HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2021-09-27 MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
September 27, 2021 at 4:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Committee Reports
a. Budget
b. COC
c. Personnel and Organization
d. Planning
e. Public Works
f. Ad Hoc/Other Committees— Short Term Rental (STR)
2. Consider approval of an amendment to the Emergency Digester Repairs and
Cleaning contract associated with the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment
Facility
3. 5:30 p.m. Public hearings and actions regarding:
a. A proposed local law to amend Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code,
to provide a Planned Development Zone for the Chain Works District
i. Consider acceptance of Findings Statement—Chain Works District
ii. Consider adoption of LL establishing Chain Works District PDZ
b. Proposed acquisition of real property—King Rd E TP 44.2-1-2 associated with the
Saunders Park Project
i. Consider Approval
c. Proposed local law to install stop signs at Wildflower Dr/Strawberry Hill Cir
i. Consider adoption
d. Amending the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission
Agreement Increasing Water Rate Charges Effective January 1, 2022
i. Consider approval
e. Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 2022 Budget
i. Consider adoption
£ 2021 Assessment Rolls for the Town of Ithaca's Special Benefit Districts and
Special Benefit Areas
i. Consider approval
g. Proposed Increases to Town of Ithaca Water Rates and Sewer Rents Effective
January 1, 2022
i. Consider approval—Water Rates
ii. Consider approval—Sewer Rents
4. Continue discussion regarding board/committee stipends
5. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of Town Board Minutes
b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract
c. Approval of Ithaca Fire Dept. amendment to Personnel Roster
d. Approval of appointment—Crossing Guard
6. Report of Town Officials
Adjournment
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
1, Paulette Rosa, being duly sworn,say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca,Tompkins County,
New York;that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town
of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper,Ithaca Journal:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
• Proposed Local Law
Amendment to provide 66 1 TUESDAY, SEPTEM6ER 14, 2021 N THE ITHACA�
Planned Development Zone
for Chain Works District
• Proposed Acquisition of real Public Notices
property
• Proposed LL to install Stop Your Source Your Source
Signs
• Amending SCLIWC for the la
Agreement Increasing Rates test for the latest...
2022
• Adoption of SCLIWC 2022
Budget Town of Ithaca
Notice of Public Hearings
• Approval of 2021 On Monday, September 27, 2021, at their Meeting begin,
ssessment Rolls for Special g
nin at 4�30 p.m., held via ZOOM and on YOUTUSE Live,
A theithaca Town Board will hold public hearings on the
Benefit Districts and Special following proposed actions:
a A proposed local law to amend Chapters 270 and 271
BenefiAreal t Are of the Town of Ithaca Code, to provide a Planned Der
• Approval of Proposed velOpment Zone for the Chain Works District
b. Proposed acquisitions of real property (2) for public
Increases to Water & Sewer parks and playgrounds
Rates 2022 c. Proposed local law to install stop signs at Wildflower
Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Dr/Strawb�erry Hill Cir
d. Amending the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal
Town Clerk's Office Water Commission Agreement Increasing Water Rate
Charges Effective January 1,2022
215 North Tioga Street e. Adoption of the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal
Ithaca,NY 14850 Water Commission 2022 Budget
f, Approval of the 2021 Assessment Rolls for the Town of
Town website at www,town.it bacAt%,,y5 Ithaca's special Benefit Districts and Special Benefit Areas
g. Approval of the Pro Increases to Town of Ithaca
Date of Po ing: September 14,2021 Water Rates and Sewer Rents Effective January 1,2022
Date o' fl ation: September 14,2021 All
persons willing to speak to any of the actions shall be
heard* Links to attend or view the meeting as well as de
tails on the proposed actions will be posted an the town
website under Public Notices and available from the
Town Clerk.
Paulette Rosa Comments can also be sent to the Town,Clerk at towncler
k0town.ithaca.ny.us prior to the and up to the end of
Town Clerk the public hearing for your convenience,
Paulette Rosa
STATE OF NEW YORK) Town Clerk 9/14/21
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS:
TOWN OF ITHAA)
Sworn to and subscribed before trie this 101 day
f Se ember 2021.
&
Notary Publicg
BECKY L. JORDAN
NOTARY PUBUC-STATE OF NEW VOIX
No, 01.106196381
Qualified In Tompkins County
My Commission 6xplres April 24, 261"
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
September 27, 2021 at 4:30 p.m.
Minutes
Board Members Present: Rod Howe, Supervisor; Members Eric Levine,Rich DePaolo,Bill Goodman,
Tee-Ann Hunter,Pat Leary and Pamela Bleiwas
Also Present: Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Judy Drake,Director of Human Resources; Marty
Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter,Director of Planning;Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk;
Joe Slater,Director of Public Works; Donna Shaw,Director of Finance; and Dan Thaete,Director of
Engineering
Mr. Howe reported that Peter Stein, a former Town Board Member and County Legislator died
last week, and he wanted to acknowledge and give recognition to someone who played a strong
role in the Town who is no longer with us.
1. Committee Reports
a. Budget—Mr. Levine reported that they reported that they received an update on sales
tax collections which were up 27% from last year so we are coming in over budget;
Donna did a great job on the budget highlights—the tentative budget stays below the
2% tax cap at about a 1.34% increase over last year meaning a typical property will
go up about $50 with water and sewer. The Budget meeting is scheduled for October
where we will go into the budget in detail.
b. COC—Mr. Goodman reported that they did not meet this month and next month
telecommunications, aka 5-G will be back on the agenda, and he will be allowing
comments. He added that the City had a special meeting of the whole and had over
an hour of comments on the topic and he expects a lot next meeting. Mr. Goodman
stated that he anticipates at least another 2 months before anything is brought to the
full board.
c. Personnel and Organization—Ms. Bleiwas reported that they discussed and
finished the review and revisions to the Board Protocol Manual which is an item later
this evening, and they reviewed the engagement survey which we scored about a 4
out of 5 overall and identified a few areas that can be improved upon; discussed our
COVID policy and paid time and Family Paid Leave and the extension through
December 31, 2021
d. Planning—Mr. DePaolo reported that they continued to look at changes to allow
certain residential uses spurred by the Learning Farm Project and staff has drafted
some language we reviewed, and it is now with counsel for review and comment then
back to us to look at. We also looked briefly at the South Hill Charrette and
discussed the TND boundary map and how far west on Rte 96 towards Stone Quarry
Rd we want to include and that is a decision that needs to be made, as it is not
included now but it is quite close to the Neighborhood Center, so the thought is that
maybe it should be considered for inclusion and that idea will be sent to the
consultants for their take on it. Finally, we looked at the overlay districts for the Inlet
Valley zone and the revisions that were made from August comments and now it is
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 1
with counsel.
e. Public Works
f. Ad Hoc/Other Committees— Short Term Rental (STR)
Mr. Goodman went through the history of the Committee and how and why it was
formed almost 4 years ago. The Committee met with stakeholders on both sides and
decided to focus on un-hosted rentals and looked at the standard big weekends for the
area which came to just under 30 days and which matched the definition of short-term
rental vs long-term rentals.
After much discussion and sending the first draft to counsel after two years into it, it
was recommended to change the approach and move to addressing every zone and
define how short-term rentals would be permitted and under what guidelines and
requirements.
This meant we had to look at the lakefront residential zone (LFR), agricultural and
conservation, which we hadn't done, and that is what we have spent our time on for
the past year and a half.
The first recommendation for LFR was 5 months, but some Committee members
were interested in a larger number of days for LFR, and we had to decide on that
number, which we did and brought that as a discussion item at the last Town Board
meeting.
Mr. Goodman reminded the Board that they have had lots of public comment on this
over the years, including the group stakeholder meeting, multiple public comment
periods at the committee level and numerous emails.
