Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PRNR-2019-11-14 PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES PRESENT: Commissioners – (6) Roth (Chair), Freyburger, George, Hoffman, Leventry, Shelley OTHERS PRESENT: Common Council Liaison – Brock Financial Management Assistant – Swartz City Forester – Grace Members of the Public: Monica Franciscus, Anthropocene sculpture artist ; Stephanie Figary, commission applicant EXCUSED: Commissioners Moeller and Sanders-Jauquet. Common Council Liaison Kerslick. 1. Call to order: 1.1. Statement from the Public: None 1.2. Commission Response: N/A 1.3. Agenda Review: Discussed adding to a future agenda the possibility of changing the meeting date and location. 2. Staff Reports: Jeanne Grace is currently planting trees in the City. Jim D’Alterio reported via email that the budget was passed last week, for Cass Park. The Capital Projects that were approved were $85,000 for the Professional Services for Cass Park Fields/Outbuildings/Pavilion and $150,000 towards the Cass Park Rink Enclosure. The proposed Cass Park Large Pool Gutter and Surfacing Replacement ($490,000) were not approved. 3. Old Business: 3.1. Art in Parks – Overview of two proposals for art in Cass Park (Giant) and Baker Park provided by Alex Phillips, Planning Dept. Looking for recommendations from PRNR regarding location of these two proposed donated sculptures. 1) Tompkins Giant #1 – The Planning Department (Alex Phillips), Jeanne Grace and Jim D’Alterio analyzed spots in Cass Park to place this sculpture that would be appropriate. Questions on Giant: a. If there is vandalism, who is responsible? The artist is planning to apply a protectant layer on the Giant. There are no funds in the city budget for repairs to public art displays. b. Are there preventative measures for climbing on the structure? There will be “no climbing” signs placed on the sculptures. Alex Phillips will also check with the city attorney to see what more should be done. c. Would the sculpture be close to other improvements planned for Cass Park? No d. Have both of these designs been approved? No, they are in the beginning stages of the approval process. Next they go back to Community Life and then to Common Council for final approval. PRNR Comments: Concerns raised about the height (oversized for the location), water table and depth of footers, safety (climbing, concrete base), liability – attractive nuisance, vandalism and future maintenance. Location: Some discussion regarding moving the structure father away from the waterfront trail so as not to interfere with the aesthetic along the water. Location within a tree grove might help with the scale issue. 2) Anthropocene Sculpture - The Planning Department identified places in the city where this would be a good fit and identified the edge of Baker Park, along the row of trees as the best option. It is a 12 foot tall circular metal sculpture made of car bumpers which is intended to have an educational message. Alex shared comments from neighbors, only a few responses, half opposed. PRNR Comments: Neighborhood input is important. The location might be shifted southwest so it is less visible to homes facing the park. Educational nature of the piece – limited foot traffic in this area, however the proximity to the ReUse center capitalizes on the waste theme. Date: November 14, 2019 Time: 6:00 PM Location: Common Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, City Hall Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission November 14, 2019 2 Safety concerns – Artist Monica Franciscus, present at the meeting, indicated there would be no jagged edges and that she is looking into a rubberized base. Tom mentioned ground up tires may contain heavy metals. General discussion/recommendations: Currently there is no policy for art in the parks. Community Life Commission should suggest approval on the art, but in this case given the proposed locations, PRNR should have input on where art is placed and if the sculpture is appropriate for the recommended park . Monika Roth will write up a list of questions and concerns the two sculptures based on the above discussion to forward to the Community Life Commission before their next meeting on Monday 11/18/19. Dan Hoffman suggested not acting on this tonight. Upon further investigation we will make recommendations at a future meeting. Public art in public parks should relate to each other. Safety, neighborhood input, maintenance and appropriate location should all be considered. Alex Phillips will report back to the project leads about our discussion. 3.2. Art in Parks – Policy development –Monika asked for volunteers to assist with developing a policy for art in parks. Tom Shelley volunteered and will attend the next Community Life meeting on Monday 11/18/19. Hannah George suggested we start by generating a philosophy statement and criteria. 