HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2013-12-04COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. December 4, 2013
PRESENT:
Mayor Myrick
Alderpersons (8) Brock, Dotson, Murtagh, Clairborne, McCollister, Fleming, Kerslick,
Proulx
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney – Lavine
City Controller – Thayer
EXCUSED:
Alderpersons Smith and Mohlenhoff
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Myrick led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
New Business:
Mayor Myrick requested the addition of Item 15.7 under Mayor’s Appointments:
“Appointment to Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit Board – Resolution”
No Council member objected.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
4.1 Pride of Ownership Presentation – Scott Whitham
Mr. Whitham announced the winners of the 16th Annual Pride of Ownership Awards
and gave a brief explanation and photo presentation of why each of the properties was
selected:
409 West Buffalo Street – Exterior Renovation Including Porch Replacement.
Owners: Michael and Michelle Cannon
Neighborhood Pride Grocery Store, 210-212 Hancock Street – Complete
interior and exterior renovation that included not only the building but the
adjacent abandoned Lake Avenue between Hancock Street and Adams Streets
so that the creek side pedestrian/bicycle path could be extended along the side
of the store. Owners: Tony and John Petito
420 East State Street – Exterior and Interior Renovation. Owners: Dave and
Teresa Halpert/Eric Rosario and Neha Khanna
225 South Fulton Street - Public Art Mural. Artists: Jay Potter and Alice
Pasquini
Cascadilla Glen Trail Gate – complete rehabilitation of the trail including the
addition of an exquisite iron gate to close the trail during the winter months
Owners: Cornell Plantations
Commons Adopt-An-Art-Panel Program – various area businesses,
restaurants, service groups, schools, and individual artists, using various
techniques and illustrations to decorate 250 8’x4’ plywood panels on the
Commons during its reconstruction. Sponsored by the Downtown Ithaca Alliance
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
The following people addressed Common Council:
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, voiced concern that the request to add two police officers
to the 2014 budget was not approved by Common Council. She reiterated her belief
that Cornell University should increase its contribution to the City.
Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield, expressed his support for increased contributions from
Cornell University to the City, and distributed information regarding community gardens.
December 4, 2013
2
Dan Hoffman, City of Ithaca and representing the Natural Areas Commission,
expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to discuss the needs of the City’s
volunteer boards and committees, including improved communications, with GPA
Committee members. He further expressed concern that the Natural Areas Commission
was not consulted in any way regarding the potential sale of City Property on Five Mile
Drive since as it is in close proximity to a natural area of the city. He expressed his
belief that an environmental review should have been conducted prior to the request for
bids and stated that the Natural Areas Commission would like to be an involved agency
on this proposal.
Carolyn Peterson, City of Ithaca, expressed thanks to Alderpersons Proulx and Dotson
for their service to the City. She further encouraged Common Council to adopt the City
of Ithaca Energy Plan.
Mayor Myrick announced that Deputy Director of Community Development Sue Kittel,
has accepted a position with the Park Foundation. He expressed his gratitude for all
her hard work on behalf of the city, and wished her well in her future endeavors.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR:
Alderperson McCollister responded to comments made about the 2014 budget, and
noted that the decision regarding adding two police officers was complicated and
difficult.
Mayor Myrick and Alderperson Clairborne expressed their congratulations to the Petito’s
for their Pride of Ownership Award for the Neighborhood Pride Grocery Store. They
highlighted the many contributions that the Petitio’s have made to the City of Ithaca
through the years and encouraged everyone to support the store.
Alderperson Proulx apologized for not including the Natural Areas Commission in the
discussion regarding the proposal to sell city property near Five Mile Drive. He stressed
the importance of setting up formal communication protocols with the city’s boards and
committees.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
City Clerk’s Office:
8.1 Request of Downtown Ithaca Alliance to Permit Wine, Beer, and Hard Cider
Tasting and Sale of Bottled Wine, Beer, and Hard Cider at the 2013 “Ithaca Ice
Wars” – Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
WHEREAS, the Downtown Ithaca Alliance has requested permission for wine, beer,
and hard cider tasting and sales as part of the 2013 “Ithaca Ice Wars”; now, therefore,
be it
RESOLVED, That the Downtown Ithaca Alliance be authorized to arrange for wine,
beer, and hard cider tasting and sale of bottled wine, beer, and hard cider at booths
during the “Ithaca Ice Wars” on the Ithaca Commons on December 13 2013, and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Downtown Ithaca Alliance and participating wineries shall comply
with all applicable state and local laws and ordinances, and shall enter into an
agreement providing that it will hold the City harmless and indemnify the City on
account of any claims made as the result of the sale or tasting of wine and hard cider on
the Ithaca Commons, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Downtown Ithaca Alliance or the participating winery or cider
company shall agree to maintain liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.00 and
Dram Shop Act coverage in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 naming the City of
Ithaca as an additional insured, and shall provide evidence of such insurance to the City
Clerk prior to the event.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
December 4, 2013
3
8.2 Dewitt Park Sidewalk Assessment Reimbursement - Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2013, the Common Council approved Local Law No. 3 -
2013, which created new Sidewalk Improvement Districts in which the owner of each
tax parcel in each District is assessed based upon a formula reflecting the proportional
benefits and enhanced value flowing to each property due to the installation and repair
of sidewalk in its associated Sidewalk Improvement District, and
WHEREAS, the Mayor signed the Local Law on October 2, 2013, and
WHEREAS, the First Presbyterian Church is the owner of DeWitt Park, Tax Parcel No.
61.-2-11, and would be responsible for the assessments to that parcel under the Local
Law, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to an Agreement between the Church and the Village of Ithaca
dated April 25, 1856, the City has “full care, charge, control and government” of the
public square, and has the responsibility to “keep the walks in good and proper
condition,”
WHEREAS, the pervasively public nature of DeWitt Park leads the Common Council to
conclude that under the Agreement, the City is the appropriate party to pay for Sidewalk
Improvement District assessments resulting from ownership of the Park; now, therefore
be it
RESOLVED, That in connection with the Agreement dated April 25, 1856, the City shall
reimburse the Church each year for the assessments levied against the DeWitt Park tax
parcel, No. 61.-2-11, and paid by the Church, under Local Law No. 3-2013, after the
Church submits to the City Chamberlain proof of such payment to the City.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
8.3 Fire Department - Request to Establish Capital Project for Technical and
Urban Search Rescue - Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Fire Department (IFD) was awarded $141,108 under the
FY2012 Technical Rescue and Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Grant Program and;
WHEREAS, the funding for this initiative is provided by the federal Department of
Homeland Security's State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), and administered by
the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services and;
WHEREAS, the award provides reimbursement for the purchase of swift/flood water
rescue equipment, technical rescue equipment, and the personnel costs for technical
rescue training; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the Controller’s Office to establish
Capital Project # 792 IFD Technical and Urban Search and Rescue in the amount not to exceed
$141,108.00 with all funds issuing from the FY2012 Technical Rescue and Urban Search and
Rescue (USAR) Grant Program.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
8.4 Controller – Request to Amend Budget to Account for Various Unanticipated
Revenue - Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
WHEREAS, during 2013, City of Ithaca departments have received revenue from
various unanticipated sources including reimbursement, grants, donations, and sale of
material, that need to be accounted for in the 2013 budget, and
WHEREAS, the reimbursements total $38,540 as follows:
Tompkins County Celebration Grants $13,250
Insurance Recovery 15,369
Donations 5,698
Sale of Scrap/Equipment 4,223
now, therefore be it
December 4, 2013
4
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2013 authorized budget as
follows to account for said receipts and expenditures of funds:
Increase Revenue Accounts:
A1012-2379 Community Celebrations $13,250
A3120-2705 Police – Donations 5,000
A3120-2680 Insurance Recovery 11,444
A3620-2680 Building Dept. Ins. Recovery 3,925
A5132-2655 Garage Minor Sales 1,143
A5111-2655 Maintenance of Roads Minor Sales 1,080
A5411-2655 Commons Minor Sales 2,000
A7111-2705 Parks & Forestry – Donations 698
Totals $38,540
Increase Appropriation Accounts:
A1012-5435 Celebrations Contracts $13,250
A5132-5481 Garage Small Tools 1,143
A7111-5485 Parks & Forestry – Trees 698
A3120-5477-5022 Police Equipment Parts 5,000
A3120-5476-5000 Police Equipment Maintenance 1,000
A3120-5476-5001 Police Equipment Maintenance 10,444
A5111-5483 Maintenance of Roads 1,080
A5111-5475 Commons Property Maintenance 2,000
A3620-5476 Building Equipment Maintenance 3,925
Totals $38,540
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
8.5 Controller - Authorization to Cover Red Accounts - Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
RESOLVED, That the City Controller be empowered to make transfers within the 2013
Budget appropriations, as needed, for the remainder of the 2013 Fiscal Year.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE:
No items were submitted for the agenda
CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
10.1 IURA - City Divestiture of Surplus Property, 3-acre subparcel of 31.-2-6, 617
Five Mile Drive - Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca owns parcel #31.-2-6 located at 617 Five Mile Drive along
Route 13A in the Town of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, parcel #31.-2-6 is approximately 25 acres in size with 22 acres located to
the east of the railroad tracks designated as park land in the Southwest Natural Area
and an undesignated 3 acre subparcel located to the west of the railroad tracks, and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2013,New Earth Living LLC inquired about the possibility of
purchasing the 3-acre subparcel that is located adjacent to land they own at 619 Five
Mile Drive where they intend to develop a cooperative housing community, and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2013, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works
determined that the 3-acre subparcel is not needed for City of Ithaca public works
purposes and recommended that the Common Council consider sale of the subparcel,
subject to retention of an vehicular and pedestrian access easement, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to §695 of General Municipal Law, the City may dispose of real
property at the highest marketable price at public auction or by sealed bid, and
WHEREAS, sale of the 3-acre subparcel will require subdivision of the parcel, which
subdivision must comply with zoning requirements, therefore the purchaser must
consolidate the 3-acre subparcel with an existing parcel; now, therefore, be it
December 4, 2013
5
RESOLVED, the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby authorizes a competitive
sealed bid process to receive bids to purchase the City-owned 3-acre subparcel of
parcel #31.-2-6, located at 617 Five Mile Drive, subject to the following terms:
Minimum Price: Fair Market Value to be determined by appraisal to be
conducted after receipt of bids.
