HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2011-10-05COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. October 5, 2011
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Alderpersons (10) McGonigal, Dotson, Rosario, Clairborne, McCollister, Zumoff,
Rooker, Myrick, Cogan, Mohlenhoff
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney – Hoffman
City Controller – Thayer
Planning & Development Director – Cornish
Superintendent of Public Works – Gray
Human Resources Director – Michell-Nunn
Acting Fire Chief – Dorman
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Mayor Peterson requested that the order of the agenda be rearranged as follows:
#1. 9.2 Refunding Bond Resolution Dated October 5, 2011 - A Resolution
Authorizing the Issuance Pursuant to Section 90.10 of the Local Finance Law of
Refunding Bonds of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to be
Designated Substantially “Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds”, and Providing for
Other Matters in Relation Thereto and the Payment of the Bonds to be Refunded
Thereby
#2. 9.3 Mayor Peterson Presentation of Proposed 2012 City of Ithaca Budget
#3. 9.1 Common Council - A Local Law to Override the Tax Levy Limit
Established in General Municipal Law
#4. 14.2 Appointment of City of Ithaca Fire Chief – Resolution
No Common Council Member objected.
PROCLAMATIONS/AWARDS:
Mayor Peterson proclaimed the month of September 15 – October 15, 2011 as “Latino
Heritage Month” in the City of Ithaca. Fernando de Aragon accepted the proclamation
and invited the community to participate in the many events that will be happening
throughout the month.
Mayor Peterson declared October 28-29, 2011 as “Into the Streets Days” in the City of
Ithaca. This year will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Cornell University Public
Service Center and the Into the Streets Program. There are 65 agencies and 2,000
volunteers participating in the program this year.
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
The following people addressed Common Council in support of the proposed changes
to the waterfront zoning regulations:
Bill Chernish, business owner on Taughannock Blvd.
Steve Flash, business owner on Taughannock Blvd.
Mary Beth Bunge, Town of Ulysses and worker in the West End
John Snyder, Architect and Planning and Development Board member
Tom Hartshorne, Town of Ithaca
Jo Jo Alpern
Tom Newton
October 5, 2011
2
The following people addressed Common Council in opposition to the proposed
changes in the waterfront zoning regulations:
John Marcham, City of Ithaca
William Benson, City of Ithaca
Barbara Anger, City of Ithaca
Ray Schlather, City of Ithaca
John Fuchs, City of Ithaca
Kimberly Hatfield, business owner on the West End
The following people addressed Common Council in support of the Africana Studies
and Research Center Resolution:
Kirby Edmonds, City of Ithaca
Abe and Denise Lee, City of Ithaca
Ray Schlather, City of Ithaca
Karl Graham, City of Ithaca
Jo Jo Alpern, City of Ithaca
Jan Norman, Local First Ithaca, invited Council to attend a workshop with Economist
Michael Schuman on October 25, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Community School of Music
and Art. The topic of the workshop is Alternative Economic Development.
Steve Williams, City of Ithaca, addressed Common Council regarding the proposed
local law to override the property tax cap. He encouraged Council to wait until budget
deliberations are completed before considering an override.
Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield, addressed Common Council regarding the ongoing Wall
Street protest, and the proposed changes to zoning along the waterfront.
Wade Wykstra, City of Ithaca, addressed Common Council to encourage them to delay
voting on the proposed waterfront zoning changes until the Comprehensive Plan work
can be completed.
Ed Weisman, City of Ithaca, addressed Common Council to express thanks and
appreciation to the Ithaca Police Department for their enforcement of the noise
ordinance. He also expressed his opposition to the proposed zoning changes for the
waterfront district.
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, addressed Common Council on the following topics:
the need to ban hydro-fracking, the removal of pay phone booths on the Commons, the
lack of discussion regarding the proposed changes to waterfront zoning, her support for
the Africana Studies and Research Center resolution, and the Hydrilla emergency in the
Cayuga Inlet.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR:
Alderperson McGonigal responded to comments made about the proposed waterfront
zoning changes.
Alderperson Clairborne announced that Cayuga Medical Center would be holding a
“Community Health Day” at GIAC on October 29th.
Mayor Peterson reported on the environmental emergency declaration that she made
regarding the Hydrilla infestation in the Cayuga Inlet. She noted that there had been a
lot of internal meetings with leading experts in the field about how to address the
situation. She further reported on the Economic Development Regional Council
meeting which she attended in Albany recently.
October 5, 2011
3
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
City Administration Committee:
8.1 Finance/Controller’s Office – Request to Amend 2011 Budget for Various
Reimbursements – Resolution
By Alderperson Rooker: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
WHEREAS, during 2011 City of Ithaca departments have received various
reimbursements, sale of scrap metal and Community Celebrations Grants that were
unanticipated and need to be accounted for, and,
WHEREAS, the reimbursements total $13,399 as follows:
Sale of Scrap $ 266
Reimbursement of Tree Removal 3,683
Community Celebrations Grants 9,450
$13,399
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2011 Authorized Budget as
follows to account for said receipt and expenditures of funds:
Increase Revenue Accounts:
A1012-2379 Celebrations $9,450
A5132-2665 Garage Sale of Equipment 266
A7111-1710 Parks & Forestry Services 3,428
A7111-2655 Parks & Forestry Minor Sales 255
$13,399
Increase Appropriations Accounts:
A1012-5435 Celebrations $9,450
A5132-5481 Garage Small Tools 266
A7111-5485 Parks & Forestry Trees 3,683
$13,399
Carried Unanimously
New Business:
8.2 Appointment of Marriage Officer – Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick
RESOLVED, That Michelle Courtney Berry be appointed as a Marriage Officer in the
City of Ithaca for the month of November 2011.
Alderperson Zumoff noted that he does not support a change to the marriage officer
appointment process.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
Note: The order of the following items was rearranged at the beginning of the meeting:
9.2 Refunding Bond Resolution Dated October 5, 2011 - A Resolution
Authorizing the Issuance Pursuant to Section 90.10 of the Local Finance Law of
Refunding Bonds of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to be
Designated Substantially “Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds”, and Providing for
Other Matters in Relation Thereto and the Payment of the Bonds to be Refunded
Thereby.
