HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-19 Common Council Meeting AgendaOFFICIAL NOTICE OF MEETING
A Regular meeting of the Common Council will be held on Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at
6:00 p.m. in the Common Council Chambers at City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca,
New York. Your attendance is requested.
AGENDA
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
2. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
3. PROCLAMATIONS/AWARDS:
4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
4.1 Presentation of Quarterly Employee Recognition Award
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
5.1 Presentation from Youth Council
5.2 Reports of Municipal Officials
6. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
7. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR:
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
City Administration Committee:
8.1 Human Resources – Request to Amend Authorized Budget for a Safety Grant -
Resolution
8.2 Department of Public Works (DPW) – Parking Division - Amendment to
Personnel Roster - Resolution
9. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
9.1 2019-2023 Consolidated Plan Adoption – HUD Entitlement Program - Resolution
9.2 Adoption of the Draft 2019 Action Plan ― HUD Entitlement Program - Resolution
9.3 Proposed Planned Unit Development Application-Park Grove Realty and Cayuga
Medical Center-Common Council Conditional Approval Resolution
9.4 Approval of E- Scooter Pilot Program - Resolution
9.5 Resolution Supporting New York State (NYS) Emergency Tenant Protection Act
(ETPA) of 1974
Common Council Meeting Agenda
June 5, 2019 – Page 2
10. CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
10.1 Adoption of the Ithaca Green New Deal - Resolution
10.2 A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $2,669,000 Bonds of the City of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York to Pay the Cost of Certain Capital Improvements in
In and for said City
10.3 City Controller’s Report
11. REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES:
12. NEW BUSINESS:
13. INDIVIDUAL MEMBER – FILED RESOLUTIONS:
13.1 Alderperson Murtagh - Ithaca Common Council Resolution Supporting
Reproductive Rights
13.2 Mayor Myrick - Establishment of the Salary for the Acting Police Chief -
Resolution
14. MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS:
14.1 Appointment to Community Life Commission – Resolution
15. REPORTS OF COMMON COUNCIL LIAISONS:
16. REPORT OF CITY CLERK:
17. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY:
18. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
18.1 Approval of the May 1, 2019 Common Council Meeting Minutes – Resolution
19. ADJOURNMENT:
If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you
to fully participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 at least 48
hours before the meeting.
Out of consideration for the health of other individuals, please refrain from using
perfume/cologne and other scented personal care products at City of Ithaca meetings.
Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
“This meeting can viewed via livestream on https://ithacany.viebit.com/”
______________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC, City Clerk
Date: May 30, 2019
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
City Administration Committee:
8.1 Human Resources – Request to Amend Authorized Budget for a Safety
Grant - Resolution
WHEREAS, the City applied for and received an Occupational Safety and Health
Training Education Program Grant from the New York State Department of Labor in the
amount of $12,435; and
WHEREAS, the grant will run until July 31, 2019, and provide City staff with various
safety training, including, but not limited to confined space, trenching, excavation,
lockout/tagout, hazard communications and work zone safety; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2019 Authorized Human
Resources Budget to account for the $12,435 Safety and Health Training and Education
Program Grant from New York State as follows:
Increase Revenue Account:
A1430-3489 NYS Aid Health $ 12,435
Increase Appropriations Account:
A1430-5435 Human Resources Contracts $ 12,435
8.2 Department of Public Works (DPW) – Parking Division - Amendment to
Personnel Roster - Resolution
WHEREAS, the Director of Parking is continuing to assess and realign staffing to most
effectively address operational needs; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Parking is recommending the elimination of a maintenance
position and the addition of a parking lot attendant position; and
WHEREAS, a current employee is interested in changing from a maintenance position
to a parking lot attendant position; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Personnel Roster of the Parking Division of the Department of
Public Works be amended as follows:
Unfund: One (1) Building and Grounds Maintenance Worker
Fund and increase to full-time: One (1) Parking Lot Attendant
; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the above changes shall be funded within the existing budget.
9. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
9.1 2019-2023 Consolidated Plan Adoption – Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Entitlement Program - Resolution
WHEREAS, in the Fall of 2003, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) notified the City that it qualified as an ‘Entitlement Community’ and
it would be receiving an annual allocation of HUD funds through the Community
Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships
(HOME) Program; and
WHEREAS, in order to access these funds, the City is required to undertake a public
input process and prepare a Consolidated Plan, which identifies priority community
development needs for the City of Ithaca, every five years; and
WHEREAS, the City’s fourth Consolidated Plan is required to be submitted to HUD by
June 16, 2019; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of the February 14, 2013 agreement between the City of
Ithaca and the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), the City has designated the IURA
as the Lead Agency to develop and administer the Consolidated Plan on behalf of the
City; and
WHEREAS, the Consolidated Plan may only be adopted by the City of Ithaca after it
has undergone a 30-day public comment period and been the subject of two Public
Hearings; and
WHEREAS, the first Public Hearing was held before the IURA on March 28, 2019, and
the second Public Hearing was held at the Planning and Economic Development
Committee of Common Council on May 8, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the IURA adopted the draft Consolidated Plan at its April 18, 2019 meeting
and recommended that Common Council approve it; and
WHEREAS, the 30-day public comment period for the Consolidated Plan ends on May
31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, any additional public comment received will be incorporated into a revised
draft version of the Consolidated Plan; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby adopts the draft
Consolidated Plan, dated April 18, 2019; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council authorizes the Mayor, subject to review by the
City Attorney, to execute certifications and any other documents necessary to submit
the Consolidated Plan to HUD.
City of Ithaca, New York
2019-2023
Consolidated Plan
Draft for Public Review
Prepared by Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
4/18/2019
Amended 5/8/2019
per input from Planning & Economic
Development Committee
Executive Summary
ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)
1. Introduction
The City of Ithaca has a valuable resource that many communities do not. As a U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement community, Ithaca receives HUD dollars to
dedicate to affordable housing and other community development projects, with a focus on
increasing opportunity for people with low-to moderate-incomes (LMI). In the past five years, this
funding has helped Ithaca leverage other resources for new construction of affordable housing, both
rental and homebuyer, like 210 Hancock Street; filled the gaps on qualified projects, such as the
renovation of our local domestic violence shelter; and, in relatively unusual cases, provided the bulk
amount for an entire project.
Ithaca is a busy small city -- a strong, regional employment center with two thriving institutions of
higher education. People from across the region and the globe come to Ithaca for work, study, or
both. In turn, Ithaca has become a vital hub with access to employment; educational and
enrichment opportunities for people of all ages; exquisite natural areas and well-maintained green
spaces proximate to City neighborhoods; and robust public facilities and public services that
strengthen the quality of life for City residents. These characteristics and economic opportunities
also put pressure on Ithaca’s housing market, creating scarcity and unaffordability. Even as
affordable rental and for-sale housing has been newly constructed or preserved through
rehabilitation and repair (all prioritized activities in our previous Consolidated Plans), housing at
every level of affordability continues to be voiced as a major need.
Purpose: This plan’s purpose is to guide the next five years’ use of HUD entitlement funding in the
City of Ithaca. It is the City’s fourth Consolidated Plan. Through the consolidated planning process,
community members have given input about the housing and community development needs in
Ithaca. Community leaders, committees, organizations, and subject-matter experts have been
consulted. Quantitative data has been analyzed. Together, these sources of information create a
comprehensive picture of the ways in which HUD funding could be deployed to help meet these
needs. This plan discusses and prioritizes the needs that have been identified; evaluates past
performance; surveys existing resources; and updates past goals. It outlines possibilities for future
action and aligns these prospective actions with goals, to ensure we focus on meeting the
community’s most pressing needs.
