HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2012-11-07COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. November 7, 2012
PRESENT:
Mayor Myrick
Alderpersons (10) Brock, Dotson, Murtagh, Clairborne, McCollister, Fleming, Smith,
Kerslick, Proulx, Mohlenhoff
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney – Lavine
City Controller – Thayer
Community Development Director – Bohn
Superintendent of Public Works – Gray
Human Resources Director – Michell-Nunn
Deputy Economic Development Director – DeSarno
GIAC Director – Fort
Ithaca Youth Bureau Deputy Director – Vance
Acting Police Chief – Barber
Deputy Police Chief – Tyler
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Myrick led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
City Administration Committee:
Alderperson Clairborne requested that Item 8.2 entitled “An Ordinance to Amend
Chapter 348 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Water and Sewers”, Section
348-29 “Sanitary Services” to Amend Sub-Sections 348-29(E) and (J) be removed from
the Consent Agenda and placed under the Government Performance and Accountability
Committee Items as Item 11.2.
No Council Member objected.
PROCLAMATIONS/AWARDS:
3.1 Presentation of Annual Workforce and Diversity Inclusion Award
Mayor Myrick presented the Youth Bureau’s Recreation Support Services and
Recreation Department with the Annual Workforce and Diversity Inclusion Award.
He noted that they have been recognized for their work with promoting and supporting
the inclusion of children with disabilities into summer programming at Cass and Stewart
Park Day Camps.
3.2 Presentation of Quarterly Employee Recognition Award
Mayor Myrick presented the City of Ithaca Quarterly Recognition Award to Linda
Cimankasky-Barr from the Ithaca Youth Bureau for her excellent work and dedication to
the Tot Spot and College Discovery Programs.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
4.1 A Public Hearing to Consider the Mayor’s Amended Executive Budget for
2013 as approved by the Committee of the Whole
Resolution to Open Public Hearing:
By Alderperson Kerslick: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to Consider the Mayor’s Amended Executive
Budget for 2013 as approved by the Committee of the Whole be declared open.
Carried Unanimously
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, addressed Common Council in support of the Ithaca
Police Department’s request for additional staffing, and to encourage the City to talk
with Cornell University about increasing their voluntary contribution to the City to
support law enforcement services.
November 7, 2012
2
Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield, addressed Common Council with concerns about
increased violent crimes in the City, and the need for Cornell University to increase its
voluntary contribution to the City.
City Clerk Holcomb, read for the record, the following statement from Mary Tomlan,
former Alderperson for the Third Ward:
“In the midst of my previously expressed and serious concerns about process and
proposed reorganizations in the 2013 budget, I would note my pride as a citizen in the
step forward to add the City of Ithaca to the list of living wager employers. Thank you to
the Mayor for this initiative, and to the Common Council for its support.”
Resolution to Close Public Hearing:
By Alderperson McCollister: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to Consider the Mayor’s Amended Executive
Budget for 2013 as approved by the Committee of the Whole be declared closed.
Carried Unanimously
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
The following people addressed Common Council on the following items:
James Underberg spoke in support of the Resolution supporting the reduction of
greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act.
Qadira Garger spoke in support of the Commons Redesign Project
Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of David Lubin’s proposed project, and
the need for more jobs in the technology field.
Walter Hang, City of Ithaca, spoke on the topic of soil contamination at the Ithaca Gun
site. He noted that it may be a $5 million project involving soil remediation, below grade
remediation, and ground water contamination. Some areas have been re-contaminated
as well.
Gino Bush, City of Ithaca, invited the Mayor and Alderpersons Clairborne and Murtagh
to have lunch with him before the end of the year to discuss local issues. He also
suggested that an “Elders Summit” be held to discuss historical issues in the City.
Clare Grady, City of Ithaca, described the events that occurred on October 11th when
Officer Augustine was shot on West Hill, highlighting the actions of the Tompkins
County Sheriff Deputies.
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, spoke regarding the impact that crime has had on the
lower income communities in Ithaca and the impact that staffing shortages have had on
law enforcement. She distributed Acting Police Chief Barber’s budget statement, noting
her opposition to the addition of the proposed Parking Director and Chief of Staff
positions while the police department is losing positions. She also voiced her opposition
to the Commons redesign project, and voiced her concern about the number of tax
exempt properties in the City. She suggested that adjustments in salaries should be
considered as a way to reduce the budget deficit as well.
Pat Ehrich and Corrine Frantz expressed concern over the proposed resolution entitled
“IURA - Approve use of Gateway Proceeds for loan assistance to State Theatre of
Ithaca, Inc. for the State North Community Center Project” and the removal of the
property from the City’s tax rolls.
Jason Fane and Gary Ferguson spoke in support of the proposed resolution entitled
“Endorsement of Revisions to City of Ithaca Community Investment Incentive Program
(CIIP)”.
Mack Travis spoke in support of the proposed resolution entitled “Endorsement of
Revisions to City of Ithaca Community Investment Incentive Program (CIIP)”. He
November 7, 2012
3
suggested that the Masonic Temple building could become the City’s “community
center”, and noted that there is a lot of community support and local funding for the
redevelopment of this site. He explained that the building is on the historic register so it
cannot be torn down. The hope is that it would replace some of the uses that were lost
when the Women’s Community Building was demolished.
Cynthia Brock read a letter from John Graves regarding the City’s Local Action Plan and
the need to step up actions to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR:
Mayor Myrick thanked all the speakers for their comments.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
Government Performance and Accountability Committee:
8.1 An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 45
entitled “Disability Advisory Council”, Section 45-1 regarding “Appointment and
Membership”
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
Ordinance 2012-___
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the City of Ithaca Common Council as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 45, Section 45-1, entitled “Appointment and Membership,” is hereby
amended to read as follows:
§ 45-1. Appointment and membership.
The Mayor, with the approval of the Common Council, is authorized to appoint a
Disability Advisory Council, to be composed of 12 members, including representatives
of the disabled community and organizations serving it, [2/3 of the members to] no
more than fifty percent (50%) may be non-residents of the City of Ithaca and a
majority of the members to be considered as possessing a disability.
Section 2. 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 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law, upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Carried Unanimously
City Administration Committee:
8.3 Department of Public Works - Addition of Water Treatment Plant Operator
Title for the Water Treatment Plant - Resolution
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Department of Public Works Water & Sewer Division,
Water Treatment Plant will have one operator, taking advantage of the City Retirement
Incentive in December of 2012, and
WHEREAS, this operator is the overnight shift operator and the need to create, fund, fill
and train a replacement as close as possible prior to the retirement is an immediate
need, and
WHEREAS, using the recently filled float shift operator position to fill this vacancy is
only a short term fix and leaves the plant short staffed again for operational coverage,
maintenance capabilities and will result in an increase in overtime. The Water Plant is a
24/7 operation and having adequate staffing to cover for operations and maintenance is
an essential need to assure proper production of water that will continue to meet state
and federal requirements, and
November 7, 2012
4
WHEREAS, funding for this new position is from within the existing 2012 budget, due to
title and duty changes in 2012; the position was reviewed and approved through
Vacancy Review on September 10, 2012, Civil Service Commission on September 12,
2012, and Board of Public Works on October 22, 2012. As part of the approval, this
new title will be funded for 2012 and will remain on the roster unfunded for 2013 for an
anticipated requirement for extra coverage and to reduce overtime; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council approves this title and its requirements, and hereby
creates the Water Treatment Plant Operator title/position with the corresponding funding
at the City of Ithaca Water Treatment Plant.
Carried Unanimously
8.4 Department of Public Works - Access Road Easement Agreement with
NYSDOT - Resolution
By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has reviewed material from the City’s consulting
engineer for the water plant, O’Brien and Gere, showing the relocation of the driveway
off Route 79 (Slaterville Road) which is designed to improve access to the City’s water
intake structure, and
WHEREAS, the driveway relocation will intercept one of the New York State
Department of Transportation’s (NYSDOT) highway drainage structures for Route 79 in
a drainage easement, causing it to be extended out beyond the driveway, and has
resulted in the NYSDOT requesting an extended easement on the City’s watershed
property for their drainage structure prior to their agreeing to the proposed change in
their drainage structure, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has recommended the extended easement be
granted by Common Council; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Department of Public Works’ staff and the City Attorney work with the
consultant and the NYSDOT to obtain the necessary forms, drawings and agreements
for the driveway relocation, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council grants the permanent drainage easement
extension requested by the NYSDOT so that the City may improve the driveway to the
City’s raw water intake, and authorizes the Mayor to sign the necessary documents.
Carried Unanimously
CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
9.1 A Local Law to Consolidate Office of the City Chamberlain into Office of the
City Controller
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, the intent of the following legislation is to reduce the costs and increase the
efficiency of the City’s government in light of record budget deficits; and
WHEREAS New York State has granted to the City the power to organize its own
government and the departments therein as the City deems necessary; and
WHEREAS The Common Council has determined that certain operations of the City’s
government could efficiently be consolidated and overseen by a single department head
rather than by multiple separate departments; and
WHEREAS, the Office of the City Chamberlain only came into existence late in the
City’s long history, prior to which the Office of the City Controller handled the financial
affairs of the City, and
WHEREAS, the Office of the City Controller is well equipped, with the assistance of
appropriate staff of the Office of the City Chamberlain, to handle the financial affairs of
the City both as a matter of spending and receiving City funds, now therefore,
November 7, 2012
5
Local Law #2012-____
BE IT NOW ENACTED BY the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. Legislative Intent and Purpose.
The Common Council of the City of Ithaca determines that it is in the interest of the
public welfare to consolidate the Office of the City Chamberlain into the Office of the
City Controller, such that the City Chamberlain and all appropriate staff of the Office of
the City Chamberlain shall hereafter report to the City Controller as members of the
Office of the City Controller. Subject only to the requirement that the City Chamberlain
report to the City Controller, the City Chamberlain shall retain all powers, duties, and
functions otherwise possessed by the City Chamberlain unless explicitly altered herein.
Section 2. Appointive Officers Not Serving In Their Respective Department.
The text of Section C-5(C)(4), a subsection of “Elective and Appointive Officers”, as
currently contained in the Ithaca City Charter and last ratified by Local Law No. 5 of
2011 is hereby repealed and replaced with the following text, said replacement text to
be read in concert with any other text duly enacted to replace portions of the hereby-
repealed text:
(i) Officers who serve as the heads of their respective departments, and who are
appointed by the Mayor with the approval of Common Council: Building
Commissioner,[City Chamberlain,] City Clerk, Controller, Director of Human Resources,
Director of Information Technology, Director of Planning and Development, Fire Chief,
Greater Ithaca Activities Center Director, Police Chief, Superintendent of Public Works,
Youth Bureau Director.
(ii) Officers who are appointed by the Mayor with the approval of Common
Council to a specific department: City Chamberlain as appointed to the Office of
the City Controller.
Section 3. Consolidated Office of the City Controller.