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York (hereinafter, the
“City”) heretofore issued an aggregate $5,152,750 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds,
2001, pursuant to various bond resolutions and a bond certificate dated January 9, 2001
(the “2001 Bond Certificate”), to pay the cost of the various City improvements, as
further described therein, such Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds, 2001, being dated
October 5, 2011
4
January 15, 2001 and maturing or matured on January 15 annually (the “2001
Refunded Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, the City heretofore issued an aggregate principal amount of
$9,486,681 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds, 2004, pursuant to various bond
resolutions and a bond certificate dated December 18, 2003 (the “2003 Bond Certificate
for the 2004 Bonds”), to pay the cost of the various City improvements, as further
described therein, such Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds, 2004, being dated January
15, 2004 and maturing or matured on January 15 annually (the “2004 Refunded
Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, the City heretofore issued an aggregate principal amount of
$6,285,947 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds, 2004 Series B, pursuant to various
bond resolutions and a bond certificate dated July 14, 2004, (the “2004B Bond
Certificate”, together with the 2001 Bond Certificate and the 2003 Bond Certificate for
the 2004 Bonds, the “Respective Bond Certificates”), to pay the cost of the various City
improvements, as further described therein, such Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds,
2004 Series B, being dated August 1, 2004 and maturing or matured on August 1
annually (the “2004B Refunded Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, the 2001, 2004 and 2004B Refunded Bonds are hereinafter
sometimes referred to collectively as the “Refunded Bonds”; and
WHEREAS, it would be in the public interest to refund all, or one or more, or a
portion of one or more, of the $1,860,000 outstanding principal balance of the 2001
Refunded Bonds maturing in 2012 and thereafter, the $5,455,000 outstanding principal
balance of the 2004 Refunded Bonds maturing in 2012 and thereafter, and the
$4,035,000 outstanding principal balance of the 2004B Refunded Bonds maturing in
2012 and thereafter, each by the issuance of refunding bonds pursuant to Section 90.10
of the Local Finance Law; and
WHEREAS, each of such refundings will individually result in present value
savings in debt service as so required by Section 90.10 of the Local Finance Law; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County,
New York, as follows:
Section 1. For the object or purpose of refunding the outstanding aggregate
principal balance of the Refunded Bonds, including providing moneys which, together
with the interest earned from the investment of certain of the proceeds of the refunding
bonds herein authorized, shall be sufficient to pay (i) the principal amount of the
Refunded Bonds, (ii) the aggregate amount of unmatured interest payable on the
Refunded Bonds to and including the date on which the Refunded Bonds which are
callable are to be called prior to their respective maturities in accordance with the
refunding financial plan, as hereinafter defined, (iii) the costs and expenses incidental to
the issuance of the refunding bonds herein authorized, including the development of the
refunding financial plan, as hereinafter defined, compensation to the underwriter or
underwriters, as hereinafter defined, costs and expenses of executing and performing
the terms and conditions of the escrow contract or contracts, as hereinafter defined, and
fees and charges of the escrow holder or holders, as hereinafter mentioned, (iv) the
redemption premium to be paid on the Refunded Bonds which are to be called prior to
their respective maturities, and (v) the premium or premiums for a policy or policies of
municipal bond insurance or cost or costs of other credit enhancement facility or
facilities, for the refunding bonds herein authorized, or any portion thereof, there are
hereby authorized to be issued not exceeding $12,365,000 refunding bonds of the City
pursuant to the provisions of Section 90.10 of the Local Finance Law (the “Public
Improvement Refunding Bonds” or the “Refunding Bonds”), it being anticipated that the
amount of Refunding Bonds actually to be issued will be approximately $11,245,000, as
provided in Section 4 hereof. The Refunding Bonds described herein are hereby
authorized to be consolidated for purposes of sale in one or more refunding bond
issues. The Public Improvement Refunding Bonds shall each be designated
October 5, 2011
5
substantially “PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT (SERIAL) BOND” together with such series
designation and year as is appropriate on the date of sale thereof, shall be of the
denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof (except for any odd
denominations, if necessary) not exceeding the principal amount of each respective
maturity, shall be numbered with the prefix R-11 (or R with the last two digits of the year
in which the Refunding Bonds are issued as appropriate) followed by a dash and then
from 1 upward, shall be dated on such dates, and shall mature annually on such dates
in such years, bearing interest semi-annually on such dates, at the rate or rates of
interest per annum, as may be necessary to sell the same, all as shall be determined by
the City Controller pursuant to Section 4 hereof. It is hereby further determined that (a)
such Refunding Bonds may be issued in series, (b) such Refunding Bonds may be sold
at a discount in the manner authorized by paragraph a of Section 57.00 of the Local
Finance Law pursuant to subdivision 2 of paragraph f of Section 90.10 of the Local
Finance Law, and (c) such Refunding Bonds may be issued as a single consolidated
issue. It is hereby further determined that such Refunding Bonds may be issued to
refund all, or any portion of, the Refunded Bonds, subject to the limitation hereinafter
described in Section 10 hereof relating to approval by the State Comptroller.
Section 2. The Refunding Bonds may be subject to redemption prior to maturity upon
such terms as the City Controller shall prescribe, which terms shall be in compliance
with the requirements of Section 53.00 (b) of the Local Finance Law. If less than all of
the Refunding Bonds of any maturity are to be redeemed, the particular refunding bonds
of such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by the City by lot in any customary
manner of selection as determined by the City Controller.
The Refunding Bonds shall be issued in registered form and shall not be registrable to
bearer or convertible into bearer coupon form. In the event said Refunding Bonds are
issued in non-certificated form, such bonds, when issued, shall be initially issued in
registered form in denominations such that one bond shall be issued for each maturity
of bonds and shall be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The
Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”), which will act as securities
depository for the bonds in accordance with the Book-Entry-Only system of DTC. In the
event that either DTC shall discontinue the Book-Entry-Only system or the City shall
terminate its participation in such Book-Entry-Only system, such bonds shall thereafter
be issued in certificated form of the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral
multiple thereof (except for any odd denominations, if necessary) not exceeding the
principal amount of each respective maturity. In the case of non-certificated Refunding
Bonds, principal of and interest on the bonds shall be payable by check or draft mailed
by the Fiscal Agent (as hereinafter defined) to The Depository Trust Company, New
York, New York, or to its nominee, Cede & Co., while the bonds are registered in the
name of Cede & Co. in accordance with such Book-Entry-Only System. Principal shall
only be payable upon surrender of the bonds at the principal corporate trust office of
such Fiscal Agent (or at the office of the City Controller as Fiscal Agent as hereinafter
provided).