At this point, Mr. Goodman shared his screen showing the draft legislation and what
had been discussed at the last Committee meeting and what has been changed, and
what still had to be decided on as a final draft prior to setting the public hearing.
Mr. Goodman stated that one item at the Committee level was discussing whether
people could have more than one operating permit for short-term rentals. The goal
was to stop people from buying up houses to use as STR and protect the housing
stock. The law is based on a hosted rental being in your primary residence as a
requirement. But then the scenario of a primary residence with an accessory dwelling
unit (ADU) where both the ADU and a room or multiple rooms in the main residence
were STR.
The Committee had determined that there could be an exception for an owner with an
ADU or they owned the property next door to your primary residence because the
STR owner could keep track of what was happening in the moment and address any
issues immediately.
Then, after the Town Board discussion, it was decided that a person can only have
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 2
one STR operating permit so the property owner would have to choose which to use
as STR. This is shown in the draft, but counsel has to wordsmith it to avoid LLC's to
make singular owners on paper.
The next Committee discussion was looking at LFR, Ag and Conservation Zones
which we had previously thought we would treat the same, but the Committee
decided not to do that,but to separate out LFR, and treat the other two the same as
High, Low and Medium Density Residential with a maximum of 29 days for un-
hosted STR, with an exception of 90 days if your lot is larger than 3 acres and more
than 40 feet from side yard property lines. All will still need an inspection much the
same as our Rental Registry for long-term rentals and off-street parking must be
provided, only one STR permit at a time, and an occupancy limit of two people per
bedroom and you must provide contact information for a manager who can respond
within 30 minutes to any complaints.
Mr. Goodman turned the discussion over to the Board, noting that this draft still has
to go to counsel for review,but the number of days for LFR still has to be determined
prior to the public hearing.
Mr. Howe turned to the Board members.
Mr. Levine asked if, say, someone has a two-family or a single family with an ADU,
does that mean they cannot rent STR in the unit they are living in, if they have an
extra bedroom, as well as the ADU or second unit?
Mr. Goodman responded that that is correct.
Mr. Levine responded that it would be hosted in both instances, and he didn't see a
problem with that.
Ms. Bleiwas asked about LFR, saying that Mr. Goodman referred to Counsel saying
LFR needed to be referenced, but did she say they had to be regulated?
Mr. Goodman responded that Counsel had stated that we have to say whether it is an
allowed use or not in every zone.
Ms. Bleiwas asked if the regulations can vary by zone.
Mr. Goodman responded that each zone can differ.
Ms. Bleiwas responded that in that case, there is a possibility that we do not regulate
LFR and state that these regulations do not apply to LFR, correct, that would meet
counsel's needs?
Mr. Goodman responded that he believes it would.
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 3
Mr. DePaolo wanted to preface his comments by saying that in his tenure on the
Board, that it is unprecedented for a Committee process to be presented to the full
Board and then sent back to Committee without there having been a vote at the
Committee level to advance the initiative to the Board. He said he thinks this whole
process, while he respects that ultimately, a majority of the Board is going to have to
agree with whatever goes forward, he would say that the nature of this process
devalues the four years that the Committee has spent working on this initiative and
the countless hours we have spent listening to people, trying to create this balancing
test,he stated that at this time, it is appropriate for the Committee to arrive at some
kind of a draft to vote out of Committee, without a lot of preliminary influence from
the full Board. He felt that some of the suggestions, while he was sure people have
their reasons for suggesting things at this point, would subvert this process and create
a much longer process.
Mr. DePaolo added that he was blowing off some steam, because the committee
structure in this instance in and of itself is unusual and he thinks the Committee
should be allowed to finish its work, and then the Town Board should weigh in on a
draft that has been voted out of Committee in an official way.
Soliciting feedback from Board members at this point to be taken back to Committee
to be potentially incorporated into a draft, to sort of front load the process with the
idea that there are certain Members who feel certain ways about certain things is
really unusual and that it sets a dangerous precedent.
Mr. Howe asked Mr. Goodman if there was a formal vote within the Committee to
move this on to the Board.
Mr. Goodman responded that it did not, but that everything the Committee decided
upon is in the draft with the exception of the five months for the LFR, and that draft
was brought to the Town Board at the July Study Session and four members of the
Board said we were comfortable with more than that and that is why it is blank here.
Mr. Goodman added that with respect to the rest of it, the Committee has seen it and
had an opportunity to discuss it and he had made the changes the Committee
requested.
Mr. Goodman did not think it is out of order to ask the Board whether a majority is
supportive of what the Committee is recommending and if the Board wants to make
changes they can.
Mr. DePaolo asked if he could think of another instance where a local law was
brought to the Town Board in draft form for input before it was ratified at the
committee level, because he could not. There has been general conversation about
what's being proposed but to have a draft screen shared seems to be a little bit
subversive to the process and most draft ordinances, when they reach the Board, there
is an assumption that there is a seal of approval or some sort of general direction that
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 4
the committee has adopted, so there is some gravity and momentum that comes with
that process and this feels like we are saying, well,here's this thing, and it might be a
thing, but everybody needs to throw their stuff in now so we can go back and make a
different thing.
He said that he respects everyone's input and certainly interested in hearing the
rationale behind some of the suggestions,but he felt as though this has been kind of
an unusual process from the outset, and he would feel better about it, if we were given
the latitude it's three voting members of a committee that's been constituted for four
years to actually vote on something before the Board has an opportunity to weigh in,
as other committees operate.
Mr. Howe said that time seems to be of the essence a little bit since two members of
the Committee will be stepping down at the end of the year so it would be good for
this to be considered before then. He added that this may go back to Committee and
back to the Board the same thing.
Mr. DePaolo said it may be just a different way to arrive at the same result,but to
hear a facilitator who is not the Chair of the Committee say that a majority of the
Board feels differently about what the Committee has arrived at after four years of
work and deliberation, seems a bit hard for me to accept, and it doesn't feel good. He
thought in the end, we will do as we usually do and come up with something that is
reasonable, but the process sets a potentially dangerous precedent and he left it at that.
Ms. Leary stated that she would like the Committee of the three voting members to go
back and vote on it and have Counsel go through it and then present the official draft
to the full Board. She said the Board could make changes prior to the public hearing,
but she was nervous about it ping-ponging back and forth.
Ms. Hunter stated that she agreed with Mr. DePaolo and Ms. Leary, saying that
Counsel could look at it now, but she doesn't know if the Committee members are
comfortable putting in five-months for LFR, but Mr. Goodman has voiced what we
want to have done relative to the one permit per person, and we could have a draft for
the Board by November.
Mr. Howe said he has acknowledged this is how the Committee was structured, and
we will not do it again.
Mr. DePaolo stated that he wants to say for the record that Mr. Goodman has done a
lot of the heavy lifting and his comments are not personal or any attempt to denigrate
the work he has done; this was a Herculean effort to move this thing along,with a lot
of competing interests, and he was just talking about the process.
Mr. Howe agreed and said he would like to say to all the Committee members,
although he is anxious to have this done, he appreciates all the work that they have
done.
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 5
Mr. Levine said he really appreciated bringing it to the Board during a study session,
which is the purpose of a study session,because this is a major piece of legislation
that is extremely controversial and nobody is going to like every single part of it, but
we, as the Town Board, are ultimately going to be asked to vote on it, and it is nice to
be advised about what is likely to be the final draft and get feedback and for him, you
take the feedback or leave it, and when it comes back for a vote, he may or may not
ask for something to be changed, but at least you were aware and prepared for that
and he did not see any problem with that and appreciated the opportunity prior to
finalization.