3.3. Memorial Policy update / BPW latest comments – See attachments. There is continuing concern for how much work it will be for staff. We are proposing that PRNR would screen the applications with input from Jeanne Grace to bring recommendations to the Board of Public W orks (BPW). Discussed changes to policy language: Item D.I. Donation guidelines/general guidelines: Jeanne Grace wants to make sure it is noted that unrestricted donations may be used by staff as they see fit. Jeanne Grace reminded the group that we can’t solicit donations. Item D.II.a. Memorial tree – could be an existing tree. The memorial plaque will be maintained for 10 years, one would need to renew a gift to continue the memorial. If the tree perishes within 10 years, it will be replaced once with the City Forester’s input. Item D.ll.b. Bench – Insert the same language as the tree to renew a gift to continue memorial. Item E. Donation Procedure: Applications to be received in August (by September 1) and will be reviewed at the October PRNR meeting. Applications are only reviewed once a year. It should state that funds should be received 60 days after approval. Monika Roth will make the revisions and forward to the BPW. Motion: Tom Shelley made a motion that PRNR Commission encourage the BPW to adopt a Memorial policy. Scott Freyburger second. All in favor. 3.4. Tree “retention” ordinance update, next steps – Jeanne Grace. See attachment. A summary of recommendations for creation of a Tree Retention Ordinance will be presented to the Planning and Economic Development Committee in December. The summary of findings and recommendations for a policy was created by the Shade Tree Advisory Committee for PRNR at the request of Council Members Nguyen and Murtaugh. Such a policy would be in support of the City’s Green New Deal. It will be the decision of PDEC to recommend a draft ordinance be prepared. Once the rules are established there will be a public hearing. Jeanne Grace would like to limit the developers from cutting down trees and clearing the site before any approval or application process is completed. Ellen Leventry will help Jeanne Grace reword the proposal for the PEDC meeting. Monika Roth asked for an extension of time for the meeting, new end time 8:30 PM. 3.5. Deer update. See attachments. Jeanne Grace and Dan Cogan wrote up an authorization document for deer management in the Six Mile Creek Natural area that will go to BPW to review. Jeanne Grace has been working with Mike Smith from the Town of Ithaca to extend their deer management program into the City’s watershed property located in the Town. Currently there is no shooting allowed in the natural areas. Jeanne Grace is asking this commission to support a request for an exception in order to permit harvesting under the Town of Ithaca’s program. There is significant deer browse in the Six Mile Creek Natural area which has impacted the tree regeneration. The Oak tree seedling planted in spring were all eaten within the first week of plantings. Cynthia Brock feels there should Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission November 14, 2019 3 be a presentation made to council and a public review process. Jeanne Grace is following the direction from Dan Cogan. Cynthia Brock thought the process would consist of analysis, study and presentation on the program. Jeanne Grace indicated that would be the correct course if this was a citywide program, but this is a Town of Ithaca program which has already been approved and received public comment, with the City granting permission for extending the program to its property located in the Town. Motion: It was agreed to send the following recomm endation to BPW and Common Council that states; this commission determined that deer management is needed for Six Mile Creek Natural Area and the proposal to allow the Town of Ithaca culling by archery at two fixed locations appears to be a reasonable measure. Tom Shelley made a motion to insert this statement of support, Scott Freyburger second, Dan Hoffman opposed, all others in favor. 4. New Business: Commission Vacancies – Monika Roth and Dan Hoffman met with 4 candidates and shared their recommendations. Commission members ranked each candidate and provided their ranking to Monika who will share with Dan Cogan. Monika Roth asked for permission to continue the meeting with a new end time of 9:00 pm. 5. Environmental review s: Tom Shelley currently reviewing two projects. 1) Student Agencies building to be demolished and replaced. Set b ack guidelines, pretty straight forward project. Electrified, no fossil fuel usage. Dan Hoffman noted historic nature of existing building and that Environmental Assessment (Part 3) requires developer to state how loss of historic structure will be mitigated. He thinks environmental review should not be closed until the required and agreed-upon mitigation measures are clear. 2) City Harbor project has three entrances, one near the Cayuga Waterfront Trail that causes a safety concern. City Harbor have been meeting with the Newman Golf group and making progress. The dredging is being done this winter. They are rebuilding the entire length of the pier as the dredging is being completed. Both projects are still taking comments. No action taken by this commission at this time. Other - Ellen Leventry suggested a drop box or some method for storing documents shared with this commission. Monika Roth will check with Dan Cogan. Cynthia Brock stated that anything for consideration should be attached to the agenda, when it is sent out. Monika Roth urges members to send agenda items and supporting documents at least one week ahead of meetings. 6. Minutes – Review and approve 10/17/19: Dan Hoffman made minor changes and Tom Shelley made a motion to approve with those changes. Scott Freyburger second and all in favor. 7. Member Announcements: 8. Next meeting is December 9, 2019. Possible presentations for future agendas. 