In the event said Refunding Bonds are issued in certificated form, principal of and
interest on the Refunding Bonds shall be payable by check or draft mailed by the Fiscal
Agent (as hereinafter defined) to the registered owners of the Refunding Bonds as
shown on the registration books of the City maintained by the Fiscal Agent (as
hereinafter defined), as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar
month or first business day of the calendar month preceding each interest payment date
as appropriate and as provided in a certificate of the City Controller providing for the
details of the Refunding Bonds. Principal shall only be payable upon surrender of
bonds at the principal corporate trust office of a bank or trust company or banks or trust
companies located or authorized to do business in the State of New York, as shall
hereafter be designated by the City Controller as fiscal agent of the City for the
Refunding Bonds (collectively the “Fiscal Agent”).
Refunding Bonds in certificated form may be transferred or exchanged at any time prior
to maturity at the principal corporate trust office of the Fiscal Agent for bonds of the
same maturity of any authorized denomination or denominations in the same aggregate
principal amount.
October 5, 2011
6
Principal and interest on the Refunding Bonds will be payable in lawful money of the
United States of America.
The City Controller, as chief fiscal officer of the City, is hereby authorized and directed
to enter into an agreement or agreements containing such terms and conditions as he
shall deem proper with the Fiscal Agent, for the purpose of having such bank or trust
company or banks or trust companies act, in connection with the Refunding Bonds, as
the Fiscal Agent for said City, to perform the services described in Section 70.00 of the
Local Finance Law, and to execute such agreement or agreements on behalf of the
City, regardless of whether the Refunding Bonds are initially issued in certificated or
non-certificated form; provided, however, that the City Controller is also hereby
authorized to act as the Fiscal Agent in connection with the Refunding Bonds if said
Refunding Bonds are issued in non-certificated form.
The City Controller is hereby further delegated all powers of this Common Council with
respect to agreements for credit enhancement, derived from and pursuant to Section
168.00 of the Local Finance Law, for said Refunding Bonds, including, but not limited to
the determination of the provider of such credit enhancement facility or facilities and the
terms and contents of any agreement or agreements related thereto.
The Refunding Bonds shall be executed in the name of the City by the manual or
facsimile signature of the City Controller, and a facsimile of its corporate seal shall be
imprinted thereon. In the event of facsimile signature, the Refunding Bonds shall be
authenticated by the manual signature of an authorized officer or employee of the Fiscal
Agent. The Refunding Bonds shall contain the recital required by subdivision 4 of
paragraph j of Section 90.10 of the Local Finance Law and the recital of validity clause
provided for in Section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such
form and contain such recitals, in addition to those required by Section 51.00 of the
Local Finance Law, as the City Controller shall determine. It is hereby determined that
it is to the financial advantage of the City not to impose and collect from registered
owners of the Refunding Bonds any charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds
transferred or exchanged by the Fiscal Agent, and, accordingly, pursuant to paragraph c
of Section 70.00 of the Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the
Fiscal Agent.
Section 3. It is hereby determined that:
(a) the maximum amount of the Refunding Bonds authorized to be issued
pursuant to this resolution does not exceed the limitation imposed by subdivision
1 of paragraph b of Section 90.10 of the Local Finance Law;
(b) the maximum period of probable usefulness permitted by law at the time
of the issuance of the respective Refunded Bonds, for each of the objects or
purposes for which such respective Refunded Bonds were issued is as provided
in the Respective Bond Certificate, hereby incorporated herein by reference;
(c) the last installment of the Refunding Bonds will mature not later than the
expiration of the period of probable usefulness of each of the objects or purposes
for which said respective Refunded Bonds were issued in accordance with the
provisions of subdivision 1 of paragraph c of Section 90.10 of the Local Finance
Law;
(d) the estimated present value of the total debt service savings anticipated
as a result of the issuance of the Refunding Bonds, if any, computed in
accordance with the provisions of subdivision 2 of paragraph b of Section 90.10
of the Local Finance Law, with regard to each of the respective series of
Refunded Bonds, is as shown in the Refunding Financial Plan described in
Section 4 hereof.
Section 4. The financial plan for the aggregate of the refundings authorized by
this resolution (collectively, the “Refunding Financial Plan”), showing the sources and
amounts of all moneys required to accomplish such refundings, the estimated present
October 5, 2011
7
value of the total debt service savings and the basis for the computation of the aforesaid
estimated present value of total debt service savings, are set forth in Exhibit A attached
hereto and made a part of this resolution. The Refunding Financial Plan has been
prepared based upon the assumption that the Refunding Bonds will be issued in one
series to refund all of the Refunded Bonds in the principal amount of $11,245,000, and
that the Refunding Bonds will mature, be of such terms, and bear interest as set forth on
Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of this resolution. This Common Council
recognizes that the Refunding Bonds may be issued in one or more series, and for only
one or more of the Refunded Bonds, or portions thereof, that the amount of the
Refunding Bonds, maturities, terms, and interest rate or rates borne by the Refunding
Bonds to be issued by the City will most probably be different from such assumptions
and that the Refunding Financial Plan will also most probably be different from that
attached hereto as Exhibit A. The City Controller is hereby authorized and directed to
determine which of the Refunded Bonds will be refunded and at what time, the amount
of the Refunding Bonds to be issued, the date or dates of such bonds and the date or
dates of issue, maturities and terms thereof, the provisions relating to the redemption of
Refunding Bonds prior to maturity, whether the Refunding Bonds will be insured by a
policy or policies of municipal bond insurance or otherwise enhanced by a credit
enhancement facility or facilities, whether the Refunding Bonds shall be sold at a
discount in the manner authorized by paragraph e of Section 57.00 of the Local Finance
Law, and the rate or rates of interest to be borne thereby, whether the Refunding Bonds
shall be issued having substantially level or declining annual debt service and all
matters related thereto, and to prepare, or cause to be provided, a final Refunding
Financial Plan for the Refunding Bonds and all powers in connection therewith are
hereby delegated to the City Controller; provided, that the terms of the Refunding Bonds
to be issued, including the rate or rates of interest borne thereby, shall comply with the
requirements of Section 90.10 of the Local Finance Law. The City Controller shall file a
copy of his certificates determining the details of the Refunding Bonds and the final
Refunding Financial Plan with the City Clerk not later than ten (10) days after the
delivery of the Refunding Bonds, as herein provided.
