[PAGE 1]
COMMON COUNCIL BUDGET MEETING AGENDA
September 24th 2025 - November 12th 2025
Date: Wednesday September 24, 2025
Time: 6:00 PM
Location: City Hall Council Chambers
Watch Online: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofIthacaPublicMeetings
1. Call To Order
2. Agenda Review
3. Department Review
This Document will serve as the agenda for all following Special Budget Meetings.
Wednesday, September 24th, 2025
Fee Study Presentation
Capital Projects Presentation
Community Responder Program Development
Monday, October 6th, 2025 City Manager presents 2026 Proposed Budget
Tuesday, October 7th, 2025 Department Budget Reviews:
Youth Bureau
Fire Department
Wednesday, October 8th, 2025 Public Hearing #1- *Note: this date is also a
voting meeting of Council
Department Budget Reviews:
Police Department
City Attorney
Planning and Economic Development
Tuesday, October 14th, 2025 Department Budget Reviews:
DPW
Controller
Human Resources
City Manager
Wednesday, October 15th, 2025 Public Hearing #2
Department Budget Reviews:
Public Information & Technology
GIAC
Capital Projects – final review
Funding Outside Agencies
Conference Center/Room Tax
Tuesday, October 21st, 2025 Council Discussion on 2026 Budget; Proposed
Amendments
1

[PAGE 2]
Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025 Council Discussion on 2026 Budget; Proposed
Amendments
Wednesday, November 5th, 2025 Public Hearing #3
2026 Budget Vote by Common Council
Wednesday, November 12th, 2025 Extra Budget Meeting, if necessary
4. Meeting Wrap Up
Public Hearing
Comments MUST be limited to the subject of the Public Hearing. There will be NO Privilege of
the floor, and Council will NOT be responding to the public's comments during the Public
Hearing.
Members of the public can provide short statements germane to the subject of the public
hearing during this portion of the meeting. 3 minutes is the maximum time allotted per
speaker, but the chair reserves the right to modify the amount of time per individual at the start
of the meeting. Groups of 3 or More Speakers are allotted more speaking time
For Longer Speaking Time – Multiple Speakers can speak as a group with one Designated
Speaker to represent the Group. This will give you more time to share your thoughts and
concerns during the public hearing.
3-4 Persons with One Designated Speaker – Designated Speaker allotted 5 Minutes
5+ Persons with One Designated Speaker – Designated Speaker allotted 7 Minutes
Can't Come To The Meeting But Still Want To Speak?
Register To Speak Virtually-https://tinyurl.com/7ts9zmku
Attending The Meeting To Speak In Person? Pre-Registration Not Required
Comment Cards are provided to those who attend in person. Once you have filled out your
Comment Card, please hand your card to the Clerk. Your name will be called to speak in the
order the cards are received.
Please Note Comment Cards will be accepted up until the meeting at which the public hearing
begins.
Want To Submit A Comment and Not Speak In Person?
To Submit Written Comments - https://tinyurl.com/mr9kdhw8
*Written comments submitted will be compiled and entered into the record.
2

[PAGE 3]
No Public Comment
Not all meetings have a Public Comment segment. The City of Ithaca wants to hear from you!
You are encouraged to share your thoughts with Common Council using the options below:
To Submit Written Comments please use the link below.
https://tinyurl.com/mr9kdhw8
2026 Budget Schedule of Budget Meetings
3

[PAGE 4]
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590
City Manager's Office
Shaniqua Lewis, Deputy City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Common Council
FROM: Deb Mohlenhoff
DATE: September 24, 2025
RE: 2026 Budget Schedule of Budget Meetings
ITEM #:
ATTACHMENTS:
2026_Budget _Meetings_Schedule (2).pdf
CGR - City of Ithaca Municipal Fee Study -FINAL VERSION - v.1.0.pdf
Sept Memo - Capital Projects.pdf
2026 Capital Projects DRAFT Recommendations.pdf
Community Responder Development Memo with DRAFT resolution.pdf
4

[PAGE 5]
2026 Budget
Schedule of Budget Meetings
All meetings are scheduled to begin at 6:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
Wednesday, September 24th, 2025 Fee Study Presentation
Capital Projects Presentation
Community Responder Program Development
Monday, October 6th, 2025 City Manager presents 2026 Proposed Budget
Tuesday, October 7th, 2025 Department Budget Reviews:
Youth Bureau
Fire Department
Wednesday, October 8th, 2025 Public Hearing #1
Department Budget Reviews:
Police Department
City Attorney
Planning and Economic Development
Tuesday, October 14th, 2025 Department Budget Reviews:
DPW
Controller
Human Resources
City Manager
Wednesday, October 15th, 2025 Public Hearing #2
Department Budget Reviews:
Public Information & Technology
GIAC
Capital Projects – final review
Funding Outside Agencies
Conference Center/Room Tax
Tuesday, October 21st, 2025 Council Discussion on 2026 Budget; Proposed Amendments
Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025 Council Discussion on 2026 Budget; Proposed Amendments
Wednesday, November 5th, 2025 Public Hearing #3
2026 Budget Vote by Common Council
Wednesday, November 12th, 2025 Extra Budget Meeting, if necessary
City of Ithaca 108 E. Green Street | Ithaca, NY 14850 | cityofithaca.org | citymanager@cityofithaca.org | 607.274.6512
5

[PAGE 6]
City of Ithaca Municipal Fee Study
Final Version 1.0
September, 2025
Prepared for
City of Ithaca
Prepared by
Kieran Bezila, Ph.D.
Project Manager
Paul Bishop
Project Director
© CGR Inc. 2025 – All Rights Reserved
1 South Washington Street, Suite 400, Rochester, New York 14614
www.cgr.org
(585) 325-6360 • info@cgr.org
6

[PAGE 7]
i
Executive Summary
Overview
CGR was engaged to review the City of Ithaca’s municipal fee structure and determine how it
might be improved by streamlining the fee-setting process, developing a better understanding
of revenue-drivers, and examining the possibility of increased cost-recovery.
The project focused on three main deliverables:
1) Compiled spreadsheets of all of the City’s fees.
2) A standardized methodology for calculating administrative costs.
3) A report containing an overview of the City’s fees and recommendations for process
improvement.
CGR identified more than 500 different fees across Ithaca’s departments and divisions. This
high number is not a problem in itself, as more fees enable to possibility of more revenue and
cost recovery, but some fees may be candidates for elimination. However, it is higher than
some similar municipalities.
CGR prepared spreadsheets listing the fees associated with 11 different departments or
divisions. These spreadsheets also feature a built-in methodology for calculating associated
administrative and servicing costs that can be used to update fees.
CGR conducted interviews with representatives of each department/division. We have
provided an overview of key matters and suggestions from the staff on specific fee changes
per department/division.
As well, CGR broadly examined the implications of a possible change in water/sewer rate
methodology.
The report also contains:
Recommendations for incorporating and organizing fee presentation in the annual budget.
A process for determining which fees should be subsidized.
A process for identifying unnecessary fees.
A series of follow-up steps for departments and divisions, the City Manager and the
Common Council to each undertake in order to rationalize Ithaca’s fee structures.
Main Findings
Our study came to the following conclusions:
Full cost-recovery is unlikely on many fees.
www.cgr.org
7

[PAGE 8]
ii
Subsidies will remain necessary on many fees to achieve assorted City/community goals.
Fee information should be standardized and organized across departments and the
budget process to increase transparency of revenue sources and ease the process of
regular updating.
Further internal review will be needed to determine if parts of the fee structure should be
simplified.
The City Manager, City departments/divisions, and the Common Council each have tasks to
undertake that can improve Ithaca’s fee structure but will require time and attention across
the board.
All parties must decide how much time they wish to devote to digging into the weeds of
tweaking individual fees or whether a strategy of targeted adjustments to a smaller number of
higher revenue fees represents a more efficient approach.
Currently, additional information and review of the respective fee spreadsheets will be
required from departments before the City has the necessary information to make an
informed choice on the strategy it wishes to pursue.
www.cgr.org
8

[PAGE 9]
iii
Acknowledgements
CGR wishes to thank City staff for their support during this work, including all who participated
in interviews, and especially City Manager Deb Mohlenhoff, Executive Assistant Chris Ibert,
and City Clerk Alan Karasin, who fielded and coordinated multiple information requests.
Staff Team
Senior Associate Kieran Bezila prepared the report, with interview and research support from
Research Associate Deon Willis. Principal Paul Bishop directed the project.
www.cgr.org
9

[PAGE 10]
iv
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... i
Overview .................................................................................................................................... i
Main Findings ............................................................................................................................ i
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ iv
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Principles in Fee-Setting .......................................................................................................... 1
Project Process ........................................................................................................................ 2
Overview of Ithaca’s Fees ............................................................................................................... 3
Organization and Process ....................................................................................................... 3
Considerations in Subsidizing Fees .............................................................................................. 4
Defining a Policy for Subsidies ................................................................................................ 5
Fee Template Spreadsheets .......................................................................................................... 7
Fee Detail Information ............................................................................................................. 7
Cost Calculation ....................................................................................................................... 8
Transaction Data ............................................................................................................................. 9
2024 OpenGov Transaction Summary ................................................................................... 9
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 10
Findings .................................................................................................................................. 10
Process Recommendations .................................................................................................. 12
Next Steps .............................................................................................................................. 13
Supporting Information ................................................................................................................. 15
Information from Departments/Divisions ............................................................................ 15
Peer Comparisons .................................................................................................................. 29
www.cgr.org
10

[PAGE 11]
1
Introduction
CGR was engaged by the City of Ithaca to help review and rationalize its system of municipal
fees. The City had several goals with this study:
Exploring the feasibility of service cost recovery – making sure service fees cover the cost
of service, where this makes sense.
Ensuring that fees & rates are fair and reasonable – making sure that direct users pay
their fair share, but also that rates are affordable and set at a level to incentivize
engagement and participation in services and activities beneficial to the City, its residents
and visitors.
Creating a process to more easily adjust fees – gathering and standardizing fee rate
information to increase transparency and allow for regular adjustment of fees by the City
Manager and Common Council based on information and recommendations from City
departments and service providers.
The project focuses on three central deliverables from CGR:
Producing compiled, editable spreadsheet templates of all of the City’s fees.
Creating a standardized methodology for calculating administrative costs and setting and
adjusting fees over time.
Authoring a report reviewing and summarizing all aspects of the project.
Aspects that CGR was asked to consider in the report include devising a policy for when fees
may be eligible for subsidy and whether an alternative rate system for water/sewer metering
would be advantageous.
Principles in Fee-Setting
In an ideal world, a municipality might set fees however it pleased. But in the real world,
municipal fees are subject to a variety of pressures. These pressures include:
• Trying to recover costs.
• Keeping fees reasonable for customers across a variety of income levels.
• Working within the political constraints of public pressure to keep fees low and in-line
with surround regional practices.
• Legal and regulatory concerns.
Good-government principles and legal precedent state that fees
should be reasonable, proportionate, and should be intended to
defray or cover actual direct and indirect costs, rather than
meant to raise extra revenue above costs.
www.cgr.org
11