Note on Terminology: HUD often shortens “Consolidated Plan” to “Con Plan.” This report will avoid
that terminology, however, to prevent confusion with a similar-sounding plan, the City of Ithaca’s
Comprehensive Plan, or, “Comp Plan.”
2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment
Overview
The Consolidated Plan outlines goals that will be pursued over the next five years to address
identified community needs. CDBG and HOME programs advance the following statutory objectives,
for the principal benefit of low-and moderate-income households:
Provide decent, safe, and affordable housing (CDBG)
Create suitable living environments (CDBG)
Expand economic opportunities (CDBG)
Expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing (HOME)
The City has established the following local goals for this Consolidated Plan period, which reflect the
needs identified by the community and support the above-named statutory objectives.
Improve and Expand Affordable Housing Options
There continues to be an acute shortage of affordable housing in the City of Ithaca. The City’s 2017
Assessment of Fair Housing found 53% of all City households were cost-burdened, with 36% severely
so. (Source: American Community Survey 2010-2015). To address this need, the City will support
projects that increase the total supply of affordable units of all types and the affordability of existing
units, and will improve the condition of existing affordable units.
Develop Economic and Employment Opportunities
Ithaca is highly-educated community with a low unemployment rate. This creates a very difficult
dynamic for low-and moderate-income community members who do not have specialized skills or
advanced educational attainment. To address this need, the City will provide direct loans and
support technical assistance to businesses to create jobs; support entrepreneurship training and
technical assistance; and support initiatives that provide career-readiness training, job placement,
skill development, and on-going post-placement support.
Remove Barriers to Opportunity
The opportunities of our community should be accessible to all its residents, regardless of residents’
particular physical or socio-economic characteristics. Where barriers exist, they should be removed.
To address this need, the City will seek to increase transportation options; will support residential
and public physical accessibility improvements; support early childhood, senior, and homeless
programming; and services to immigrants.
Strengthen Neighborhoods
For our City to thrive as a whole, each of its constituent parts must have the adequate resources and
infrastructure to meet the needs of its residents and support their aspirations. To address this need,
the City will support physical improvements to streets, parks, recreational facilities, public buildings,
and transportation systems for the benefit of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods; support
necessary repairs and improvements housing stock, both rental and homeownership; and support
programs that facilitate homeownership.
Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter, and Safety
Ithaca’s most vulnerable, at-risk populations require public services and public facilities that will
meet basic human needs for food, shelter, and safety. To address this need, the City will support
programs that prevent homelessness; improve access to health care; ensure safe living
environments; and/or increase awareness and utilization of existing community resources in these
areas.
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
The City’s 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) analyzed data in order to identify local factors that
contribute to local fair housing issues and lack of access to opportunity. The AFH identifies seven
fair housing goals, with associated timelines and milestones, to guide the City in promoting fair
housing. The City will support projects which promote fair housing. Projects could include
strategies to address displacement caused by gentrification, disparity in opportunity, housing
problems (as defined by HUD), enforcement, or otherwise support fair housing.
Priority Needs
HUD asks all entitlement communities to identify their Priority Needs during the consolidated
planning process. The table below lists Ithaca’s Priority Needs for the next five years. Any of the
items listed as a Priority Need—whether its priority level is “high” or “low”-- is eligible for CDBG
funding. If, after the Consolidated Plan is created, a new need should emerge, it may be added
through the amendment process.
Table 1 Priority Needs
2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN PRIORITY NEEDS & ASSOCIATED GOALS
# Code Priority Need Priority
Level Associated Goals
Code Key: AH = Affordable Housing │ ED = Economic Development │ PF = Public Facilities │ PF = Public Infrastructure │ PS = Public Services
1 AH Production of New Units High Improve & Expand Affordable Housing Options
2 AH Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) High Improve & Expand Affordable Housing Options
3 AH Homeowner Rehab/Repairs High Improve & Expand Affordable Housing Options
4 AH Accessibility Improvements High Improve & Expand Affordable Housing Options
5 AH Transitional Housing High Improve & Expand Affordable Housing Options
6 AH Permanent Supportive Housing High Improve & Expand Affordable Housing Options
7 AH Affordable Homeownership High Improve & Expand Affordable Housing Options
8 AH Rental Rehab/Energy Efficiency High
Low
Improve & Expand Affordable Housing Options
9 ED, AH, PF Childcare Centers Low Develop Economic & Employment Opportunities; Remove
Barriers to Opportunity
10 ED Job Creation & Entrepreneurship High Develop Economic & Employment Opportunities; Remove
Barriers to Opportunity
11 ED Job Readiness & Placement High Develop Economic & Employment Opportunities
12 PF Public Facilities High Strengthen Neighborhoods
13 PF Emergency Shelter High Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter & Safety
14 PF Domestic Violence Shelter Low Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter & Safety
15 PF Health Facilities Low Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter & Safety
16 PF Blight Removal High Strengthen Neighborhoods
17 PI Public Infrastructure High Strengthen Neighborhoods
18 PI 2017 AFH-Identified Goals for City of
Ithaca
High Affirmatively Further Fair Housing; Remove Barriers to
Opportunity; Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter, and Safety
19 PS Information & Referral High Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter, and Safety
20 PS Immigrant Services High Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter, and Safety
21 PS Transportation Services High Remove Barriers to Opportunity
22 PS Code Enforcement High Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter, & Safety
23 PS Landlord/Tenant Counseling High Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter, & Safety
24 PS Youth Services Low Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter, & Safety; Develop
Economic & Employment Opportunities; Remove Barriers to
Opportunity
25 PS Homeless Services Day Programming Low Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter & Safety
26 PS Senior Services Low Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter & Safety; Remove Barriers
to Opportunity
27 PS Mental Health & Substance Abuse Services Low Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter, & Safety
28 PS Domestic Violence Services Low Meet Essential Needs for Food, Shelter, & Safety
3. Evaluation of past performance
The 2014-2018 Consolidated Plan included specific objectives intended to address community needs
identified during the planning process. These objectives and their associated outcomes to date
appear in Table 2, below. Since the 2014 Consolidated Plan’s final program year (2018-2019) runs
concurrently with the creation of the 2019 Consolidated Plan, outcomes continue to develop as the
2019 plan is created. As required by HUD, IURA documents all outcomes on a yearly basis in the
report known as the “CAPER” (Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report). Final outcomes
for the 2014-2018 Consolidated Plan cycle will be available in the 2018-2019 CAPER. Moreover,
CAPERs for the previous Consolidated Plan period may be accessed on the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency’s website under the “Reports” link on the left-hand navigational bar. See
www.ithacaura.org.
Some projects anticipated in the last Consolidated Plan did not materialize. Others had longer
timelines than anticipated due to their scale, complexity, or unanticipated barriers. For example,
the 2015 Spencer Road Sidewalks project is just wrapping up as the 2019 Consolidated Plan is
developed. IURA Staff monitors all projects, and records results achieved into HUD’s Integrated
Disbursement and Information System (IDIS).