The text of Section C-19(B)(7), a subsection of “Financial Officers”, as currently
contained in the Ithaca City Charter and last ratified by Local Law No. 1 of 2011 is
hereby repealed and replaced with the following text:
“[Organize the work of the Office of the City Chamberlain. The City Chamberlain may
assign and transfer administrative functions, powers and duties within the Office of the
City Chamberlain as the best interest of the City may appear, subject to the Charter,
local law or ordinance.] Be a member of the Office of the City Controller, such that,
notwithstanding any other provision of the City Code, all powers, responsibilities,
procedures, rights, and penalties in this Charter or in the City Code or in rules
created thereunder specifying, compelling, or permitting the administration,
enforcement, or other participation of the “Office of the City Chamberlain” shall
be invested in and associated with the Office of the City Controller.”
Section 4. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this
local law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be
confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part thereof
directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This Local Law shall take effect on January 1, 2013 or 45 days after its adoption,
whichever is later, and after filing in the office of the Secretary of State. This Local Law
is subject to referendum on petition pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law Section 24.
Alderperson Clairborne stated that he voted for this legislation during the budget
deliberations; however, he believes the re-organization attempts, such as the proposed
demotion of the City Chamberlain, feels “clunky” and that there are better ways to
accomplish these goals.
Alderperson Brock stated that she did not support this legislation during budget
meetings because it was not done through an established process that included an
November 7, 2012
6
analysis of goals and consequences. She doesn’t believe that this is the best way to
legislate departmental mergers, noting that there is no financial gain to the City at this
time. She further expressed her concern that the legislation was not shared with
respective staff members.
A vote on the Local Law resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) Dotson, Murtagh, McCollister, Fleming, Smith, Kerslick, Proulx,
Mohlenhoff
Nays (2) Brock, Clairborne
Carried
9.2 A Local Law to Consolidate the Building Department into the Department of
Planning and Development
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, the intent of the following legislation is to reduce the costs and increase the
efficiency of the City’s government in light of record budget deficits; and
WHEREAS New York State has granted to the City the power to organize its own
government and the departments therein as the City deems necessary; and
WHEREAS The Common Council has determined that certain operations of the City’s
government could efficiently be consolidated and overseen by a single department head
rather than by multiple separate departments; and
WHEREAS, the Building Department executes Code Enforcement as to numerous
Code Provisions, many of which are promulgated by the Department of Planning and
Development, including zoning, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Development is well equipped, with the
assistance of appropriate staff of the Building Department, to handle the code
enforcement functions of the City, now therefore,
Local Law #2012-____
BE IT NOW ENACTED BY the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. Legislative Intent and Purpose.
The Common Council of the City of Ithaca determines that it is in the interest of the
public welfare to consolidate the Building Department into the Department of Planning
and Development so as to form the Department of Planning, Building, and
Development, such that the Building Commissioner and all appropriate staff of the
former Building Department shall hereafter report to the Director of Planning and
Development as members of the Department of Planning, Building, and Development.
Subject only to the requirement that the Building Commissioner report to the Director of
Planning and Development, the Building Commissioner shall retain all powers, duties,
and functions otherwise possessed by the Building Commissioner unless explicitly
altered herein.
Section 2. Appointive Officers Not Serving In Their Respective Department.
The text of Section C-5(C)(4), a subsection of “Elective and Appointive Officers”, as
currently contained in the Ithaca City Charter and last ratified by Local Law No. 5 of
2011 is hereby repealed and replaced with the following text, said replacement text to
be read in concert with any other text duly enacted to replace portions of the hereby-
repealed text:
(i) Officers who serve as the heads of their respective departments, and who are
appointed by the Mayor with the approval of Common Council: [Building Commissioner,]
City Chamberlain, City Clerk, Controller, Director of Human Resources, Director of
Information Technology, Director of Planning and Development, Fire Chief, Greater
Ithaca Activities Center Director, Police Chief, Superintendent of Public Works, Youth
Bureau Director.
November 7, 2012
7
(ii) Officers who are appointed by the Mayor with the approval of Common
Council to a specific department: Building Commissioner as appointed to the
Department of Planning, Building, and Development.
Section 3. Department of Planning, Building, and Development.
(a) The text of the title of Chapter 4, Article V as currently contained in the Ithaca
City Code and last ratified by Local Law No. 5 of 2011 is hereby repealed and
replaced with the following text:
(b) Department of Planning, Building, and Development
(c) The text of the first sentence of Section 4-22, a subsection of “Department of
Planning and Development”, as currently contained in the Ithaca City Code and
last ratified by Local Law No. 5 of 2011 is hereby repealed and replaced with the
following text:
“There shall be a Department of Planning, Building, and Development
headed by a Director of Planning and Development.”
(d) A new subsection L shall be added to the text of Section 4-22 beneath
subsection K, a subsection of “Department of Planning and Development,” as
currently contained in the Ithaca City Code and last ratified by Local Law No. 5 of
2011 to read as follows:
“L. Notwithstanding any other provision of the City Code, all powers,
responsibilities, procedures, rights, and penalties in this Code or in
rules created thereunder specifying, compelling, or permitting the
administration, enforcement, or other participation of the
“Department of Planning and Development” shall be invested in and
associated with the Department of Planning, Building, and
Development.”
Section 4. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this
local law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be
confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part thereof
directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This Local Law shall take effect on January 1, 2013 or 45 days after its adoption,
whichever is later, and after filing in the office of the Secretary of State. This Local Law
is subject to referendum on petition pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law Section 24.
Ayes (8) Dotson, Murtagh, McCollister, Fleming, Smith, Kerslick, Proulx,
Mohlenhoff
Nays (2) Brock, Clairborne
Carried
9.3 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 146 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
entitled “Building Code Enforcement” Section 146-4(A) related to Administrative
Officers and Functions
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, as
follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-
Section 1. The text of 146-4(A) as currently contained in the Ithaca City Code is hereby
repealed and replaced with the following text:
“The Office of Code Enforcement Officer is hereby created. The Office of Code
Enforcement Officer shall be [known as the City of Ithaca] the Department of
Planning, Building, and Development [Department]. The Code Enforcement Officer
shall administer and enforce all the provisions of the Uniform Code, the Energy Code
November 7, 2012
8
and this chapter. The Building Commissioner [as appointed by the Mayor] shall be the
Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Ithaca.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the City Code, all powers, responsibilities,
procedures, rights, and penalties in this Code or in rules created thereunder
specifying, compelling, or permitting the administration, enforcement, or other
participation of the “Building Department” or the “office of the Building
Commissioner” shall be invested in and associated with the Department of
Planning, Building, and Development, wherein the Building Commissioner shall
serve as the Code Enforcement Officer as specified in Chapter 146 of the City
Code.”
Section 2. All employees and functions of the City of Ithaca Building Department shall
be transferred to the Department of Planning, Building, and Development, pursuant to
Section 70.2 of New York State Civil Service Law.
Section 3. 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 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2013 or 45
days after its adoption, whichever is later, and after filing in the office of the Secretary of
State.
Alderperson Clairborne stated that he would support this legislation as the other two
pieces of legislation have passed and he doesn’t want the Building Commissioner’s job
to be negatively impacted.
A vote on the Ordinance resulted as follows:
Ayes (9) Dotson, Clairborne, Murtagh, McCollister, Fleming, Smith,
Kerslick, Mohlenhoff, Proulx
Nays (1) Brock
Carried
9.4 Tax Levy Limit Override – Discussion and Possible Local Law
City Controller Thayer explained that this topic was introduced at the City Administration
Committee meeting in case additional budget changes necessitated this action;
however, they have not. There was a brief question and answer period about this
process. Upon the recommendation of the City Controller, no action was taken.
9.5 Adoption of 2013 Budget - Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, this Common Council is now considering adoption of the Amended
Executive Budget for 2013 as approved by the Committee of the Whole, and
WHEREAS, it is the consensus of this Common Council that the total appropriations
and estimated revenues, as set forth in said Amended Executive Budget for 2013, and
as those amounts may be altered by action of this Common Council at its November 7,
2012 meeting, are adequate for the operation of the City during 2013; now, therefore be
it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council accepts and approves said Amended
Executive Budget for 2013, together with any additional changes made in said budget at
Council's November 7, 2012 meeting as the City of Ithaca Budget for 2013, in the total
amount of $62,414,433, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the following sections of the 2013 Budget be approved:
A) General Fund Appropriations
B) Water Fund Appropriations
C) Sewer Fund Appropriations
D) Solid Waste Fund Appropriations
November 7, 2012
9
E) General Fund Revenues
F) Water Fund Revenues
G) Sewer Fund Revenues
H) Solid Waste Fund Revenues
I) Debt Retirement Schedule
J) Capital Projects
K) Schedule of Salaries and Positions - General Fund
L) Schedule of Salaries and Positions - Water & Sewer Fund
M) Schedule of Salaries and Positions - Solid Waste Fund
N) Authorized Equipment - General Fund
O) Authorized Equipment - Water Fund
P) Authorized Equipment - Sewer Fund
Q) Authorized Equipment - Solid Waste Fund
Alderperson Clairborne stated that he had been reflecting on the events that have
occurred in the City during the past week including a bomb threat on the Commons and
the shooting of a police officer. The budget statement that Acting Police Chief John
Barber submitted requested the replacement of 4 police officer positions in the
proposed budget. He stated that $76,000 would be needed to replace 1 police officer
position which could be funded through the fund balance or the exchange of one of the
new positions being proposed in the budget.
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Brock
RESOLVED, That one additional police officer be added to the Ithaca Police
Department roster by using $76,000 from the fund balance.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding Council members reluctance to use
any further funds from the fund balance, the need to find other sources of revenue
including increased contributions from Cornell University, the chronic staff shortages the
police department has experienced, and the need to think strategically about how the
City provides public safety to the community.
A vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (2) Brock, Clairborne
Nays (8) Dotson,Murtagh, McCollister, Fleming, Smith, Kerslick, Mohlenhoff,
Proulx
Failed
Further discussion followed on the floor with Alderperson Clairborne sharing his
concerns about individual items in the budget and the budget process that was followed.
He applauded the Mayor for the creative thinking that went into the budget proposal and
for bringing the budget in under the property tax cap; however, he will not be able to
support it as he did not feel that a proper, participatory process was in place to consider
a budget that eliminated 22.5 positions and included demotions for 2 department heads
and a reduction in hours for 1 department head.
Alderperson Brock read the following statement for the record:
“When Council was handed the Mayor’s recommended 2013 budget exactly 5 weeks ago, I admit I
received its contents with a bit more shock than I had expected. The budget presented on October 3rd is
bold in the depth and breadth of its cuts across nearly all City departments. It has facilitated the
retirement of our most experienced personnel. Moreover, in conjunction with the budget, the Mayor has
requested legislative implementation of structural changes which will re-organize four of our essential
departments and consolidate their powers and responsibilities into two departments under two
department heads
I applaud the Mayor’s vision, and his initiative to implement in his first year such dramatic change. Our
City’s organizational structure has grown and evolved over the years, but our City has changed at a faster
pace, and costs have increased at a pace even faster than that. Adjustments are necessary to bring our
organizational structure in line with our needs and our vision, and in balance with the resources available.
