HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Correspondence 2017TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
February 10, 2017
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
1. Letters and emails from people who oppose extending the south hill
rec way
2. Letter from Jesse Veverka, documentary filmmaker, who wants to
make a film about the rec way controversy
3. Letter from TC Assessment reminding the board to set up the Local
Advisory Board of Assessment Review
v
5.
39
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
February 24, 2017
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
1. Moody's Annual Comment on Town of Ithaca
2. Petition for Waiver to allow accessory apartment at 403 Coddington
Road
3. Dog report
4.
5.
6.
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
March 31, 2017
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
1. Email from residents regarding short-term rentals
0A
3. SPCA Reports
5.
A
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
May 8, 2017
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
1. Notice of dangerous road conditions: Grandview
2. Letter from Andrew Kallock, Air BnB
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
May 19, 2017
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
1. Letter from Martha Pollack, Cornell, re community -focused
inauguration event
2. Letter of agreement from SHPO re Biggs Cottage
3. Letter to David Stotz re Westview Ln neighborhood ditches
4. Letter from Unified Court re audit of court records
5. SPCA monthly report
1
7. TSSERR Workshop
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
Date Here
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
1. Letter/Petition to reinstate Burtt Rd
2.
3.
5.
A
Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
June 23, 2017
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
1. Letter to Planning Board from Dennis Foerster re ground -based solar
panels
2.
3. SPCA report
5.
A
Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
June 23, 2017
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
1. Letter to Bill from Dylan Watros, Pensylvania Ave, regarding getting a
building permit for his residence
2. Letter to Patrick Doty regarding the decision not to accept Burtt Road
as a town road
3. Letter to Dennis Foerster regarding his concerns about the town solar
law
4. Email from Kyllikki Inman re opposition to Deer Management plan
5. Family & Children's 2016 Annual Report
Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
July 21, 2017
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
1. FOIL request from Lansing resident re Deer Management
2. TC DOA new real property Alternative Veterans Exemption
3. EDR Maplewood vs TC Assessment and Town of Ithaca for review of
tax assessment
4. Sciarabba Walker report: Town of Ithaca Agreed Upon Procedures,
year ended 12/31 /2016
5. Letter from Jay Franklin offering printed copy of 2017 Final
Assessment Roll
Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
September 8, 2017
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
1. Letter from Steve Penningroth, CSI, requesting funding
2. Letter from town clerk to Irene Stein re proper use of board room for
public meetings
3. Letter from Janelle Alvstad-Mattson re repaving side streets with
gravel, injuries resulting from
4. SPCA dog seizure reports
Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
September 29, 2017
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
1. Petition to lower speed limit on Culver Rd - continued
2. Letter from Kathleen Burgess, NY PSC re Petition of NYSEG for
natural gas compressor pilot project in TC
3. Notice of public hearing for Ithaca College to get a tax-exempt
revenue bond to buy property and build housing
4. SPCA report
5. 2016 Youth Development Survey
A
Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
October 27, 2017
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
1. Email from Melanie Stein re funding for the Gorge Rangers
1 2. Letter of resignation, William Highland, as the ZBA alternate
3. Sewer rent rate adjustment, Village of Cayuga Heights
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
Date Here
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
From: Janelle Alvstad-Mattson [ma I Ito: Ja nel learn0amailgonil
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:52 AM
To: Laura Pastore; Paulette Terwilliger
Subject: Better signage on Snyder Hill Road?
Hello, I live at 214 Snyder Hill Road. I've talked to the Town of Ithaca a bit about this in the past, but I feel like
it needs to get addressed again. Would it be at all possible to get some better signage on Snyder Hill Road near
Dove Drive and SkyVue?
This is the only stretch of SHR that still has barely a shoulder. There are pedestrians who need to walk on this
stretch in order to get to parks and trails nearby. On top of that, it's a steel) part of the hill and cars are coming
into town are coming from a less densely populated area of SHR, so despite the few signs that show the 40mph
speed limit, many of the cars are going 55 or faster.
Next year the park on Dove Drive is getting a new playground. This will only increase pedestrian traffic on and
across Snyder Hill Road in this area. I feel a crosswalk at Dove and Skyvue and/or pedestrian signs could
greatly reduce risk for these pedestrians. It would be a visual indicator for cars to reduce speed and/or increase
awareness. Please consider this, for our children's safety and our own.
I'm including below the lament I put on Facebook this morning regarding this matter. This is a daily struggle for
our family. I've reduced myself to making my own "SLOW DO"" signs to post around our driveway so
people won't drive so fast as my children wait for the bus (the bus that stops in front of our house only because
of my constant battle with the ICSD bus garage that continues to make our official bus stop at the corner of
SHR and Dove).
Janelle Alvstad-Mattson
214 Snyder Hill Road
Ithaca
Janelle Alvstad-Maftson
2hna
Every day I take my dog for a walk. In order to do this, I need to walk a block on a section of 40 mph suburban road
with OOsidewalk and very little shoulder. Nearly every day cars drive by me on this stretch going between 40 and 55
miles an hour. Of these cars approximately 70% of them do not move over even slightly despite the fact that nothing
iocoming inthe opposite direction. WHY?????? Is it that difficult for you to pull your car slightly toward the middle of
the road in order to ensure the safety and comfort of pedestrians? Does veering left for 5 seconds inconvenience
you that much? | just don't get it.
Jamelle Here's apbcfmyshoulder:
Paulette Terwilliger""",
From: ]eneUeAlvstad-k4attsonganeUeam@gmai|zom>
Sent: Thursday, January I9'20I7I:3gPW
To: Paulette Terwilliger
Subject: Re: Better signage on Snyder Hill Road?
Ms. Terwilliger,
lhave one more thing tosubmit inregard tothe matter. Mnfriend who lives a1}71 Snyder Hill Road
just
commented in response tonzyFaoebookpost. Thank you.
Antonia Jameson Jordan I live very close to Janelle -- less than 1/4 mile on the same road. This is a picture of my driveway on
January 10. Do you think the car on the left was going 40 mph? Granted, it was an icy night, but I am haunted by the thought that
mmcould have been outside with our dog.
Unlike 8mina
Antonia Jameson Jordan P.S. I pull away from the side, and I slow down a lot. But I also avoid walking on our road and on Ellis
Hollow Road.
Un|iKe-Reply 1 7' minm
Piz`
Antonia Jameson Jordan P.P.S. In the past 20 years, two pedestrians have been hit by cars in front of our house. Both were hit
and runs.
()nThu, Jan lV, 7Ul7 at 1:35 9M ]auc{}c wrote:
Thank you
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Paulette Terwilliger <P'I'erwiflig!��ltown..ith.aca.rlyus-> wrote:
Thank you Ms. Alvstad-Mattson, I have cc'd the Town Board and this will go in the correspondence folder for their
review and comment.
Paulette Terwilliger
Tompkins County
Industrial Development Agency
Administration provided byATCAD
January 19,2017
Bill Goodman
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca NY 14850
Re: Off -Site Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Policy
Dear Mr. Goodman,
The Tompkins County IDA is contemplating the adoption of an Off -Site Commercial Solar
Photovoltaic Policy. The policy is enclosed for your review.
The TCIDA Board respectfully requests comments by February 8, 2017 for discussion at the
next regularly scheduled IDA Board meeting on February 9, 2017. Comments may be mailed
to the IDA Board at the address below or emailed to me at: heatherm@tcad.org
I will also be presenting the proposed policy at the Tompkins County Council of Governments
meeting on February 23, 2017 at 4:00prn if anyone is interested in participating in the
discussion.
Sincerely,
Heather D. McDaniel
Administrative Director
Encl: Off -Site Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Policy
401 E MLK Street Suite 402B, Ithaca, New York 14850 - phone: (607) 273-0005 - fax: (607) 273-8964
Tompkins County
Industrial Development Agen
Off -Site Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Policy
Draft - December 28, 2016
Purpose
The Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency (IDA) wishes to adopt an off -site commercial
solar photovoltaic policy to encourage solar development for the following purposes:
I . Support New York State's "Reforming the Energy Vision" Initiative, which is intended to encourage
renewable energy development that will spur economic growth and develop new energy business
models. The initiative sets statewide goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 and
generating 50% of New York's electricity from renewables by 2030.
2. Support Tompkins County's energy and greenhouse gas emissions policy to "meet community needs
without contributing additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere." The policy includes goals to:
- Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach a minimum 80 percent reduction from 2008 levels by
2050 and reduce reliance on fossil fuels across all sectors.
- Increase the use of local and regional renewable energy sources and technologies.
3. Support consumer choice for renewable energy generation.
4. Administer a single countywide uniform tax exemption policy allowing municipalities to collect
long-term predictable payments in lieu of taxes without the burden of developing and administering
PILOT agreements at the municipal level.
5. Assist project developers by offering a single countywide tax exemption policy, eliminating the need
to negotiate PILOTS with multiple taxing jurisdictions.
6. To enhance developers' prospects for financing community distributed generation projects by
offering a uniform PILOT structure that is simple, predictable, and more appealing to lenders.
Policy
This policy provides incentives for off -site solar projects that provide renewable energy benefits to
residential and commercial customers. Eligible projects commercial scale projects, generally two
megawatts or less, as outlined in state law. Types of eligible projects include:
• Community distributed solar /shared solar
• Off -site generation projects that have a wholesale power purchase agreement with one or
I I -all K4 _M�
To respect variations in local municipal policy, each project application must include a letter from the
host municipality endorsing the proposed payment in lieu of tax agreement with the IDA. It is strongly
encouraged that applicants provide a preference or pre -offering to Tompkins County residents.
The following standard incentives will be offered:
Property Tax: Real estate taxes on the increased value resulting from improvements are
partially abated over a twenty (20) year period. The annual payment in lieu
of taxes (PILOT) is,$8,000 per megawatt (MW) of the facility's nameplate
capacity, with a 2% increase each year.
Tompkins County
Industrial Development Agency
Sales Tax: Exemption from State and local sales tax on project costs outlined in the
IDA Policies and Procedures.
Mortgage Recording Tax: Exemption from the State share of the mortgage recording tax as outlined in
the IDA policies and Procedures.
Fees
The applicant is responsible for paying the IDA Administrative Fee at the time of closing. The fee will
be equal to .50% of the total value of expenses that are positively impacted by IDA incentives. The
applicant is also responsible for paying the IDA for all legal costs it incurs including IDA Counsel.
Other
Unless specifically outlined in this policy, the applicant will be responsible for complying with all other
rules and regulations as set forth in the IDA's Policies and Procedures.
Policy approved:
Paulette Terwilliger
From: Mary Beth O'Connor <moconnor@ithaca.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:40 AM
To: supervisor@townofcaroline.org; cal-snow@townofcaroline.org;
Irene-Weiser@townofcaroline.org; gary-reinbolt@townofcaroline.org;
john-fracchia@townofcaroline.org
Cc: clerk@townofcaroline.org; supervisor@dryden.ny.us; townclerk@dryden.ny.us;
supervisor@townofdanbyny.org; towncierk@townofdanbyny.org; Bill Goodman;
Paulette Terwilliger
Subject: Proposed Trail
Hello Everyone,
I originally wrote this to send to a list serve I'm on, where the commentary has been utterly dismissive
of anyone not supportive of the proposed trail. More after the italicized part.
1just want to say that I think its important to recognize that many people have legitimate concerns
about the proposed extension of the recreation way. For several property owners, the proposed trail
would run right through their land —through their orchards, their farms, their yards. I ask you to
consider how you would feel if a group of people wanted to establish a trail through your backyard.
It's not a matter of blowing out of proportion the possible dangers of "mother rapers" or a kind of
blindness to the proposed benefits of such a trail to the public. But from what I've read on this list
serve and others, proponents of the trail seem to have established an "us versus them" mentality.•
property owners who do not want a paved public trail running through their land must be somehow
selfish or evil —or simply bad tempered.
I'm a cross country skier, and a hiker, and a cyclist. Would it be nice to have a way to travel between
Brooktondale and Ithaca that's not on route 79 or Coddington Road? Sure —if that doesn't interfere
with anyone's property rights or desire to have their surroundings remain private and rural. But in this
case, the proposed trail does interfere with those rights and desires.
I moved to Brooktondale, purchased acreage and an old farmhouse precisely because I wanted to
live in the country in the relative peace and quiet. Should this trail be built, it would empty out directly
across from our home. Suddenly there would be trail heads, parking lots, and lots of people. Should
the trail be extended further than Middaugh Road (which, I'm pretty certain is the larger plan), it would
go right through our side yard, very near to our house. The last time this trail was proposed, someone
tried to convince me that a wall could be built to shield us from the traffic! Right through our garden!
(and then on through the field in which our solar panels are set up).
In a recent post, skiers' respect for property owners was clear when a contributor to the list
encountered a man over in the Yellow Barn area, I believe it was, who told the skier that he was
trespassing, or about to. The skier had been unaware of this and proceeded to find another way to ski
without trespassing. I think this kind of neighborly respect is important.
I hope that you all who support the trail can understand why I —and many others— don't want this
project to go forward.
Thanks for listening.
I would just add that I find it somewhat amazing that people who don't live along the proposed trail
would ridicule the concerns of those who do, not to mention going ahead and trespassing in the mean
time (E.g., on the Hilker property). What does private property mean if something property owners
don't want is forced upon us? Proponents of the trail —especially the more self-righteous of them —
seem to think that the proposed route runs through —somehow —public land. It is not public land. It is
owned by those of us who purchased it. I think this needs to be clarified immediately.
A final note: my spouse and I have not received any correspondence regarding the proposed trail
from our town supervisor, who said in the last Brooktondale" newsletter that he has been in touch with
concerned property owners.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
A 0 oil 9
.16
10,01"6600, IN, I
I IM
=0 a .5A 0=1 0 M. rM 0 VA EA 13
January 25, 2017
My name is Clarene Stephens. I am writing to you regarding the Coddington Trail. I am
opposed to this trail as I was in 2008. 1 bought my home in 1993. We chose to live here because
we wanted a special, natural, private space to enjoy together. It has always been my belief that
being a homeowner gave me the right to my personal space. Over the years my husband and I
have done improvements to create a sanctuary for our now retirement years.
I have experienced people wandering in my yard because they wanted to see my gardens; dogs
unleashed pooping in my yard and people parking in my yard right after I mowed it so they
could walk the trail as it is now. We also have had a burglary and attempts. I strongly believe
by making this trail bigger it will compromise our personal space as well as our safety.
I can understand people being in favor of this trail, but I would imagine it would not interfere
with their privacy or safety as it does ours.
Thank you for your consideration,
Clarene Stephens
Paulette Terwilliger
From: Mark Witmer <supervisor@townofcaroline.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 9:50 AM
To: Mary Beth O'Connor; Cal Snow; Irene Weiser; Gary Reinbolt; John Fracchia
Cc: Marilou Harrington; supervisor@dryden.ny.us; townclerk@dryden.ny.us;
supervisor@townofdanbyny.org; towncierk@townofdanbyny.org; Bill Goodman;
Paulette Terwilliger
Subject: Re: Proposed Trail
Hello Mary Beth,
Thanks for sharing your perspective on the proposed trail extension and our process. My process - and what I
wrote in the Old Mill - is that I have reached out to neighbors adjoining the rail bed property along the proposed
Caroline extension to provide information and notice of meetings, and to discuss the proposal. As your property
is not adjacent to the proposed trail extension, you were not on my list. But I am happy to add you in and will
do that. I also want to emphasize that I have contacted neighbors to the trail property in advance of town
meetings and public events about the proposed project, whether by mail, phone, or on foot.
We have heard your (and others') concerns and the Caroline Town Board is evaluating information in order to
inform their thinking about this proposal. Our challenge as a town board is to weigh the costs and
benefits that would come with the trail extension, and to work to gain an objective understanding of
the potential impacts and how they might be mitigated should the project move forward.
I think the example you mention of the respectful skier avoiding trespass is wonderful, and is the kind of culture
we want to cultivate. To be clear: we are not proposing taking anyone's property. The rail bed is owned by
NYSEG and clearly designated on property maps for this segment. The plan is for the County to obtain a
License Agreement for public use as a trail. A neighbor to the proposed trail extension did write us a letter
challenging ownership of the trail; we took that seriously and engaged our town attorney to investigate. His
conclusion was that NYSEG owns the trail, and that is also NYSEG's understanding.
I want to call your attention to the public event that was held on November 29th to provide information to the
public about the South Hill Recreation Way Extension proposal. I attended the meeting and advertised it on
Town Announcements and the Town Website, in addition to contacting the Caroline neighbors to the railbed
property. The goal of this meeting was to provide a constructive public forum at which information about the
trail plan Could be presented and feedback from the public could be gathered. Information presented at that
meeting can be viewed at: litti)S.//SOLlthiiilli-eew4y.wordpress.com.
I will be in touch soon with more information. Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss the plan or just to
get an update on the process. I am at the Town Hall most days and you are welcome anytime. Or give me a
call.
Sincerely,
Mark Witmer
Caroline Town Supervisor
607-539-3395
Paulette Terwilliger
From: jpv3@cornell.edu on behalf of Jesse Veverka <jesse@veverkabros.com>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 12:56 PM
To: supervisor@townofcaroline.org;john-fracchia@townofcaroline.org;
gary-reinbolt@townofcaroline.org; cal-snow@townofcaroline.org;
irene-weiser@townofcaroline.org; clerk@townofcaroline.org; supervisor@dryden.ny.us;
townclerk@dryden.ny.us; supervisor@townofdanbyny.org;
townclerk@townofdanbyny.org; Bill Goodman; Paulette Terwilliger
Subject: Interview Request: South Hill Recreation Way
Hi,
I am a local documentary filmmaker who has recently become aware of the growing controversy surrounding
the extension of the South Mill Recreation Way into the Town of Caroline.
Specifically, I have learned that many Town of Caroline residents oppose the extension of the trail, sighting
various concerns including private property rights, safety, environmental impact and cost, However, Tompkins
county is continuing to push Caroline's Town Board to adopt the proposed extension despite this opposition.
Furthermore I understand that there is a pending lawsuit against certain local government entities as well as
accusations of lack -of -transparency, impropriety and possible corruption in local government with regard to this
matter.
I believe this story would be of interest to the greater Tompkins community and would like to produce a
documentary expos6 on the subject exploring these concerns. As you are a member of local government
relevant to this issue, I am therefor writing to request a short on -camera interview for inclusion in this film. This
would be a chance to explain your views.
Please let me know if you would be willing to participate, and when you might be available for a short on -
camera interview.
Thank you,
Jesse
Jesse Veverka
Producer
Veverka Bros. Productions LLC
+1607-216-4304 (USA)
Skype: kino787
iesse((_4veverkabros.com
www.veverkabros.coni
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s)
to whom it is addressed.
To: Representatives from the Towns ofIthaca, Dryden, Danbv Caroline
From: Coddington[aodSLmworda
Be: Proposed South Hill Recreation Way Extension
The Coddington Land Stewards bagroup ofover 3Olandowners who oppose the idea uf extending the
South Hill Recreation Way past its current terminus a1Burns Road. Our members ncak]e in the towns of
Ithaca, Dryden, Dmby, and Caroline.
Landowners buour group have retained Nds&ckersun,ofAckerson, Kauffman Fex,bn Washington DC
in this matter.