Compliance with
Subdivision & Zoning
Regulations:
Purchaser must identify how conveyance of the 3-acre
subparcel will comply with Town of Ithaca subdivision
and zoning regulations. As the subparcel lacks street
frontage, it appears that consolidation with an existing
adjoining parcel will be required.
Future Use: Open space, agricultural and/or residential use.
Easement: Sale will be subject to retention of a public easement
across the subparcel for access by vehicles and
pedestrians to the City-owned Southwest Natural Area
located east of the railroad tracks.
Additional Purchaser
Expenses:
Appraisal and lot consolidation expenses.
Disclaimer: City reserves the right to reject any and all bids.
And be it further
RESOLVED, that the Mayor, subject to review by the City Attorney, is authorized to
issue an Invitation For Bids to implement this resolution, and be it further
RESOLVED, that award of a bid is subject to environmental review and approval by the
Common Council in satisfaction of the requirements of Section c-36(40) of the City
Charter.
Alderperson Brock stated that she would like to place restrictions on the sale of the
property and questioned what the process would be. City Attorney Lavine stated that
covenants could be included with the property sale; however, it would most likely lower
the sale price of the property. He further stated that this Resolution is only authorizing
the solicitation of bids. An appraisal will be conducted once a plausible bid is received.
He further noted that a map was distributed earlier that shows what parcels within the
area had been designated as substitute park land – this parcel has not been designated
as park land. He further noted that railroad tracks buffer this parcel from the natural
area.
Further discussion followed regarding the lack of communication with the Natural Areas
Commission. Alderperson Brock asked Common Council what they wanted to do as
any restrictions placed on the use of the property should be put into place now. Mayor
Myrick stated that the surplus property process had been followed and the Board of
Public Works determined that the parcel was not needed for any public works purposes;
however, he offered to run a parallel process that would allow the City to accept bids
while sending the information out to all involved committees for comment (including the
Town of Ithaca and the Comprehensive Plan Committee). Alderpersons McCollister,
Fleming, Murtagh, and Clairborne noted that they would like to vote on this Resolution
and not discuss future property use possibilities tonight.
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
RESOLVED, That the Last Resolved Clause be amended to read as follows:
“RESOLVED, that award of a bid is subject to environmental review including the
advice of the Natural Areas Commission and approval by the Common Council in
satisfaction of the requirements of Section c-36(40) of the City Charter.”
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
December 4, 2013
6
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Brock
RESOLVED, That the second “Term” listed under the first Resolved clause be titled as
follows:
“Compliance with Subdivision, Zoning, and Park Land Regulations”, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the text of the second “Term” be amended to read as follows:
“Purchaser must identify how conveyance of the 3-acre subparcel will comply with Town
of Ithaca subdivision and zoning regulations. As the subparcel lacks street frontage, it
appears that consolidation with an existing adjoining parcel will be required. The City
will confirm that this parcel is not designated as park land.”
Ayes (2) Brock, Dotson
Nays (6) Clairborne, Murtagh, McCollister, Fleming, Kerslick, Proulx
Failed
Main Motion:
A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
10.2 Adoption of the City of Ithaca Energy Action Plan 2012 – 2016 - Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council has demonstrated its desire and
commitment to protect the environment by passing the following resolutions to:
· Join the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (2001)
· Endorse the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement (2005)
· Adopt the Climate Smart Communities Pledge (2009), and
WHEREAS, the above resolutions pledged that the City of Ithaca will take local action to
achieve sustainability, energy conservation, and climate protection goals, and
WHEREAS, in order to guide City actions and decision-making to achieve these goals,
a Local Action Plan: to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for City of Ithaca
Government Operations (“Local Action Plan”) was developed and adopted by Common
Council in July 2006, and
WHEREAS, the Local Action Plan included a baseline inventory of City government
greenhouse gas emissions, a 10-year reduction target, and a number of recommended
measures the City of Ithaca could take to accomplish such reductions, and
WHEREAS, many of these measures have been implemented, or continue to be
implemented by the City since the adoption of the Local Action Plan, however, no formal
monitoring of the implementation measures have been done, and
WHEREAS, the above resolutions and Local Action Plan commit to a continuous and
evolving process, which monitors progress and reports results, updates plans and
policies as needed, and considers new ideas and opportunities, and
WHEREAS, the new Energy Action Plan 2012-2016 which contains an updated
greenhouse gas emissions inventory (2010) for government operations and a baseline
inventory for community-wide emissions, monitors implemented measures,
recommends further steps the City of Ithaca can take to achieve its carbon reduction
goals, and specifically adds a new Appendix E- Implementation Guide, is both a result
and a crucial part of such evolving process, and
WHEREAS, the information and strategies outlined in the new Energy Action Plan
2012-2016 will further advance the City’s ongoing efforts of environmental stewardship
using methods that are economically feasible and socially equitable, and
WHEREAS, the Energy Action Plan 2012-2016 must have the support of the City of
Ithaca at all levels of government to be successfully implemented, and
December 4, 2013
7
WHEREAS, this support can be demonstrated at first by the City of Ithaca Common
Council through the adoption of the Energy Action Plan 2012-2016, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code §176-5 (26) “adoption of
regulations, policies, procedures and local legislative decisions in connection with any
action on this list”, this action does not require a City Environmental Quality Review
(CEQR); now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby adopts the Energy Action
Plan 2012-2016, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor will work with department heads and city staff, members of
appropriate advisory boards and committees, businesses, community groups, academic
institutions, organizations, and other local governments to implement the plan and
advance the City’s environmental goals.
Alderperson Proulx thanked the group that has been working on this plan for months,
including Denise Bellmaker, Carolyn Peterson, Kent Johnson, Sue Kittel, Jennifer
Dotson, Tom Shelley, and Jesse Hill. He voiced his support for the plan and noted that
he is looking forward to putting this in place to set the benchmark for Ithaca and other
governments.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
10.3 A Resolution Authorizing Implementation and Funding in the First Instance
100% of the Federal Aid-Eligible Costs and State “Marchiselli” Program-Aid
Eligible Costs, of a Transportation Federal-Aid Project, and Appropriating Funds
Therefore – Traffic Signal Upgrade – Phase II
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, a Project for the Traffic Signal Upgrade Phase II, P.I.N. 375464 (the
“Project”) is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended, that calls for the
apportionment of the costs of such program to be borne at the ratio of 80% Federal
funds and 20% non-federal funds, and
WHEREAS, the Project proposes to upgrade the traffic signals at five intersections,
namely, 1) State/MLK Jr. Street and Cayuga Street; 2) State/MLK Jr. Street and Aurora
Street; 3) Court Street and Cayuga Street; 4) Court Street and Tioga Street; and 5)
Court Street and Aurora Street, and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Signal Upgrade Project Phase II includes City traffic signal
upgrades to intersections; Court Street and Aurora Street, Court Street and Tioga
Street, Court Street and Cayuga Street, State/MLK Street and Cayuga Street, and
State/MLK and Aurora Street, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca desires to advance the Project by making a commitment
of 100% of the non-federal share of the costs of Preliminary Engineering and Design,
and Construction and Construction Inspection; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2011, Common Council approved funding in the first instance
for the preliminary engineering and design phases in an amount of $174,000, with the
understanding that the cost to the City would be 20% or $34,800, and
WHEREAS, as part of the approved 2012 budget, Common Council authorized funding
in the first instance in the amount of $764,000 for construction and construction
inspection, with the understanding that the cost to the City would be 20% or $152,800
(for a total project cost of $938,000 and a total cost to the City of 20% or $187,600), and
WHEREAS, during final design, cost estimates were updated and shown to be higher
than anticipated, but additional federal and state aid ($132,000 and $25,950,
respectively), have been made available for the project, so that the additional cost to the
City for the total project will be $7,050),
December 4, 2013
8
WHEREAS, under SEQR and CEQR, the replacement and upgrade of traffic control
devices are exempt from further environmental review as Type II actions; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby approves the above-subject project;
and it is hereby further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby authorizes the City of Ithaca to pay in
the first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal share of the cost of Preliminary
Engineering, Design, Construction and Construction Inspection work for the Project or
portions thereof, and it is further
RESOLVED, That the sum of $165,000 is hereby appropriated from the issuance of
serial bonds and made available to cover the cost of participation in the above phase of
the Project, and it is further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends Capital Project # 765, Traffic
Signal Upgrade Phase II, to include the Project costs of $165,000 and it is further
RESOLVED, That this project be undertaken with the understanding that the final cost
of the Project to the City of Ithaca will be roughly 18% of said portion, currently
estimated at $194,650 of the $1,103,000 authorized for this portion of the project, in
monies and in-kind services as managed by the Superintendent of Public Works and
monitored by the City Controller, and be it further
RESOLVED, That in the event the full federal and non-federal share costs of the project
exceeds the amount appropriated above, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
shall convene as soon as possible to appropriate said excess amount immediately upon
the notification by the NYSDOT thereof, and it is further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor of the City of Ithaca be and is hereby authorized to
execute all necessary Agreements, certifications or reimbursement requests for Federal
Aid on behalf of the City of Ithaca with the New York State Department of
Transportation in connection with the advancement or approval of the Project and
providing for the administration of the Project and the municipality’s first instance
funding of Project costs and permanent funding of the local share of federal-aid and
state-aid eligible Project costs and all Project costs within appropriations therefore that
are not so eligible, and it is further
RESOLVED, That a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the New York State
Commissioner of Transportation by attaching it to any necessary Agreement in
connection with the Project, and it is further
RESOLVED, This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
10.4 Authorization for the Mayor to Enter into Agreements for Project Funding
for the Commons Repair & Upgrade Project - Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, as a part of the 2008 City of Ithaca budget, the Common Council
established Capital Project #724, Commons Upgrade & Repair, in the amount of
$250,000 in order to begin the re-design of the Ithaca Commons, and
WHEREAS, in November of 2010, Common Council amended the capital project to add
an additional $800,000, for a total of $1,050,000 to fund the full design and the
preparation of construction documents for the reconstruction of the Commons, and
WHEREAS, in March of 2012, the Common Council passed a resolution authorizing
staff to apply for federal grant funds to reconstruct the Ithaca Commons and committing
the City to a local match of $3,500,000, and
December 4, 2013
9
WHEREAS, in 2012, the City was notified that it was being awarded $1,800,000 from
the New York State Consolidated Funding Application for the Commons reconstruction
project, and
WHEREAS, in 2012, the City was notified that it was being awarded $4,500,000,
through the Federal Transit Agency State of Good Repair Grant program, and