[PAGE 12]
2
In the legal arena, fees considered excessive have been grounds for legal challenges against
municipalities. In 1999, the NYS Office of the State Comptroller issued an advisory opinion on
the matter of municipal permit fees which expressed the following notable positions:
1) “It is a fundamental principle that a permit fee must bear a direct relation to the costs
of issuing the permit and inspecting or enforcing the permitted activity”;
2) Although: “‘Exact congruence’ between the total expenses and total permit charges is
not required”;
3) But: “The fees, however, must be reasonably necessary to cover the cost of issuance,
inspections and enforcement and may not be charged to offset the cost of general
governmental function”.
4) Furthermore: “…to the extent that fees charged are exacted for general revenue
purposes or to offset the cost of general government functions they are invalid as an
unauthorized tax.”1
While this opinion was specifically rendered in regard to building permit fees under NYS Town
Law, the above principles can be applied to municipal fees, broadly.
Setting fee levels appropriately involves balancing all of the above considerations, making it
as much an art as a science. In addition to this, it is important that municipalities avoid two
common pitfalls: 1) Setting arbitrary amounts without some sort of logical basis, and 2) Failing
to periodically adjust/update fees.
This project is meant to address both of these issues by introducing a rational method for
calculating fee amounts and creating a standardized structure allowing for regular, easier fee
updating.
Project Process
CGR initially undertook a process to chart all of the City’s various fees and calculate, as
closely as possible, the administrative and service cost of each fee, in order to determine the
level of cost recovery associated with each fee.
As we reviewed Ithaca’s fees, the goal of calculating full costs for every fee was scaled back:
after piloting the spreadsheet with the Clerk’s Office, we determined that the process was
workable, but gathering the required information would impose a significant burden on
participating departments that had a large number of fees or high complexity.
The template system is designed to be editable and a self-directed process that the City can
run on its own going forward without CGR’s assistance. For this reason, CGR and the City
1 Office of the New York State Comptroller, Opinion 99-13: https://www.osc.ny.gov/legal-opinions/opinion-99-13.
www.cgr.org
12

[PAGE 13]
3
Manager decided that the City would take possession of the spreadsheet templates for all
departments and manage filling them out at the City’s own pace and convenience.
Overview of Ithaca’s Fees
As CGR gathered and standardized fee information, we
# of fees
Department/Division determined that Ithaca has over 500 existing fees
identified
spread across 11 different departments or divisions, as
Chamberlain 9
shown in the adjacent table. It is likely that this list is
Clerk 66
not fully exhaustive, as departments identified some
DPW - Streets & Facilities 40
fees that had not been included in the initial lists CGR
GIAC 21
received. The departments/divisions will need to review
Fire Department 39 and edit their respective spreadsheet templates to
Parking - all except Cayuga 59 ensure accuracy.
Parking - Cayuga Garage 4
Most of these fees are for separate items or categories
Planning & Development 83
of service, but in some cases, such as with the Youth
Police Department 24
Bureau, the high number of fees reflects gradations
Water & Sewer 25
within one overall category of fees. For example, there
Youth Bureau 134
are different fee levels to use the Cass Park Ice Rink for
TOTAL 504
children, students, adults, and seniors.
Organization and Process
CGR interviewed staff with fee management responsibility in each different
division/department listed in the table above, revealing a variety of fee-setting practices which
were functional for those departments/divisions, but lacked consistency, transparency and
central organization across departments for the City as a whole.
There is currently no common, consistent and transparent
process across departments for reviewing and updating fees.
Frequency of updates
In some cases, fees are being updated regularly in an effort to adjust to increasing costs and
evolving service demands. In other cases, staff interviewees believe that some fees – such as
garage parking rates – have not been adjusted in many years and data is lacking about past
practice for reviewing fees and fines. In report sections below covering each
department/division, we note the information we received on when fees were most recently
updated in that unit.
Authority for updates
Departments/divisions also have different ideas of who has the responsibility for setting fees.
Some departments state that they set amounts themselves, based on the judgment of
www.cgr.org
13

[PAGE 14]
4
department heads. Other departments state that the power to set their fees belongs to the
Common Council and must follow a formal approval process. In some cases, traditional
systems and practices for setting fees have broken down and been replaced at the
department level. One example: the Board of Public Works traditionally had responsibility for
setting a variety of fees across a number of departments, such as the mobile vending fees
that that Clerk’s Office collects; however, the Board stopped meeting during the COVID-19
pandemic and never resumed, and responsibility for setting the fees devolved to the
Superintendent of Public Works, who has been making adjustments based on his discretion.
A large number of fees are specified in the City’s Charter, which makes identifying and altering
them a complex and onerous process. This can cause a lack of clarity about who is overseeing
the fees and can lead to regular updates being neglected due to diffusion of responsibility –
everybody thinks someone else has the authority to make the changes and is keeping track of
what they should be.
CGR recommends that the City thoroughly review the City’s Code
to identify fee-authorizing sections and adjust them to allow for
any fee referenced in the Code to be set administratively in the
budget process.
Process for updates
The process for setting fee amounts also varies widely: some departments/divisions try to
conduct regular or periodic comparison with what peer organizations, such as neighboring
municipalities, are charging for similar fees. Others base fees on an estimate of their costs.
Others make adjustments on an ad hoc basis, based on their intuition of what seems an
appropriate amount. Finally, many departments/divisions make an effort to try to maintain
affordability in fees for a variety of segments – such as recreational services for children and
families, or individual home improvement construction permits.
Management of fees
Most of Ithaca’s fee transactions are handled through the OpenGov software platform, but it is
not flexible enough for all uses, including the complexity of recreation program fees, which
leads the Youth Bureau to use the CommunityPass software system and GIAC to use the Xplor
Recreation software package. While individual departments are using the platforms they
believe are best suited to their needs, this fragmentation weakens the City’s oversight of all
fee revenues and makes it more difficult to centrally track transaction counts and
adjustments.
Considerations in Subsidizing Fees
In most municipalities, a large number of fees are at least partially subsidized by the local
government and therefore by the general taxpaying public. This can be an unintentional result
of neglecting to regularly update fees to keep up with inflating service and administrative
www.cgr.org
14

[PAGE 15]
5
costs. But it can also be an intentional philosophy of local government to keep some fees
lower or “reasonable” in order to attract and encourage public participation in the services
being charged for.
Defining a Policy for Subsidies
Most general philosophies for fee subsidies make a distinction between services that largely
have a “public” or general community benefit and services that primarily have a private
benefit. In practice, this distinction is subject to local discretion and may boil down to
identifying which practices the municipality wishes to encourage and believes are price-
sensitive to participants.
We believe this constitutes a good two-part test of fee subsidies:
1) Is the practice or service something the City wishes to
encourage, because it delivers a public/community benefit?
2) Does the City believe that residents/participants may be
price-sensitive: deterred from paying the fee (and participating in
the service) if it is set too high?
If a fee meets both of these tests, it is a candidate for a subsidy.
Setting the appropriate subsidy level is a puzzle with no simple right answer. In practice, the
exact level of subsidy will depend on the Council or leadership of the servicing City department
making an educated guess at what a “reasonable” level for the fee is. Some of this can come
from peer benchmarking, some of it can come from the experience of the departments
providing the service, and some of it must come from “common sense” – if a fee seems
unreasonably high to the average person, that should trigger reconsideration of its level.
Example: Dog Licenses
Dog licenses are one example of a service/practice that CGR would label a public good. First,
Ithaca wishes to encourage dog owners to properly register and vaccinate their dogs – both
for public health reasons and to track and manage loose dogs. Second, raising the fees
substantially – to the actual cost of all involved services – may dissuade dog owners from
licensing their animals.
The City of Ithaca pays the SPCA approximately $60,400 annually for animal control. While
this potentially includes controlling some number of animals beyond dogs – rescuing a cat or
handling a raccoon in a house – the dog license is the only direct fee associated with this
service.
www.cgr.org
15

[PAGE 16]
6
Currently, Ithaca charges $15 for a spayed/neutered dog and $25 for a non-spayed/non-
neutered dog, and when obligatory NYS surcharges of $1 and $3, respectively, are remitted,
Ithaca nets $14 per fixed dog and $22 per unfixed dog.
According to Clerk’s Office records, in 2024, 348 dog licenses were issued, for a net revenue
of approximately $5,300 – covering just under 9% of the SPCA costs. Even doubling the fee
amount would therefore cover below a fifth of the full cost.
If Ithaca were to charge the full SPCA cost to these same 348
dog owners, the cost would come to approximately $173.50 per
dog license – an unsustainable amount.
National estimates are that at least 4 in 10 households own one
or more dogs. Given that Ithaca has approximately 13,800
households, this should translate into at least 5,520 dog
licenses, annually.
If Ithaca were able to get 55% of these households to register
their dogs, this would cover the full SPCA amount.
In this specific case, CGR would suggest the following: modestly raise the dog license fees –
by perhaps $5-10 for each category – but embark on a public educational campaign to
encourage more households to license their dogs. This would likely be the most practical way
to reasonably cover the full costs.
But because, realistically, such a campaign to boost licensing participation is likely to only be
partially successful, this is an example of a fee that Ithaca should accept subsidizing, for the
public benefit it provides.
CGR’s Subsidy Ratings
As noted above, CGR has included subsidy ratings and recommendations for every listed fee
in the spreadsheet templates. This comprises two ratings and a recommendation:
1. We rate whether we assess the service being charged for as mostly providing public
benefit, or private benefit, or a mix of the two.
2. We rate whether we believe the fee is price-sensitive to the general public – this
means, if the fee were to be raised substantially, would average people find it
burdensome or be deterred from paying?
3. We recommend whether the City should subsidize or not subsidize the fee. In cases
where we find this ambiguous, we have opted for a “use discretion” recommendation.
Subsidy-Rating Examples
www.cgr.org
16

[PAGE 17]
7
Parking permits
A good example is Annual Residential Parking Permits and Residential Parking Visitor Passes.
We judge that these provide a private benefit to those who purchase them, but we also
believe this is a price-sensitive matter to the public: the general public might be unhappy if
these fees were substantially raised and reduce participation; in an extreme case, raising the
Visitor Pass price could potentially reduce visitors and tourism dollars. Therefore, we
recommend that the City use discretion in deciding whether to raise these fees to recover full
cost.
Recreation opportunities
As another example, we generally rate recreation opportunities as providing a public benefit,
even if the enjoyment accrues privately. But, in some cases, we provide mixed ratings. For
example, we endorse subsidies on most GIAC program fees, but no subsidies on private-party
room rentals of GIAC facilities, for instance.
Likewise, for some spaces, like the golf course, we are mixed in our recommendation,
endorsing the existing discounts (an effective subsidy) which are available for young people
and seniors but not for regular adult players.
Code enforcement, zoning and plan review fees.
For fees related to code enforcement, building, zoning and planning, generally, we suggest the
following philosophy: there is a public good/community benefit to be gained in ensuring that
residential households and private individuals allow code enforcement inspections. They are
more likely to do this when the process is not onerous and the fees appear reasonable. For
this reason, we draw a distinction between what is in the individual interest of a small
household or property owner, and what is a larger-scale, commercial development.
We believe the former category (small residential/small property owner) is deserving of some
subsidies at the level that will keep fees reasonable and keep them complying with the code
enforcement and inspection process. For the latter (larger-scale commercial) there is still a
public interest in making sure they comply with the code enforcement process, for safety and
livability reasons, but we believe they are able to bear the full cost of services and should not
be subsidized.
Fee Template Spreadsheets
To aid in calculation of the costs associated with each fee, CGR constructed a series of
individual spreadsheet templates for each listed department/division. These templates
include two major parts: fee detail information and a methodology for calculating costs.
Fee Detail Information
Fee detail information is comprised of a listing of all fees, with details on their categorization
and type, current cost, and the fee unit of charge (per service, per hour, per dog, etc.). CGR
www.cgr.org
17