Mr. Ackemoo'ufirm has worke in the area of rail -trail law since lgBLMr. Aokeocmis acknowledged
asone ofthe nation's preeminent experts iothe field. Wc thought Mc/\ckeron'stestimony before
Congress on October, 30, 1997, regarding landowners' perspectives Would be valuable reading for you.
We're hoping that Mr. Ac}erson's testimony may help you better understand where members of the
CoddiogLonLaud Stewards are coming from boour opposition Lo the trail..
Please review the following testimony ofDJeis&cberxnu
l[you have any questions, comments, orconcerns, please email:
CodcUogtooLand Stewards
Thank you,
Source: https://www.gi2o.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-105hhrg46626/pdf/CHRG-105hhrg46626.pdf
pages 37-38
TESTIMONY OF NELS ACKERSON BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS,
FORESTS, AND LANDS
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES I
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV
OCTOBER 30,1997
STATEMENT OF NELS ACKERSON, ATTORNEY, THE ACKERSON GROUP Mr. ACKERSON.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I have the privilege of representing, individually and in
class actions, now tens of thousands of landowners, homeowners, families, retirees, small businesses,
farm organizations, and others, in about 15 states across the nation. Like the author of H.R. 2438, Mr.
Ryun, many of my clients enjoy the outdoors and know the benefits of recreational trails. They also in
many cases are conservationists. What distinguishes my clients from others is that they own the land on
which railroads once operated their trains, and upon which trails are now operating or proposed. They
are not adjacent landowners; they are the landowners. They own the strips of land running through their
farms or their yards, where trains once ran, every bit as much as any homeowner owns a backyard, a
driveway, or a deck. And so, members of the Committee, I want to ask this Committee to look at two
different perspectives on the railroad corridors where trails have been proposed or are operating; not
just the perspective down the corridor, but the perspective across the corridor. The owner's perspective
is different, because it is their land. They not only look down the abandoned railroad, but also across it.
Looking cross the right-of-way they see the rest of their farm, reunited for a more efficient farming
operation, now that the railroad has brought to an end the agreement that allowed railroad use on their
land. They see a backyard in which their children can play in safety and privacy. Sometimes they see a
strip of land that has become a sanctuary for wildflowers, berry bushes, and wildlife which they would
like preserved, free from asphalt surfaces and free from traffic. In short, what my clients, the
landowners, see, is their home, their farm, their land. Unfortunately, the perspective that has dominated
much of the debate, and not a bad perspective, but a different perspective —and it's only bad if it's the
only perspective— and that is the perspective down the corridor. Railroad companies and trails
advocates often fail to look at the other perspective, across the corridor. Railroads want to be paid for
land they once used, regardless of whether they own it. Trails proponents see opportunities for
recreational uses, and often view my clients as greedy or disgruntled neighbors, who are troublesome in
their bothering to stop part of a trail; rather than as the owners of the trail that is to be taken without
their consent and without their consultation for the purpose that they did not have in mind. Now those
who look down the corridor, and only down the corridor, not only miss a beautiful view of life; they
also miss the fundamental point that we learned in kindergarten: you shouldn't take something that is
not yours without first asking. That's the first principle. The other is, you should pay for what you take.
The perspective down the corridor —when it is the exclusive perspective— turns a blind eye to those
who own the land. A trail proponent in zeal to establish a recreational trail may presume that the
railroad, rather than the real landowner, should be approached and paid for the land. The railroad of
course likely will be happy to oblige. It's a rule of human nature I think —even in this city —that if you
rob Peter to pay Paul, you can often count on Paul for support. Thus the real landowners are taken out
of any involvement whatsoever in what happens to their land. That is the perspective that has been
fostered and maintained by the present law. Owners of the land to be taken for a trail don't even know
PauletterwiUl
From: scott vangeasbeck<svangaasbeck@gmai|/om>
Sent: Tuesday, February 07,2OI7l:I3Pk4
To: Mark Witmer; John Fracchia; Gary Reinbo|t; Cal Snow; inene_weiser@townofcaro|ineurg;
K4ari|ou Harrington; njietric@twcny.rccmm;supemisor@drydenoyus; 8ambiAvery;
supemisor@tovvnofdanbvnyorg;townderk@tovvnofdanbynyorg;Bill Goodman;
Paulette Rosa; rbrenner@tovvnofdanbyny.orq;|connors@tovvnofdanbvny.org;
jho|ahan6gtovvnofdanbyny.urg;jmi||er@townofdanbynyurg;||avine@drydenoyus;
D[ipoUa'Dennis@dmdenoy.us;d|amb@drvdenoyus;kservoss@drydenoyus;P8|eivvas;
Rich DePao|o;Rod Howe; THunter; PLeary
Subject: An Open Letter to the Towns of Ithaca, Dryden, Danby, and Caroline February 7, 2017
An Open Letter to the Towns of Ithaca, Dryden, Danby, and Caroline February 7, 2017
I would like to address the issue of "The Greater Good" so often raised by Town and County officials
to justify a trail for public recreation on our farms and near our homes. The phrase has come UDoften,
used bVmany officials. I will use as8typical example this email 8XCh8Oge between Sandra KBDOe'
whose family (the Middaughs) has owned a farm on Middaugh Road since before the Civil War and
which is diagonally bisected by the p[ODDS8d f[@il. and M[. Ric [)ie[[iCh. TOVVD Of[]8DbV SUpBFViSO[
Sandra voiced COOC8[Os. like the rest Ofus, and P2C8iVed this [8SpODSB:
On Jan 30, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Ric Dietrich <rdietric(a)b��.rr=com> wrote:
I believe most of the questions you asked
Have already been answered t000Vsatisfaction
(]OJan 30.2017.Gt7:03PM, Sandra KeDOe wrote:
Would you please respond to my questions that you feel have been met to your satisfaction.
Sandra Kenne
On Jan 30, 2017, at 7:30 PM, Ric Dietrich <rdietric@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
All of them
I am pre disposed to endorse this project
Because I started it, and want it to go all the way through to Newark valley.
I have heard all the objections before
And non of them has come true
.M
And since the trail follows the railroad right of way
Which all landowners knew to be a pre existing condition adjacent to their land
At some point their were trains running by your house
A trail seems much less intrusive
Setting aside the arrogance, and the factual points (all the way to Newark Valley, "adjacent" to their
land (in Sandra's and other cases it is through, not adjacent), and the ridiculous assertion that people
wandering through at all times would be less invasive than a scheduled train where people stay on
the train and do not set foot on our land), we see Mr. Dietrich's core argument is that "the public good"
is an acceptable justification for causing harm to individuals or a class of people.
When we are young we are all taught that "the ends don't justify the means" as a basic moral
principle, and yet this moral principle is not always considered to apply to government. In fact, it is
always the argument used to justify what would otherwise be considered the worst crimes or heinous
acts by government — common examples are: dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki ostensibly to prevent even more death and destruction in an invasion, torturing terror
suspects ostensibly to prevent some future attack, or banning Muslims from our country to ostensibly
protect the non -Muslim majority. Killing innocent people or depriving them of liberty is certainly a
greater harm than destroying their privacy and sense of security, but the argument is exactly the
same, and it is flawed.
The greater good argument is always flawed because it always reduces the freedom and morality of
all people when a large group uses a small group as a means to their ends, no matter how noble the
ends (The moral taint on our nation is clear in each of the examples above, no matter what your
opinion on whether our country should have done them). The true greater good in any nation is
inextricably linked to the degree of freedom and rights given to each and every citizen in equal
measure.
The resort to the greater good argument is in fact evidence of a failure of government to plan
appropriately and work things out among the parties. I think in hindsight, any thinking, moral person
could think of alternate paths of government policy that would have avoided the need to propose a
"greater good" solution to the war with Japan or to terrorism. The challenge before you, as our local
government, is to find solutions to the conflicting desires of some citizens to recreate on our property
and landowners' right to live in peace and privacy. The only rational measure of whether a plan
meets these needs is if the parties affected feel it meets these needs. The "greater good" argument,
to throw us under the bus because more people would enjoy what we have, is unnacceptable.
This is nothing new, and in fact organizations like Rails to Trails stress the importance of working
with, not against, landowners. The Fingerlakes Trail is an example of a trail created while respecting
landowner rights. The reason this particular trail is failing is because of the 9 year history of planners
with an attitude like Mr Dietrich's that have convinced landowners we are dealing with a tyrannical
and undemocratic government determined to take away our rights for the benefit of their friends who
want to recreate on our nice land. At this point, so much bad faith and damage has been created, the
negatives for the community far outweighing any "greater good" to recreate.
Unfortunately, just as we see nationally, "greater good" arguments do a tremenous amount of
damage to the civic health of our community. People who once valued local government now resent
it. People who were promised use of their neighbors' land harbor resentment, and landowners are
dismayed to see how quickly neighbors will discount their rights when egged -on by the government.
The wounds to our townships will take years to heal.
I realize, after being forced to file FOIL requests to find out what is planned for my farm, that much of
the push to take from the 70 of us who signed the petition in 2008 and give to the (supposedly) many
has come from the Tompkins County Planning Depatment, not the towns, but the negative
consequences will be felt most srongly in the towns for years to come. This is the time for our Town
Boards to step up to the plate and do better. No war or terrorism is imminent, there is all the time in
the world to go back to the plans and find a better solution than "greater good"
Scott Van Gaasbeck
w-A MOTO M • M
Brooktondale, NY
about these abandonments in many many cases. Some of my clients who own farms or little homes
along abandoned railroad corridors don't read the Federal Register every day. They don't get a second
notice. Some of them have no idea what's happened until it's done. That is why the issues that are
addressed in this bill must be addressed seriously. H.R. 2438 provides a way to restore balance among
the various pubic and private interests that are affected by the National Trail System Act. Public policy
should recognize and protect the legitimate interests of persons whose land is taken for a new public
purpose, and whose lives and the lives of their families will be changed forever as a result. Those
persons who are the most affected should at the very least, have a significant role in the process, be
given protection against the loss of security and privacy, and have access to traditional land law to
enforce their property rights. The conservation, recreation, and even national security objectives of the
National Trail System Act —and incidentally, I would like to address those national security issues if
the time will permit —those objectives can be accomplished without sacrificing what has been the very
fabric of society embedded in the Constitution. We don't need to sacrifice constitutional safeguards. We
don't need to eliminate the roles of state and local government. And we don't need to violate the simple
principle, that we should never take what is ours without first asking, and we should pay for what we
take. I believe my time is up, unfortunately. I have addressed in my written statement a number of
misconceptions about the law and about the facts, which I would be happy to address if anyone has
questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ackerson may be found at end of hearing
Paulette Terwilliger
From: Bridget Foster <bfI2@conneU.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, FebruaryO7, 20173:52 PM
To: rdietric@twcny.rrzom;supemisor@tovvnofcaro|ineurg;
john_fracchia@tovvnofcoro|ine.org; gagLneinbo|t@townofcaro|ine.org;
ca[snow@townofcaro|ine.org; inene_weiser@townofcaro|ine.org;
supervisor@dryden.ny.us; supervisor@townofdanbyny.org; Bill Goodman; Paulette Rosa
Cc: scott vangaasbeck;[oddingtonLandstexward
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to the Towns of Ithaca, Dryden, Danby, and Caroline February 7,
2017
Dear R.Diethc,
My first question is "what's in this for ynu"? Besides the self-proclaimed, glory vain reason of "I started it and want to
Before I go further, please take out a map and check on the location of the proposed trail. From what I've seen — Ithac,7#
to Owego was the original proposal. Newark Valley is in quite a different direction. However, if Newark Valley does
factor into this proposal then please confirm — that's a whole new set of landowners we'd like to contact.
lust as it's personal for the landowners — only more so. For us, the proposed trail is not a benefit, it's not fun, it's not
recreation. It won't be an occasional enjoyment — it'll be a constant, daily irritant. Quite simply —
it's a blatant invasion of our privacy, our security, and an unjustified land grab to repurpose a right of way that has
served no purpose for over 60 years. The rail bed was abandoned, never maintained, and should have reverted back to
the original land owners years ago. My property abstract actually refers to it as the "former" right of way. To avoid
confusion, the definition of former means, past, ex, previous, no longer. In fact, NYSEG gave the previous owner of my
house, verbal approval to do whatever he wished with the rail bed. And so it became a part of the lawn — maintained
now by3ownersfor54years. Quite simply —you do not have my approval to now put a trail through my lawn next to
my house!
And please drop the railroad argument — it is invalid and has no relevance to this situation. I guarantee that those of us
who are the newest landowners would never have purchased our properties if in fact, the railroad were still
active. Furthermore, most of us (if not all) would never have purchased the land if the rail trail proposal had been made
public at the time of purchase. Who in their right mind would buy property that will clearly be devalued by the
implementation of a trail that goes smack through the middle or alongside your entire property line eliminating ALL
privacy. To clarify your analogy, a train moves along and doesn't stop. But a trail that goes right next to your home and
business or literally divides it down the middle, offers a wonderful opportunity for all kinds of mischief; criminal or
otherwise. For instance, breaking and entering, or driving 4 wheelers and snow mobiles all night long. Far more
intrusive —trust me. I've had the experience of two break ins, and 4 wheelers actually driving on my property thinking
they could get through to the old rail bed.
But clearly it doesn't affect you so I don't expect you to understand the impact or the pain of this proposed trail for
those of us who will live with it daily.
We purchased our land or have remained living in our locations, purposefully because it offered a specific setting and/or
agri-business and/or proximity to hunting, fishing, photography, nature study, etc. VVelandowners came tolive where
we are for different reasons, but I guarantee we all have a specific and personal purpose for living where we do — in a
quiet rural setting away from the noise, lights, and population of villages and neighborhoods. | don't need mrwant
additional strangers traveling into my isolated location. | picked this location specifically to avoid people and
traffic. And | paid for it—therefnre, you have no right to stomp all over my rights!
And you villagers and neigh borhood/city dwellers, choose to live where you are for specific, personal reasons. Which
makes it even less appropriate for you to now want to destroy what we have, for your personal benefit!
|fyou wanted toenjoy our valley somuch — why didn't you buy land out there? K8yproperty was for sale for over a
year—nuone|ookedatitorbidwnitexoeptforme. And | choose bspecifically because ofthe rural setting, with the
abundance of nature, the quiet, the lack of traffic (cars and people) and the beauty of my surroundings, | worked long
hard hours and saved my money for 25 years in order to find and buy my first house in the perfect location. Which you
now propose todestroy for personal gain and clearly little consideration, empathy orunderstanding mfthe impact on
meo/any ofthe other landowners.
And, let me emphasize landowner. Tax payer, Care taker. Your personal interest should not trump my right tmcontinue
to live in the specific location | worked so long and hard to purchase. VVhv is it o.k. for you take that away from me?
Again — your benefit at the expense of my detriment is not for the greater good. | can't help but ask — why are you
more important than me? Why is the desire of the non -land owners, more valuable than that of the tax -paying
landowners who will benegatively impacted?
You've heard the objections and "non has come true". Honestly, | don't think you've listened very closely or
carefully. Certainly not with any consideration.
Aside from all that's been said — I'll leave you with this, which I guarantee you won't care about but it needs to be
stated. That in addition to the negative impact on the landowners, the proposed trail with its unavoidable carbon
footprint and tax increases for maintenance, will also destroy the habitat for countless migrating and nesting ducks,
raptors, birds, and mammals, It will directly impact the nesting site ofcountless snapping turtles, painted turtles, and
other amphibians, not to mention the deer, bobcat, fishers, coyotes, raccoons, mink, weasels, turkeys, otters, possums,
fox, and bear —which all live, nest, and roam throughout the area.
unless you are one of us, you have no rights and no entitlement. Please find a new hobby that truly benefits the greater
2
Paulette Terwilliger
From: Ric Dietrich <ndiethch@townofdanbvnyorg>
Sent Tuesday, February Ol2OI75:03PK4
To: Bridget Foster; [lRandall
Cc: Ric Dietrich; Don Barber; john_ƒracchiaggtovvnobaro|ine»rg;
gary-neinbo|t@townmfcaro|ine.org; ca[snmw@townofcaro|ineurg;Irene Weiser;
Supervisor Sumner); Ric Dietrich; Bill Goodman; Paulette Rosa; scott vangaasbeck;
[oddingtonLandsheward
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to the Towns of Ithaca, Dryden, Danby, and Caroline February 7,
2017
Thank you for sharing your views onthe situation.
|apo|ogiessomewhatformv"arrogance"andyoumayberight,that|carysomehubrisonthesubject.
Many years ago, itwas part ofrnyresponsibilities, todrum upsummer work projects forrura|youth.
This brought me in contact with people who were looking towards our future trail systems .
The old R.R. beads, were a natural candidate for restoring into pathways more suited to people than cars.
|Ltook some years working with The Town Of Ithaca's Park service, to develop a plain, convene the approbate public
meetings, and take the proposal the town board.
VVethen applied for anumber ofgrants tohire the participants.
we worked this road bead starting at South Hill school, and over the next three years inched it forward.
It was real work, that the participants could take pride in, knowing they were building something they could come back
ioand say, | helped build that.
But itwas not all fun and asense ofaccomplishment, their were concerns, from landowners, legitimate claims that
needed tobeanswered.
their was concerns much like you have described to me , their was strong feelings expressed. Most ofthe concerns, in
myopinion were worked out through mitigations put forward, and then incorporated into plain.
some were not and needed iogntocourt.
All of the issues you have brought forward in your email, as they did then"in my opinion" I believe were answered in
court, atthat time |twas anoble project that has brought joy tnmany,and| dohear your frustrations onthe matter.
Fast forward from twenty five years orsoago
When the trail again got some traction and its desire to move further south, came up, I believe many of the same legal
questions came up, and have been answered "|beUeve"
I know I am not saying anything you want to hear, But I thought you should know where I am coming from
ISSUER COMMENT
l4February 20l7
nA,nmc
General Obligation (or GO
«m No Outlook
ContacLs
Gregory Max Sobet 212-553-9587
xssoutexna�st
gre��.somu(�)moodv.mm
Geordie Thompson +12125530321
VP -Sr credit cfficorl
/vanas~'
genrd/e. Lxornpmn@mouuys.com
To of Ithaca, NY
Annual Comment ODIthaca Town
The Town ofIthaca blocated inTompkins County inwestern New York's Southern Tier,
approximately 45 miles southwest of Syracuse. Tompkins County has a population of
104,691 and a population density of 221 people per square mite. The county's per capita
personal income is $37,686 (2nd quartile) and the August 2016 unemployment rate was
4.0% (Ist quartile)., -'The largest industry sectors that drive the local economy are local
government, retail trade.andprofessionakscienbf icdechnicaiservices.
Credit Overview
Ithaca Town has anexcellent credit position, and its Aa rating isstronger than the median
rating of Aa3 for US cities. The credit drivers include a robust financial position, and a small
debt burden with an affordable pension liability. It also reflects a strong socioeconomic
profile with a moderately sized tax base.
Finances: The financial position of the town is very healthy and is slightly favorable when
compared with the assigned rating ofAal The net cash balance asapercent of revenues
(52]%)isfar superior tothe USmedian and rose significantly between 20l2andZ0lS.
Additionally, the available fund balance as a percent of operating revenues (50.4%) is
materially higher than other Mnodv's-ratedcities nationwide.