WHEREAS, as a part of the 2013 City of Ithaca budget, the Common Council amended
CP 724 to add $9,000,000 from the General Fund, $573,000 from the Water Fund, and
$860,000 from the Sewer Fund, for a total project amount of $11,483,000, in order to
fund the reconstruction of the Ithaca Commons in the first instance with the
understanding that the NYS CFA and FTA funds would reimburse the City $6,300,000
and the Downtown Ithaca Alliance would contribute $500,000 over a 10 year period,
and
WHEREAS, in order to be reimbursed from the NYS Consolidated Funding Application
program and from the FTA, the City needs to enter into agreements with New York
State and Tompkins County, respectively, (Tompkins County is the only agency in the
county that is eligible to be a recipient of FTA funds, but they are allowed to sub-
contract with other agencies to deliver projects), now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council does hereby authorize the Mayor of the City of
Ithaca to enter into agreements with New York State and Tompkins County in order to
progress the Commons Upgrade & Repair project and to receive reimbursements for
grant awards.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
10.5 A Bond Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $6,553,310 Bonds of the
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to Pay the Cost of Certain Capital
Improvements in and for said City
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to the financing of the capital projects hereinafter
described, including compliance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, have been performed; and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize the financing of such capital projects; NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the total voting
strength of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as
follows:
Section 1. For the object or purpose of paying the cost of certain capital
improvements in and for the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, there are
hereby authorized to be issued $6,553,310 bonds of said City pursuant to the provisions
of the Local Finance Law, apportioned among such capital improvements in accordance
with the maximum estimated cost of each. The capital improvements to be financed
pursuant to this bond resolution, the maximum estimated cost of each, the amount of
bonds to be authorized therefore, the period of probable usefulness of each, and
whether said capital improvements are each a specific object or purpose or a class of
objects or purposes, including in each case incidental improvements, equipment,
machinery, apparatus, appurtenances, furnishings and/or expenses in connection
therewith, are as follows:
a) To pay the costs of improvements to the Cayuga Waterfront Trail (Phase IV), in
and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $1,052,400. It is hereby determined
that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the
issuance of $1,052,400 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be
issued pursuant to this bond resolution; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that to the extent that
any Federal or State grants-in-aid are received for such specific object or purpose, the
amount of bonds to be issued pursuant to this resolution shall be reduced dollar for
dollar. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid
December 4, 2013
10
specific object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 19(c) of paragraph a of
Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
b) To pay the additional costs of the construction of bulb-outs extensions of curbs
and sidewalks at the intersections of West Green and West Seneca Streets, in and for
said City, at a revised maximum estimated cost of $279,000. It is hereby determined
that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the
issuance of $12,000 of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued
pursuant to this bond resolution in addition to the aggregate $267,000 previously
authorized by bond resolutions dated and duly adopted on July 6, 2011 and December
7, 2011; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that to the extent that any Federal or State grants-in-
aid are received for such specific object or purpose, the amount of bonds to be issued
pursuant to this resolution shall be reduced dollar for dollar. It is hereby determined that
the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 10 years,
pursuant to subdivision 24 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law,
calculated from August 5, 2011, the date of the first obligations issued for said specific
object or purpose;
c) Purchase of a mass transit bus and related transit equipment improvements, for
said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $114,000. It is hereby determined that the
plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of
$114,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant
to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of
the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 29 of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
d) Reconstruction of and construction of improvements to the Seneca Street
parking garage (Phase 3), in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of
$1,080,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific
object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $1,080,000 bonds of the $6,553,310
bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby
determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or
purpose is 25 years, pursuant to subdivision 12(a)(1) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of
the Local Finance Law;
e) Construction of sidewalks and pedestrian improvements to Route 13 at Dey
Street and at Third Street, in and for said City, including sidewalks, curbs, ramps,
gutters, drainage, landscaping, grading, railroad crossing improvements and guide rails,
at a maximum estimated cost of $538,498. It is hereby determined that the plan for the
financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $538,598
bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this
bond resolution; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that to the extent that any Federal or State
grants-in-aid are received for such specific object or purpose, the amount of bonds to be
issued pursuant to this resolution shall be reduced dollar for dollar. It is hereby
determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or
purpose is 10 years, pursuant to subdivision 24 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the
Local Finance Law;
f) The purchase of various vehicles and equipment items, at an aggregate
maximum estimated cost of $576,500, allocated as follows:
(i) Purchase of snow removal trucks, for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of
$220,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects
or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $220,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of
said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby
determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or
purposes is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the
Local Finance Law;
(ii) Purchase of police cars to replace those in service for one year or more, for said
City, at a maximum estimated cost of $81,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for
the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of
December 4, 2013
11
$81,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to
this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of
the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 3 years, pursuant to subdivision 77(1st) of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
(iii) Purchase of passenger vans, for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of
$59,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects
or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $59,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of
said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby
determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or
purposes is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 29 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the
Local Finance Law;
(iv) Purchase of an aerial lift vehicle for the Department of Public Works, for said
City, at a maximum estimated cost of $216,500. It is hereby determined that the plan
for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of
$216,500 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant
to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of
the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 28 of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
g) Reconstruction of storm sewers throughout and in and for said City, at a
maximum estimated cost of $44,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the
financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $44,000
bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this
bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 40 years, pursuant to subdivision 4 of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
h) Dredging of Six Mile Creek for flood hazard prevention, in and for said City, at a
maximum estimated cost of $50,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the
financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $50,000
bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this
bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid specific object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 22 of paragraph
a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
i) Replacement and upgrade of storage and related elements of the computer data
network, in and for said City, including installation of hardware and software, at a
maximum estimated cost of $73,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the
financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $73,000
bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this
bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid specific object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 32 of paragraph
a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
j) Improvements to the swimming pool at the Greater Ithaca Activities Center, in
and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $46,500. It is hereby determined that
the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance
of $46,500 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant
to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of
the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 61 of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
k) Improvement study for the Spencer Street/Quarry Street Intersection, in and for
said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $41,000. It is hereby determined that the
plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of
$41,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to
this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of
the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 62(2nd) of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
December 4, 2013
12
l) Improvements to the Columbia Street Park, in and for said City, at a maximum
estimated cost of $81,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of
such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $81,000 bonds of the
$6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution.
It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific
object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 19(c) of paragraph a of Section
11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
m) Replacement of underground liquid fuel tanks and related equipment at the
Department of Public Works fuel facility, in and for said City, including removal of
existing tanks and related equipment, at a maximum estimated cost of $488,000. It is
hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall
consist of the issuance of $488,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City
authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that
the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 10 years,
pursuant to subdivision 90, based upon subdivisions 35 and 88(b), each of paragraph a
of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
n) Replacement of roofs at facilities at Stewart Park, in and for said City, at a
maximum estimated cost of $255,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the
financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $255,000
bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this
bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 19(c) of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
o) Reconstruction of the Skate Park, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated
cost of $18,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific
object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $18,000 bonds of the $6,553,310
bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby
determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or
purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 19(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of
the Local Finance Law;
p) Design costs for Cass Park Rink Renovation, in and for said City, at a maximum
estimated cost of $66,500. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of
such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $66,500 bonds of the
$6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution.