Section 5. The City Controller is hereby authorized and directed to enter into an
escrow contract or contracts (collectively the “Escrow Contract”) with a bank or trust
company, or with banks or trust companies, located and authorized to do business in
this State as said City Controller shall designate (collectively the “Escrow Holder”) for
the purpose of having the Escrow Holder act, in connection with the Refunding Bonds,
as the escrow holder to perform the services described in Section 90.10 of the Local
Finance Law.
Section 6. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,
are hereby irrevocably pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest on the
Refunding Bonds as the same respectively become due and payable. An annual
appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on
such bonds becoming due and payable in such year. There shall be annually levied on
all the taxable real property in said City a tax sufficient to pay the principal of and
interest on such Refunding Bonds as the same become due and payable.
Section 7. All of the proceeds from the sale of the Refunding Bonds, including the
premium, if any, but excluding accrued interest thereon, shall immediately upon receipt
thereof be placed in escrow with the Escrow Holder for the Refunded Bonds. Accrued
interest on the Refunding Bonds shall be paid to the City to be expended to pay interest
on the Refunding Bonds. Such proceeds as are deposited in the escrow deposit fund to
be created and established pursuant to the Escrow Contract, whether in the form of
cash or investments, or both, inclusive of any interest earned from the investment
thereof, shall be irrevocably committed and pledged to the payment of the principal of
and interest on the Refunded Bonds in accordance with Section 90.10 of the Local
Finance Law, and the holders, from time to time, of the Refunded Bonds shall have a
lien upon such moneys held by the Escrow Holder. Such pledge and lien shall become
valid and binding upon the issuance of the Refunding Bonds and the moneys and
investments held by the Escrow Holder for the Refunded Bonds in the escrow deposit
fund shall immediately be subject thereto without any further act. Such pledge and lien
October 5, 2011
8
shall be valid and binding as against all parties having claims of any kind in tort, contract
or otherwise against the City irrespective of whether such parties have notice thereof.
Section 8. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, so long as any of
the Refunding Bonds shall be outstanding, the City shall not use, or permit the use of,
any proceeds from the sale of the Refunding Bonds in any manner which would cause
the Refunding Bonds to be an “arbitrage bond” as defined in Section 148 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and, to the extent applicable, the Regulations
promulgated by the United States Treasury Department thereunder.
Section 9. In accordance with the provisions of Section 53.00 and of paragraph h of
Section 90.10 of the Local Finance Law, in the event such bonds are refunded, the City
hereby elects to call in and redeem each respective series of Refunded Bonds which
the City Controller shall determine to be refunded in accordance with the provisions of
Section 4 hereof and with regard to which the right of early redemption exists. The sum
to be paid therefor on such redemption date shall be the par value thereof plus the
redemption premium, and the accrued interest to such redemption date. The Escrow
Agent for the Refunding Bonds is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of
such call for redemption to be given in the name of the City in the manner and within the
times provided in the Refunded Bonds. Such notice of redemption shall be in
substantially the form attached to the Escrow Contract. Upon the issuance of the
Refunding Bonds, the election to call in and redeem the callable Refunded Bonds and
the direction to the Escrow Agent to cause notice thereof to be given as provided in this
paragraph shall become irrevocable, provided that this paragraph may be amended
from time to time as may be necessary in order to comply with the publication
requirements of paragraph a of Section 53.00 of the Local Finance Law, or any
successor law thereto.
Section 10. The Refunding Bonds shall be sold at public competitive sale or private
sale to Jefferies & Company (the “Underwriter”) for purchase prices to be determined by
the City Controller, plus accrued interest from the date or dates of the Refunding Bonds
to the date or dates of the delivery of and payment for the Refunding Bonds. Subject to
the approval of the terms and conditions of such private sale by the State Comptroller
as required by subdivision 2 of paragraph f of Section 90.10 of the Local Finance Law,
the City Controller is hereby authorized to execute and deliver a purchase contract for
the Refunding Bonds in the name and on behalf of the City providing the terms and
conditions for the sale and delivery of the Refunding Bonds. After the Refunding Bonds
have been duly executed, they shall be delivered by the City Controller to the purchaser
in accordance with said purchase contract upon the receipt by the City of said purchase
price, including accrued interest.
Section 11. The City Controller and all other officers, employees and agents of the
City are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City to execute and
deliver all certificates and other documents, perform all acts and do all things required
or contemplated to be executed, performed or done by this resolution or any document
or agreement approved hereby.
Section 12. All other matters pertaining to the terms and issuance of the Refunding
Bonds shall be determined by the City Controller and all powers in connection thereof
are hereby delegated to the City Controller.
Section 13. The validity of the Refunding Bonds may be contested only if:
1. Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said
City is not authorized to expend money, or
2. The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of
publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with,
and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced
within twenty days after the date of such publication, or
3. Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the
Constitution.
October 5, 2011
9
Section 14. A summary of this resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be
published in the official newspapers of said City, together with a notice of the City Clerk
in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law.
Dated: October 5, 2011.
The foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote which resulted as follows:
Alderperson Dotson VOTING Aye
Alderperson McGonigal VOTING Aye
Alderperson Clairborne VOTING Aye
Alderperson Rosario VOTING Aye
Alderperson McCollister VOTING Aye
Alderperson Zumoff VOTING Aye
Alderperson Rooker VOTING Aye
Alderperson Myrick VOTING Aye
Alderperson Mohlenhoff VOTING Aye
Alderperson Cogan VOTING Aye
The resolution was thereupon declared duly adopted.
9.3 City Controller’s Report - Mayor Peterson Presentation of Proposed 2012
City of Ithaca Budget
Mayor Peterson and City Controller Thayer presented the proposed 2012 budget to
Common Council. City Controller Thayer stated that the budget would be sent to
Common Council electronically tomorrow, as well as posted to the City’s website.
City Controller Thayer explained that included with the 2% property tax cap, New York
State granted exceptions for limited growth in pension costs, quantity growth change in
assessments, payment in lieu of taxes adjustments, and business improvement district
adjustments. With these allowable exceptions included, the City of Ithaca's 2012
adjusted property tax cap is 4.17% Mayor Peterson's recommended budget represents
a 4.02% budget increase.