Table 2, Past Performance of 2014 Consolidated Plan Specific Objectives
Specific Objectives1 Performance
Measure
Expected
Units
Actual
Units
(as of
7/31/18)2
Affordable Housing Objectives
New construction - Rental housing Assisted units 35 21
New construction - Homeowner3 Assisted units 10 9
Repair or rehabilitation - Homeowner4 Assisted households 250 168
First-time homebuyers5 Assisted households 5 1
Tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) Assisted Households 250 328
1 This table (Table 1) ties to the objectives identified in the 2014 Consolidated Plan’s Strategic Plan Overview (SP-05) on pp. 74-
75. Additional goals created through the Annual Action Plans are fully reported on in CAPERs.
2 This column documents outcomes achieved by the end of the 2017 Program Year (and reported in the 2017 CAPER). The
2018-2019 Program Year is the fifth year of the 2014-2018 Consolidated Plan and concludes on 7/31/2019, at which time
further outcomes will be available.
3 For-sale to homebuyers
4 Owner-occupied units
5 Direct financial assistance, usually in the form of down payment assistance
Transitional housing6 Assisted beds 25 0
Economic Development Objectives
Job creation or retention Jobs 40 347
Job readiness8 Persons assisted 250 168
Job training & placement Persons assisted -- 299
Micro-enterprise assistance Businesses assisted 3 13
Public Facilities & Infrastructure Objectives
Improvements to Public Facilities Beneficiaries
(Persons)
5,026 30,720
Public Services Objectives
Public Services that help meet essential needs for food,
shelter, and safety
Persons assisted 2,925 2,317
4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process
The IURA conducted significant outreach and consultation with citizens, neighborhood groups, non-
profits, and government agencies to determine community needs and establish Plan priorities. In
accordance with the City’s approved Citizen Participation Plan, outreach consisted of both meetings
with neighborhood residents and consultations with professionals and practitioners in fields related to
community development.
Criteria for selecting meeting places included convenience and accessibility to the neighborhoods served
by the IURA. Meetings were advertised in accordance with the City’s Citizen Participation Plan.
Neighborhood Public Input meetings were held as follows:
1/17/2019, 6:00 p.m., Tompkins County Public Library, 101 E. Green Street
1/23/2019, 5:30 p.m., Greater Ithaca Activities Center, 301 W. Court Street
1/24/2019, 12:00 noon, Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street
1/28/2019, 5:00 p.m., 2nd Floor Conference Room, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street
Further opportunities for the public to identify needs for the Consolidated Plan to address were
afforded through a presentation and discussion at the Continuum of Care’s Homeless and Housing Task
Force Meeting;, a focus group with local affordable housing advocates; presentations and discussions at
6 Case management, a Public Service activity, was provided to individuals in transitional housing; however, no sponsor was
identified for the creation of a new Public Facility to provide 25 beds of transitional housing.
7 Jobs created/retained under the “Expand Economic and Employment Opportunities” goal are outcomes of the CDBG
Economic Development Loan Fund.
8 The objective “the provision of job readiness and/or job training with placement to 250 persons” has been divided into its
component parts and outcomes are reported for “job readiness” and “job training and placement.”
9 Jobs created/retained under the “Increase Physical and Economic Mobility” goal are associated with the job training and
placement programs.
two meetings of City of Ithaca’s Community Life Commission; and presentations with discussion at one
meeting of the Tompkins County Legislature’s Housing Subcommittee.
In addition to the outreach specified in the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, postings were placed on the
Human Services Coalition Listserv, which has a reach of over 3,000 subscribers, and the IURA website to
encourage the public to attend input sessions and/or reach out directly to schedule individual comment
sessions.
5. Summary of public comments
Comments received were grouped into the following categories.
Accessibility
Remove architectural barriers in public places (Public Facilities)
Remove architectural barriers in housing
Promote increased use of universal design features in new construction for people with
disabilities, for aging populations, and so people can age in place affordably
Public restrooms needed, accessible to those with disabilities (Public Facilities)
Aging in Place
Mini-Repair
Homeowner Rehab
Accessibility improvements/modifications (age-related disabilities)
Affordable Housing
Increase availability at all income levels
Affordable housing with supportive services needed for an array of special needs populations:
recovery, reentry, exiting homelessness, and more.
Increase availability/access to affordable housing through increased acceptance of Section 8 and
other subsidies (landlord education/engagement)
Housing “assistance cliff” (when a modest increase in income makes a household ineligible for
financial assistance)
Increase affordable homeownership opportunities
Repair/rehab of Ithaca Housing Authority (IHA)-held properties
Address housing conditions at housing sites to which people receiving Department of Social
Services (DSS) housing shelter allowance are referred – poor conditions, no heat, vermin,
unclean, etc.
Examine process/remove barriers in home loan process that prevent otherwise qualified LMI
individuals from being eligible for purchase
See comment in Health re: service to eradicate bed bugs
Services and Coordination related to Housing
Connect tenants with service providers to landlords willing to rent
Support Rapid Rehousing goals
Educate/outreach to landlords to accept tenants with any source of income (SOI)
Service to help LMI people improve credit scores for better rental options and/or
homeownership
Eviction prevention
Landlord/tenant counseling
Safety net needed for individuals on Housing Choice Voucher list (housing burden issue)
“Damages fund” available to Landlords who take a chance on tenant with high barriers
“Landlord Liaison”-type service to help people access and retain housing
Childcare
Increase opportunities for home-based childcare (Economic Development)
Include compliant ground-floor units within affordable housing developments for seamless
provision of home-based childcare (Affordable Housing, Economic Development)
Code Enforcement
Understand how code enforcement relates to aiding access to affordable housing
Promote ways to streamline, improve, etc., code enforcement, so it is systematic, timely, and
promotes decent affordable housing
See comment in Affordable Housing re: housing conditions
Displacement Due to Gentrification
Preserve ability for LMI people to live in neighborhoods where they have long-standing
connections
o These neighborhoods provide access to Ithaca’s high opportunities (walkable access to
education, employment, etc.) – fair housing issue
o Preserve community and cultural fabric
Increase homeownership opportunities for long-tenured residents
Targeted economic development – by/for LMI residents
Targeted Small Repair
Targeted Homeowner Rehab
Sponsor community conversation about displacement to find other solutions
Economic Development
Microenterprise assistance
Loans to businesses for job creation and other desired outcomes (local hiring, living wages)
Loans, education, and training to LMI people wishing to start small businesses
Help overcoming barriers to small business
Fair Housing
Pursue City’s AFH-identified Fair Housing Goals (7)
o Source of Income Protection
o Strategies to prevent displacement due to gentrification
Local enforcement is needed (funding for, designation of local entity)
Health
Opioid Crisis
o Access to treatment
o Adequate treatment facilities/centers
o Housing for those in treatment
o Housing for those in recovery
o Low-barrier shelter
Service to eradicate bed bugs
Homelessness
Low-barrier shelter for homeless people with multiple barriers preventing access to housing
(Southwest Park)
Services for homeless people with multiple barriers in encampments e.g. Southwest Park
Increase funding for Homeless Outreach staff (current focus is supposed to be the Commons,
but staff need to go to many locations)
Pathway to permanent housing for homeless people with high barriers
Low-barrier/high-tolerance shelter (for people who are using and/or may be ineligible for
services from DSS)
Youth shelter (specify ages)
o Youth under 18 can’t be served by adult shelter
See comment in Affordable Housing re: housing conditions
Job Training Programs
Programs that reach people with barriers to employment are necessary.