[PAGE 18]
8
filled these details in to the greatest extent possible, but some information – for instance, on
units of charge – was not initially available in the information we gathered and individual
departments will need to review, correct, and add any missing information, as needed.
Adjacent to the basic fee information is CGR’s recommendation on whether each fee should
be considered a candidate for subsidies or not. These recommendations, and a general policy
on subsidies, are explained in a following section below.
Example of Clerk’s Office Fee Spreadsheet Template
Cost Calculation
Each spreadsheet includes a standardized cost-calculation methodology. This involves a
series of fields to input information on staff time and costs required in administering and
performing the task or service for which the fee is charged. The methodology makes a
distinction between the administrative time costs of processing a service – for example,
processing the paperwork to register a child for a recreation program – and performing the
service – for example, staffing and conducting the recreation programming. This process
involves significant input from each fee-administering department and unit, as they have to
provide time-cost and overhead-cost information, along with average salary and benefit costs
for involved personnel.
As indicated in the spreadsheet template instructions, one of the key aspects is producing
realistic estimates of time costs. For instance, it is important that staff do not overestimate
the time that it takes to process permits or fee paperwork, and that the total time they report
spending on the individual fee tasks in a week does not add up to more than the total hours
they actually work in a week.
www.cgr.org
18

[PAGE 19]
9
Transaction Data
The spreadsheet templates ask each department/division to produce data on the number of
transactions for each fee listed. This will provide fine-grained data on where the majority of
revenues are coming from, which can help the City decide which fees are important to keep
and adjust and which are not consequential in budgetary terms.
2024 OpenGov Transaction Summary
Until departments prepare that data, the next best source of information on transaction rates
and associated revenues is OpenGov summaries. The Clerk’s Office provided the following
2024 transaction summary from OpenGov.
www.cgr.org
19

[PAGE 20]
10
This summary provides much useful information, with the caveats that it does not cover every
department/division and aggregates multiple fees together in broad categories that can
obscure where the majority of fee transactions are actually occurring (for example, the
multiple types of building permit applications with different associated fees are grouped in
one overall category).
IPD separately provided its own totals from 2024:
Ithaca Police Department Transactions 2024
Total Transactions Total
Type Fee
2024 Revenue
Background checks $5.00 31 $155.00
Visa clearance $5.00 12 $60.00
Taxi license Renewal $30.00 0 $ -
Taxi license New $35.00 0 $ -
Solicitor's Permit (varies by type) 1 N/A
Accident Report Requests $25.00 N/A N/A
This data makes clear that the overwhelming bulk of fee revenue is derived from the Building
Division, from standard building, electrical, and plumbing work permits. Of the other units
listed, only the Streets Division raised more than $10,000 in a year, largely from street
permits related to construction closures and other events.
In most cases, even a theoretical doubling of all fee revenue
collected by most departments/divisions would not have a
substantial budgetary impact.
Finally, it is important to note that the fee totals reported here from the OpenGov system do
not always match fee revenue amounts being listed in Ithaca’s budget documents. The source
of this discrepancy likely stems from differences between which fees are included in
OpenGov’s departmental categories and how these vary from which fees are included in the
account number categories used in the budget records.
The City is still in the process of migrating data from the legacy Munis software system to the
current OpenGov implementation and standardizing new categories. City management is
aware of the discrepancies and working to correct them.
Recommendations
The review of the City’s fees yields a number of conclusions and recommendations.
Findings
www.cgr.org
20

[PAGE 21]
11
Fee Levels & Subsidies
Full cost-recovery is unlikely on many fees.
Relevant City staff believe most fees can be increased, but even if these are doubled or tripled
– which is practical and reasonable for some fees in some cases, but not for others – many
fees will not approach full cost recovery.
Subsidies will remain necessary to achieve other City/community goals.
It is reasonable for the City to provide some level of subsidy for services and opportunities that
provide public benefits, which include use of public space by a variety of groups. Raising fees
to cost recovery levels, as shown in the example of dog licenses, is unrealistic and impractical
in a variety of cases. Items like construction permit fees for commercial projects can be
expected to recoup costs, but other permits will likely be subsidized.
Organization & Transparency
Fee information should be standardized and organized to ease regular updating.
Currently, fee information is scattered and unstandardized across departments and budget
materials. It would benefit from standardized categories and full reporting.
As an example, the amount of fees the Clerk’s Office recorded being paid for “Electrical Permit
Applications” for 2023 in its OpenGov records for the year is $8,885.50. But the City’s official
budget lists actual revenue of $147,186 for “Electrical permits”, and $7,968 for “Electrical
inspections” for 2023. It is not clear how these categories differ from the Clerk’s category,
whether parts of either of these revenue amounts overlap with Clerk’s income, or whether the
Clerk’s total is included under a separate budget line that records actual revenues of $38,529
in “Clerk Fees” for 2023. Meanwhile, the total of revenue listed through the Clerk’s OpenGov
records, which includes fees collected for the Building Division, comes to $89,334 for 2023,
while the fees listed for that year as belonging exclusively to the Clerk’s Office itself total to
only $2,365.
Clearly, none of these numbers match. The most likely cause of these discrepancies is that
the various budgetary accounts presented as revenue lines combine and categorize various
fees in different ways than departments themselves group them, making it hard to know what
is and is not included in a given budgetary account line, and thus hard to know which fees are
or are not producing significant budget revenue and why some actuals fluctuate so
dramatically against projections.
Better organization of fee information according to the suggestions presented elsewhere in
the report will ideally allow fee revenue amounts to be clearly trackable from end-to-end.
Considerations in Simplifying the Fee Structure
Further review is needed to determine if the fee structure should be simplified.
www.cgr.org
21

[PAGE 22]
12
Ithaca may have good reasons for the variety and number of fees it has. Just because
comparison municipalities may have fewer does not mean that simplicity is automatically
best. More fees, where appropriate, equals more cost recovery. Decisions on the number of
fees and overall complexity should be decided in consultation with the respective
departments through a multi-step test:
1) Does the fee meaningfully contribute to cost recovery or serve another function, such
as providing an opportunity to register and track service users or reduce unnecessary
applications, etc.?
2) How many transactions of the fee occur annually and how much staff/processing time
do they incur?
3) What is the level of compliance among the general public with paying the fee?
4) Would removing the fee either save a meaningful amount of time for City staff or save
a meaningful amount of time and cost for the public?
If the fee is infrequently collected, produces low revenue, and
takes a meaningful amount of staff time to process, without
producing other useful tracking or registration information, or
other identifiable public benefits, it is a candidate for
elimination.
Fees that are candidates for elimination can be flagged by departments as the fill out the
spreadsheet templates, and then discussed with the City Manager and ultimately the
Common Council.
Process Recommendations
Currently, Ithaca’s current fee structure and process lacks consistency and some clarity of
authority and responsibility in fee-setting.
A basic level of centralized oversight can aid in managing
regular and consistent updates, while at the same time
respecting the experience and knowledge of
departments/divisions which have the best sense of their own
costs, program scopes, and appropriate level of affordability.
CGR recommends that fees be centralized in the budget process, with the City Manager
having oversight for collecting and standardizing fees, in consultation with the home
departments. We recommend the following process:
www.cgr.org
22

[PAGE 23]
13
1) Move fee-setting to be part of the annual budgetary process, as several peer
municipalities do.
a. Fees can be listed by department in an appendix to the budget.
i. Follow the presentation format laid out in the Lessons from Comparison
Fee Structures section found in the Supporting Information appendix
below.
b. This may require a charter commission or other legal work to transfer authority
for fee changes from the charter to the budgetary process.
2) The City Manager should annually consult respective departments/divisions about
their suggests for changes to the fees they manage.
a. This would include raising or lowering rates and adding or eliminating fee
categories.
b. For any fees where the amount is being raised more than the cost of inflation, a
clear, written rationale for the change should be provided.
3) The Common Council can review and approve amounts as part of the normal
budgetary process.
a. This will ensure that fees are regularly updated, reviewed for fairness and
consistency, and approved by elected representatives, rather than through the
opaque process of having some departments decide for themselves.
Next Steps
The findings and process recommendations feed into the following immediate next steps for
the City:
Departments/Divisions
1) Set aside time to complete the spreadsheet templates. This will require the best
possible accuracy in staff time estimates, with the acknowledgement that these are
estimates of weekly and yearly time expenditures, so will not be perfect. What is
important is that the estimates are realistic for the fees listed.
2) Provide recommendations and input to the City Manager on how various fees should
be adjusted or kept level, based on staff expertise.
City Manager
1) Work with City departments to complete the spreadsheets tracking costs. These can be
used to estimate general overhead costs for different kinds of permits and operations.
www.cgr.org
23

[PAGE 24]
14
2) Decide on the desired level of cost recovery for various items by consulting with
departments on their preferred fee levels.
Common Council
1) Review compiled fee information to understand where the bulk of fee revenue is and is
not coming from.
2) Review suggestions from departments and City Manager for potential changes.
3) Weigh the potential implications of fee changes: who will they help/hurt?
4) Decide whether low-volume, low-revenue fees (i.e., fees with few annual transactions
and little revenue generation) serve other desirable functions – such as reserving or
registering Commons Use or tracking and regulating who can do door-to-door soliciting
– and whether or not some fee categories can or should be eliminated.
www.cgr.org
24

[PAGE 25]
15
Supporting Information
Information from Departments/Divisions
CGR conducted interviews with leadership or representatives of each main department or
division charging, collecting, or overseeing fees. This included 10 distinct units or operational
areas within the City: the Chamberlain, the Clerk, the Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC),
the Fire Department, Parking operations (including garages), Planning & Development, the
Police Department, Streets & Facilities and Water & Sewer (both within the Department of
Public Works), and the Youth Bureau.
Chamberlain
The Chamberlain collects and processes fees from other sources but is not setting any fees
themselves. Fees collected include late fees on taxes and parking ticket payments, but her
office has not been receiving late fees for water and sewer bills. The Chamberlain is unclear
how this is being handled. The Chamberlain believes that many fees have not been changed
in more than two decades and most fees need to go up.
Chamberlain last fee change: the majority of fees have not
changed in 20+ years.
Chamberlain fee recommendation: all fees need to increase.
Clerk’s Office
The Clerk’s Office handles a variety of permit fees. Many of the permit fees involving the use
of public space have been traditionally set by the Board of Public Works, but the Board
stopped meeting in the wake of the Covid pandemic and has not resumed. The
Superintendent of Public Works now makes minor adjustments to the fees at his discretion.
The Clerk believes this fee-setting responsibility should be transferred to the City Manager to
compile annually in coordination with departments.
Examples: Special Events, Commons Use & Noise Permits
CGR also spoke with Scott Rougeau, Event Permit Specialist in the Clerk’s Office/PIT, who
provided more detail on the permitting process.
Special Events permits
For example, a typical Special Events permit may have to be processed or approved by seven
to eight different people in six other departments for functions such as the safety plan,
insurances, liquor permits, private security, etc. Involved departments can include Streets &
Facilities, Fire, Police, the city forester, the Building Division, and the Youth Bureau.
www.cgr.org
25