Mr. Goodman gave some additional background, saying that originally, the
Committee was going to be him, Mr. DePaolo and Ms. Leary, the group that initially
went to meet with the Renwick Heights neighborhood, but Ms. Hunter seemed very
interested in being on the Committee and the thought was that she might be coming
from a different viewpoint than the others so it would be good to have different
opinions, so we could have discussions at the committee level rather than have the
Committee come up with one thing and then it comes to the Board and gets changed.
And that is what has happened,but Mr. Goodman said he thought he would help
facilitate because it was going to be controversial and for a Chair to have to be a
member of the Committee and think about all the details and regulations and public
comment and the actual facilitation of the meeting itself would be a lot for the Chair,
so he offered to act as Facilitator, but he could understand how that might not have
worked out in the end, but that is the background of it.
He added that he has tried not to insert his viewpoint at the committee level and act
only as Facilitator, but at the Committee meeting two weeks ago, he thought the
Committee got much more restrictive than he was thinking by allowing only one
permit throughout the whole Town, so you either have to pick your primary residence
or your ADU, or your house next door, or your lakefront home, is much more
restrictive than he had thought it would go and he was not sure he agrees with that
and also, having the Agricultural and Conservation zones be subject to the limits of
the LDR, MDR and HDR as opposed to having the limits of the LFR is more
restrictive than he anticipated, but those were the decisions of the Committee, and he
was not sure he agrees.
Mr. Howe said that shows Mr. Goodman was a good facilitator,because he did not
voice that at the Committee meeting,but now that they are voiced, and there does
seem to be a difference in opinion of whether to go with 5, 6 or 7 months or another
number for LFR, he asked if there were any other comments from the Board.
Ms. Bleiwas said that it is important that the Board discuss this,because the Board,
not the Committee will vote whether or not to enact the draft presented, and there is
not a time she is out in public that people do not bring this up, or 5G.
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 6
She felt the more the Board talked about this, the more informed she is and the better
she is prepared to represent the people of the town and hear their concerns and share
their concerns.
She said as far as specifics, she said she was very hesitant to regulate any lakefront
property just knowing the way lakefront property is an economic engine in the town
and knowing we have an influx of people with large incomes that come from large
cities to our community to lakefront properties, and she was afraid that we are going
to have a lakefront that is not accessible to people who have been living here for a
while or people who are permanent residents, and that is a great concern.
Ms. Bleiwas went on to say that she knows people that can afford their lake house
because they rent it out every other week and she thought it was important to be able
to continue that.
She said the point about only one permit for one property; what if you live in Ulysses
but have a house in the Town of Ithaca, it seems you would still be able to get a
permit, which puts our residents at a disadvantage, so these are some questions to ask,
and this is why the whole Board should be involved in this discussion.
Mr. Howe said he felt that was the intent, but we missed the point where the
Committee formally said they were ready to send this on to the Board, because
obviously the full Board gets to comment on this, but that doesn't mean the Board
doesn't respect the work that has gone into the draft by the Committee.
He suggested it go back to Committee at their request, and then bring it back. He
asked for any additional comments for the Committee to consider.
There were none, and Mr. Howe moved on to the next agenda item.
2. Consider approval of an amendment to the Emergency Digester Repairs and
Cleaning contract associated with the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility
Mr. Howe reported that this action is due to an increase from the estimated cost the Board had
previously discussed and approved.
TB Resolution 2021 - 118: Approval of a Cost Amendment for Emergency Digester
Repairs -Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility
Whereas, on the night of March 11-12, 2021, a blockage caused by excessive debris in the
primary digester overflow line caused the liquid level in the tank to surge upwards and lift the
digester cover approximately 18 inches, breaking anchor bolts, mounts, and concrete, and
Whereas, GHD Consultants was hired to evaluate emergency repairs for the Primary Digester,
along with potential work on the supporting appurtenances for the Secondary Digester, and
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 7
verbally estimated costs for cleaning, inspections, and repairs to be at least $1.5 million pending
further evaluation and the issuance of a subsequent letter, and
Whereas, at its April 28, 2021, meeting, the Special Joint Committee (SJC) of the Ithaca Area
Wastewater Treatment Facility(IAWWTF) amended Capital Project 422J to include funding for
Emergency Primary and Secondary Digester cleaning, inspections, and repairs in an amount not
to exceed $1,650,000 (which included a ten percent contingency), and
Whereas, the governing bodies of the City of Ithaca and Towns of Ithaca and Dryden approved
the emergency repairs in the amount of$1,650,000, and
Whereas, following the initial authorization for emergency work and the execution of repairs, it
was discovered that the amount of solids and debris within the Primary Digester far exceeded the
initial estimates of 450 tons which was based on the quantity yielded from previous digester
cleaning operations, and
Whereas, it is now anticipated that there may be an increased quantity of solids present in the
Secondary Digester as well, and
Whereas, upon further inspection and evaluation of the digester systems, additional damage has
been discovered including a bent linear motion driveshaft located inside the Primary Digester
tank, and potentially compromised anchor supports for the Secondary Digester cover, and
Whereas, a summary of these concerns is provided in a September 3, 2021 draft status update
letter provided by GHD Consultants, and
Whereas, GHD's letter estimates the costs for these repairs to be an additional $1,150,000, and
Whereas, at its September 8, 2021 meeting, the SJC adopted a resolution recommending to its
municipal boards that they increase the previously approved emergency funding for Emergency
Digester Repairs by an amount not to exceed the sum total of One Million One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($1,150,000) for the removal of excessive solids and debris and repair of the
existing linear motion mixer driveshaft in the Primary Digester and anticipated increased solids
and debris and repair of the cover anchor supports for the Secondary Digester, for an emergency
repairs total of$2,800,000, now, therefore be it
Resolved, that the Ithaca Town Board approves the $1,150,000 increase in the cost of the
emergency digesters repairs project, as described in GHD's September 3, 2021 letter, for a cost,
including contingencies, not to exceed the sum total of Two Million Eight Hundred Thousand
Dollars and No Cents ($2,800,000.00), and authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute contracts
or contract amendments with MA Bongiovanni, Inc. and GHD Consulting Services Inc. for such
project, subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town, and be it further
Resolved, that funds necessary for said project shall be derived from the following sources as
determined by the Ithaca City Controller: insurance recovery, serial bonds issued by the City of
Ithaca(the Town of Ithaca would not co-issue or be liable on the bonds and would reimburse the
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 8
City of Ithaca through a contract), grants and Federal stimulus funds, with the respective shares
of the Municipal Owners' costs allocated as required by the Joint Sewer Agreement (revised
December 31, 2003, and last amended February 20, 2019), and be it further
Resolved, that the approvals and authorizations in this resolution are contingent on IAWWTF co-
owners City of Ithaca and Town of Dryden approving and authorizing said project increase and
contracts/contract amendments.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: ayes—Goodman, DePaolo, Hunter, Leary, Levine, Howe and Bleiwas
Added Item: Approval of Agreement for Remediation and Indemnification among
IAWWTF and NYSEG
Mr. Howe noted that this is an agreement that has been in the wings for many years from the coal
tar remediation and we have an agreement in place that protects the interests of the Plant owners
and allows the remediation to go forward.
There were no comments or questions from the Board.