It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific
object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 62(2nd) of paragraph a of Section
11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
q) Purchase and installation of parking pay stations, parking equipment and
electronic meter heads (Phase 3), in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of
$100,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects
or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $100,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of
said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby
determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or
purposes is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 50 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the
Local Finance Law;
r) Purchase and installation of emergency power generators at water and sewer
facilities at 510 and 600 First Street and at the Vinegar Hall Pump Station, in and for
said City, including related construction work, at a maximum estimated cost of
$135,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects
or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $135,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of
said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby
determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or
purposes is 40 years, pursuant to subdivision 102, based upon subdivisions 1 and 4, of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
December 4, 2013
13
s) Construction of water main extension on various roads, in and for said City, at a
maximum estimated cost of $72,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the
financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $72,000
bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this
bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 40 years, pursuant to subdivision 1 of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
t) Reconstruction of and improvements to the 510 and 600 First Street water and
sewer facilities, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $110,000. It is
hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes
shall consist of the issuance of $110,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City
authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that
the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 40
years, pursuant to subdivision 102, based upon subdivisions 1 and 4, of paragraph a of
Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
u) Reconstruction of and construction of improvements to various fire stations, in
and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $63,662. It is hereby determined that
the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the
issuance of $63,662 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued
pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable
usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 25 years, pursuant to
subdivision 12(a)(1) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
v) To pay the additional costs of the acquisition of a replacement computer email
system, for said City, at a revised maximum estimated cost of $155,000. It is hereby
determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall
consist of the issuance of $72,000 of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be
issued pursuant to this bond resolution in addition to the $83,000 previously authorized
by a bond resolution dated and duly adopted on December 5, 2012. It is hereby
determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or
purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 32 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the
Local Finance Law, calculated from the date of the first obligations issued for said
specific object or purpose;
w) Reconstruction of the Lake Street over the Fall Creek Bridge, in and for said City,
at a maximum estimated cost of $1,464,250. It is hereby determined that the plan for
the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of
$1,464,250 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued
pursuant to this bond resolution, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that to the extent that any
Federal or State grants-in-aid are received for such specific object or purpose, the
amount of bonds to be issued pursuant to this resolution shall be reduced dollar for
dollar. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid
specific object or purpose is 20 years, pursuant to subdivision 10 of paragraph a of
Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law.
Section 2. The aggregate maximum estimated cost of the aforesaid objects or
purposes is $6,553,310, and the plan for the financing thereof is by the issuance of the
$6,553,310 serial bonds authorized by Section 1 hereof, allocated to each of the objects
or purposes in accordance Section 1 hereof.
Section 3. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,
are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on such
obligations as the same respectively become due and payable. An annual
appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on
such obligations becoming due and payable in such year. There shall annually be
levied on all the taxable real property of said City, a tax sufficient to pay the principal of
and interest on such obligations as the same become due and payable.
Section 4. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize
the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and
December 4, 2013
14
sale of the bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes is hereby
delegated to the City Controller, the chief fiscal officer. such notes shall be of such
terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by
said City Controller, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law.
Section 5. All other matters, except as provided herein relating to such bonds,
including determining whether to issue such bonds having substantially level or
declining debt service and all matters related thereto, prescribing whether manual or
facsimile signatures shall appear on said bonds, prescribing the method for the
recording of ownership of said bonds, appointing the fiscal agent or agents for said
bonds, providing for the printing and delivery of said bonds (and if said bonds are to be
executed in the name of the City by the facsimile signature of the City Controller,
providing for the manual countersignature of a fiscal agent or of a designated official of
the City), the date, denominations, maturities and interest payment dates, place or
places of payment, and also including the consolidation with other issues, shall be
determined by the City Controller. It is hereby determined that it is to the financial
advantage of the City not to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial
bonds any charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged
by the fiscal agent, and, accordingly, pursuant to paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the
Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent. Such
bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in section
52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and contain such
recitals in addition to those required by section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law, as the
City Controller shall determine.
Section 6. The powers and duties of advertising such bonds for sale, conducting the
sale and awarding the bonds, are hereby delegated to the City Controller, who shall
advertise such bonds for sale, conduct the sale, and award the bonds in such manner
as he shall deem best for the interests of the City; provided, however, that in the
exercise of these delegated powers, he shall comply fully with the provisions of the
Local Finance Law and any order or rule of the State Treasurer applicable to the sale of
municipal bonds. The receipt of the City Controller shall be a full acquittance to the
purchaser of such bonds, who shall not be obliged to see to the application of the
purchase money.
Section 7. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested
only if:
1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said City is not
authorized to expend money, or
2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of
this resolution are not substantially complied with,
and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty
days after the date of such publication, or
3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution.
Section 8. This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for purposes of
Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. Other than as specified in this resolution, no
monies are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long term basis,
or otherwise set aside with respect to the permanent funding of the object or purpose
described herein.
Section 9. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published in
summary form in the Ithaca Journal, the official newspaper, together with a notice of the
City Clerk in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law.
A Roll Call Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Alderperson Brock – Aye Alderperson Dotson - Aye
Alderperson Clairborne – Aye Alderperson Murtagh - Aye
Alderperson McCollister – Aye Alderperson Fleming - Aye
Alderperson Smith – Excused Alderperson Kerslick - Aye
Alderperson Mohlenhoff – Excused Alderperson Proulx - Aye
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
December 4, 2013
15
10.6 City Controller’s Report
City Controller Thayer reported to Common Council on the following items:
$300,000 was appropriated from the Reserved Fund for the 2013 budget,
he should know soon how much was actually needed
The 2012 audit is underway
Increases in liability and property insurance activity and workers’
compensation claims, has resulted in increased premiums. The City is
shopping for coverage; however, insurance companies are taking a close
look at the city’s dams, and it is impacting premium rates.
The $5.5 million pension payment is due - if made by December 15th, the
City will receive a $50,000 discount. This should be the largest pension
bill due. Payments will start to decrease in 2015.
2013 Activity: sales tax revenues are fluctuating. At this point the City is
2.1% over 2012 activity with six more payments due.
Overtime: $960,000 was budgeted; $878,000 has been collected
Building Permit Revenues: $819,000 was budgeted; $461,000 has been
collected
Parking Revenues: $2.59 million budgeted; $1.744 million collected
Alderperson Proulx announced that the December City Administration Committee
meeting has been rescheduled to Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in light of
the upcoming holidays.
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
11.1 Ordinances to Amend Chapter 73 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
entitled “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and Chapter 228 of the City of
Ithaca Municipal Code, entitled “Landmarks Preservation”
A. Declaration of Lead Agency – Resolution
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency
be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local
and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment of Chapter 73, “Landmarks Preservation
Commission” and Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation”, is an “Unlisted” Action
pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires
environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself
lead agency for the environmental review of the amendment of Chapter 73, “Landmarks
Preservation Commission” and the amendment of Chapter 228, “Landmarks
Preservation”.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
B. Determination of Environmental Significance – Resolution
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to the Municipal Code in
order to amend Chapter 73 “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and to amend
Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation,” and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the
preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated October 15,
2013, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County
Planning Department pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal
Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including
December 4, 2013
16
county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has
also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has
reviewed the SEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts
as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental
Assessment Form, dated October 15, 2013, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby
determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that
the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any
attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as
required by law.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
C. Adoption of Ordinances
1. An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca to Amend
Chapter 73, Entitled “Landmarks Preservation Commission”
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister
WHEREAS, Chapter 73 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Landmarks
Preservation Commission, was first enacted in 1975 and was amended in 1984 and
2012, and
WHEREAS, amendments to Chapter 73 have been proposed, now, therefore
Ordinance 2013-
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, as
follows:
Section 1. Chapter 73, Landmarks Preservation Commission, of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca is hereby amended, to read
§73-1 Establishment.
To effectuate the goals of Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, there
is hereby established in and for the City of Ithaca a Commission to be
known as the "Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission."
§73-2 Membership, Appointment, and Compensation.
A. Membership. The Commission shall consist of seven members plus
two alternates, all of whom shall possess a demonstrated
significant interest in and commitment to the field of historic
preservation as evidenced by involvement in a local, state, or
national historic preservation group; employment; education; or
volunteer activity in furtherance of historic preservation.
B. Appointment. Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the
Mayor with the advice and consent of the Common Council. Three
members shall be selected, each of whom shall possess professional
qualifications evidencing expertise in historic preservation,
architecture, city planning or building construction. The four remaining
members shall be selected from the community at large. In filling two
of these four at-large seats, preference will be given to individuals
December 4, 2013
17
who possess demonstrated expertise in commercial or business
activity, including, but not limited to, banking or real estate.
C. Terms. The original appointments of the members of the Commission
shall be three for one year, two for two years and two for three years
from January following the year of such appointment, or until their
successor is named to serve out the unexpired portion of their term of
appointment, or until their successor is appointed to serve for the term
of three years.
D. Vacancies. Vacancies occurring in the Commission other than by
expiration of term of office shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor,
but such appointment shall be only for the unexpired portion of the
term of the member replaced.
E. Reappointment. Members may serve for more than one term, and
each member shall serve until the appointment of a successor.
F. Method of selection to fill vacancies. Vacancies shall be filled by the
Mayor according to the original selection as aforesaid.
G. Compensation. Members shall serve without compensation.
H. Quorum. A majority of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for
the transaction of business.
§73-3 Organization.
A. Officers. The Landmarks Preservation Commission shall elect from its
membership a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson whose terms of
office shall be fixed by the Commission. The Chairperson shall
preside over the Commission and shall have the right to vote. The
Vice Chairperson shall, in cases of absence or disability of the
Chairperson, perform the duties of the Chairperson.
