HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2019-06-24Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday, June 24, 2019
Agenda
l. Discuss recommendations stated in the Water and Sewer Town Wide Studies
2. Discuss the Capital Improvement Plan for 2020 (CII')
3. Discus and consider authorization for the Supervisor to sign a lease related to the
Downtown US Post Of�ce
4. Discuss LED Street Lighting options
5. Discuss and consider authorization for the Supervisor to sign agreements renewing the
Dryden Sewer Agreements
a. Peregrine Hollow
b. District 1
6. Discuss and consider authorization for the Supervisor to sign easements associated with
the Maplewood Project
7. Discuss and consider approval of the creation of a Deputy Finance Officer position and
job description and authorize associated budget amendment
a. Establish position
b. Budget amendment
8. Committee Reports
a. Planning
b. Public Works
c. Budget
d. P&O and Employee Relations
e. STR
f. Other
9. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of Minutes
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract
c. Declare certain items surplus and authorize disposition
10. Consider executive session to discuss contract negotiations
11. Adjourn
Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday, June 24, 2019
Minutes
Board Members Present: Bill Goodman, Supervisor; Members Pamela Bleiwas, Pat Leary (via
video conference), Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rod Howe and Rich DePaolo
Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement;
Mike Solvig, Director of Finance, Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Jasmin Cubero,
Deputy Town Clerk; Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent ; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Joe
Slater, Water and Sewer Supervisor; Rich Tenkate, Deputy Highway Superintendent; Joe Talbut,
Parks Manager and Nick Goldsmith, Environmental Planner
Mr. Goodman called the meeting to order.
1. Discuss recommendations stated in the Water and Sewer Town Wide Studies
Mr. Goodman explained the purpose saying that he wanted to start talking about the
implications of the water and sewer studies and specifically in terms of the projects that the bard
is going to have to be thinking about doing in the future and figuring out how to start to
prioritize those projects and start thinking about how we want to finance those projects.
Mr. Goodman said eventually we will have to fit them on the Capital Improvement Plan (CII')
although he is not expecting to be able to do that today and this is just the beginning of the
discussion with those steps as the goals.
This is going to be an ongoing discussion and planning and will be a big expense for the Town
and time consuming to do.
Mr. Goodman said in his mind there are two basic areas to be thinking about; one is
improvements to the existing system to improve the capacity for our existing customers and two
is improvements to provide for future areas of growth, particularly the Comprehensive Plan
(CP) areas we identified for the Tradition Neighborhood Developments (TND) back in 2014.
Mr. Goodman went on to say it has been almost five years since the adoption of the CP where
we identified areas we want to see growth in and now that we have all of the information on our
water and sewer systems, we really need to think about how we prioritize changes to the
systems if we do want to encourage growth in those areas and look at the implications of those
changes to the rest of the system.
Mr. Goodman noted that discussion of the CII' follows this agenda item and he is more looking
to 2020 for that and does not expect to be able to do anymore than that in the next few
meetings.
Mr. Goodman turned the discussion to Mr. Weber and the Public Works Department and
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 1
thanked all the PW staff for coming in tonight.
Mr. Weber began the discussion saying he found a Water and Sewer (W&S) study from 1983
which he sent out. If you take that report and compare it to the two studies just completed, a lot
of the conversations and findings don't change from then to now as far as the issues that were
identified in both.
Within that earlier report, they do talk about trying to provide a system that is robust and
interconnected to be able to provide consistent flows and expectations of customers without
putting too much dependency on single-services or you have multiple sources within the
project. There have been a number of improvements that have taken place in the Northeast area
to improve those issues. There were conversations in 1983 that tie right back into the
improvements that we did in the Pine Tree area with the new Ellis Hollow tank In 1983 they
were talking a million gallons required for Eastern Heights and the Pine Tree zone and right
now we are talking 1.l million so that hasn't changed too much.
With that being said, currently within the system that exists right now, from the Pine Tree
control valve through to South Hill and West Hill, it is really one long dead end. If anything
happens between the Pine Tree control valve and the Pearsall pump station, South Hill and
West Hill is out of connection to the rest of the Bolton Point (BP) distribution or conveyance
system.
Mr. Weber said he brings this up as a point of discussion because one of the fundamental
principles in WS design is having some redundancy so you are not putting all of your eggs in
one basket and you can feed neighborhoods from a couple of sources so you might be able to
limit the mains' sizes as opposed to a single straw which needs to be really big to get all of the
water you need to the end.
Mr. Weber said the CP and the TND pointed out in it are to him South Hill which is at the end
of a long, long single system that gets up South Hill from the Danby/Northview tanks and so
there you have the redundancy by having a water supply on both sides of the service area.
You then start working your way up and we get to the Troy Rd tank and then Ridgecrest so you
have two individual supplies which are shown on the map provided of the South Hill system.
Mr. Weber turned to the map and said the whole area in green is fed from the Ridgecrest tank
so only one supply, but you have a very large demand at the far end of that green shaded area.
Within the report they talked about priorities and set them at high, middle and low and we can
look at things to do right now, but there are so many different combinations on how you make
some of those work that it is easier said than done.
Mr. Weber said that fundamentally speaking, in the Ridgecrest service area, what should be
done is we need to look at being able to provide a loop system to serve at least the intersection
of 96B and King Rd.