Debt and Pensions: The debt and pension burdens ofIthaca Town are small. That said, they
are aslight weakness inrelation Loits Aal rating. The net direct debt uofull value (12%)is
slightly above the US median. Furthermore, while the Moody's-adjusted net pension liability
to operating revenues (0,78x) is favorably below the US median, this indicator unfavorably
increased modestly between 20lZand Z0lS.
Economy and Tax Base: The economy and tax base ofIthaca Town are quite healthy
in comparison to the Aal rating assigned. The median family income equates to a strong
l322Y6ofthe US level. Moreover, the total full value ($l3billion) isconsistent with other
Moody's-rated cities nationwide and grew modestly from 2012 to 201S. Unfavorably,
however, the full value per capita ($64,482) is slightly weaker than the US median.
Management and Governance: Positive operating margins demonstrate strong financial
management. Advantageously, onaverage, Ithaca Town'soperations were positive asthe tax
base expanded modestly,
New York cities have aninstitutional framework score anf"A,^ormoderate. Kevenuesae
highly predictable, cuproperty taxes are usually the largest revenue source, followed by, sales
and mortgage taxes, aswell asbuilding permit revenue. Cities have amoderate revenue
raising ability, as they can increase property tax revenues above the tax cap with a 60% voteofthe local leQbbtivebody Expenditures
vary across the state but primarily consist ofpersonnel costs, which are moderately predictable.Expenditunereduodonabiiityblow
given the presence of strong collective bargaining groups and the Triborough Amendment which enhances collective bargaining
powers.
Sector Trends ~ New York Cities
New York municipalities will benefit from the stat 'simpmvin8economy although economic growth varies across the different
regions. Municipal governments will have difficulty tapping into underlying economic growth due to the property tax cap, which
is .68% in 2017 before exemptions and rollovers are added, though they may override the cap with a three fifths voteofthe governing
body. Although sates tax growth may remain sluggish, it is typically a small percentage of municipal revenues. Overall, economically
sensitive revenues remain below pre -recession peak levels.
Exhibit
Key |ndicatoo4»
Ithaca Town, NY
2012
ama
2014
2015
US Median
Credit rrend
Economy / Tax Base
Finances
Available Fund Bala % of
Net Cash Balance asmu[Operating Revenues
4*3m
saa%
564m
azJm
31*m
Improved
Debt / Pensions
Net Direct Debt / Full Value
0,44m
0.21%
ozam
1.2%
1.2m
Weakened
Net Direct Debt / Operating Revenues
052
0.23x
029
132
0.94x
Weakened
mvody's-adjustedNet Pension Liability
(3-yr average) to Full Value
037m
054m
oa»m
urlm
lr%
Stable
Movdy's-a@usteUNet Pension Liability
(3-yr average) to Operating Revenues
036x
usox
oayx
orax
lasx
Stable
Source: Moody's
Exhibit
Available fund balance asapercent ofoperating revenues increased between 2Ol2andZO15
Available Fund Balance asaPercent mOperating Revenues
�""'Ava/aule,fund oalancpa,%v/Operating eev,nues—oSCities Median
40%
2012 2013 anw ans
Source: Issuerfinancial statements;woody's
n*pubtication does not announce a credit rating action. For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, piease see the ratings tab on the iSSIJenlenLity page on
2 14 February 2017 Town of Ithaca, NY: Annual Comment on Ithaca Town
Exhibit 3
Total full value grew from 2012 to 2015
Total Full Value
(millions) Tutai FuR Value — YOY % Change in Full Value
$1,320
2.0%
1y1v
$1,300 "0, 1.5%
1.0%
$1,280
0.5%
2012 2013 2014 2015
Source: Issuerfinancial statements, Government data sources; Offering statements, Moody's
Exhibit 4
Moody's-adjusted net pension liability to operating revenues increased from 2012 to 2015
Net Direct Debt and Adjusted Net Pension Liability / Operating Revenues
011 Debt' Pensions'
2.Ox
tox
Ogg/
O.Ox
2012 2013 2014
2015
*Debt is represented as Net Direct Debt Operating Revenues. Net Direct Debt is defined as gross debt minus self supporting debt. Pensions are represented as ANPL Operating
Revenues. ANPL is defined as the average of Moody's-adjusted Net Pension Liability in each of the past three years.
Source: Issuer financial statements, Government data sources; Offering statements; Moody's
3 14 February 2017 Town of Ithaca, NY: Annual Comment on Ithaca Town
1. The rating referenced in this report is the government's General Obligation (GO) rating or its highest public rating that is GO -related. A GO bond is
generally a security backed by the full faith and credit pledge and total taxing power of the local government. See LocatGoyernment GO Pledges
Wary
Government , - . Wary
.Across States,,, for more details. GO -related ratings include issuer ratings, which are GO -equivalent ratings for governments that do not issue GO debt.
GO -related ratings also include ratings on other securities that are notched or otherwise related to what the government's GO rating would be, such as
annual appropriation, lease revenue, non -ad valorem, and moral obligation debt. The referenced ratings reflect the government's underlying credit quality
without regard to state guarantee or enhancement programs or bond insurance.
2 The per capita personal income data and unemployment data for all counties in the US Census are allocated to quartiles. The quartiles are ordered from
strongest -to -weakest from a credit perspective: the highest per capita personal income quartile is first quartile, and the lowest unemployment rate is first
quartile. The first quartile consists of the top 25% of observations in the dataset, the second quartile consists of the next 25%, and so on. The median per
capita personal income for US counties is $46,049 for 2014. The median unemployment rate for US counties is 4.9% for August 2016.
3 The institutional framework score measures a municipality's legal ability to match revenues with expenditures based oil its constitutionally and
legislatively conferred powers and responsibilities. See US Local Government 'General Obligation Debt (January 2014) for more details.
4 For definitions of the metrics in the Key Indicators Table, US Local Government Geneva( Obligation Methodology and Scorecard User Guide Only 2014).
The population figure used in the Full Value Per Capita ratio is the most recently available, most often sourced from either the US Census or the American
Community Survey, Similarly, the Median Family Incorne data reported as of 2012 and later is always the most recently available data and is sourced from
the American Community Survey. The Median Family Income data prior to 2012 is sourced from the 2010 US Census. The Fut[ Value figure used in the
Net Direct Debt and Moody's-adjusted Net Pension Liability (3-year average ANPL) ratios is matched to the same year as audited financial data, or if not
available, tags by one or two years. Certain state -specific rules also apply to Full Value. For example, in California and Washington, assessed value is the
best available proxy for Full Value. Certain state specific rules also apply to individual data points and ratios. Moody's makes adjustments to New Jersey
local governments' reported financial statements to make it more comparable to GAAP. Additionally, Moody's ANPLs reflect analyst adjustments, if any,
for pension contribution support from non operating funds and self-supporting enterprises. Many local government pension liabilities are associated with
its participation in the statewide multiple -employer cost -sharing plans. Metrics represented as NIA indicate the data were not available at the time of
publication.
51 The medians come from Our most recently published local government medians report, Medians.._ Growing Tax_Bwses and Stable Fund Balances pport
.......... . ..... Stable ... . . .. . - - .......... ... .
Sector's.Stability,.(March 29161. The medians conform to our US Local Government General Obligation Debt rating methodology published in January
2014. As such, the medians presented here are based on the key metrics outlined in the methodology and the associated scorecard. The appendix of this
report provides additional metrics broken out by sector, rating category, and population. We use data from a variety Of Sources to calculate the medians,
many of which have differing reporting schedules. Whenever possible, we Calculated these medians using available data for fiscal year 2014. However,
there are some exceptions. Population data is based on the 2010 Census and Median Family Income is derived from the 2012 American Community
Survey. Medians for some rating levels are based on relatively small sample sizes. These medians, therefore, may be Subject to potentially substantial
year -over -year variation. Our ratings reflect our forward looking opinion derived from forecasts of financial performance and qualitative factors, as
opposed to strictly historical quantitative data used for the medians. Our expectation of future performance combined with the relative importance of
certain metrics on individual local government ratings account for the range of values that can be found within each rating category. Median data for prior
years published in this report may not match last year's publication due to data refinement and changes in the sample sets used, as well as rating changes,
initial ratings, and rating withdrawals.
14 February 2017 Town of Ithaca, NY: Annual Comment on Ithaca Town
FEE 2 4, ?,'1 J 7
406 Coddington Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
February 22, 2017
Mr. Bill Goodman, Supervisor
Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: PETITION TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA FOR A WAIVER
UNDER THE LOCAL LAW 5 OF 2016 TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT AT
403 CODDINGTON ROAD
Dear Mr. Goodman;
REQUEST
Owners of 403 Coddington Road, Bill and Susan Lesser, are seeking a waiver from the
temporary moratorium on the construction of accessory apartments so that an accessory apartment
may be created from two existing structures on the site.
BASIS OF THE REQUEST
The waver is requested under Section 4 of Local Law 5 of 2016, and particularly A (2) which in
part allows for "opportunities the project provides to protect historic resources". The petitioners
also identify A (1) which references "unnecessary hardship to the petitioner".
We purchased 403 Coddington Road, which lies directly across the road from our long-term
residence at 406 Coddington Rd. in 2014. In large part this purchase was to prevent the
construction of student rental housing on the property, an intent expressed by one of the bidders.
The 403 property is nearly an acre in size (.911 acre) and currently contains a small dwelling unit,
a single story of approximately 650 square feet including a single car garage, (225 sq. ft.).
Subsequently we have been considering how to enhance the property so as better to recover our
investment while retaining the neighborhood character.
In the fall 2016 a notice appeared offering the structure at 341 Coddington Road free for anyone
who would relocate it. We appreciate that the Town Board was instrumental in arranging with
this option rather than demolition.
The structure is in the Greek. Revival style, about 1840-45, which matches our house at 406
Coddington Road. Indeed it is one of three original farm houses on the stretch of Coddington.
The idea of moving it to our under-utilized property at 403 occurred to us immediately. Our
commitment was strengthened when we learned that house moves in today's environment rarely
exceed several blocks due to the complexity and costs. If we did not move it, demolition of this
historic farmhouse was virtually assured.
It took three months to make the necessary arrangements. Required were a house mover, legal
advice, architectural and structural engineering services, arrangements with three utilities
(NYSEG, Time -Warner and Verizon) to relocate their wires during the move, along with
securing permits from the Town and the County Highway Department. A porch was removed to
allow the building to pass between the telephone poles lining both sides of the road.
Due to Mr. Iocavelli's interest in clearing his lot quickly, we focused entirely on the move
arrangements, and succeeded in the moving of the structure to 403 in November 2016 where it
remains on cribs until the foundation is completed. We are in the process of planning the
alterations and so are initiating this request to the Town Board for authorization to connect the
relocated building to the existing structure to create two dwelling units.
JUSTIFICATION
We are excited about preserving this historic structure and attaching it to the small existing
dwelling unit on the site. However, the costs involved in the move (approximately $ 70,000), and
the anticipated costs for alterations and foundation (house is currently gutted with roof in poor
condition and needs everything) are in the $ 125,0004175,000 range. Those costs, and
considering the original purchase price of 403 Coddington, has made the option of a creating an
accessory apartment extremely attractive. It is agreed by real estate and design professionals that
an accessory apartment is the best option for the property making the property most desirable
while maintaining the character of Coddington Rd. The proposed structure would meet the
square footage criteria and code related criteria were the moratorium not in place.
Therefore we request waiver relief from the current moratorium recognizing the historic
structure. A waiver will permit us to move in a straight line toward a building permit as soon as
possible, and necessarily no longer than 6 months from our November 2016 move date.
We believe our circumstances fit solidly within Section 4 of Local Law 5 of 2016, and
particularly A (2) which in part allows for "opportunities the project provides to protect historic
resources under just these circumstances.
PLANS
Current plans are to renovate the historic house of 2,200 sq. ft. (2 story) to create three
bedrooms, 2 baths connected to the existing one car garage. The existing dwelling unit 650 sq.
ft. one story) with one bedroom and bath, will be updated and be suitable for a one or two
occupants. A preliminary plan is attached for your information.
The plans exceed all minimum set back requirements. Indeed the front yard will be 75+ feet
deep and the rear, as at present, 150 feet. Lot coverage will be only seven percent, well below the
allowed 20 percent maximum in the Medium Density zone. As such the plans conform easily
with the existing neighborhood character. With the granting of our requested variance we will be
able to put all the pieces of the project together pragmatically yet authentically.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to the opportunity to restore the `yellow
house' to its rightful place in the community.
Sinc ly yo s,
Bill & Susan Lesser,
Owners and Petitioners
CC: Paulette Rosa, Ithaca Town Clerk
Claudia Brenner, Architect
l.w`� ` .vassal IIT$ pulc uusnS;o ,ivadotd o c � (D
'i ts—WWes!l9t l'INXN LDLgll jo umoy 0 °o'K 0 u- O�'—
p�og uo� utPPo� £Otr o
a3Nw3as vlamna 01, auzog AIRUM a13uTS 01 UOII!PPV a ii oa >
Zo
z�
El
ro `a
a u.
o
W I yj
1
l
a
b
z b�
i
r
{
t
II
II
II
II Y
t
I i .... n.
MKOFFA
Print
Subject: Fw: Follow up regarding petition
From: Mia Slotnick (miajsl 23 9yahoo.corn)
To: DDeAugustine @town. ithaca. ny.us;
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 8:18 AM
Hello Bill, Rich, and Paulette.
I was wondering if any progress has been made with the short term rental issue since the meeting with
Renwick Heights neighbors in December? With the warm weather, we have noticed the return of
unfamiliar cars and people in the neighborhood. Maybe a note in the Town newsletter, the Ithaca Journal,
and the Ithaca Times stating the current regulations would help to clarify what is and is not allowed before
things take off again with the spring short term rentals.
Thanks for considering.
Mia
From: Kenneth William Simpson <kws5@cornell.edu>
To: Rich DePaolo <RDePaolo@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Paulette Terwilliger
<PTerwilliger@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Bill Goodman <bgoodman@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Cc: Michael MacAnanny <macananny@gmail.com>; Luisa McAnanny <beauvisage@hotmail.com>;
Barbara Marie Koslowski <bmk2@cornell.edu>; Richard Newell Boyd <rnbl@cornell.edu>; Maralyn
Edid <mse421 @gmail.com>; Lawrence Edward Blume <Iblume@cornell.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Follow up regarding petition
Dear Rich, Paulette and Bill,
At the meeting we raised the issue of educating people about the Code and legal stance of the town and
NYS on short term rentals as a means of prevention.
As Spring is headed our way people will soon start to list their properties. Are you able to pre-emptively
address this issue in the Town newsletter and the Ithaca Journal, Ithaca Times?
9� • r
Kenny Simpson
Renwick Neighbors
To: Mia Slotnick <miajsl 23@yahoo.com>
Cc: Paulette Terwilliger <PTerwilliger@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Bill Goodman
<bgoodman@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Follow up regarding petition
on
about: blank 1/3
From: Ball �odhw�
To: tPaL act. ; E Levine; THintgL&iJLJ; Rich DeLlQ; !LLi(wL; EQLe hL15
Cc: uleU_,sSubject: -11,.,�FW: Water bill issues 1114 East Shore Drive
Date .-I Friday, May 19, 2017 1:31:32 PM
Hi folks, In anticipation of our discussion about water refunds at Monday's Study Session, here is one of
the requests that I've received (and which we've briefly discussed at a prior Budget Cmte and Town
Board meeting) to inform our discussion. Have a good weekend.
Bill
From: Howard Silcoff [maiIto:silco94@gmaiI.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 3:07 PM
To: Bill Goodman
Subject: Water bill issues 1114 East Shore Drive
Hi again Bill.
Thank you for getting back to us. We really do appreciate you taking the time to try and help
us deal with problem of getting billed and then being forced to pay for water that we did not
use, but the outcome to date is unacceptable. There is really no way to look at the problem and
conclude that it is fair to be charged almost $900 for water we did not use, and then to be
threatened with having our water supply turned off unless we paid the fee, which we of
course did. I can not see this as anything but a form of blackmail.
There were a few comments in your last email which make it seem as if you don't really
understand how we got to the place we are at. You noted "The main problem is that you had
submitted meter readings showing there was no usage for a number of quarters before the new
meter was installed, or at least that is what Bolton Point explained to me." I would hope that
you could go back and look over my earlier correspondence to you explaining all of this and
not just believing what the folks at Bolton Point are telling you. Remember that our readings
came from looking at the meter they pointed us to. We read off the meter in question every
quarter. While it is true this number was not changing from quarter to quarter, we did not have
any idea what this meant. We were barely using the home and could have easily assumed the
number on the meter in question would only change if we went over our allotted 10,000
gallons. We just reported what we were asked to report. And what about the fact that when
Bolton Point was given these readings, they never reached out to us to question the numbers
even though we kept providing the same reading quarter after quarter for about 1.5 years. I
would think that would be a simple thing for them to have done. So Bolton Point is incorrect
with the explanation they are giving you.
You then mention "When Bolton Point switched to the new meters, there were a lot of
customers who saw an increase in their bills because of mistakes in their prior readings. If the
Town Board was going to give you a break, then we would have to give everyone a break, and
I just don't see that happening when the reason for the discrepancy was customer error." There
are multiple areas of concern with this statement. First and foremost, blaming the
'customer'. As written to you previously, we purchased this property in the spring of 2015 at
which time we communicated with Bolton Point and were asked to look for the water meter
and give them the reading. We were told the meter might be indoors or outdoors. We found
the meter (and I previously sent you a picture of the meter), called in the # on the meter, and
were told this seemed in line with the prior owners last reading and therefore were reassured
we had the correct meter reading. So, is this our fault? I think not, and neither should you. We
would never have learned that there was a second water meter somewhere on/in the property
if not for Bolton Point coming to change the meter last fall. To blame us for this error you
could be saying only one thing- that we knowingly tried to deceive Bolton Point which is
surely not the case. We were not knowingly cheating anyone or trying to get away without
paying for our fair share of water use. My second concern is you putting our case into the
same basket as others complaining about their water bills. Whether or not to grant us a refund
should be based solely on the merits of our specific circumstances.
You then stated "If there was some error that Bolton Point had made, then perhaps the Town
Board would look at it differently, but I don't see that in your case." Yes, Bolton Point made
the error that set this whole problem in motion, by telling us to give them the reading from
what we later (1.5 yrs later!) learned was an old water meter that was no longer being used. I
am hopeful you can understand this.
Please understand that along the way, during the 1.5 years that we were providing readings
from what turned out to be the wrong meter, Cindy had telephone conversations with folk
from Bolton Point. At one point they discussed the question of use and whether it was being
reflected by our meter that seemed not to change over time, and she was told not to worry
about it given that we were being charged for minimum use, which seemed to fit our situation
as were using the home only occasionally. Bolton Point could have come to the house at any
time in the 18+ month billing period to check out the situation if our submissions did not make
sense to them. But they never called us about it, never came to look a the meter themselves,
never did anything to prevent the problem from continuing. And they were the only ones that
could have known the problem. It does not give them the right to falsify our final bill.
The reason the bill is wrong is because it is based on our initial reading which was taken from
the wrong/different meter. The final bill then is based on fictitious use, because who really
knows what the correct initial reading was. How exactly is that legal?
The following is a summary of the finances and water 'use' involved for the time in question,
and comes directly from my prior email to you. Perhaps a reread of it will help you understand
our position a little better.