These are resources which are shrinking year after year as State and Federal aid become less reliable,
and as the proportion of our tax base – our taxable properties – grows smaller as government and non-
profit organizations seek to increase their presence in the City.
November 7, 2012
10
I deeply appreciate the Mayor’s commitment to having the City of Ithaca be a Certified Living Wage
Employer. People deserve to earn a wage which provides for a reasonable quality of life, such that an
individual can actually live on the wages they earn rather than having to cobble together several jobs in
order to pay rent, buy food, have health care and enjoy life. Thank you.
I also support the creation of a Parking Director position which will not only improve the management of
our parking program but will also increase the attention we give to that infrastructure and its relationship
to zoning, planning and economic development. After a reasonable lead time, I fully expect to see this
position pay for itself as we modernize our pay stations, adjust pricing and modify parking schedules.
I support that the reinstatement of two IFD responders in addition to retaining Fire Inspection services in
the Fire Department and believe this is the right move in both the short and long term. We should require
increased communication and collaboration between the Fire Department and Building Department, for
the purpose of improving service and increasing efficiencies. By keeping inspections in the IFD, it takes
advantage of staffing availability during “down times” and keeps emergency personnel available in times
of emergency. The 2-in 2-out rule is essential to maintain and preserve the safety of our first responders.
By reinstating these two IFD positions we are able keep staffing levels such that IFD responders won’t
have to make the painful choice between doing what is safe and doing their job.
I look forward to 2013, and the opportunity to work with the Mayor, Council and Staff to develop a vision
for our future and the manner in which we will achieve that vision. Through honest and open exchange,
we can explore the impacts of our decisions. We can, for example, examine benefits and disadvantages,
mitigate for expected consequences, and ensure that we have the resources needed to successfully
achieve our goals. The Mayor and committee chairs have expressed commitment to this process starting
in early 2013, and their commitment to this collaborative process is welcome and greatly appreciated.
Unfortunately, this is not the process which was utilized in the development of the 2013 budget, and it is
for this reason that I am not voting in support of it. I support the goals of this budget, but I do not endorse
the means it utilizes to get there.
~ The budget’s dramatic reduction in personnel costs is devastating to departments in terms of losses in
productivity, structure and in morale. Our senior and most experienced staff - who represent our largest
investment in skill, training and institutional knowledge - are also our most costly in terms of dollars. The
proposed budget realizes “savings” through retirements, the unfunding of vacancies, and reduction of
staff hours. I believe the impact of this will be dramatic, particularly in the immediate future, as staff
expand their work load, learn new skills, and take on the responsibility of their former supervisors. Yes,
new staff are cheaper and bring welcome enthusiasm and vibrancy to an organization, but efficient and
effective services often result from time, training and experience. The dramatic loss of our experienced
personnel, in conjunction with 22 unfunded positions will be felt for quite some time.
~ The mergers of the Building and Planning Departments into a new Department of Planning, Building
and Development, and merger of the Office of the Chamberlain into the Office of the Controller has no
expected budgetary benefit, and yet are being voted on as part of the budget process. These proposed
mergers were neither developed nor vetted through a committee or working group, and the legislative
changes being voted on tonight were not developed with the input of affected staff. I believe the
consolidation of departments is a worthy goal and should be done thoughtfully and deliberately with a
clear understanding of what is hoped to be achieved, and what it will take to accomplish it. Without a
plan, these mergers will result in a significant loss of productivity to the four departments and HR
Department as they scramble to implement the legislation. Both the Director of Planning and the City
Controller have seen their responsibilities expand dramatically in recent years while they continue to
endure staffing vacancies (vacant Deputy Director of Planning and accountant positions, respectively).
Adding to their responsibility and oversight without anticipating or preparing for the effects of these
mergers, is myopic and will have, I fear, significant negative impacts.
~ The Chief of Staff is difficult to support as currently designed as there are no minimum requirements for
this position which pays over $100,000 per year. I generally support the intent of this position, but without
additional assurances as to the qualifications and accountability of this individual, I see this position
adding financial cost and bureaucratic confusion.
~ Finally, the marked cuts to staffing of the IPD and IFD in conjunction with upcoming expected vacancies
will, in my opinion, have negative impacts on departmental performance and the quality of life of residents
in a variety of ways. There are numerous development projects in the queue for the City which will result
in increased population density, class stratification and demand for services. These development
projects will be on the ground and in place faster than we are able to fill the increasing numbers of
vacancies for emergency responders. In West Hill and South Hill we already feel the direct impact of
growing density in our neighborhoods and increasing concerns regarding crime, noise, nuisance, traffic,
and property damage. We need to address public safety concerns proactively and these cuts perpetuate
a reactive budgetary model which does not work in achieving our goals.
In conclusion, I am quite dismayed to find myself voting against this budget, because there is so much
about the Mayor’s vision that I support. This experience has reinforced the mantra I have heard from
past Councils every November, requesting earlier participation in the budget process. It is up to us to
stop repeating history. Beginning in January 2013, we, as a Council must do everything we can to be
proactive in the creation of the 2014 budget, so that we may collaboratively prepare our city for the future,
with deliberate planning and understanding of what it will take to get us there.”
November 7, 2012
11
Alderperson McCollister voiced her disagreement with some of the comments made
and noted that many staff members were heavily involved in the proposed changes to
the organizational structure.
Motion to Call the Question
By Alderperson McCollister: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
RESOLVED, That the Question be called on the adoption of the 2013 Budget.
Ayes (7) Murtagh, McCollister, Fleming, Smith, Kerslick, Mohlenhoff,
Proulx
Nays (3) Dotson, Brock, Clairborne
Carried
Alderperson Mohlenhoff disclosed that her spouse is a Fire Fighter and Alderperson
Clairborne disclosed that his spouse is the Deputy Director of GIAC. Both stated that
the adoption of this budget will not impact them financially, and there is no conflict of
interest so they will be voting on this item.
Main Motion
A vote on the Main Motion resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) Dotson,Murtagh, McCollister, Fleming, Smith, Kerslick, Mohlenhoff,
Proulx
Nays (2) Brock, Clairborne
Carried
Mayor Myrick and Common Council members thanked City Controller Steven Thayer
and Deputy City Controller Scott Andrew for their hard work on the budget. Mayor
Myrick referred to it as a remarkable budget that closed a $3 million budget deficit.
9.6 Adoption of 2013 Tax Rate – Resolution (Revised November 6, 2012)
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Murtagh
WHEREAS, the 2013 City of Ithaca Budget was approved, adopted, and confirmed in
the total amount of $62,414,433 on November 7, 2012, in accordance with a detailed
Budget on file in the Office of the City Controller, and
WHEREAS, available and estimated revenues total $42,316,532 leaving $20,097,901
as the amount to be raised by taxation, and
WHEREAS, the Assessment Roll for 2013 certified and filed by the Assessment
Department of Tompkins County, has been footed and approved and shows the total
net taxable valuation as $1,536,536,783 and
WHEREAS, under Charter provisions, the tax limit for City purposes amounts to
$29,808,215 for 2013; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the tax rate for general purposes, for the fiscal year 2013, be, and
the same hereby is, established and fixed at $13.08 per $1,000 of taxable valuation as
shown, certified and extended against the respective properties on the 2013, Tax Roll,
thereby making a total tax levy, as near as may be, of $20,097,901, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the amount of said tax levy be spread, and the same hereby is levied
upon and against the respective properties as shown on said City Tax Roll, in
accordance with their respective net taxable valuation, at the rate of $13.08 per $1,000
of such taxable valuation, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Chamberlain be, and hereby is, directed to extend and
apportion the City Tax as above, and that upon the completion of the extension of said
Roll, the City Clerk shall prepare a warrant on the City Chamberlain for the collection of
said levy; and the Mayor and the City Clerk hereby are authorized and directed to sign
and affix the corporate seal to such warrant and forthwith to file the same with said Tax
Roll with the City Chamberlain, and be it further
November 7, 2012
12
RESOLVED, That upon the execution and filing of said warrant and Tax Roll with the
City Chamberlain, the amounts of the City Tax set opposite each and every property
shall hereby become liens, due, payable and collectible in accordance with provisions of
the City Charter and other laws applicable thereto, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the total sum of $62,414,433 be appropriated in accordance with the
Budget adopted to the respective Boards, Offices, and Departments of the City, for the
purposes respectively set forth therein. The 2013 Assessment Roll has been completed
and approved by the Assessment Department of Tompkins County and resulted in the
following valuation:
Total Value of Real Property $3,961,573,544
Less: Value of Exempt Property $2,451,018,000
$1,510,555,544
Plus: Value of Special Franchises $25,981,239
Net Value of Taxable Property $1,536,536,783
Carried Unanimously (11-0)
Mayor Myrick voted Aye
9.7 Adoption of 2013 Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget -
Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister
WHEREAS, this Common Council is now considering adoption of the Amended Joint
Activity Fund Budget for 2013 as approved by the Committee of the Whole, and
WHEREAS, it is the consensus of this Common Council that the total appropriations
and estimated revenues, as set forth in said Amended Joint Activity Fund Budget for
2013 and as those amounts may be altered by action of the Common Council at its
November 7, 2012 meeting, are adequate for the operation of the Ithaca Area
Wastewater Treatment Plant during 2013; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council accepts and approves said Amended Joint
Activity Fund Budget for 2013, together with any additional changes made in said
budget at Council’s November 7, 2012 meeting, as the Ithaca Area Wastewater
Treatment Plant Joint Activity Fund Budget for 2013, in the total amount of $3,667,965,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the following sections of the 2013 Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment
Plant Joint Activity Fund Budget be approved:
A. Joint Activity Fund Appropriations
B. Joint Activity Fund Revenues
C. Schedule of Salaries and Positions – Joint Activity Fund
D. Authorized Equipment – Joint Activity Fund
Carried Unanimously
9.8 Fire Department - Status of Volunteer Companies with No Active Members
Resolution – To Disband or Failing That Dissociate Ithaca Volunteer Fire
Companies with no active members from the Ithaca Fire Department
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Fleming
WHEREAS, there currently are 8 volunteer Fire Companies, authorized by the City
Charter to operate under the oversight of the Ithaca Board of Fire Commissioners in
providing fire services as part of the Ithaca Fire Department, and
WHEREAS, per the City Charter – Section C-96. Powers and duties of Board, it is
the duty and responsibility of the Board of Fire Commissioners to organize new
companies and to disband any Department company, subject to the approval of the
Common Council…., and
November 7, 2012
13
WHEREAS, the Board of Fire Commissioners has acted to transfer all active volunteer
members of the Ithaca Fire Department, who are not already members of Neriton
Company 9 into said company; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the following 7 volunteer companies, which no longer have active
members volunteering with the Ithaca Fire Department: Company 1 – Cayuga Hose,
Company 2 – Rescue Steamer & Chem, Company 3 – Tornado Hook and Ladder,
Company 4 – Eureka Patrol, Company 5 – Torrent Hose, Company 6 – Sprague
Steamer and Hose, and Company 7 – Cataract Hose are hereby disbanded, or failing
that dissociated, from the Ithaca Fire Department as Volunteer Fire Companies, and are
no longer to be considered part of the Ithaca Fire Department; as such, these
companies shall no longer be approved by the Board of Fire Commissioners to recruit
individuals to be active members of the Ithaca Fire Department or to engage in the
prevention and extinguishment of fires, and be it further
RESOLVED, That any issues regarding 2% funds that were distributed previously to
these 7 Volunteer Companies, will be handled per law and regulation, as specified by
the N.Y. State Comptroller’s Office if timely so specified, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council joins with the Board of Fire Commissioners in
recognizing the debt owed to those who are currently members of these companies for
their current and past service to their Companies and to the Community, and it is with a
profound sense of humility and reluctance that the Common Council takes these
actions, but it does so with the belief that these changes will provide the greatest
opportunity for enhancing and continuing the long tradition of volunteer fire service to
the community.