TB Resolution 2021 - 119: Approval of Agreement for Remediation and Indemnification
Among Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Owners and NYSEG
Whereas, the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility ("IAWWTF") is owned and operated
by the Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca and Town of Dryden ("Municipal Owners"), with oversight
provided through a Special Joint Committee ("SJC") composed of representatives from the three
Municipal Owners; and
Whereas, pursuant to a multi-site Order on Consent between New York State Electric& Gas
Corporation("NYSEG") and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
("NYSDEC") which was executed on March 30, 1994, Index#DO-0002-9309 (NYSDEC, 1994,
subsequently modified, and then, amended and restated December 5, 2016) ("Consent Order"),
NYSEG is responsible for implementing a full remedial program, including tests for, and
investigations and remediation of, contamination related to a former First Street Manufactured
Gas Plant site ("First Street MGP Site") that was previously located on a portion of the
IAWWTF site located at 525 Third Street in the City of Ithaca("Premises"); and
Whereas, in connection with NYSEG's responsibilities under the NYSDEC Consent Order,
NYSEG and the City of Ithaca entered into an Access Agreement, dated December 18, 2009 and
amended by Addendum#1 on or about September 8, 2010, permitting NYSEG temporarily to
use, occupy, excavate and travel over the IAWWTF premises (title to which at the time was in
the City), in order to perform sampling and evaluation of soil, ground water, bedrock and soil
vapor and other investigations, assessments and related work activities; and
Whereas,NYSEG performed said sampling and evaluation, and the NYSDEC subsequently
issued a March 2011 Record of Decision ("ROD") that contains the remedy for the environment
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 9
at the First Street MGP Site (the "Remedial Action"); and
Whereas,NYSEG prepared a Remedial Design Work Plan dated February 14, 2020 and
approved by NYSDEC on July 29, 2020 ("RDWP"), that provides the scope and methods for
NYSEG to implement the Remedial Action for the First Street MGP Site (collectively, the
RDWP and any additional NYSDEC-approved supplemental work plan to the RDWP to
implement the ROD are referred to as the "Work Plan," and any Remedial Action
implementation under the Work Plan is referred to as the "Work"); and
Whereas,NYSEG must temporarily use, occupy, excavate, install Work Plan elements in, on and
under, and travel over, the Premises in order to implement and perform the Work; and
Whereas, at its August 11, 2021, meeting, the SJC recommended the Municipal Owners approve
the Agreement for Remediation and Indemnification to permit NYSEG to use the Premises for
these purposes subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement; now, therefore,be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca approves the Agreement for Remediation
and Indemnification and authorizes its execution by the Town Supervisor, subject to the approval
of the Attorney for the Town; and be it further
Resolved, that the approval and authorization in this resolution are contingent on IAWWTF co-
owners City of Ithaca and Town of Dryden approving and authorizing said Agreement for
Remediation and Indemnification.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: ayes—DePaolo, Goodman, Howe, Hunter, Leary, Levine and Bleiwas
3. 5:30 p.m. Public hearings and actions regarding:
a. A proposed local law to amend Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca
Code, to provide a Planned Development Zone for the Chain Works District
Mr. DePaolo asked that the public hearing be kept open until after Board comments.
Mr. Howe opened the public hearing at 5:33 p.m., noting that there are two elements to this, one
is to accept the Findings Statement and the second is for the Planned Development Zone, adding
that representatives are available for questions.
Mr. Sylvestri, Agent, said he and some associates are available for questions, and this has been a
long process over the last few years and the current owner of the property has done significant
amounts of remediation of the soils and the DEC has issued an amended Record of Decision
(ROD) that allows moving forward and is consistent with the conceptual site layout plan both in
the City and the Town and they believe the ROD is consistent with the planned reuse of the
property and the types of remediation that were discussed in the Environmental Impact
Statement.
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 10
Mr. DePaolo said he had several comments about process and then some questions about the
ROD and the related remediation and mitigation strategies that the representatives could possibly
answer.
He said that we have heard about how important and significant our STR and 5G initiatives are
and how we need to really take the time needed, and here we are on the precipice of changing the
zoning to potentially allow residential use on a highly contaminated site and we have been given
hundreds of pages of documentation to review in a relatively short period of time and we are
being asked to review these and vote on this highly significant and long term initiative at a study
session, which he though was a little bit unusual as study sessions are supposed to be for general
discussion and he didn't know why the Board was being asked to vote on this twelve days after
the amended ROD that he was willing to bet everything he owned that not one Board member
had read, except for him.
Mr. DePaolo said he would urge that the public hearing be kept open and that this vote be
rescheduled to the October regular meeting to give Board Members the chance to adequately
avail themselves of the material that potentially has public health and safety implications so
everyone could vote confidently knowing that they have done their due diligence, and the
outcome would, in all likelihood, be the same,but would also give the public ample chance to
participate.
He reiterated that this ROD has been years in the making and he advocates for putting this on a
regular meeting to be conducted in a manner that was originally envisioned to delineate between
the purpose of a study session and the regular voting meetings.
Mr. DePaolo said he could go forward with his questions if that is what is wanted.
Mr. Howe responded and asked Ms. Ritter if there was a deadline we are up against in having
this item on the agenda now.
Ms. Ritter responded that there is a deadline and the preliminary ROD was submitted to the
public in June for comments and submitted to the Board, and the closing on the property is
supposed to be soon after the ROD and one of the contingencies is that both the City's PTC and
our PDZ are adopted as well as the acceptance of the Findings Statement.
Mr. Howe said we could come back to whether to keep the public hearing open but asked Mr.
DePaolo to go on with his questions.
Mr. DePaolo asked about the restriction on the use of groundwater as a source of potable o
process water without treatment and why not an overall occlusion against that rather than subject
to potential treatment when there is virtually no likelihood at all that it is going to be used at all,
especially as potable water.
Mr. Sylvestri responded that the developer has no intention of using groundwater as potable
water or anything else for that matter, at this point in time, and that language is standard for DEC
for every brownfield site that he has ever been involved with or seen. He went on to say that the
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 11
allowance for potential use is to consider that if conditions change in the future, to be able to
apply for and get permission to use that water in a way that would be safe for both the
environment and public health there would be an avenue to do that. For example, in the next 15-
20 years there may be some technology that makes it useable for some non-contact cooling water
or something or even in the future a technology that makes it potable.
Mr. DePaolo asked about the provision for implementing actions recommended to address
exposures related to soil vapor intrusion and are there actual criteria in place and engineering
controls related to soil vapor intrusion in place for evaluation and will these evaluations be made
before the buildings are occupied.
Mr. Sylvestri responded that the indoor air quality will be tested and the DOH has guidance
documents and they would be following that and doing those tests prior to getting permission to
occupy any structure or building. You would be testing the slab at the same time you are testing
the indoor air to see if you have vapors accumulating underneath the slab and whether they are
entering the indoor airspace and if the concentrations exceed certain standards you are going to
have to address that by monitoring or mitigating depending on the concentration.
Mr. Sylvestri described some of the ways testing is done and mitigation systems, saying that
most of the buildings are anticipated to need a sub slide pressurization system,but there will be
testing and verifications as the project progresses.
Mr. DePaolo asked if the testing would be under occupied simulation such as in the winter with
the heat on and the windows closed, and Mr. Sylvestri responded it would.
Mr. Howe asked Mr. Silvestri about any deadlines associated with this action.
Mr. Slyvestri responded that they are looking to close on this property as soon as possible and
this is one of the requirements. The Seller has been extending the deadline over and over during
this process, and he understands the Board's concerns about rushing to judgement and he could
ask for another extension if necessary.
Mr. Gensel added that there is a deadline associated with two grants from NYSERDA which
have some contractual timeframes that are ending this month for the planning portion that would
have to be resolved as part of any extension granted by the Seller.
Mr. DePaolo asked him to elaborate, and Mr. Gensel said the rezoning approvals are supposed to
be completed for the initial planning phase and we have to have one site plan approval
preliminary which is the City `s portion and then the property as a whole.
Mr. Howe asked if Mr. DePaolo had any follow up.
Mr. DePaolo said he thought the Board had an obligation, considering the volume of material
presented in final form, to review the information along with the PDZ language, which he said he
was comfortable with since he is Chair of the Planning Committee which reviewed it, but there is
also the Findings Statement and it is unprecedented to try and consummate a process of this
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 12
length and magnitude at a study session and although he is at an advantage given his membership
on the Planning Committee,he was not going to assume the Board as a whole has digested this
material to a degree that would allow for a responsible vote on the matter this evening.
