Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPWC Minutes 2026-07-21 Town of Ithaca Public Works Committee July 21, 2026, 9:00 a.m. Minutes Present: Rod Howe, Rich DePaolo, Joe Slater, Justin McNeal, Judy Drake, Marty Moseley, David McCune, Mike Smith, CJ Randall, Mike Beach, Joe Talbut, Travis Mills, Steve Riddle, Becky Jordan. Guests: Nancy Jones, Property Manager, CCRA; Bret Gawronski, Senior Project Manager, SWBR; Nnenna Lynch, Founder & CEO, Xylem; Daniel Bellgraph, Senior Development Director, Beacon Communities, LLC; Jamie Gensel, P.E., Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors; Rob Lewis, Development Project Manager, Shift Capital; Scott D’Vileskis 1. Approval of Minutes: Approval of May 19, 2026 minutes were motioned by Mr. DePaolo, seconded by Mr. Howe. Carried 2. Member Comments/Concerns Consider Modifications to Agenda Member Comments/Concerns a. Consider Modifications to Agenda – Begin with Common Land Traffic. 3. SouthWorks Concept for Utilities/Dedication for Beacons Woods Project Mr. Howe stated this project began in 2011. With two housing projects, one in the town and one in the city, there are some intricacies involving multi-municipal, parking, and utility and roadway potential dedication. Mr. Jamie Gensel shared a drawing for visual and provided that SouthWorks is 95 acres split between town & city. The development, which is in site plan review, is doubling footprint from existing 815,000 SF to 1.7 million SF. Phase 1 is 130 units in the town. Existing road is the main driveway access from chainworks building up to Coddington/Rogan’s Corners intersection. Thought process is to add another 300 units to the south with driveway access in between buildings. The two front mansion apartment buildings are accessed off Danby Road. An urban Road (a) which is built according to PDZ, runs between back two sets of apartment buildings to a roundabout at the southern end. This road will eventually be extended south to another proposed 270 units. Road (b), widened to 28’ after discussion with town staff, goes up from rotary to Danby Rd. A private roadway (d) between the middle medium sized buildings and back larger apartment buildings has 10’ lanes, parallel parking, curbs, sidewalks, EV stations (depicted in green) and ADA spaces (depicted in blue). Dedication of roads can happen at a later date as long as built to specifications. Going to bid in two ways: dedicated publicly or privately maintained. Currently building as private but will have to be built to public utilities. Mr. Howe asked if utilities will be dedicated to the town. Mr. Gensel replied that water would be preferential. Sewer wouldn’t be beneficial to dedicate to town. Eventually, near the NYSEG substation, the road will be widened and extended to South Cayuga. All roads will be modified or built to town standards in order to be dedicated to the town. Instead of calling the road warren place it makes sense to call it South Cayuga. Mr. DePaolo asked in terms of curb cuts for the mansion apartments, has NYSDOT been contacted? Mr. Gensel NYSDOT didn’t flag that as an issue. About 1800’ of sidewalk in front of mansion apartments. Between mansion apt and townhouse is an amenity park. Mr. DePaolo asked what happens when you hit the city line? Are we keeping our customers separate? Mr. Gensel supplied that there is a meter house on Turner Place. Mr. Slater commented there are differing opinions about roundabouts. Question road going through community. Starting to look at property maintenance issues. Mr. DePaolo inquired about emergency access to mansions? Mr. Gensel replied that mansions will be serviced from Danby Road. Roadway (a) would be access to buildings below. Planning on 45’ fire lanes at each building. Mr. McNeal related the steep slopes here to Stone Quarry and Sandbank for comparison. Ms. Randall offered that NYSDOT requests sidewalks on west side of Route 96B/Danby Rd. East side sidewalks have been very successful. Need safe crossing intervention. Site to be built eminently walkable. Mr. Rob Lewis expressed that part of overall vision to make sure this development is integrated into the larger neighborhood, functions as a neighborhood and is linked up with the broader community to the best of their abilities. Mr. Daniel Bellgraph expressed appreciation for the supportive partnership with the town. Mr. McNeal added that road (a) snow removal with parking would be difficult. City does alternate parking. Feel this parking would be fully used without possibility of odd/even parking. 