B. Alternates. The Chairperson, or in their absence, the Vice-
chairperson, shall designate an alternate to serve when a regular
member is faced with a conflict of interest. When so designated,
the alternate shall possess all the powers and responsibilities of
the regular member. Alternates shall be designated at the time
of their appointment as “Alternate 1” and “Alternate 2”, and shall
be call upon to serve on a rotating basis.
[B]C. Secretary. The Director of Planning and Development or his/her
designee shall serve as the Secretary to the Commission. The
Secretary shall keep a record of all resolutions, proceedings, and
actions of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, and shall have
the authority to act as provided for in §228-[7]6C of the City Municipal
Code.
§73-4 Powers and Duties.
The powers of the Commission shall include:
A. Adoption of criteria for the identification of significant historic,
architectural, and cultural landmarks and for the delineation of historic
districts;
B. Conduct of surveys of significant historic, architectural, and cultural
landmarks and historic districts within the city;
C. Recommending designation by Common Council of identified
structures or resources as landmarks and historic districts;
D. Adoption of criteria for the evaluation of applications for a Certificate of
Appropriateness;
E. Approval or disapproval of proposals for exterior change resulting in
applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to §228-4
and §228-[6]5 of the City Municipal Code;
F. Approval or disapproval of applications for a Finding of Economic
Hardship pursuant to §228-[9]10 and §228-[10]11 of the City
Municipal Code;
G. Making recommendations to the City concerning the acquisition of
preservation easements or other interests in real property as
necessary to carry out the purposes of §228-2 of the City Municipal
Code;
December 4, 2013
18
H. Increasing public awareness of the value of historic, cultural, and
architectural preservation by developing and participating in public
education programs;
I. Making recommendations to the City concerning the utilization of
state, federal, or private funds to promote the preservation of
landmarks and historic districts within the city;
J. Recommending acquisition of a landmark structure by the City where
its preservation is essential to the purposes of §228-2 of the City
Municipal Code and where private preservation is not feasible;
K. Preparing a report or recommendation to other City boards and
committees regarding plans and proposals that could have an impact
on designated individual landmarks and/or historic districts;
L. Delegation of work to staff and professional consultants as necessary
to carry out the duties of the Commission, within the budget provided
therefore by the City of Ithaca.
§73-5 Promulgation of Rules; Meetings.
The Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of its business,
which shall provide for the time and place of holding regular meetings.
Regular meetings shall be held at least once each month. The
Commission’s rules shall provide for the calling of special meetings by the
Chairperson or by at least three members of the Commission. All regular
or special meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public, and
any person shall be entitled to appear and be heard on a matter before
the Commission before it reaches its decision.
§73-6 Records and Annual Report.
The Commission shall keep a record, which shall be open to the public
view, of its resolutions, proceedings and actions. The vote or failure to
vote of each member shall be recorded. The concurring affirmative vote of
a majority of those members present shall constitute approval of plans
before it for review or for the adoption of any resolution, motion or other
action of the Commission. The Commission shall submit an annual report
of its activities to the Mayor and Common Council and make such
recommendations to the Common Council as it deems necessary to carry
out the purposes of this chapter and Chapter 228, Landmarks
Preservation.
§73-7 Committees.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission may, by rule, establish
permanent or ad hoc committees consisting of no less than three current
members of the ILPC for assignments delegated by the full Commission.
§73-8 Cooperation of City Departments.
As an aid toward cooperation in matters which concern the integrity
of the designated landmarks and historic districts, all City
departments shall, upon request, furnish to the Landmarks
Preservation Commission, within a reasonable time, the available
maps, plans, reports and statistical or other information the
Commission may require for its work.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance.
Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
December 4, 2013
19
2. An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 228 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
Entitled “Landmarks Preservation”
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister
WHEREAS, Chapter 228 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Landmarks
Preservation, was first enacted in 1975, has since been periodically amended, and was
repealed and replaced in 2012, and
WHEREAS, additional amendments are now proposed; now, therefore
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, as
follows:
Section 1. Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, of the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca is hereby amended as follows:
§ 228-1. Title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “City of Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Ordinance.”
§ 228-2. Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. Promote the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the
public through the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of
buildings, structures, landscape features, archeological sites, and
districts of historic and cultural significance.
B. Safeguard the city’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as reflected in
such buildings, structures, landscape features, archeological sites, and
districts.
C. Protect the value of historic properties and their owners’ investment in
them, and stabilize historic neighborhoods.
D. Foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and achievements of the past.
E. Protect and enhance the city’s attractiveness to tourists and visitors and
the support and stimulus to the economy thereby provided.
F. Strengthen the economy of the city.
G. Promote the use of buildings, structures, landscape features,
archeological sites, and districts of historic and cultural significance as
sites for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the city.
H. Insure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth and development of
the city.
§ 228-3. Designation of Individual Landmarks or Historic Districts.
A. As set forth in §73-4, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission is
responsible for recommending to Common Council the designation of
identified structures or resources as individual landmarks and historic
districts within the city.
B. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may recommend such
designation of an individual property as an individual landmark if it:
1. Possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or
value as part of the cultural, political, economic, or social history
of the locality, region, state, or nation; or
2. Is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
3. Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural
style; or
4. Is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced
an age; or
5. Represents an established and familiar visual feature of the
community by virtue of its unique location or singular physical
characteristics.
C. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may recommend such
December 4, 2013
20
designation of a group of properties as an historic district if the group:
1. Contains primarily properties which meet one or more of the
criteria for designation as an individual landmark; and
2. Constitutes a distinct section of the city by reason of possessing
those qualities that would satisfy such criteria.
D. Notice of a proposed designation shall be sent to the owner or owners of
the property or properties proposed for designation, describing the
property proposed, or if in a district, the proposed district boundary, and
announcing a public hearing by the Commission to consider the
designation. Where the proposed designation involves so many owners
that the Commission deems individual notice to be infeasible, notice may
instead be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at
least 15 days prior to the date of the public hearing.
E. Once the Commission has issued official notice of a proposed
designation, no building permits or demolition permits shall be issued by
the [Building Commissioner] Director of Planning and Development or
the Director of Code Enforcement [as long as the proposed
designation is under active consideration by the Commission and until
the Commission has made its decision, but in any event no longer than
60 days after completion of the public hearing] until said proposed
designation has been acted upon by Common Council, but in any
event no longer than 90 days after completion of the public hearing
required by § 228-3 F, unless:
1. The permit is for work that is of an emergency nature, as
determined by the Director of Planning and Development or
Director of Code Enforcement or Fire Chief, or
2. The property owner voluntarily complies with the Certificate
of Appropriateness review process.
[E]F. The Commission shall hold a public hearing prior to designation of any
individual landmark or historic district. Notice of the public hearing shall
be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least 15
days prior to the date of the public hearing. The notice shall specify the
time and place of the public hearing, a brief description of the proposed
designation, and the location where the proposal may be reviewed prior
the hearing. The Commission, property owners, and any interested
parties may present testimony or documentary evidence at the hearing
which will become part of a record regarding the historic, architectural, or
cultural importance of the proposed individual landmark or historic
district. The record may also contain staff reports, public comments,
expert testimony, or other evidence offered outside of the hearing.
[F] G. Within seven days after it has recommended designation of an
individual landmark or historic district, the Commission shall file a copy of
such recommended designation with the Planning and Development
Board and with Common Council.
[G]H. Within 60 days of the Commission recommending designation, the
Planning and Development Board shall file a report with Common
council with respect to the relation of such proposed designation to the
Comprehensive Plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements,
and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved. The Council
shall, within 90 days of said recommendation of designation, approve,
disapprove, or refer the proposed designation back to the Commission
for modification.
[H]I. Any designation approved by the Council shall be in effect on and after
the date of approval by Council. The Commission shall forward notice of
each property designated as an individual landmark and the boundaries
of each designated historic district to the [Building Commissioner]
Director of Planning and Development or the Director of Code
Enforcement, and the City Clerk for recordation.
December 4, 2013
21
§ 228-4. Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration, Demolition, or New
Construction Affecting Individual Landmarks or Historic Districts.
As set forth in §73-4, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission is
responsible for the approval or disapproval of proposals for exterior
changes to a designated historic property. No person shall carry out any
exterior alteration, restoration, reconstruction, demolition, new
construction, or moving of an individual landmark or property within an
historic district, nor shall any person make any change in the exterior
appearance of such property, its site, its light fixtures, signs, sidewalks,
fences, steps, paving, or other exterior elements, without first obtaining a
Certificate of Appropriateness or Finding of Economic Hardship from the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, or obtaining approval by
the Commission’s Secretary pursuant to §228-[6]7C, or upon order of
the Director of Planning and Development, or Director of Code
Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief
pursuant to §228-13. Any exterior alteration made in the absence of
such required approvals must be reviewed retroactively by the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, applying the criteria
for approval set forth in §228-6 and §228-10 as though the work had
not yet been completed. All changes to City-owned property affecting
an individual landmark or within an historic district shall be subject to the
provisions of this ordinance.
§228-5 Temporary Improvements.
No Certificate of Appropriateness is required for temporary
improvements. Temporary improvements are those that will be in
place for no more than 180 consecutive days and result in no
permanent physical alteration of the structure or site.