Fire Chief Parsons reviewed the changing history of volunteer service in the Ithaca Fire
Department. He described the significant time commitment involved in training to
become a volunteer fire fighter. He noted that there are currently 15 active volunteers:
3 certified volunteer fire fighters and 12 fire/police and student bunkers.
Alderperson Clairborne expressed his thanks to the Board of Fire Commissioners and
staff for their work on this issue, acknowledging that it was not an easy task.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
9.9 IURA - Approve use of Gateway Proceeds for loan assistance to State
Theatre of Ithaca, Inc. for the State North Community Center Project - Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2012, State Theatre of Ithaca Inc. (STI) applied to the
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) for $400,000 of loan assistance for a $1.3 million
project to acquire the former Masonic Temple building to renovate and operate it for
“State North Community Center” (SNCC) located at 115-117 N. Cayuga Street, Ithaca,
NY, and
WHEREAS, STI seeks to induce the property owner to sell the 115-117 N. Cayuga
Street property by submitting a $1 million cash purchase offer, and
WHEREAS, the project is intended to benefit the community as well as generate income
over the long-term to enhance the financial sustainability of STI, the owner of the State
Theatre, and
WHEREAS, the proposed SNCC is further intended to, in part, address a shortage of
community meeting and assembly space in the community resulting from the sale and
demolition of the Women’s Community Building that in 2008 hosted over 80 uses of its
auditorium and over 120 uses of its meeting room, and
WHEREAS, the building is proposed to be leased to a variety non-profit organizations,
including the New Roots Charter School (New Roots) as the anchor ground floor tenant,
provide a performance/ assembly space to be managed by the STI for community and
November 7, 2012
14
performance use when not being utilized by New Roots, provide nonprofit organization
office space and access to the New Roots kitchen for community use, and
WHEREAS, the proposed uses of project funds are:
$1,000,000 property acquisition
$250,000 renovations
$26,000 property taxes
$74,000 working capital
$1,350,000 Total, and
WHEREAS, the proposed sources of project funds are:
$500,000 Park Foundation loan
$400,000 IURA loan
$250,000 Bank loan
$200,000 TCAD loan
$1,350,000 Total, and
WHEREAS, all non-bank project debt is structured as interest-only debt payments with
balloon payments due at various times, and
WHEREAS, the proposed project does not create affordable housing or commit to
create jobs, so the project is not eligible for funding assistance from CDBG, HOME or
HODAG funds administered by the IURA, and
WHEREAS, the project is an eligible use of Gateway proceeds (current approximate
balance $447,000), administered by the IURA subject to Common Council approval, but
$100,000 per year of Gateway proceeds are earmarked as contributions to the Housing
Fund to support affordable housing, so only short-term, low-risk use of Gateway
proceeds is appropriate, and
WHEREAS, the project is an eligible use of UDAG and other non-HUD funds
administered by the IURA, but the total amount of such funds available is only
approximately $200,000, and
WHEREAS, STI proposes to repay IURA principal on the following schedule:
$250,000 will be repaid after 2 years
$150,000 will be repaid after 3 years
$400,000
WHEREAS, the anchor tenant lease covers 87% of projected operating expenses,
including interest-only debt service payments, and
WHEREAS, STI plans to retire project debt through a capital campaign with guidance
from West Wind Consulting Strategies in Fundraising, LLC pay principal, and
WHEREAS, after two years the project is projected to have accumulated cash flow of
approximately $120,000, an amount insufficient to meet the principal repayment
schedule to the IURA unless the capital campaign is successful thereby requiring
substantial loan security to ensure timely repayment for a short-term loan, and
WHEREAS, the former Masonic Temple building is a locally designated landmark
building, located within the Urban Renewal Area Plan map, that has remained largely
vacant for over ten years, and
WHEREAS, the acquisition, renovation and utilization of the highly visible and
historically significant building at 115-117 N. Cayuga Street furthers the Urban Renewal
Plan’s objective to improve the social, physical and economic characteristics of the
Plan’s neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the project will convert a taxable building to tax-exempt status reducing City
property tax revenues by approximately $8,500 annually, and
November 7, 2012
15
WHEREAS, making the auditorium and kitchen facility available for community use is a
public benefit that may compensate for the reduction in property tax revenues, and
WHEREAS, at their September 27, 2012 meeting the IURA approved a loan subject to
the following terms:
Borrower: State Theatre of Ithaca, Inc., or an affiliated entity
Loan Amount: Up to $400,000
Sources of Funds: Gateway Proceeds: $250,000
UDAG & non-CDBG funds: $150,000
Project: Acquisition, renovation, and operation of the former
Masonic Temple building for the State North
Community Center at 115-117 N. Cayuga Street,
Ithaca, NY
Total Project Cost: $1,300,000
Projected Use of IURA
Funds:
Property acquisition
Term: 3 years
Interest Rate: 2% annually
Repayment: Interest-only payments due with $250,000 principal
payment due on the 2nd year anniversary and
$150,000 principal payment due on the 3rd year
anniversary of the loan
Security: 1. Personal guarantee of Mack Travis and/or other
persons of sufficient net worth and liquidity to
repay the loan in the event of a default as
evidenced by submission of a satisfactory
personal financial statement as determined by
the IURA Chairperson.
2. Assignment of a total of $400,000 face value
life insurance from guarantor(s) securing the
loan
Job Creation
Requirement:
None
Conditions: 1. City of Ithaca Common Council approval for use
of Gateway Funds;
2. Submission of written funding commitments for
match funding totaling at least $900,000; and
3. Submission of anchor lease commitment
consistent with assumptions contained in the
loan application.
Reporting: 1. Annual submission of profit & loss statement for
the State North Community Center
2. Annual submission of inventory of community
use of the auditorium and kitchen
now, therefore, be it
November 7, 2012
16
RESOLVED, That City of Ithaca Common Council hereby authorizes the IURA-
proposed use of up to $250,000 of Gateway Proceeds to provide loan assistance for the
State North Community Center project at 115-117 N. Cayuga Street.
Alderperson McCollister explained that this building has been designated as a historic
landmark so demolition is prohibited unless a number of criteria are met.
Mayor Myrick stated that the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency Board is in full support of
the project. Alderperson Clairborne stated that the City Administration Committee was
also in full support of the project.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
9.10 IURA - EPA Brownfield Cleanup Grant Application for the Ithaca Falls
Overlook Site- Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Murtagh
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca and Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) have been
working with the property owner and a housing developer to remediate and redevelop
the environmentally contaminated former Ithaca Gun factory site located at 121-125
Lake Street, Ithaca, NY for redevelopment of a 45-unit housing project and a linear
public park providing views of the Ithaca Falls, and
WHEREAS, as part of this effort the City accepted ownership of the Ithaca Falls
Overlook site, an approximately 1-acre parcel adjoining the former factory that will be
developed as a public park, and
WHEREAS, the City was awarded a grant of $700,200 through the New York State
Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) to define the nature and extent of
environmental contamination on this site and cleanup the site, and
WHEREAS, preliminary site investigation results suggest that additional resources may
be necessary to complete the investigation and site cleanup to a standard expected by
the community, and
WHEREAS, New York State grant programs to cleanup brownfield sites are not
accepting any new funding applications, and
WHEREAS, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced the
availability of funding through the Brownfield Cleanup Grants program with a
submission deadline of November 19, 2012, and
WHEREAS, EPA expects to award an estimated 73 cleanup grants for approximately
$14 million, and
WHEREAS, the EPA grant requires a 20% cost share in the form of a contribution of
money, labor, material, or services from a non-federal source, and that the applicant be
the owner of the brownfield parcel, and
WHEREAS, the New York State ERP grant awarded to the City qualifies as match
funding for the EPA grant, therefore no additional match funds are required for the EPA
grant, and
WHEREAS, the IURA has authorized funding for preparation of an EPA grant
application for the Ithaca Falls Overlook site and committed staff resources to
administer the grant; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, upon the advice of the City Attorney, is authorized to
submit an EPA Brownfields Cleanup Grant application for the City-owned Ithaca Falls
Overlook site, and be it further
RESOLVED, That should the grant be awarded to the City of Ithaca:
November 7, 2012
17
1. the Mayor is authorized, upon the advice of the City Attorney, to execute any and
all agreements to accept the grant;
2. Capital Project #768 - Ithaca Falls Overlook Investigation and Remediation –
shall be increased up to an amount equal to the grant award, but not to exceed
$400,000;
3. funds needed for said Capital Project shall be derived from the issuance of bonds
or the advance from the General Fund with later repayment from the US
Environmental Protection Agency; and
4. the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency is hereby authorized to administer and
implement the EPA Brownfields Cleanup Grant.