Everything seemed fine until our meter was replaced on 9114116. We were told at the time that
our meter reading then was 95 530 and that the last reading provided by us was 54 000. So
the assumption here was that we used >41 000 gallons of water in the month between our
reading on 8115116 and the reading by the technician from Bolton Point on 9114116. The
problem here, as we later learned, was that the meter we were reading the whole time was
apparently not the correct meter, and the meter with the 95 530 reading was a completely
different meter that we knew nothing about (an which we never saw!). So we have been billed
for this >41 000 gallons of water, but this is based on a completely erroneous starting point!
And for a house that was vacant for at least half the time in the month in question.
From the time our meter was replaced on 9114116 until the end of the billing cycle on 11115116
another 37 800 gallons of water was used, based solely on the readings from the new meter,
per Bolton Point. (We question the accuracy of this as well, but that's a different issue)
Some other important facts relating to water use on this property:
-Per Bolton Point, the meter reading from the prior owner was 28 900 on 5115115.
-Per Bolton Point, this same meter read 95 530 on 9114116.
-Therefore... 66 630 gallons were used from 5115115-9114116
-We paid: $267. 32 in Sept `15, $97.96 on 12115115, $99.98 x3 (March, June, Sept 2016), for a
total of —$665.
Putting the above together, we paid —$665 for 66 630 gallons of water between 5115115-
9114116, which is almost exactly $100 per 10 000 gallons which is as expected based on
current pricing of water and sewer ($99.98110 000 gallons for 2016). So even though the 54
000 meter reading was wrong all along, this seemed to have worked itself out.
The problem is that we are currently being asked to pay another $861.52 for water use for the
quarter from 8116116-11115116, and as noted above, much of this is based on an obviously
erroneous initial meter reading.
We are asking to be reimbursed the $861.52 that we were forced to pay to continue to get
our water service from the local water monopoly while trying to get this problem solved.
We would also like to present our case directly to the town board. We feel we are in a
better position to explain the problem than you are. If someone from Bolton Point wants to
show up too for the discussion, then so be it.
We are asking for a little common sense and fairness. We are not asking for any special
treatment. We want to pay for our water use, and not be knowingly charged more than double
our true water use over the course of one and a half years.
Thank you,
4
Howard Silcoff
drydenfamilymedicine.com
Paulette Rosa
To: 2017 Town Board
Cc: Mike Solvig
Subject: Quarterly billing 3Xs over
Attachments: Water Billing dispute letter 1103 Hanshaw Rd.pdf
Good afternoon,
Mr. Denson came in and submitted the letter to the Town Board. I talked to him for a bit and in essence, they would like
a refund or credit because the new meters, which were advertised to be able to warn people of unusual usage so it
could be stopped or investigated right away, did not happen and they are therefore being penalized. He also said the
new meter was not working correctly and not able to be read remotely so estimates were used again denying them
information about a possible leak or extra water usage leading to a large bill. In the past, they would have sent in the
reading and the larger usage would have been noticed sooner.
He thinks it may have been a leaky toilet but that's a lot for that also so I did suggest he go back and read the meter now
for a 1 month usage and see if that was high for a third of the time the bill is for usually. (if 10K is usually used, it should
be at about 3K right now; if higher, there is still a problem) He did submit a copy of a bill of his neighbor with 2 or 4
children to compare to his which is just 2 adults.
I explained the process would be our asking Balton Point for a report and then Bill and Mike discussing it and bringing
any recommendation to the full board.
Thank you
Paulette
ti
1103 Hanshaw Rd.,
Ithaca, NY
March 29, 2017
Town of Ithaca Board
215 N. Tioga St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Supervisor Goodman and Board Members:
We are writing to request a reduction in our water and sewer bill for the period of 11/16/16 to
2/15/17. As the attached letter from Bolton Point indicates, we are faced with a current bill of
$585.36—a total more than three times the usual amount we pay every quarter. That figure took
us by surprise, to put it mildly, as we had had no prior indication that our use would be recorded
at such a high level. When the new meter was installed at our house last summer, we were
assured that the convenience of future readings of the meter would be enhanced. We
subsequently found, in the last several months, that other Bolton Point personnel had
reservations about the installation of that meter —"it was "faulty," according to two of them —
and turned out to be incapable of being read by radio transmission (one of its main purposes).
Hence we continued to receive bills in the neighborhood of $180 the last two quarters, leading us
to assume that nothing was awry. The letter arriving earlier this month alerted us to another error
made in the reading of the meter, and a correction was applied to the tune of $173.76 for the
billing period 5/15/16 to 8/15/16. And then the figure of $585.36, for which we were given no
prior preparation, supplied the biggest shock.
In light of the malfunctioning of the new meter over a several -month period, of the inability of
Bolton to read our meter remotely until it was repaired very recently, and of the lack of notice
informing us of the gigantic increase in our usage which did not allow us to address the possible
reason for such an increase, we are requesting that some adjustment be made and our current bill
be reduced.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Marlene Kobre
zv
Ron Denson
BOLTON POINT�'v
�INATE�
• ,.�. SYSTEM
r1}1A CA, qVi
Phone: 607-277-0660
Fax: 607-277-3056
www.boltonpoint.org
scliwc@boltonpoint.org
COMMISSIONERS:
H. MICHAEL NEWMAN
Chairperson
ROY E. STALEY
Vice Chairperson
BILL GOODMAN
Treasurer
DONALD HARTILL
TEE-ANN HUNTER
THOMAS J. JONES
EDWARD LAVIGNE
JASON LEIFER
JACK RUECKHEIM
LINDA WOODARD
CONSULTANTS:
KATHY MILLER
MARY RUSSELL
MARYANN SUMNER
MANAGEMENT:
JOAN FOOTE
General Manager
STEVE RIDDLE
Distribution
PAMELA VANGELDER
Finance
GLENN RATAJCZAK
Production
SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION
TOWNS OF DRYDEN * ITHACA • LANSING - VILLAGES OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS • LANSING
1402 EAST SHORE DRIVE — ITHACA, NY 14850
February 28, 2017
Marlene Kobre
1103 Hanshaw Rd
Ithaca NY 14850
Re: Account # T1347,1103 Hanshaw Rd
Dear Marlene Kobre:
Enclosed you will find your March 1, 2017 Water Bill. You will notice it has $173.76 due in arrears.
This amount is for a corrected bill back on the 9J1J16 quarter.
The 9j1/16 bill is for billing period: 5-15-16 to 8-15-16. In between theses dates, your meter was
replaced with a new meter. The old meter reading should have been used at that time and it was not.
The bill was estimated using 15,800 gallons instead. The bill should have been readings 2254400 to
2286200-last reading on old meter. The usage should have been 31,800 gallons..The correct bill would
be $345.35, you paid $171.59 and it left a balance due of $173.76.
I apologize for the confusion. If you have any questions about this, please contact myself.
Thank you,
?udyysi
Account Clerk
cc T1347
* ♦ ♦Excellence in water quality and customer service t
03/30/17 - TOWN OF ITHACA
15:34:59
Account Ledgers
WATER SEWER COLLECTION
Date Reference Charge Penalty Other Charge Penalty Other Charge Penalty Balance
Account # T1347 NIARLENE KOBRE
5/01/04
Forward
0.00
9/01/04
Billing
32.00
17.60
49.60
3/30/04
CR716049
-32.00
-17.60
0.00
2/01/04
Billing
32.00
18.04
50.04
2/20/04
CR744054
-32.00
-18.04
0.00
3/01/05
Billing
34.40
17.60
52.00
3/30/05
CR796045
-34.40
-17.60
0.00
6/01/05
Billing
34.40
17.60
52.00
6/16/05
CR823033
-34.40
-17.60
0.00
9/01/05
Billing
56.42
36.08
92.50
9/19/05
CR861067
-56.42
-36.08
0.00
2/01/05
Billing
41.62
26.62
68.24
2/19/05
CR896063
-41.62
-26.62
0.00
3/01/06
Billing
34.40
20.24
54.64
3/27/06
CR936047
-34.40
-20.24
0.00
6/01/06
Billing
34.40
17.60
52.00
6/07/06
CR959095
-34.40
-17.60
0.00
9/01/06
Billing
34.40
20.46
54.86
9/26/06
CR009014
-34.40
-20.46
0.00
2/01/06
Billing
34.40
17.60
52.00
2/20/06
CRO43080
-34.40
-17.60
0.00
3/01/07
Billing
34.40
17.60
52.00
3/29/07
CRO89056
-34.40
-17.60
0.00
6/01/07
Billing
34.40
18.70
53.10
6/12/07
CR107092
-34.40
-18.70
0.00
9/01/07
Billing
72.24
46.20
118.44
9/18/07
CR151064
-72.24
-46.20
0.00
2/01 /07
Billing
34.40
19.80
54.20
2/17/07
CR187073
-34.40
-19.80
0.00
3/01/08
Billing
35.50
17.60
53.10
3/30/08
CR242106
-35.50
-17.60
0.00
6/01 /08
Billing
36.57
22.66
59.23
6/11 /08
CR267065
-36.57
-22.66
0.00
9/01 /08
Billing
49.35
30.58
79.93
9/30/08
CR322086
-49.35
-30.58
0.00
2/01 /08
Billing
35.50
25.00
17.60
78.10
11/01/09
Penalty
6.05
1.76
85.91
11/06/09
CR362027
-35.50
-6.05 -17.19
-17.60
-1.76
7.81
G/01 /09
Billing
42.50
17.60
67.91
13/31/09
Penalty
4.25
1.76
73.92
4/07/09
CR402004
-43.28
-4.25 -7.81
-17.60
-1.76
-0.78
16/01 /09
Billing
42.50
17.60
59.32
16/30/09
CR440030
-41.72
-17.60
0.00
19/01/09
Billing
42.50
17.60
60.10
0/01 /09
Penalty
4.25
1.76
66.11
)9/29/09
CR489001
-42.50
-17.60
6.01
0/13/09
ADJO5962
-4.25
-1.76
0.00
Page: 1
�
Account # T1347
12/01/09
Billing
42.50
17.60
60.10
12/21/09
CH515110
'42.50
'17.60
0.00
03/01/10
Billing
43.20
17.60
60.80
03/30/0
CR589045
-43.20
-17.60
0.00
0E/01/10
Billing
43.20
17.60
6I80
0E/3010
OR612068
-43.20
-17.60
0.00
09801/10
Billing
102.82
52.36
155.18
09/2380
OR641042
-102.82
-52.36
0.00
12X01/10
Billing
118.21
59.18
175.39
12Y17Y10
CR872077
-116.21
-59.18
0.00
03X01/11
Billing
47.00
30.48
77.48
03/30/11
CR717052
-47.00
-30.48
0.00
06/01/11
Billing
47.00
34.67
81.67
06/30/11
CR763002
-47.00
-34.67
0.00
09/01/11
Billing
86.01
69.72
155.73
09/28/11
OR796064
-88.01
-69.72
0.00
12A01/11
Billing
82.25
66.68
148.93
12/31/11
Penalty
8.23
6.67
163.83
01/10/12
CR842001
-82.25
-66.68
14.90
0301/12
Billing
72.85
61.17
148.92
03/30/12
CR876019
-72.85 -8.23
'61.17 -6.67
0.00
0601/12
Billing
81.84
68.72
150.56
06/27Y12
CR914056
-81.84
-68.72
0.00
09801/12
Billing
186.17
139.83
305.70
09/21/12
CR847044
'166.17
-189.53
0.00
12/01/12
Billing
104.79
87.99
192.78
12/18V12
CR978069
'104.79
-87.98
0.00
03/01/13
Billing
92.27
86.36
158.63
03/29/13
CR031046
-82.27
-66.36
0.00
0E*01/13
Billing
58.40
33.80
92.00
06/30X13
CR080073
-58.40
-33.60
0.00
09/01/13
Billing
83.44
67.20
180.64
09/30/13
CR1DO1OQ
-93.44
-67.20
0.00
12/01/13
Billing
67.74
48.72
116.46
12/27/13
CR149031
-67.74
-48.72
0.00
03X01/14
Billing
78.47
55.68
134.15
03/24/14
CD183053
-78.47
-55.68
0.00
0601/14
Billing
59.90
34.00
93.90
06X24/14
OR240049
-59.90
'34.00
0.00
09/01/14
Billing
131.78
93.50
225.28
09/25/14
OR302059
'131J8
'93.50
0.00
1201/14
Billing
65.29
46.33
111.82
12/22/14
OR347121
-65.29
-46.83
0.00
03K01/15
Billing
96.34
64.48
160.82
0300/15
CR409025
-96.34
-84.48
0.00
06801/15
Billing
81.03
54.23
135.26
06/30/15
CR471053
-81.03
-54.23
0.00
09/01/15
Billing
81.03
54.23
185.20
09/08/15
CR492001
-81.03
'54.23
0.00
12/01/15
Billing
103.36
88.17
172.53
12/22y15
CF561075
-103.38
-69.17
0.00
03801/16
Billing
92.36
60.77
153.13
03/30/16
OR822035
'92.36
-80.77
0.00
06k01/16
Billing
134.28
88.36
222.64
06/27Y16
OH668108
'134.28
'88.38
0.00
1�
Accouifit # T1347
09/01/16
Billing
103.49
68.10
171.59
09/20/16
CR704084
-103.49
-68.10
0.00
12/01/16
Billing
108.73
71.55
180.28
12/19/16
CR750084
-108.73
-71.55
0.00
01 /11/17
ADJ01 031
104.80
68.96
173.76
03/01/17
Billing
353.05
232.31
759.12
Totals: 457.85
301.27
Page: 3
Paulette Rosa
Subject: FW: Airbnb
-------- Original message --------
From: Maralyn Edid <tjise,421 @) gmai I.coin>
Date: 2017/04/23 3:12 PM (GMT-05:00)
To:
Subject: Airbnb
Mr. Goodman,
We are long-term residents of Renwick Heights who value its tucked -away location and strong neighborhood
identity. We perceive that the incursion of short-term Airbnb rentals is negatively affecting the character and
security of our community.
When people let out their homes to strangers there is risk not only to their property and safety but to that of their
neighbors, as well. Moreover, the coming and going of strangers is disruptive and potentially problematic. It
invites an increase in traffic and noise, frays community norms, and injects an element of urban anonymity into
small-town quality of life.
We believe the Town of Ithaca can and should ban short-term rentals of all types. We vigorously oppose the
Town's determination to allow such rentals involving single visitors, and are concerned about unequal
notification and enforcement within the jurisdiction. Are certain neighborhoods more protected against Airbnb
incursions than others?
We are truly disappointed that the Town would tolerate and even encourage rentals under 30 days, essentially
taking a stance that so clearly harms residents.
Sincerely,
Maralyn Edid and Lawrence Blume
22 Renwick Heights Rd.
TOWN OF ITHACA
OF
215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca,ny.us
Phone: (607)273-1721
Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement
pgoodrnan@to"nithaca.ny.us prosa@)townJthaca.ny.us bbates@town.ithaca.ny.us
April 21, 2017
Dear Town of Ithaca Resident,
Over the past several years, the Town of Ithaca has experienced a dramatic rise in the
incidence of short-term residential rentals (STRR). Unlike traditional rental arrangements, where
tenants and landlords agree to terms for months or years at a time, STRR often last for less than a
week, frequently for a night or two. Landlords and tenants find each other online, utilizing sites
like airbnb.com, flipkey.corn and horneaway.com. While ensuring the availability of
accommodations for persons visiting the Ithaca area is important, STRR are largely unregulated,
are not subject to health and safety inspections, and have become a source of frequent nuisance
complaints involving noise, parking and litter. The Town of Ithaca is endeavoring to devise
policies that balance the realities of "the sharing economy" with the needs and expectations of
permanent residents and the Town's ongoing desire to preserve and enhance the availability of
stable, affordable housing. The process is complicated, and equitable solutions will require
considerable time and research. In the meantime, the Town's elected officials and code
enforcement staff feel that it is important to detail the regulatory landscape, as it currently exists,
related to short-term residential rentals.
Short-term Residential Rentals Frequently Violate Town of Ithaca Code
Short-term residential rentals frequently violate Town Code provisions related to
occupancy, parking, and noise. The Town of Ithaca regulates residential occupancy based on its
definition of "farnfly," which is similar or identical to definitions used throughout New York
State. For example, based on current regulations, an owner -occupant of a single-family house
can only rent to one individual at a time. Occupancy exceedances are subject to fines and
penalties.
Compliance
The construction and subsequent Occupancy of single-family and two-family buildings,
which account for virtually all of the STRR in the Town of Ithaca, are regulated in accordance
with parameters set forth in the International Residential Code (IRC). While it is possible that
Page 1 of 2
some of the existing STRR meet IRC requirements for minimum habitable square footage,
egress, smoke detectors, etc., without comprehensive inspections of STRR it is not possible for
the Town to ascertain whether structures are safe for renters. Moreover, it is possible that
modification of the property to enable STRR could trigger the obligation to comply with current
code requirements that did not exist at the time the structure was built.
Creating a Regulatory Plan For Short -Term Residential Rentals
The Town of Ithaca is sensitive to the evolution of the short-term rental economy and is
exploring avenues that could potentially allow for owner -occupants to utilize their primary
dwellings on a limited basis to supplement their income and, by extension, make their homes
more affordable. However, properties that are acquired and/or converted for the sole purpose of
STRR remove much -needed housing stock from the market, raise rental property rates across the
board, and have proven to be consistently problematic for neighbors. These "business"
properties will be under increased regulatory scrutiny as legal parameters are developed. In the
meantime, residents are encouraged to communicate with their neighbors to attempt to resolve
issues, and report suspected violations to the Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department, at
(607) 273-1721, for investigation and potential enforcement action.
Page 2 of 2
Town of Ithaca
Monica Lang & Bradford K Krakow
215 N Tioga St
228 Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dorothy D Park
Katherine Howe & Louis Hyman
205 Devon Rd
130 Sunset Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Ithaca, NY 14850
Ayako S & Michael B Timmons
126 Sunset Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Elizabeth Caldwell & Anthony Brighton
11 Renwick Heights Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
Neville & Vera Dyson -Hudson
123 Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Kathleen Ann & David Putnam
17 Renwick Heights Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
Renee Alexander
2 Renwick PI
Ithaca, NY 14850
John Eckenrode
21 Renwick Heights Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
Karen & David Smith
221 Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Monica Lang & Bradford Krakow
228 Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Lisabeth Chabot & Nicholas Whitmer
1 Renwick PL
Ithaca, NY 14850
Judith & Frank Wayno
110 Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Michael and Katherine Kingra
14 Renwick Heights Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
Barbara Kolowski & Richard Boyd
18 Renwick Heights Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
Mallika Thomas
20 Renwick Heights Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
Monica Lang & Bradford Krakow
228 Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Ayako S & Michael B Timmons
126 Sunset Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Romas & Kristina Spokas
102 Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Fayerty Creagan
117 Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Thomas D Fox
15 Renwick Heights Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
Maureen Viele
19 Renwick PI
Ithaca, NY 14850
Mallika Thomas
20 Renwick Heights Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
Nancy D Hart Lawrence Blume and Maralyn Edid
215 Renwick Dr 22 Renwick Heights Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Katherine Stettler & David Deitcher Robert & Bonnie Mac Dougall
227 Renwick Dr 120 Sunset Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
Sarah Schneider Gunther & Amy Rose Marga & Oskar Liivak
Krosch 230 Renwick Dr
23 Renwick Heights Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
Ithaca, NY 14850
Edward BSwartz Anthony J Pane, Jr Marian K8oynes&John Hickey
Z3ZRenwick Dr 235Renwick Dr 23GRenwick Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850
ElkeSiegel & Paul Fleming
237Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY14Q5O
Christopher Kerber & Genevive Meredith
240Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Lena& Lawrence0any
250Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NYI485O
Elliott & Elizabeth Ryan
37Renwick Heights Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
Phyllis
& William Highland
] Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY14A5O
Lam&Lee Kaltman
24 Renwick HeightsRd
Ithaca, NY 14850
Debra & Jeffrey Lillie
37 Victor MenclonRd
Catherine A&Paul RDawson
ZSGRenwick Dr
Ithaca, NY14850
MiaSlotniukQKenneth Simpson
28 Renwick HeightsRd
Ithaca, NY14D5O
Jennifer Germann&Peter McCracken
3ORenwick Heights Rd
Ithaca, NY1485O
Christopher Kerber &GaneviveMeredith
240Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY14O50
Lynda VVDBuge
25 Renwick HeightsRd
Ithaca, NY1485D
William CBrothers
2GORenwick Ur
Ithaca, NYl4Q6O
Selina & Michael Lenetd9
Z9Renwick Heights Rd
Ithaca, NY1485O
Britta E & Brian TLee
5Renwick Dr
Ithaca, NY 14850
Luisa & Michael MacAnanny Mary Schwartz XiaoyunNang
6Renwick M 7Renwick nr 8Renwick Dr
TO: ThcTonnofIthaca (Attn:Town Clerk)
In accordance with New York State Town Law Section 65-a, notice is hereby given to theTown of Ithaca that
dangerous road conditions exist on Westview Lane, Terraceview Lane and Towerview Road in the Grandview
subdivision of the Town of Ithaca.