Ms. Ritter clarified that the ROD has had a public hearing and so that is finalized and the Board
would not be making any comments or amendments.
Mr. DePaolo responded that at the same time, the Board is under no obligation whatsoever to
change the zoning on this property and has complete control over the use of this land
notwithstanding the ROD. The ROD is a piece of information the Board can use to make its
determination on how the land should be used. He thought the Board should take the time to
read the material they are voting on instead of throwing caution to the wind and giving complete
faith to regulatory entities in far away places when this is our community and we are putting
people in a highly contaminated environment so we should at least know what it being proposed
in terms of remediation.
Mr. Goodman stated that the ROD is not the determining factor for him and the State went
through their process and the City went through theirs,but in his opinion, the Findings Statement
is the process and not dependent on the ROD and he was willing to not rush as fast as the City
did to allow time for members who felt they wanted to review the ROD to do so, but he was
prepared to vote tonight on the matter. We are not voting on the ROD, that is the State's process
and they have concluded it.
Mr. Goodman added that most of the buildings are on the City's property and most of the
pollution is on the City's property and they have gone through their process and moved forward
and although he was willing to wait until October if it did not cause a great hardship for the
project,but he was also ready to vote tonight.
Mr. Sylvestri reiterated that the DEC and DOH are in control with how the process and the site
gets remediated and they have been looking at and approving a significant interim remedial
measure which were performed and as a result of that work there was a significant hundreds of
tons of contaminated soil excavated and removed from the site and he would not call this a
highly contaminated property, there has been contamination and it has been studied very well at
this point and largely due to the Buyer entering into an agreement with Emerson that required a
more robust investigation of the property than had ever been done, and as a result, additional
impacts were discovered and a large number of those impacts have been addressed and a plan is
in place to have any future impacts that may get discovered will be addressed, such as the soil
vapors discussed earlier and through the ROD, a plan in place to address groundwater.
contamination.
He went on to say that all of this has happened to allow for the development of a very important
parcel in the City and Town in a manner that is very protective of public health and the
environment.
Mr. Gensel added that as a part of this investigation, a large portion of the project in the Town
was removed from the boundary and the ROD with only about 23 units in the Town within the
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 13
ROD boundary.
There was some discussion on procedure regarding closing the public hearing and it was
determined that the Public Hearing be closed and determine if there is a first and second to move
forward on the action.
Mr. Howe closed the public hearing at 6:00 p.m. and asked if someone would like to move the
resolution. Mr. Howe moved the resolution, Mr. Goodman seconded it. Discussion.
Mr. DePaolo said he had a general comment about the defining statement where there were
references comparing the proposed alternative to the no action alternative and alluding to the fact
that the preferred alternative will be more beneficial from a public health and environmental
perspective due to the more stringent soil and groundwater standards associated with restricted
residential use versus commercial and industrial use and from his perspective, it is true that the
site is going to receive a greater level o attention,but that's only because people are actually
going to be put there, whereas the no action alternative, there wouldn't be residential use, so
we're making a cleaner because people are going to be there,but he didn't know if that was
really from a public health perspective , the preferred alternative. He said it doesn't rise to the
level of a modification,but he wanted to comment on it.
Ms. Hunter stated that she honestly had not had the time to completely review the Finding
Statement and she was uncomfortable saying she was casting an informed vote at this time,
adding that she has questions which she thought would be answered as she got further through
the document, but she was concerned about moving quickly on something so important.
Mr. Howe conducted a roll-call style vote to be clear.
TB Resolution 2021 -120: Adopt Findings Statement for the Chain Works District
Redevelopment Project
Whereas, Unchained Properties, LLC proposes to develop the Chain Works District
Redevelopment Project, a mixed-use development located in the Town and City of Ithaca (810
Danby Road/620-40 Aurora Street) on the former Emerson Power Transmission/Morse Chain
factory property. Approximately two-thirds of the existing factory complex is located within the
city boundary. Phase I of the proposed project includes repurposing and converting large
portions of the former factory buildings into residential, mixed use, and manufacturing uses
(residential and mixed uses in the city, manufacturing in the Town). Subsequent phases will
include new construction of residential and mixed-use development within both the City and
Town portions of the property; and
Whereas, the project requires rezoning into a Planned Development Zone by the Ithaca Town
Board and City of Ithaca Common Council, site plan approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board and City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and other approvals from State and
County agencies; and
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 14
Whereas, the Chain Works District project is a Type I action under SEQRA and has been
conducted as a coordinated review amongst the various agencies that have discretionary decision
authority to approve certain aspects of the project, and
Whereas, in a letter dated September 23, 2014, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board indicated its intent to serve as the Lead Agency for the environmental review of the Chain
Works District project, and
Whereas, on October 28, 2014, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, as an Involved Agency,
concurred with the designation of the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board as Lead
Agency under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, for the purpose of
overseeing the environmental review of the Chain Works District project, and
Whereas, also on October 28, 2014, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead
Agency, made a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance, directing the Project
Sponsor to prepare a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) to evaluate
potential impacts of the proposed project, and
Whereas, on November 18, 2014, the Lead Agency held both an Agency Scoping Session and a
Public Scoping Session to identify issues to be analyzed in the GEIS; on January 6, 2015, the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board submitted comments to the Lead Agency on the Scoping
Document; and on January 13, 2015, the Lead Agency approved the Scoping Document, and
Whereas, on March 8, 2016, the Lead Agency reviewed the DGEIS submitted by the Project
Sponsor for completeness and adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and with
the assistance of City Staff and the City's consultants, Adam Walters of Phillips Lytle LLP,
found the DGEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy, and
Whereas, on March 29, 2016, the Lead Agency held a public hearing to obtain comments from
the public on the DGEIS, and written comments for the same purpose were accepted until May
25, 2016; and, on May 24, 2016, the Town of Ithaca Town Board submitted comments to the
Lead Agency regarding the DGEIS, and
Whereas, on March 26, 2019, the Lead Agency accepted the FGEIS for the Chain Works District
project, as complete for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental
impacts and proposed mitigation measures as required under 6 NYCRR Part 617 (the SEQRA
regulations) and Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code (the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance, CEQR); and has issued its Findings Statement related to the project,
and
Whereas, the Ithaca Town Board has reviewed the DEIS, FEIS and the relevant documents
incorporated therein, and
Whereas, the Planning Committee of the Town Board reviewed and discussed a draft Findings
Statement for the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project at its meetings on April 18, 2019,
and May 16, 2019, and
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 15
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Town Board reviewed and discussed a draft Findings Statement for
the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project at its meetings on June 10, 2019, July 22, 2019,
and September 27, 2021, now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board, as an Involved Agency in the environmental
review of the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, does hereby adopt the Findings
Statement, dated September 27, 2021, for the for the Chain Works District Redevelopment
Project and authorizes planning staff to file and distribute the Findings Statement in accordance
with the requirements of SEQRA.
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: Ayes—Rod Howe, Bill Goodman, Pamela Bleiwas and Eric Levine
Nays—Rich DePaolo, Tee-Ann Hunter and Pat Leary
Motion passed 4 to 3
i. Consider adoption of LL establishing Chain Works District PDZ
Mr. Howe opened the public hearing at 6:03 p.m. there was no one wishing to address the Board
and the hearing was closed.