1. Ithaca Children’s Garden proposal (preliminary draft). 2. Six Mile Creek gorge trail. 9. Adjournment: On a motion the meeting was adjourned at 8:58 PM. Debbie Swartz Financial Management Assistant Monika Roth Chair - Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission DONATION & MEMORIAL POLICY FOR CITY OF ITHACA PARKS AND NATURAL AREAS A. Summary. This policy establishes the mechanisms by which monetary gifts to City of Ithaca parks and natural areas shall be accepted by the City. Donations covered by this policy encompass the installation and maintenance of structures, amenities, plants, and other features as deemed necessary for enhancing City parks, natural areas, and cemeteries. B. Purpose. In accordance with New York State General City Law § 20(3) and the existing City of Ithaca Solicitation and Gifting Policy, the City is prohibited from soliciting donations but may choose to accept donations. With this policy, the City will accept donations for parks, natural areas, and cemeteries subject to the guidelines outlined below. This policy is intended to: 1) Provide a clear, standardized process for members of the community who wish to make a donation or establish a memorial. 2) Ensure donations, especially for new memorials, structures, or other physical features, will benefit City parks and natural areas. City parks, natural areas, and cemeteries are managed by the Parks and Forestry Division of the Department of Public Works (DPW) except for Cass Park which is managed by the Ithaca Youth Bureau (IYB). Policies and procedures for City parks and natural areas are established and overseen by the Board of Public Works, subject to Common Council Review. The Park s, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission (PRNR) provides advice and public input to the Board of Public Works and the City on matters pertaining to parks and open spaces and their access and use by the public. C. Establishment of a Dedicated Account for City Parks, Natural Areas, and Cemeteries. In order to ensure that memorial donations are used solely for the benefit and improvement of City parks, natural areas, and cemeteries, a dedicated account will be created where all such donations will be directed, and used as needed by the DPW/IYB for the installation and maintenance of memorial structures and amenities, as well as general maintenance and improvement of the parks, natural areas, and cemeteries. D. Donation Guidelines. I. General Donations: The City of Ithaca accepts unrestricted gifts of $100 and greater to be used for the purpose of improving and maintaining City parks, natural areas, and cemeteries as determined by IYB/DPW. Gifts are utilized at the discretion of city DPW/IYB staff overseeing parks, natural areas and cemeteries, and directed to areas of greatest need. II. Memorials: Memorial gifts will be accepted for specific items, amenities, projects pursuant to their necessity and suitability. Requests must be made from a registry listing needed, suitable items for each park as determined by IYB/DPW. The registry of items can be found on the City website or provided by staff upon request. a. Memorial Tree Donation: The establishment of a memorial with a new or existing tree in a City park, natural area, or cemetery will be created with a $2000 donation for a new tree or $500 for existing tree. The memorial tree will be maintained for ten years. After 10 years, the memorial may be renewed with an additional donation of $500 and be maintained for 10 years. Should the tree perish within the ten-year period, the tree will be replaced no more than once. Donor may request the tree’s location but the City retains final discretion over the specific location of memorial tree and may deny or propose an alternative location based on where a tree is most needed. A plaque or tag will be placed on or near the memorial tree. b. Memorial Bench Donation: The establishment of a memorial with new or existing bench and plaque in a City park, natural area, or cemetery will be created with a $5000 donation for new bench with plaque or $2500 for existing bench with plaque. The bench and plaque will be actively maintained for ten years. After 10 years, the memorial may be renewed with an additional donation of $500 and be maintained for 10 years. Donor may request the bench location but the City retains final discretion over the specific location of memorial bench and may deny or propose an alternative location based on need. E. Donation Procedure. An application form must be submitted for all donations. Donor will specify donation and, if necessary, location and plaque wording. Forms must be received by September 1st for consideration and approval. Submitted forms will be reviewed by the PRNR Commission at its October meeting and make a recommendation for approval in consultation with IYB/DPW, as appropriate. Proposed donations will be presented to BPW for their review in November annually. The City retains final discretion to deny requests that are found to be unsuitable. Pending approval, donors will be notified and project details discussed with City staff. Project installation will be scheduled by staff, generally in spring depending on the workload. For applications that are approved, donation to the City must be received within 60 days in order for a project to proceed. F. Policy Approval. This policy was prepared by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission with consultation