[PAGE 26]
16
Scott estimates a standard Special Events permit may take 18-20 hours of staff time, well in
cost excess of its $100 fee. The Clerk processes 60-70 special events permits in a typical
year.
Scott suggests a fee structure based on size and features – for instance, a stage with
amplified sound could require a higher fee. But because a variety of groups secure events
permits, including non-profits running community events and activist groups organizing rallies
and protests, Scott believes the fees should be kept affordable. For instance, if events are
priced small/medium/large based on anticipated attendance (which organizers must provide
to secure a permit), a “small” event might maintain the $100 fee, while a medium event may
be priced at $250 and a large event at $500. Exactly what attendance sizes would be at what
level is something the City must decide. In any event, the fee levels likely cannot be raised to
the point of covering all time costs without becoming prohibitively expensive.
Commons Use permits
The Clerk suggested that minor fees for Commons Use should either be raised or eliminated –
such as the weekday small events charge for less than 2 hours, which is only $5. However,
Scott noted that these nominal fees can keep things affordable for nonprofits or community
groups, but more importantly act as a reservation for the space for that group and entail some
work – events can still involve insurance reviews, safety plans or maps. Fees could be raised
across the board on some items, such as rental of the pavilion, but still would not approach
cost recovery without becoming prohibitively expensive.
Noise permits
As many as 250 noise permits are issued per year without any fees charged. Depending on
the event, in addition to the Clerk’s Office, these can require review by the Police and Fire
Departments. While some may be for minor events like a birthday party, others can be for
bands playing on private property. The Common Council should consider whether there should
be some kind of fee for these permits, perhaps differentiated by expected size or scope of the
event.
Clerk’s Office last fee change: some fees, like dog licenses &
residential parking fees, have not changed in 10-15 years.
Clerk’s fee recommendations:
• Almost all fees that can be adjusted should be raised.
• Most fees should be raised annually.
• Permit fee amounts should incorporate convenience fee
(credit card/e-check) processing costs.
• Residential parking permits could be priced differently in
College Town vs. Downtown. People would pay a premium.
www.cgr.org
26

[PAGE 27]
17
• Special Events permit fee – currently $100 – is set too low
for work involved. Could change to three fee levels (S/M/L)
based on projected attendance/event size.
• Noise permits, currently free, should have an associated fee.
• Food truck space fees could all be priced at “premium” level
because limited number of good spots are all premium now.
• An “Expedited Processing fee” should be attached to some
permits (such as noise/events) if they are submitted in less
time than mandated before the date needed/required in a
rush.
Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC)
The Greater Ithaca Activities Center (known as GIAC) charges a variety of fees for their
program. Per GIAC staff, they have a unique relationship with the City as they are a nonprofit
organization, with the City as the employer of record. Because of this structure, their fees are
approved by the board of the nonprofit, not the City. However, they are required to send
certain revenues to the City, including all youth program fees and pool fees.
GIAC’s staff primary concern is keeping fees affordable – they note that 73% of the families
they serve are classified as Low-to-Moderate Income. The fees therefore are broken into
multiple levels based on household income: six to seven income brackets are used for pricing
school-year programs, while two brackets – under or above $60,000 – are used for summer
programs. GIAC also stated that about 70% of attendees receive “scholarships”, such as a
subsidized season pass for pool, etc.
GIAC especially voiced concern for keeping programs affordable for teenagers. They note that
while parents are willing to pay program fees for younger children, teenagers are often
expected to be old enough fend for and entertain themselves during summer months, and
perhaps pick up summer jobs and provide some of their own money. Without parental
subsidies, when fee are introduced or raised for programs involving teens, many stop coming.
GIAC notes they have a long list for their daycare programs and are concerned about affluent
families displacing lower income families for these services.
Although GIAC offers room rentals at competitive rates, they note there is low uptake, in part
because any renters have to work around existing GIAC programing using these rooms,
leaving only limited hours available for private rentals.
Ultimately, GIAC staff were of the opinion that a centralized system for setting their fees would
not work well; they need departmental discretion to adjust them based on their sense of what
is affordable and appropriate for different groups of participants and people they are trying to
attract.
www.cgr.org
27

[PAGE 28]
18
GIAC fee change: there is a percentage increase to fees every
two years.
GIAC fee recommendations:
• They believe current fees are priced appropriately.
• They wish to retain discretion in setting their amounts, based
on knowledge of participants and program draws.
• They could charge more but want to remain affordable for
lower-income households.
• There is difficulty raising fees for programs involving older
teens and young adults, as parents are less willing to
subsidize participation for these groups.
Ithaca Fire Department
The Ithaca Fire Department (IFD) has a variety of fees all related to fire safety inspections and
plan reviews. The Fire Prevention Bureau division of IFD is staffed by an Assistant Chief who
acts as the current Fire Marshal for the City and three line firefighters. They handle over 1,000
inspections per year, each taking approximately one hour. Most inspection fees are currently
priced at $65-$75, representing an hourly rate that the Chief notes was based on previous
personnel costs, and therefore all fees must be raised to reflect the rates under the latest
collective bargaining agreement.
As well, the Chief stated that staffing levels need to increase in fire prevention bureau to
properly handle inspection load and the department would like to add a lieutenant to the
Bureau to learn the job from the current Fire Marshal to prepare for an eventual retirement
and transition.
Finally, the Chief noted that some new fee categories need to be created for new technology,
such as expanding the categories for energy storage safety inspections, which including things
like installed battery systems. As well, some fees are remitted late and there are currently no
penalties in place for late payments.
IFD fee change: fees are based on hourly costs for firefighters
and have not been updated yet to reflect the latest rates in the
new collective bargaining agreement.
IFD fee recommendations:
www.cgr.org
28

[PAGE 29]
19
• New fee categories are needed for new technology types,
such as installed battery energy storage systems.
• There is currently no penalty for late or delayed payments,
and this should be considered.
Parking
Parking is a division within the Department of Public Works that oversees both the operations
of street parking and the public parking garages – except for the Cayuga Street Garage, which
is operated by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency.
Income from both the garages and street parking is constrained by the available hours of
parking staff: parking in both is free on evenings and weekends simply because staff are not
on duty.
Street Parking
Street parking enforcement (CSOs – Community Service Officers) work standard daily shifts.
For evening or weekend coverage, more CSOs would need to be hired. The Manager of
Parking & Commons Operations, Todd Lalonde, reports that street parking enforcement is
revenue-positive – i.e., taking in more revenue than the cost of staffing – and therefore
adding more staffing could positively increase revenue. This would be subject to estimates of
evening and weekend demand.
The possibility of charging for parking in the Stewart Park lot was raised in discussion. In
general, parking staff thought it would be complex to enact a system that allowed free or
reduced parking for residents and allowed in non-residents who are enrolled in Recreation
programs while charging non-resident who are not in either category.
Garages
For the garages – the Dryden Road, Green Street, and Seneca Street garages – the gates are
open and parking is free on nights and weekends. Ideally, the gates should be down and
generating revenue 24 hours a day, but the machinery is not reliable enough to fully automate
(e.g., gates get stuck down and payment and tickets do not always process correctly), and
therefore some level of staffing is required in the booths while gates (and revenue collection)
are in operation.
Parking is currently subsidized by the City: rates would have to go up substantially to fully
cover debt and net deficits, especially of the parking garages. However, the understanding is
that garage infrastructure is subsidized to increase walkability, business vitality and property
taxes downtown.
Fee Levels
www.cgr.org
29

[PAGE 30]
20
Garages
Parking staff believe all fees should be raised, claiming that parking garage rates, currently
set at $1/hr, have not been changed in recent memory. Among a number of suggested new
rates that have been noted in the Parking spreadsheet, staff suggest raising all garage rates
to $2/hr.
There is capacity in the garages, such that Parking staff suggest raising street parking prices,
believing more parkers will utilize the garage, freeing up street spaces for more turnover,
which will be positive for customer flow and short-term availability to access downtown
businesses.
Street parking
For the same reason, staff suggest enforcing a 2-hour street parking limit downtown – telling
CSOs and setting the meters to not allow more than 2 hours of parking per license plate. This
will generate more fee revenue and stop the practice of some individuals using all-day street
parking in the same spot, which removes space availability and impedes easy access to
downtown businesses.
Likewise, all parking ticket rates should be increased, with a CPI inflation escalator, and
overtime zone or meter penalties need to be increased – currently, the fine for being 20
minutes overtime in a space is the same as being 8 hours overtime.
Parking fee change: some fees, such as parking garage rates,
have not been changed since the 1970’s.
Parking fee recommendations:
• Street meter rates and ticket penalties should be increased
and tied to a CPI inflation escalator.
• All garages should change to $2/hr, $12/day rate.
• Overtime zone/meter penalties should increase and scale
based on amount of time over the limit.
• Enforce 2-hour limit on street parking downtown to free up
spaces and increase garage utilization.
• Consider using demand-based pricing for College Town and
downtown during peak hours.
• Other specific fee increase recommendations are noted in
the Parking spreadsheet.
www.cgr.org
30

[PAGE 31]
21
Planning & Development
Planning & Development collects fees relating to its code enforcement and planning
functions. The department recently moved to using the OpenGov system, which required
simplifying their previous fee schedule structure. As part of this simplification, housing
inspection fees were revised this year and benchmarked against other municipalities, which
the department and City Manager believe puts them at the right level for the moment.
Building permit fees and site plan review fees are calculated based on overall construction
costs, so the department describes them as “self-leveling”. Per staff, developers sometimes
take issue with the complexity of the site plan process itself but have not complained about
the cost of the fees.
In general, the department tries to keep permit fees at a reasonable level so that individuals
will voluntarily apply for permits without being deterred by the cost.
Planning & Development fee change: Housing inspection fees
were updated this year. Building permit and site plan review
costs are “self-leveling” as a percentage of full project costs.
Planning & Development fee recommendations:
• Most fees are currently set at a reasonable level to
encourage individuals to apply for permits.
• Fees for special event inspections and mobile vending
inspections could be raised.
• Property maintenance fines may need to be increased.
Police Department
The Ithaca Police Department (IPD) has a small number of fees in four categories: background
checks and clearance letters, taxi licenses, solicitor’s permits, and setting towing fees. Most of
these categories do not generate significant revenues – IPD accounts receive fees from
background checks, police reports and visa clearance letters, but they believe all other
amounts go directly into the City’s general fund.
Background checks, police reports and solicitation permits
In 2024, IPD reported processing 31 background checks at $5 apiece ($155 in total revenue)
and 13 visa clearance letters at $5 apiece ($65). Solicitation permits are rare – they estimate
processing about three new solicitation applications in a typical year, but report only one
permit issued in 2024. In all, IPD estimates bringing in less than $300 on all the permits
issued in 2024.
www.cgr.org
31

[PAGE 32]
22
Taxi licensing
Currently, there are two taxi companies operating that did not renew their licenses, but IPD
states it is hard to justify charging them as ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft are not
charged anything to operate in Ithaca. IPD requested that the Common Council advise on
whether pursuing these fees should be a priority.
Towing fees
IPD believes that towing fees are out of date and should be updated. In their understanding,
towing companies are allowed to keep the vehicle storage fees for housing towed vehicles in
their yards, and must remit other towing fees back to the City’s general fund. There is
currently a City working group dealing with complicated issues related to towing and
recommendations on towing changes should come to the Council in early 2026.
Security staffing
IPD officers are paid overtime to provide a presence at certain events and festivals, such as
Ithaca Fest and Reggae Fest. This money comes out of the IPD’s overtime budget, while some
other overtime at third-part events is paid for by grants. This overtime situation deserves
closer scrutiny to better understand if this overtime cost is being borne by Ithaca taxpayers
through the general funding of IPD’s annual budget, rather than being charged to event
organizers. If so, that represents a subsidy that could be eliminated for larger-scale private
events.
IPD fee change: IPD per hour/overtime labor costs likely have
not changed since 2020. Other fees may not have been updated
in the last 20 years.
IPD fee recommendations:
• Towing fees need to be updated.
• Fees for permits and background checks could both be
increased, but some tasks, such as background checks and
visa clearance letters, have a minimal time-cost, taking no
more than 10 minutes to complete.
• Traffic tickets come with a $60 surcharge that could be
increased, if the City rather than the state sets that level.
• City should consider a fine for faulty burglar alarms – other
municipalities charge for repeat faulty alarms after the first
response.
www.cgr.org
32