4. Commonland Traffic Mr. Slater stated concerns voiced at last town board meeting regarding people accessing the gorge, trespassing, speeding. The town board referred to Public Works Committee. Engineering department set speed signs to collect traffic data. For speed reductions of communities with less than 50,000 people municipalities are required to work with the state. The state reviews certain criteria including existing travel data. The data shows most existing traffic traveling below speed at an average 15.95 mph therefore speed reduction is not warranted. Trespassing and no parking violations should be fielded by Sheriff’s department for enforcement. Ms. Jones stated the Sheriff’s department has been notified and cars have been towed. Mr. DePaolo concluded speeds aren’t the issue and asked, has there been a baseline traffic count off season to show an increase due to gorge access? Mr. Slater suggested traffic monitors be reset in the fall to compare traffic. Mr. McCune inquired what the town can do from a signage standpoint such as no gorge access, no parking? Mr. Slater referenced the town’s local law chapter 250 regarding no parking signs, present on Penny Lane, which are enforceable. City has signage as well. Don’t know if there are ‘no gorge access’ signs. Ms. Jones added that she doesn’t know if there are no gorge access signs. DePaolo asked, “Do residents of Commonland access the gorge? Ms. Jones replied that residents generally do not go to the gorge. It’s typically visitors. Some people hike. The problem is parking, trespassing on private property, & littering. Mr. Slater pointed out access between #96 & #97 Penny Lane that the city uses. We can make sure there is ‘no gorge access’ signage. Offered to reach out to sheriff Osborne re: enforcement. Can set speed indicators when students return for travel volume comparison. DePaolo asked for clarification: are residents and their guests using the same no parking location(s) as others you’re trying to limit? Ms. Jones the signage is ‘resident parking only’. 5. 2027 Fleet Replacement Schedule Mr. Slater added repair costs and auction projection prices to the proposed fleet replacement schedule since last discussed. 107 items in total fleet. Historically our fleet replacement has been anywhere from $600,000 to $1 million. Internal equipment committee looks at useful life, OGS trade/auction values, down time adjustments. Explored leasing as an option. Mr. DePaolo inquired about #61 2019 Ford F450. Its useful life is 10 years, it’s 7 years. Would be helpful to see repair cost average as a percentage of value. Mr. Slater responded that #61 rusted out from environmental deterioration. We evaluate green fleet options according to policy. A lot of things are still double to triple the cost. Example: An electric backhoe option is almost half a million dollars. Our vac truck is starting to show wear and tear and recently had clutch repair. Vac trucks in today’s market are upwards of $600k+. We’re still seeing a delay in deliveries. Been a couple years we’re still expecting dump trucks. Mr. McCune commented that looking at mileage is a really great indicator. Hours are a far greater indicator of useful life. Can we separate useful life in miles or hours accordingly? Might be helpful data. Expected useful life based on years, miles, hours. Mr. Slater replied we can definitely look into that. Our asset management database has a vehicle condition index. Found a company that can help us build this out. Can now put in our vehicle repairs. But overall vehicle condition index we aren’t there yet. The fleet replacement schedule is all subject to change. The longer you keep equipment the repair costs go up so we try to be at a happy medium. Mr. DePaolo asked if we expect any supply chain or lead times issues. Safe to assume if we bump anything out it’ll be more costly next year because repairs could pick up. 6. 2027 Proposed Capital Improvement Projects Ms. Swartwood introduced Owen Linder, Planning & Sustainability intern. Mr. Linder reported working on a variety of different things such brainstorming & ideas for evaluating capital improvement projects. The motivation for this was the Green New Deal Action Plan to “explore incorporating internal cost of carbon into project selection and planning through CIP’s and budget process”. Cost of carbon is only one specific metric. How can we holistically consider sustainability and other comprehensive plan priorities in the CIP process? Evaluated Public Works Facility Light Upgrade to LED & Site Lighting. The evaluation process looked at asset condition, return on investment/cost benefit, health & safety, environmental impact, equity, and