by the Department of Public Works and Ithaca Youth Bureau. This policy was approved by the Board of Public Works on Month, Day, Year. CITY OF ITHACA DONATIONS & MEMORIALS APPLICATION FORM APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: ________________________ Date: ________________________ Phone:_______________________ Email: ________________________ Home Address: __________________________________________________________ City: ________________________ State: ___________ Zip: _______ City of Ithaca Resident: ⬜ Yes ⬜ No DONATION TYPE ⬜ General Unrestricted for City parks, natural areas, and cemeteries ($100 or greater) Donation Amount:_________ ⬜ Memorial Tree (new tree $2000 or greater, existing tree $500 or greater) Donation Amount: ________ ⬜ Memorial Bench (new bench $5000 or greater, existing bench $2500 or greater) Donation Amount: ________ FOR MEMORIAL DONATIONS ONLY Preferred Memorial Location Please refer to Locations described in the Park Wishlist, and ensure that your preferred locations have a need for the type of memorial you have selected. Memorials will only be accepted in locations with existing need, though the City retains final discretion. First Choice Location Second Choice Location Third Choice Location Memorial Text: Those donating a memorial bench, etc. may elect to have a memorial plaque engraved with text of their choosing, subject to approval. The text is limited to 3 lines, and 40 characters (including spaces) per line due to the size of the plaque. Line 1: ________________________________________ Line 2: ________________________________________ Line 3: ________________________________________ Those donating a memorial tree may elect to contribute a photograph and short paragraph (no longer than 200 words) about the person being remembered and/or celebrated to a memorial tree website. Text: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------This Section For City of Ithaca Staff Use Only ------------------------ Date Received: _____________________ ⬜ Recommended by Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission ⬜ Approved by City Forester ⬜ Approved by Ithaca Youth Bureau (Cass Park only) ⬜ Approved by Department of Public Works Park Need Comments: Auburn Item Number Cost/item Total cost of repairs: $65,000 Playground equipment Benches Backstop (benches for it?) Goal: enhance park access Benches 2 4000 Trees 0 500 Baker Benches 5 4000 Total cost of amenities: $50,000 Cement benches all in need of repair/replacement Flower beds improvements signage Picnic table 1 1500 Trees 3 300 Flower Bed 2 ? Pavilion ? Brindley Benches 2 4000 Total cost of repairs/improvements: $55,000 Trailhead enhancements needed, trail paving Boat launch area Picnic tables 0 Trees 0 Flower beds Signage Lighting Bryant Bryant Benches 2 4000 Total cost: $56,000 Signage Goal: adding site amenities Picnic tables 1 2000 Trees 2 500 garden Cass Benches 6 4000 tables 10 2000 Water fountains 4 trees 5 500 Columbia Street Benches 2 1500 Total: $30,000 Signage Tables 2 2000 Trees 0 Conley Benches 2 4000 Total: $25,000 For improvements and landscaping Signage Tables 1 2000 Trees 0 Flower Beds 1 Conway Benches 4 4000 Total: $40,000 Improvements to lighting, fencing, trash cans Tables 1 2000 Trees 0 Lighting Neighbors have been vocal against this Basketball Nets Occasionally get destroyed 900? DeWitt Benches 0 Total: $35,000 Improvements to hardscaping and enhancements Tables 0 Trees 0 Dryden Benches 2 Total: $18,000 Includes improvements to signage, adding site amenities Hillview Benches Total: $10,000 Includes drainage improvements This park need a complete master plan, it has no amenities and needs development direction Tables Trees Signage MacDaniels Benches 2 4000 Total: $80,000 Includes improvements to existing structures and recreating a playground Tree maintenance, apple tree plantings, picnic table repair Tables 2 2000 Trees 8 500 Playground equipment ? Maple Grove Benches 2 Total: $18,000 Site amenities Tables 1 Trees 0 Southwest Natural Area Benches Total: $35,000 Tables Trees Signage, repair control park access, Black Diamond Connection point Needs a complete master plan Stewart Park See Friends of the Stewart Park for playground and waterfront trail benches benches 8 Existing Swing bench sponsor Need to see how many exist 2000? Picnic tables trees 10 5000 Strawberry Fields Benches Total: $30,000 Includes signage, turf repair, and easement improvements Needs a master plan Tables Trees Thompson Benches 4 4000 Total: $50,000 Includes lighting, monument upgrade, signage and creek access Tables 2 2000 Trees 0 Lighting ? Titus Flats (Wood Street) Benches 6 (if the old Stew Pk playground gets reinstalled) 4000 Total: $65,000 Includes signage, restrooms and drinking fountain installation, improvements to drainage and other site amenities Tables 2 2000 Trees 6 (if old Stew pk playground gets reinstalled) Signage Playground equipment Reinstallation of playground equipment Titus Triangle Benches 7 4000 Total: $55,000 Includes signage, lighting, retaining wall enhancements Other items: boat storage rack, more benches, boat launch on other side of the creek Tables 1 1500 Trees 0 1 Boat rack ? Signage Van Horn Benches 0 Total: $35,000 Includes signage and other site amenities as needed All garden – no space for anything else Tables 0 Trees 0 Washington Benches 6 4000 Total: $40,000 Includes lighting, sidewalk repair, tree maintenance and other