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 2
There are a number of options on how that gets done and each option will influence the other
options. It talks about upgrading lines within the system and upsizing those to get flows
through and they talk about adding some pump stations to accommodate that. With the pump
stations, you add more maintenance that needs to be done on a weekly basis on a long-term
basis where running a line and connecting Ridgecrest tank to the end of Chase Ln would add a
small loop or add LeGrand and run from there to Schickel Rd which would provide a loop and
you could also look at running from Teton or Marcy Ct toward the intersection of 96B and King
Rd to make a loop. Those are all options that would generally meet the fundamental standards
or expectations for a system and each one of those have a difficult decision to make which is
trying to obtain ROWs and/or property. Or you could run a separate, dedicated line down King
Rd to the intersection of 96B because King Rd is a highway purposes only so we do not have
any ROWs, you would still have to purchase rights and easements from half of the properties as
you head down the road just to be able to add redundancy into our system.
Mr. Weber said these types of issues are what we look at whether we are looking at South Hill
or West Hill where there are critical uses and TND plans.
If you look at West Hill, there may be opportunities to use developers as they come through
where we can use the development-providing looping that we do not necessarily have on South
Hill. Part of that would be looking at the section between Elm St and 79 where we know we
have the potential for large development.
We are looking at the West Hill tank as being our single-source for that area and that tank will
then feed the Trumansburg tank and will also be able to back fill down to the Coy Glen pump
station.
The Bostwick Rd tank and the Inlet Corridor that we are looking at additional development in,
the redundancy on that can be satisfied by looking at the Northview and Danby Rd tank zones
on South Hill because we have excess capacity on those tanks and those tanks could be
configured to serve some of the Valley and reduce the dependency on the Bostwick Rd tank.
Mr. Weber went on to say that these are some of the multitude of options available to satisfy the
needs of development as we move through but is there any one thing that we can do next year
or within the next couple of years to be able to satisfy and meet the expected demands; there is
nothing individual that can be looked at but multiple combinations to explore. Some of those
do fundamentally deal with the concern of the community of installing mains in some areas that
do not have them now, such as LeGrand and Schickel, or Teton and 96B.
There are legal ways to restrict connections to infrastructure, but it is difficult to hold future
Boards to the same expectations or restrictions that this board may want in place. By doing the
interconnects or looping, it does provide a stronger system and a more energy efficient system.
Mr. Weber stated that he and his staff have looked through the recommendations from GHD
and there are a few items that can easily be implemented that would help deal with future
development and meet some of our de�ciencies and he would like this to open up the discussion
for the Board to say what they would like to see and how to deal with the different deficiencies
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 3
and the fundamental system designs that aren't showing up in the system that we have right
now.
Mr. Weber added that that is why he showed the 1983 report because there are a lot of things
that we are discussing now in 2019 that were identified as deficiencies back then.
Mr. Goodman started the discussion with some questions.
Mr. Goodman asked about the South Hill map with the area that is the most northerly around
IC, and asked if that was served by both the Northview and Danby tanks and Mr. Weber
responded yes, those are sister tanks that are at the same elevation and provide consistent
pressure down to the purple shaded area.
Mr. Goodman asked if there is any reason to or not to connect or loop the Danby and Ridgecrest
tanks and Mr. Weber responded there are significant differences in elevation so if you made a
connection without control devices, flow from Ridgecrest would damage the Danby tank
because of the pressures and the energies. The need is to provide an additional supply uphill and
to be able to make that happen you would have to have a significant pump station installed and
the telemetry and coordination would then have to be controlled back at BP. That would be
very costly and major hands-on maintenance requirements.
Mr. Goodman looked at the Ridgecrest tank zone, and said Mr. Weber talked about possibly
doing some looping options and he asked if that would take care of the issue we have with the
Ridgecrest tank and the number of feet we can use or would dealing with that problem have to
be a new tank or a different elevation?
Mr. Weber responded that it would have to be a new tank and the question would be do you
bury the new tank and put in a pup station to increase the pressure to supply the customers or do
you raise the elevation of the tank higher and rather than being tall and a small diameter, you
can go with a large diameter and not necessarily as tall, but you do have to elevate the tank to
get the bottom of the tank 30 feet above your first customer.
Mr. Howe said that some people are not as familiar with looking at the CIP as others and is
there anything that you have talked about that might address deficiencies; have we already built
into the CII' and is part of this discussion to make and prioritize our wish list?
Mr. Weber responded that that is correct. The CIP as presented and as PW staff has developed
over time, has been more to address maintenance and age-related issues within the system so we
really haven't, except for the Ellis Hollow tank, really identified any new improvements to the
system. Mr. Howe thought that was an important point for the Board to consider.
Mr. Goodman turned to the West Hill map saying it looks like the Trumansburg Rd area, which
is up and including the hospital, and asked if that really goes all the way down into the City and
supply water to Oakwood Ln and down to Warren PI?
Mr. Weber responded that at the time it did, but we did make some modifications to the
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 4
Oakwood tank and pump station in 2016 and by doing that we did eliminate a number of the
customers and what we see on the map is an accurate description of what customers we serve.
Mr. Slater added that what happened is the West Hill tank zone, the beige color, would actually
take over part of the City's that is fed from the Trumansburg Rd tank so we would still be
supplying, just off of a different tank.
Mr. Goodman asked if we increased the size when we just replaced the Trumansburg tank and
Mr. Weber responded no.
