meeting with
Renwick Heights people and hosts. Mr. DePaolo said the main points were possibilities
for waivers for those people in certain zones that have extenuating circumstances that
one person had 10 acres in MDR with a highway in front and cows on one side where no
one is being affected except him if he is limited.
Mr. Goodman added that he was surprised at how many days some are hosting andhe
gave another example which was Hayts Chapel where there is no one around and another
gentleman that has his house he lives in and the house next door he rents.
residence, there would be greater oversight with him living next door.
Mr. Goodman said that there were hosts who wanted more days and Renwick Heights
who wanted less and maybe there is a way to structure it where those that do not affect
others can do more days.
Ms. Leary said the Renwick Heights group talked a lot about an overlay zone for them
and others talked a lot about the 3-month gap that is common in this area due to students
who rent 9-months. She thought that was reasonable and protected the long-term rental
stock.
Ms. Hunter said the State is also looking at regulations, but we have two neighborhoods
that seem to be especially affected ure how to take care of both sides. She
said there were people there that it was clear this was a relied upon source of income and
that they have relied upon. That said, she wants to help the two areas that are
experiencing issues.
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 14
Mr. DePaolo added that there was one person who suggested that a variance process
involve asking the neighbors and if there are no complaints from them, you could get a
variance.
alk about
which direction to go.
g. Other Ms. Ritter reported that the Planning Board was considering Site Plan
Approval for the NCRE subsequent to SEQR and there were a number of people from
Forest Home come in and they thought there would be a lot of pedestrians walking
Mr. Ritter said the Planning Board addressed two conditions to the Town Board:
That the Town, County and Cornell explore adding a pedestrian walkway and bicycle
climbing lane on Pleasant Grove Rd hill between Forest Home downstream bridge
and the project.
The other was the mitigation in the plan to realign Craddit Farm Rd to move traffic
towards Craddit Farm rather than Forest Home, the residents think the traffic calming
feature should be relocated somewhere on Pleasant Grove Rd.
Some discussion followed and the Board will keep the comments in mind.
Forest Home Drive
Ms. Hunter asked what happened to the idea of closing Forest Home Dr and having
Cornell take it over if they wanted it open.
Mr. Weber responded that he had forgotten hat it was Mr. Engman that had removed this
particular CIP project from consideration because of the cost and he did not feel it was
appropriate for the Town to be spending and investing this kind of money in what is
basically a driveway for Cornell. Once we get past Judd Falls Rd., there are no Town of
Ithaca residents that access their properties off of Forest Home Drive. That is why it was
in the budget in the CIP and then it disappeared. We have put it back in and we had a
little of this conversation with the PWC, but it was after that meeting that he remembered
this was off at Mr. Eng
We do have to put a guiderail up, but this is only a bandaid on a bigger issue and the
question is, how far does the Board really want to take this work.
Mr. Goodman responded that PWC started looking at the CIP and when the Budget
should spend that much money on that road. We can get some estimates, but we agreed
in the past that we spend $850K a year on road work and this would blow two years of
that budget just on that stretch of road, which as Jim says, primarily serves Cornell
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 15
not take it over but they would contribute money to have it fixed. Cornell might think
that much money and, in his mind, that discussion is very much still an open question.
12. Consent Agenda
TB Resolution 2019 - 065: Adopt Consent Agenda
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the
following Consent Agenda items:
a. Town Board Minutes
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter
Vote: Ayes DePaolo, Hunter, Leary, Goodman, Levine and Howe
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: ayes Howe, DePaolo, Hunter, Leary, Goodman and Levine
TB Resolution 2019-065a: Approval of Minutes of April 8, 2019
Whereas, the draft Minutes of the April 8, 2019 meeting of the Town Board have been submitted
for review and approval, now therefore be it
Resolved, that the Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes, with changes, as the
final minutes of the meeting on April 8, 2019 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca.
TB Resolution 2019 -065b: Town of Ithaca Abstract No. 8 for FY-2019
Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for
approval of payment; and
Whereas said vouchers have been audited for payment by the Town Board; now therefore be it
Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in
total for the amounts indicated.
VOUCHER NOS. 452 526
General Fund Town Wide 125,118.95
General Fund Part-Town 9,569.98
Highway Fund Town Wide DA 2,417.49
Highway Fund Part Town DB 40,323.14
Water Fund 24,697.58
Sewer Fund 275,474.91
TBS 2019-04-22 Pg. 16
Attachment1
TBMinutes04-22-2019
Attachment2TBMinutes04-22-2019
Attachment3
TBMinutes04-22-2019
Explanation of Cayuga Lake Watershed-Wide Water Quality Projects Overview
Purpose of project (‘services performed’)and project summary: This is a summary of the water quality projects
overview undertaken by the contractor to create ‘a catalogue of current and recently completed water-quality-
related projects undertaken by municipalities and county agencies… by communicating with officials.’