These dangerous conditions consist of,
L Excessively steep -sloped roadside surface water collection ditches that contravene safety standards of
the Federal Highway Administration and the recommendations of the Cornell Local Roads Program,
Roadside surface water collection ditches are within the road right-of-way, necessary for roadway
p,cservaboo,00dareoervicedhy{hcto*uuaonintegrapmrto[ooud*uymajniunanuc.Thur6nr,dhcycao
reasonably be construed as part and parcel ofthe roadway.
The above -mentioned organizations assert that:
"Ditch slopes steeper than |V:3Bare not considered traversable aodshouNnot6cfound iuthe clear xmc."
"Ditch sides are usually constructed inthe ranges nflY:3BtnK/:6Hi Steeper slopes pose greater safety
risk to motor vehicles traveling across ordown them. Side slopes oflYAB orflatter are commonly
accepted aasafe side a|opcs."
"In slopes ofless than l\/:3Uthe front slope can busteep enough wcause arollover
accident. lfthe vehicle stays upright, the ouOiyiun with the back slope Could bu aovorr enough to cause
injuries. If the front bumper digs into the back slope, a car can be spun around in a very violent manner."
Ddubcs specifically in violation are located in front nfthc following addresses and locations in the Grandview
sobdivision:
WootvicwLunu:
126
128
129
131
85
|37
138
139
|4|
|42
|43
145
|47
152
153
/55
20
202
203
206
209
2|0
2||
Oil both sides of the road from the intersection of Westview Lane and Towerview Road to the intersection with NYS
On the north and east sides of the northeast bend of Westview Lane.
Towerview Road:
101
103
105
112
113
121
On the north side of Terraceview beginning at 102 continuing to the intersection of Honness Lane.
2. Large, exposed concrete sanitary sewer access basins within the roadside surface water collection
ditches. These basins are in breach of a Federal Highway Administration safety warning:
"Concrete drainage features adjacent to the roadway are potentially hazardous when they extend above the
surrounding ground. These features are rigid objects that can snag the undercarriage of a vehicle leaving the
roadway or initiate vehicle rollover."
Exposed sanitary sewer access basins within the roadside surface water collection ditches exist in front of the
following addresses and locations in the Grandview subdivision:
Westview Lane
137
151
In two locations on the east side of Towerview Road near the intersection with Rt. 79.
3. Extremely narrow road shoulders that endanger pedestrians and fail to comply with the standards of
a number of recognized road safety agencies and the stipulations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA).
Absent sidewalks, pedestrians have no choice but to use the road shoulders. Most of the road shoulders in the
Grandview subdivision are considerably narrower than 5 ft., often are sloped more than 2 degrees and have the
added hazard of immediately bordering on excessively steep and deep roadside surface water collection ditches.
Mobility impaired residents using mobility devices, as well those who are visually impaired, find it particularly
difficult and dangerous to negotiate Grandview's roadways. Shoulder width leaves little or no room to operate
certain mobility devices forcing mobility impaired persons using such devices to travel in the roadway. Sight
impaired persons often are faced with the dangers of being struck by a car or falling into a deep ditch. An egregious
gious
exarnDle of a combination of narrow shoulder and steep ditch is located on the west side of the southeast curve of
Westview Lane.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have a standard requiring that
road shoulders be constructed of "firm and stable material" with a minimum 4 ft. width, and a slope from the
roadway of no greater than 2 degrees in cases where road shoulders are used as pedestrian paths and the pedestrian
traffic Level of Service (LOS) rating is "A"(<=16 pedestrian per m/m as anecdotally estimated for the Grandview
development). This road shoulder specification represents a collective interpretation by these pertinent transportation
agencies and professional organizations as to what is required to provide for pedestrian safety while concurrently
complying with ADA stipulations. As such, it is evident that the road shoulders currently in use of necessity as
pedestrian paths in the Grandview development might be construed to be unsafe and in violation of ADA
requirements.
Summary:
Grandview is a comparatively densely populated subdivision of duplex homes. Consequently, vehicular traffic is
higher than in subdivisions of similar acreage containing only single family houses. There is considerable bicycle
and foot traffic caused, in part, by the proximity of the East Ithaca Recreation Way. Pedestrians with disabilities
frequently use these roads as well.
The steep and deep roadside ditches and the narrow, steep road shoulders contravene established safety standards
and recommendations, violate ADA requirements, and present a real and present danger to motorists and pedestrians
using Grandview's roadways.
There are no apparent topographical, hydrological or structural constraints that prevent the remediation of these
ditch and road shoulder issues. It is therefore highly recommended that the Town of Ithaca correct these deficiencies
in a timely way before questions of liability are at issue.
References:
Federal Highway Administration "Maintenance of Drainage Features for Safety"
(hqp://safely.fhwa.dot.aov/local rural/training/fhwasa09024/#c2.2)
Cornell Local Roads Program, "Road Safety Fundamentals"
NYSDOT Highway Design Manual. Chapter 18 "Pedestrian Facility Design ", Revision 83, June 24, 2015
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO) "Guide for the Planning, Design
and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. "
American Disabilities Act (ADA) "Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities" as supplemented by "Guidelines for
Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right -of -Way."
Respectfully submitted,
David D. Stotz
153 '/Z Westview Lane
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-3194810
djs2acomell.edu
cc: Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor
Jim Weber, Town Highway Superintendent
Certified Mail
Paulette Rosa
From: Andrew KaUoch<andrew.kaUoch@aidbnbzom>
Sent: Tuesday, April 35'2Ol74:3lPK4
To: pgoodmon@towndhaca.ny.us
Cc: Paulette Rosa; Bruce Bates; Eric Levine; P Leery;T Hunter; Rod Howe; Rich DePao|o;
PB|eiwas
Subject: Airbnb in Ithaca, N.Y.
Attachments: Airbnb Neighbors Tool Briefing.pd[Airbnb Trust and Safety8riefing.pdf, Summary of
Portland ME STR Regulations Mar 2017.pdf, Airbnb Cover Letter, Ithaca NY.pdf
Good afternoon, Supervisor Goodman, members ofthe Town Board, and staff. My name is Andrew Kalloch and I arn a lawyer working in
Public Policy for Airbnb.
DhasmmomuuramotioothuUe8nmdiswnrkio&ounbnn+mnreuu(SlR)mleoand.wthatoud.nomedmpunoulong some additional
information about Airbnb that may bcnfuse iuyour deliberations.
Attached mthis oma|are the following:
l. A cover letter, which describes many ofAjdhoh'strust and safety/quality oflife tools and provides key statistics for New York
and Ithaca (city and town combined).
2. /\pvwcryobo/presentation (via uGuogleDrive link, below) outlining Ai,hoh'oglobal footprint and its economic impact inNew
York State.
3. Two one -page briefings on our Trust and Safety efforts and our new Neighbors too], which are particularly important for the kind
n[listing concerns outlined inthe article above.
4. A summary of the new ordinance from Portland, Maine, which addresses key public safety and quality offife concerns in a
market like Ithaca that is largely residential, but which also benefits from the tourist economy.
Phirbnb in NYS Presentation StatsAj
AsYou can see, home sharing ioaoimportant and growing part of the region's economy and we are proud to be part of the economic potential
dprovides for New York's families, neighborhoods, and communities.
Thank you again for your time and please don't hesitate to reach out ifyou have questions.
Sincerely,
Andrew L. Kalloch
Andrew L. Kalloch
Public Policy
alrbrib
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Hon. Bill Goodman
Supervisor
Town of Ithaca, New York
215 N. Tioga Street
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
pgoodman@town.ithaea.ny.us
Re: Home Sharing Laws in Ithaca, New York
Supervisor Goodman,
On behalf of Airbnb, I urge the Town of Ithaca to adopt regulations that support responsible
home sharing and the economic value it provides to households and businesses in your
community.
Airbnb was launched in 2008 with a single listing in a single apartment in San Francisco. Our
founders-- recent (and unemployed) graduates of the Rhode island School of Design— were
struggling to afford an increasingly expensive housing market and decided to open up their own
home to host other artists who were in town for a design conference.
Nine years later, that single home share has turned into a platform that has brought 150 million
guests to over 3 million listings in 65,000 cities in nearly every country across the globe.
Of course, while Airbnb has used the power of the internet to bring together millions of hosts
and guests, New Yorkers are well aware that home sharing didn't start with Airbnb. Rather, it is
a historic tradition —in this state and others.
Airbnb is proud to be part of this tradition. In the last year alone, over 49,00o hosts welcomed
2.1 million guests to the Empire State, with over 2.5 million New York residents using Airbnb to
travel elsewhere in the U.S. and abroad.
The vast majority of these New York hosts-56 percent of whom are women —are individuals
and families who share their homes occasionally to pay for their mortgage, medicine, and
student loans, or save money for retirement or a rainy day. In fact, the typical host in New York
earns $5,500 in supplemental income by sharing their home for about three nights a month.
Furthermore, unlike other types of lodging, such as multinational hotel chains, 97 percent of
revenue generated through Airbnb goes directly to our hosts, who plow it back into the Empire
State economy.
Home sharing is particularly valuable in college towns like Ithaca, which welcome large amounts
of visitors during graduation weekends, making it difficult for graduating students' guests to
book traditional accommodations like hotels. Airbnb is a flexible way for college towns to
dynamically add much -needed accommodations supply during major events like
commencement, providing visiting families with an affordable accommodation option that
benefits residents and local businesses alike.
It thus comes as no surprise that Ithaca has a substantial community of Airbnb hosts and guests.
In the last year (ending April 1, 2017), there were approximately:
• boo Active Hosts
• 71 percent of Ithaca hosts are women and the average hostage is 46.37 percent of local
hosts are over the age Of 50, highlighting how many hosts use supplemental income from
extra bedrooms to "age in place" in the neighborhoods they call home.
• The typical host rented their home for just 28 nights in the last year. Indeed, for the vast
majority of hosts, home sharing represents a part-time, supplemental source of income,
not a full-time, commercial operation.
• 31,000 Inbound Guests
• Average guest is 39 years old and the average guest group size is 2.5 people, signaling
that Ithaca is a prime destination for couples and families. Moreover, the average length
of stay is 3 nights, highlighting how Airbnb is expanding travel options and spurring
economic growth in Ithaca.
• Over 27,000 Ithaca residents used Airbnb to travel elsewhere in New York State and
around the world.
Airbnb has grown* significantly in recent years and one of the reasons for our success has been
our investments in innovative tools to protect hosts, guests, and neighbors:
• Airbnb uses sophisticated technologies and behavioral analysis techniques to help
prevent potentially troublesome hosts or guests from utilizing the platform in the first
place. For U.S. residents, Airbnb also runs host and guest information through several
public databases to check if there are matches with certain felony convictions, sex
offender registrations, or significant misdemeanors.
• Airbnb maximizes transparency by allowing hosts to require that guests provide a
government ID, and we created a program called Verified ID, which connects a person's
offline identification (a driver's license or passport) with another online profile to their
Airbnb account, such as Facebook, Google, or LinkedIn accounts.
• Airbnb encourages hosts and guests to communicate and get to know one another before
a trip occurs. Like other online platforms like Ebay, our community builds trust and a
track record for users to be able to learn more about each other through publicly
available reviews and feedback.
• There have been over 16o million guest arrivals in Airbnb listings to date. Incidents do
happen, but they are rare. That's why we offer $1 million Host Protection Insurance and
a $1 million Host Guarantee to help protect hosts and guests. In 2016, there were more
than 30 million trips at Airbnb listings worldwide. Significant property damage (claims
that were reimbursed under our Host Guarantee program for over $1,000) was reported
to us o.00g% of the time. For what it's worth, at that rate, you could host a new
reservation every single day for over 27 years without expecting to file a significant
property damage claim under our Host Guarantee.
• If a guest or a host ever have an issue, our global Trust and Safety team is on call 24/7 to
help.
• Last year, we launched the Neighbors platform-- a tool that allows people who may not
even use Airbnb to report potential concerns directly to our staff for review. Between the
time the system launched and the end of 2016, there were 2,229 neighbor concerns that
came into the system. Based on bookings in that same time frame, that represents a rate
of less than 1 in every 26,000 guest arrivals during that time, or .004%.
In addition to these tools, Airbnb believes that reasonable regulation can foster responsible
home sharing. To that end, we've worked with hundreds of municipalities across the country
and around the world to craft rules that work for their communities.
At the heart of most of these ordinances is the recognition that occasionally renting a home does
not transform the property into a commercial hotel any more than a garage sale transforms a
home into the local mall or providing music lessons to local kids turns one's home into Carnegie
Hall.
To that end, we believe Ithaca should recognize short-term rentals as an accessory use in
residential zones, not a full-time commercial practice like a traditional B&B.
Lastly, we believe short term rentals on Airbnb should be taxed like any other transient lodging.
Since 2014, the company has signed voluntary collection agreements with over 275 jurisdictions
around the world, including right here in Tompkins County. These voluntary collection
agreements have enabled us to collect over $240 million to fund critical public services.
New York has a well-earned reputation as a place that is open to new ideas and embraces
innovation. Home sharing is the latest industry to honor that tradition and we urge Ithaca to
follow the lead of other communities in welcoming the economic opportunity it creates for
residents and businesses alike.
Sincerely,
Andrew L. Kalloch
Airbnb
CC: Hon. Rod Howe, Deputy Town Supervisor
Hon. Pamela Bleiwas, Town Board Member
Hon. Rich DePaolo, Town Board Member
Hon. Tee -Ann Hunter, Town Board Member
Hon. Pat Leary, Town Board Member
Han. Eric Levine, Town Board Member
Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
3
alrbnb
A Safe, Welcoming Community: Airbnb Neighbors
Every time a host welcomes a guest into their home, they are also welcoming them into
their neighborhood. We're proud that since Airbnb got started, there have been over too
million guest arrivals in Airbnb listings and those guests have been welcomed by hosts
and their neighbors in over 34,000 cities and towns across 19o+ countries worldwide.
The overwhelming majority of Airbnb guests are respectful travelers, so complaints and
issues are incredibly rare, but we always want to do everything we can to help our
community members be good neighbors in the places our hosts call home.
To help achieve that goal, Airbnb launched a new resource for neighbors of Airbnb hosts
on May 31, 2o16: Airbnb Neighbors.' Anyone can log on to airbnb.LQLLiJ-njJ-�,,tt� )Ira to
share specific concerns they might have about a listing in their community. These
concerns could include things like noise complaints. From there, our team reviews their
concern and, if necessary, follows up with the host regarding the issue.
Neighbors can submit information anonymously or allow our team to pass along their
contact information so the host can follow up with them directly. Once a neighbor
submits feedback, we send a confirmation email, along with a case number.
We treat each case seriously and ensure that we give hosts and their neighbors the
opportunity to resolve concerns themselves, whenever possible. Hosting is a big
responsibility and those who repeatedly fail to meet our standards and expectations are
subject to suspension or removal from the Airbnb community.
Our community of hosts, guests, and neighbors is defined by a set of values that support
our shared mission to create a world where people can belong anywhere. We're excited
to offer this tool as we continue to work to support everyone — including neighbors — in
the Airbnb community.
RMM=4
There have been over 16o million guest arrivals in Airbnb listings and negative incidents
are extremely rare. Our community is growing quickly because it is built on trust - it is
the foundation of our business. We've developed a number of key features that help to
build this trust, including:
• Airbnb uses sophisticated technologies and behavioral analysis techniques to help
prevent potentially troublesome hosts or guests from utilizing the platform in the first
place. For U.S. residents, Airbnb also runs host and guest information through several
public databases to check if there are matches with certain felony convictions, sex
offender registrations, or significant misdemeanors.
• Airbnb maximizes transparency by allowing hosts to require that guests provide a
government ID, and we created a program called Verified ID, which connects a person's
offline identification (a driver's license or passport) with another online profile to their
Airbnb account, such as Facebook, Google, or Linkedin accounts.
o Airbnb encourages hosts and guests to communicate and get to know one another before
a trip occurs. Like other online platforms like Ebay, our community builds trust and a
track record for users to be able to learn more about each other through publicly
available reviews and feedback.
• There have been over 16o million guest arrivals in Airbnb listings to date. Incidents do
happen, but they are rare. That's why we offer $1 million Host Protection Insurance and
a $1 million Host Guarantee to help protect hosts and guests.
In 2016, there were more than 30 million trips at Airbnb listings worldwide. Significant
property damage (claims that were reimbursed under our Host Guarantee program for
over $1,000) was reported to us o.00g% of the time. For what it's worth, at that rate, you
could host a new reservation every single day for over 27 years without expecting to file a
significant property damage claim under our Host Guarantee.
• If a guest or a host ever have an issue, our global Trust and Safety team is on call 24/7 to
help.
e Last year, we launched the Neighbors platform— a tool that allows people who may not
even use Airbnb to report potential concerns directly to our staff for review. Between the
time the system launched and the end Of 2016, there were 2,229 neighbor concerns that
came into the system. Based on bookings in that same time frame, that represents a rate
of less than 1 in every 26,00o guest arrivals during that time, Or .004%.
At the end of the day, while we can't eliminate all the risk in traveling, we work very
hard to help hosts and guests have the ability to make the most informed decisions they
can. We have zero tolerance for inappropriate behavior and the safety of the Airbnb
community is the single most important thing we work on every day.