[PAGE 33]
23
• Property checks requested by private parties – such as
college fraternities – are currently a free service. Perhaps
there could be a charge for this.
Streets & Facilities
Streets & Facilities manages fee services for the Newman municipal golf course, trash and
yard waste collection, and street and sidewalk closure permits, as well as cleanup for traffic
accidents.
Golf course
The manager of the Newman golf course has stated that fees should generally be raised to
equally what other local golf courses are charging, so that additional revenue can be raised to
maintain competitive quality for the golf course.
Traffic accidents
For traffic accidents, the division charges FEMA-specified rates on equipment deployment,
plus a 25% administrative fee.
Trash & yard waste
The division believes that trash tag amounts – currently set at $5 for a regular trash tag and
$1.50 for yard waste – should be raised, as operational costs far exceed revenue. Tipping
fees – the amount that trash disposal facilities and recyclers charge – have been climbing.
For example, Tompkins County raised recycling fees to $10 a ton.
As well, the division suggest the possibility of charging for pickup of bulk trash items, which is
currently free.
Sidewalk snow removal
Snow removal is a complicated issue, with property owners currently responsible for snow
removal on adjacent sidewalks, but not always fulfilling their responsibility. The City has been
examining this issue for a few years and the City Manager has stated that more consideration
is needed to determine options for better compliance and enforcement before fine
recommendations can be made.
Stormwater fees
Commercial and residential properties are charged fees to support stormwater infrastructure
according to a formula based on the amount of impervious surface area, with different rates
for residential and commercial plots. The revenue generated is not covering the costs of
stormwater infrastructure and the fees need to be raised.
www.cgr.org
33

[PAGE 34]
24
Streets & Facilities fee change: some fees were last updated in
2022; others have not been changed over a longer time.
Streets & Facilities fee recommendations:
• Newman Golf Course: raise fees to be competitive with other
nearby courses.
• Trash tag fees should be raised.
• Stormwater fees should be raised.
• Sidewalk snow removal enforcement policies and procedures
need further development.
Water & Sewer
One aspect of this project is considering whether it would be beneficial to change the water
and sewer rate methodology. This is driven by two conflicting demands: on one hand, some
residents are unhappy with how their bills are calculated; on the other hand, the water and
sewer system is in need of increased revenues. Staff state that there are a several large
upcoming infrastructure investments that will be needed: this includes life-cycle replacements
to part of the sewer system, a dam renovation and investments to improve the water plant.
Per information from Mark Verbanic, Assistant Superintendent of Public Works, the required
operational costs and investment needs far exceed current revenues.
Currently, water rates are calculated through the following process: each water customer is
charged a minimum base amount based on their meter size (the size of their connection to
the water system, which determines how much flow they receive) along with a standard water
allotment that scales along with meter size, plus an accompanying sewer rate. They are
charged a combined water & sewer rate - currently $18.68 per “unit” (a unit equals 100 cubic
feet/748 gallons) – on any overage amount.
Water & Sewer quarterly bill amount = meter size + initial water
allotment charge (by size) + initial sewer charge (by size) + any
overage charge (overage amount * combined water & sewer
rate).
Sewer rates are currently less than water rates because while the water plant does not serve
other municipalities, the wastewater treatment plant does and costs are shared with the Town
of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden. The plant also treats private septic waste, which brings in
approximate $500,000 a year in revenue.
www.cgr.org
34

[PAGE 35]
25
The smallest meter size, which would serve most individual residential customers, is a 5/8”
connection, which comes with the charge for a minimum initial allotment of 1,200 cubic feet
of water (approximately 9,000 gallons) per quarter (roughly 3 months).
As noted, the issue of raising water and sewer rates is a complicated one: everyone would like
their bill to be lower, while the City requires additional capital for system improvements. The
City Manager also passed along feedback from some residents that they dislike the minimum
initial allotment rate methodology as they believe they use less water and they do not want to
be charged for what they are not using. Some would like the methodology to be changed to an
initial connection (meter) fee, plus a per-gallon fee starting at zero – in other words, a
methodology that tracks actual usage closely and could result in cost-savings for those who
use less.
The minimum allotment rate methodology currently in place is widely used by other
municipalities near Ithaca, as well (Geneva, Oneonta, Newburgh, etc.), as it provides a steady
revenue base for the system. However, some larger systems, such as the City of Rochester’s,
use the alternative rate methodology of a base meter charge, plus a standard charge per
1,000 gallons, without any minimum allotment charge, so bill sizes track more closely to
actual usage. (Rochester’s initial gallon rate tier is standard from zero up to 300,000 gallons
per month and then decreases as it scales to large volumes, which would only affect the
heaviest commercial and industrial users.)
Altering water & sewer rate methodology
If Ithaca decided to alter its rates methodology, the math of doing so is relatively
straightforward. The City would need to:
1) Determine average usage by various segments based on meter size, which should
correspond roughly to individual home residential users vs. large scale residential
(multi-unit buildings), industrial, and commercial users;
2) Determine its revenue goals for each segment, and calculate backwards based on
average usage to determine a 1) water & sewer unit rate and a 2) meter fee.
Example of new water & sewer rates.
For example, if the quarterly revenue goal for the average 5/8” meter customer (most
individual home residential customers) was $450 per quarter, and the average
customer/household consumes 16,000 gallons per quarter (approximately 21.4 units in
Ithaca’s methodology), the existing combined unit cost of $18.68 per unit and a standard
quarterly meter fee of $50 for a 5/8” meter would reach this target:
• 21.4 units * $18.68 = $399.75
• 5/8” meter fee = $50
• Total revenue = $449.75 per quarter
Any or all of the three variables that compose this equation – meter connection fee,
consumption amount, unit/usage charge – can be altered by different amounts to produce
www.cgr.org
35

[PAGE 36]
26
the desired total revenue amount. For example, if the meter fee were increased to $100 per
quarter, and the consumption amount held steady at 21.4 units, the per-unit charge could be
reduced to $16.35 and produce the same amount of total revenue ($449.89).
While the math and formula may be straightforward, the fiscal and political considerations are
more complicated. The fiscal consideration involves whether the City intends to produce equal
or increased revenue under the new methodology. In order to produce equal or increased
revenue, it is axiomatic that if some customers’ bills go down under the new methodology,
other customers’ bills must go up by an equal or greater amount, which becomes the political
consideration.
Some customers may consider a more strict “pay by usage” system more fair, while others –
residents, businesses and other users – may be higher users dismayed by higher fees. Thus,
the political consideration involves who wins and loses under the new arrangement and how
many and what type of constituents (such as commercial vs. residential) are in each category.
Given that the water system currently has tiered rates based on meter size, it would be
possible to swing more of the cost onto larger users by either charging more for their larger-
size meters, and/or introducing higher-tiered water and sewer rates for customers with larger
meters. However, the City should also anticipate that some customers will respond to their
increased bills by somewhat reducing consumption, which again alters the revenue curve.
Some buffer would have to be built into the calculations and expected revenue to account for
this probability.
Better data is needed
To successfully implement a new pricing methodology while maintaining or increasing overall
revenues, the City requires a better understanding of exactly what customers/users are
inhabiting each meter segment and what their average usage is. Currently, the Water/Sewer
division reports that it does not track individual usage in a way that would allow calculation of
average usage or average billing rates by customer class. They hope that when the transition
to the new Neptune cloud-based metering system – currently in process – is complete, they
will be able to analyze customer data at a more detailed level.
As described above, a “progressive” rate methodology could be imagined that attempts to
shift cost burden towards larger-scale commercial and industrial users, while minimizing
impact on residential users. However, there is no clean way to currently target this: while it is
currently known that most individual residential houses are on the smallest (5/8”) meter size,
larger multi-unit housing complexes, such as apartment buildings and residential towers, use
a single common meter, and individual submeters are not allowed. Therefore, a policy of
raising rates simply on larger meter sizes would increase rates for residents of multi-unit
buildings while favoring residents of individual or small houses/residences.
Conclusion on water/sewer rate changes
The basic economics of the situation tell us that – unless substantial additional money for
water and sewer investments and operating expenses comes from other sources, such as
www.cgr.org
36

[PAGE 37]
27
state or federal grants, or from elsewhere in the general fund – the overall amount raised by
water/sewer fees must at least remain constant, or more likely needs to increase.
Given this reality, the same basic economics informs us that if a new rate methodology
produces savings for one group – such as individual households that use less than the
standard minimum allotment for their meter size – the ensuing revenue reduction must be
made up for by another group – such as larger-scale users, if the budget is to be kept at the
same level. In other words, if somebody pays less, someone else must pay more, in order to
keep the whole revenue amount constant or increasing.
Thus, the City is left with three main options:
1) Maintain the status quo, including slow but steady increases in current rates to
support needed system investments. This approach requires the least work and
maintains current levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction.
2) Institute a new rate methodology without minimum allotments, but with increased
standard meter “infrastructure” fees in a sweeping, non-targeted, across-the-board
changeover. This will result in a new mix of ‘winners and losers’ with perhaps some
smaller users feeling satisfied that they are being billed less based on actual usage,
while larger users would be paying more. This approach carries the most risk of
unanticipated consequences and possible constituent dissatisfaction.
3) Attempt a new “progressive” targeted rate methodology that singles out larger
commercial and industrial users for higher rates, while attempting to keep rates lower
for residential users. This targeting approach would require customer data that the
water/sewer division does not currently track but will hopefully have the ability to once
the new metering system is fully implemented. This approach would require the most
work to implement and involves data capacities the City’s water system does not yet
possess, but may in the future.
As a practical matter, if the fees are raised either within the existing rate methodology or
through a new rate methodology, DPW staff recommends moving to monthly billing rather
than quarterly billing, as this will reduce the likelihood of customers facing a larger bill all at
once. However, if a substantial number of customers are still receiving and paying paper bills,
or paying in person, monthly billing will add some amount of transaction and processing costs.
Water & Sewer fee change: rates are updated regularly for
inflation, but are not keeping pace with cost recovery & need for
future investments.
Water & Sewer fee recommendations:
• Water & sewer rates could be calculated under a new
methodology that charges more closely for actual usage. This
change would produce some winners and losers, based on
www.cgr.org
37

[PAGE 38]
28
usage. The City would need a better understanding of specific
water users in specific segments to decide if this is a wise
move.
• If rates are raised, consider a move to monthly billing rather
than quarterly to reduce price impact. This, however, would
increase processing and transaction costs.
• Bulk water fees – mainly used by private contractors – can
be raised.
Youth Bureau
The Youth Bureau charges fees related to pavilion rentals, access to recreation facilities such
as athletic fields, the pool and the ice rink, equipment such as bike and boat rentals, and a
variety of fees for recreational programs and camps offered to a variety of ages from toddlers
onward.
A recreation partnership of 11 groups and 10 municipalities all contribute funding to the
Youth Bureau (around $400,000), which is used to subsidize programming for their
residents/members. Grants, donations, and state funding also provide some support for a
variety of programs.
The Youth Bureau works to keep programming and facility access fees affordable and
believes that most fees are set at the right level, with the exception of pavilion rental fees,
which could be raised. Fees are determined through what seems reasonable based on past
history and benchmarking of similar fees in comparable programs elsewhere. Fees are raised
on an as-needed basis and price increases are usually driven by a change in systems for
running or administering the programs/activities, or a change in external cost factors.
Finally, Youth Bureau staff expressed their belief that additional investments in park and
recreational infrastructure would pay off through increased utilization, resulting in increased
fee revenues. For example, they state that Cass Park pavilions could use renovations, which
may spur increased pavilion rentals.
Youth Bureau fee change: fees are not updated on a set
schedule but are adjusted over time, in response to changes in
external and internal costs. The goal is to keep most fees as
affordable as possible.
Youth Bureau fee recommendations:
• Pavilion rental fees should be raised.
www.cgr.org
38