efficiency/effectiveness. The scoring system is adaptive. Mr. DePaolo suggested some boards may weigh categories differently. There is some subjectivity in how things are valued or get scored. Mr. McCune asked if we do not already have an evaluation process in place. Ms. Randall responded that there are some metrics associated with water & sewer in terms of breaks per linear feet. Clarifying what is an asset and comparing the weights. Refining and developing the process for the better. Mr. McNeal advised there is a matrix used in the past that we will get back to after wrapping up some of the existing projects started in Dan and Dave’s time. There is also a grading rubric to identify priorities. Mr. Slater provided that one of the things that really puts a spin on our CIP’s is development with consideration in utilities. Mr. Linder is currently working with Mike Smith researching the Urban Community Forest (UCF) state grants and their metrics. They look at street trees, landscape parks and newly added this year is natural forested areas. Looking into how that grant could be used for tree inventories and invasive species assessment in town preserves. 7. Project Updates a. 2026 CIP Paving Projects/Micro Paving/Crack Sealing Updates Mr. Slater reported working with paving contractors for last week July on Dove, Pheasant and Winners Cir. There will be some in house paving of a couple small roads. Following up with Suit Kote on paving from 200 block of Stone Quarry up to King Rd W intersection to gear up for an in-house drainage project at 118 King Rd W. Just done replacing water main by Winners Cir. Doing spot repairs then top next couple weeks. Mr. McCune asked what the plan is for Westhaven Road. Continue to patch areas? Mr. Slater replied that the frequency of traffic on that road is causing damage. b. Interceptor Study – Mr. McNeal reported on the interceptor study working with Larson on. Splitting phase 2 into phase 2 & 3. Phase 2 would then become capacity analysis of system and boundary meters assist with SJC agreements. Phase 3 would be further metering granularity to identify pipe sections undersized for upgrading. In addition, pump station analysis and syphon quality for pipe sizing field verification. Phase 1 study complete and ready to bring to August meeting. Ideal to get metering started this fall when students are in town for a full capacity picture. Mr. Slater with concrete mapping and calibration, it’ll be a good time to update the joint sewer agreement. Mr. DePaolo asked about the anticipated timing for the study. Mr. McNeal replied one month per metering station anticipated depending on weather. Larson looking at availability of metering. They wanted to install 42 meters. Start at (15) boundary and work in from there (to 42) based on junctions of the mapping they have. c. Town Hall Court Clerk/Mezzanine – Still working through demolition. Architect to visit site to walk through some contractor questions. Mr. Talbut reported a bunch of clearing at Babcock and laid about 100’of piping. Mr. Slater reported on closure of lower FH bridge. B&L was here a couple weeks ago. We expect to hear back re: recommendations. Adjourn 10:23 a.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 11, 2026. Submitted by, Becky Jordan 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com July 16, 2026 Joe Slater, Director of Public Works Town of Ithaca 114 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: SouthWorks Woods Public Infrastructure Request SWBR Project No. 22232.00 FE Project 2011.104-008 Dear Joe, As per our previous discussions, Beacon Communities LLC (Beacon) and Shift Capital (Shift) are developing the first phase of the SouthWorks project known as the Woods. The proposed development involves the new construction of a mixed-income rental community located in both the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca. The new community is part of the larger, comprehensive redevelopment that will transform the 95-acre former Morse Chain/Emerson Transmission Plant industrial complex. The larger redevelopment project is a master-planned community that will repurpose the former manufacturing site into a placemaking destination neighborhood with approximately 915 mixed-income residential units, commercial space, and public and outdoor space. Attached please find the Woods Site and Utility Plans, as well as an updated version of the GEIS Concept Plan (including current projects) for reference. Project Description and Purpose For Phase 1, Shift and Beacon are proposing the new construction of a 230-unit mixed-income rental community that will include a