Short Term Rental (STR) Framework
1Page
Draft STR Regulatory Framework: Updated February 1, 2017
1. A Short Term Rental (STR) is a dwelling unit or rooming unit for transient guests for less
than 30 days;
2. Property owners and their agents (Hosts) may not operate an STR without annually
registering with the Housing Safety Office each unit or rooming unit;
3. The City will reevaluate the STR. policy six months after registration begins and annually
thereafter to understand the STR market impact on Portland's housing stock;
4. A cap of 300 units will be made available for all STR wets that are not located on the islands
and are not a host's primary residence. No cap for non -owner occupied units will initially be
set for the islands.
a. Once caps have been reached a wait list will be formed to help gauge market demand;
b. The City will reevaluate the STR cap for both the islands and mainland six months
after registration begins and annually thereafter to understand the STR market impact
on Portland's housing stock and whether adjustments should be made to either cap;
5. Regardless of ownership structure, individuals shall not be allowed to register more than five
(5) STR units across any buildings in Portland in which they have a financial interest;
6. Due to accountability and effective enforcement concerns only property owners will be able
to register STRs, with the exception that a renter may register one apartment provided that:
a. The apartment is their primary dwelling and the tenant submits a primary residence
affidavit and associated documents;
b. Along with their registration application and fee tenants must provide a notarized
copy of the city drafted landlord -tenant STR permission letter signed by their
landlord. The letter will include:
i. Landlord and tenant's contact information;
ii. A notarized statement of permission by landlord allowing tenant to rent
apartment as STR including an acknowledgment by the owner of their liability
under the Disorderly House Ordinance, inspections, and any fees or code
violations;
7. A violation of the Disorderly House Ordinance will, at the discretion of the City Manager or
their designee, result in an immediate revocation of the registration and 12 month suspension
from registering again;
8. All Island rentals will continue to register with the Housing Safety Office. Because these
rentals are typically rented seasonally the registration fee structure will follow the registration
fees for owner -occupied multi -family buildings. Also, given the type of housing stock on the
islands non -owner occupied single family homes shall be allowed to operate as STRs so long
as they meet all other requirements;
9. Under the STR regulations condominiums will be considered single family homes subject to
the same fees and STR limitations as outlined in the chart below;
2Page
a. For clarity, the Cky's STR regulations will not supersede condominium bylaws
pertaining to subletting or offering STR and each condominium association may
enforce its own STR restrictions as the association deems appropriate;
10. STR will be addressed similarly to all other applicable bulling and land use violations as
described under Section 6.1 of the City Code and the Disorderly House Ordinance;
11. All registration fees and penalties associated with STRs will be allocated to administrative
costs for regulating STRs. Once the administrative needs have been met any remaining
revenue will be allocated to the Housing Trust Fund.
12. Property management firm found operating STR's without proper registration may be fined.
These fines may be in addition to fines levied against the property owner;
13. Where applicable, hosts must sign an affidavit that the registered unit is their primary
residence and provide copies of documents approved by the City demonstrating compliance
with this residency requirement, including government ID's, Homestead Exemption, voter
registration, current business license, and/or any other documents deemed appropriate by
City staff;
14. Hosts must complete the Owner's Pre -Inspection Checklist or similar document provided by
the Housing Safety Office as part of the registration process;
15. As a condition of registration, STR's must allow onske inspections, as well as upon request
present their registration information, rental history and upcoming reservations;
16. A registration number will be given to each host per dwelling unit; this registration number
shall be displayed in the dwelling unit and be featured in ads;
17. Failure of hosts or their representatives to adequately respond to inquiries by the City within
a 48 hour period shall be considered a violation of these regulations and be subject to
penalties under Section 6.1;
18.Overnight STR guest occupancy will be limited to two guests per bedroom plus no more than
two additional guests who may utilize other sleeping space in another area of the dwelling
unit such as a pullout couch. For example, a one bedroom dwelling unit could be rented for a
total of four guests, whereas a two bedroom dwelling unit could be rented to a total of six
guests; and
19. The number of STR units that may be operated in a building and their associated registration
fees will depend on whether or not the building is owner occupied as fiwffier detailed in the
chart on the next page.
a. Fees will be cumulative and will increase based on the number of total units and each
unit fee will relate to whether or not it is in an owner occupied or non -owner occupied
building.
b. Fees will be calculated by first using any STRs operating in single family homes or
owner occupied multi -family buildings and then fees will be attributed at a higher rate
for any units in non -owner occupied buildings. It will not matter what order the units
are registered in as money owed will be adjusted accordingly to accurately reflect the
3Page
total registration fee due based on the number of total units and building typology
represented.
i. If a property owner registers STRs in more than one building the registration
fees will escalate based on the total number of STR's that they register rather
than resetting the escalating fees for each building. For example, if a person
owns two non -owner occupied three unit buildings and can register two units
in each building the registration fee charged would be a total of $3,700 as fees
rise even if registered STR units are not in the same building. If an owner
also operates STRs in an owner occupied multi family or single family
building the registration fees will accumulate the owner occupied unit first, no
matter the timing of registration and the fee for the number of STR units in
non -owner occupied buildings will start in a step above the number of STR
units operated in a single family home or owner occupied multifamily
building.
ii. If we look at the example above where an owner has two three unit properties
-- one of which is owner occupied -- and chooses to register two STRs in each
buiilding, the STRs in the owner occupied building would be calculated first
for a total of $350. The two units in the non -owner occupied building would
trigger higher fees of $1,000 and $2,000 because they are the third and fourth
STR units registered under that owner and these units are in a non -owner
occupied building. In this scenario the total registration fee for both buildings
would be $3,350.
iii. The order of units registered will not affect the total fee that is required as part
of registration. The fees owed will be adjusted as units are registered to
reflect the correct total amount. Owner occupied single family homes and
units in owner occupied multifamily homes will always be tallied as the first
units even if registered at a later date from units in non -owner occupied
buildings. For example, if an owner registers two units in a non -owner
occupied building for $700 and then a month later returns to register two units
in a owner -occupied building the fee calculated will consider the units in the
owner occupied buildings to be at the first and second unit rates and the units
in the non -owner occupied binding will be considered the third and fourth
units for higher fees resulting in a total registration cost of $3,350. The
previously paid amount of $700 will act as a credit towards the $3,350 owed
and at the time of the second registration the owner would owe the remaining
balance of $2,650.
4Page
Type of
Limitations/Max # of STR
Registration Fee
Building
Single Family
May offer rooms in home as STR When
100
Home:
owner is away, may offer entire home as
Owner-
STR.
Occupied*
Single Family
Nat allowed except on the islands
N/A
Home:
Not Owner -
Occupied*
2 unit building — 2 STRs
lst Unit: $100
Multi Unit
3 unit building — 3 STRs
2nd Unit: $250
Building:
4 unit building — 4 STRs
3rd Unit: $500
Owner-
5+ unit building — 5 STRs
41n Unit: $1000
Occupied
5tn Unit: $2000
1 st Unit: $200
2nd Unit: $500
3rd Unit: $1,000
Muki-Unit
41n Unit: $2,000
Buildings:
2 unit building —1 STR
Stn Unit: $4,000
3-5 unit binding — 2 STRs
Not Owner
6-9 unit binding — 4 STRs
Occupied
NOTE: Fees are cumulative
10+ unit building — 5 STRs
and escalate with additional
units whether they are in the
sane building or spread across
multiple properties.
* STRs in condominiums will be viewed as single family homes under these regulations
Cornell University
Martha E. Pollack
Presidcid
May l5,2Ol7
Mr. Bill Goodman
Supervisor
Town of Ithaca
2l5N.TiogoStreet
Ithaca, NY|4050
Dear Supervilsortioodinan,
fe
Thank you lortaking time tomeet with me last Wednesday and for your remarks at the
Maplewood ceremony on Friday. The collaborative relationship between the Town of
Ithaca and Cornell is essential and very much appreciated.
Weare cognizant that major proJects will provide new tax revenues and other benefits, buL
that they can also mean extra work and stress for town boards and professional stuff.
Please keep us abreast of how things are going —from the town's perspective --during the
development of East I Jill Village. I was also happy to learn ofthe Town -Cornell Working
Group and hope that it continues to serve as an important resource.
Ihope you will be able to attend my inauguration on August 25 and Would be honored to
have you join us as well at a community -focused inauguration event to be held at the Lab
ofOrnithology onAugust Zh. We will hereaching out 1uyour staff regarding both
l look forward 10 working with you over the coming months and years. In the meantime,
please don't hesitate to reach Out If there is anything we can do for you.
Martha E.Pollack
300Day Hall Ithaca, NYl4853-28Ol Telephone: (607) 255-5201 Fax: (607) 255-9924 E-mail:
,f7NE Y RK 0 Parks, Ratio ecren
F OF
- — ------- ,�RTUNITY and Historic Preservatiol
ANDREW N1, CU01P 0 ROSE HARVEY
Gove,rnor Corfirnissioner
Mr. Bill Goodman
Supervisor, Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Biggs Memorial Hospital Cottage
402 Harris B Dates Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
Tnm,--)k-i.j-)s County
Dear Mr. Goodman:
May 11, 2017
v
i.aVW"f
Following a detailed review, the State Review Board has recommended to the
Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Hist-oric Preservation, who is the New York
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), that the property Ldentified above be
listed on the New York State Register of Historic Places and nominated to the
National Register of Histori-c Places.
After reviewing the nomination, the SHPO has agreed wJ.(--,h the recommendation
of the State Review Board and has listed the property on the State Register of
Historic Places. We shall now forward the nomination to the Keeper of the
National Register in Washington, D. C.
If the Keeper of the National Register approves the nomination, the property
will be listed on the National. Register. You will be notified when this decision
-i - s made.
Information about the results of State and National Register lisLinq were
included in our earlier notification letter. If you have any further qu(-.>stions,
please contact your field representative Virginia Bar-os, at the Division for
Historic Preservation, (518) 268-2161.
Sincerely,
4,
Michael F. Lynch P IL. AI'A
Director, Division -,"for Historic
Preservation
P4ew York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Presentation
Dmsfan for Historic Preservab(.:7i'). PeeNes lslaiid P0 Bc)x 189 '1tlateffm(J, l\dew 11(.)r-k 12188 0189
0 518-237-8643 0 www,ny�arks,.com 0
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
TOWN SUPERVISOR 273-1721 x 125
FAX (607) 273-1704
David D. Stotz
153 1/2 Westview Lane
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mr. Stotz:
Re: Petition about Westview neighborhood ditches
At its meeting on May 8, 2017, the Town Board reviewed the information you recently
submitted about the ditches in your neighborhood, which were also the subject of the Petition
filed by you and your neighbors on November 15, 2016.
The Board has asked the Public Works Department to investigate the potential costs
to replace the ditches with piping, since any such change could be very costly, as you may
recall when you attended the Public Works Committee meeting in December 2016.
Unfortunately, the engineering staff has been overloaded with other projects for a
while now, so it will take some time before they can come up with an estimate for the
committee to review. We will let you know when it is put on a future committee agenda for
further discussion.
Sincerely,
William D. Goodman,
Town Supervisor
R 4 1,
ECIIJ" VED
MAY 2 ",� 2017
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNNG
Dennis Foerster
165 Westhaven Ro
Ithaca, NY 14850 1
ithaca has long been an advocate for natural beauty and the tranquility that
it offers us all. The current regulations regarding the placement of ground
Wased solar panels seems to be at odds with this, permitting too much
� otential for creating unsightly and unsafe conditions for adjoining
properties.
70-219.1 needs to be immediately rethought. I especially note the MDR
development regions in these comments,
1. As a matter of courtesy, neighbors should be formally notified of
intentions to install such systems so that a placement of mutual accord
might be established.
2. The site proposed should pose the least visual impact for neighboring
properties while minimally affecting electrical output. If there is no site
agreement, the Planning Board should have the power of mediating
differences, Near acre sized properties should offer several acceptable
locations.
3. Ground electrical systems of any size should be surrounded by a
fence to keep children away from danger; MDR residences usually
have children about somewhere. A fence also limits possible injury
to yard workers, and to pets. This should be made retroactive.
4. Roof systems should receive priority of installation, this creates the least
problems. In cases of smaller lots, this should be the only allowed
installation.
5. The ground solar system permit should require the holder to plant
foliage for install a wall),
11), as necessary, to limit the visual impact of the
solar system on adjoining properties. This need not reduce'* electrical
output if thought out. If sufficiently dense, foliage could act as a fence.
6. S ' ystems should be kept as close to the ground as possible;: a 40" height
above the ground level is more effectively hidden. Requests for more
height should be considered on a case by case basis.
7. The destruction of existing mature foliage simply to make space should
not be encouraged.
I offer these recommendations to balance the admittedly desirable prospect
of renewable power with the equally desirable. prospect of preserving a
natural, beautiful world. Given paradise., we should try to maintain it.
Existing permit applications 8hould.be immediately suspended until this is
reconsidered and acted upon by the. Planning Commission. I appreciate
your attention in this.
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway, 14th Floor, Albany, New York 12233-1010
P: (518) 402-8545 1 F: (518) 402-8541
www.clec.Viy.gov
em� =
Honorable Bill Goodman
Supervisor, Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
On behalf of the New York State agencies sponsoring the Climate Smart Communities
Program, I congratulate you and the Town of Ithaca for achieving status as a Certified Climate
Smart Community. Climate change is the defining issue of our generation; the actions Ithaca
has taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change embody the kind of
commitment needed to face this great challenge.
In particular, I applaud the town's actions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through
improved energy efficiency, both in municipal operations and in the larger community.
Reducing energy consumption saves taxpayer dollars and is the foundation of climate -smart
management. Initiatives like municipal lighting upgrades, the Residential Energy Score Project,
and the Green Building Policy Project illustrate the town's commitment to maximizing efficiency.
It is also clear that efficiency is just one component of Ithaca's well-rounded, comprehensive
local climate action program, which embraces both mitigation and adaptation. I commend the
Town of Ithaca for working closely with your county government to conduct adaptation planning
that addresses the risks posed by climate change. Your efforts will make your community and
local infrastructure more resilient under a changing climate.
The Climate Smart Communities program is an important partnership between local and State
governments that gives communities the tools to respond effectively to climate change. Your
outstanding example demonstrates the economic and environmental benefits of local climate
action to your peers — you demonstrate what is possible with committed leadership. With your
help, we can build a viable path forward for all communities in New York State to protect our
citizens, our economies, and our environment from the worst of climate change. Thank you for
your leadership and for collaborating with us at this critical moment in history.
Please contact Dazzle Ekblad at (518) 402-8448 or climatechange@dec.ny.gov if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Basil Seggos
Commissioner
_�t�EnTORK � Dep,rtrnent of
Environmental
Z10... Conservation
"4
Dylan Watros
185 Kendall Avenue
Ithaca, NY 14850
607.342.2358
dylanwat9l@gmail.com
Ithaca Town Supervisor
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Mr. Goodman,
In December, Bruce Bates informed me that I could not obtain a building
permit for my residence because my property did not have Sufficient frontage on an
official Town of Ithaca road. Since its construction in 1986, my residence has been
issued three building permits; one for the construction of the residence and two for
wood stoves that were installed. Thus, this decision was despite my residence being
an existing property, already having been issued permits in the past, and paying
taxes to the Town.
I attended the Ithaca Town Board meeting in January in order to receive
building permits for my property. At the board meeting I was told the issue would
be moved to the Planning Board and that developers had also inquired about this
same area.
I am writing this letter because I feel that I should not be considered in
conjunction with the developers on this issue. My residence already exists and I am
not seeking to expand its footprint. With the number of lots that these developers
own, they will be able to build several buildings at the current zoning designation of
the area - and even more if the zoning level is increased.
The development of the South Hill Recreation Trail and construction on these
lots will surely become controversial due to the removal of green space lining the
recreation trail and construction of "cookie cutter" houses that are favored by the
developers. This process will surely result in a significant delay in the issuance of a
permit for my existing residence.
In order to resolve this situation, I hope you can address my request
separately from these new developments and issue permits for my property by
designating it as an "open development area," in accordance with state code. Please
feel free to contact me with any further questions you may have regarding this
request.
Sincerely,
Dylan Watros
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N Tioga St, Ithaca, NY 14850
Phone: 607-273-1721 m Fax: 607-273-5854
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
4, yo Town Clerk: Paulette Rosa (PRosa@Town.1thaca.NY.US)
Deputy Town Clerks: Debra DeAugistine (DDeaugistine@Town.Ithaca.NY.US)
Jasmin J Cubero (JCubero@Town.Ithaca.NY.US)
jUnc 29, 2017
Patrick Doty
801 Five Mile Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mr. Doty,
The Town Board received your letter/petition regarding the Town accepting BUrtt Rd., a private
road/access that is in significant disrepair. The matter was referred to the Public Works
Committee.
The Committee discussed the request, including the history of the abandonment in 1952, and
recommended/reported to the Town Board that the use of the road is still consistent with that
history, therefore the committee did not recommend accepting the road. The Board agreed.
The notes from the Public Works Committee and the Town Board meeting are available on our
website under Board/Com.rriittee minutes.
If you have any questions or need assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Sincere
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
cc. J Weber
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N Tioga St, Ithaca, NY 14850
N
Phone: 607-273-1721 im Fax: 607-273-5854
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
Ya Town Clerk: Paulette Rosa (P Rosa @Town.Ithaca. NY. US)
Deputy Town Clerks: Debra DeAugistine (DDeaugistine@Town.Ithaca.NY.US)
Jasmin J Cubero (JCubero@Town.Ithaca.NY.US)
June 29, 2017
Dennis Foerster
165 Westhaven Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mr. Foerster,
The Town Board received your letter forwarded by the Planning Board concerning the solar array
legislation recently enacted.
The legislation went through a rigorous Committee process with extensive research of similar
legislation in other municipalities, as well as reviews of scientific articles and existing solar
arrays.
After final revisions and public input opportunities, the Town Board determined the legislation
was in the best interests of the town as a whole and adopted the local law.
Many of the concerns raised in your letter were discussed in detail at both levels and
notes/minutes of those discussions can be found on our website under Board/Committee Minutes
so you can fully understand the reasoning that went in to each decision.
If you have any questions or need assistance, please feet free to contact me.
Sincerel
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
Cayuga Lake Watershed
INTERMUNICIPAL ORCJ'ANIZATION
Intertnunic4lml Coot?ertition 1,)r(, n,1)rolection, of the watershed
June 30, 2017
Dear Municipal Official,
The Cayuga Lake Watershed Ititermunicipal Organization (10) completed two major undertakings in 2016. We
have finalized work on the update of the Cayuga Lake Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan (RPP), and
we have received state funding for a three year project to help watershed municipalities implement the plan's
recommendations.
Attached to this letter is an electronic copy of the RPP update for your information and review, along with a
copy of the recent press release announcing the plan's completion. Many thanks are due to the Cayuga Lake
Watershed Network and their watershed steward, Hilary Lambert. For three years, the 10 and Hilary have been
hard at work gathering public and professional input. The RPP update represents many hours of time
volunteered by water quality experts and Municipal 10 representatives who also deserve thanks. The update has
been submitted to NYS Department of State and we are ready to move on to the work of implementing its
recommended actions.
Continuing municipal support is needed to match the state funds recently awarded and we ask that you
remember to include an 10 contribution in your upcoming budget. If support for the 10 has not been in your
recent budgets, please seriously consider adding your support. Throughout the update process, we were told
how difficult it is for municipalities to tackle water quality projects. We heard you, and for this reason we
applied for funding to hire Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board to help 10 member
municipalities. That funding has been awarded, but it requires a match of $12,000 per year from the 10. That
match must come from your municipal contributions. Please honor your commitment to the watershed by
including an 10 contribution in your budget. You will be sent contribution vouchers from the Town of Ithaca
under separate cover.