At the inception of the contract, a survey was created to jumpstart conversations with government leaders in
order to gather project-specific data to help identify potential grant-eligible water quality projects. Besides
creating the contractually-specified watershed-wide ‘snapshot’ of water quality-related projects, this data
collection process has promoted relationships that foster regional planning perspectives, and encourage
participation with the Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization (IO).
Because not all requested survey responses and related data have been received, this overview should be seen
as a snapshot catalogue that can be shared and updated as data become available.
The survey: The survey used to collect water quality project data was developed in consultation with Tee Ann
Hunter, the IO-chair, and three recommended IO members. It was then reviewed and ‘tested’ with local officials
before going ‘live.’ The question set was intended to ease government leaders into a general conversation about
water quality issues before asking them for project-specific details. The survey outlined general parameters by
identifying water quality ‘categories,’ before requesting specific information about their projects. One question
asked for a staff referral (see the survey for town officials and survey for county officials, below).
Method of data collection: Surveys were emailed to all municipal, county department, and Soil & Water District
heads based on an initial contact list provided by and in subsequent consultation with the IO Chair. Emails were
followed by direct phone contact. Many of the surveys were conducted by telephone. Often, conversations led
to staff referrals which required another round of contacts. A series of follow-up conversations and emails with
staff and officials led to the submission of project information via Google Form, Excel, and/or email. Otherwise,
verbal interviews were transcribed into Excel spreadsheets. All project-specific data was compiled into three
Excel spreadsheet ‘catalogues’ with uniform formats (see Cayuga Lake Watershed-Wide Water Quality Projects
Overview tabs: 1. Towns, Villages, City; 2. County Planning, Health, Water; 3. Soil & Water Districts).
Participation: Relationship-building was critical to achieving survey participation. This intangible benefit could
be useful in the continuation of this cataloguing process and to growing IO membership and related
collaborative efforts. For each of the 57 entities that were approached by email and/or phone, at least two
persons were contacted on average, with multiple attempts needed to garner actual contact and response.
Thorough notes were made regarding contacts established in order to understand the chain-of-command and
decision-making structure around water quality work within each entity in order to retrieve the needed data.
In addition to the towns, villages, and City (Ithaca) in the watershed who were contacted (Figure 1-2), Cayuga,
Cortland, Schuyler, Seneca, and Tompkins County Soil & Water Districts; Cayuga, Seneca, and Tompkins County
Planning Department staff; watershed-relevant Cayuga, Schuyler, and Seneca County Public Health and Water
and Sewer Authority officials; the Seneca County Board of Supervisors Agriculture and Environmental Affairs
Committee Chair; and the Finger Lakes Institute Director were interviewed and/or submitted their past and
current water-quality projects data. There was a 95% response rate for all the county departments and
municipalities approached and a 80% rate for submission of project data. A few participants who did not submit
data felt they did not have water projects to report at the time - possibly based on their lack of understanding of
what was meant by ‘water quality projects’ for the purposes of this initiative. Perhaps they would participate
after seeing the submissions of their peers.
Explanation of project status & gaps in data: Despite the high participation rate, this report should by no means
be seen as complete. It is being delivered as preliminary for the purposes of creating an initial ‘snapshot’
overview for the IO as described by the Chair. This data set should be seen as evolving, informal, and incomplete
until, 1), project information in the draft catalogue overview is carefully reviewed and ‘approved’ by all
participants, which was not possible given the time constraints of the contract, and, 2) water quality projects are
more narrowly defined in advance of final submissions.
Any existing data gaps represent information not received from or given by the survey participants after
repeated efforts to solicit it within the time constraints of the project. No assumptions can be made about any
missing data fields other than the fact that no data was submitted nor received for that field. The high
participation rate made it somewhat more difficult to receive all requested pieces of data within the
approximated timeframe for this contract and given that survey participation was strictly voluntary.
The approximate timeline for the independent contractor to complete this project was estimated as three
months. Including the two weeks of survey development / approval and two weeks of Christmas time vacation,
175+ hours have been dedicated over approximately 15 weeks averaging over 10 hours of work per week in
order to accumulate the 275 project entries presented in the 3 spreadsheets. In addition, a PowerPoint and
th
presentation about the project were offered in person by the contractor on February 27, 2019. There were
several subsequent conversations and meetings with the project supervisor (IO Chair), and revisions were made
following three rounds of emails and phone outreach to the government survey participants, seeking review and
final approvals of their submissions to the catalogue.
Value of initial stage of data collection / overall observations: Informal conversations with local leaders and
staff yielded insight into how water quality issues are perceived and prioritized. The catalogue entries aim to
reflect how each government leader and their staff view their own water quality work. The overview highlights
many approaches to managing water issues, and underscores the nexuses between staff capacity, resources,
and outcomes throughout the watershed. Project submissions were often gained through conversations that
struggled to identify the lines between distinct ‘projects’ and the day-to-day roles and responsibilities of
governments, such as managing compliance and regular operations associated with water-related public works,
and including emergency flood and hazard planning and management.