mix of 1, 2, and 3-bedroom apartments. Of the total 230 units, 100 will be located in the City of Ithaca and 130 will be located in the Town of Ithaca. The proposed SouthWorks Woods community in the Town of Ithaca will involve the new construction of 8 buildings with a total of 130 mixed-income apartments. Of the total 130 apartments, there will be 52 1-bedroom units, 53 2-bedroom units, and 25 3-bedroom units. In addition to the residential units, the development will provide a range of amenities, including community room, lounge, fitness center, and an exterior playground. Supporting spaces will include offices, maintenance areas, and storage. The SouthWorks Woods project will be subdivided from the remaining SouthWorks parcel as part of the approval process. The Applicants respectfully request that the Town of Ithaca accept dedication of the following public infrastructure upon completion, certification, and acceptance in accordance with the Town's Standards and Specifications: • Road B and Rotary. (AKA Drive V), • Road A (roadway between Buildings B and C from Morse Place to the Rotary), • Public Water System, and • Public Sanitary Sewer. Road B: Road B is an access intersecting with Danby Road. Road B represents the future northern access to the remaining undeveloped portions of SouthWorks. Although the adjacent development is not part of the current phase, this roadway establishes the public street network contemplated by the GEIS and provides long-term redundancy for traffic circulation and emergency access. Page 2 July 16, 2026 113 East Chemung Place, Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com Road A: Road A is more than an internal access drive. It functions as the principal east-west collector roadway serving the Woods neighborhood and is intended to become part of the interconnected SouthWorks public street system. It provides emergency access, accommodates future traffic circulation, and will ultimately connect multiple phases of development. As additional phases of SouthWorks are constructed, Road A will transition from serving a single development to functioning as a neighborhood street serving multiple properties and users. Public Water: As per our discussions with you and Town Staff, the proposed connection point to the existing Town Water System will be at Danby Road. The current configuration is that of an individual service with only one connection to the Town system. As future phases are constructed, the water system will evolve from a single service connection into a looped public distribution system. Public ownership will facilitate future interconnections, improve operational reliability, increase fire protection, and simplify long- term maintenance and expansion of the municipal water system. Sanitary Sewer: The sanitary sewer extension is designed as a conventional public gravity sewer system consistent with Town standards. Public ownership will ensure coordinated operation and maintenance as the SouthWorks redevelopment expands and additional phases connect to this infrastructure. The proposed infrastructure is intended to serve not only the initial Woods development, but the broader SouthWorks redevelopment envisioned by the adopted GEIS and Planned Development Zone. Acceptance of these facilities as public infrastructure will: • Establish the backbone infrastructure for future phases; • Promote interconnected public streets rather than isolated private drives; • Improve long-term emergency access and neighborhood connectivity; • Create a looped public water system capable of improved reliability and fire flows; • Provide a public sanitary sewer network consistent with conventional Town practice; and • Avoid future reconstruction or conversion of private facilities as additional phases develop. The Applicants believe public ownership of these improvements is consistent with the long-term vision of the SouthWorks Planned Development Zone and represents the most efficient means of providing safe, reliable, and interconnected public infrastructure for the entire redevelopment. Acceptance of these facilities at this stage will establish the backbone public infrastructure necessary to support future residential and mixed-use development while ensuring that the Town's infrastructure standards are incorporated from the outset. We look forward to presenting our proposal to the Public Works Committee at their next meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, FAGAN ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS, P.C. James B. Gensel, P.E., CPESC President 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W 2 0 ' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B - D A N B Y R O A D variable width 18 16 23 21 5 28 PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 FFE BASEMENT: 753.