TB Resolution 2021 -121: Adoption of Local Law 12 of 2021 titled"A Local Law to Amend
Zoning Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide a Planned Development
Zone for the Chain Works District"
Whereas, the Chain Works District (CWD) Redevelopment Project proposes to redevelop and
rehabilitate the +/- 800,000 SF former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility and
construct new buildings on portions of the 95-acre site within the City and Town of Ithaca in
multiple phases over a number of years, and
Whereas,rezoning the portion of the 95-acre site in the Town of Ithaca from Industrial to a Planned
Development Zone (PDZ), in conjunction with the City of Ithaca establishing a Planned Unit
Development within the city portion, will allow the site to be transformed from an idle industrial
complex to a revitalized mixed-use development composed of residential, commercial, office, and
manufacturing, and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan(2014)identified the site as an"Area of Special
Concern"and recommended it for mixed use development provided that remediation occurs,given
the class 2 listing of the property in the State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites,
and
Whereas, at a meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee on March 17, 2016, the CWD
consultant team introduced a proposed form-based code format for the draft PDZ that featured
transect subareas,building design guidelines,and siting requirements for individual building types,
and
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 16
Whereas, during six monthly meetings of the Planning Committee in 2018 (January, February,
March, October,November, and December) and the first two monthly meetings in 2019 (January
and February) committee members reviewed and provided comments on drafts of the PDZ along
with input from Planning staff and the Attorney for the Town, and the Planning Committee
completed their review on February 21, 2019, and
Whereas, at a meeting on March 5, 2019, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board unanimously voted
to recommend that the Town Board adopt the proposed local law to provide a PDZ for the Chain
Works District, and
Whereas, at a meeting on May 20, 2021, Planning Committee members reviewed proposed
refinements to the PDZ proposed by staff, and recommended the PDZ local law be submitted to
the Town Board, provided that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) issued an amended Record of Decision setting forth the selected remedy to address
contamination related to the Project site, and
Whereas, on September 15, 2021, the NYSDEC issued the Amended Record of Decision setting
forth the selected remedy to address contamination related to the site, and
Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca scheduled a public hearing for September 27,
2021, at 5:30 p.m., to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A Local Law
to Amend Zoning; Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide a Planned
Development Zone for the Chain Works District", and
Whereas, notice of the public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal, and
Whereas, the public hearing was duly held on the date and time and all parties were permitted an
opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to the proposed local laws, or any part of them,
and
Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its
implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, adoption of said local law is a Type I Action for
which the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board as lead agency in an environmental
review with respect to the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, made a positive
determination of environmental significance on October 28, 2014 and required that a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) be prepared, and subsequently accepted the DEIS as
complete and adequate for public review on March 8,2016, and accepted the Final Environmental
Impact Statement on March 26, 2019, and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, as an Involved Agency in the environmental review of
the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, adopted the Findings Statement for the Project
on September 27, 2021, having considered the DEIS and FEIS and the relevant documents
incorporated therein, and
Whereas, the Town Board finds that the adoption of the local law, and the type of development it
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 17
enables, are in the best interests of the Town and are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan,
now therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts Local Law No. 12 of 2021
entitled: "A Local Law to Amend Zoning Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code to
Provide a Planned Development Zone for the Chain Works District", and it is further
Resolved, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the
Secretary of State as required by law.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes—Bill Goodman, Eric Levine, Rod Howe and Pamela Bleiwas
Nays—Rich DePaolo, Tee-Ann Hunter and Pat Leary
Motion passed 4 to 3
b. Proposed acquisition of real property—King Rd E TP 44.2-1-2 associated with
the Saunders Park Project
Mr. Howe opened the public hearing at 6:09 p.m., there was no one wishing to speak, and the
hearing was closed at 6:1Op.m.
TB Resolution 2021 - 122: Authorization to Acquire Land from Hospicare Foundation Inc.
(Tax Parcel No. 44.2-1-2)Associated with the Saunders Park Trail Project
Whereas, the Saunders Park Trail Project will provide the Town of Ithaca's residents with an
improved and safe trail network, connecting Whitetail Drive to King Road East, through
Saunders Park, and
Whereas, a portion of the potential future trail alignment conflicts with an existing adjoining
neighbor's landscape buffer, and
Whereas, town staff have determined that acquisition of a 2,369 square foot piece of property
owned by Hospicare Foundation, Inc. and located near King Road East (a portion of Tax Parcel
No. 44.2-1-2) will allow alignment of the future trail network to avoid this buffer, and
Whereas, the Hospicare Foundation, Inc. has agreed to donate the 2,369 square foot piece of
property to the Town of Ithaca for trail use; and
Whereas, pursuant to NY General Municipal Law §247, on September 27, 2021, the Town Board
held a duly noticed public hearing on the acquisition of parkland associated with the Saunders
Park Project, during which the Town Board heard all persons interested in the Saunders Park
Trail land acquisition who appeared at such time and through the designated means, and
Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and
its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Ithaca Town
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 18
Board that approval of the parkland acquisition is a Type 11 action because it constitutes
"acquisition and dedication of 25 acres or less of land for parkland," and thus approval of the
parkland acquisition is not subject to review under SEQRA, now, therefore be it
Resolved, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and approves the acquisition of a 2,369 square
foot piece of property from Hospicare Foundation, Inc., associated with the Sauder Park Trail
Project, subject to approval by the Attorney for the Town, and be it further
Resolved, that the Town Supervisor be, and hereby is, authorized and requested to take such
steps (including the expenditure of Town surplus or reserve funds for recording fees, filing fees,
and other customary real estate fees and expenses), and to execute such documents, as deemed
necessary to effectuate such land acquisition and the purposes of this resolution.
Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Pat Leary
Vote: ayes—Levine, Leary, Howe, Goodman, Hunter, Bleiwas and DePaolo
c. Proposed local law to install stop signs at Wildflower Dr/Strawberry Hill Cir
Mr. Howe opened the public hearing at 6:11 p.m.,
Nancy Schuler spoke as the submitter of the petition, and reviewed the points in the petition and
urged the Board to approve this.
There was no one else wishing to speak and the hearing was closed at 6:13p.m.
TB Resolution 2021 - 123: Adoption of LL 13 of 2021 Amending Chapter 250 of the Town
of Ithaca Code, titled"Vehicles and Traffic," by adding Stop Signs on Wildflower Drive at
its Southerly Intersection with Strawberry Hill Circle
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca received a petition by persons in the neighborhood, commonly
referred to as East Wood Commons, for two stop signs to be placed at the southern intersection
of Wildflower Drive and Strawberry Hill Circle, effectively creating a 4-way stop, and
Whereas, the petition requested the addition of stop signs to address concerns with vehicles not
slowing down at the intersection and with the high volume of pedestrian traffic and lack of
sidewalks in the community, and
Whereas, the petition was discussed at the Public Works Committee on August 17th, 2021, and
recommended for approval by the Ithaca Town Board, and
Whereas, at its September 13, 2021 meeting, the Town Board adopted a resolution for a public
hearing to be held by the Town on September 27, 2021 at 5:30 p.m., to hear all interested parties
on the proposed local law, entitled"A Local Law Amending Chapter 250 of the Town of Ithaca
Code, Titled `Vehicles and Traffic,' by Adding Stop Signs on Wildflower Drive at its Southerly
Intersection with Strawberry Hill Circle", and
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 19
Whereas, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal, and
Whereas, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time and all parties in attendance
were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said local law, or any part
thereof, and
Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") and
its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board
that adoption of the proposed local law is a Type II action because it constitutes "installation of
traffic control devices on existing streets,roads and highways," and thus this action is not subject
to review under SEQRA, now, therefore, be it
Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts Local Law No. 13 of 2021,
entitled"A Local Law Amending Chapter 250 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled `Vehicles and
Traffic,' by Adding Stop Signs on Wildflower Drive at its Southerly Intersection with
Strawberry Hill Circle", and be it further
Resolved, the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the NYS
Secretary of State as required by law.