Programs that build in flexibility are beneficial, so participants can address other life issues that
create employment barriers.
Promote training programs to trades and other professions that provide sustainable living wage
Employee-Assistance (EAP)-type program for people in job training programs to provided
needed support during times of crisis, aid in retention, promote employability
Landlord/Tenant
Landlord-tenant counseling, services, workshops
Services directed to tenants in need of eviction-prevention or other assistance
Landlord training and “licensing” class
Planning Process (Consolidated Plan and Action Plan)
Process is flawed. Some applicants are funded year after year, which dissuades others from
applying.
There is a lack of people of color or independent people receiving grants
Public Art
Ithaca needs public art built by and reflective of the community that made it
Public Facilities
Playground for lower West Hill neighborhood
Basketball Court for lower West Hill neighborhood
Public restrooms that are accessible (i.e., on the Commons)
Low-barrier shelter
Youth shelter
Aid for eligible public facilities identified in Southside Plan (i.e., park lighting)
Acoustics improvement at Southside Community Center’s gym
Public Housing
Funding to assist Ithaca Housing Authority with needed repair and maintenance
Transportation
More affordable transportation options needed to address housing affordability/transportation
mismatch (i.e., much affordable housing is within the County, not the City, but there is
inadequate transportation to get to jobs from these affordable locations).
“B” and “C” shift options/emergency ride homes
Employer-assisted or employer flexibility of start times needed to address limited transportation
Promote ability for children to participate in after-school activities (i.e. West Hill/Cayuga
Heights)
Promote ability for parents to attend teacher conferences
6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them
All comments were accepted and considered in the preparation of this Consolidated Plan.
7. Summary
The 2019-2023 Consolidated Plan aims to address our community’s priority needs with the entitlement
funds HUD makes available on a yearly basis. Members of the public, community organizations,
practitioners in community development fields, and others were engaged and consulted in the making
of this plan. Technical assistance is available throughout the year for individuals and organizations
seeking to develop projects to address priority needs, in order to be ready to apply for Action Plan
funding. Contact Anisa Mendizabal, Community Development Planner, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency at
amendizabal@cityofithaca.org or (607) 274-6553.
9.2 Adoption of the Draft 2019 Action Plan ― HUD Entitlement Program - Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca (City) is eligible to receive an annual formula allocation of funds to
address community development needs through the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development (HUD) Entitlement Program from the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program and the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program funding sources;
and
WHEREAS, the City has contracted with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to
administer, implement, and monitor the City’s HUD Entitlement Program in compliance with all
applicable regulations; and
WHEREAS, on an annual basis, an Action Plan must be submitted to HUD to access HUD
Entitlement Program funding allocated to the City; and
WHEREAS, the 2019 Action Plan identifies a specific list of budgeted community development
activities to be funded from the 2019 HUD Entitlement Program allocation and associated funds
administered by the IURA; and
WHEREAS, the following funding is available to be allocated through the 2019 Action Plan:
$688,397.00 CDBG 2019 allocation
$107,000.00 CDBG 2019 projected Program Income
$ 26,786.99 CDBG recaptured/unallocated funds
$305,972.00 HOME 2019 allocation
$ 97,022.70 HOME 2018 Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)
reserve
$ 4,309.08 HOME 2017 Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)
reserve
$ 5.00 HOME recaptured/unallocated funds
$1,229,492.77 Total
; and
WHEREAS, the IURA utilized an open and competitive project selection process for
development of the 2019 Action Plan in accordance with the City of Ithaca Citizen Participation
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the IURA developed a draft 2019 Action Plan for public comment and Common
Council consideration; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the draft Action Plan was held on May 8, 2019; now, therefore
be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby adopts the Draft 2019 City
of Ithaca Action Plan, dated April 18, 2019, for allocation of the City’s 2019 HUD Entitlement
Program award along with associated funds listed above; and, be it further
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Urban Renewal Plan shall be amended to include activities funded
in the adopted 2019 Action Plan.
DraŌ 2019 City of Ithaca AcƟon Plan ― SummaryHUD Entitlement ProgramAdopted by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency: 4/18/19FUNDING AMOUNT#TOTAL CDBG TOTAL HOME TOTAL$822,183.99 $407,308.78 $1,229,492.77HOUSING12019 Homeowner RehabIthaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS)$125,000.00$201,779.00 $67,594.32 $42,151.58$109,745.90Assist at least 5 low‐income homeowners with projects that improve the condition and performance of their homes.2Small Repair ProgramIthaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS)$32,500.00$99,856.00 $32,500.00$32,500.00Provide 40 homeowners with maintenance and repairs focused on health/safety issues, accessibility, and providing links to other programs and services.3Immaculate Conception School Redevelopment*Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS)$350,000.00$21,232,342.00 $0.00 $200,000.00$200,000.00Redevelop 2‐acre property to provide approximately 71 affordable rental housing units and non‐profit space, with a minimum 15% special needs set‐aside for a disabled population (TBD). 4Housing Scholarship ProgramThe Learning Web, Inc.$70,560.00$145,560.00$70,560.00$70,560.00Provide 8 LMI homeless youth residing in supported apartments to maintain stable housing and increase their ability to live self‐sufficiently.5Security Deposit Assistance for Vulnerable Households (2019‐20)Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Counties$61,500.00$88,496.00 $64,000.00$64,000.00Provide security deposits to 100 LMI households at risk for homelessness to access safe/stable housing and avoid/end homelessness. Includes Five security deposits reserved for homeless families w/children in Housing for School Success program (Project #10). Includes $2,500 for 40 housing inspections.$639,560.00$21,768,033.00 $100,094.32 $376,711.58$476,805.9039%ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT6Finger Lakes ReUse Job Skills TrainingFinger Lakes ReUse, Inc.$108,029.00$224,249.00 $95,529.00$95,529.00Provide job training opportunities for LMI populations and place at least 22 adults with employment barriers into permanent unsubsidized positions.7Work Preserve Job Training: Job PlacementsHistoric Ithaca, Inc.$67,500.00$180,185.00 $67,500.00$67,500.00Staff salaries and participant stipends for job placements of 6 LMI individuals, following job‐readiness training.8Hospitality Employment Training Program (HETP)Greater Ithaca Activities Center, Inc. (GIAC)$122,500.00$187,850.00 $110,725.28$110,725.28Staff, supplies, stipends, and professional fees to train 20 and place 14 LMI adults with employment barriers (incl. people with disabilities, formerly incarcerated, homeless, recovering addicts, immigrants, and single parents) into hospitality and office/administrative positions.9Ithaca ReUse Center ExpansionFinger Lakes ReUse, Inc.$100,000.00$1,807,600.00 $100,000.00$100,000.00Forgivable loan for acquisition of 214 Elmira Rd. property (Finger Lakes ReUse Center), retaining at least 3 FTE jobs.10Economic Development Loan FundIURA$107,000.00$203,300.00 $107,396.99$107,396.99Capitalize loan fund for business loans resulting in job creation (including underwriting and delivery).$505,029.00$2,603,184.00 $481,151.27$481,151.2739%PUBLIC FACILITIES (NO PROPOSALS)PUBLIC SERVICES11Black Girl Alchemists Public Art Mosaic ProjectCommunity Arts Partnership (CAP)$26,250.00$26,250.00 $7,500.00$7,500.00Partial funding contingent upon sponsor securing sufficient match funding to complete the project. Enroll 12‐15 local youth to lead transformative visual arts neighborhood project to be installed at the Downtown Ithaca Child Care Center.12Housing for School SuccessBeverly J. Martin Elementary School (ICSD)$15,700.00$30,700.00 $15,700.00$15,700.00Fund school social worker as case manager to assist 26‐30 homeless students.132‐1‐1 Information & ReferralHuman Services Coalition of Tompkins County, Inc.