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 765.11 PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 PROPOSED 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C3 FFE BASEMENT: 741.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 752.90 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A2 FFE BASEMENT: 776.0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 MAINT.SHED LOADING AREA PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A1 FFE BASEMENT: 775.50 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 EV FEVEV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEVFEV FEV EV EV EV FEV FEV FEV FEV EV FEV FEV FEV FEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEV FEV FEV DANBY ROAD DRIVE V 00 30'60' SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements,designs and plans indicated thereon or presentedthereby are owned by and remain the property ofSWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by anyperson, firm, or corporation for any purposewhatsoever except with the specific writtenpermission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 06/12/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44Buffalo,NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. Ifuncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York(non-members must be contacted separately) FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung PlaceElmira N.Y. 14904Phone (607) 734-2165Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com OVERALL SITE PLAN C300 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W 2 0 ' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B - D A N B Y R O A D variable width W W W W W W W W W PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y W W ST ST ST ST SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N SA N SA N SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N SA N SA N SA N ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST UG / E UG/ E ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W UG / E UG / E UG/ E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/ E UG/ E UG/ E PROPOSED STORM W A T E R TREATMENT CHAMBER S (UPPER) PROPOSED STORM WATER TREATMENT CHAMBERS (LOWER) D D PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 FFE BASEMENT: 753.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 765.11 PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 PROPOSED 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C3 FFE BASEMENT: 741.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 752.90 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A2 FFE BASEMENT: 776.0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 MAINT.SHED LOADING AREA ST ST ST PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A1 FFE BASEMENT: 775.50 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 ST ST ST ST ST ST UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG / E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E PROPOSED STORM WATER TREATMENT CHAMBERS (LOWER) W W W W W W SAN SAN SAN DANBY ROAD DRIVE V SAN SAN ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST UG/E UG / E UG/ E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG/ E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN STST STRUCTURE TABLE STRUCTURE NAME:RIM ELEV.PIPES IN:PIPES OUT STRUCTURE TABLE STRUCTURE NAME:RIM ELEV.PIPES IN:PIPES OUT STRUCTURE TABLE STRUCTURE NAME:RIM ELEV.PIPES IN:PIPES OUT STRUCTURE TABLE STRUCTURE NAME:RIM ELEV.PIPES IN:PIPES OUT BY OTHER S LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determiningexact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. Ifuncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system priorto digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York(non-members must be contacted separately) 00 30'60' SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements,designs and plans indicated thereon or presentedthereby are owned by and remain the property ofSWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by anyperson, firm, or corporation for any purposewhatsoever except with the specific writtenpermission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 06/12/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES -THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44Buffalo,NY 14203 Ithaca, NY 113 East Chemung PlaceElmira N.Y. 14904Phone (607) 734-2165Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com FE Project Number 2011.104-008 OVERALL UTILITY PLAN C500 1 M O R S E P L A C E ROAD A ROAD B DRIVE C DRIV E D 21 22 18 16 23 21 5 28 PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSEBUILDING B3 FFE BASEMENT: 753.