Highlights of the recommended budget include:
• Total budget = $61.5 million
• $995,000 of Fund Balance will be used
• 3% increase in overall spending
• 3% decrease across departments
• No layoffs; however 14.5 positions will be unfunded
• Equipment replacement will be deferred
• Slow down in services will be experienced, especially related to infrastructure
• Sale of surplus property
• Water & Sewer rate increases
• Yard waste fees
Common Council will begin budget deliberations on October 11, 2011.
9.1 Common Council - A Local Law to Override the Tax Levy Limit Established
in General Municipal Law
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff
Local Law No. _________ of the year 2011
BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. Legislative Intent
It is the intent of this local law to allow the City of Ithaca to adopt a budget for the fiscal
year commencing January 1, 2012, that requires a real property tax levy in excess of
the “tax levy limit” as defined by General Municipal Law §3-c.
October 5, 2011
10
Section 2. Authority
This local law is adopted pursuant to subdivision 5 of General Municipal Law §3-c,
which expressly authorizes a local government’s governing body to override the
property tax cap for the coming fiscal year by the adoption of a local law approved by a
vote of sixty percent (60%) of said governing body.
Section 3. Tax Levy Limit Override
The Common Council of the City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, New York, is hereby
authorized to adopt a budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2012, that
requires a real property tax levy in excess of the amount otherwise prescribed in
General Municipal Law §3-c.
Section 4. Severability
If a court determines that any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, or part of this
local law or the application thereof to any person, firm or corporation, or circumstance is
invalid or unconstitutional, the court’s order or judgment shall not affect, impair, or
invalidate the remainder of this local law, but shall be confined in its operation to the
clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, or part of this local law or in its application to
the person, individual, firm or corporation or circumstance, directly involved in the
controversy in which such judgment or order shall be rendered.
Section 5. Effective date
This local law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State.
Mayor Peterson stated that this override is needed in case tax cap calculations are not
accurate. She noted that the calculations have been checked with State officials;
however, as this is a brand new system the tax cap override provides a safety measure
that will allow the City to avoid potential penalties if the calculations are not correct. She
further stated that her budget falls below the tax cap and it is not her intent to exceed it;
however, the New York Conference of Mayors supports the adoption of overriding
legislation by municipalities as the budgets can be audited two years from now and the
City could face penalties if the calculations are off. She further reminded Council that
the tax cap was instated without any increases to State Aid or mandate relief.
Alderpersons Rosario and Clairborne stated that they cannot support a budget that runs
above the tax cap, but will support this legislation to provide the safety measure for tax
cap miscalculations.
A vote on the Local Law resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
9.4 Appointment of City of Ithaca Fire Chief – Resolution
By Alderperson Zumoff: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick
WHEREAS, the Management Compensation Plan resolution adopted by Common
Council on January 29, 2003 provides for an eight percent increase over base salary for
permanent promotions, and
WHEREAS, the Mayor has conducted a search for the Fire Chief and desires to appoint
Deputy Fire Chief Charles Thomas Parsons to the position, and
WHEREAS, Deputy Fire Chief Parsons in recognition of the difficult economic times and
in recognition that there will be no increases for managerial staff in 2012, has offered to
accept a four (4) percent increase instead of eight (8) percent, and
WHEREAS, Acting Fire Chief John T. Dorman has served commendably in this acting
position since September 28, 2009, an unusually long period to serve in an acting
capacity, and
October 5, 2011
11
WHEREAS, the City has the fortune to have the Acting Fire Chief available to assist
with the transition of Deputy Fire Chief Parsons in to his new leadership role and the
Mayor is desirous to recognize the Acting Chief for this continued guidance in the
department, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Deputy Fire Chief Charles Thomas Parsons be and hereby is
appointed to the position of Fire Chief for the City of Ithaca, effective October 9, 2011 at
an annual salary of $103,000, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Acting Fire Chief John T. Dorman will assume his title and pay rate
as Deputy Fire Chief and shall receive a four (4) percent stipend for this transitional
period, through November 11, 2011.
Alderperson Zumoff noted that he was very pleased with this appointment.
Alderperson Myrick stated that he has been very impressed with the performance of
Deputy Fire Chief Parsons.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER – FILED RESOLUTIONS:
13.1 Alderperson Clairborne - Resolution to Cornell University Administrators
Regarding the Change in Status for the Africana Studies and Research Center
Alderperson Clairborne explained that a Substitute Resolution had been prepared by
Alderperson Cogan and that he would be moving that version of the legislation for
consideration.
Resolution:
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario
WHEREAS, the founding of the Cornell University’s Africana Studies and Research
Center (ASRC) in 1969 was born from the proclaimed and generally agreed-upon terms
of providing a safe intellectual, physical, and social space for Black students during a
period of overt hostility towards the university’s students of color, and
WHEREAS, the original institutional structure of ASRC as a cross-disciplinary and
intercollegiate unit was intentionally designed by the university administration to help it
advance its unique intellectual, cultural, and scholar-activist goals, and
WHEREAS, for over 42 years, as this nation’s first such institution, ASRC’s unique
intercollegiate status has stood as a model to other Africana ethnic studies programs
across the nation and the globe, and
WHEREAS, a part of that model has been the building of bridges and bonds during
those 42 years between ASRC’s faculty, staff, and students with communities within
and around the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the Office of Cornell Provost Ken Fuchs announced on June 2, 2011, that
the administration would move forward with implementing its previously announced plan
to administratively realign ASRC under the College of Arts and Sciences; and
WHEREAS, people potentially affected by the realignment have asked repeatedly to
have input into the concept and not be limited to discussing the proposal’s
implementation, and
WHEREAS, Cornell’s administration has met with several groups in recent months to
discuss the realignment, the limitations of the current structure, and the merits of the
proposal for ASRC, and
WHEREAS, over the past five month numerous community members have urged
Common Council to make a statement in support of ASRC and to condemn the process
that preceded the decision to realign the Center, and
October 5, 2011
12
WHEREAS, Common Council has previously passed resolutions commenting on issues
not directly under its purview in order to amplify the voices of our citizens and to give
their concerns more weight, and
WHEREAS, Common Council recognizes the importance of standing with historically
disempowered communities in order to combat the legacy of racism, and
WHEREAS, Cornell has built a reputation as a developer of leadership through
empowerment and has stated that its restructuring would be done in collaboration with
those directly involved in any change, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council respectfully requests that the top
administration of Cornell University consider all of the implications of its realignment of
the Africana Studies and Research Center, and be it further
RESOLVED, That given the decision to move ahead with implementation, Common
Council encourages Cornell’s administration to commit itself to an open dialogue and
process with the support of the majority of ASRC’s faculty and strongly recommends
that the Cornell administration treat the Africana faculty with the respect they have
earned and include them fully in the process of restructuring ASRC, and be it further
RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be sent to Cornell University President David
J. Skorton, Provost W. Kent Fuchs, Dean Peter Lepage, ASRC directors, Elizabeth
Adkins Regan and David R. Harris, and the members of Cornell’s Board of Trustees.