site amenities as needed Tables 2 2000 Trees 3 To: Parks Recreation and Natural Areas Commission From: Shade Tree Advisory Group Date: 9/9/2019 Subject: Summary of residential tree removal ordinances Background: Urban Trees are very important to city life. The trees in the City of Ithaca provide millions of dollars of benefits per year and provide countless ecological services for urban communities; reducing erosion, reducing heating and cooling costs, aiding in storm water mitigation, cleaning the air of harmful particulate pollution, producing oxygen, acting as a carbon sink and providing habitat for wildlife. Trees increase property values, enhance economic vitality of business areas and beautify our communities. A community devoid of trees would barely be livable as connection with the natural environment is key for human health and wellbeing. For these reasons, residents of the City of Ithaca have raised concerns about removal of mature trees from private property for reasons of infill development or in preparation for largescale development of a site prior to submittal of site plan review application. While the City of Ithaca does have ordinances that protect the removal of trees on public property (street trees, park trees and trees in City natural areas), there is currently no ordinance restricting the removal of trees from private property outside of the Site Plan Review process. The Planning and Economic Development Committee has requested information from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Committee on potential adoption of a new City ordinance regulating the removal of trees from private property. That request was then passed on to the Shade Tree Advisory Group (STAG), the former Shade Tree Advisory Committee. Summary: Municipalities around the country try to protect all trees in their City, not just the street and park trees. The STAG researched the tree preservation ordinances for 13 communities in the US and Canada with community populations ranging from 56,000 to 994,000. The attached spreadsheet contains our findings. A summary of common themes is as follows:  2 classes of trees, “Significant” and “Historic”. Significant trees begin ~6-8” in DBH and Historic trees are very large trees at least 24” in DBH  Trees growing near slopes, riparian, flood zones are taken into special consideration and cannot be removed if they provide a benefit to protecting critical zones.  Certain species are valued more than others. Large, unique, or certain species are taken into consideration more than small weed trees or undesirable species (ie invasive trees).  Dead, dying, or diseased trees do not need a permit to remove if there is an imminent hazard or if the problem cannot be mitigated by pruning.  Most municipalities require an arborist report, or a tree protection/removal plan to be submitted before any work is done on the property, provided by the owner or developer to be reviewed by City Forester. Location, size, health, species should all be included.  Site is then reviewed by City Forester 2-4 weeks from receiving the tree plan  Appeals can be made to remove additional trees after Forester’s final decision  Significant or Historic trees that are approved for removal are required to be replaced either with multiple trees that will take up the same crown area as a large tree at time of planting, or with similar species that will take up the same space once they get old enough.  Payment in lieu of planting is possible and should take into account the cost of the trees, and cost of maintenance for ~2 years  If a property owner significantly clears trees from a property prior to submittal of a site plan review or prior to submittal of tree removal application, the developer will be forbidden from submitting a site plan review for a number of years. Goals: The idea of this ordinance is not to create a prohibition of removing trees from private property. The goal is not to require the retention of every tree that falls into the “regulated” category. This permit process will require a conversation about each tree removal request. Possibilities for retention of high quality trees can be explored before removal permission would be granted. If removal is granted requirements and guidance for tree re-planting would be provided to the applicant. In this way tree canopy across the city can be conserved. STAG sees the goals of this ordinance as being: 1) To preserve tree canopy for the benefit all of the Ithaca community 2) To address resident concerns with tree removal related to in-fill development 3) To close a loophole by which developers can currently clear-cut a property prior to submittal of a site plan review application and as a result, not have to deal with tree preservation for their development plans 4) To create an ordinance that is not overly burdensome to city staff or property owners Proposal: To achieve these goals the following points are recommended to be included in a residential tree preservation ordinance:  Regulation of tree removal will apply to “regulated trees”, being trees greater than 12” in DBH (truck diameter) or greater than 6” DBH for trees located in an environmentally critical area (ie on slopes, in riparian zones or flood zones)  Some undesirable species would not be regulated, possibly including Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus), boxelder (Acer negundo), and ash (Fraxinus).  