[PAGE 39]
29
• Other program and activity fees should be kept as affordable
as possible.
Peer Comparisons
Studying the fee organization processes of other cities can help Ithaca extract best practices
and lessons for its own fee work. CGR selected the cities of Binghamton, Rye and White Plains
as three municipalities using a variety of best practices in organizing their fees withing their
budgets.
While samples of these cities’ fee structures are presented below, Ithaca should review the
respective budgets (linked above) in more depth to determine if there are different fee
categories or other ideas to be gleaned beyond the general best practices presented below.
But directly benchmarking from their rates is not advised.
In general, CGR does not recommend directly benchmarking
from comparison cities’ fee amounts for two main reasons:
while peer benchmarking can provide a rationale for adjusting
fees (usually upwards) with a logic of “everyone else is doing it”,
1) there is no guarantee that these municipalities are using a
more rational fee-setting method, and,
2) there is no reason to believe that their costs and service
complexity issues are the same as those in Ithaca and will
produce the necessary cost-recovery.
If Ithaca calculates its own costs via the provided templates, those provide a firmer basis for
setting fees, and local benchmarking may instead be used primarily as a check against
disproportionate fee escalation – that is, Ithaca may or may not want to be known for charging
double what other nearby municipalities charge for the same function.
City of Binghamton, NY
Binghamton presents a comprehensive fee schedule as an appendix to their budget, with
more than 300 individual fee types listed, and many equivalents to Ithaca’s system, including
water and sewer fees and municipal golf course fees.
www.cgr.org
39

[PAGE 40]
30
Binghamton Budget fee section sample:
www.cgr.org
40

[PAGE 41]
31
City of Rye, NY
Rye’s budget includes a separate fee schedule section noting just over 200 individual fees,
with information for each fee on where in city code the fee is authorized, when it was last
changed, and the amount it has been set at for the last two fiscal years.
Rye Budget fee section sample:
www.cgr.org
41

[PAGE 42]
32
City of White Plains, NY
White Plains distinguishes between license and permit fees (45 fees) and charges for services
(65 fees), and regularly revises charges for services as a major budget component, as
explained in the following budget excerpt:
While White Plains is a model for projecting revenues and costs and instituting a process for
regularly adjusting fees, it is a cautionary example in its fee organization, as it does not break
out fees and charges by any particular order or departmental division in its budget.
www.cgr.org
42

[PAGE 43]
33
White Plains Budget fee section sample:
The fact that most fees from the comparison cities are round numbers priced in the units of
fives, tens or hundreds indicates that they are not pricing their fees closely to cost, but are
rather utilizing ballpark numbers that feel reasonable, as most municipalities do.
Lessons from Comparison Fee Structures
None of these three comparison budgets is a perfect model on their own, but combining all
three can yield a number of best practices. Lessons include:
Present all fees in one standardized format (such as a table) in one part of the budget,
such as an appendix or a separate section.
Include the following information in the fee table (many, but not all, of these categories are
built into the templates CGR has prepared for Ithaca).
www.cgr.org
43

[PAGE 44]
34
Fee name
Fee type
Fee unit (per dog, per year, per event, etc.)
Section of City code authorizing fee or description of who sets fee.
Current fee amount
Date when fee was last changed
Number of transactions last year
Total revenue last year
Proposed new fee amount
Percent change from old amount
Break the fees out by department and total the fee revenue received from each
department at the end of its respective section.
If expenditures are separately broken out by department elsewhere in the budget, include
fee revenue totals after each department’s expenditures list on those respective pages, so
that cost recovery can be holistically assessed against categories of expense.
Finally, although the comparison municipalities appear to have superficially ‘simpler’ fee
structures in that they appear to have substantially fewer fees than Ithaca, this does not make
simplicity better. Binghamton, Rye and White Plains have approximately 300, 200, and 100
listed fees in their budgets, respectively, but there is no indication that any one system is
working better than the others. A process for considering which fees to simplify or eliminate is
discussed above in the report.
www.cgr.org
44

[PAGE 45]
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: September 24, 2025
To: Common Council
From: Capital Project Committee
RE: 2026 Capital Project Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the rationale for limiting new capital project recommendations
during the 2026 budget process and initiating the development of a long-term, fiscally sustainable Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP). This temporary pause is a strategic decision intended to reinforce financial health,
improve internal operations, and lay the groundwork for a stronger, more transparent capital program
beginning in FY2026.
PROJECT HISTORY, BACKGROUND, & ANALYSIS
As a reminder, the Capital Projects process is outlined in the Code here: https://ecode360.com/8385897
“There shall be in the Office of City Manager an interdepartmental Capital Program Committee, consisting of
the City Manager as Chairperson, the Director of Planning and Development, the Superintendent of Public
Works and the Controller.”
We have also included the Grant Administrator, Director of Sustainability, Director of the Youth Bureau, and
Director of DICE on the committee.
Capital Projects Borrowing History
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Total General Fund $2,688,900 $10,208,194 $11,563,754 $7,284,347 $5,190,000
Total Water & Sewer $396,200 $2,075,000 $3,850,000 $3,005,000 $7,300,000
TOTAL BUDGETED $3,085,100 $12,283,194 $15,413,754 $10,289,347 $12,490,000
TOTAL (Minus ARPA) $3,085,100 $5,635,494 $13,163,754 $10,289,347 $12,490,000
CHIPS funds $605,000 $3,016,054 $3,016,054 $4,064,347 n/a
Total Bond Issue* $2,318,400 $2,319,440 $9,797,700 $5,006,000 n/a
Total Debt Service Payment $11,248,215 $11,324,442 $11,871,131 $12,159,431 $13,786,614
*Diff b/t bond and total is some things are paid from operating and some things we don’t borrow for until we need the funds.
45

[PAGE 46]
KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED
While capital investments are essential to addressing the systemic deferred maintenance issues, the City must
first address foundational financial and administrative challenges. Using an austerity model for 2026 provides
an opportunity to refocus and realign in a critical transition period—now in the second year under the city
manager form of government. With professional management structures in place, we are better positioned to
strengthen internal controls, complete overdue financial work, and establish clear policies and long-term plans
that will guide more effective and transparent capital investment in future years.
We can also directly address concerns resulting from the completed 2021 audit. They have recommended we
convert the current accounting process for capital projects into the financial software system to better track
Capital Fund Activity.
Additional rationale for an austerity capital projects year is as follows:
Financial Recovery and Credit Rating Restoration
The City is prioritizing the completion of overdue financial audits to regain transparency and credibility with
credit rating agencies. Catching up on audits is essential to restoring our Moody’s bond rating and reducing
long-term borrowing costs.
ACTION STEPS:
• Onboarding and set-up documents portal with the new audit firm, Bonadio (completed)
• Utilizing temporary staff from ProNexus to address backlog (ongoing)
Stabilization of the Controller’s Office
Key vacancies and turnover in both the Controller’s Office (as well as other departmental staffing transitions)
have impacted our capacity to accurately track, manage, and close out capital accounts. Staffing stabilization is
needed to reestablish a consistent and reliable system for both the planning and management of projects and
the associated funds.
ACTION STEPS:
• Pending the retirement of the Deputy Controller, hiring a Staff Accountant (approved by
Council at the 9/3/25 meeting) to do more day-to-day entry and financial accounting
• Submitted OTR in 2026 budget for a second Staff Accountant
• Restart Controller Search in January 2026
Reconciliation of Existing Capital Project Lines
Many existing capital project accounts remain open with unspent or improperly categorized funds. A citywide
capital account “scrub” is necessary to reconcile project statuses, close dormant accounts, and return unused
funds where appropriate.
ACTION STEPS:
• A preliminary review was completed by staff in August of 2025
• Complete set-up of all exiting capital projects into DebtBook (partially completed)
46

[PAGE 47]
Development of a 5-Year Capital Improvements Plan
A robust, strategic CIP is a nationally recognized best practice for prioritizing infrastructure needs and aligning
projects with long-term community goals. The pause allows time to develop a data-informed, community-
engaged 5-year CIP starting in FY2026.
ACTION STEPS:
• Benchmarking of other City CIP plans (in process)
• Migrating CIP Plan into Munis and OpenGov (early 2026)
Creation of a Citywide Master Facilities Plan
To address deferred maintenance, space needs, and operational efficiency, the City will initiate a facilities
assessment and planning process. This will ensure capital investments are aligned with long-term use, cost-
efficiency, and service delivery goals.
This
ACTION STEPS:
• First draft of a facilities status inventory is available for review, but note this is an active
document that staff will continue to update: City Facilities Master Planning Priorities.xlsx
• Staff will develop a Master Facilities Plan in time for the 2027 Capital Projects Process
This effort will be informed in part by knowledge and information gained in past facilities planning efforts. From
2016 to 2020, a mayor-appointed internal committee evaluated City facilities to develop recommendations for
improvements, consolidations, and relocations. As Council is aware, the committee's primary actionable finding
was that the Police Station is the facility with the most urgent needs—needs that could not feasibly be addressed
within the current building. In 2024 and 2025, this project advanced to site selection and acquisition for the
new police facility, culminating in the recent purchase of 401 Third Street.
While other projects identified by the committee were not pursued, understanding their scope provides
valuable context. The commissioned studies did not encompass all city facilities but focused on the most
urgent needs and analyzed promising consolidation scenarios for operational efficiencies. These studies
included:
• A joint City Police and County Sheriff facility
• A central campus combining City Hall and the Central Fire Station
• Consolidation of public works departments (streets and facilities, water and sewer, and engineering)
into a new facility in Southwest Park
Each exploration ultimately encountered significant barriers, including cost constraints, logistical challenges,
property acquisition difficulties, and other limiting factors.
47

[PAGE 48]
Establishment of Financial and Debt Management Policies
The City will formalize capital budgeting and debt issuance policies to guide future investment decisions and
ensure fiscal discipline. This includes setting thresholds for project evaluation, debt capacity, and operating
cost impacts.
ACTION STEPS:
• Convene a meeting with the members of the Council advisory committee before the end of
2025
• Benchmarking of other municipal financial policies for review (in process)
Exceptions to the Capital Project Pause
While the default position for FY2026 is to pause new capital project authorizations, the City will move
forward with select projects that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Emergency or Critical Needs: Projects necessary to address public safety, health, or essential service
continuity (e.g., infrastructure failures, code compliance).
• Projects Tied to Grant Funding: Capital projects that are supported by state, federal, or philanthropic
grants where local match requirements are minimal or already budgeted.
• Projects Already Underway: Capital projects that are in the implementation phase or under contract
will continue as planned to avoid financial penalties or service disruption.
Please see the attached Capital Projects approvals list for 2026.
Additional projects that emerge in 2026 will be reviewed and submitted to Council for consideration on a case-
by-case basis, with a focus on financial impact, readiness, and strategic alignment.
SHORT DESCRIPTIONS OF RECOMMENDED PROJECTS:
Public Safety This is the continuation of the CP approved last year to Requested: $166,000
Camera replace the City's failing and aged infrastructure of public Recommended: $150,000
Expansion safety cameras. The project previously approved did not
allow for expansion, which is greatly needed. This will allow
for the installation of cameras at Green St. Garage, Cass Park,
Youth Bureau, and expand the exterior cameras at IPD.
IYB – Cass Park The existing tractor is at the end of its useful life. This is Requested: $63,350
Replacement something that would normally be paid for out of operating. Recommended: $63,350
Tractor
IPD – Police The department annually replaces aging vehicles that have Requested: $481,000
Vehicles surpassed their effective “police service” lifespan. Recommended: $375,000
48