Mr. Goodman asked if what Mr. Weber was saying is that pretty much the TND area on West
Hill would primarily be from the West Hill tank and would that require another tank to serve
any development in the TND on West Hill?
Mr. Thaete responded that right now we have approximately 700K gallons in the West Hill tank
that we don't use but the issue is that tank is low on the hillside so you can't feed the Rancich
properry across from EcoVillage because the tank is too low in elevation to feed that properry.
Mr. Goodman asked about the other properry where the TND is below the Rancich property line
and Mr. Thaete responded that generally, yes, but there are some upgrades we would have to do
from the current tank down to Westhaven to get our flows but generally there is capacity there.
He added that it also depends on what type of development; high rises versus denser single
family homes versus retail development because fire flow requirements change so that is why I
say generally yes, but there may be a situation where it may not be serviceable.
Mr. Thaete said he likes to say that West Hill, generally, seems to be a better situation than
South Hill for future development. South Hill seems to be the critical area with Ridgecrest
being the highest critical area; the Boris development and the TND at the intersection of Danby
and King Rd E, those are problematic. He said in talking with Mr. Weber, what he is trying to
grasp from the Board is what are the priorities? The redundancy aspect, we have current
customers who do not meet current fire flows and then we have the situations that we have been
working on where there are a lot of breaks in the main(s) and then there is the other aspects of
the upgrades to get to the TNDs. There are almost four fingers in the water world that we need
to look at and what is the priority? Is it getting current customers up to fire flow standards or is
it TND or is it both, and then you throw redundancy in there and is that a concern?
We try to tackle a little piece every year and that can get costly to do it that way and that is what
I am trying to grasp.
Mr. Weber clarified that Mr. Thaete refers to fire flows, but we also have a number of
customers that as the tank level drops, their ability to get water to their house is a problem.
Adding that in, domestic flow, to current residents, where is that in priorities.
Ms. Hunter said it seems to her that aside from the redundancy issues, we have current
customers and we have future customers and she thought that one of the reasons we were going
ahead in getting this report done was so we could have some conversation about allocating costs
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 5
for some of these capital improvements and is that something that this Board wants to think
about; passing costs along for these capital projects to the developers or are we wanting to bear
the costs of these projects townwide and if so, that is going to color the conversation. She said
she doesn't think we should go ahead and make improvements to serve current customers if we
are going to redo it at a future date when we have development proposals. Do we want to have
that conversation?
Ms. Leary responded that she thought our first obligation is to current customers and she
thought it was really unfortunate that deficiencies identified since the 80's are still here and she
said she really felt that the Board should get some improvements up for South Hill, especially.
She added that she thought the Board could talk about passing some future development costs
on to developers but keep in mind that that only raises the cost of development and if we are
concerned about keeping housing anywhere close to affordable, that is one of the things that we
have to keep in mind.
Ms. Leary said she does not believe we should pass all costs to future developers because it will
just make development that much more expensive and it is one of the basic functions of a town,
to provide water and sewer infrastructure which we get through general revenues.
Ms. Hunter responded that we get it through water and sewer revenues and Mr. Goodman added
that we get it through the water and sewer tax per unit.
Mr. Weber said that as an example to what Ms. Hunter said, the Ridgecrest tank, we are only
using the top seven feet of it and theoretically the water study says we have plenty of water in
that tank to serve existing customers; one scenario we could look at is we take that and elevate
it and keep it the same capacity. We also know from the report is that once the TND gets
building and toward its maximum capacity for development, an additional water supply is going
to be needed and at that point in time, we could look at a different site to house sister tanks
similar to what we have at Danby and Northview or you could put two tanks on the same site
and have one tank connect directly to Schickel so you had two supplies feeding both ends of
your system again. There are options when you start looking at what do we need to do now,
because we don't want to over design things until such time as we know there is a need.
Mr. Weber said there can be a couple different ways in addressing this and taking small bites
but in each one of those options there are going to be decisions and understanding by the Board
about how we want to proceed.
Ms. Hunter asked if PW could tease out those projects that we are capable of doing to address
the current deficiencies and Mr. Weber responded that we can do that, with the caveat that if we
were to do that, it would be advisable to engage all the options so you know the pros and cons
of each option and then make the decision because every option will be expensive. There is no
way around that. But there are some of the other discussions that need to happen relative to are
we putting the water mains or looping through areas that we don't want to see development in?
there are mechanisms to preclude those connections, but those would be a different direction the
Board would have to take and commit to that thought process.
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 6
Mr. Weber said one of the things that staff are looking at is that we have made contact with a
gentleman that has been involved with the Onondaga Water Authority and they are looking at
our W&S codes and standards so part of what we are talking about now is just the physical
infrastructure, but at the same time, we have to update our Code so we take any and all
references to the City of Ithaca and get more industry-based expectations and fundamental
principles on how we move forward on designs.
Mr. Weber said this is going on now to get a handle on what we are dealing with and then
present the outcome to the Town Board.
Mr. Goodman asked if there were any other questions the Town Board would like answered as
far information you would like to see for the next meeting in order to help you decide on where
we go with capital projects.
Mr. DePaolo said he would like maps and he thought Public Works should have some idea of
what will return the best benefit at the lowest cost. He added that some of that is in the study
and he did look at that but asked if Public Works agreed with their statements or had their own
ideas.