We will have the new grant contract in hand shortly and will contact each of you to see how we can help your
municipality. There is an increasing level of state commitment and local energy being directed to the health of
the Finger Lakes. We look forward to working with watershed municipalities in taking advantage of the
opportunities this new and increasing attention offer.
Please feel free to contact me at 60-1-279-72,49 or for more information.
Regards,
Tee -Ann Hunter
Chair, Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization
From: Bill Goodman
Sent Wednesday, July 05,2Ol73:5OPM
To: Paulette Rosa
Cc: Debra DeAugbdne
Subject: FW: Deer Management proposal in the Town of Ithaca
FYI, for Correspondence Folder
----- Original Message ---
From: KyUikki Inman
Sent: Tuesday, July O4 20173:40AM
To: P Leary; E Levine; Rod Howe; THunter; Bill Goodman; Rich DePao|o; P0eiwas
Subject: Deer Management proposal in the Town of Ithaca
Dear Town Board Members,
|amhighly opposed tothe "Deer Management" plan being proposed for the Town ofIthaca. Like CorneU'scurrent plan,
this advocates the use of severe and cruel methods to kill an excessive number of deer. Some of the data used to defend
the program isfaulty and one sided.
They are touting the killing of deer to reduce Lyme Disease, but the deer have nothing to do with the bacteria that
causes the disease. It is infected White-footed Mice that give the disease to to the ticks, ifthe numbers ofdeer are
reduced, the ticks will host onother animals people, dogs, etc.
| live inForest Home, and myhouse iseffectively surrounded bvCornell land the golf course and the land formally
known as "The Plantations", both where they have been killing deer for years . I used to enjoy seeing deer in my yard,
almost every day, seeing them interact and calmly going about their lives. Now, thanks toCorneU'sextermination ofthe
White Tail Deer, I hardly ever see a deer in my yard. When I do it's a scrawny, small scared deer. Never more than one,
and never the majestic |argedeerwith1Opointant|enthat|usedtoseefrequent|y!|hoven'tseeadnewithafawnin
years! Cornell has killed them all. (They like to say "harvested" or "taken" , because that sounds "clean" instead of
violent and cruel.)
Cornell uses the highly illegal corn baiting and shooting the deer at night with search lights to frighten and paralyze the
poor creatures. (illegal if regular hunters do this, why is Cornell special?) They spoke in their plan about how when shot
with arrows deer run into people's yards, and then Cornell wants permission to go in people's yards "to finish them off".
I have experienced this twice in my yard, with deer bleeding from the neck and another one from the shoulder. Bleeding
copious amounts of blood onto the snow, I took a photo to document this under my bird feeder 5 feet from my house.
Does everyone want toexperience this intheir yards?
I ask you don't just take Cornell's word on "Deer Management" as gospel, they have an agenda. Do your own research
before you vote on having a deer massacre in the Town of Ithaca. There are many sides to this subject and many
possible future ramifications not mentioned intheir proposal.
Thank you very much for your time,
Sincerely,
KyUikN Inman
1
Lowell Garner
=
WERVAIN IN 600 1114�
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Freedom of Information Law Request
Dear Town Board Members:
I am a long-time resident of the Village of Lansing. Over the past decade or so, I have
grown increasingly troubled by my village government's pursuit of its "deer
management" program. Unfortunately, it seems that the Town of Ithaca has recen tly
chosen to consider a "management" program of its own. I am submitting this
Freedom of Information Request in order to obtain information on the factors
contributing to the spread of deer management policies across the region.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, Public Officers Law Article 6, 1 hereby
request a copy of the records listed below. For purposes of this request,
"communications" shall include correspondence, electronic mail (including all
attachments), text messages, and recordings or notes regarding conversations in
person or by phone or video chat. I request the following:
1. All communications and other records in the possession of the Town of
Ithaca Board pertaining to the creation of a deer management committee,
citizen advisory committee, or other body meant to address the presence of
deer in the town (this request includes any communications or other records
pertaining to the composition of such a body, i.e., what participants might
serve on the committee, invitations to serve, etc.).
2. All communications between any Town of Ithaca Board Member or other
Town of Ithaca official and any current or former faculty, staff, or students at
the Natural Resources Department at Cornell University (including but not
limited to Bernd Blossey, Paul Curtis and Jay Boulanger) pertaining to deer,
deer management, deer hunting, or the programs in the villages of Lansing,
Trumansburg, or Cayuga Heights from January 1, 2015 to the date this
request is fulfilled.
1 All communications and other records in the possession of the Town of
Ithaca Board pertaining to the Natural Resources Department at Cornell
University or any of its current or former faculty, staff, or students (including
but not limited to Bernd Blossey, Paul Curtis and Jay Boulanger) from
January 1, 2015 to the date this request is fulfilled.
4. All communications between any Town of Ithaca Board Member or other
Town of Ithaca official and any official in the villages of Lansing,
Trumansburg, or Cayuga Heights pertaining to deer, deer management, deer
hunting, or the Cornell University Department of Natural Resources or any of
its current or former faculty, staff, or students (including but not limited to
Bernd Blossey, Paul Curtis and Jay Boulanger) from January 1, 2015 to the
date this request is fulfilled.
Please provide as many responsive records as possible in electronic form via email.
If all the records cannot be emailed to me, please inform me of the portions that
cannot be emailed along with the cost of printing paper copies, before you begin
printing. If you determine that portions of the requested records are exempt from
disclosure, please provide me with access to the non-exempt portions. If a portion of
my request is denied for any reason, please inform me of the reason for denial
(citing the specific FOIL exemption you rely on to withhold each portion of the
record request) and provide me with the name and address of the person or body to
whom an appeal should be sent. If, in your response to any of the requests made
above, you claim that no responsive records are in your possession, please provide a
sworn statement certifying that fact, pursuant to NY Public Officers Law Article 6 §
89(3)(a).
The Freedom of Information Law requires that an agency respond to a request
within five business days. I look forward to receiving your response as soon as
possible. Your efforts and full consideration of this request are greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
4
Lowell Garner
Igarner@twcny.rr.com
cc: Bill Goodman, Supervisor 13Goodman@towndthaga.�nus)
Pamela Bleiwas, Board Member PBIeiwasC@townjthaca.n us)
Rich DePaolo, Board Member RDePaoIo0town.ithaca_.n_y_._us)
Rod Howe, Board Member RHoweCa)townjthaca.ny.us)
Tee -Ann Hunter, Board Member (THunter0town.ithaca.nyju_s)
Pat Leary, Board Member (PLearXOtown.ithaca.ny.us)
Eric Levine, Board Member ELev1neC@town.ithaca.ny.us)
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk (TownClerk@town.ithaca.nv.us,
SUPREME COURT OFTHE s,rA,rE OF NEW YORK
CO[ I T NTY OFTOMPKINS
FDR MAPLEWOOI) Ll
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
-against-
FlIF ASSESSOR. _1111- BOARD OF ASSESSORS ANDTHE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
REVIEW OFTFIF. I OVk N OF ITHACA AND THE TOWN OFFITIACA
Defendant/Respondent,
Index No.r,— F- 201
7-oi3l
,-7113117,
11111111111
C11111,0
LI
91 0i -MM0101110 a
PLEASL'I AKI- NOTICE that the matter captioned above, which has been commenced by filing of the accompanying documents
with the County Clerk, is subject to mandatory electronic filing pursuant to Section 202.5-bb of the Uniform Rules for the "Trial Courts. This
notice is being served a,, required by Subdivision (b) (3) of that Section.
The New York State Courts Electronic Filing System ("NYSCEF") is designed for the electronic filing of documents with the County
Cleric and the court and for the electronic service of those documents, Court documents, and court notices upon counsel and self -represented
PaULiCS. Counsel and or parties who do not notify the court of a claimed exemption (see below) as required by Section 202.5-bb(e) must
immediately record tlicir representation within the e-file matter on the Consent page in NYSCE'.F. Failure to do so may result in an inability to
recel � c electronic notice of document filings.
Exemptions 1rorn mandatory e-filing are limited to: I ) attorneys who certi ty in good faith that they lack the computer equipment and
(along with all employees) the requisite knowledge to comply; and 2) self -represented parties who choose not to participate in e-filing. For
additional information about electronic filing, including access to Section 202.5--bb, consult the NYSCEF website at www.nycourts.gov/efile
or contact the NYSCH Resource Center at 646-386-3033 or efile(a;courts.statc.uy.US.
Dated:
Scan M. Cronin
CRONIN S, CRONIN I AW FIRM,
P11C.
M
(Signature)
(Name)
(Firm Name)
200 OLD COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 470 (Address)
MINEOLA, NY H 501
516-747-2220
(Phone)
scroniii((�)ci-oriiiitaxlaw.coiii (E-Mail)
Our File " 200-0840
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
--------------------------------------------X
In the Matter of the Application of:
EDR MAPLEWOOD LLC NOTICE OF PETITION
AND PETITION
Petitioner,
-against-
THE ASSESSOR, THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA
AND THE TOWN OF ITHACA
Respondents.
For Review of a Tax Assessment Under Article 7
of the Real Property Tax Law.
-------------------------------------X
200-0840
S I R S
Index #
� Tax Year 2017/18 f
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed Petition,
application will be made at Special Term of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York to be held at the Courthouse located in the
State of New York, on the 5th Day of September 2017 at the opening
of Court on that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard,
for review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the
assessment upon Petitioner's real property described in the
Petition, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.
DATED: 7/11/2017
Yours, etc.
CRONIN & CRONIN LAW FIRM, PLLC.
Attorneys for Petitioner
200 Old Country Road, Suite 470
Mineola, New York 11501
'The aforementioned Petitioner, by' its attorney, CRONIN & CRONIN LAW FIRM,
PLLC, respectfully alleges as follows:
1. The aforementioned Petitioner, whose post office address is c/o CRONIN &
CRONIN Law Firm, PLLC, 200 Old Country Road, Mineola, New York 11501, at all times
herein mentioned, was and still is an aggrieved party under section 704 and 706 of
the RPTL with respect to the assessment roll set forth in the schedule in this
petition.
2. The Respondents prepared and completed, according to law, a tentative
assessment roll for the assessing jurisdiction for the year set forth on the cover
page of this petition and notice of petition, which assessment roll included an
assessment for Petitioner's real property, described in the following schedule.
3. If there be more than one Petitioner herein, the word "Petitioner" shall
mean "Petitioners" or "each of the Petitioners", whenever the sense and context so
requires.
4. if there be more than one assessment herein, the word "assessment" shall
mean "assessments" or "each of the assessments,", whenever the sense and context so
requires.
S. If there be more than one property herein, the word "property" shall mean
"properties" or "each of the properties", whenever the sense and context so
6. Respondents are authorized to assess real property in said jurisdiction.
7. Respondents are authorized to hear and determine complaints in relation to
assessment and has all of the powers and duties imposed by the Real Property Tax
Law
S. The Respondents prepared and completed a tentative assessment roll of all
real property in said jurisdiction for the tax year as set forth on the attached
schedule.
9. On or before Grievance Day, Petitioner protested said assessment by filing
with Respondents a written application for correction of the assessed valuation(s) ,
in which app
lication was included a statement, under oath, specifying
0 the respects in which said assessment was incorrect and a request that said
assessment be corrected and reduced as set forth in the aforementioned schedule.
Said application and statements are hereby referred to and made a part of this
Petition as if fully set forth herein.
10. The said application and statements were received by Respondents, without
objection, within the time fixed by law for the making and hearing of complaints in
respect to assessments.
11. A final decision and determination of the assessments of said real
properties were duly rendered by Respondents, who failed to correct and reduce said
assessment as requested and finally completed and filed the assessment roll as
required by law to the amount set forth in the aforementioned schedule.
12. Thirty (30) days has not elapsed since the latter of the final completion
and filing of the assessment roll and the giving of notice thereof as required by
law, or, the final day set by law for the filing of the assessment roll.
13. The Petitioner herein alleges that a common question of law or fact exists
pursuant to RPTL Section 706(2).
14. The said assessment of your Petitioner's property on the assessment roll
as finally completed is incorrect and erroneous upon the following grounds:
(a). Excessive to the extent set forth in the aforementioned scheduled.
(b) Unequal to the extent set forth in 'the aforementioned scheduled in that there
is an inequality of assessments, the Petitioner's assessment having been made at a
higher proportionate valuation than the assessments of other real property on the
same roll and/or other real property in the same class on the same roll by the same
officers and Respondents; the specified instances of said inequality are the
assessments of all of the real property and/or other real property in the same
class other than the property of Petitioner in the assessing jurisdiction and in
each and every parcel thereof. In order that the assessment of Petitioner's real
property be made proportionate to assessments of all of the real property
throughout, the assessing jurisdiction and/or other real property in the same class
throughout the assessing jurisdiction, it is necessary that it be reduced to the
amount set forth in the aforementioned schedule.
(c) Illegality to the extent set forth in the aforementioned schedule in that
subject property is being assessed in an erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious
manner.
(d) Unconstitutional to the extent the methodology used by the Respondents is in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the New York State Constitution and the
United States Constitution.
(e) Illegal and unconstitutional to the extent that the Petitioner's property has
been reevaluated by the Respondents, and on information and belief, no improvements
had been made by Petitioner and no construction of any structure had occurred which
could justify the increase in assessment.
15. While confirming the increased assessment placed upon Petitioner's real
property, on information and belief, the Respondent Assessor (s) did not engage in
any market reevaluation as to lots that are similar to those owned by the
Petitioner.
16. If the assessment at issue is a transitional assessment, such assessment
is excessive, erroneous and illegal in that it exceeds the permissible transitional
increase as set forth in the Real Property Tax Law.
17. Your Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal,
excessive, illegal, incorrect and erroneous assessment in that, by reason thereof,
Petitioner will be compelled to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes based
upon the assessment roll than Petitioner would be required to pay if said
assessment had been just, fair, equal and correct.
18. No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief from the final
determination of Respondents, except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court
and no previous application for the relief herein asked has been made to any court
or Judge.
19. The assessment is excessive and illegal in that Petitioner is denied the
benefit of a RPTL §485-b New Construction Exemption even though the Petitioner
complied with all the requirements set forth therein and that the construction is
completed in accordance with RPTL ;485-b.
20.. The Petitioner's real property has been misclassified. The class
designation of Petitioner's real property results in an incorrect allocation of the
real property's assessed valuation between two or more classes. The criteria used
by the Respondents for the determination by tax class is arbitrary, capricious and
unlawful.
21. The Agricultural Exemption is improperly implemented in that it omitted
acreage as not qualified for the exemption even though this acreage is used solely
for agricultural use.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct on
the merits the aforementioned final determination of the Respondents on the grounds
set forth in this Petition, and that the. said Court take evidence to enable your
Petitioner to show the unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal, misclassified and
erroneous assessment of the said real property to the end that the assessment may
be reduced to the full, true and market value thereof for land and improvements and
to a valuation proportionate to the assessments of other real property, and/or all
other property in the same class, assessed on the same rolls for the same year, so
that equality of assessments will result, and may be properly classified, and for
such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper, together with the cost
and disbursements of this proceeding.
CRONIN & CRONIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
Attorneys for Petitioner
200 Old Country Road, Suite 470
Mineola, New York
(516) 747-2220
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss..
COUNTY OF NASSAU }
RAYMOND J. FUREY, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That deponent is the agent for the Petitioners herein, that deponent has read
the foregoing Notice of Petition and Petition and knows the contents thereof; that
the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated
to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters, deponent
believes it to be true; and that the reason this verification is made by deponent
and not by the Petitioners is that all the material allegations (except those as to
matters of public record) of said Petition are within the personal knowledge of
deponent.
Sworn to before me this
day of Sit �� 2017
Notary Public
Antonia Moy
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01M06345921
Qualified in Nassau County
Commission Expires August 1, 2020
DES 63.-2-10.2
*1030175*
Tentative AV Claimed AV Final AV Ineq/OvVal
$9,000,000 $900,000 $9,000,000 $8,100,000
CRONIN & CRONIN LAW FIRM, PLLC. IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED to file and verify as agent
complaints and. petitions for the reduction of real estate tax assessments for the following property and to represent
the petitioner in all appeals therefrom.
SWIS CODE: 503000
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
TOWN OF ITHACA
PROPERTY ADDRESS
201 MAPLE AVE ITHACA
DATED: May 19,2017
PE=ONER: EDR MAPLEWOOD LLC
Signature:
FILE # 200-0840
IO��AWIIIIfl1�tlAlf!�N�6
*58752=200-0840*
SD TAX DESCRIPTION
500700 61-2-10.2
Number of Lots Covered: 1
Title:
0
0
TOWN OF ITHACA
AGREED UPON PROCEDURES
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016
RQ-
IMP,
ftm SCIARABBA
W. A I i K E R mil I "Po
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
BUSINESS C 13 r'l S U LTA N T S
M-11 ilia IST11 112EMM01 t1i Dial IMM 011 ONS 9 It DI 11110011MM
The Town of Ithaca and Office of State Comptroller
Bureau of Justice Court Fund
We have performed the procedures enumerated in the attached schedule, which were agreed to
IM) by the Town of Ithaca and Office of State Comptroller Bureau of Justice Court Fund, solely to
assist you with respect to the accounting records of the Town Justices of the Town of Ithaca for
the year ended December 31, 2016. The Town Justices of the Town of Ithaca's management is
SM, responsible for the Town Justices' accounting records. The sufficiency of the procedures is
solely the responsibility of the specified users of the report. Consequently, we make no
representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described either for the purpose for
"M which this report has been requested or for any other purpose.
Our procedures and findings are summarized on the attached pages. Also attached is a Summary
of Town Court Activity for the Town Justices.
This agreed -upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation
No standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. We were not
engaged to and did not conduct an examination or review, the objective of which would be the
expression of an opinion or conclusion, respectively, on the accounting records of the Town
Mm Justices of the Town of Ithaca. Accordingly, we do not express such ail opinion or conclusion.
Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that
would have been reported to you.
This report is intended solely for the use of the Town of Ithaca and Office of State Comptroller
and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties.
'"M ia," Vdk p
Sciarabba Walker & Co., LLP
qMM
Ithaca, New York
June 6, 2017
d1,0 East Upland Road 839 Statc Rou[c 13
fd1aca,NnvY0rk 14850 C.,ord and, N(,,%v York 13045
607-272-5550 / 607- 273-6357 (1'ax)
W\VW.s\VC11P.con1
ZO
TOWN OF ITHACA
AGREED UPON PROCEDURES
PROCEDURES:
1. Perform process narrative and walkthroughs for cash receipts and cash disbursements to
trace and agree amounts, dates, payer, and violation (if applicable) relating to the Bail
account and the Regular Fine accounts:
a. Cash Receipts — Follow the ticket (receipt) or bail through the entire process from
the docket and credit card receipt (if applicable) being created to the monthly
report and the bank statement with the cancelled checks (if applicable) and
deposits attached to the monthly summary report.
b. Cash Disbursements — Follow the monthly payment to the Town of Ithaca Chief
Fiscal Officer for the disbursement to the NYS Comptroller (or the returned bail
back to the defendant) to the bank statement with cancelled checks.
2. From random scanning, note the monthly receipt summaries to be in numeric and date
order with no missing receipts (check beginning and ending is sequential, 4 monthly
summaries reviewed).