[PAGE 49]
JUSTICE 50
Staff is requesting guidance from the Common Council regarding implementing Justice50 in FY26.
The policy, which was adopted unanimously by Common Council in 2024, mandates that at least 50% of
capital project spending benefits climate justice communities, or those most impacted by the social and
economic stressors of climate change. Justice50 also requires 10% of the total capital project budget to be
reserved for participatory budgeting to increase public engagement with local government, increase
participation in democratic processes, and ensure public priorities are funded.
49

[PAGE 50]
G E N E R A L F U N D
Project Title Department Estimated Cost Other Funding Sources Funded
Public Safety Camera Expansion DICE $166,000 $0 $150,000
Fleet Vehicles IPD $481,000 $0 $375,000
Tractor IYB $63,350 $0 $63,350
TOTAL $588,350
P R E V I O U S L Y A U T H O R I Z E D P R O J E C T S
New Public Safety Building IPD In 2025 we will pursue a new fit test for the site acquired.
TOTAL n/a
W A T E R & S E W E R
Project Title Department Estimated Cost Other Funding Sources Funded
60' Dam Rehabilitation Water & Sewer $10M $5.5M (FEMA) $2.5 million 2026
$2.5 million 2027
Water & Sewer Facility Renovations Water & Sewer $11M - Revised There may be a reserve fund
to $5M for 2026 for Water & Sewer.
Miscellaneous Plant Improvements Water & Sewer $4M The plant is joint funded, so
the City would be responsible
for approximately 58% of the
debt.
TOTAL
**This is still in deliberation with the SJC.
E M E R G E N C Y R E S E R V E S
Project Title Department Estimated Cost Other Funding Sources Funded
Bridge Maintenance DPW $100,000 $0 $100,000
Emergency Repair Fund DPW $400,000 $0 $400,000
Technology Infrastrucutre Fund DICE $50,000 $0 $50,000
Misc. Pump Station Improvements Water & Sewer $300,000 $0 $300,000
TOTAL $850,000
50

[PAGE 51]
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: September 18, 2025
To: Common Council
From: Deputy City Manager Dominick Recckio, Community Justice Center Project Director
Monalita Smiley
RE: Community Responder Program Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A new community responder program, tentatively named the ROOTS Team (Responders Offering
Outreach, Trust, and Support), is being proposed to the Ithaca Common Council. This proposal
comes after benchmarking existing programs in the U.S., interviews with the Ithaca Police
Department and other government and community agencies, and a review of previous policy
directives from the Common Council made to date regarding the development of such a program.
The program is being proposed for implementation in 2026, it includes five new City employees:
four responders and one dedicated supervisor. This memo includes proposed shifts, day-to-day
activities, draft response protocols, and necessary partnerships with IPD and community not-for-
profit agencies to get this program off the ground and make it a success. The proposal seeks to best
respond to some non-violent calls for service and serve community members in need via outreach
and engagement activities. The proposed 2026 budget for the first year of this new program is
$795,000, with a plan to use existing encumbered funds to subsidize the program’s first three years
(reducing the estimated new cost for year one (2026) to $416,500, $586,750 in years two and three,
and $795,000 in year 4 and onwards).
PROJECT HISTORY, BACKGROUND, & ANALYSIS
This proposal builds on the work of community members who have contributed greatly to this effort
over many years, informing the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County on implementing Reimagining
Public Safety initiatives. Specifically, community members of color have provided invaluable
contributions of time and input to help make a program like this one a reality in Ithaca.
Common Council has resolved via several resolutions to develop and implement such a program,
most recently via its 2025 Legislative Priorities, “Expand and institutionalize unarmed and
community-based crisis response as a complement to traditional policing.”
51

[PAGE 52]
In April 2023 Common Council adopted a Special Committee Report directing City staff to
“Develop and initiate a pilot program utilizing unarmed responders to respond to non-violent calls
for service.” That report includes additional background on the initiative.
A general timeline reviewing the history of City of Ithaca efforts on this initiative is available as an
attachment.
Ithaca’s community responder program will be modeled after many existing successful programs.
In addition to general research on these programs, the Deputy City Manager is a participant in
monthly Alternative 911 Emergency Response Community of Practice sessions hosted by the
Harvard Government Performance Lab. Five example programs will be detailed to council in the
accompanying presentation:
• Durham, NC - HEART Program
• Portland, ME - Special Services
• Albuquerque NM - Community Safety
• Denver, CO - STAR Program
• Olympia, WA - Crisis Response Unit & Familiar Faces Program
Generally, programs in other U.S. cities have shown:
• Successful diversion of thousands of calls from law enforcement to formal unarmed community
responder programs
• Limited need for police backup in the vast majority of interactions and calls for service
• Successful violence prevention strategies in partnership with community-based organizations
• Effective peer support programs and aligned strategies to help people with complex behavioral
health challenges
Interviews have been completed with 17 local public safety agencies, government divisions, and
community-based not-for-profit agencies, providing insights to develop a right-sized community
responder program for Ithaca. Interviews examined community response and service delivery work
already being conducted (formally and informally), as well as what agencies see as the role of a
new community responder program:
• Regarding City of Ithaca Policing
o Ithaca Police Department conducts a significant breadth of work
▪ Including specialized activities solely for police (i.e. search warrants, evidence
processing, arrests, involuntary commitments, crisis negotiation and specialized
response)
o There continue to be opportunities to address some non-violent calls via a community
responder unit
52

[PAGE 53]
o A community responder unit can allow for quick and effective handoffs to and from police
on a scene, engaging law enforcement when a situation escalates or freeing up law
enforcement when not necessary
o Not-for-profit agencies reported positive relationships with the Ithaca Police Department
while also supporting a new community responder unit
• Community Agencies
o Most agencies find/use alternatives to engaging law enforcement, but those activities also
take away capacity for those agencies to serve their core missions:
▪ Support people in need and address non-violent incidents, typically with their
clients or stakeholder groups, even if not a formal program
▪ Receive calls over the phone, support people directly or offer connections/referrals
▪ Help to de-escalate situations or resolve minor disputes even if not a formal
program
o Agencies provide a depth of service delivery and connections, but are typically at or nearing
capacity for more work
o Some agencies would like to see a non-police unit with the ability to enforce ordinances or
issue summons for low-level non-violent infractions, as an alternative to police (i.e. traffic,
commons)
o Opportunities for additional referrals to LEAD and CARE programs
o Opportunity for regular beats and patrols (non-police) to provide presence, build trust and
relationships
o Few agencies have trained medical or behavioral health professionals on staff, relying on
referrals
o Opportunities to formalize responses to minor, non-violent calls for service, many of which
never make it to IPD, to free up agencies and/or support their efforts
o Lack of formal violence prevention programming, supporting people to stop crime and
violence before it happens
o Opportunity for peers to provide assistance, encourage positive behavior, build community
KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED
This program will seek to address the disproportionate contact between law enforcement and
people of color. According to the Community Justice Center data dashboard, in 2024 32.71% of
arrests made by the Ithaca Police Department were of Black individuals. Further analysis must be
conducted regarding arrests of repeat offenders. Census data shows that Ithaca’s Black population
is around 6% of the total.
A Community Justice Center review of the 2024 IPD Incident Based Report (from the IPD
Community Dashboard) identifies a significant share of IPD’s current call volume as non-criminal,
low-risk, and service-oriented. These incidents provide an opportunity for community responders
to engage with calls for service in a variety of ways, including conducting their own regular beats
and patrols, co-responding with police, and responding on their own when appropriate.
53

[PAGE 54]
In 2024, over 80% of incidents that received a law enforcement response were reported as a
service-oriented, non-criminal, or non-violent call type. Of the lowest-risk incidents (34% of the
total, including assists, checking property and welfare, parking problems, property damage
accidents, verbal only harassment, and noise complaints), 7.0% were marked as a more serious
call type after observation by a law enforcement officer. Continued analysis of this incident dataset
will inform when and how community responders engage in these typically non-violent, non-
criminal situations.
Of 3,121 incidents that were initially reported as more severe with a higher likelihood of a criminal
violation or violence, over 38% were ultimately coded as a less intense call type.
Another key issue is the increasing volume of calls for service managed by law enforcement. The
Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response reports more than 22,000 calls for IPD
service in 2024, a 16% increase over 2023 and 8% over 2019 pre-pandemic levels. Fire and EMS
calls for service are also increasing.
Persistence in unsheltered homelessness, mental health challenges, and substance use crises
show the need for more social/human service delivery in conjunction with law enforcement and
emergency response.
Through programs such as LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion) and ongoing collaboration
with outreach agencies to respond to homeless encampments, law enforcement is showing
success working with outreach and diversion programs. There is a need to expand outreach
capacity in this area. The CARE Team is another model that includes a licensed mental health
clinician for co-responses with IPD officers to address calls with a serious mental health
component – this has also proven successful over the program’s first year.
PROPOSED SOLUTION
A thorough analysis of interview responses, example programs, and key issues led to the
identification of the following elements that will help to make a community responder program
successful. Interviews with community agencies included an open-ended question asking what
success for a community responder program would look like to them. Several of these elements are
adapted from themes shared in those responses.
• Provides a teamwork approach with police
• Builds trust with community
• Reflects community values, involves people with lived experience
• Collects data for constant improvement and iteration
• Adds capacity to community outreach efforts
• Integrates within existing emergency response system
• Collaborates with community agencies
• Preserves and enhances capacity of existing community agencies
• Offers more pathways for violence prevention
54

[PAGE 55]
• Effectively provides wraparound health and human services
Proposing the Ithaca ROOTS Team:
Mission Statement:
Ithaca's community responder unit conducts outreach, builds trust, and offers support to
community members in need. They respond when dispatched, when requested by IPD, and
when they proactively observe a situation where they can help. A teamwork approach with
police and other community agencies enhances the capacity and effectiveness of the
existing emergency response and social services systems.
Vision Statement:
Ithaca’s community responder program reduces overreliance on policing and
disproportionate contact between minorities and the criminal justice system while
providing ample access to supportive services for community members in need.
Structure
The unit’s systems are integrated into the existing Tompkins County and City of Ithaca
emergency response systems in partnership with the 911 Center and Ithaca Police
Department.
The unit is directly supervised by a new Community Response Supervisor. This position
reports directly to the Deputy City Manager and is responsible for making day-to-day and
case-by-case decisions regarding calls for service and when/how to dispatch the
community responder unit. They inform and help carry out the training, policies, and
procedures of the unit. They work in tandem with the Ithaca Police Department to provide
the best direction to responders in the field.
The unit is comprised of four new Community Responders. The responders work in teams of
two, on two overlapping shifts (i.e. 11am-7pm, 3pm-11pm) allowing all four to be available
during regular high-volume call times in the early evening. An on-call system is
implemented for overnight and weekend calls where police or other units request a
response from the unit. They are trained in outreach, de-escalation, violence prevention,
mental health first aid, CPR, other life-saving techniques, trauma-informed care, local
emergency and first response systems, and how to access and refer to community
resources.
In practice, there are at least three ways in which a community responder will provide a
response to non-violent situations:
• Proactive beats and outreach
55