Mr. Weber said it is a little bit of both because the GHD study combined their approach to our
existing system and although they talked about another tank going up on South Hill for Boris's
development there are other ways to accomplish that and we can go back and forth about what
is going to work there, but from a long-term maintenance perspective, putting in pump stations
and other things the report talks about become labor intensive for Public Works.
He added that there are some easy, straight-forward answers but we would also be running
W&S across property we don't want to see developed.
Mr. DePaolo asked where those properties are and Mr. Weber responded that if you run from
the Ridgecrest tank over to Schickel Rd, you might be able to add development from the
LaGrand area. We could replace the Ridgecrest Rd tank next year and solve a lot of problems
but we would ha�e to reconfigure lines.
Mr. Weber said they can come up with straight-forward solutions and Mr. Howe said that
sounds like what we would like; your best guesses at what should be done and prices and Mr.
DePaolo added that a timeline would be good too.
Mr. Levine said a recommended strategy from Public Works would be best. This is their area
of expertise and we need a recommendation.
Mr. Goodman said there is time at the July meeting and this will be an agenda item and he
asked the board to think of other questions they may have and get them to Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber said that was the water discussion; sewer will be short. There are discussions going
on with the Group of Six and he thanked the board for spending funds on the sewer study
because that puts us a step ahead of the other municipalities. He would like to look into the
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 7
problem areas more completely where we have I&I issues so we can address those.
Mr. Weber added that we are adding some of that investigation to the bid going out for the
Sanitary and Sewer project for this year going out next week.
Ms. Hunter said she had three questions she would like to have answered for any recommended
project: 1) will it correct current deficiencies 2) how much growth will it provide for and 3) will
there need to be duplicated efforts made to allow for future growth if a proj ect fixes a current
deficiency but doesn't allow for future growth potential and what are those costs.
2. Discuss the Capital Improvement Plan for 2020 (CIP)
Mr. Weber turned to the CII' spreadsheet and added that the Budget and Public Works
Committees have begun an initial discussion of this and he wanted the full board to see it before
it goes further.
Mr. Goodman noted that the Winston and Salem projects are shifted to 2020 because the 2019
bids came in higher than budgeted and under Roads, the big question is Forest Home Dr from
Judd Falls to the City and we have been using the estimate of $1.5M for a while and the question
is do we need to do something in 2020 or can we push it out. He thought we weren't ready to do
anything next year. Mr. DePaolo asked how much time the guardrail project buys us and Mr.
Weber said we are doing improvements to it by putting in the longer posts, but the big issue is
there is really nothing on the downhill side to support them. No one has hit it in 5-6 years.
Discussion followed. The guardrail project is to address the safety concerns but it is an aging
road and it will need significant work at some point to be reconstructed. Mr. Weber thought it
should be taken out of 2020 and Mr. Howe thought the Public Works Committee had agreed and
the question is do we put it out a couple years out or take it off and wait for a recommendation
from Public Works. The board decided to take it out of 2020.
Maple Ave is on 2020 and also on 2022. Mr. Weber said it had accelerated due to the road use
agreement associated with Maplewood. There were problems with he reconstruction 15 years
ago and with the road use agreement, they have the opportunity to do work on the road. They
can either give us the money, or they can do some of the improvements themselves. We have
seen no money but we have seen some improvements. The problem has not been solved, but it
looks nicer.
Discussion followed and Mr. Goodman asked if you take out the road use agreement, is the road
bad enough that we would have wanted to do it in 2020 compared to every other town road we
have to work on. Mr. Tenkate responded that that is one of our busiest roads that is in bad shape.
Mr. Weber stated that the $150 indicated is for a fill and mill and there would be other costs that
the town would do at a cost. Mr. Thaete stated that the road use agreement figure is about
$200K and the cost for full repairs and reconstruction of the road is $800K and the road use
agreement makes the developer responsible for a portion of that. Mr. Weber said 2020 is not a
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 8
reasonable timeline for designing and bidding that project and the board moved it to 2021. Mr.
Tenkate suggested that the end of Seven Mile Dr be moved out instead of Maple Ave.
More discussion followed and Mr. Thaete thought Maple Ave done completely could fit the
engineering workload in place of Sandbank Rd.
The board decided to push Sand Bank and Forest Home to 2021 and leave Maple Ave on 2020
and parts of Elm St to 2020.
Mr. Goodman noted that Sidewalks is a new category and in 2020 Forest Home is proposed
because he hopes the FH Sidewalk District is established by then. This is the S-curve project
form the upstream bridge to the intersection of Warren Rd. Mr. Goodman noted that there are
some existing sidewalks and so there might not be much work there but Mr. Weber disagreed
saying that the Chapel uses that part of the existing sidewalk for ADA compliance.
Mr. Thaete said that is a fairly substantial distance and will involve a lot of surveying and
drainage issues to look at. Mr. Goodman noted that we can hire that out and pay for it out of the
Sidewalk District fees.
Mr. Thaete responded that he would like to talk about Winthrop then and what is really going to
be on 2020 for the water projects because that impacts Engineering.
Discussion followed turning back to the CII' list and what is on or off the CII' list. The board
discussed options and Mr. Weber will update the CIP for the next meeting.
Lengthy discussion followed regarding sidewalks in other areas of the town and the discussion
on who should pay and what associated work and details come in to play.
Mr. Goodman turned to the next category on the CII'; Fueling station and Town Facilities and
the question is what to do about the Public Works Administration Building Renovation. Mr.