3. Review any deleted or voided transactions in the monthly receipt summaries for
reasonableness (reviewed 4 months).
4. Review summary sheets with attached deposits to assure timely filing is within 3 business
day parameter (reviewed 6 summaries).
5. For every month, agree checkbook balances to bail account and regular fine account bank
statements and trace any year-end outstanding checks/deposits to checkbook, receipt
Mn journals, and January 2017 bank statement.
6. Verify copies of cancelled checks and deposits are kept with bank statements and that
cancelled checks are signed (reviewed 3 months).
7. Verify pre -numbered checks are used for the monthly check remitted to the Town of
Ithaca (reviewed 3 months).
8. Review the Current Bail Defendant's report for 5 months that included bail to assure a
list of bail is maintained and trace amounts over $1,000 to case files noting proper
documentation and receipts are in place.
9. Trace and agree monthly report issued to NYS Comptroller, invoice received from NYS
Comptroller, and check issued to the Town of Ithaca Chief Fiscal Officer (reviewed 6
months).
10. Review submission date of monthly report to the NYS Comptroller. Report is due by the
10th of the following month (reviewed 6 months).
-2-
JUSTICE KLEIN FINDINGS:
All agreed upon procedures listed on page 2 were performed for Justice Klein. The following
finding is associated with those procedures:
1. There is a difference of $1,054.50 between the computer generated bail report and the
bail check register balance.
JUSTICE SALK FINDINGS:
All agreed upon procedures listed on page 2 were performed for Justice Salk. The following
finding is associated with those procedures:
1. Receipt #JAS8385 was duplicated in the system. SEI has override authority, but the
clerks do not. When Judge Salk's clerk called SEI to correct a mistake in the system, they
created a new receipt that had the same number as another already included in the system.
-3-
M9
TOWN OF ITRACA
SUMMARY OF TOWN COURT ACTIVITY
Justice
Justice
Klein
Salk
CASES:
Number of cases closed
786
1,174
Number of cases open
1,146
1,647
Arraignment for other courts
7
12
Charges transferred to county court
10
11
TOTAL CASES
1,949
2,844
FINES AND FEES:
Criminal, motor vehicle
$
56,739
$
70,033
Surcharges
61,250
64,939
MORI
Civil
9,733
11,653
Bail poundage
240
225
M"
ITHACA TOWN COURT COLLECTIONS
$
127,962
$
146,850 "
r"n
BAIL RECEIVED
$
34,175
$
10,700
CASH BALANCES:
mwq
Regular
$
8,456
$
12,154
Bail
3,540
3,750
""'
TOTAL CASH
$
11,996
$
15,904
AGGREGATE NEW YORK STATE
JUSTICE COURT REMITTANCE $ 274,812
-4-
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N Tioga St, Ithaca, NY 14850
> Phone: 607-273-1721 n Fax: 607-273-5854
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
W yob
Town Clerk: Paulette Rosa (PRosa@Town.Ithaca.NY.US)
Deputy Town Clerks: Debra DeAugistine (DDeaugistine@Town.Ithaca.NY.US)
Jasmin J Cubero (JCubero@Town.Ithaca.NY.US)
August 29, 2017
Irene Stein, Chair
Tompkins County Democratic Committee
PO Box 6798
Ithaca, NY 14851
Dear Ms. Stein,
I'm writing as a follow-up to an event the Democratic Committee held in the Town Hall
boardroom on August 22 to introduce the candidates running for open seats in congressional
races. Since your organization has used the room many times over the years and as such should
be well aware of the terms under which organizations are allowed to use the facility, I was
surprised to learn of the many unauthorized activities that took place that evening. All outside
organizations entrusted to use town facilities are held to the same rules, guidelines, and
standards, and if they don't comply may be denied use of our facilities in the future. Applicants
agree to the following:
• The sound system can be used only if a Town of Ithaca staff member is present.
• If the sound system is used, the microphones must stay in their holders; taking them out
puts the finely calibrated system in danger of failing.
• There is absolutely NO access to Town Hall offices for any purpose other than an
emergency, such as a fire. The alarm on the emergency exit door has been reactivated.
• Heat and air conditioning is programed off -site and cannot be overridden for single
events.
• NO ONE is allowed behind the judges' table; emergency alarm buttons located there
could be inadvertently set off.
I was told people entered the Town Hall offices via the emergency exit, taking chairs and trying
to open windows. This simply cannot happen. I saw from pictures in the media that
microphones were used off their stands and that the door behind the board table was opened
into the offices. That you would allow the public to access our private office space is frankly
alarming.
I understand that more people attended than had been anticipated, but there is standing room.
To reiterate, if these guidelines are not followed, use of the boardroom by the Democratic
Committee will be discontinued. If you feel the size of your event will exceed the number of
chairs provided or the ability of the HVAC system to maintain a comfortable temperature, I
suggest you find another location that better suits your needs.
inc ely
ED
o
e"
aulette co ?sa
cc. Marcy Rosencrantz
Paulette Rosa
From: Janelle Alvstad-Mattson <janelleam@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 201711:16 AM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Injury from loose gravel on Skyvue
Attachments: image2.JPG; ATT00001.txt; image3.JPG; ATT00002.txt
Hello, 1 am on sure who to address this to exactly, so I am sending it to you, the Town Clerk, hoping that you can pass it
along to the right people.
I am writing today, because the town's solution for "repaving" our side streets is not only inconvenience, but dangerous.
We were unhappy with the gravel solution, as it is not as nice for riding bike, and it is now impossible for my children to
ride their scooters to the park as they used to love to do.
However, today, on our walk to the park around 10:30 am, in clear conditions and broad daylight, my 9 year old
daughter slipped on the loose gravel, fell down the side of it and scratched up her leg and hand.
This happened on Skyvue at the corner of Snyder Hill Road.
I've heard of several others who have slipped, fallen or otherwise injured themselves with this road coverage. I had
heard "it will be better once the roads are scraped" but I believe that has already happened. I hope that the town will
consider bikers and pedestrians more when considering road treatments in the future.
Janelle Alvstad-Mattson
214 Snyder Hill Road
607-379-2215
rrrr r r 7 t t;Gf 1;,���i,✓� rt" ^ '.EUY ? `" PU 11V,
1,l r 41,
r i /i Ifs/f�� ) 1 �l� f �J4✓I 'Sil
c , '2
r ifr l p y f'% 1Y �rlr
h tr 1 fF
ff
Fa r r r frr f at t
rir/l�� ri rP 'lei �a nr.i2 ,� �fP1
,x
Kr
r J /l��r � � fil✓r 05w
�ya
4i r i r i
oo
r �lofl�� r
I� I
;1
i rir
f + rrr t
i
a
v r f,AA,
r fr'Ww r� yf `"ii r
SpO
r ni yAV
ii,
IA
>l� /9i ru 'iP ,:,ra- ,,;, ,,. �r�a� ;{,...,,; rrt.ha I ���� �., r� x ✓Aif�,(�,yitr�,%, y� ���i "r�;'Am
ai rra< 'Irar✓ 0Gr /`� ��J,�` rry IJK
u �
o J r ,, %" a 1rr
n� �i i /
Fg
sf r a �r fOw,
r
.,ro'�' r' t �qffgp
"Ofi
IF,
iy�vmm �n V e;• v
NYAll
frr''r" "�acmr'� ( .w+r. l I ( d�;br7
RINrind �,' IM
" ''aMr fia, V tr 1 ✓„,u r �Hn 6 �r ru %fib
,� ..w,� ,. :.:., � � y ,��y,,,5'>1�1u�➢U¢IW!zg,i�rmvyr�'�r+mymy�;zawz�lm^i°m�„r„ „�„�
SID
August ZO17-Petition toLower the Speed Limit onCulver Road inthe Town
Whereas Culver Road is not posted and therefore the speed limit is 55 mph., the residents of Culver
Road request that the Town Board start the process to establish a speed limit on Culver Road of 35 mph
asbefitting its numerous curves, steep gullies onone side and nmshoulder.
17SCulver Rd
3O4Culver Rd
3I4Culver Rd
235Culver Rd
25OCulver Rd
Z5lCulver Rd
2OQCulver Rd
291Culver Rd
295Culver Rd
---�-- �� 310[ulver Rd �-� -_~~�- ~ \' - -- '"Fix—��� �
300 Culver Rd
NEWYORK
STATE OF
" OPPORTUNITY,,
Public Service
Commission
Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223-1350
www.dps.ny.gov
September 19, 2017
The Hon. Svante Myrick
Mayor, City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
The Hon. Bill Goodman
Supervisor, Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Public Service Commission
John B. Rhodes
Chair and
Chief Executive Officer
Gregg C. Sayre
Diane X. Burman
James S. Alesi
Commissioners
Thomas Congdon
Deputy Chair and
Executive Deputy
Paul Agresta
General Counsel
Kathleen H. Burgess
Secretary
Re: Case 16-G-0432 - Petition of New York State Electric & Gas Corporation for
Authorization to Construct a Natural Gas Compressor Pilot Project in Tompkins
County, NY
Dear Mayor Myrick and Supervisor Goodman:
Thank you very much for your May 25, 2017 letter to Commissioner Gregg Sayre in
which you express the support of both the City and Town of Ithaca for the transition to fossil
fuel -free heating. To that end, you note your belief that this can be accomplished without the
expansion of natural gas infrastructure, and reference plans of the City and the Town to
encourage, and ultimately require, green buildings construction in your communities as a means
of achieving a clean energy future.
Thank you for your interest in this important matter. I note that documents regarding this
proceeding can be found on the Department of Public Service's website (www.dps.ny.gov) by
searching Case 16-G-0432. Your comments have been included among those submitted in this
matter, and thus will become part of the Public Service Commission's record in this proceeding.
Sincerely,
�� n JLkta
?atIli1=11. "Burgess
Secretary
Paulette Rosa
From: Melanie <ms.translate@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 4:43 PM
To: grandview-nbhd; smearhoff@ithacajournal.com; Joe McMahon; Todd Bittner, Bill
Goodman - TB; Eric Levine; Julie Holcomb; Paulette Rosa; svantem@gmail.com;
mrobertson@tompkins-co.org; mlane@tompkins-co.org
Subject: Re: Gorge Ranger program cut from City budget
Open letter to Sarah of the Ithaca Journal, Bill, Eric and Paulette of the Town of Ithaca, Svante and Julie of the
City of Ithaca, Todd of Cornell, and neighbors of the Grandview neighborhood, re the Gorge Ranger Program
(Sarah's article is appended to this email):
I know that all of you share my concern about gorge jumping. I have a couple of questions about current status.
- What is the status of the Gorge Ranger funds that were coming from other sources (Town, County)?
- What is the status of Six Mile Creek dams? Several years ago I understood that one or more dams were going
to undergo a safety evaluation of, I forget if it was First or Second Dam, or both. I heard mentioned the
possible dynamiting of one of the dams. What's been happening with the safety evaluation?
- Several years ago, I shared with many of you a tip: the State Troopers office told me that if the City would
send them a memo about ownership of the relevant part of Six Mile Creek, they would provide the needed
enforcement. Has a memo been sent? Has enforcement been requested of the State Troopers? If so, how did
that go?
- Are there any statistics available that track illegal Six Mile Creek gorge use over time?
Thank you all very much.
Sincerely,
Melanie
On 10/19/2017 9:29 AM, Melanie wrote:
From today's Ithaca Journal: (,ity's ,_Ra &"Q_)212�1�Y�L YDcis _'(VLie K._CY/.
I will comment in a separate email.
In his 201 S citY ...bUd Lji:L)12L)�!(�Jjast Ithaca Mayor Svante Myrick eliminated funding for the city's
_g��t
decades -old W)er program, which employs rangers to monitor safety at Ithaca's gorges.
� n— -
But it was actually this year that the program first got the chopping block. Despite a $15,000 allocation in
2017's budget, gorge rangers were never hired for the 2017 season, said Ithaca City Clerk Julie Holcomb, who
acts as the city's liaison for gorge safety programs.
"So I guess you could say that the program ended in September of 2016," Holcomb said.
Lity (,c)rd,s indicate the gorge ranger position was created in 1984 to hinder Ljst y�a! L i Ll �, L.swi 111ni ill g in the
_1 J_ qgq
gorges. Armed with body cameras since 2016, the rangers helped to ensure swimmers did not get injured from
swimming in rough water or diving from cliffs up to 80 feet high.
Rangers had no power to ticket or arrest Ithaca thrill -seekers for illegal activities, though. That was up to the
police, if and when the rangers called for backup.
"The largest problem is that the Rangers weren't getting good compliance unless they had consistent back-up
and oversight from (Ithaca Police Department)," Myrick said via email. "IPD was clear that they weren't able to
provide that consistent back-up and oversight."
UY Photo
Ithaca Gorge Ranger Brittany Lagaly warns people on the cliff at Second Dam. (Photo: ANDREW CASLER
Staff Photo)
Holcomb said this sums up the program's primary struggle: What city institution is suited to be the backbone of
the program?
The gorge ranger program has historically been overseen by city's Parks and Forestry Division and budgeted out
of the Department of Public Works, Holcomb said, but over months of discussion, the city has determined it
needs more of an enforcement component.
"With the cliff jumping and the drinking and some of the dangerous activities that have occurred in and around
the gorges, the enforcement component of job has been more pronounced," Holcomb said.
uy Photo
Ithaca Gorge Ranger Angela Sims, right, points her body camera toward people illegally swimming at Second
Dam. She and Ranger Brittany Lagaly confronted about 20 people at Second Dam during this incident. (Photo:
ANDREW CASLER / Staff Photo)
Such enforcement doesn't fall under the city forester's jurisdiction. Holcomb said the program would benefit
from more support from IPD, but the city police are "critically short-staffed right now."
"We started the conversations with IPD, Tompkins County, the fire department, police departments, trying to
find a home for this program," Holcomb said. "But every department was saying, 'This is not something we can
take on right now."'
So the program was quietly eliminated until further notice. Myrick said his office informed the city's Common
Council, but, "I don't know if we sent a media release."
Discussion of the program's cut does not appear in the city's online records of public meeting agendas and
minutes. Media reports of the program's termination refer to the 2018 budget — nothing earlier.
And now it's gone: llqo eas ask for Ithaca.-
-Y-i !11_012slii�
Tcer'i's deadi a sad reinli-ider of risks Mien swini VIIKS.
Holcomb said the funds that previously contributed to the gorge ranger program will in 2018 be allocated to
increase the city's existing Forestry Technician position from part-time to full-time. But what became of 2017
budget's $15,000 gorge ranger allocation, Holcomb said she is unsure.
"I know that I just ordered gorge regulation signs for Fall Creek and Six Mile Creek and the cost will be coming
from that account," Holcomb said.
Although the program's future is unsure, Holcomb said it is important that the city continues to work to find a
solution for what she considers a "public safety priority."
"I think that the natural areas are beautiful and I want everyone to enjoy them, but there are inherent dangers in
them," Holcomb said.
With proper enforcement, Holcomb said visitors and Ithacans "can responsibly enjoy the beautiful areas that
Ithaca is known for without risking the horrible deaths and drownings that can happen."
They are heartbreaking for everyone involved and for the community as a whole."
Follow (rPsarah nicarhoffon Twitter.
Melanie Stein
nis . Lra.nslate(��)qmail . coin
----------- - -
phone: (607) 677 0635
November 212017
,
Town Clerk
215NTiogaSt,
Ithaca, NY14850
RE: Cas2llaRe[yC|ing
The purpose of this letter is to file a complaint against Casell3 Recycling. Despite multiple
attempts to speak with (5|Oha at Casella, my calls are never returned. So, | Qrn hoping you
might be able to help or at least direct this letter to someone who Can.
The main problem i6the inconsistency with which CaSeU8picks uprecycling materials oDthe
Byway, Forest Home. For example, pick upwas due last Tuesday (November 14\. Our materials
continue to sit on the BvvvaK ignored by[aseUa. The previous pick up was more than three
days late. |nmany cases, pick upisatleast one totwo days late. |nseveral instances, they will
pick up material at #4 The Byway and ignore the rest of the street.
We pay town taxes and one of the services is waste management, of which recycling is part of.
Therefore, as you can image, the folks on the Byway are not very happy with the state of affairs.
I do hope that this matter will be taken care of soon.
Thank you.
James E. Haldeman
6 The Byway
Ithaca, NYl485O
cc: [asel|3, 1180 Elmira Rd, Newfield, NY 14867
OF TOWN OF ITHACA
0 0 215 N Tioga St, Ithaca, NY 14850
Phone: 607-273-1721 a Fax: 607-273-5854
18�21 www.town.ithaca.ny.us
tp �&y
W yo Town Clerk: Paulette Rosa (PRosa@Town.1thaca.NY.US)
Deputy Town Clerks: Debra DeAugistine (DDeaugistine@Town.Ithaca.NY.US)
Jasmin J Cubero (JCubero@Town.Ithaca,NY.US)
November 30, 2017
James Haldeman
6 The Byway
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mr. Haldeman,
I received your letter upon my return to the office on November 30".
Tompkins County Solid Waste handles recycling for the entire County so the Town has no
authority or input into the selection of Casella for services.
That being said, I did google the division and the person I would suggest sending this to would be
Barb Eckstrom, Director, Tomkins County Recycling, 122 Commercial Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850.
t�
I will put your letter and my response in the Town Board's correspondence so they are aware of
your concerns/issues with the vendor.
Sincere,l
TZ aulette Rosa
C.
Town Clerk
CEO Notification Letter for
LIHC Projects — Outside of NYC
Certified Mail —
Return Receipt Requested
CEO Name: Wililiam D. Goodman
CEO Title: Town Supervisor
Mailing Address: 215 N. Tioga St., Ithaca, NY 14850
Date:
RE: Transmittal of LAIC Program
Application for: .Low -Income HousingCreditProgram Funding
Project Name: Ithaca Townhomes
Project Location: 1205 Trumansbui-2 Rd., Ithaca, NY 14850
Project Sponsor: NRP Holdings LLC
Dear Supervisor Goodman:
'This is to inform you of our intention to submit the above referenced and enclosed application under the
Low -Income Housing Credit Program (LIHQ to the New York State Division of Housing and Community
Renewal. This Program was established by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (with a new Section 42 in the Internal
Revenue Code) which authorized federal assistance in the form of tax credits for owners of rental housing that is
reserved for households earning 60% or less of the area median income.
Under the Internal Revenue Code Section 42(ni)(I)(A)(ii), an allocation of Credit to a project cannot be
made unless the chief executive officer (or the equivalent) of the local jurisdiction. within which the proposed project
is located, is notified and is provided a reasonable opportunity to comment on the project.
If you have any continents regarding the enclosed application, please submit them within 20 days of receipt
of the enclosed application to:
New York, State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)
38-40 State Street; 6' Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Attention: Anion Adler; Program Manager
(518) 486-5044
The returned certified mail postal receipt for this package, accepted and signed for by your office, will be
returned to the applicant for forwarding to Df ICR to serve as proof that the requirements of Section 42(m)(1)(A)(ii)
have been met by this Low -Income .Housing Credit Program applicant.
If you wish to discuss the enclosed application or any other aspect of the proposed project, please feel free
to contact me at the address above or call me at (7 16) 445-0990.
Sin ly, /I
Project Representative/Sponsor/Developer;
And Project Representative/Sponsor Developer Organization
Cc: Ar.non Adler;
New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal
38-40 State Street
Albany, New York 12207