[PAGE 56]
o Responder teams proactively make rounds by foot, bike, or motor vehicle
around the community
o Responders observe a situation where they can provide support, build trust,
or engage in outreach
o Responders alert dispatch/supervisor, stop and offer support, alert
dispatch/supervisor when interaction ends
o Responder tracks data from self-initiated call
• Scene handoff from IPD
o IPD responds to a call for emergency service
o IPD officer “clears scene” as non-violent, non-emergent, possible benefit
from community responder engagement
o IPD officer hands off scene to community responder, re-engages as
necessary but free to conduct other emergency work
• First on scene / dispatched
o Supervisor assesses non-violent non-emergency call for service in
collaboration with IPD and 911 center
o Supervisor determines appropriateness of call for community responders
o Supervisor / dispatcher radios responder team
o Responder team dispatched to scene, provides support
o Team able to radio for backup at any time
Community responders will provide effective pathways to “wraparound services” via warm
handoffs to the 211 information line and other service providers. A program will be
developed with 211 (Human Services Coalition) to offer scheduled calls back after
someone is engaged by community responders. Such a program will allow for warmer
handoffs to supportive services, data collection, and guaranteed follow ups for addressing
social needs. Responders complete a brief form including details from the response
situation, the needs of the individual, and their preferred time for a follow-up call. That
information is shared with 211 who will call the individual back at the pre-identified time for
a virtual check-in and to ensure seamless service delivery. Protocols for service delivery
through this program will be developed with organizations connected through 211.
The unit will have access to vehicles, bicycles, radios, workstations, and other equipment to
support their job functions and operate within existing emergency response systems.
The unit will work with the Community Justice Center on community engagement,
participate in community and trust-building exercises with community groups, and be
present at functions including community healing events.
A companion “peer program” will be established and deployed through a local not-for-profit
agency. This program will act as an extension of the community responder program, helping
to follow up in-person with individuals who come in contact with law enforcement or
56

[PAGE 57]
community responders and will help to encourage behavior change or follow-through use of
social and supportive services offered. The program will hire people with lived experience in
the criminal justice system and/or homelessness or poverty to act as supportive peers
throughout the community.
Companion violence prevention programming will be established and carried out via a local
not-for-profit agency based on a request for proposals. Programming will use best practices
in violence prevention and will work with community responders to engage with community
members and groups to reduce violence and offer alternative programming and social
supports.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
Common Council should determine whether the program proposal above will serve as the initial
desired model, and if so, direct staff via resolution to develop and budget for this program to begin
in 2026. If a larger or smaller model is desired, Council should direct staff appropriately based on
your interest.
Feedback on the proposal is being sought from Common Council. The draft resolution (attached)
directs staff to implement the program described in this memo, spreading the use of pre-existing
funding over the course of three years and provides a framework for feedback from council
members.
This memo, accompanying slides, and a link to the recording of the Council meeting where this is
discussed will be made available on the City’s website for the public.
During the 2026 budget process Council will also receive proposals for ongoing support for the Law
Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, the CARE Team, Community Outreach Worker
Program, Community Justice Center, and other law enforcement programming.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS & FUNDING
The proposed 2026 budget for the first year of this new program is $795,000, with a plan to spread
out the use of existing encumbered funds over the program’s first three years (estimating a new cost
of $416,500 in year one (2026), $586,750 in years two and three, and $795,000 in year 4).
Initial 2026 proposed program budget:
Responder Salaries + Fringe (4 total) $450,000
Supervisor Salary + Fringe $150,000
Vehicles $100,000
Equipment $25,000
57

[PAGE 58]
Training $20,000
PEER Program $25,000
Violence Prevention Program $25,000
TOTAL:
$795,000
Equipment and vehicle costs will be higher in the program’s first year. Maintaining a steady budget
for the first four years will allow for increases in pay, training, and other programming.
Draft job descriptions will be completed following program direction and budget decisions. The
Civil Service scoring system will identify the appropriate pay scales for the responder and
supervisor positions, which Common Council will be asked to add to the roster once they are
prepared. The budgeted amounts above include salary and fringe and are estimates based on other
positions on the City roster.
This budget request may be proposed by the City Manager but made as an “Over Target Request”
through the 2026 budget process, requiring an additional vote of Common Council to add it to the
budget.
A conceptual budget for one team would be approximately $500,000 annually, and an expansion to
three teams would cost an estimated $1.3M. At this time, staff is recommending the budget
outlined above.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
This and other elements of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative have received a significant
amount of feedback over nearly a half-decade. Further detail on past feedback can be found in a
2023 Special Committee Report as well as the initial Public Safety, Reimagined report and the
subsequent implementation report.
Interviews with community agencies were completed in 2025 and are detailed above. All agencies
interviewed were invited to an August 2025 feedback session where the general outline of this
proposal was shared.
A feedback session was held with REACH Medical’s Peer Advisory Board which includes people
with lived experience in the criminal justice system and with addiction and/or homelessness.
The following themes and insights emerged from the recent feedback sessions:
• What success will look like for this program:
o Resulting in reduced arrests for the BIPOC community
o Diverting calls from existing emergency response system and policing
58

[PAGE 59]
o Increased community trust in City government, IPD, and responders
o Increase in people being successful when calling for emergency service
o Sometimes people just want to be heard – community responders offering a call back from
211 will be helpful
• Whether the proposal is right-sized for Ithaca:
o This is a great start and an appropriate size with four responders
o Important for a supervisor to help make day-to-day decisions on calls
o Need to avoid burnout of employees when the program starts small
o Peers and other programs can expand capacity
o Community partners are interested in reviewing and improving the program over time
o Consider expanding the team to include overnight hours
o It will be important to make sure the entire community knows that this program is available
o A peer program can make a difference because it connects people in a more personal way
with trusted partners, supportive check-ins are helpful
• Whether the proposal would address issues or add capacity:
o Several agencies are glad to know there will be a new team/process for providing a warm
handoff when they see someone in need or the opportunity for a non-law enforcement
response
o If people with the right commitments/backgrounds are hired it will add capacity because
people will trust them to be compassionate and provide connections
o The 211 partnership will add appropriate capacity but with more people connected to
services, those services will need additional support over time
o A program like the proposed one with 211 will address people’s concerns after the initial call
o Peer programs are built on shared experiences, transparency between people, and help
support de-escalation calls
Two breakout groups with community agencies were held, one focusing on key elements of
community responder job descriptions and the other on the complementary peer and violence
prevention programming. The Peer Advisory Board was asked similar questions.
• Job Descriptions
o Community Responders:
▪ Should have de-escalation experience and a trauma-informed background or
approach
▪ Important to be able to “meet people where they are” and have a working knowledge
of the Ithaca community and the resources available
▪ Ability to collaborate with police, other first responders, community agencies, and
work with local business community
▪ Possess strong communication skills
▪ Be open to shift work
▪ Have experience working with people from different backgrounds and ready to
respond to calls with complex situations incl. substance use and homelessness
▪ Ability to pivot and make difficult decisions quickly
▪ Operate with empathy and compassion
59

[PAGE 60]
▪ Openness to feedback from law enforcement and having law enforcement on the
interview panel
▪ Ability to offer on-scene mental health first-aid
▪ Customer service and other experience working with people
▪ Community agencies and peers advocated for limited background checks and hiring
people with lived experience, whereas law enforcement has more strict
requirements for people who work closely with them. There is a need to consider the
balance of lived experience and ability to work closely with law enforcement and
sensitive information.
o Supervisor
▪ Knowledge of community
▪ Trauma informed background
▪ Managerial and planning experience
▪ Experience with policy and procedure development
▪ Program design and implementation
▪ Ability to work closely with police and other emergency responders
▪ Experience coaching staff in difficult situations
• Companion Peer and Violence Prevention Programming
o Programs will need appropriate training / investment to be successful
o Organizations should provide effective and specialized supervision
o Program participants will need people skills and trust-building skills
o Peers should be treated as professionals and adequately compensated
o Important for community agencies to know peer roles and what violence prevention
programming is available for appropriate referrals
Additional public feedback from key stakeholders and the public will be sought as the
program is fully developed and implemented over the next several months.
NEXT STEPS
Common Council should consider the attached resolution and provide guidance on the desired
program outline. City staff will include funding for this program in the 2026 budget.
Job descriptions for community responders and a dedicated supervisor will be drafted and
completed through the civil service process to determine salaries and prepare to add positions to
the City roster. Interview committees including the Deputy City Manager, Community Justice
Center, Ithaca Police Department, and community representation will be put in place to support
the recruitment and hiring processes. A draft training regimen will be developed for the responder
unit.
Goals and objectives will be drafted for the community-based peer and violence prevention
programs.
60

[PAGE 61]
Program Development Timeline:
61

[PAGE 62]
DRAFT Resolution
WHEREAS, following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 and other instances of violent or
inequitable policing in the United States the City of Ithaca has committed to a Reimagining Public
Safety initiative including the introduction of unarmed community responders, and
WHEREAS, Common Council has resolved via several resolutions to develop and implement such a
program, most recently via its 2025 Legislative Priorities, “Expand and institutionalize unarmed and
community-based crisis response as a complement to traditional policing,” and
WHEREAS, in April 2023 Common Council adopted a Special Committee Report directing City staff
to “Develop and initiate a pilot program utilizing unarmed responders to respond to non-violent
calls for service,” and
WHEREAS, community members have contributed greatly to this effort over many years, informing
the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County on implementing Reimagining Public Safety initiatives.
Specifically, community members of color have provided invaluable contributions of time and input
to help make a program like this one a reality in Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, in May 2025 Common Council received a presentation proposing next steps toward the
development of such a program, with the goal of a proposal being delivered before the 2026 budget,
and
WHEREAS, Interviews have been completed with 17 local public safety agencies, government
divisions, and community-based not-for-profit agencies, providing insights to develop a right-sized
community responder program for Ithaca. Interviews examined community response and service
delivery work already being conducted (formally and informally), as well as what agencies see as
the role of a new community responder program, and
WHEREAS the Council of State Governments defines Community Responder Units as: offering an
additional option for first response. Composed of multidisciplinary professionals trained to address
behavioral health and quality-of-life concerns, community responder programs provide a person-
centered response to 911 and other emergency calls for service. Integrating community responder
programs into first response systems ensures that all calls for service can receive the most
appropriate response,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council commits to the
development and funding of a community responder program as proposed in a September 17,
2025, legislative memo prepared by the Deputy City Manager, including these tenets of success:
• Provides a teamwork approach with police
• Builds trust with community
• Reflects community values, involves people with lived experience
62

[PAGE 63]
• Collects data for constant improvement and iteration
• Adds capacity to community outreach efforts
• Integrates within existing emergency response system
• Collaborates with community agencies
• Preserves and enhances capacity of existing community agencies
• Offers more pathways for violence prevention
• Effectively provides wraparound health and human services, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the community responder program be developed with this initial mission and
vision:
Mission Statement:
Ithaca's community responder unit conducts outreach, builds trust, and offers support to
community members in need. They respond when dispatched, when requested by IPD, and
when they proactively observe a situation where they can help. A teamwork approach with
police and other community agencies enhances the capacity and effectiveness of the
existing emergency response and social services systems.
Vision Statement:
Ithaca’s community responder program reduces overreliance on policing and
disproportionate contact between minorities and the criminal justice system while
providing ample access to supportive services for community members in need.
And be it further,
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council directs City staff to draft job descriptions for
community responders and a community responder supervisor, develop community responder
policies and procedures in consultation with the Tompkins County 911 Dispatch Center and Ithaca
Police Department leadership, and outline complementary programming related to service delivery,
violence prevention, and peer support, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council directs the City Manager to include the cost of
this program in the 2026 City Budget, which may be included as a base item or recommended as an
over target request, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that City staff should annually review available grant opportunities to cover program
costs, and be it further,
RESOLVED, hiring of future community response team members should be through an interview
committee including the Deputy City Manager, Community Justice Center, Ithaca Police
Department, and community representation, and be it further
63

[PAGE 64]
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council thanks community members, community
agencies, Ithaca Police Department officers and leadership, and other City staff from the City
Manager’s Office, Ithaca Fire Department, Building Division, and Parking Enforcement for their
invaluable input throughout this process in support of developing and implementing a successful
community responder program in the City of Ithaca.
64