Goodman said the next steps that have been discussed is trying to rebid it in the Fall and see if
we get better numbers and if we don't, thinking about other options other than just expanding the
current building.
Some discussion followed on the bids we received and what could be done for the same or less.
Parks and Trails - Mr. Weber noted that the Honness Ln walkway has an issue that could be
costly due to drainage culvert work and the County is looking at work in that area and we may be
in a situation where we may have to do improvements there when that is done but we are waiting
to see what the County is doing. He said he isn't sure which category, Parks and Trails or
Drainage where it would fall.
3. Discus and consider authorization for the Supervisor to sign a lease related to the
Downtown US Post Office
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 9
Mr. Goodman noted that the resolution shows the parking spaces not being included and subject
to the approval of the Attorney for the Town and he will wait for the extension form to show the
parking excluded but this will allow him to sign it.
TB Resolution 2019 - 087: Authorization for Supervisor to si�n a Lease Extension with the
United States Postal Service
Whereas, the Lease between the Town of Ithaca and the USPS dated September 28, 1998 will
expire on June 29, 2019; and
Whereas, both parties have agreed to extend such Lease for a period of Two Years through June
29, 2021 at an annual rent of $80,000.00, all other terms remaining the same, except that the
extension will no longer include the rental of 6 parking spaces included in the Lease, and the
extension may be terminated by the USPS upon Thirty Days written notice; now, therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town Board does hereby authorize the Town Supervisor to sign the Lease
Extension for the United States Postal Service Downtown Station located at 213 Tioga Street,
Ithaca, NY, subj ect to approval by the Attorney for the Town.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes — Leary, Levine, Goodman, Bleiwas, DePaolo, Hunter and Howe
4. Discuss LED Street Lighting options
Mr. Goodman gave an overview explaining the changes from the last meeting saying that we
received an estimate from NYSEG regarding future costs if we stay with them and Mr. Solvig
researched what we spend now. Mr. Goldsmith took this information and prepared the
spreadsheet sent in the packet.
Scenario A gives us more control over design and options whereas if NYSEG owns them we do
not ha�e as much say.
Mr. Goodman said the Towns of Caroline and Newfield have gone with Scenario A and NYPA
along with four villages. Ulysses is leaning toward NYPA.
Mr. Goodman said that page two is clearer about the numbers from the analysis from NYPA and
Cornell Cooperative Extension. Cornell COOP had been using incorrect assumptions and Mr.
Goldsmith used the same assumptions for both which made the annual costs more similar.
Mr. Goldsmith was available for questions.
Ms. Hunter asked Ms. Ritter whether she had concerns about the design restrictions and she
turned to Mr. Goldsmith who said NYSEG gives two choices on the light as far as warmth of
light and six choices on wattage but there are no choices on controls so they would be as they
are, when it is dark they go on, when it is light they go off. If we bought the lights we would
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 10
have more control such as dimming of times of day they are on. We would not have control over
height of the poles or shielding of the lights.
Mr. Weber make a general comment saying that all of the lights we currently have are
intersection lights and the height of those if they project over the street have to meet vehicle
height accommodations and if you are looking at pedestrian scale from traditional neighborhood
development will be more ground mounted than pole mounted, such as in Forest Home. The
ones we are looking now are intersection lights.
Some discussion followed on whether non-intersection lights would be under this program for
future lights and what styles we would have. Mr. Goodman clarified that these numbers and
decision are just for our existing lights and future lights would probably be our responsibility.
Ms. Hunter said she felt the existing lights around Town Hall are excessively tall and not
aesthetically pleasing and she would like to have control over that and if we are retro fitting
lights, that is one things, but if we get new lights, would they be under this proposal or ours?
Ms. Bleiwas asked about the usage costs because the usage cost seems to be cheaper under both
scenarios and Mr. Goldsmith explained that is reflecting the wattage and the fact they are LED.
Either option is the same cost per unit but three different entities are doing the analysis trying to
get us to go with them but the same light is going to cost the same to use.
Mr. Levine said what he finds interesting is the 15-years for the costs to be similar to the savings
and since they are expected to last 15-years and we have more control under option A, he moved
to go with A; seconded by Ms. Bleiwas.
Mr. DePaolo said he was doing a spreadsheet analysis and there is an additional investment up
front of $195,000 with the difference between A& B so we have to ask ourselves what would
we be earning with that $195K and if we were to get our investment returns we get for our
invested money, the opportunity costs would break even in 20 years. Mr. Solvig responded that
these are very fluid numbers and there are no guarantees and Mr. DePaolo added that there are
hidden staff costs we haven't considered. Mr. Solvig agreed saying we are taking on
responsibilities we don't have right now; right now we call NYSEG when a light is out and they
fix it and that hasn't really been answered as far as he knows.
Mr. Goodman said that the addendum that wasn't put in here is that NYPA said they would
finance this at 3% over seven years but we have thought to not finance and pay up front.
Ms. Leary asked if the proposal on the table is to buy them and own them up front she asked for
clarification on the pedestrian lights but Mr. Solvig said those are different lights, on sidewalks,
not on roads; anything on a road would have to be a certain height.
Mr. Goodman responded that this is just for our existing streetlights not future lights.
Ms. Bleiwas asked if Mr. Solvig had a recommendation and he said he did not; this came up
under shared services with the City doing our maintenance and Mr. Goodman said that isn't even
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 11
up for decision tonight, we will have a maintenance contract with somebody, but the decision is
who owns the lights. He added that the Village of Cayuga Heights decided to go with NYPA
because they are not happy with NYSEG's service as far as maintenance both in response and
cost and that will be something we will need to decide.