$20,000.00$251,720.00 $15,000.00$15,000.00Support for 2‐1‐1 Call Center referrals to 2,700 LMI persons.14Work Preserve Job Training: Job ReadinessHistoric Ithaca, Inc.$20,000.00(see Project #7) $20,000.00$20,000.00Staff salaries to provide 20 LMI youth and adults with job‐readiness training, workplace evaluations, and support transition to other services or employment.15A Place to Stay: Night/Weekend Support for Women in TransitionCatholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Counties$20,000.00$83,191.00 $20,000.00$20,000.00Case management support for 21 very low‐income homeless (or facing homelessness) women, at least half of whom will be working through substance abuse recovery.16Immigrant Services Program (ISP)Catholic Charities of Tompkins/Tioga Counties$30,000.00$78,795.00 $25,059.00$25,059.00Staffing to provide 100 refugees and immigrants with direct services and referrals so they can integrate into the community.$131,950.00$413,706.00 $103,259.00$103,259.008%ADMINISTRATION17CDBG Administration (20%)IURA$137,679.40$137,679.40 $137,679.40$137,679.40Planning, administration, and monitoring for CDBG program.18HOME Administration (10%)IURA$30,597.20$30,597.20 $30,597.20$30,597.20Planning, administration, and monitoring for HOME program.$168,276.60$168,276.60 $137,679.40$30,597.20$168,276.6014%$1,444,815.60 $24,953,199.60 $822,183.99 $407,308.78$1,229,492.77100%Balances:$0.00 $0.00 $0.00Minimum Required 2019 HOME CHDO Set‐Aside Funding (15%): $45,895.80Public Services Funding Cap = 15% of 2019 CDBG Award: $103,259.552019 CDBG award: $688,0712019 HOME Funding Awarded to CHDO Activities: $98,668.222019 CDBG Funding Awarded to Public Services Projects: $103,259.002019 HOME award: $305,972Summary DescriptionECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBTOTALS:HOUSING SUBTOTALS:Funding RequestSponsorProjectTotal Project Cost PUBLIC SERVICES SUBTOTALS:ADMINISTRATION SUBTOTALS:TOTALS:* 2018 CHDO Set‐Aside Eligible Project
9.3 Proposed Planned Unit Development Application - Park Grove Realty and
Cayuga Medical Center - Common Council Conditional Approval Resolution
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2018, the Common Council adopted legislation creating a
Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD); and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, Whitham Planning and Design submitted an
application on behalf of Park Grove Realty and Cayuga Medical Center for
consideration of the establishment of a Planned Unit Development District at Carpenter
Circle, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel numbers 36.-1-3.3 and 36-1-3.5; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has stated that the project could not proceed under the
existing zoning due to setback and height requirements; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to develop a new urban neighborhood,
comprised of a medical facility, one 4-story residential building, and two 6-story mixed
use buildings containing ground floor commercial space, parking, and 4 stories of
residential apartments; and
WHEREAS, the applicant will further develop interior neighborhood streets, pedestrian
and transit connections, shared parking, play areas, and green space; and
WHEREAS, the applicant will relocate, reconfigure and make improvements to the
onsite community gardens and establish a permanent site for the gardens equal in size
to what currently exists on the project site; and
WHEREAS, the total proposed development contains approximately 64,000 SF of
medical office space, 208 new housing units, 42 of which will be designated as
affordable units, 414 surface parking spaces, and 193 garage spaces; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Economic Development Committee requested the
applicant explore ways to reduce the number of parking spaces, increase the number of
shade trees, and add screening along the rear property line and in the parking areas;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Economic Development Committee requested that the
applicant ensure that the project will provide the Community Gardens with an equal
amount of space as currently exists, and include a dental clinic that accepts Medicaid;
and
WHEREAS, the project is intended to provide the following benefits to the community:
1. Provide a permanent and improved space for the Community Gardens,
2. Generate approximately 150 new jobs,
3. Build approximately 40 units of housing that would be priced to be affordable to
those earning 50-60% of AMI,
4. Provide high-quality public amenities, including improved pedestrian, transit, and
bicycle access throughout the site, and public spaces including open green
space, plazas for events and/or outdoor dining, a playground, and storm water
management gardens featuring native plantings,
5. Create an improved gateway into the City of Ithaca on Route 13 North,
6. Align with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and ongoing planning related to the
Route 13 corridor and the Waterfront Zone
; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the adopted City process for consideration of a PUD,
notice of the proposal was circulated by mail to all properties within 500’ of the project
site and a public information session was held on Monday, April 8, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the meeting was advertised in the Ithaca Journal and on the City’s web site
and the property was posted with the appropriate signage; and
WHEREAS, the process for consideration of an application for a Planned Unit
Development requires that the applicant obtain an approval, in concept only, from the
Common Council prior to beginning the site plan review process; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council does hereby grant approval, in
concept only, to Park Grove Realty and Cayuga Medical Center for their application to
establish a Planned Unit Development District on City of Ithaca Tax Parcel numbers
36.-1-3.3 and 36-1-3.5; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That by granting an approval, in concept, the Common Council
acknowledges that the applicant is able to begin the site plan review process despite
any zoning-based deficiencies in the application; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council does hereby request that the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board update the Common Council after each Planning
Board meeting where this project is considered and request ongoing written comments
from the Common Council about the project; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council strongly encourages the project developers to
incorporate a dental clinic that accepts Medicaid; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That if this project receives a negative declaration of environmental
significance and contingent site plan approval, the applicant will return to the Common
Council for final consideration of the adoption of the Planned Unit Development District.
To: Common Council
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: May 21, 2019
RE: City of Ithaca Planned Unit Development (PUD) –Conditional Approval: Carpenter
Circle
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding an application from Park Grove Realty
and Cayuga Medical Center to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District at Carpenter Circle,
City of Ithaca Tax Parcels 36.-1-3.3 and 36.-1-3.5.
The project team presented an overview of their proposal at the Planning and Economic Development
Committee of Common Council in March of 2019. In accordance with the adopted City process for
consideration of a PUD, the applicant has completed the enclosed application. Notice of the proposal
was circulated to all properties within 500’ of the project site and a public information session was
held on Monday, April 8, 2019. The meeting was advertised in the Ithaca Journal and on the City’s
web site and the property was posted with the appropriate signage. The meeting was well attended
and the applicant answered questions on their proposed project. Comments that were received at the
meeting are enclosed.
The process for consideration of an application for a PUD requires that the applicant obtain an
approval in concept from the Common Council prior to beginning the site plan review process. When
the project was presented to the Planning and Economic Development Committee, the committee
requested the applicant explore ways to reduce the number of parking spaces, increase the number of
shade trees, and add screening along the rear property line and in the parking areas. They also
requested that the project provide the Community Gardens with an equal amount of space as currently
exists and that they include a dental clinic that accepts Medicaid.