Carried Unanimously
9.11 Clerk’s Office – Approval of 2013 Special Events Policy - Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, The Special Events Subcommittee of the City Administration Committee
was tasked to review and revise the Special Events Policy for implementation in 2013 in
order to reduce pressure on departmental budgets in the face of anticipated loss of
available staff and resources to support special events, and allow event organizers to
structure events and budgets (as practicable) to include the costs and responsibilities
historically borne by the City, and
WHEREAS, The City recognizes that special events are an important facet of the
overall vitality of the City and holds a significant role in bringing people of the community
together, enhances Ithaca’s quality of life and draws tourists to the area, and
WHEREAS, A special event is defined in § 132-7 of the City Code as an event requiring
three or more of the following permits: noise, assembly and parade, street closures,
vending, alcohol, use of parks or city property; and
WHEREAS, The Subcommittee has met regularly over the last eight months and had
the participation and input of City staff, the Special Events Team, event organizers,
members of the community, the Tompkins County Tourism Program, members of the
Parks Commission and the Board of Public Works, and
WHEREAS, Recommended changes to the Special Event Application, review and
management process in 2013 include
• Semi-annual strategic planning meetings held in February and October during annual
policy review, to better coordinate and proactively foster event planning as well as make
adjustments to the program in order to achieve goals
• Special Event Applications will be expanded to include a description of the event’s
community benefits, impacts on city resources, volunteer management plan, resource
mitigation plan, and set-up/break-down plan and schedule
• Fees for use of City property and staff for specified event-related expenditures
• Review appropriate use of private security consistent with City responsibilities to
maintain public safety and in balance with practicable utilization of IPD resources
• Institute pre- and post-event inspection by DPW staff to identify and document event-
related damage and initiate reimbursement claims for repairs
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves the following recommendations of
the Special Events Subcommittee and adopts the following policies and fees effective
January 1, 2013:
Special Events Policy for 2013:
1. The City will approve only one special event that requires City resources per
calendar day;
2. Any private security company used in an event must provide proof that all guards
are certified and the company is licensed, bonded and insured;
November 7, 2012
18
3. Special event applications will not be considered for days that are deemed
holidays for City employees if City employees are required for the event;
4. Applications for parades, in addition to walking, running, and biking events will
only be considered for City-approved courses, provided that adequate resources such
as law enforcement, traffic control and public works are provided for;
5. Individual Special Events using multiple locations simultaneously will be
considered individual events and are subject to prior approval by the Mayor (except
for events which utilize both the Commons and DeWitt Park such as Ithaca Festival,
Apple Harvest Festival/First People’s Festival);
6. The City reserves the right to deny Special Events applications. Applicants may
appeal decisions of the Special Events Team to the Mayor;
7. Events with unpaid financial obligations to the City will not be considered for
future events;
8. This policy will be reviewed annually by the pertinent committee of Common
Council.
2013 Organizer Costs and Fees
• All required permit fees as defined by City code and Special Events Team
• Fees will be applied for use of DPW work crews to set-up, break-down, relocate city
equipment, and repair City facilities as follows:
o 2012 DPW costs for labor and equipment is $70 per hour, overtime is 1.5
Non-routine duties include (but are not limited to) moving of bleachers,
collection and disposal of trash, delivery and removal of event
equipment.
Cost to post and remove a street block “No Parking” is $44/hr
Cost to deliver/pick up barricades is $35/hr
Organizer shall be responsible for trash collection. Bagged trash can
be picked up by the DPW with the purchase of special event trash
bags at a cost of $4.00/bag.
• Fees may be applied for IPD costs as determined by the Special Events Team
o 2012 IPD costs for labor and equipment is $72.50 per hour, overtime is 1.5
• Park and facility rental fees as per existing City policies and as specified below:
o Rental fees for use of the East Lawn, Flag Lawn and West Lawn of Stewart
Park shall be $20/hour for each area
o Rental fees shall be charged for use of park facilities and pavilions during set
up, event and break down time
o Rental fees shall be charged during operating hours of the park
o All event-related materials, tents and porta potties must be removed from site
by 9 am the next day to avoid application of rental fees for that day
• Rental costs for signage, and replacement costs for lost or damaged barricades,
bleachers or cones shall be applied
• Failure to provide agreed upon volunteers at days/times promised in application will
result in:
o Responsibility for costs incurred by the City for substitute services
o $200 fine for non performance
o Possible event cancellation if public safety is jeopardized
• Failure to break down or clean up per committed timeline promised in application will
result in:
o Responsibility for costs incurred by the City for substitute services
o $200 fine for non performance
Alderperson Clairborne thanked Alderpersons Brock and Proulx for their efforts on this
issue.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried (9-0)
Alderperson Murtagh absent from vote
9.12 Common Council – Request to Amend 2012 Authorized Budget –
Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, significant development is currently occurring inside the City, and
November 7, 2012
19
WHEREAS, as a result of this development increase the City has experienced a recent
climb in building permit revenue, and
WHEREAS, the City has also recently lost a court trial in which the City expects to
appeal, and
WHEREAS, staff has estimated that appeal costs, trial fees, excess insurance costs,
post-trial motions and bonding costs will be $260,000 with expenses starting 2012; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2012 authorized budget in the
amount of $260,000 to account for said increase in building permit revenue and
litigation costs related to the City’s appeal of a recent court decisions, as follows:
Increase Revenue Account:
A3620-2555 Building Permits $260,000
Increase Appropriation Account:
A1930-5000 Judgements and Claims $260,000
Carried (9-0)
Alderperson Murtagh absent from vote
9.13 Controller’s Report
City Controller Thayer expressed his thanks to the Mayor, Common Council and city
staff for their hard work and cooperation in developing the 2013 budget, noting that
there are still a lot of details to work out as well as uncertainties to be faced.
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
10.1 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 276 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
entitled “Site Plan Review” to Repeal and Replace it in its Entirety.
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister
WHEREAS, Chapter 276 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Site Plan Review,
was first enacted in 1989 and was repealed and replaced in 1999, and
WHEREAS, amendments to Chapter 276 have been proposed, the purpose of which
are to correct and clarify language, resolve inconsistencies, and make substantive
changes regarding applicability thresholds, evaluation criteria, public notification
requirements and the rate and payment of fees, and
WHEREAS, given the extent of the changes proposed it would be impractical to
accomplish such revisions by amendment, now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, as
follows:
Section 1:
Chapter 276, entitled “Site Plan Review”, of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby
repealed and replaced in its entirety to read as follows.
§ 276-1. Intent.
The intent of this chapter is to provide for the review of site plans for certain land uses in
the City of Ithaca for the purpose of:
A. Preserving and enhancing neighborhood character.
B. Achieving compatibility with adjacent development and uses.
C. Mitigating potentially negative impacts on traffic, parking, drainage, the landscape
and similar environmental concerns.
November 7, 2012
20
D. Improving the design, function, aesthetics and safety of development projects and
the overall visual and aesthetic quality of the city.
E. Promoting environmental sustainability in new development, redevelopment and
long term planning.
§ 276-2. Definitions.
A. Definitions of specific terms or words as used in this chapter shall conform to the
definitions of the same terms in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 325, § 325-3.
B. In addition to the definitions in Chapter 325, the following terms shall be used in this
chapter as they are defined in this section:
AFFECTED SITE AREA -- Any area (including new and modified gross floor space)
that is physically changed as a result of the proposed development. Such changes
do not have to be permanent or irreversible for the area to be considered affected.
For example, a construction staging area will be considered an affected area if tree
damage or significant soil compaction is likely to result.
BOARD -- The Planning and Development Board, unless otherwise specified.
COMMISSIONER -- The Building Commissioner for the City of Ithaca, New York.
DEVELOPMENT -- Any land use activity or project which requires a permit from the
Building Department and will result in changes to the physical condition, appearance
or type of use, or intensity of use, of property.
(1) Development projects include but are not limited to:
(a) New construction, reconstruction, modification or expansion of existing
structures or site improvements.
(b) Landfilling, excavation, grading, parking lot construction or any other
disturbances to the natural or existing topography or vegetation of the site.
(c) Demolition of structures or site improvements.
(2) A project shall not be considered a development if it is one or a combination of
the following:
(a) Replacement in kind only; or
(b) Interior construction only; or
(c) Infrastructure maintenance only.
DIRECTOR -- The Director of Planning and Development for the City of Ithaca, New
York or his/her designee.
EXPANSION -- An enlargement of, or addition to, an existing structure or a paved
area, including driveways, parking areas and sidewalks.
MODIFICATION -- Rearrangement of site layout or an exterior alteration to an
existing structure (including any changes to a building facade, except replacement in
kind).
PERFORMANCE GUARANTY -- Any security that may be accepted by the city as a
guarantee that the improvements required as part of site plan approval will be
satisfactorily completed.
RECONSTRUCTION -- Construction of buildings or site plan improvements
following total demolition of a previous development.
REPLACEMENT IN KIND -- Replacement of materials (for maintenance purposes)
which does not have an effect on the appearance of the existing building and site.
November 7, 2012
21
SITE IMPROVEMENT -- Features including but not limited to planting, paving,
retaining walls, drainage culverts and swales, fences and gates, lighting, site
furniture, fountains, pools, bridges, dams, decks, boardwalks, pergolas, signs and
any other accessory structures, devices or landscape materials on the site.
SITE PLAN -- The development plan showing the existing and proposed conditions,
including but not limited to topography, vegetation, drainage, floodplains, marshes
and waterways; open spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, utility
services, landscaping, structures and signs, lighting and screening devices;
submitted along with building plans, elevations and building materials; and any other
information that may be reasonably required to allow an informed decision to be
made by the Board or the Director.
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) –A plan to identify
and mitigate stormwater impacts as defined in Chapter 282.
§ 276-3. Applicability; exceptions.
A. General applicability.
(1) Site plan review (SPR) applies to all new construction and reconstruction of both
residential and non residential development (except that excluded by §276-
3C),including parking areas of three or more spaces in residential zoning
districts.
(2) Upon the concurrence of the Director and the Superintendent of Public Works or
upon the direction of Common Council, site plan review (SPR) applies to construction of
landscape and infrastructure improvements which do not normally require a building
permit, but nervertheless have an extensive public use, prominent visibility, or a
potentially large environmental impact, such as construction of trails or trailheads,
development of, or improvements to, existing parks; construction or reconstruction of
bridges; and rebuilding of public or private streets that involve streetscape
improvements.
B. Projects of limited scope.
(1) The Director shall have the authority to review and act on a development
proposal if the proposed project meets the description in § 276-3A but is below
the thresholds described below. For such projects of limited scope, reviewed by
the Director, a public hearing is not required. The Planning and Development
Department shall be the lead agency in the environmental review of such
projects, except for projects that meet the description in 276-3A(2), which shall
follow environmental review laws or regulations for determination of lead
agency. There shall be no requisite review of the environmental assessment
forms (EAF) by the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) in these cases. See §
276-5C for situations when projects of limited scope will be referred to the Board
for a full review. The upper thresholds for projects of limited scope are:
(a) All new construction and reconstruction of single-lot residential development
of a single-family detached or semidetached dwelling or a two-family
dwelling.
(b) Modification and expansion of residential development involving 4,000
square feet (sf) or more of total affected site area.
(c) New construction, reconstruction, modification or expansion of nonresidential
development in residential zones involving 3,000 sf of total affected site
area.
(d) Modification and expansion of nonresidential development in nonresidential
zones, involving 10,000 sf of total affected site area.
(e) Construction of landscape and infrastructure improvements as described in §
276-3A(2).
November 7, 2012
22
(2) When an application is received for site plan review under the provisions for
projects of limited scope as noted above, the Director shall, within 10 working
days of the date of the submission of the application, notify the Council
members in whose ward the project is to be located.
C. Exemption:
(1) Existing uses and developments which in their present configuration and use
are legally authorized as of the date of this legislation shall not be subject to
SPR.
(2) Exterior modifications to an existing single-lot residential development of a
single-family detached or semidetached dwelling or a two-family dwelling,
including additions, porches, façade changes, landscaping and site
improvements, excluding the development of parking areas for 3 or more cars as
required under §325-20.
D. City and other government projects. For city and other government projects, the
threshold of applicability, the review procedure and the review criteria shall be the
same as for all SPR applicants unless the Common Council decides that any
particular government project shall be reviewed on an advisory basis only.