§228-[5]6. Criteria for Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
A. The Commission shall approve the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness only if it determines that the proposed work will not
have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or
architectural significance and value of either the individual landmark, or if
the proposed work is within an historic district, of the neighboring
properties in such district.
B. In making this determination, the Commission will be guided by the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and by the
following principles:
1. The historic features of an individual landmark shall be altered as
little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible
with the historic character of the landmark.
2. The historic features of a property located within, and contributing
to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little
as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with
both the historic character of the individual property and the
character of the district as a whole.
3. New construction located within an historic district shall be
compatible with the historic character of the district within which it
is located.
C. In applying the principle of compatibility set forth above, the Commission
shall consider the following factors:
1. the general design and character of the proposed alteration or new
construction relative to existing features of the property;
2. the scale and visual compatibility of the proposed alteration or new
construction in relation to the property itself, surrounding
properties, and the neighborhood;
3. texture, materials, and color, and their relation to similar features
of the property and other properties in the neighborhood;
4. visual compatibility with surrounding properties, including the
December 4, 2013
22
proportions of the property’s façade; proportions and
arrangement of windows, doors, and other openings; roof shape;
and rhythm of spacing of properties along the street, including
set-backs; and
5. the importance of historic, physical, and visual features to the
significance of the property.
D. In passing upon an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the
Landmarks Preservation Commission shall not consider changes to
interior spaces or to exterior paint colors.
E. In cases of a retroactive review of completed work, the Commission
may approve any portion of the completed project that is found to meet
the criteria for approval enumerated in this §228 while referring to the
Office of the City Attorney for potential prosecution any portion of the
project that does not meet such criteria for approval.
§228-[6]7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application Procedure.
A. Prior to the commencement of any work requiring a Certificate of
Appropriateness, the owner shall file an application for a building permit
with the Building [Department] Division and an application for such
Certificate with the Commission. The application, available on the City’s
website and through the Department of Planning & Development, shall
contain:
1. Building permit application number, as assigned by the Building
[Department] Division
2. Name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of
the applicant;
3. Location and photographs of the property;
4. Elevation drawings of proposed changes, if available;
5. Perspective drawings, including relationship to adjacent
properties, if available;
6. Samples of building materials to be used, including their
proposed color;
7. Where the proposal includes signs or lettering, a scale drawing
showing the type of lettering to be used, all dimensions and
colors, a description of materials to be used, method of
illumination, and a plan showing the sign’s location on the
property; and
8. Any other information that the Commission may deem necessary
in order to visualize the proposed work.
B. No building permit shall be issued for the proposed work until a Certificate
of Appropriateness has first been issued by the Commission. The
Certificate of Appropriateness required by this chapter shall be in
addition to and not in lieu of any building or other permit that may be
required by any other ordinance of the City of Ithaca.
C. The Commission may delegate to the Commission’s Secretary the
authority to:
1. Determine whether proposed work constitutes ordinary
maintenance and repair for which a Certificate of
Appropriateness is not required;
2. Approve work that is considered replacement-in-kind;
3. Approve work that is of any other type that has been previously
determined by the Commission to be appropriate for delegation
to staff, as reflected in the City of Ithaca Landmark and
Historic District Design Guidelines. On at least a quarterly
basis, the Commission shall review the Certificates of
Appropriateness, if any, issued by the Commission’s
Secretary, to determine whether or not the delegated review
responsibilities should continue or their scope be modified.
D. Upon application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, a public notice of
the proposal shall be posted by the owner or owner’s representative on
the property for a minimum of 10 days. This notice must remain in place
December 4, 2013
23
until a decision to approve or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness has
been made. The notice shall specify the proposed work, the time and
place of the public hearing, and to whom and by when any public
comments are to be communicated. The notice must be placed at or
near the property line in the front yard so that it will be plainly visible from
the street, and, in cases where a property has frontage on more than
one street, an additional sign must be placed at or near the property line
on any additional street frontage so that the sign will be plainly visible
from the street on which it has such additional frontage.
E. The Commission shall hold a public hearing prior to rendering a decision
on any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Notice of the
public hearing shall be published at least once in the City’s official
newspaper at least 5 days prior to the public hearing. The notice shall
specify the time and place of the public hearing, a brief description of the
proposal, and the location where the proposal may be reviewed prior to
the hearing. The property owner and any interested party may present
testimony or documentary evidence regarding the proposal at the
hearing, which will become a part of the record. The record may also
contain staff reports, public comments, and other evidence offered
outside of the hearing.
F. The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions or
modifications the Certificate of Appropriateness within 45 days from the
completion of the public hearing, except as noted below. The failure of
the Commission to act within 45 days from the completion of the public
hearing, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon in writing by the
applicant and the Commission, shall be deemed to constitute approval.
1. In the event, however, that the Commission shall make a finding
of fact that the circumstances of a particular application require
further time for additional study and information than can be
obtained within the aforesaid 45-day period, then the
Commission shall have a period of up to 90 days within which
to act upon such an application.
2. In the event, however, that environmental review of an
application is required, the Commission shall approve, deny, or
approve with conditions or modifications the Certificate of
Appropriateness within 65 days from the completion of
environmental review. The failure of the Commission to act
within 65 days from the completion of the environmental
review, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon in writing
by the applicant and the Commission, shall be deemed to
constitute approval.
G. All decisions of the Commission shall be in writing. A copy shall be sent
to the applicant by mail, and a copy filed with the [Building
Commissioner]Director of Planning and Development or Director of
Code Enforcement, and City Clerk for public inspection, within 10 days
of the date of the decision. The Commission’s decisions shall state the
reasons for denying or modifying any application.
§228-[7]8. Expiration of Approval; Extension of Approval
If the construction of a project approved for a Certificate of Appropriateness
has not commenced within twenty-four (24) months of the date of the
approval, such approval shall expire, unless an extension has been granted
by the Landmarks Preservation Commission following a written request by
the applicant. An application for an extension of Certificate of
Appropriateness approval shall not be considered a new Certificate of
Appropriateness application.
§228-[8]9. Early Design Guidance.
A. Large projects that could potentially have a significant impact on an
December 4, 2013
24
individual landmark or historic district are required to participate in the
Early Design Guidance process. The purpose of this process is to
provide input from the Commission on the design of the project as it
relates to criteria for the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness at
a time when such input may readily be incorporated into the design
without adversely affecting design costs or the project schedule.
B. For the purposes of this chapter, large projects are defined as:
1. New construction in an historic district of any primary structure,
or
2. New construction of any accessory structure with a gross
square footage of 800 square feet or more in an historic
district, or new construction of any accessory structure with a
gross square footage of 800 square feet or more on the same
tax parcel as an individual landmark when that tax parcel is
less than five acres in size, or new construction of any
accessory structure with a gross square footage of 800 square
feet or more on the same tax parcel as an individual landmark
when that tax parcel is more than five acres in size and when
the proposed accessory structure will be located within 150
feet of the individual landmark, or
3. New additions that will increase the existing footprint of an
individual landmark or a structure located within an historic
district by 50% or more, or
4. Any renovation or reconstruction (excluding projects that
involve only the replacement of roof coverings) that will affect
50% or more of the exterior envelope of an individual
landmarks or a structure located within an historic district.
C. Applicants subject to Early Design Guidance shall submit materials for
review by the Commission as soon as the design has reached a stage
of development that would allow the Commission to understand the
basic proposal and its significant details.
D. Based on the limited information provided, the Commission will provide
general feedback and non-binding recommendations and comments
that might help the applicant further refine the project prior to
submitting an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
§228-[9]10. Criteria for a Finding of Economic Hardship.
A. An applicant whose Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed
alteration has been denied may apply for relief on the ground of
economic hardship. In order to prove the existence of economic
hardship related to a proposed alteration, the applicant shall establish
that the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the
owner from earning a reasonable return on investment, regardless of
whether that return represents the most profitable return possible. In
the case of non-profit ownership, the applicant shall establish that the
denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness will seriously interfere with, or
prevent, the owner from carrying out its chartered purpose. In either
case the applicant shall establish that the alleged hardship has
not been created by the previous actions or inactions of any
person having an ownership or management interest in the
property after the effective date of local designation.
B. Demolition of an individual landmark, or of a structure located within,
and contributing to the significance of, an historic district, shall be
allowed only in cases of economic hardship, [unless the Building
Department, upon due deliberation, has made an express finding that
the structure presents an imminent threat to the public health, safety,
and welfare] except as provided for in §228-14. In order to prove the
existence of economic hardship sufficient to justify demolition, the
applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of the Commission that:
1. The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the
owner from earning a reasonable return on investment,
regardless of whether that return represents the most
December 4, 2013
25
profitable return possible; and
2. The property cannot be adapted for any other use, whether by
the current owner or by a purchaser, which would result in a
reasonable return on investment; [and]
3. Diligent efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring the
property and preserving it have failed; and
4. The alleged hardship has not been created by the previous
actions or inactions of any person having an ownership
or management interest in the property after the effective
date of local designation.
Or, in the case of non-profit ownership that:
1. The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness will either
physically or financially prevent, or seriously interfere with, the
non-profit owner carrying out its chartered purpose; [and]
2. The property cannot be adapted for any other use that would
result in the non-profit owner being able to carry out its
chartered purpose[.]; and
3. The alleged hardship has not been created by the previous
actions or inactions of any person having an ownership
or management interest in the property after the effective
date of local designation.
§228-[10]11. Finding of Economic Hardship Application Procedure.