If this project is granted the conditional approval to proceed, the applicant will be permitted to begin
the site plan review process, despite any zoning-based deficiencies in the application. As a part of
the environmental review process for the project and the PUD, the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board will update the Common Council after each Planning Board meeting where the
project is considered and will request ongoing written comments from the Common Council. When
and if the project has completed the environmental review process and has received site plan approval,
it (the applicant) will return to the Common Council for final consideration of the adoption of the
PUD.
If you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at
jenniferk@cityofithaca.org.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JoAnn Cornish, Director
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Carpenter Circle-Park Grove Realty and Cayuga Medical Center Project
― PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION ―
Meeting Minutes
Monday, April 8, 2019 – 4:00 p.m.
2nd Floor Conference Room, City Hall, 108 E. Green St.
This meeting was advertised in the Ithaca Journal on 03/30/19 and again on 04/8/19. It
was also posted online on the Ithaca Journal website. Below is a copy of the media release
that was distributed.
― MEDIA RELEASE ―
Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Public Information Session: Carpenter Circle-Park Grove Realty and Cayuga
Medical Center Project Proposal
Day: April 8, 2019
Time: 4:00 PM
Place: Common Council Chambers, City Hall
108 E. Green St., Ithaca
On April 8, 2019, the City of Ithaca will hold a Public Information Session for a proposed
PUD located at Carpenter Circle, tax parcels 36.-1-3.3 and 36.-1-3.5. The Public
Information Session will begin at 4:00 PM, in the Common Council Chambers in City
Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca. In accordance with the requirements of the City of Ithaca
Planned Unit Development (PUD), the developer and project team will present information
about the project and answer questions from the public.
The proposed project is the development of a new urban neighborhood, comprised of a
medical facility, one 4-story residential building, and two 6-story buildings containing
ground floor commercial space, parking, and 3 stories of apartments. The site will also be
developed with neighborhood streets, pedestrian and transit connections, shared parking,
and green space. The project includes a plan to reconfigure, improve, and establish a
permanent site for the Ithaca Community Gardens. The total proposed development
contains approximately 64,000 SF of medical office space, 200 new housing units, 40 of
which will be designated as affordable units, and 400 parking spaces.
For questions regarding this project, or to see the completed PUD application, please
contact Jennifer Kusznir at jkusznir@cityofithaca.org, or 274-6550.
Department of Planning, Building, Zoning, & Economic Development
108 E. Green St., Third Floor, City of Ithaca (City Hall)
Ithaca, New York 14850
Office Hours: 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m., M-F
Attended by (Names taken from Sign in Sheet - additional attendees did not sign in):
Brian Noteboom
Fred Swayze
Charlene Temple
Marc Messing
Dan Hoffman
Sheryl Swink
Common Council Members
George McGonigal
Cynthia Brock
Ducson Nguyen
Laura Lewis
Project Team
Yamila Fournier
Scott Whitham
City Staff
JoAnn Cornish
Jennifer Kusznir
Lisa Nicholas
Alex Phillips
Questions & Answers
Applicable questions from attendees and developer responses are summarized below, but
are not recorded verbatim.
Public Comments/Questions Applicant Responses
1. If buildings were taller could the
affordable housing be moved further
into the site closer to the other
residential structures?
There is limited buildable area on the site
because of the NYSEG easements that
restrict development on a large portion of
the site.
The financing also requires it to be a
separate project that cannot be mixed with
the rest of the project. This has allowed the
developer to add 42 units of housing that
would be priced to be affordable to those
earning 50-60% of AMI.
Also, adding any additional stories would
change the construction type and increase
the costs.
2. Has the project team spoken with
NYSEG about relocating the power
lines to increase developable area?
The City has asked NYSEG and have been
told that this is not possible.
3
3. How long will the units remain
affordable?
It will likely be a 50 year regulatory period
and might be extended if at some point
during that period repairs/restoration is
required and an additional financing
agreement is needed.
4. What are the total number of parking
spaces on site?
416 total parking spaces, including those
that are inside of the building. 120 spaces
are dedicated to CMC.
5. Will you have permeable surface? Permeable surface is not possible in this
location. Stormwater management will be
addressed in a comprehensive way, but has
not yet been determined.
6. Could the residential only building be
switched with the CMC office building?
The CMC office building requires the most
parking and there is not enough space for
the building and the parking in the location
where the residential only building is
located. CMC also prefer to have visibility
from Route 13 for their building so that it
will be a gateway building.
7. The site was just rezoned. Did you try
to adhere to the existing zoning?
Most of the places where the project will
not conform with zoning are minor and
include height and setbacks. The
residential building doesn’t have the
appropriate setback in order to move it
further from the railroad and doesn’t have
the minimum first floor height because no
commercial is anticipated for this building.
The mixed use buildings exceed the
maximum height in order to accommodate
a floor of parking into the building to
reduce the amount of surface parking
needed. The medical building exceeds the
height in order to accommodate taller
floors and deep foundations. The project
could move forward in the existing zoning,
but the project team feels that the given the
complexity of the site, a PUD would allow
for a better project.
8. Housing may not be an appropriate use
everywhere. This site is between the
Railroad and the WWTP. The WWTP
will likely expand in the future. It has
odors and noises that do not make it
ideal for residential uses. Has the
project considered eliminating the
The project team explored a lot of options
and feels that this is the most viable way
to plan the site. In order to get funding
from the state to make this financially
feasible the affordable portion has to be
separate. The project didn’t originally
have affordable units, but staff, the Mayor
4
affordable housing building and if that
were eliminated could the project fit
under the existing zoning.
and the Common Council requested it. It
is actually an asset to the project, it creates
a more balanced neighborhood and
includes more of the population that the
medical facility serves.
9. The project has too much hardscape.
10. The location of the residential only
building is actually quieter and more
desirable then the rest of the site
because it is adjacent to the gardens and
the playground and set back further
from route 13. It feels more family
oriented.
11. Project Growing Hope is supportive of
this proposal. The Board has met twice
with the project team and they have
been very responsive to the concerns
raised.
12. How will the facility be powered and
will it be energy efficient?
These details are being worked out and we
will look at various available energy
systems that are available and will meet
city green energy building standards.
13. What is the plan for stormwater
management?
We have not yet engineered the storm
water management, but exploring options
for possible shared grey water with
gardens.
14. Could B and W be incorporated into
this project?
They are not interested in selling the
property.
15. How does one access the medical
building?
The project is applying to NYSDOT for a
break in access on Route 13 and is also
working with TCAT to get service all the
way through the project site. If DOT
approves, there will be a direct crossing at
5th Street and there will be sidewalks
throughout the site.
16. What is the vision for the retail space?
Is there enough demand for new retail
and will it detract from retail in other
areas in the City?
This project will have enough demand
within the project to support small retail. In
order for the project to be successful as a
mixed use neighborhood, the project team
feel that it is an essential aspect of the
project. It will provide convenient
neighborhood commercial uses.
5
Crossings on Route 13 are difficult. How
will you make this safe? Also, it is
important to note that on the corner of
fifth street is FLICC that serves disabled
individuals so it is important that traffic
be calm. There is also a high population
of non-English speakers on fifth street.
Here it would be a perpendicular crossing
that will feel more of a friendly crossing,
and would be a pedestrian activated signal
crossing.
17. There is not enough greenspace in this
project, it is mostly hardscape.
We will continue to explore how we can
incorporate more green, but we hope the
community gardens is an opportunity for
our residents.