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 765.11 PROPOSED6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENTBUILDING C1FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENTBUILDING C2FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 PROPOSED30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C3 FFE BASEMENT: 741.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 752.90 PROPOSED 50 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING G1 PROPOSED 50 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING G2 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A2 FFE BASEMENT: 776.0 FFE: 1S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 MAINT.SHED LOADINGAREA PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTME N T BUILDING A1 FFE BASEMENT: 775.50 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 EVEV FEVFEV FEVFEV FEVFEV EV FEVEVFEV FEVFEVFEVFEV FEVFEV FEV EVEVEVFEVFEVFEVFEVEV FEVFEVFEV FEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEV FEV FEV DRIVEIV DANBY RO A D ROA D F U P P E R M O R S E P L A C E DRIVE G L O W E R M O R S E P L A C E DRIVEV 4139955.22 Sf.95.040 Acres Parcel A C H A I N D R I V E S . C A Y U G A S T R E E T S C O U T P A T H LOADINGDOCK LOADINGDOCK Retaining Wall B U S S T O P U P P E R M O R S E P L A C E B U S S T O P P A R K I N G A R E A P A R K I N G A R E A 95 PARKING SPACES 45 PARKING SPACES LOADINGDOCK L O W E R M O R S E P L A C E U P P E R M O R S E P L A C E L O W E R M O R S E P L A C E T H O M A S L A N E F U T U R E A C C E S S DRIVE I DRIVEII DRIVE III DRIVE IV DRIVE V LOADINGAREA E17 E18 E1 E8 E13AE13B E35 E34E24 E21 E10 E2 E3 E4 M O R S E P L A C E Retain i n g W a l l EASEMENT (ii)0.098 Acres E33 N2 C N13 C N14 CN15 N21 C C N24 N25 C B N28 A C N27 B N32 B N36 B N38 A C N37 A C C AN35 C N34 A C C AN31 C N30 C C N33 N29 OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E OH/E D D N16 15 34 32 FENCEDPLAY AREA(5-12 Y.O.) FENCEDPLAY AREA(2-5 Y.O.) 4 6 210 E5-6 LOADINGDOCK 19 32 39 10 EVEVFEVFEVFEVFEV 65 PARKING SPACES The Woods Gateway Empowerment Found Center TOWN OF ITHACA CITY OF ITHACA CITY OF ITH A C A TOWN OF I T H A C A TOWN OF ITHACA CITY OF ITHACA Volume by Speed Penny Lane, WB End: 2026-07-07 Times: 0:00:00-23:59:59 Start: 2026-06-25 Speed Bins: Size 5, Range 1 to 150 Time View: By Hour (Total Volumes) Time 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 31 to 35 36 to 40 41 to 45 46 to 50 51 to 55 56 to 60 61 to 65 66 to 70 71 to 75 76 to 80 81 to 85 86 to 90 91 to 95 96 to 100 101 to 150 Avg Speed Total 0:00 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.5 4 1:00 0 12 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.5 16 2:00 0 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.9 7 3:00 4 23 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.1 31 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 5:00 1 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.2 11 6:00 1 5 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.0 12 7:00 4 7 3 5 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.2 28 8:00 2 21 9 7 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.1 59 9:00 5 99 18 19 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.1 159 10:00 2 19 13 18 27 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.5 89 11:00 2 17 134 32 29 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.3 234 12:00 3 25 37 25 27 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.5 130 13:00 3 27 23 27 21 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.9 117 14:00 10 31 30 39 33 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.6 161 15:00 14 27 41 42 46 18 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.3 196 16:00 6 38 29 33 57 11 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.0 179 17:00 3 16 11 27 32 12 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19.4 108 18:00 6 19 21 14 29 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.2 104 19:00 11 15 20 13 14 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.8 77 20:00 0 16 7 10 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.2 45 21:00 0 7 5 17 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.4 36 22:00 0 3 0 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18.4 12 23:00 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.4 5 Total 77 439 411 340 376 146 25 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0 