However, even if a project is subject to advisory review only, no construction shall
begin until the Board or the Director has completed the review, including the
issuance of any findings and recommendations that the Board or the Director
determines to be appropriate. Projects subject to advisory SPR only shall be
presented to the Board for review beginning as early as possible, and in any case
no later than when the environmental review is started. The Board may or may not
be the Lead Agency of the environmental review of projects subject to advisory SPR
only.
§ 276-4. Other permits and approvals.
An approved site plan shall be binding on all further permits and approvals needed for
the project. The Board or the Director's decision to approve a site plan does not excuse
an applicant from complying with all other permits and approvals that may be needed,
including but not limited to street and sidewalk permits, utility permits and tree permits.
A. Permits from Building Department. For projects subject to SPR, a permit from the
Building Department shall be issued only after SPR approval has been granted. In a
case where a conditional SPR approval has been given, no certificate of occupancy
or completion shall be issued until final SPR approval has been given and all
conditions of such final approval have been met. See also § 276-9.
B. Variances.
(1) Any required variance must be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals
before the Planning Board will issue preliminary or final site plan approval.
(2) For projects that require both a variance and site plan approval, the Planning
Board will act as Lead Agency in the environmental review for both actions.
The BZA cannot grant a variance until the the Planning Board has completed
the environmental review.
C. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). All Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans must be approved by the Stormwater Management Officer (SMO)
in accordance with §282 before final site plan approval is granted.
§ 276-5. Authorization to review site plans.
A. The Planning and Development Board is authorized to conduct SPR according to
the procedures described in § 276-6.
B. The Director is authorized to conduct SPR of projects of limited scope as defined in
§ 276-3B.
November 7, 2012
23
C. In projects of limited scope the Board shall conduct SPR according to the
procedures described below in § 276-6, when the following conditions arise:
(1) There is public controversy concerning the proposed development, as
determined by the Board or the Director.
(2) The application is referred to the Board by the Director.
(3) The applicant appeals to the Board after decision by the Director is made.
§ 276-6. Site plan review (SPR) procedures.
A. Process initiation.
(1) The Building Commissioner shall determine whether SPR is required when an
application for a building permit, a demolition permit, or a fill permit is filed.
Such determinations may be appealed to the Planning and Development Board
within 30 days of the written notification that SPR is required.
(2) For projects which do not require a building permit, as described in 276-3A (2),
the Director may request of the Superintendent of Public Works that a project be
subject to SPR. If the Superintendent and Director concur, then the project shall
be subject to SPR. If they do not agree, the Director may request that Common
Council decide if SPR shall apply. The Director shall, in accordance with 276-
5C, determine if the project requires review by the Board.
B. The following procedures are required for both full site plan review and projects of
limited scope:
(1) Sketch plan conference with planning staff, or when appropriate, with the Board
as a whole. This step may occur before the application for a building permit if it
can be reasonably assumed that SPR would be required, in order to inform the
applicant of the SPR process and to explain the standards for approval, before
substantial time and effort are invested in the preparation of plans. The Director
should determine at this stage whether the proposal is a project of limited scope
as defined in § 276-3B.
(2) Submission of application materials.
(a) Appicants must submit a complete site plan review application, including all
applicable materials as described in the Site Plan Review Checklist, which
may be obtained from the Department of Plannign and Development.
(b) Additional application materials may be required by the Board. Depending
on the scope and complexity of the project, the Board has the discretion to
require applicants to engage the services of licensed design professionals
and other experts such as architects, landscape architects, engineers,
ecologists or surveyors.
(c) For all new construction and reconstruction of single-lot residential
development of a single-family detached or semidetached or a two-family
dwelling, applicants must complete the Residential Infill Neighborhood
Compatibility Review Application, which may be obtained from the
Department of Planning and Development
(3) Environmental review. An environmental review of the proposed development
shall be conducted prior to SPR approval in accordance with § 176 of the City
Code.
C. The following procedures are required for full Site Plan Review and not required for
projects of limited scope:
(1) Public notice
November 7, 2012
24
(a) By mail. At least 20 days before the first meeting at which the
Planning and Development Board considers either a determination
of environmental significance or preliminary site plan approval, the
applicant shall notify the record owners by mail of all properties
within 200 feet of the project site. Such notice shall be in the form
approved by the Board, briefly state essential facts about the
proposal, include the proposed site plan, and inform recipients of the
date, time and place of the meeting and the place where further
information about the proposal and the review process may be
obtained. Applicant shall provide the Board with certification of
compliance for notice procedures.
(b) By posting. At least 20 days before the first meeting at which the
Planning and Development Board considers either a determination
of environmental significance or preliminary site plan approval, the
applicant shall post a sign at the center of each property line of the
project site which fronts on a public or private roadway or public
right-of-way. Such signs shall be continuously maintained and
displayed facing the roadway until final action has been taken by the
Board to approve or deny the site plan. The required signs shall be
obtained from the Department of Planning and Development, and a
nonrefundable fee shall be paid for each sign or replacement
obtained. At the time such signs are obtained, the applicant or the
applicant's representative shall indicate, in writing, the date on which
the signs are to be erected.
(c) By newspaper. The hearing on the preliminary site plan shall be
advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least
five days before the hearing.
(2) Coordination and consultation. SPR projects requiring the review and
approval of the Board may also be reviewed by the Building Department,
the Engineering Office, the Fire Department, the City Forester and any
other city officials or non-city consultants deemed appropriate by the
Planning Board or the Director. Any comments from these reviewers
shall be summarized and forwarded to the Board to aid its decision on the
proposal.
(3) Planning and Development Board meeting. Following timely receipt of a
complete application for site plan approval, the Board shall schedule
consideration of the application at its earliest possible scheduled meeting.
The Board may establish its procedures and requirements, within the
framework provided by this chapter, for conducting site plan review.
(4) Public hearing. Prior to rendering any decision on a SPR application, the
Board shall first hold a public hearing on the proposed development.
This may begin concurrently with any required public hearing for the
purpose of environmental review of the same project and may continue
after any such environmental review public hearing is closed. Public
hearings are not required for projects of limited scope as defined in §
276-3B, unless the project is referred to the Board for SPR
(5) Action on application for site plan approval.
(a) Within 65 days after completion of environmental review on a
complete SPR application, the Board (or the Director if it is a project of
limited scope as defined in § 276-3B) shall render one of the following
decisions:
[1] Preliminary approval only.
[2] Preliminary approval with conditions.
November 7, 2012
25
[3] Preliminary and final approval.
[4] Preliminary and final approval with conditions.
[5] Disapproval of the site plan.
(b) In the case where a Board's action is required and where preliminary
approval only is granted, final approval shall be considered at the
earliest scheduled Board meeting subsequent to the applicant's
submittal of an adequately revised site plan, whereupon the Board
shall render one of the following decisions:
[1] Final approval.
[2] Final approval with conditions.
[3] Disapproval of the site plan.
(6) Communication of decision. The Building Commissioner and the
applicant shall be notified, in writing, of a site plan review decision no
later than 10 working days after the date of decision. When a site plan is
approved, a stamped copy of the approved site plan, including any
conditions of approval, shall accompany the notification to the Building
Commissioner.
D. Changes to approved site plan. Proposed changes (whether before or after
construction) to approved site plans must be submitted to the Commissioner for
review to determine whether the effect of the proposed changes warrants
reconsideration of the project's approval status. The Commissioner in consultation
with the Director shall make one of the following determinations:
(1) That the proposed changes do not affect the approval status of the site plan.
(2) That the changes are significant and shall require a reopening of the review.
(3) That the proposed changes are likely to have such an extensive or significant
effect on the project that a new SPR application is required.
E. Extension of deadlines. All deadlines for decisions on an SPR application may be
extended upon mutual agreement by the Board and the applicant.
§ 276-7. Project review criteria.
A. General criteria:
(1) Avoidance or mitigation of any negative impacts. The following shall be
emphasized in particular:
(a) Erosion, sedimentation and siltation control in accordance with §282 of the
City Code.
(b) Protection of significant natural features and areas, including but not limited
to trees, views, watercourses or bodies of water and land forms, on or near
the site. The protection of existing mature vegetation, especially trees over
eight inches DBH (diameter-breast-height) may be required unless a
justification for their removal can be made by the applicant.
(c) Protection of, and compatibility with, other nearby features and areas of
importance to the community, including but not limited to parks, landmarks,
neighborhoods, commercial areas, and historic districts.
(2) Compliance with all other regulations applicable to the development. These
include, but are not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance, Sign Ordinance,
Subdivision Regulations, Storm Water Regulations Ordinance, Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance, Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance and
November 7, 2012
26
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance of the City of Ithaca, and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.i[Amended 6-13-2001 by Ord. No. 2001-8]
(3) Improvement of the visual quality of the site and its vicinity through:
(a) The presence of a perceivable form and order in the basic layout of the
major architectural and landscape elements.
(b) The proper and effective use of landscape architectural elements such as
plantings, land forms, water features, paving and lighting, including the
location and appearance of proposed signage. [Amended 3-5-2003 by Ord.
No. 2003-8]
(c) An appropriate arrangement, form, scale, proportion, color, pattern and
texture of buildings and other site improvements.
(d) An appropriate relationship between the proposed development and the
nearby streetscape, landscape, and the built environment.
(e) The integration of works of art on the site where appropriate and possible.
[Added 3-5-2003 by Ord. No. 2003-8]
(f) The appropriate arrangement of landscape and architectural elements to
preserve existing views both to, from and through the site.
(4) Adequate wastewater and sewage disposal facilities. Calculations of the
existing and estimated increased loads on the system may be required.
(5) Adequacy of fire lanes and fire and emergency access and the availability of
fire hydrants.
(6) Safe arrangement of vehicular access, circulation, intersections and traffic
controls. Analysis of the project's impact on parking and traffic may be
required, including sight lines at curb cuts.
(7) Handicap accessibility of buildings, pathways and parking in accordance with
ADA standards.
(8) Safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation, including
provision of sidewalks along public streets, unless applicant demonstrates
that a sidewalk is not feasible due to site constraints. This criterion is subject
to the authority of the Board of Public Works as defined in the City Charter
and City Code.
(9) Open space for play areas and informal recreation in the case of a residential
development.
(10) Provisions for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and green design as
determined by the Board
(11) Conformance to any endorsed or adopted urban design plan or
comprehensive plan relevant to the proposed site.
(12) For new construction of multiple dwellings, commercial buildings and office
buildings, adequate and appropriately located facilities for the storage and
collection of solid waste and recyclable materials shall be required.
Developers of new commercial and mixed-occupancy buildings must design a
waste management system that can support the needs of any allowable use
in the building, including those uses that could result in maximum garbage
generation. Screening of these facilities, as well as other actions relating to
the appearance of the facilities, may be required in accordance with the
Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance, Chapter 178 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code. [Amended 6-13-2001 by Ord. No. 2001-8; 3-5-2003 by Ord.