Alderperson Clairborne explained the history behind the resolution and the proposed
changes to the original version offered by Alderperson Cogan. Alderperson Cogan
explained that the goal of the resolution was to help amplify the voice of the community.
Alderperson Zumoff noted that he personally agrees with the language of the resolution;
however, as a member of Common Council he does not believe Common Council
should pass the resolution. He stated that it is Cornell University’s business if it wants
to be dictatorial. He doesn’t feel, as a Council member, qualified to tell Cornell
University how to lead. Alderperson McCollister echoed those sentiments as well.
Alderperson Myrick stated that this is not his preferred venue for this conversation. He
would have preferred to have it face to face with University officials. He appreciates the
changes made to the resolution and will support it; however, he voiced his concern
about its effectiveness.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (7) McGonigal, Dotson, Clairborne, Rosario, Rooker, Myrick, Cogan
Nays (3) McCollister, Zumoff, Mohlenhoff
Abstentions (0)
Carried
10. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
10.1 An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning” to Amend the Waterfront Zoning District and to Change the
Zoning Designation of Certain Areas of the City
A. Declaration of Lead Agency - Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency
be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local
and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
October 5, 2011
13
WHEREAS, the proposed revisions to the Waterfront Zoning District are a "Type I"
Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance which requires
environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead
agency for the environmental review of the proposal to revise the boundaries of the
WEDZ1a, I-1, M-1, WF-1a, WF-1b, WF-1c, and WF-1d zone and to establish two new
Waterfront Zoning Districts, the WF-1 district and the WF-2 district.
Alderperson Dotson reported that affected property owner notification process
improvements have been made, and noted that affected property owners for these
proposed waterfront zoning changes were notified by mail.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
B. Determination of Environmental Significance - Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to revise the boundaries of the
WEDZ1a, I-1, M-1, WF-1a, WF-1b, WF-1c, and WF-1d zone and to establish two new
Waterfront Zoning Districts, the WF-1 and the WF-2 district, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the
preparation of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), and
WHEREAS, this rezoning has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning
Department Pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which
requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including county and
state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has also been
reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I Action under the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (CEQR Sec. 176-12B), and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency,
reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Planning Staff and has
determined that the adoption of the proposed zoning change will not have a significant
effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts
as its own, the finding and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental
Assessment Form dated September 28, 2011 as amended at the Common Council
Meeting on October 5, 2011, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby
determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that
the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any
attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as
required by law.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the environmental review. Alderperson
Dotson noted that Council should be comparing the “full build out” under the current
zoning regulations with the “full build out” of the proposed zoning regulations and not
what the existing infrastructure is. She further explained that the review is a bit
ambiguous because each project will undergo specific environmental review at which
time the proposed development will be scrutinized.
October 5, 2011
14
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the potential impacts the new
zoning regulations would have on the area.
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson McGonigal: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson
RESOLVED, That question #12 on the environmental assessment form be changed
from “no” to “yes” (regarding the impacts on one’s experience on the Inlet).
Ayes (8) Dotson, McGonigal, Clairborne, Rosario, McCollister, Zumoff,
Rooker, Mohlenhoff
Nays (2) Myrick, Cogan
Carried (8-2)
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson McGonigal
RESOLVED, That the answer to question #14 be changed from “small” to “moderate”
impact (regarding the effect on transportation systems).
Ayes (2) McGonigal, Clairborne
Nays (8) Dotson, Rosario, Zumoff, McCollister, Rooker, Myrick, Mohlenhoff,
Cogan
Failed
Main Motion as Amended:
A Vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) Dotson, Rosario, Zumoff, McCollister, Rooker, Myrick, Mohlenhoff,
Cogan
Nays (2) McGonigal, Clairborne
Carried
C. Adoption of Ordinance
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that
Chapter 325, Section 325-4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled
“Establishment of Zoning Districts”, be amended in order to establish two new
consolidated Waterfront Zoning Districts, the WF –1 and the WF-2 Districts.
Section 1. Declaration of Legislative Findings and Purpose
The Common Council finds that this Ordinance will consolidate the various waterfront
zoning districts in order to create two new Waterfront Zoning Districts, WF-1 and WF-2,
which will:
1. Maintain public access to the waterfront.
2. Allow the City to create an area on the water for multi-story buildings intended
for mixed use.
3. Ensure that new construction along the waterfront be designed in a manner to
protect views to and from the waterfront and to enhance the pedestrian
experience along the waterfront, wherever possible.
4. Ensure that building facades on the public rights of way contribute to a
coherent streetscape, promoting street-level pedestrian uses.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-3 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca,
entitled “Definitions and Word Usage”, is hereby amended to add the following
definitions:
October 5, 2011
15
1. “Water-dependent facilities" is defined as those structures or works
associated with industrial, maritime, recreational, educational, or fisheries
activities that require location at or near the shoreline.
2. “Water-dependent activity” is defined as an activity that cannot exist outside
of the waterfront area and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic
nature of its operation. These activities include, but are not limited to, ports,
water-use industries, marinas and other boat docking structures, public
beaches and other public water-oriented recreation areas, and fisheries
activities.
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-41 C.(1) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca, entitled “Design Review. Applicability. Design Review shall apply to all proposals
for” is hereby amended to add the WF-1 and WF-2 districts and should read as follows:
New construction, exterior alterations, or additions to any structure within the
zones designated B-1b; B-2b; B-2c; B-2d; all CBD zones, including CBD-60,
CBD-85, CBD-100, and CBD-120; C-SU, and the WF-1 and WF-2 districts.