1820 Generated by Connor Crandall on 07-08-2026 Volume by Speed Penny Lane, WB End: 2026-07-07 Times: 0:00:00-23:59:59 Start: 2026-06-25 Speed Bins: Size 5, Range 1 to 150 Time View: By Hour (Total Volumes) Generated by Connor Crandall on 07-08-2026 Summary of Violators Lois Lane from Thu-Jun-25-2026-12-00-PM to Tue-Jul-07-2026-09-59-AM Lois Lane, Ithaca NY 14850 Starting Hour Count Average Speed of all Traffic Violator Counts Average Speed of Violators 00:00:00 1 18.0 0 0.0 01:00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A 02:00:00 1 20.0 0 0.0 03:00:00 1 21.0 0 0.0 04:00:00 8 20.1 0 0.0 05:00:00 16 18.8 0 0.0 06:00:00 34 19.3 1 37.0 07:00:00 48 19.1 0 0.0 08:00:00 49 17.5 0 0.0 09:00:00 37 19.4 0 0.0 10:00:00 63 19.6 0 0.0 11:00:00 34 19.3 0 0.0 12:00:00 47 19.5 0 0.0 13:00:00 50 19.6 0 0.0 14:00:00 36 18.9 0 0.0 15:00:00 52 19.3 0 0.0 16:00:00 41 19.6 0 0.0 17:00:00 30 18.9 0 0.0 18:00:00 26 19.3 0 0.0 19:00:00 8 19.6 0 0.0 20:00:00 7 19.1 0 0.0 21:00:00 8 16.8 0 0.0 22:00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A 23:00:00 1 19.0 0 0.0 Summary of Violators Lois Lane from Thu-Jun-25-2026-12-00-PM to Tue-Jul-07-2026-09-59-AM Lois Lane, Ithaca NY 14850 Starting Hour Count Average Speed of all Traffic Violator Counts Average Speed of Violators 00:00:00 1 14.0 0 0.0 01:00:00 1 21.0 0 0.0 02:00:00 1 22.0 0 0.0 03:00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A 04:00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A 05:00:00 6 15.8 0 0.0 06:00:00 14 18.5 0 0.0 07:00:00 25 19.6 0 0.0 08:00:00 28 20.7 0 0.0 09:00:00 33 20.0 0 0.0 10:00:00 50 20.9 0 0.0 11:00:00 36 21.5 1 40.0 12:00:00 44 20.8 1 34.0 13:00:00 65 21.2 0 0.0 14:00:00 56 22.2 2 41.5 15:00:00 67 21.1 0 0.0 16:00:00 59 20.3 0 0.0 17:00:00 43 20.2 0 0.0 18:00:00 43 20.3 1 38.0 19:00:00 32 20.1 0 0.0 20:00:00 18 18.7 0 0.0 21:00:00 8 19.5 0 0.0 22:00:00 8 19.5 0 0.0 23:00:00 2 22.0 0 0.0 Speed Summary Penny Lane, WB End: 2026-07-07 Times: 0:00:00-23:59:59 Start: 2026-06-25 Speed Range: 1 to 150 Overall Summary Total Days of Data: 13 Speed Limit: 30 Average Speed: 15.95 50th Percentile Speed: 15.4 85th Percentile Speed: 21.02 Pace Speed Range: 11-21 Minimum Speed: 5 Maximum Speed: 42 Display Mode: Speed Display Average Volume per Day: 140.0 Total Volume: 1820 Generated by Justin McNeal on 07-08-2026 # Equipment to be Auctioned / Traded & Replaced Useful Life Original Purchase Price Year Purchased Replacement Cost (Budgeted) Age of Equipment Since Purchased New Annual Repair Costs (2025) Lifetime Total Repair Costs (Parts and Labor) Projected Auction Price / Trade Mileage / Hours (as of 6/22/26)Green Fleet Options 11 2016 Interntional Dump (Water & Sewer)10 99,501.00$ 2015 200,000.00$ 10 1,883.15$ 13,855.00$ $25,000-$30,000 33,380 Yes 61 2019 Ford F450 Super Duty Dump 10 59,302.94$ 2019 100,000.00$ 7 3,344.72$ 11,638.00$ $15,000-$25,000 74,230 No 66 2019 Ford F350 4x4 Super Cab w/plow 6 46,636.01$ 2019 85,000.00$ 7 5,239.08$ 14,970.00$ $15,000-$25,000 94,954 No 80 2018 Ford F350 4x4 Super Cab w/plow 6 43,524.01$ 2018 70,000.00$ 8 2,216.17$ 17,065.00$ $15,000-$25,000 103,626 No 25 2014 Ford F150 XLT Super Cab 4x4 (E)15 29,448.50$ 2014 75,000.00$ 12 435.90$ 7,199.00$ $5,000-$14,000 42,316 Yes 42 2008 New Holland Backhoe/Loader 18 54,445.00$ 2008 150,000.00$ 18 84.50$ 11,465.00$ $22,000-$32,000 Hrs?Yes 68 2020 Caterpillar Mini-Excavator 305.5E CR 7 75,275.00$ 2020 100,000.00$ 6 484.35$ 5,173.00$ $35,000-$50,000 1,237 Yes 82 2011 Mobark Chipper 15 40,700.00$ 2011 135,000.00$ 11 1,594.96$ 17,856.00$ $10,000-$20,000 850 No T1 2022 Sure-Trac Tilt Trailer 3 8,876.00$ 2022 15,000.00$ 5 748.67$ 2,295.00$ $3,000-$6,000 NA N/A 35 2022 Giant Loader 5 98,828.70$ 2022 90,000.00$ 4 2,154.31$ 3,383.00$ $20,000-$50,000 2,487 Yes 57 2010 Finn T-75 Hydroseeder 15 25,750.00$ 2010 65,000.00$ 16 36.57$ 7,159.00$ $15,000-$25,000 1,714 No 1,085,000.00$ $180,000-$302,000 $180,000-$302,000 241,000.00$ 1,085,000.00$ 241,000.00$ 844,000.00$ Total Auction Income Average Town of Ithaca - Proposed Fleet Replacement Schedule 2027 Total New Equipment Total Projected Auction Income Total New/Replaced Equipment Total Estimated Cost Estimated Projected Auction Income Early Ideas for Evaluation of Capital Improvement Projects Public Works Committee Meeting, July 21st, 2026 Owen Linder, Planning and Sustainability Intern Why? “Explore incorporating internal (TOI) cost of carbon into project selection and planning (e.g., through CIP and/or budget process)” (Green New Deal Action Plan, 2025-2026) How can we holistically consider sustainability and other Comprehensive Plan priorities in the CIP process? Examples