Additional potential future deliverables include a draft government ‘wish list’ (based on responses to the survey
question, ‘Are there water-related projects you would undertake if you had funding or other assistance?’) as
well as an updated watershed-wide contact list and descriptions of each listed entity, among others.
2
Dear \[town official\],
I am contacting you on behalf of The Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization (IO) to gather information
about current and recently completed water quality projects*. This information will give the IO a snapshot of what’s
going on across the watershed to help them target outreach with municipalities, as a part of their contract for the
New York State Department of State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) grant. The goal is to get your
input to help prioritize the IO’s next steps concerning health of the lake, and to assist local governments in the
watershed with the planning and funding of identified projects.
The below questionnaire can be completed online, in-person, or by telephone. I will reach out to you shortly by
telephone to find out your preferences for completing the survey within the next two weeks, if possible, as follows:
: roads, ditches, and other infrastructure; drinking water;
*(Some key categories concerning water quality
wastewater; health issues; streams and wetland issues; development and land use issues; agricultural activities;
boating, fishing and swimming/ recreational water uses; safety, fees, and public access issues). Also consider projects
in the above categories in terms of sediment, erosion, nutrients (e.g. phosphorus and nitrogen) and contaminants.
1) Are there problem areas concerning water and its uses in your town?
2). Do you have a list of priorities for work that needs to be accomplished concerning water quality? Are water quality
projects part of ongoing discussion and capital project planning in your community?
3). Are there others within your staff or community who I should contact for further information on water quality
projects recently completed or being planned?
4). Are there water-related projects you would undertake if you had funding or other assistance?
5). Please use this link to note your current, planned and recently completed water quality projects, including
description, cost, funding source(s), partners, timelines, and objectives. (Fill in one (1) form per project.)
Thank you so much for taking the time to complete this survey. For an in-person or phone meeting to replace this
online survey, please contact me, at 607-269-5104 or jenkarius@gmail.com, and/or let me know the best staff person
to reach out to.
In early 2019, you will receive an overview report of all the water quality projects happening throughout the Cayuga
Lake watershed. You will be invited to an IO presentation of the report around that time.
For more information about the Intermunicipal Organization and participating in meetings, contact Chair Tee-Ann
Hunter, Town of Ithaca, at tdh12344@hotmail.com.
With appreciation,
Jennifer Karius
Independent Contractor for
Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization
607-269-5104/ jenkarius@gmail.com
3
Dear \[county official\],
I am contacting you on behalf of The Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization (IO) to gather information
about current and recently completed water quality projects. This information will give the IO a snapshot of what’s
going on across the watershed to help them target outreach with municipalities, as a part of their contract for the
New York State Department of State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) grant. The goal is to get your
input to help prioritize the IO’s next steps concerning lake health, and to assist local governments in the watershed
with the planning and funding of identified projects.
The below questionnaire can be completed online, in-person, or by telephone. I will reach out to you shortly by
telephone to find out your preferences for completing the survey within the next two weeks, if possible, as follows.
*(Some key categories concerning water quality: infrastructure; drinking water; wastewater; health issues; streams
and wetland issues; development and land use issues; agricultural activities; boating, fishing and swimming/
recreational water uses; safety, fees, and public access issues). Also consider projects in the above categories in terms
of sediment, erosion, nutrients (e.g. phosphorus and nitrogen), and contaminants.
1). What are the recently completed (in the last 3-5 years) and currently planned water quality projects in your
county? (Please enter projects using the Google form link in #7.)
2). To what degree have flooding and storm water run-off been an issue in your county? What are the challenges and
how have you addressed them?
3). What are your water-related projects being planned for the future? * (Please use Google form link in #7.)
4). Do you have a list of priorities for the work that needs to be accomplished? Are water quality projects part of
ongoing discussion and capital project planning in your community?
5). Are there others within your staff or community who I should contact for further information on water quality
projects?
6). Are there water quality projects you would undertake if you had funding or other assistance?
7). Please use this link to note your current, planned and recently completed water quality projects, including
description, cost, partners, funding sources, timelines, and objectives. (Fill in one (1) form per project
Thank you so much for taking the time to complete this survey. For an in-person or phone meeting to replace this
online survey, please contact me, at 607-269-5104 or jenkarius@gmail.com, and/or let me know the best staff person
to reach out to.
In early 2019, you will receive an overview report of all the water quality projects happening throughout the Cayuga
Lake watershed. You will be invited to an IO presentation of the report around that time.
For more information about the Intermunicipal Organization and participating in meetings, contact Chair Tee-Ann
Hunter, Town of Ithaca, at tdh12344@hotmail.com.
4
5