18. Could vehicles drive through the site
and go to Green Star
The project team is working with Organic
waterfront to try and have a ped/bike and
bus crossing into their site. However, this
is still being evaluated.
19. Have you planned out traffic
circulation and considered how best to
make it a safe walkable neighborhood
for families? Have you considered
making a signalized at 3rd street
intersection going into the sites.
We are working with SRF traffic engineers
to look at all of the projects to try and come
up with a plan. A light at third street might
back up into Route 13, but SRF can explore
it.
20. What is the timeline? The project team is hoping to have
approvals in the late fall/early winter.
21. When the WWTP was rebuilt
neighbors complained. I am very
concerned with adding residential uses
in the vicinity of the plant that is likely
to expand services. The Railroad is
difficult to live near. The residents of
Nates often complain about the noise
and vibrations from the idling trains.
The project is adding special glass to
mitigate any noise from the railroad.
22. Could the playground/greenspace be
made larger?
23. IS the project team aware that the
railroad plans to increase transport of
liquid natural gas?
24. Can more middle income housing be
included? Could there be for sale
affordable units included?
25. Why is there so much parking? The parking is to support all of the uses.
However, it is not be used as much on the
weekend and can be shared with the
Farmer’s Market.
6
26. When the Cayuga Medical Center opted
to purchase this land it was considered a
long term investment. The goals was to
control the property and to add medical
services to this part of the City that has
been requested repeatedly for many years.
9.4 Approval of E- Scooter Pilot Program - Resolution
WHEREAS, The City of Ithaca Planning and Economic Development Committee (PEDC) asked
the Mobility, Accessibility, and Transportation Commission (MATCom) to research several
facets of e-scooter implementation to help the City of Ithaca determine whether and how to
launch an e-scooter sharing pilot program; and
WHEREAS, e-scooters represent an exciting opportunity for the City of Ithaca, and a pilot
program for e-scooter sharing would allow the City to observe how e-scooter sharing impacts
Ithaca and to collect ridership data without tying the City to a permanent decision; and
WHEREAS, MATCom recommended a pilot e-scooter sharing program be conducted from May
2019 through mid-November 2019, and that the pilot should be monitored on a weekly basis;
and
WHEREAS, MATCom recommended establishing an exclusive agreement with one e-scooter
provider, Lime; and
WHEREAS, an MOU regarding e-scooters should follow the guidelines outlined by NACTO and
amended by Council and should establish clear regulations regarding e-scooter usage; and
WHEREAS, Ithaca should consider requiring Lime to maintain a minimum fleet of bicycles, both
pedal and e-bikes, along with the e-scooter program, to meet the needs of the entire
community; and
WHEREAS, Common Council supports stipulations requiring e-scooter providers to ensure e-
scooters are distributed among a variety of neighborhoods, as equitable distribution and usage
of e-scooters can potentially provide a new, affordable mode of transportation to those who
need it most; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca authorizes Lime to conduct a pilot
program, beginning in the Spring of 2019, to assess the functionality of e-scooters as it pertains
to the city of Ithaca; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That authorization is contingent upon Lime’s maintenance of a minimum fleet of
bicycles in the community and the equitable distribution of scooters across the City; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That Common Council authorizes the Mayor, together with the City Attorney, to
establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Lime prior to implementation of the e-
scooter pilot program; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That authorization is contingent upon (i) Lime’s maintenance of a minimum fleet of
bicycles in the community and the equitable distribution of scooters across the City; (ii) a
maximum scooter speed of ten (10) miles per hour, (iii) Lime’s implementation of a rider training
plan with the goal of achieving lower proportion of injuries incurred by first-time riders than seen
in the May 2019 CDC report, (iv) Lime’s implementation of a helmet promotion program that
results in increased helmet use.
E-Scooter Pilot Program Recommendation
Approved by Matcom on 04-22-19
MATCom recommends that the City of Ithaca authorize Lime to conduct a pilot program, pending review
by the City Attorney, to assess the functionality of e-scooters as it pertains to our city. The e-scooter pilot
program should have the following qualities:
I. General:
A. E-scooter sharing should not occur without a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
from the City. The City should require that any dockless bike or scooter sharing vendor
pay for a permit and have an MOU approved with the City.
B. The e-scooter MOU should follow the same format as the bike share MOU.
1. The MOU should reflect the best practices for shared active transportation as
detailed by NACTO.
C. Proposed pilot program duration is May 2019 through mid-November 2019.
D. Require Lime to attend a monthly “check-in” with the City and relevant stakeholders. Plan
for an early assessment of the pilot to be conducted in September.
1. Include a provision allowing for the extension of the pilot or formalization of the
MOU should the City determine the pilot to be beneficial. The pilot should not be
extended until the Data Collection detailed in Section V is completed and
reviewed.
2. The arrangement should be exclusive with Lime for the duration of the initial pilot
program. If the City determines they would like to continue to allow e-scooters to
operate beyond the conclusion of the pilot program, the City should also reserve
the right to sign conditional MOUs with other companies as well.
E. The City of Ithaca reserves the right to terminate the pilot program with or without cause.
F. Initial launch must consist of 50 or fewer e-scooters. Additional e-scooters may be
introduced at a rate of 10 per day as long as the number of rides per scooter per day
exceeds 3.
G. Require Lime to honor the bicycle share MOU and require Lime to maintain a minimum
bike fleet. Recommendation: a minimum bike fleet of 102 bikes (68 pedal, 34 e-bikes,
following a 2:1 ratio), regardless of the number of e-scooters; beyond this, a minimum of
2 pedal bikes and 1 e-bike for every 10 e-scooters
II. Operations Oversight:
A. E-scooters should be subject to a curfew period outlined in the MOU, such that they will
all be removed from the public right-of-way at a given time each evening and will be
returned at a given time each morning. Suggested ranges include:
1. 6:00 am - 9:00 pm
Or
2. 7:00 am - 9:00 pm
Or
3. Propose a flexible curfew based on the time of year. Later in the summer and
earlier in the winter.
B. E-scooters should be banned from use in pedestrian-only areas such as The Commons
and sidewalks.
1. Geofencing will be used to establish “no ride” (motor reduces to 0 mph) and
“reduced speed” (motor reduces to 12 mph) zones. The Commons should be
designated as a “no ride” zone.
E-Scooter Pilot Program Recommendation
Final – Approved by Matcom on 04-22-19
2
2. The City should be empowered to designate new zones.
C. The City should make a determination between the following options about the staging of
e-scooters at the tops of or on the sides of hills during the pilot program. This
determination should be subject to change should the MOU be extended beyond the
pilot.
1. Lime may stage e-scooters at the tops of and on hills to offer a new
transportation option for traversing Ithaca’s challenging geography,
or
2. Lime may not stage e-scooters at the tops of and on hills to mitigate perceived
risk associated with downhill riding,
or
3. Lime may stage e-scooters at uphill locations, but downhill rides on designated
hills would be prohibited.
D. Lime is responsible for removing e-scooters which are damaged, abandoned, and
improperly parked within 30 minutes of being reported to Lime via one of the
communication channels listed on the device.
E. The MOU should outline acceptable parking guidelines, this being on sidewalks not
blocking fire hydrants, ADA access, entrances, or pedestrian right-of-way.
III. Fees:
A. City Administration should establish fees for certain aspects of the e-scooter share. Fees
should be used as a moderating feature. Fees should be based on industry standards
and should not be based on ad-hoc judgement of the company’s worth.