Moved: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes—Bleiwas, Levine, Leary, Hunter, Howe, Goodman and DePaolo
d. Amending the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission
Agreement Increasing Water Rate Charges Effective January 1, 2022
Mr. Howe opened the public hearing at 6:14 p.m., there was no one wishing to speak and the
hearing was closed at 6:15p.m.
TB Resolution 2021 - 124: Approve amending the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal
Water Commission Agreement Increasing the Water Rate Schedule
Whereas,the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca discussed the proposed increase in the Water Rate
Charges contained and put forward in the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water
Commission Preliminary Budget; now, therefore,be it
Resolved, that the Town Board approves and authorizes, subject to the approval of the Attorney
for the Town, the execution of an amendment to the agreement of intermunicipal cooperation
between the Town and several other municipalities pursuant to which the Southern Cayuga Lake
Intermunicipal Water Commission was formed, which amendment would increase the water rate
charged by the Commission to $5.77 (was $5.60) per 1,000 gallons, and increases minimum base
charges based on meter sizes, all as described in Exhibit I to the agreement amendment, said
changes to be effective January 1, 2022.
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 20
Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: Ayes - Levine, Goodman, Bleiwas, Hunter, Howe, Leary and DePaolo
e. Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 2022 Budget
Mr. Howe opened the public at 6:15 p.m., there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was
closed at 6:16p.m.
TB Resolution 2021 -125: Approval of the 2022 Southern Cayuj!a Lake Intermunicipal
Water Commission 2022 Budget
Whereas the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 2022 Preliminary Budget
has been approved by the Commission and a public hearing dutifully held by the Town of Ithaca
on September 27, 2021, now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board approves the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water
Commission 2022 Budget as submitted.
Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: ayes—Levine, Goodman, Leary, Howe, Hunter, DePaolo and Bleiwas
L 2021 Assessment Rolls for the Town of Ithaca's Special Benefit Districts and
Special Benefit Areas
Mr. Howe opened the public hearing at 6:16 p.m., there was no one wishing to speak and the
hearing was closed at 6:17p.m.
TB Resolution 2021 - 126: Adoption of the 2021 Assessment Rolls for Special Benefit
Districts and Special Benefit Areas for Tax Year 2022
Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca held a properly advertised public hearing at the
Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 27th day of September 2021, to
consider the 2021 Assessment Rolls for Special Benefit Districts and Special Benefit Areas for the
Town of Ithaca for Tax Year 2022; now, therefore,be it
Resolved, the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and adopts the 2021
Assessment Rolls for the Special Benefit Districts and Special Benefit Areas of the Town of Ithaca
for Tax Year 2022 as follows:
Fire Protection District: Assessed Value - $1,301,004,130.00
Forest Home Light District: Assessed Value - $41,809,600.00
Glenside Light District: Assessed Value - $5,215,100.00
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 21
Renwick Heights Light District: Assessed Value - $14,604,600.00
Eastwood Commons Light District: Assessed Value - $18,619,900.00
Clover Lane Light District: Assessed Value - $3,005,000.00
Winners Circle Light District: Assessed Value - $2,885,000.00
Burleigh Drive Light District: Based upon 3,851.1 lineal feet.
WestHaven Road Light District: Based upon Road Frontage of 9,038.12 lineal feet.
Coddington Road Light District: Based upon Road Frontage of 8,930.31 lineal feet.
Water Improvement Benefit Area: Units Available & Connected - 7,940.69
Ad Valorem Water Improvement Benefit Area: Assessed Value - $674,077,033.00
Sewer Improvement Benefit Area: Units Available & Connected - 7,577.19
Ad Valorem Sewer Improvement Benefit Area: Assessed Value - $742,151,155.00
Town 520 Omitted Move Tax: Actual Amount- $1,543.71
Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: ayes—Levine, DePaolo, Bleiwas, Leary, Hunter, Howe and Goodman
g. Proposed Increases to Town of Ithaca Water Rates and Sewer Rents Effective
January 1, 2022
i. Consider approval—Water Rates
Mr. Howe opened the public hearing at 6:17, there was no one wishing to address the Board and
the hearing was closed.
Mr. DePaolo stated that the current cost and the increased cost should be listed in the resolution.
Ms. Rosa responded that the information was in the public hearing notice but removed from the
resolution by counsel and she would check on whether there was a legal reason or it could be
reinserted.
Mr. DePaolo was satisfied with that response.
TB Resolution 2021 - 127: Increasing Water Rates Chargeable to Consumers of Water in
the Town of Ithaca Effective January 1, 2022
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 22
Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca wishes to revise water rate schedules for all
Town of Ithaca Water Improvement Areas; and
Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") and its
implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board that
adoption of the proposed resolution is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or
continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major
reordering of priorities that may affect the environment," and thus this action is not subject to
review under SEQRA; Now, therefore,be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby establishes a water rate of$8.51
(was $8.26)per 1,000 gallons of water consumed with the following water rate schedule:
WATER RATE SCHEDULE
Effective January 1, 2022
The rate charged for water consumption shall be $8.51 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed. The
foregoing rate will be the rate charged for all regular quarterly bills sent on or after January 1,
2022. Actual or base consumption may occur prior to January 1, 2022.
Notwithstanding the foregoing rates, the following minimum base charges shall be applicable to
the meter size indicated below for regular quarterly bills issued on or after January 1, 2022. The
table below also shows the amount of water consumption that is permitted before the minimum
base charge would be exceeded:
METER SIZE BASE CONSUMPTION MINIMUM CHARGE
(INCHES) (Gallons)
3/4 5,000 $ 42.55
1 15,000 $ 127.65
1-1/2 22,500 $ 191.48
2 45,000 $ 382.95
3 70,000 $ 595.70
4 100,000 $ 851.00
6 175,000 $ 1,489.25
Multiple Housing and mobile home parks of over 2 dwelling units, using a master meter, will be
computed as follows: The quarterly master meter reading will be divided by the number of
dwelling units and the water charge will be figured on this number as if the unit was individually
metered. The water charge will then be multiplied by the number of units on the master meter
and this will be the billing rendered. If the calculation of the water consumed per dwelling unit
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 23
is less than the allowable consumption for a three-quarter inch meter, then the billing will be
calculated by multiplying the number of units on the master meter times the minimum charge for
a three-quarter inch meter.
The water application fee for each new application for water service shall be the charges for new
water connections charged by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission
including application fees, meter charges, service tap fees, inspection fees, accessory materials,
installation costs, and any other fee or cost charged by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal
Water Commission for connecting new water services.
An annual charge for each fire protection main serving a fire suppression system will be billed
along with the first quarterly water bill of the calendar year. The annual charge for this service
shall be $20.00 per diameter inch of the pipe supplying the fire suppression system or such other
amount as is charged by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission for such
systems. The pipe supplying the fire suppression system is the pipe needed to supply the fire
suppression system, installed downstream of the system control valve.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: ayes—DePaolo, Goodman, Bleiwas, Hunter, Howe, Leary and Levine
ii. Consider approval— Sewer Rents
TB Resolution 2021 - 128: Increasing Sewer Rents in all of the Town of Ithaca Sewer
Improvement Areas Effective January 1, 2022
Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca wishes to revise the sewer rent schedules for all
of the Town of Ithaca Sewer Improvement Areas; and
Whereas, a public hearing, duly advertised and posted as required by law,was held on the 27th day
of September 2021, and the public was permitted an opportunity to be heard on the proposed
increase; and
Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its
implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board that
adoption of the proposed resolution is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or continuing
agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of
priorities that may affect the environment," and thus this action is not subject to review under
SEQRA; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby establishes and imposes the
following:
(1) Effective January 1, 2022, there is hereby imposed a sewer rent payable by all users
connected to the Town-wide sewer system at a rate of$5.50(was$5.34)per 1,000 gallons of water
consumed.