in Action Location Approach to CIP Project Evaluation Baltimore, MD Each project receives zero to 3 points across six categories including health/safety, asset condition (how close to failure), and environmental impact. The categories are summed to form a “score” out of 18 total points. There are guides and examples for each category, explaining what is needed for each point to be awarded in clear and consistent language. The scores are only applied to projects with flexible funding sources and inform but do not dictate decision-making. https://www.baltimorecity.gov/planning/our-work/capital-improvement-program/evaluation-criteria Kansas City, MO Each project receives up to 100 points in twelve categories that are weighted differently; for example, maintenance counts for up to 20 points, while environmental sustainability counts for up to 5 points. Points are assigned to every project by a CIP Technical Committee. https://www.kcmo.gov/city-hall/departments/finance/capital-improvements-plan/about-the-capital-improvements-plan-cip Portland, ME Each project has written criteria justifications for each of seven categories, including asset condition, climate action, and health. The justifications range from long, detailed paragraphs to single sentences. There is no formalized scoring system; there is only written paragraphs. https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/me-portland/088901bf-7ed5-422a-8c90-c676a0cf4223 Baltimore, MD Each project receives zero to 3 points across six categories including health/safety, asset condition (how close to failure), and environmental impact. The categories are summed to form a “score” out of 18 total points. There are guides and examples for each category, explaining what is needed for each point to be awarded in clear and consistent language. The scores are only applied to projects with flexible funding sources and inform but do not dictate decision-making. https://www.baltimorecity.gov/planning/our-work/capital-improvement-program/evaluation-criteria Environmental impact Consider whether and how this project will produce measurable improvements to the environment over the life of the project. Compliance with standards can count towards measurable improvements if they improve air/water quality or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation measures that offset a negative impact of the project (such as mitigating stormwater runoff resulting from the improvement or planting trees to replace those lost due to the improvement) should not be counted, as they do not represent a net improvement in air or water quality but are rather reducing or offsetting negative environmental impacts of a project. Quantify the improvement. 3 – The project will result in significant, measurable improvements to air or water quality or measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 2 - The project will result in minor improvements to air or water quality or greenhouse gas emissions. 1 – The project has theoretical environmental benefits but they cannot be quantified. 0 – The project does not have any measurable environmental benefits. Example scoring guide: Example Evaluation (using Baltimore’s categories as placeholders) Asset condition 0 1 2 3 Return on investment / cost-benefit 0 1 2 3 Health & safety 0 1 2 3 Environmental impact 0 1 2 3 Equity 0 1 2 3 Efficiency / effectiveness 0 1 2 3 PWF Light Upgrade to LED & Site Lighting (2026) The replacement and upgrade of the remaining interior lights at the PWF and installation of exterior lights near the parking areas. Baltimore’s evaluation criteria: https://s3.amazonaws.com/baltimorecity.gov.if-us-east-1/s3fs-public/2024-02/fy23_evaluation_criteria_scoring_guide.pdf “The asset is nearing the end of its expected life and replacement would be prudent.” LEDs would likely pay for themselves within ten years due to vastly reduced utility costs and labor costs for replacement. Potentially a 2 if the exterior lighting is extensive and costly to install. “The project would theoretically improve health or safety, but it is difficult to quantify the benefit.” – outdoor lights may prevent injury LEDs cause a “minor improvements” to greenhouse gas emissions due to their power savings. Needs to be “significant” to be a 3. “Project does not close a gap.” 2: “Most cost effective for asset” (most likely) 3: Most cost effective and a thorough evaluation of alternatives Score: 9 out of 18 points We could modify and adapt the scoring system to accurately reflect the Town’s priorities. Conclusion These are early ideas to be modified over time Thoughts? Questions? Comments?