No. 2003-8]
November 7, 2012
27
(13) Shielding or reduction of noise from mechanical equipment and other sources
to the extent reasonably practicable.
(14) Screening or architectural integration of a building’s or structure’s exterior
mechanical equipment.
(15) The scope and definition of the proposed development shall include all
previous development on the property occurring within the past two years
within 200 feet of the proposed development which, when considered
together, may have a substantial aggregate effect on the surrounding
properties. (See definitions of "development" and "affected site area" in § 276-
2B.)
B. Criteria for plant materials and maintenance. All projects shall provide for adequate
types and arrangements of landscaping, both to enhance the site and to
complement the architectural components of the development and to screen or
buffer adjacent uses in public ways. Use of invasive species should be avoided.
Where possible and reasonable, trees shall be planted in an 8’ tree lawn adjacent to
the road. The City Forester shall, when appropriate, be consulted regarding
specifications governing tree species, size, spacing and method and location of
planting. Appropriate guaranties for tree health may be required. Where possible
and reasonable, any trees greater than 8 inches in diameter at breast height of
desirable species and in good health and sound structure, as determined by the City
Forester, should be retained on the site and protected during development per the
requirements of § 306-7B of Chapter 306, Trees and Shrubs.
(1) Deciduous trees shall have a caliper of at least 2 1/2 inches at breast height
(dbh) at the time of planting. Size of evergreen trees and shrubs may vary
depending on location and species.
(2) All plant materials shall be installed to the following standards:
(a.) All planting beds to be excavated to a minimum depth of two feet.
(b.) Tree pits in lawn to be excavated to depth of root ball plus 6” and shall be
3X the width of the root ball.
(c.) All trees in lawn areas to receive 5’ diameter mulch rings.
(d.) Only nursery-grown plant materials shall be acceptable. All trees, shrubs
and ground cover shall comply with applicable requirements of ANSI
Z60.1 “American Standard for Nursery Stock”.
(e.) No plants or trees shall be located beneath building overhangs.
(f.) Depending on site design and soil conditions, structural soil may be
required under sidewalks and in planting beds contiguous to paved areas.
The City Forester and/or the Director shall work with the applicant to
determine the need for structural soil and the extent of its use.
(3) Dead, dying and/or seriously damaged plant materials of the approved site plan
shall be replaced, by the owner, within a reasonable time period during the
current (or immediate next) planting season. Any other damaged or missing
elements, including but not limited to fences, bollards, signs, shrubs, street
furniture, etc., of the approved plan must be similarly replaced by the owner.
This will assure that landscaping remains in compliance with the final site plan as
approved by the Planning and Development Board.
(4) For projects on City property, the City Forester and the Shade Tree Advisory
Committee shall be consulted in plant species selection and planting soil
specification.
November 7, 2012
28
(5) Notwithstanding any provision in this chapter or any other City ordinance or
regulation to the contrary, an approved site plan may not be modified without
express written approval of the Planning and Development Board except as
approved by the Building Commissioner upon consultation with the Director as
specified herein above.
C. Criteria for automobile parking areas. All parking areas shall be designed in
conformance with §325.20 of the City Ordinance. The Board may make such
additional reasonable stipulations as it deems appropriate to carry out the intention
of this chapter. (
(1) Parking areas in Residential Zoning Districts. In order to protect the
character of residential areas, plans for parking areas with the capacity of
three or more cars within residential zoning districts must conform to either
the setback compliance method or, at the discretion of the Planning
Board, the landscaping compliance method described respectively in
§ 325-20E(5)(a) and (b). Such plans must also comply with all other
general and specific standards of § 325-20. Where turnarounds, or other
maneuvering spaces not required for access to parking spaces, are
provided that meet minimum size for a parking space, they shall be
counted as a parking space for the purposes of this subsection.
(2) Applicants are encouraged to design parking areas with pervious paving
when feasible.
D. Criteria for Bicycle parking facilities. Bicycle parking shall be required for all uses
requiring site plan review as per Sec. 276-3(A)(1) except as may be determined by
the Board or the Transportation Engineer. Covered bicycle parking is strongly
recommended.
§ 276-8. Fees.
A. Application fees. The application fees shall be based on the total construction,
site work, and landscaping cost and shall be charged in accordance with the
following schedule.
Type of Approval Project Cost Application
Fee
Less and
$10,000
$75
$10,000 to
$50,000
$150
$50,000 to
$100,000
$300
Full Site Plan Review
Over $100,000 $1.50 per
$1,000
Less than
$50,000
$150 *Modified Site Plan
Review
$50,000 or more $250
Limited Site Plan
Review
Any Amount $50
*The Fee Schedule for Modified Site Plan Review applies only to modifications
to the approved site plan that do not trigger reconsideration of the
determination of environmental significance. Modifications that require
additional environmental review shall follow the fee schedule for Full Site Plan
Review .
November 7, 2012
29
B. Payment of Fees. For site plan review projects that require a use or area
variance from the BZA, 50% of the fee is due at the time of application and 50%
is due after the Planning Board completes environmental review. For all other
projects, the full fee is due at the time of application.
C. For all government projects and projects that fit the description in Section 276-
3A(2), the site plan review fee shall be waived.
§ 276-9. Performance guaranty.
No certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion shall be issued until all
improvements required by site plan approval are installed, and including any conditions
placed on such approval are fulfilled, or until a sufficient guaranty, in the form of a
performance bond, letter of credit or other security, is in place. The Building
Commissioner shall be responsible for the overall inspection of site improvements.
§ 276-10. Expiration of approval; extension of approval. [Amended 12-12-2001 by
Ord. No. 2001-12]
If the construction of a development has not commenced within two years of the date of
the site plan approval, such approval shall expire, unless an extension has been
granted by the Board following a written request by the applicant. An application for an
extension of SPR approval shall not be considered a new SPR application. This
regulation does not apply to government projects and projects that fit the description in
Section 276-3A(2).
§ 276-11. Enforcement; inspections; penalties for offenses.
Development projects may be periodically inspected for conformance to the approved
site plan, including the maintenance of the viability of the planting required as part of the
site plan approval. If there is nonconformance, or if any conditions of SPR approval are
not fulfilled, no certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion shall be issued.
Where a development reverts to nonconformance after the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or certificate of completion, current owners of the development shall be
notified, in writing, and given the opportunity to correct the situation. If the Director
determines that the corrective measures are inadequate, the city shall implement any
necessary changes to the site to bring it into conformance, the cost of which shall be
charged to the property owner. In addition, a fine of $50/day may be imposed for any
violations of the provisions of this chapter or of any conditions imposed by a permit
issued pursuant to site plan approval. Development projects shall be inspected at least
once two years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of
completion.
§ 276-12. Appeals.
A. The determination (by the Building Commissioner) of whether a development
proposal is subject to SPR may be appealed to the Board within 30 days of the
written notification that SPR is required.
B. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Director may appeal to the Board.
C. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board, or any officer or agency of the
city, regarding SPR, may apply to the Supreme Court for review by a proceeding
under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
Section 2: Severability.
If any section, paragraph or provision of this chapter shall be determined to be invalid,
such invalidity shall apply only to the section, paragraph or provision adjudged invalid,
and the rest of this chapter shall remain valid and effective.
November 7, 2012
30
Section 3: Effective date.
This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law, upon
publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Alderperson Dotson explained that this legislation lowers the threshold for Site Plan
Review requirements. She further noted that the references to the “Planning
Department” will be superseded by the Local Law that was just adopted and adjusts the
department title to the “Department of Planning, Building, and Development”.
Alderperson Dotson thanked Senior Planner Lisa Nicholas for all of the work she put
into this legislation.
A vote on the Ordinance resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
10.2 An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter
325, entitled “Zoning” to amend the Waterfront Zoning
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Murtagh
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that
Chapter 325, Section 325-16E be amended to read as follows:
Section 1. Section 325-16E., of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
325-16.
E. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the WF-1
and WF-2 District:
(1) All buildings erected in the WF-1 and WF-2 zoning districts shall have
a maximum building height of 63 feet with a minimum of 12 feet and a
maximum of 15 for the first story measured from finished grade, and a
minimum of 10 and a maximum of 12 feet for each additional story
measured from floor to floor, with an additional 5 feet for cornice. All new
construction is subject to a mandatory design review process. (Refer to
Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Zoning, Section 325-3.B.,
Definitions and Word Usage, HEIGHT OF BUILDING)
Section 2. The newly adopted language above for Section 325-16E will replace, in its
entirety, the following language that was adopted as a part of ordinance 2011-13, but
was inadvertently not placed in the City Code book:
Maximum Building Heights:
1. Maximum 5 stories, A minimum of 12 feet for the first story
measured from finished grade, and a maximum of 12 feet for each
additional story, for a maximum of 63 feet, with an additional 5
feet for cornice. All new construction is subject to a mandatory
design review process.
(Refer to Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Zoning, Section
325-3.B., Definitions and Word Usage, HEIGHT OF BUILDING)
Section 3. The City Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk and the Planning
Department shall amend the zoning map and the district regulations chart in accordance
with the amendments made herewith.
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 affect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Carried Unanimously
November 7, 2012
31
10.3 Endorsement of Revisions to City of Ithaca Community Investment
Incentive Program (CIIP) - Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, On July 5, 2000, the Common Council unanimously requested that the
Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency (“IDA”) undertake a program to
provide financial incentives for development of multi-story buildings within a density
target area encompassing the downtown Central Business District, the West State
Street corridor, the West End, and Inlet Island, and
WHEREAS, that program was accepted by the IDA in 2001 and remained in operation
for five years, and
WHEREAS, in 2006, the City endorsed the continuation of an IDA program of local tax
abatements, as a tool for encouraging appropriate real estate and business investment
in the urban core of the city; and it requested the IDA establish the CIIP ― through
which, projects would be reviewed by the community and evaluated by Common
Council, and (if endorsed by Common Council) proposed for recommendation by the
Mayor to the IDA as eligible for tax abatements, and
WHEREAS, in the six years that the CIIP has been in operation, only one developer
was able to successfully obtain tax credits, and
WHEREAS, the original intent of the CIIP was to encourage developers to invest in the
community; however, the program, as it was established, has actually been found to
work as a disincentive for developers, because the process is too cumbersome, time-
consuming, and expensive, and
WHEREAS, a small working group consisting of City Planning and IURA staff, Council
members, and TCAD staff has been reviewing the CIIP, and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that including all of the benefit requirements into a
tax abatement application has not been successful, and
WHEREAS, the working group has drafted revisions to the application that would allow
developers to apply for tax abatement if they meet minimum size, location, and density
requirements, and
WHEREAS, the City feels that the minimum thresholds that have been established in
this revised application will allow for more flexibility for developers and encourage
additional development in the core of the City, thereby achieving the original goal of this
program; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council finds that the IDA density
incentive program is a vital tool to (1) strengthen and enhance the downtown with new
housing and other mixed-use developments, and (2) locate new compact development
in nodal centers identified in the County Comprehensive Plan, such as the City of
Ithaca’s downtown areas, thereby combating sprawl development, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca does hereby request the continuation of the IDA’s
density incentive program as a tool for encouraging appropriate real estate and
business investment in the core areas in Tompkins County, but that it be revised in
accordance with the Community Incentive Investment Program with the 2012 revisions,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the geographic area within the City of Ithaca to be targeted under this
Program should be the current density target area, encompassing the downtown
business improvement district area, the West State Street corridor, the West End, and
the Inlet Island waterfront area.