A. After the Landmarks Preservation Commission has denied a Certificate
of Appropriateness, an applicant may commence the economic
hardship process. Consideration of an application for a Finding of
Economic Hardship may occur at the same meeting as consideration
of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. No building
permit or demolition permit shall be issued unless the Commission
determines that an economic hardship exists and issues a Finding of
Economic Hardship, except in cases where the Building [Department]
Division, upon due deliberation, has made an express finding that the
structure presents an imminent threat to the public health, safety, and
welfare.
B. The Commission may hold a public hearing on the hardship application
at which an opportunity will be provided for proponents and opponents
of the application to present their views.
C. The applicant shall consult in good faith with the Commission, local
preservation groups, and interested parties in a diligent effort to seek
an alternative that will result in appropriate preservation of the
property.
D. All decisions of the Commission shall be in writing and shall state the
reasons for granting or denying the requested Finding of Economic
Hardship. A copy shall be sent to the applicant by mail and a copy
filed with the [Building Commissioner] Director of Planning and
Development or Director of Code Enforcement and City Clerk for
public inspection within 10 days of the date of the decision.
E. If a Finding of Economic Hardship is issued, the Commission shall
approve only such work as is necessary to alleviate the hardship.
§228-12 City-owned Improvements
A. All changes to City-owned property affecting an individual
landmark or within an historic district shall be subject to the
provisions of this ordinance, with the exception of §228-10 and
§228-11.
B. If the cost of an action required by the Commission would exceed
by 20% or more the cost of the action if not regulated by the
Commission, the Common Council reserves the right to
determine whether compliance with the Commission’s
requirements for that action are prudent and feasible in light of
potentially competing public interests. Should Common
Council determine, upon due deliberation, that such compliance
December 4, 2013
26
would not be prudent and feasible, the action may proceed as
though it were not regulated by the Commission.
§228-13 Exceptions for Reasons of Public Safety
A. When in the judgment of the Director of Code Enforcement,
Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief there exists an
emergency condition that poses an imminent threat to the
public health, safety, or welfare, the Director of Code
Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief may
order the property owner to immediately undertake temporary
work to correct the defect while a permanent solution is sought
that will satisfy the requirements of Section 228-6.
B. Such temporary work shall remain in place no longer than 180
days. Such 180 day period may only be extended by, and in the
sole discretion of, the Director of Planning and Development or
Director of Code Enforcement. During that time, the owner shall
diligently work to identify and propose to the ILPC, Director of
Planning and Development, Director of Code Enforcement,
Superintendent of Public Works, and Fire Chief a permanent
solution to adequately address the public safety concern while
satisfying the requirements of Section 228-6. Potential
solutions identified during this period will be subject to the
provisions of Section 228-10 and 228-11.
C. If, at the end of the 180 day period, or authorized extension of
this period, the Director of Planning and Development or
Director of Code Enforcement has determined that no
reasonable solution exists that will achieve the public safety
goal and the ILPC has determined that no reasonable solution
exists that will satisfy either the criteria of Section 228-6 or
Section 228-11, the Director of Planning and Development or
Director of Code Enforcement may order permanent work to be
undertaken by the owner that will protect the public health,
safety, or welfare without the issuance of either a Certificate of
Appropriateness or a Finding of Economic Hardship.
D. When, in the judgment of the Superintendent of Public Works,
there exists on City property, on City-possessed easements, or
in the City Right of Way a substantial hazard to the public
health, safety, or welfare, the Superintendent of Public Works
may pursue those remedies, improvements, and infrastructures
that he or she deems appropriate; provided, however, that
before doing so, the Superintendent of Public Works shall be
required, if practicable, to consult with the Director of Planning
and Development, or his or her designee. Where said
consultation is not practicable, the Superintendent of Public
Works shall be required to consult with the Director of Planning
and Development, or his or her designee, within a 30 day period
after pursuing any such remedies, improvements, and
infrastructures. Any remedies, improvements, or infrastructures
undertaken on order or authorization of the Superintendent of
Public Works under the first sentence of this paragraph shall
not be subject to §228-6, to §228-7 or §228-10. The requirements
of this paragraph shall apply only to the extent that remedies,
improvements, and infrastructures are pursued within an
historic district or an individual landmark.
§228-[11]14. Maintenance and Repair Required.
A. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary
maintenance and repair of any exterior architectural feature of an
individual landmark or property within a historic district that does not
involve a change in design, building materials, color, or outward
December 4, 2013
27
appearance; however, the Commission’s Secretary shall determine
whether proposed work constitutes ordinary maintenance and repair
or requires a Certificate of Appropriateness.
B. No owner or person with an interest in real property designated as an
individual landmark or included within an historic district shall permit
the property to fall into a serious state of disrepair. Maintenance shall
be required, consistent with the provisions of the Property
Maintenance Code of New York State and all other applicable
regulations.
§228-[12]15. Enforcement and Violations
A. All work performed pursuant to a Certificate of Appropriateness issued
under this chapter shall conform to the requirements included therein.
It shall be the duty of the [Building Commissioner] Director of
Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement to
inspect periodically any such work to assure compliance. In the event
work is found that is not being performed in accordance with the
Certificate of Appropriateness the [Building Commissioner] Director of
Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement shall
issue a stop work order and all work shall immediately cease. No
further work shall be undertaken on the project as long as a stop work
order is in effect.
B. Any owner or person in charge of a property who demolishes or alters
a property in the absence of a Certificate of Appropriateness, a
Finding of Economic Hardship, [or] approval by the Secretary of the
Commission pursuant to §228-[6]7C of the City Municipal Code, or
upon order of the Director of Planning and Development, Director
of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire
Chief pursuant to §228-13 may be required to restore the property
and its site to its appearance prior to the violation. In the event
distinctive historic features have been removed or otherwise
irreversibly altered, such removal or alteration shall constitute a
separate violation under this ordinance.
C. If, in the judgment of the Commission, a violation of §228-[11]14 exists
that will result in a detrimental effect upon the life and character of a
designated historic property or on the character of a historic district as
a whole, the Commission shall notify the [Building Commissioner]
Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code
Enforcement. If, upon investigation, the [Building Commissioner]
Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code
Enforcement finds non-compliance with the requirements of the
Property Maintenance Code of New York State, or any other
applicable regulation, the Director of Planning and Development or
Director of Code Enforcement shall order such remedies as are
necessary and consistent with this Chapter and shall provide written
notice thereof to the Secretary of the Commission.
D. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed an
offense and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 1 of the
Municipal Code, General Provisions, Article I, Penalties. Each day’s
continued breach shall constitute a separate additional violation. In
addition, the City shall have such other remedies as are provided by
law to enforce the provision of this chapter.
§228-[13]16. Appeals.
Any person aggrieved by any decision by the Commission may apply to
the Supreme Court in the State of New York for review under Article 78 of
the Civil Practice Law and Rules within 30 days of publication of the
decision.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
December 4, 2013
28
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance.
Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
Common Council members expressed their thanks to Historic Planner Lynne Truame
for all her work on these two pieces of legislation.
11.2 A Local Law entitled the “City of Ithaca Local Law Concerning Foreclosure
of Unsafe Structures
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
Local Law No. ____-2013
WHEREAS the City has established a goal of returning unsafe structures within the City
of Ithaca back to productive use in a timely manner, and
WHEREAS ineffective control of unsafe buildings runs counter to the City’s exercise of
its power to maintain the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of its citizens
granted by New York General City Law § 20(13), and
WHEREAS the City has the ability, granted by Real Property Tax Law Article 11 § 1184,
to both agree to and refuse to enter into installment agreements for unpaid taxes owed
on property, and
WHEREAS in an effort to return unsafe structures to productive use in a timely manner,
the City hereby establishes that a property owner of an unsafe structure in tax
foreclosure proceedings may not enter into an installment agreement for payment of
back taxes without first bringing the unsafe structure into compliance with the orders of
the City of Ithaca Building Division.
BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. Legislative Findings, Intent, and Purpose.
Pursuant to Real Property Tax Law Article 11 § 1184, the City of Ithaca is authorized to
adopt a local law authorizing the installment payment of delinquent taxes. Under the
City’s current laws, owners of unsafe properties may enter into installment payment
plans. Where the costs of repairs are greater than installment payments or there is
otherwise little incentive for property owners to bring unsafe structures into compliance
with Building Division orders, this policy allows properties to fall into greater disrepair.
The Common Council desires to return these unsafe structures to safe and productive
use, and finds that exempting unsafe structures from installment plans is the most
efficient and effective way to achieve this goal.
Section 2. Charter Amendments.
Section C-44(B) of the Ithaca City Charter is hereby amended as follows:
(1) The City of Ithaca hereby authorizes the City Chamberlain to enter into
installment agreements with property owners of eligible properties providing for the
payment of eligible delinquent taxes in installments according to the provisions of Article
11 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, as amended. Within forty-five
(45) days of the return of unpaid taxes, the City Chamberlain, by first-class mail, shall
notify all owners of eligible properties with delinquent taxes that they are eligible to pay
their delinquent taxes in installments according to the provisions of Article 11 of the Real
Property Tax Law of the State of New York, as amended. The City shall add one dollar
($1.00) to the amount of the tax lien to pay for such postage. The owner of such parcel
must accept the installment offer after thirty (30) days of the mailing of such notice by
signing an installment payment agreement with the City Chamberlain. The City
Chamberlain shall not include parcels accepting the offer and making timely payments
pursuant to the installment plan on the filing of the list of properties for foreclosure
proceedings with the court. Any property within the City shall be an eligible
property so long as: (a) that property is a property as to which Real Property Tax
December 4, 2013
29
Law §1184 authorizes and empowers the City to make available to the owner
thereof an installment agreement, and (b) no primary building or structure located
on the property is found to be unsafe pursuant to City Code § 146-9 unless
abated by repair or demolition in satisfaction of Chapter 146 of the City Code or
otherwise addressed in full compliance with said Chapter.