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 24
In addition,and notwithstanding the foregoing rate structure,there shall be a minimum base charge
for regular quarterly bills sent on or after January 1,2022 in the amount of$27.50,which minimum
charge is based on 5,000 gallons of usage,regardless of whether that amount is actually used.
Multiple housing and mobile home parks of over two dwelling units, using a master water meter,
will be computed as follows: The quarterly master water meter reading will be divided by the
number of dwelling units and the sewer rent charge will be figured on this number as if the unit
was individually metered. The sewer rent will then be multiplied by the number of units on the
master water meter and this will be the billing rendered and the amount payable. If the calculation
of the water consumed per dwelling unit is less than the amount that would be permitted before
exceeding the minimum sewer rent set forth above, then the billing will be calculated by
multiplying the number of units served by the master water meter times the minimum sewer rent
set forth above.
The charges set forth above shall be effective with respect to bills rendered on or after the effective
dates set forth above, even if the measurement is for consumption prior to the above effective dates
(i.e., any bill rendered on or after January 1, 2022, shall be calculated at the 2022 rate even if the
sewer use occurred prior to January 1, 2022).
In the event a property is connected to public sewer, but is not connected to a water meter, the
sewer rent shall be based upon estimated water consumption as reasonably determined by the
Director of Public Works based upon recognized methods of estimating typical consumption for
the type of facility involved(e.g., gallons per day per bedroom).
Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: ayes—Levine, Goodman, Howe, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter and Bleiwas
4. Continue discussion regarding board/committee stipends
Mr. Howe noted that this has been discussed at a prior meeting and now there is more
information provided and this was to gather any comments and determine whether to move
forward.
The Board discussed the work involved in a payroll sense and the difference between the
stipends paid to the legislative boards as opposed to advisory boards. The amount of$40 per
meeting was suggested to keep the yearly amount below the amount that would require a 1099
and for regular members only, not associate members, who do not vote and can be residents in
another municipality.
The Board was in favor of the suggested stipend to cover sitter or lost work costs and discussion
turned to other boards or committees and at this point, the Conservation Board is the one being
proposed and possibly look into and get more information on the other boards and committees.
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 25
5. Consent Agenda
TB Resolution 2021 - 129: Adopt Consent Agenda
Resolved,that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following
Consent Agenda items:
a. Approval of Town Board Minutes—Pulled/None
b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract
c. Approval of Ithaca Fire Dept. amendment to Personnel Roster
d. Approval of appointment—Crossing Guard
e. Approval of amendment to personnel roster—IFD
f. Approval of revised COVID Response Policy
Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter
Vote: ayes—Levine, Hunter,Howe,DePaolo,Leary,Goodman and Bleiwas
TB Resolution 2021-129b: Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract
Whereas the vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for audit and approval of payment;
now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board hereby authorizes the payment in the amounts indicated:
VOUCHER NOS. 1059 - 1113
General Fund Town Wide 62,668.02
General Fund Part-Town 13,634.27
Highway Fund Town Wide DA 2,395.77
Highway Fund Part Town DB 35,501.73
Water Fund 15,854.88
Sewer Fund 6,584.02
Gateway Trail—H8 12,109.19
Fire Protection Fund 280,000.00
Forest Home Lighting District 208.49
Glenside Lighting District 76.79
Renwick Heights Lighting District 92.64
Eastwood Commons Lighting District 194.87
Clover Lane Lighting District 22.74
Winner's Circle Lighting District 74.41
Burleigh Drive Lighting District 77.28
West Haven Road Lighting District 235.69
Coddington Road Lighting District 140.90
TOTAL 429,871.69
TB Resolution 2021 -129c: Appointment of Crossing Guard
Whereas,there is a need for an additional part time position of Crossing Guard for Dewitt Middle School
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 26
and Northeast Elementary; and
Whereas,the Human Resources Manager interviewed candidates for the position and has determined that
Laura Dolch possess the necessary knowledge and skills to satisfactorily perform the duties of Crossing
Guard and makes the recommendation for appointment; now,therefore,be it
Resolved,the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the appointment of Laura Dolch as
part time Crossing Guard,retro-active to September 20, 2021 at the wage of$15.50 per shift, from
account number A3120.100,with no benefits.
TB Resolution 2021-129d: Amendment to Personnel Roster—Ithaca Fire Department
Whereas,four senior officers of the Ithaca Fire Department retired in the last two years, one lieutenant
has been off work on injury leave for two and one-half years, and an Assistant Chief was promoted to
Deputy Fire Chief, and
Whereas,these six supervisory vacancies caused a gap in the number of experienced Fire Lieutenants to
be promoted to Permanent or Acting Assistant Chief Assignments; and
Whereas,there is currently an Assistant Chief vacancy in the Training Bureau; and
Whereas,promoting a Lieutenant to Assistant Fire Chief will cause excessive overtime to provide
adequate supervision for the operations division of the fire department; and
Whereas,the creation of an additional Fire Lieutenant Position in lieu of an Assistant Chief will provide
support for the Training Bureau as well as the Fire Prevention Bureau; now,therefore,be it
Resolved,that the personnel roster of the Ithaca Fire Department be amended as follows:
Add: One(1)Fire Lieutenant
and be it further
Resolved,that one Fire Lieutenant position shall automatically be deleted from the Ithaca Fire
Department personnel roster upon the promotion of a Fire Lieutenant to Assistant Fire Chief in the
Training Bureau, and be it further
Resolved that funding for this change shall come from within the approved 2021 Ithaca Fire Department
budget.
TB Resolution 2021-129e: Approval of Revised COVID Response Policy
Whereas, the Town Board on November 20, 2021 approved the COVID Response Policy, which was
modified in May 2021 as restrictions were lifted; and
Whereas, the Personnel and Organization committee reviewed the Revised COVID Response Policy
incorporating voluntary extensions to the Emergency Paid Sick Leave and Extended Federal Medical Leave
Act until December 31, 2021 and recommends the Town Board adopts the Revised COVID Response
Policy; now,therefore,be it
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 27
Resolved,the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the Revised COVID Response Policy
extending the Emergency Paid Sick Leave and Extended Federal Medical Leave Act until December 31,
2021.
6. Report of Town Officials
Ms. Bleiwas noted that we are aware of the Rte. 96 speed limit request, and she wondered why it
has to be delayed to go to the Public Works Committee.
Ms. Hunter responded that the more information and support through the levels and standard
process, the better the request to the State will be.
Ms. Hunter asked about the Board Protocol Manual and the timeframe for getting materials to
the Board.
Ms. Bleiwas and Ms. Drake responded that it has been going through revisions in Committee and
will be sent out soon.
Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 6:44 p.m. upon motion by Mr. Howe, seconded by Mr. Goodman,
unanimous.
Submitted by
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1/2/2022) Pg. 28
Resolved,the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the Revised COVID Response Policy
extending the Emergency Paid Sick Leave and Extended Federal Medical Leave Act until December 31,
2021.
6. Report of Town Officials
Ms. Bleiwas noted that we are aware of the to 96 speed limit request and she wondered why it
has to be delayed to go to the Public Works Committee.
Ms. Hunter responded that the more information and support through the levels and standard
process, the better the request to the State will be,
Ms. Hunter asked about the Board Protocol Manual and the timeframe for getting materials to
the Board.
Ms. Bleiwas and Ms. Drake responded that it has been going through revisions in Committee and
will be sent out soon.
Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 6:44 p.rn. upon motion by Mr. Howe, seconded by Mr. Goodman,
unanimous.
Submit y
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
TB 2021-09-27 (Filed 1�2/2022) Pg. 28