Mr. Solvig said the savings seems to be the same with either option and Mr. Goodman said the
main item seems to be more control over the design and making things different under someone
other than NYSEG and to him it is worth it to spend the money up front have that control.
Mr. DePaolo said you are retaining control but taking on the responsibility for them.
Mr. Goldsmith said the $4k is from third party maintenance estimates and NYPA is getting ready
to put out a cost for them maintaining them.
The Board agreed to go with option A.
5. Discuss and consider authorization for the Supervisor to sign agreements renewing the
Dryden Sewer Agreements
Mr. Goodman summarized saying these are standard renewals and in the future we may want to
look at the rates so these are for three years to allow for that review.
TB Resolution 2019 - 088: Authorization for the Supervisor to renew the Sewer Service
A�reement between the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Drvden for the Town of Drvden
Pere�rine Hollow Sewer District
Whereas the current agreement expires on June 30, 2019, and
Whereas the Town of Dryden and the Town of Ithaca have agreed to renew the current
agreement under the same terms for a period of three years, now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to
sign an agreement with the Town of Dryden renewing the current Town of Dryden Peregrine
Hollow Sewer District agreement through June 30, 2022.
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter
Vote: ayes — Hunter, Howe, Levine, Leary, Goodman, DePaolo and Bleiwas
TB Resolution 2019 - 089: Authorization for the Supervisor to renew the Sewer Service
A�reement between the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Drvden for the Town of Drvden
Sewer District 1
Whereas the current agreement expires on June 30, 2019, and
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 12
Whereas the Town of Dryden and the Town of Ithaca have agreed to renew the current
agreement under the same terms for a period of three years, now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to
sign an agreement with the Town of Dryden renewing the current Sewer District 1 agreement
through June 30, 2022.
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas
Vote: ayes — Hunter, Howe, Levine, Leary, Bleiwas, DePaolo, and Goodman
6. Discuss and consider authorization for the Supervisor to sign easements associated with
the Maplewood Project
Mr. Goodman noted that this part of closing out the Maplewood project.
TB Resolution 2019 - 090: Acceptance of the new Town Water and Sanitarv Sewer
Infrastructure associated with the Maplewood Graduate and Professional Student Housin�
Redevelopment Proiect, and authorization for the Town Supervisor to si�n the Permanent
Water Easement and Ri�ht of Wav, and the Permanent Sanitarv Sewer Easement and
Ri�ht of Wav
Whereas, the Maplewood Project included changes to the Town of Ithaca water and sanitary
sewer infrastructure made by the developer EdR Realty Trust and its contractors, which will
require new easement agreements between Cornell University as the landowner and the Town of
Ithaca, for properry located along Maple Avenue and Mitchell Street on tax parcels no. 63.-2-
10.2 and 66.-3-30; and
Whereas, the developer and its contractors have constructed the new Town infrastructure
according to Town specifications; and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department staff has inspected such changes to the
Town's water and sanitary sewer infrastructure and has determined that they meet Town
standards and that the as-built surveys presented by the developer accurately depict the location
of such new infrastructure; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town Board accepts the new Town water and sanitary sewer infrastructure
installed by the Maplewood Project developer on Cornell land; and
Resolved, that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign the Permanent Water
Easement and Right of Way, and the Permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement and Right of Way,
associated with the Maplewood Project, subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes — Howe, Hunter, Levine, Leary, Goodman, DePaolo and Bleiwas
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 13
7. Discuss and consider approval of the creation of a Deputy Finance Officer position and
job description and authorize associated budget amendment
Mr. Goodman reported that these were discussed at P&O and Budget Committee.
Ms. Hunter asked if this was going out on the Civil Service posting and nowhere else and Mr.
Goodman responded that this is a temporary position and will be discussed at Budget Committee
and if we decide to make it permanent during staffing plan discussions, that decision will be
made at the board level.
TB Resolution 2019 — 091: Creation of Deputv Finance Officer Position under Civil
Service
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca established compliance under the New York State Civil Service
Agency to qualify employment positions in the Town of Ithaca in accordance with Section 22 of
Civil Service Laws, Rules and Regulations; and
Whereas, by regulation of Civil Service Law the Town must create a position and approve the
job description before making an appointment; and
Whereas, the Town has determined the need to create a Deputy Finance Officer position; now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby establish the following position in
accordance with the applicable New York State and Tompkins County Civil Service rules:
1. The following position is established and is a position in the competitive class pursuant to
Section 44 of the Civil Service Law:
1-(One) — Deputy Finance Officer
Further Resolved, the Town Board does hereby approve the job description for the said position
as created and monitored by Tompkins County Civil Service.