Tree removal permit approval would take into consideration; health of tree, structural condition of tree, future utility conflicts, current utility easements, public safety concerns, potential significant burden to economic development of the site.  An approved certified Arborist could submit a short report to confirm tree species, tree health, and structural condition which would exclude a tree from the “regulated tree” status. Alternatively, the City Forester or Forestry Technician could confirm with a brief site visit that the tree is excluded from the “regulated tree” category.  There would be a small fee for permit applications to prevent frivolous requests and offset the cost of staff time . The City Forester would respond to permit applications within 2 weeks.  Appeal of the Forester’s decision would be to the Board of Public Works.  Tree retention would be ideal in the majority of situations but if that was not deemed to be possible, replacement of “regulated trees” by planting or payment in lieu of planting would be expected; details to be determined.  Ordinance could be restricted to specific neighborhoods or zones of concern as a test before being expanded to cover residential trees city-wide.  It should not apply to the easements or rights-of-way of utility companies, to federal, state, or local governments.  Property owners that knowingly remove a tree or trees from private property without a permit may be assessed a fine or be restricted from submitting a site plan application for a number of years. If this is a direction that the committee feels is appropriate, more time would be invested to develop additional details, draft application forms and devise public communication strategies. A few suggestions for next steps would be:  To contact some of the municipalities we evaluated to see how the ordinance is working for staff and planners there. This may enlighten us if we decide to proceed to drafting an ordinance.  To poll a few of the local tree companies to gauge how much work they do in the city. This could help get an idea of how many permit applications we would have to process. May only be able to use this ordinance in a few neighborhoods with current staffing levels.  To think about allocating city funds to help replant trees on residential property. A topic that was brought up was the recent NPR reporting on heat islands and how low income neighborhoods generally have lower percentages of tree canopy coverage and thus higher temperature. We could explore the idea of creating a grant type program to help lower income property owners in the city replant residential trees that are removed, or if the removal of a neighboring tree results in loss of shade for an adjacent neighbor. I think a big stumbling block for people to successfully plant trees on their own property is lack of knowledge and the cost of purchasing trees. Buying them wholesale as the City does makes tree planting much less expensive and advising people on proper species selection would be very effective in increasing successful tree planting. Authorization of Deer Population Management in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area Whereas, the existing overpopulation of deer has created significant ecological damage by over browsing vegetation, thereby decimating the native herbaceous and shrub layers of the forest and altering natural forest succession and regeneration by eating the majority of native tree species seedlings, favoring the growth of less palatable non-native invasive plant species; and Whereas, high deer populations cause high levels of crop damage and transmission of disease to livestock; and Whereas, high deer populations contribute to human health and human safety issues such as an abundance of ticks which transmit tick borne illnesses like Lyme disease and frequent deer/vehicle collisions; and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca, the Villages of Trumansburg, Lansing, and Cayuga Heights, and Cornell University Campus and Cornell University Botanic Gardens Natural Areas all have deer population management programs which are only effective if other adjoining municipalities support the efforts since deer move freely across large areas; and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca has established a deer management program to engage in deer population control by culling deer living within the Town of Ithaca boundary; and Whereas, a large reservoir for the deer population resides in city owned property within the town of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca wishes to establish locations for culling by archery on City owned land along Six Mile Creek; and Whereas, City of Ithaca Code sections 114-7 and 320-4(A) prohibit hunting and shooting in the Six Mile Creek watershed and natural area “unless expressly permitted or carried out pursuant to a duly issued permit”; and Whereas, City of Ithaca Code Section 320-4(B) states that “the Board of Public Works is authorized to grant specific, revocable exceptions to any of the above prohibitions, upon consultation with the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission and a finding of special circumstances”; and Whereas, the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission determined at their meeting on November 14, 2019 that ______________________; and Whereas, the Board of Public Works finds that it is in the City’s interest to allow deer