Section 4. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca,
entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to change the zoning designation of parcels
16.-2-1.1, 17.-1-1.2, 17.-1-2, 23.-1-1, 23.-2-1, 23.-2-2, 37.-1-1, 37.-1-2, 37.-1-4.1, 43.-1-
4, , 52.-1-1.1, 52.-1-1.2, 52.-1-1.3, 58.-1-2, 58.-1-3, 58.-1-4, 58.-1-5,58.-1-6, 58.-1-7,
58.-2-1.1, 58.-2-1.2, 58.-2-1.3, 58.-7-1.1, 58.-7-1.2, 58.-7-3, 58.-7-5, 58.-7-8, 73.-1-10,
73.-1-11, 73.-1-9, 73.-8-1, 73.-9-10, 73.-9-12, 73.-9-4, and 73.-9-9, and a portion of
parcels 525.-6-1, 24.-1-1, 43.-1-1, 43.-1-5, 58.-1-1 from M-1 (Marine Commercial
District), WF-1a, WF-1b, WF-1c, and WF-1d, and I-1 to the Waterfront Zoning District-1
(WF-1), and to change the designation of parcels 37.-1-3, 37.-1-4.2, 43.-1-1, 43.-1-2,
43.-1-3, 43.-1-5, 43.-2-1.42, 59.-8-1, 52.-2-3, 52.-2-4, 58.-3-1, 58.-3-2, 58.-3-3, 58.-3-4,
58.-3-7, 58.-4-1.13, 58.-4-1.2, 58.-4-10.2, 58.-4-2.2, 58.-5-1, 58.-6-1, 59.-1-2, 72.-6-2,
73.-2-1, 73.-2-3, 73.-3-1, 73.-3-2, 73.-3-3, 73.-5-2.1, 73.-5-3, 73.-6-1, 79.-1-1, 79.-1-2.1,
79.-1-2.2, 79.-1-3, 79.-1-4, 79.-10-1,79.-2-1.2 and a portion of parcels 525.-6-1, 72.-7-
10, 52.-3-1.12, from WF-1a, WF-1b, WF-1c, WEDZ-1a, SW-2, and M-1 to the
Waterfront Zoning District - 2(WF-2), and to change the designation of parcel 73.-4-1,
and a portion of parcel 58.-1-1 from WF-1a and WF-1c to P-1, as shown on the
attached map entitled “Proposed Waterfront Rezoning-August 2011”.
Section 5. Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby
amended to establish district regulations for the new WF-1 and WF-2 districts as
follows:
Permitted Primary Uses
1. Any use permitted in B-2 except establishments where food or beverages are
intended to be served or consumed by persons in automobiles.
2. Recreational or cultural facility such as a park, playground, art museum,
fishing pier or yacht club.
3. Public Recreation.
4. Boatel.
5. Sale, rental, repair or storage of marine related recreation equipment such as
boats, marine engines, sails, cabin equipment.
6. Light manufacture of marine recreation related products involving substantial
hand fabrication such as sails, boat hulls, cabin fittings.
By Special Permit of the Board of Appeals
7. Parking Lot
8. Parking Garage
Permitted Accessory Uses
1. Any accessory use permitted in the B-2 zone.
2. Boat fuel dispensing.
3. Snowmobile sales, service, rental in conjunction with boat sales, rental or
service.
October 5, 2011
16
4. Storage of marine related recreation equipment such as boats, marine
engines, sails, cabin equipment as it relates to permitted primary uses under
zoning
5. Parking Lot
Off-Street Parking Requirements – None
Off-Street Loading Requirements – None
Area in Square Feet – 3,000
Minimum lot width – 30
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)
Maximum percent lot coverage by buildings
100% lot coverage allowed except as may be required by the Planning and
Development Board during Site Plan Review, for provision of pedestrian ways
and protection of view corridors.
Yard Dimensions
1. Front Yard – None
2. Side Yards – None
3. Rear Yard – None
Minimum Height
1. WF-1 – Minimum of 3 stories and 36 feet, except for water dependent facilities,
which have no minimum story or building height limit. Accessory structures
up to 400 square feet in size have no minimum building height limit.
2. WF-2 – Minimum of 2 stories and 24 feet, except for water dependent facilities,
which have no minimum story or building height limit. Accessory structures
up to 400 square feet in size have no minimum building height limit.
Additional Restrictions
1. Lookout Point Restrictions - The first 100 feet south from the northern tip of
Inlet Island is to remain a no build area. In addition, in the first 300 feet south
from the northern tip of Inlet Island no building may be constructed that is
greater than 1 story in height.
Lookout Point
October 5, 2011
17
2. Flood Control Channel Restrictions – For all properties that are located along
the Flood Control Channel as shown on the City of Ithaca Zoning Map, or
properties that directly abut the Department of Environmental Conservation
twenty five foot permanent easement, no construction is permitted within the first
25 feet along the Flood Control Channel, measured from the top of the existing
bank. The first 15 feet of the no build area is to be unobstructed space, but may
have removable vertical elements, so that maintenance equipment can access
the Flood Control Channel. Outdoor furnishings, such as benches may be placed
in the remaining 10 feet adjacent to the building but must be kept to no more than
25 feet in length with 50 feet of clear spaces between to allow for vehicular
access.
3. Step Back Requirement
Step Back Requirement
a. For all properties within the WF-1 zoning district that have frontage on the
waterfront, the first 10 feet of any new construction facing the waterfront,
is restricted to be at least 2 stories and not more than 3 stories in height.
As an incentive, buildings that provide a public walkway along the
waterfront shall be exempt from the step back requirement. In addition,
any properties that are located along a public waterfront walkway or an
easement for a public waterfront walkway are exempt from the stepback
requirement.
4. Setback Requirement
All properties within the WF-1 zoning district that are located along the
waterfront are to maintain a 15 foot no build area measured from the
shoreline or from the inner boundary of the easement for the Cayuga
Waterfront Trail where such easement exists.
October 5, 2011
18
(Refer to Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Zoning, Section 325-3.B., Definitions
and Word Usage, HABITABLE SPACE, NONHABITABLE SPACE, STORY, PUBLIC
SPACE)
Section 6. Chapter 325, Section 325-9(C) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca
entitled “Special Permits” is hereby amended to add a new subsection to be known as
(4.)(i) Parking in the Waterfront Zone to read as follows:
“Parking areas will be permitted as a primary use in the Waterfront Zone WF-1
and WF-2 districts by special permit and only if they are open to the public or if they are
intended to serve the needs of multiple businesses.”
Section 7. Chapter 325, Section 325-20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca
entitled “Off-Street Parking” is hereby amended to add the WF-1 and WF-2 Districts to
Section 325-20(C)(3)(a) to read as follows:
“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no
requirements as to the minimum number of off-street parking spaces in the following
zoning districts: WEDZ-1a, CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, B-1b, B-2c, WF-1
and WF-2”
Section 8. 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 9. Severability.
Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this local law. If any
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this local law is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
Section 10. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Alderperson Dotson reviewed the recommendations made by the Tompkins County
Planning Department regarding a traffic study, a “No build zone”, and the elimination of
all uses that were not water dependent or water enhanced. Mayor Peterson explained
that the Super Majority vote will be required if the recommendations made by the
County are not going to be implemented.
Alderperson Mohlenhoff stated that the City is in a bad budget situation and needs to
find ways to grow the tax base smartly. She voiced her full support of the proposed
zoning changes.
Alderperson McCollister noted that she supports the comments made by Alderperson
Mohlenhoff. The proposed zoning changes have been under consideration for a long
time. It is a great place for housing to be built as there are lots of available services in
the area.
Alderperson Rosario stated that he supports comments that have been made. He noted
that development here will not be on the same scale as Collegetown and is only one
part of Inlet Island. He further explained that five story height allowances already exist
here, and there is mandatory design review included in any construction plan. He feels
this is the right time and the right place to enact this new zoning.
Alderperson Zumoff stated that very little has been done to Inlet Island through the
years, and some areas are not very attractive. He enthusiastically supports the
proposed zoning changes.
Alderperson Myrick noted that he understands the fears and concerns that have been
raised. He is comforted by the design review, set backs, and minimum height
requirements that will need to be met with any new construction.
October 5, 2011
19
Alderperson McGonigal stated that he appreciates the work that has gone into this
proposal and the comments that have been made thus far. He voiced his concerns that
this action will dispossess a lot of people and noted that many businesses are no longer
located on Inlet Island because they have been forced out. The types of new
businesses proposed will be more expensive. He further noted that a vast majority of
people he has spoken with are not in favor of the proposed zoning changes. He
encouraged Council to take more time in reviewing the proposed changes.
Alderperson Clairborne stated that he had questions regarding the zoning change
notification system, the protection of public access, minimum height requirements, and
protection for businesses. He voiced concern regarding the traffic impacts that the
addition of housing will have on the area; however, he likes the vision of a successful
waterfront area. He expressed the need to find a better way to notify people of these
topics.
Alderperson Rosario noted that a part of making zoning changes is answering the
question “What do we want to see there?”, noting that there is nothing wrong with
making land more valuable.
Mayor Peterson stated that she has given a lot of thought to the issue of how to find a
balance between the parks, vistas, and public spaces with a successful waterfront
business district. She would like to see the proposed zoning changes be successful in
revitalizing the waterfront and noted that these changes will take time, and will not
happen quickly.
City Attorney Hoffman expressed concern about the following – lack of definition of a
water dependent facility, maximum percentage lot coverage, concern regarding the
Planning Board determining lot coverage (that should fall under Common Council’s
authority), and the fact that the design review requirement is only mandatory if the
Planning Board requests it.
Alderperson McCollister explained that the design review ordinance is currently under
review.
Alderperson McGonigal noted that he requested to be appointed to the Council seat
being vacated by former Alderperson Maria Coles so that he could be involved in this
issue.
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson McGonigal: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne
RESOLVED, That the minimum height requirement in WF1 zone be reduced from three
stories to two stories.
Ayes (1) McGonigal
Nays (9) Dotson, Clairborne, Rosario, McCollister, Zumoff, Rooker, Myrick,
Mohlenhoff, Cogan
Failed
Alderperson Cogan stated that he understands the concerns that have been raised
regarding transportation in the area. He noted that the City will not be providing
additional parking in the area, nor will it be addressing the soil contamination issues,
etc. If the private sector is expected to pay for these items, you have to find ways to
ensure that their investments will be returned. He voiced his support for the proposed
zoning changes.
A vote on the Main Motion resulted as follows:
Ayes (9) Dotson, Clairborne, Rosario, McCollister, Zumoff, Rooker, Myrick,
Mohlenhoff, Cogan
Nays (1) McGonigal
Carried (9-1)
(Meets Super Majority Vote Requirement)
October 5, 2011
20
MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS:
14.1 Appointment to Natural Areas Commission – Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan
RESOLVED, That Aaron Donato be appointed to the Natural Areas Commission to fill a
vacancy with a term to expire December 31, 2014.
Carried Unanimously
REPORTS OF COMMON COUNCIL LIAISONS:
15.1 Performance Measures:
Alderperson Mohlenhoff expressed her thanks to everyone who participated in the city-
wide phone survey. She stated that 360 valid results were received, which are currently
being reviewed.
15.2 Charter and Code Working Group:
Alderperson Cogan reminded Council of the three referendum items that will be on the
November General Election ballot. A public information effort will be undertaken to
share this information so that voters will have an understanding of the issues:
Proposition Number 1:
Shall a local law be approved, that would amend the Ithaca City Charter, in order to (1)
establish two-year terms for the members of Common Council elected in the general
election following every 10-year federal census (for example, in 2011 or 2021, etc), and
(2) provide that in the following general election (for example, in 2013 or 2023, etc), two
members of Common Council shall be elected from each ward - one for two years, and
one for four years?
Proposition Number 2:
Shall a local law be approved, that would amend the Ithaca City Charter and Code, in
order to (1) clarify and simplify the descriptions of the positions of various, appointed
City officers (primarily, the heads of City departments), (2) remove Charter language
that grants authority to or places constraints upon certain department heads that are
inconsistent with State law and/or best practices, and (3) provide for the appointment of
deputy and assistant department heads by their respective department heads, rather
than by the Mayor?
Proposition Number 3:
Shall a local law be approved, that would amend the Ithaca City Charter, in order to (1)
provide a single, consistent description of the general authority and duties of the City’s
various department heads – including their power to appoint and discipline all
departmental employees, and (2) create a streamlined description of the general role of
the City’s deputy and assistant department heads?
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
18.1 Approval of the August 31, 2011 Special Common Council Meeting Minutes
and the September 7, 2011 Regular Common Council Meeting Minutes –
Resolution
By Alderperson Myrick: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the August 31, 2011 Special Common Council
Meeting be approved with noted corrections, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the September 7, 2011 Regular Common Council
Meeting be approved with noted corrections.
Carried Unanimously
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
______________________________ _______________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Carolyn K. Peterson,
City Clerk Mayor