Section 3. Severability Clause.
Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Local Law. If any
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Local Law is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Local Law.
Section 4. Effective and Operative Date.
This Local Law shall become operative immediately and shall take effect upon its filing
in the office of the Secretary of State.
A Roll Call Vote on the Local Law resulted as follows:
Alderperson Brock – Aye Alderperson Dotson - Aye
Alderperson Clairborne – Aye Alderperson Murtagh - Aye
Alderperson McCollister – Aye Alderperson Fleming - Aye
Alderperson Smith – Excused Alderperson Kerslick - Aye
Alderperson Mohlenhoff – Excused Alderperson Proulx - Aye
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
Appreciation was expressed to the Unsafe Properties Working Group, which included
Assistant City Attorney Krin Flaherty, City Chamberlain Debra Parsons, Deputy Director
of Community Development Sue Kittel, Alderpersons Murtagh, Clairborne, and Kerslick
for their hard work on this legislation. This is step 1 of a multi-step plan to address
unsafe housing in the City.
Alderperson Brock noted that the city-owned Van Atta Pump Station on Giles Street is a
derelict property that needs attention as well.
11.3 Amendment to 2013 City of Ithaca Action Plan to Award $52,776.00 to the
Learning Web’s Supported Employment Program – Resolution
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, The Learning Web has requested funding for a supported employment
program, and
WHEREAS, if funded, the Program will use CDBG funds to employ a program
coordinator who will support young people with limited employment experience in jobs
at Cayuga Medical Center, and elsewhere, in order to increase their chances of
successfully maintaining permanent, unsubsidized employment, and
WHEREAS, the 2013 Action Plan identifies unallocated CDBG funds in the amount of
$96,458.00, and
WHEREAS, the Learning Web has requested $52,776, and
WHEREAS, this project is classified as an eligible public service activity consistent with
the goals of the City’s Consolidated Plan by providing job placement for under-
employed and un-employed young people who have limited job skills or successful past
work experience, and
WHEREAS, this project can be fully funded at the level requested without exceeding the
15% public services spending cap, and
WHEREAS, this proposed activity is listed as Exempt from environmental review by the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and is not subject to the City
Environmental Quality Review regulations, and
December 4, 2013
30
WHEREAS, a funding allocation of more than $25,000 occurring during the program
year constitutes a substantial program amendment to the adopted Action Plan requiring
a public hearing and an action of the Common Council for approval, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency reviewed this proposal on October 24,
2013 and recommend the following contingent on Common Council approval, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing regarding this proposed substantial amendment to the
2013 Action Plan was held at the November 13, 2013 Planning and Economic
Development Committee meeting, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of
$52,776.00 be awarded to The Learning Web for the Supported Employment Program
as 2013 Project #22, and be it further
RESOLVED, That these funds be derived from the 2013 Entitlement Grant, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the IURA Chairperson, upon advice of the IURA Attorney, is hereby
authorized to execute all necessary and appropriate documents to implement this
resolution.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
11.4 Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mural Installation within West Stairwell
of the Seneca Street Parking Garage
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to,
among other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the
exhibition and display of public art in the City’s public spaces, and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank
walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an
opportunity to showcase their work, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and
street art, including the walls of the Seneca Street Parking Garage, by resolution on
May 19, 2010, and
WHEREAS, local artist Jim Garmhausen submitted his proposal for a mural depicting a
vertical group of people as part of the PAC’s Mural and Street Art Program, and
WHEREAS, the PAC discussed Mr. Garmhausen’s mural proposal at its meeting on
September 25, 2013 and, upon review of the potential mural sites pre-approved by the
Board of Public Works, agreed that the west stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking
Garage would be an appropriate location for the proposed mural, and
WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the proposal and recommended
location at its meeting on October 23, 2013 to gather input on the proposed installation,
and
WHEREAS, PAC members have also sought input from adjacent property owners and
City staff, and the responses to the proposal have been mostly positive, and
WHEREAS, the artist will provide funding for the mural, and the proposed installation
will be budget-neutral to the City, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on October 23, 2013, the Public Art Commission
unanimously voted to recommend that the Common Council select the mural proposal
submitted by Jim Garmhausen to be installed within the west stairwell of the Seneca
Street Parking Garage; now, therefore, be it
December 4, 2013
31
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council selects Jim Garmhausen’s mural,
as recommended by the Public Art Commission, featuring a vertical group of people to
be installed within the west stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage and to be
added to the City of Ithaca’s public art collection; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the selected artist may proceed with the installation of his mural upon
the execution of an agreement with the City (as reviewed by the City Attorney).
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
11.5 Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mosaic Mural Installation at the
Department of Public Works Facility on First Street
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to,
among other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the
exhibition and display of public art in the City’s public spaces, and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank
walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an
opportunity to showcase their work, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and
street art, including the Department of Public Works facilities across from the
Sciencenter, by resolution on May 19, 2010, and
WHEREAS, local artists Margaret Corbit, Wes Blauvelt, Annemarie Zwack, Carla
Stetson, Leslie Carrere, and Caitlin Chan submitted their proposal for the 1st Street
Mosaic Project, a community mosaic mural featuring a “plants as food” theme, as part of
the PAC’s Mural and Street Art Program, and
WHEREAS, the PAC discussed the 1st Street Mosaic Project at its meeting on October
10, 2012 and, upon review of the potential mural sites pre-approved by the Board of
Public Works, recommended the Department of Public Works facility on First Street as
an appropriate location for the proposed installation, and
WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the proposal and recommended
location at its meeting on October 23, 2013 to gather input on the proposed installation,
and
WHEREAS, the PAC has also sought input from adjacent property owners and
business owners as well as City staff, and the responses to the proposal have been
overwhelmingly positive, and
WHEREAS, the installation will be funded through donations and will be budget-neutral
to the City, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on October 23, 2013, the Public Art Commission
unanimously voted to recommend that the Common Council select 1st Street Mosaic
Project to be installed at the Department of Public Works facility on First Street; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the 1st Street Mosaic
Project, as recommended by the Public Art Commission, to be installed at the
Department of Public Works facility on First Street and to be added to the City of
Ithaca’s public art collection; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the selected artists may proceed with the installation of their mural
upon the execution of an agreement with the City (as reviewed by the City Attorney).
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
Alderperson Murtagh announced that a Public Information Session regarding the
Collegetown Plan has been scheduled for December 11, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. in Common
December 4, 2013
32
Council Chambers – just prior to the Planning and Economic Development Committee
Meeting.
MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS:
15.1 Appointment of the Superintendent of Public Works - Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
RESOLVED, That Michael Thorne, P.E. be and hereby is appointed Superintendent of
Public Works, effective January 6, 2014 at an annual salary of $94,733.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
15.2 Reappointments to Various City Board/Committees – Resolution
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission – Resolution
By Alderperson McCollister: Seconded by Alderperson Proulx
Landmarks Preservation Commission:
RESOLVED, That Stephen B. Gibian be reappointed to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further
RESOLVED, That David Kramer be reappointed to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Michael J. McGandy be reappointed to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further
Planning and Development Board:
RESOLVED, That Garrick Blalock be reappointed to the Planning and Development
Board with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further
Natural Areas Commission:
RESOLVED, That Anna M. Stalter be reappointed to the Natural Areas Commission
with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further
Rental Housing Advisory Commission:
RESOLVED, That Richard Cowan be reappointed to the Rental Housing Advisory
Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Sean Hillson be appointed to the Rental Housing Advisory
Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further
Shade Tree Advisory Committee:
RESOLVED, That Pamela Markham be reappointed to the Shade Tree Advisory
Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and, be it further
Appointment to Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit Board:
RESOLVED, That Common Council recommends that Jennifer Dotson be re-elected as
a director of the Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit Board with a term to expire
December 31, 2016.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
REPORTS OF COMMON COUNCIL LIAISONS:
Alderperson Brock reported that recently 100 gallons of a solvent type liquid had been
dumped into the City’s sewer system which killed the living bacteria at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The situation is improving and the Environmental Protection Agency
and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation are assisting in the
investigation.
REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY:
City Attorney Lavine reported that the City is currently in litigation with a landlord who
illegally constructed a backyard parking lot. The City has accepted a guilty plea for
multiple counts of failing to obtain a building permit and failing to obtain a certificate of
compliance. The fine payment of $18,750 is due to the City by December 31, 2013.
December 4, 2013
33
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
19.1 Approval of the October 2013 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes on
the Mayor’s Proposed 2014 Budget – Resolution
By Alderperson Kerslick: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the October 2013 Committee of the Whole Meetings
be approved with noted corrections.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
19.2 Approval of the November 6, 2013 and the November 12, 2013 Common
Council Meeting Minutes – Resolution
The approval of the November 6, 2013 Common Council meeting and November 12,
2013 Special Common Council meeting minutes was postponed until the January 8,
2014 Common Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
______________________________ _______________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Svante L. Myrick
City Clerk Mayor