management by the establishment sites for controlled culling by archery at two locations within the Six Mile Creek natural area only through the authorized deer management program guidelines and its associated code of conduct; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Public Works hereby finds that the Town’s request to allow archery on City owned land in support of a NYSDEC-authorized deer management program represents special circumstances; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Board of Public Works authorizes archery at up to two designated locations within the Six Mile Creek Natural Area, with specific sites and conditions to be determined by the City Forester, for a period beginning February 1, 2020 and ending on April 15, 2020; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Mayor, upon the advice of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to negotiate and sign an agreement with the Town of Ithaca to effectuate this program. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Tompkins County Deer Management Focus Area Boundary For ease of reference, the DMFA boundary description has been separated into segments along Cayuga Lake and through each town that is partially incorporated into the DMFA. Lakeshore Those parts of Tompkins County beginning at the mouth of Glenwood Creek near Duboise Corner(Town of Ulysses) and southerly along the west shore of Cayuga Lake; thence easterly and all other variations thereof along the south shore of Cayuga Lake; thence northerly along the east shore of Cayuga Lake to the mouth of Salmon Creek near Myers; Town of Lansing Thence northeasterly along Salmon Creek to Ridge Road (34B); thence easterly along Ridge Road (34B) to Auburn Road (34 & 34B) in south Lansing; thence easterly along Auburn Road (34 &34B) to Peruville Road (34B) near Terpening Corners; thence easterly along Peruville Road (34B) to Scofield Road in Howland Corners; thence southerly along Scofield Road to Asbury Road; Town of Dryden Thence southeasterly along Asbury Road to West Dryden Road; thence easterly along West Dryden Road to Hanshaw Road; thence southerly along Hanshaw Road to State Highway 13; thence easterly along State Highway 13 to Dryden Road (State Highway 13 & 366); thence easterly along Dryden Road (State Highway 13 & 366) to Dryden Road (13); thence easterly along Dryden Road (13) to Ringwood Road; thence southerly and southwesterly along Ringwood Road to Ellis Hollow Creek Road; thence southerly along Ellis Hollow Creek Road to Ellis Hollow Road; thence southeasterly along Ellis Hollow Road to Slaterville Road (79); Town of Caroline Thence easterly along Slaterville Road (79) to Boiceville Road; thence southerly along Boiceville Road to Valley Road; thence westerly along Valley Road to White Church Road; thence westerly and southerly along White Church Road to Caroline Depot Road; thence westerly along Caroline Depot Road to Coddington Road; thence southerly along Coddington Road to East Miller Road; Town of Danby Thence westerly along East Miller Road to Nelson Road; thence northerly and westerly along Nelson Road to Danby Road (96B); thence northerly along Danby Road to Comfort Road; thence westerly and southerly along Comfort Road to Jersey Hill Road; thence westerly along Jersey Hill Road to West King Road; thence westerly and northerly along West King Road to West Jersey Hill Road; thence southerly and westerly along West Jersey Hill Road to Blakeslee Hill Road; Town of Newfield Thence westerly along Blakeslee Hill Road to West Danby Road (34 & 96); thence northerly along West Danby Road (34 & 96) to Decker Road; thence northerly along Decker Road to Elmira Road (13); thence westerly along Elmira Road (13) to the intersection of Millard Hill Road and Van Ostrand Road; thence westerly along Van Ostrand Road to Douglas Road; thence northwesterly along Douglas Road to Stone house Road; Town of Enfield Thence northwesterly along Stonehouse Road to Woodard Road; thence westerly along Woodard Road to Hines Road ; thence northerly along Hines Road to Enfield Falls Road (327); thence northwesterly along Enfield Falls Road (327) to Enfield Main Road (327); thence northerly along Enfield Main Road (327) to Bostwick Road; thence easterly along Bostwick Road to Sheffield Road; thence northerly along Sheffield Road to Krums Corners Road; thence northerly along Krums Corners Road to Perry City Road; Town of Ulysses Thence easterly along Perry City Road to Glenwood Road; thence southeasterly along Glenwood Road to Glenwood Creek; thence easterly along Glenwood Creek to the point of beginning. LANSING Village of Lansing Village of Cayuga Heights City of Ithaca ITHACA ULYSSES ENFIELD DRYDEN CAROLINE DANBY NEW- FIELD DANBYSHEFFIELD ROADKRUMS CORNERSROAD PER R Y C ITY R OAD BOSTWICK ROAD ENFIELD FALLS RD WOODWARD ROAD HINES ROAD STONEHOUSE ROAD VAN OSTRANDROAD ELMIRA ROAD WEST DANBY ROAD BLAKESLEEHILL ROAD KINGROAD JERSEYHILL ROAD COMFORTROAD NELSON R OA DDANBY ROADEASTMILLER ROAD CAROLINE DEPOT ROAD WHITE CHURCH ROAD V A LL E Y R O A D SLATERVILLE ROAD ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD ELLIS H OLLOW CREEK R O A DRINGWOOD ROADDRYDEN ROADNY 1 3HANSHAW ROADWEST DRYDEN ROAD ASBURYROAD PERUVILLE ROAD SCOFIELDROAD AUBURN ROADRIDGE ROAD DECKER RD WEST JERSEYHILL ROAD ENFIELDMAIN ROAD BOICEVILLE ROAD Salmon Creek GlenwoodCreek GLENWOODROADCa yu g a L ak e Buttermilk Falls S.P.Robert Treman