Moved: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Rod Howe
Vote: ayes — Bleiwas, Howe, Hunter, Levine, Leary, and DePaolo nays — Hunter
TB Resolution 2019- 092: Bud�et Amendment — Increasin� the Finance & Bud�et Salarv
Appropriation in the General Townwide Fund of the 2019 Ithaca Town Bud�et
Whereas, at the June 24, 2019 meeting of the Personnel and Organization Committee, the
Committee discussed the need for and recommended the creation of the position of Deputy Finance
Officer; and
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 14
Whereas, upon review and discussion of the proposal at the June 24, 2019 meeting of the Budget
Committee, the Committee recommended the appropriation of additional funds in the amount of
$17,700 in the 2019 Ithaca Town Budget for this unbudgeted expense; and
Whereas, at the June 24, 2019 meeting of the Ithaca Town Board, the Town Board did approve the
job description for and establish the position of Deputy Finance Officer in accordance with New
York State and Tompkins County Civil Service rules; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, the Town Board does hereby amend the 2019 Ithaca Town Budget and authorizes and
directs the Town Finance Officer to appropriate an additional $17,700.00 from the unreserved fund
balance of the General Townwide Fund to meet this expenditure, as follows:
• General Townwide Fund — Expenditures
- Account A1340.100 - Re�ular Salary: is increased from $86,300 to $104,000.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe
Vote: Ayes — Goodman, Howe, Levine, Leary, Bleiwas, DePaolo and Hunter
8. Committee Reports — not given due to time
9. Consent Agenda
TB Resolution 2019 — 093: Adopt Consent A�enda
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts
the following Consent Agenda items:
a. Town of Ithaca Abstract
b. Declare certain items surplus and authorize disposition
Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Rod Howe
Vote: ayes — Hunter, Howe, Leary, Levine, DePaolo, Bleiwas and Goodman
TB Resolution 2019 - 093a: Town of Ithaca Abstract No. 12 for FY-2019
Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town
Board for approval of payment; and
Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board;
now therefore be it
Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in
total for the amounts indicated.
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 15
VOUCHER NOS. 754 - 8814
General Fund Town Wide 74,923.14
General Fund Part-Town 1,242.48
Hi hwa Fund Town Wide DA 3,600.42
Hi hwa Fund Part Town DB 11,158.03
Water Fund 63,00032
Sewer Fund 4,133.69
Fire Protection Fund 266,000.00
Forest Home Li htin District 40.46
Glenside Li htin District 12.08
Renwick Hei hts Li htin District 20.21
Eastwood Commons Li htin District 28.27
Clover Lane Li htin District 3.75
Winner's Circle Li htin District 5.62
Burlei h Drive Li htin District 13.17
West Haven Road Li htin District 52.27
Coddin on Road Li htin District 30.42
TOTAL 424,26433
TB Resolution 2019 — 093b: Disposal of Surplus Computers and Computer Equipment
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca maintains an inventory of computers and computer equipment used
by Town staff to conduct the daily business of the Town; and
Whereas, the Town staff will from time to time identify various computers and computer
equipment which is surplus, obsolete and no longer needed to conduct the daily business of the
Town and identify such equipment to the Town Supervisor for the purpose of receiving approval
to dispose of such equipment; and
Whereas, the Town staff has reviewed the probable proceeds to be realized from the public sale of
the surplus computers and computer equipment and has determined that the costs to the Town
associated with public sale of the identified computers and computer equipment will exceed the
probable proceeds; and
Whereas, the Town staff has determined that it would be unlikely to receive competitive proposals
from public schools, public libraries, or other entities if the Town were to try to donate the surplus
computers and computer equipment pursuant to the provisions of General Municipal Law Sec.
104-c; and
Whereas, it is the recommendation of the Town Supervisor to seek the approval of this governing
Town Board to declare that the equipment identified below is surplus, obsolete, and is no longer
needed by the Town
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 16
MAKE MODEL SERIAL YEAR
NUMBER PURCHASED
HP COMPAQ SP018UP#ABA MXL15101L6 2012
HP COMPAQ B2B14UT#ABA 2UA2051D2X 2012
HP PRO 3500 SERIES MT MXL41804ZG 2012
HP Z230 2UA41128XS 2012
HP Z600 2UA213130M 2012
HP XW4600 USH905010Z 2012
HP Z220 2UA2471122 2012
HP Z220 AUA33018N7 2012
HP Z600 2UA 1 OS 17Y7 2012
HP Z220 2UA33018NG 2012
HP NV470UT#ABA MXL0320ZG9 2012
HP VS876UT#ABA MXL10121 BB 2012
HP COMPAQ NV506UT#ABA MXL0290GGJ 2012
HP XW4600 USH905010Y 2012
HP XW4600 USH9050110 2012
ACER VERITON X4610G 2012
HP COMPAQ 2UA2051 D67 2014
HP-SERVER PROLIANT ML350 USE910N2H4 2010
Latos
LENOVO X100E 350829U 2010
ACER TRAVELMATE 5760 LXV56030742071 2010
Network Gear
CISCO WAP321 SER175103RX 2011
CISCO WAP321 SER175103PQ 2010
CISCO CATALYST 2950 F000912Z1F8 2003
Mobile Devices
VERIZON DRIOD XT1080 2011
VERIZON DRIOD XT1080 2003
VERIZON ELLII'SIS QTAIIZ7 2014
Monitors
HP LA2205WG 3CQ0054RJD 2013
ACER AL1706 ETL51084596250D 2013
SF04200
HP LA2206X CNC149QL59 2013
HP P4825 CN2467B791 2011
HP PE1242 CNP348B392 2011
now therefore be it
TBS 2019-06-24 Pg. 17
�.��;�:�lv�;�i, td-�4�t ��e �"c��aaru �i����:�°�� ��c��,� �c,�•��ay c��,���.�r�� ����:�,� t�� c�c���a�a�t�r� �ar�al ��a��a�►��t�,c� �c��.G�������nt.