November 7, 2012
32
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the flaws of the old process, the goals of the
new process, and the need for an Economic Development Plan/Policy. Further
comments were made regarding the City’s ability to afford tax abatements in the current
economy and the benefits that incentives can provide.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) Brock, Murtagh, McCollister, Fleming, Smith, Kerslick, Proulx,
Mohlenhoff
Nays (2) Dotson, Clairborne
Carried
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE:
11.1 Common Council Rules of Procedure – Council Member replacement
Process - Resolution
By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff
WHEREAS, the Government Performance and Accountability (GPA) Committee was
charged with fostering greater governmental accountability by setting priorities for
analyzing the efficiency of city government operations, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council Rules of Procedure have not been reviewed and
revised since 2006 and Council believes that it could operate with greater efficiency with
the addition of formal procedures to address mid-term vacancies on Council and the
removal of Council members for cause; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council Rules of Procedure be amended to add two
new sections (the remainder of the document will be formatted after additional revisions
are complete) as follows:
“VII. Vacancies
i. In the event that a vacancy is created on Common Council pursuant to Article 3
of New York State Public Officers Law, Council shall fill such vacancy until the
next regularly scheduled municipal election.
ii. A Council Selection Committee shall consist of:
a. The Mayor;
b. The Council member from the same Ward in which the vacancy has been
created;
c. Another member of Council as selected by the Mayor.
iii. Within 7 days of the receipt of written notice of the creation of a vacancy, the City
Clerk shall post a notice of vacancy and request that interested candidates
submit an application to the City Clerk.
iv. The Council Selection Committee shall review applications and schedule a
meeting at which candidates have the opportunity to present themselves and
answer questions.
v. The Council Selection Committee shall, within 30 days of the posting of the
vacancy by the City Clerk, present a recommended candidate to Common
Council for a vote. The candidate shall be approved upon majority vote of
Common Council.
vi. Approved candidates shall be seated at the next Common Council meeting.
vii. In the event that Common Council does not approve the recommended
candidate, the Council Selection Committee shall have the option of
presenting an alternate candidate at the same meeting, or tabling the
recommendation until the next Common Council meeting.
VIII. Removal of a Council Member "
Common Council may initiate the removal of a Common Council member for
misconduct or abrogation of duties, otherwise being unfit for services OR pursuant to
November 7, 2012
33
New York State Public Officers Law 30(1), for failure to maintain residence in the Ward
for which the member was elected, as defined in City Code § 90-67(B)(2).
i. Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern the process for investigating a claim that a
member is unfit for membership and ultimately removing a Common Council
member from office.
ii. Removal of a Common Council member shall create a vacancy, pursuant to
Article 3 of New York State Public Officers Law, which shall be filled as
outlined in Section VII above.”
Carried Unanimously
11.2 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 348 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
entitled “Water and Sewers”, Section 348-29 “Sanitary Services” to Amend Sub-
Sections 348-29(E) and (J)
By Alderperson Mohlenhoff: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister
Ordinance #2012 - ___
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as
follows:
Section 1. Section 348-29(E) of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(E) All installations of service drains or sewers between the curb and the building shall
be made by a [plumber] Plumbing Contractor or [sewer layer] Water and Sewer
Installer licensed by the Examining Board of Plumbers or any homeowner working on
his/her own single-family residence.
Section 2: Section 348-29 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby amended to
add the following subsection:
(J) All sanitary services connected to the public mains shall have a house
(building) trap installed between the property line and the building to prevent
sewer gas and other potentially harmful gases generated in the public mains from
entering the building. The house trap shall be installed as close to the building as
possible. The trap shall be a service weight, cast iron, double hub running trap
with a minimum of 4” inside diameter. A Fresh Air Inlet shall be installed on the
building side riser of the trap and terminate at 12 inches above grade with an
approved air inlet fitting to allow the internal vents to draft and remove
accumulated gases from the plumbing system. A brass cleanout cover shall be
installed at grade level on the street side of the trap for cleaning and maintenance
of the trap. A wye, 45 degree fitting with riser and brass cleanout at grade level is
required immediately down-stream of the trap to facilitate cleaning between the
trap and the public main.
Section 3: 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 4: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Alderperson Mohlenhoff explained that a version of this legislation was passed at the
August Common Council meeting pending approval from the New York State Fire
Prevention and Codes Council as sections of the Ordinance were more restrictive than
the New York State Plumbing Code. The City’s request to the Codes Council was
denied, so the legislation never went into effect. This Ordinance makes additional
changes to the City’s Sanitary Services legislation that does not require the approval of
the State, and have been recommended by the City’s Chief Inspector of Plumbing.
A vote on the Ordinance resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
November 7, 2012
34
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER – FILED RESOLUTIONS:
14.1 Resolution of the City of Ithaca to Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson in Support of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Pollution
Under the Clean Air Act
By Alderperson Brock: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
WHEREAS, the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest on record, and 2005 and
2010 tied for the hottest years on record; and
WHEREAS, the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 392 parts per
million 3 (ppm); and
WHEREAS, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, Dr. James Hansen, stated in
2008: “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization
developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and climate
change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most
350 ppm 4; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that current and future
greenhouse gas concentrations endanger public health 5, and according to the Global
Humanitarian Forum climate change is already responsible every year for some
300,000 deaths, 325 million people seriously affected, and economic losses worldwide
of U.S. $125 billion 6; and
WHEREAS, extreme weather events, most notably heat waves and precipitation
extremes, are striking with increased frequency 7, with deadly consequences for people
and wildlife; in the United States in 2011 alone, a record 14 weather and climate
disasters occurred, including droughts, heat waves, and floods, that cost at least $US 1
billion each in damages and loss of human lives 8; and
WHEREAS, climate change is affecting food security by negatively impacting the growth
and yields of important crops 9, and droughts, floods and changes in snowpack are
altering water supplies 10; and
WHEREAS, scientists have concluded that by 2100 as many as one in 10 species may
be on the verge of extinction due to climate change 11; and
WHEREAS, the world’s land-based ice is rapidly melting, threatening water supplies in
many regions and raising sea levels 12, and Arctic summer sea ice extent has
decreased to about half what it was several decades ago 13, with an accompanying
drastic reduction in sea-ice thickness and volume 14, which is severely jeopardizing ice-
dependent animals 15; and
WHEREAS, sea level is rising faster along the U.S. East Coast than it has for at least
2,000 years 16, is accelerating in pace 17, and could rise by one to two meters in this
century, threatening millions of Americans with severe flooding 18; and
WHEREAS, for four decades, the Clean Air Act has protected the air we breathe
through a proven, comprehensive, successful system of pollution control that saves
lives and creates economic benefits exceeding its costs by many times 19; and
WHEREAS, with the Clean Air Act, air quality in this country has improved significantly
since 1970, despite major growth both in our economy and industrial production; and
WHEREAS, between 1970 and 1990, the six main pollutants covered by the Clean Air
Act — particulate matter and ground-level ozone (both of which contribute to smog and
asthma), carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur and nitrogen oxides (the pollutants that cause
acid rain) — were reduced by between 47 percent and 93 percent, and airborne lead
was virtually eliminated; and
WHEREAS, the Clean Air Act has produced economic benefits valued at $2 trillion or 30
times the cost of regulation; and
November 7, 2012
35
WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA (2007) that
greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” as defined by the Clean Air Act and the
Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate them; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca prides itself on being a leader in the fight against climate
change and for clean air, and has adopted a Local Action Plan to reduce its own
greenhouse gas emissions; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That climate change is not an abstract problem for the future or one that
will only affect far-distant places but rather climate change is happening now, we are
causing it, and the longer we wait to act, the more we lose and the more difficult the
problem will be to solve; and we, the Ithaca Common Council, on behalf of the residents
of Ithaca, do hereby urge the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Lisa P. Jackson, and President Barack Obama to move swiftly to fully employ and
enforce the Clean Air Act to do our part to reduce carbon in our atmosphere to no more
than 350 parts per million, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall forward a copy of this resolution to Lisa P.
Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency and President Barack Obama.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the intent of this Resolution and the City’s
need to do its part to mitigate the impacts of climate change locally such as the
completion and adoption of the Local Action Plan and the funding of a Sustainability
Coordinator.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS:
15.1 Appointment/Reappointments to Various City Boards/Committees -
Resolution
Reappointment to Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council – Resolution
By Alderperson Mohlenhoff: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
RESOLVED, That Garin Danner be reappointed to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory
Council with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
Reappointment to Building Code Board of Appeals – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Ernie Bayles be reappointed to the Building Code Board of Appeals
with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
Reappointment to Commons Advisory Board – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Nancy Brooks be reappointed to the Commons Advisory Board with
a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
Reappointment to Community Police Board – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Shirley M. Kane be reappointed to the Community Police Board with
a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
Appointment to Community Police Board – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Marion Craig DaGrossa be appointed to fill a vacancy on the
Community Police Board with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Andrea Levine be appointed to fill a vacancy with a term to expire
December 31, 2014, and be it further
Reappointment to Conservation Advisory Council – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Eva Birk be reappointed to the Conservation Advisory Council with a
term to expire December 31, 2016.
Reappointment to Housing Board of Review – Resolution
November 7, 2012
36
RESOLVED, That Christopher Anagnost be reappointed to the Housing Board of
Review with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
Reappointment to Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Susan Stein be reappointed to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
Reappointment to Parks Commission – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Daniel Klein be reappointed to the Parks Commission with a term to
expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Lawrence J. Fabbroni be reappointed to the Parks Commission with
a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
Reappointment to Planning and Development Board – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Govind Acharya be reappointed to the Planning and Development
Board with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Noah Demarest be reappointed to the Planning and Development
Board with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further
Reappointment to Public Art Commission – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Jessica Shurberg be reappointed to the Public Art Commission with
a term to expire June 30, 2015, and be it further
Reappointment to Shade Tree Advisory Committee – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Debra Statton be reappointed to the Shade Tree Advisory Committee
with a term to expire December 31, 2015.
15.2 Appointment to Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit Board - Resolution
RESOLVED, That Common Council recommends to TCAT that Superintendent of
Public Works William J. Gray be reappointed to the Tompkins Consolidated Area
Transit Board with a term to expire December 31, 2015.
Carried Unanimously
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
19.1 Approval of the Minutes of the October 3, 2012 and October 24, 2012
Common Council Meetings
Approval of the minutes was postponed to the December 5, 2012 Common Council
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
______________________________ _______________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Svante L. Myrick
City Clerk Mayor