S.P. 7H 8S 7R Major Roads Focus Area Roads No Hunting Central Tompkins CountyDeer Management Focus Area Map produced by NYS DEC Habitiat Inventory Unit 9/13/12 Extent ofFocus Areain NYS Municipal Boundary State Park Areas marked with this hatch on the map (the City of Ithaca and Villages of Cayuga Heightsand Lansing) prohibit the use of firearms and bows. You CANNOT hunt deer with firearms or bows in these areas. ATTENTIONHUNTERS: Oak Sentinel Counts 2019 In the summer of 2019 city staff set up research sites using a method developed by researchers at Cornell University to capture baseline data on deer browsing pressure around the City of Ithaca. This data will help us to determine effectiveness of future deer management efforts the city may pursue. Sets of twenty oak seedlings were planted at 4 different sites around the city (City Cemetery, the woods nearby Strawberry Fields, Mulholland Wildflower Preserve, and the area surrounding the City Reservoir) to determine a baseline of local deer pressure in the City. Red oak seedlings were used because they are of moderate palatability to deer so we can assume if a high number of the oaks are eaten, there isn’t much food left in the area that the deer prefer, such as maple seedlings. The seedlings were planted at the beginning of July. Two weeks later the seedlings were visited again to see if any of the oaks had been eaten and most of the oaks that were missing were replaced. At the beginning of October, the sites were revisited again and the number of oaks eaten by deer, rodents, or unknown was recorded. These sites will be replanted in 2020 and will again be monitored for deer browse damage. The data recorded for 2019 is as follows: Status: 0 = death over winter 1 = healthy 2 = deer browse 3 = rodent cut 4 = insect attack (>50%) 5 = unknown death City Cemetery Oak # Date: 7/3/2019 Date: 7/17/2019 Date: 10/8/19 Date: Status # leaves Height Status # leaves Height Status # leaves Height Status # leaves Height CE 1 6 7 2 4 6 2 - 5 2 3 9 2 - - 2 - 9 3 6 9 2 4 6 2 - 6 4 3 6 3 - 5 5 4 7 3 - 8 6 4 6 2 4 7 1 3 5 7 8 4 2 1 6 8 8 9 2 - 10 9 5 7 2 4 4 5 - - 10 4 9 2 - 8 11 5 5 2 5 3 1 6 3 12 4 9 2 3 6 1 0 5 13 5 5 3 4 4 2 - 3 14 4 9 2 4 5 1 - 5 15 6 6 2 - 8 16 3 7 2 - 6 17 7 4 2 4 4 2 - 5 18 6 8 2 6 6 3 - 7 19 5 7 5 4 5 5 - - 20 4 5 2 3 4 2 - 4 After 2 weeks, 11 seedlings were eaten by deer, 1 by rodents, and 1 was missing. 12 of those 13 were replanted. In October, 11 seedlings were eaten by deer, 3 by rodents, 2 were missing, and 4 were healthy and un-chewed. Mulholland Preserve Oak # Date: 7/3/2019 Date: 7/17/2019 Date: 10/8/19 Date: Status # leaves Height Status # leaves Height Status # leaves Height Status # leaves Height MU 1 3 6 2 3 4 2 7 10 2 5 9 2 - 8 3 5 9 2 2 8 4 4 8 2 - 8 5 4 8 2 5 6 2 - 5 6 4 5 2 6 8 2 - 7 7 7 7 2 4 5 2 1 5 8 7 6 2 - 4 9 5 7 2 - - 5 - - 10 5 6 3 - 4 11 7 7 2 - 7 12 6 9 3 - 7 13 9 10 2 - 6 14 4 7 2 - 9 15 5 6 2 - 6 16 6 11 2 - 8 17 5 7 2 2 5 18 8 6 2 1 3 19 5 6 2 - 4 20 4 7 5 - - After 2 weeks, 5 seedlings were eaten by deer and 15 were healthy. Of the 5 eaten, 4 were replanted. In October, 16 seedlings were eaten by deer, 2 by rodents, and 2 were missing. City Reservoir Oak # Date: 7/3/2019 Date: 7/17/2019 Date:10/8/19 Date: Status # leaves Height Status # leaves Height Status # leaves Height Status # leaves Height RZ 1 5 7 2 4 8 2 - 8 2 6 7 2 - 7 3 6 11 1 4 9 4 5 9 1 - 11 5 4 9 2 - 7 6 4 9 1 1 9 7 3 7 2 - 6 8 6 8 2 - 8 9 4 6 2 - 6 10 5 7 1 4 7 11 5 7 1 5 9 12 5 11 1 - 11 13 3 6 1 3 7 14 7 9 1 4 9 15 6 10 2 - 9 16 6 5 1 4 6 17 5 7 1 3 6 18 6 13 2 - 11 19 5 8 1 4 9 20 4 10 1 - 10 21 4 6 After 2 weeks, only one of the seedlings got eaten by deer, and that one was replanted. In October, 8 seedlings were eaten by deer and 12 were fine and healthy. Strawberry Fields Oak # Date: 7/3/2019 Date: 7/17/2019 Date: 10/8/19 Date: Status # leaves Height Status # leaves Height Status # leaves Height Status # leaves Height SF 1 6 5 5 6 6 1 6 7 2 3 10 3 - - 5 - - 3 4 8 2 1 7 4 5 8 1 4 8 5 6 5 2 - - 5 - - 6 4 6 1 5 6 7 4 5 3 4 6 8 6 11 2 - - 2 - 10 9 6 9 1 6 9 10 5 8 1 5 8 11 5 6 3 4 5 1 2 5 12 7 6 1 1 6 13 4 5 2 - 4 14 6 6 2 - 5 15 7 11 5 - - 5 - - 16 5 7 2 - 6 17 6 6 3 5 6 1 1 6 18 4 5 3 1 4 19 5 9 2 1 8 20 6 7 1 6 8 After 2 weeks, 2 seedlings were eaten by deer, 3 by rodents, and 2 were missing. Of those 7 seedlings, 3 were replanted. In October, 6 trees were eaten by deer, 2 by rodents, 3 were missing, and 9 were fine and healthy. Procedure: Oak seedlings were initially planted on July 3rd and the number of leaves was recorded along with the height to the nearest inch. The trees were planted in 2 rows of 10 trees at a spacing of around 3 feet. After 2 weeks the sites were revisited and the trees that were eaten or missing were recorded and replaced with new seedlings. Data in the 7/17 column was recorded for example: 5, 6, 6 means unknown death, replaced by tree with 6 leaves and 6 inches tall, or 2, 4, 8 means the tree was eaten by deer, and replaced with a tree with 4 leaves and 8 inches tall. Three months later the sites were revisited again and data was recorded for condition of the seedling, # of leaves, and height in inches. Data in the 10/8 column was recorded for example: 1, -, 8 means the tree was in good condition, with no leaves, and is 8 inches tall, or 2, 2, 5 means the seedling was chewed on by deer, there was still 2 leaves on it, and the height of the seedling to the bite mark is 5 inches.