��ec;��,tL1'i�� �:ihc��f� i� ��.yr��lr.��;t x:a6�wc.�i���, ���ror� ��; r�r� l��u����;r ���,+����:cl ��� tt�e °l"�����; ��x�ci 1��; u� ��:�rt[��:,�W
�.��t:�l���c�, t��� �N�� "l°����a� �3a���rt� i`i►��� tl���t t���:° �c��r���°�Q� c�f' �°c�m�����ut�a� ����"��r�aA�, ic�;�G��61'��ll ���� tha�
c�rrr7,�a�a��,r� �.�r��� �������rtat�r� �,c��,�i��ra��,��� ic������i�i�,cl ��1�s��vc, r�wr;���V'�� �a�t �.,���a�,� � k�����h �a�" aa ��.��t����ta.�,r
�,a�1'a:�vu���� li���a»��,w ������c�r�r�,rro� ���M a�� i�r�°i�ir�r�e�ta�c�� cai` �� ������r�i�t��; ��nc� l�� i� t`�.uawt,l��r°
��c�;x:alwre,�ifi t���t t}��:, "I"c�w� �3��$�rcl lu�r�:,��� c�i�-��°t:� "�t:���ru �t�f9" ��c� �iw�;e��t���l ����a� cl��»��c���, �rd" ��� ������{�r��i�,c°�;
�ar��.� ��ao�ro���t�r c�t�a�a��°u��xt �c��:��tii"���� ��:k�«v�°. w�� t1�� �����.�«,� �;�;c�c�����ai�,�.�� ���i� � ���r����r�uvx��r�t�tl�� �•��p��:����;��1�
�7�ar��u��•� ��m�•r��.�°r�t�����° a���la%�� �t��� a��������i�t�;�r�t� ��ritl� ��� �� �� i��r�+��•�,��t� �f` �.�°�� "1��"��w��ro ��.rf� 1�b�r�u���..
��i���l a�l��ur� — �;�x���l�a�t�; ��a�i+��
�w°1��, �c�a���:��k�r� ��a�.� Fr� �:a��� �^���. ����v� �w°�t•� a�a�r�,c;e���N7�c9 k�� t�� �'z��.�nt� H���d�� C)r�;�a;.��tr�ac���'�
"T"��l��a���:� �°�°�� �"�a��r���t.�w:�c:� ��¢��� t1�� ���aa�.r���� �� tt� t�a.k� t}�i;�, drt �N��� ��c��' 1���,�� �tt '�'��v�a� l�K�ll �i�u�:r;�, �t za
ir� tiY�� C"�t� h�;s:����,c- tlY� �"i�� a»; �rc��'�it�� �:�d� c:�r�r.i�; e:�a ��:�,� c�ut �1a:���n��«��rn.
fi/i�•, [..���r��� ��a���:�t�;ci srci��in� ��' t�e� ti�� t���; �Ica�� ���°���'rx��ity ur� t1�� ���.�1i��� tc� �1��M°ui��.
��,� k���r�t�,�t�����w �C�1'���)�;��: �"� � r�c�r�� ci���r� �� t�� �F��� ��"��r�n'�; �+�rr� ��r F�*� ��a��a�� �°+� ���r�i�u �
�a�n��:r�,�� �'r��� �+�n���� ���uu�n+� �"���w�Fan �«�11
F��,�c�l���;� t9��t tl�c'l'c�w�� acl���at �Gu� rµ�e�u�;c°,c� ��t°����t� c��'t��� ���rc���:i���; F'c�➢i�°�^ r:Lr:�� ���:.l�li it t�a tt��,
�:at���l�ayca !"`�4�c�u��1 a��cl ����� �i�r�� r�c,atil��y��� t}�� ���k�r1i�° �i��t tl�u�;�N�� ��; ��c:a �;rx�<��;r�� �ru ���a:. �a���N�wr�� I�l
a�t e.f"c���� l���q�.
�"l�v�;�: 1:3i�Y �::�c��:�ctt�r�:ru ��°�;�an�c�. �:�z�c L.a.��ritz�
�'a���: �i���; -- �"�c���db�����, I�e°��ir��, 1.���r°�, �����t��a�„ �-�i����°, �=�M�iw��� �.ura�� �,�c°��ati:�lc�
q�, ��;��c�atiw�c� ���;:�a�ra��n -� C"'��•. �r��n�ra���r� rmc��r��� �c:� �.�ro�s��• �;cr�.�.���;ar�� ;���:��car� 2c� �a�;c���*� tl�c:; �c��,�ik�U�
ra�c��ua�iti�c�s c�f i°a:��.� �r����:,�mt�^ ����c;�m� �i��;�i�7���c��.� r����� �ai'���i�.� �t�� ��c'i+.��, ��:c;c��a�c��;c� �� ��;. I3l�i�,ra�,
�rn�in�t��taa:t�.
l tl.�i►►cl,pra�rr� — t���;Aiax� �u��.� ���.jc,�swµ�7�,� �i,��1 c�c-� f"�.�a�°al�ce:,t° ac��ic�►� t�����.
��.���������t����l ����"
� . �..
�` ,� � � �F
��,� � ,�� j % � ��'�,,
,� i �,;,,�
� �� _.
�.. ��'
�'$:tut�;�C� �:����.
"fc.�vvt�u �"I�c1�
mC�.:i �ro "�4"t I'�-d,}(7_.",.� i��. N �%