1. A per ride fee should be assessed. Industry standard: $0.10 - $0.15 per ride.
2. An initial permit fee should be set. Industry standard: $500.00. - $1000.00.
3. A fine per e-scooter should be assessed to damaged, abandoned, and/or
improperly parked e-scooters not addressed after 1 hour of reporting during in-
use hours or by the start of the next access period during curfew hours. This fee
should then increase per improperly parked e-scooter that remains in their
location for 2 hours after the e-scooter has been reported. Suggested
increments of $25.00 after 1 hour; $100.00 after 2 hours.
B. These fees should be sent to a designated fund, the balance of which should be applied
towards administrative overhead, active transportation improvements and supports, such
as stenciled parking, bike corrals, bike lanes, community awareness and behavior
campaigns, broad outreach, education and/or enforcement efforts for any and all road
and sidewalk users, data gathering efforts, steps to improve transportation equity, etc.
IV. Insurance and Indemnification:
A. The MOU must include insurance and indemnification sections as deemed appropriate by
the City attorney.
V. Data Collection:
A. Both the City of Ithaca and the Center for Community Transportation already have
access to Lime’s Data Dashboard, which provides GPS-driven data on frequency and
location of bicycle rides. This access will extend to e-scooter data as well.
E-Scooter Pilot Program Recommendation
Final – Approved by Matcom on 04-22-19
3
B. Lime and the City of Ithaca shall make appropriate efforts to gather accident and injury
data from relevant sources as it pertains to both bicycles and e-scooters. A report
compiling injury data should be provided by the end of the proposed pilot period.
C. Lime, the City of Ithaca, and an appropriate Non-Government Organization (NGO) should
collaborate to conduct a survey of e-scooter users and to the general population to
determine whether e-scooters will contribute to the City’s mobility, equity, and climate
action goals. A report compiling survey data should be provided by the end of the
proposed pilot period.
D. IPD and Fire should collect data on the number of tickets they write and calls they
respond to which involve bicycles and/or e-scooters.
VI. Privacy and Non-Discrimination:
A. Lime will adhere to the City’s data privacy policies. App permissions for location sharing
and camera use shall be clearly explained.
B. Customers shall not be required to share personal information with third parties.
Customers may be asked to opt in to sharing some personal information to aid in pilot
program evaluation.
C. Lime will adhere to the City’s non-discrimination policies.
VII. Safety:
A. Consult the City Attorney regarding Ithaca City Code 157-13A (Commons – Bicycles and
other wheeled devices) since it does not explicitly reference scooters and e-scooters.
B. Update Ithaca City Code 137 (Bicycles) to one of the following:
1. No person shall ride, drive or operate a bicycle, e-scooter, skateboards or skates
along any public sidewalk or footpath intended for the use of pedestrians. Allow
bicycles, e-scooters, skateboards and skates on multi-use paths, unless
otherwise stated. This provision shall not apply to: children 10 years of age or
under riding a bicycle or skating; nor to anyone who, because of a disability,
warrants the use of a bicycle, e-scooter, or other similar small, quiet wheeled
devices as a means of transportation or mobility.
or
No person shall ride, drive or operate a bicycle or scooter along any public
sidewalk or footpath intended for the use of pedestrians. This provision shall not
apply to children 10 years of age or under nor to anyone who, because of a
disability, requires the use of a bicycle as a means of transportation or mobility.
This provision shall not apply to multi-use paths and trails. Any violation of the
provisions of this section constitutes a civil offense punishable in accordance with
§ 1-1 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code.
E-Scooter Pilot Program Recommendation
Final – Approved by Matcom on 04-22-19
4
2. Add a subsection stating that wherever bicycles and similar devices are ridden
where pedestrians are present (except in bicycle lanes and other infrastructure
designed for primary use by small, wheeled devices), the user must yield to
pedestrians, maintain a speed at or below 12 mph, provide at least 1’ side
clearance, and make an audible signal before passing.
C. Require robust education initiatives for e-scooter users as well as pedestrians and
motorists.
VIII. Equity:
A. Shared e-scooter providers shall offer access to people without smartphones and bank
cards. This program is facilitated by the Center for Community Transportation and
includes features such as text-to-unlock, pay-in-cash, and a 95% discount on pedal bikes
and a 50% discount on Lime-E. This program will apply to both bicycles and e-scooters.
B. Lime will ensure distribution not only along central hot spots but also throughout the
entirety of the City. The City may designated particular neighborhood for distribution, o r
they may simply use Lime’s existing quadrant breakdown. The approach the City selects
should be clearly stipulated in the MOU.
IX. Education:
A. Lime must collaborate with the City and any NGO they select to create and maintain a
city-specific website which provides user instructions, safety education, and explains
terms of service, privacy policies, fees, costs, penalties, and other charges. This service
must be provided in English and in any other languages required by the City, as specified
by the MOU. This website should have information pathways directed at e-scooter users,
pedestrians, and motorists.
B. Prior to the pilot launch Lime must set up staffed booths at various public spaces
throughout Downtown and provide one-on-one rider education. This education initiative
should be repeated daily for a minimum of two weeks. After the pilot begins, Lime should
arrange for similar in-person education to occur at community events, including Ithaca
Festival and StreetsAlive.
C. In-app messaging must reflect that helmets are required for use per Lime’s Terms of
Service; that it is illegal to ride on sidewalks; that e-scooters must be parked upright, in
approved parking zones, and without impacting ADA or emergency access; that a city-
specific website can be accessed for more information.
D. Lime, the City of Ithaca, and any NGO they select should promote the in-person
education booths and city-specific website through as many channels as possible,
including radio, print, TV, social media, and mailing lists.
Compilation of e-Scooter Research
Prepared for the Ithaca PEDC and Common Council
Sarah Barden and Megan Powers
Members, Mobility Accessibility, and Transportation Commission
Created 5 February 2019
Revised 8 April 2019
Sarah Barden and Megan Powers (SB/MP. “we”) have done this research on behalf of the
Mobility, Accessibility, and Transportation Commission (MATCom) at the request of the
Planning and Economic Development Committee (PEDC). We presented our draft report and
findings to MATCom, which has reviewed and commented on the evolving report and has
approved its moving forward to PEDC for review on its merits.
Revision Summary
February 26, 2019
Initial Release (MATCom February Meeting)
March 6, 2019
●Added page numbers and table of contents
●Added Methodology section
●Added Pros and Cons section
●Added Safety section
●Added Insurance and Liability section
●Added Equitable Ridership section
●Added Geography section
●Clarified and expanded feedback from Lime
March 20, 2019
●Clarified statistics from Portland about choosing scooters over cars
●Clarified that injury data from Austin, TX was using statistics collected for all bicycle
injuries.
April 6, 2019
●Added Revision Summary
●Extended and organized Safety section
●Added additional information about Harrisonburg
●Added information about Nashville
●Re-formatted citations and added a bibliography
Page 1
Executive Summary 3
Methodology 4
Pros and Cons of E-Scooter Sharing 4
Pros of E-Scooter Sharing 4
Cons of E-Scooter Sharing 5
Safety 5
Fatalities 5
Injuries 6
Additional Comments about Safety 7
Insurance and Liability 7
Equitable Ridership 9
Geography 9
E-Scooter Sharing in Other Cities 10
Harrisonburg, VA 10
Memphis, TN 11
Providence, RI 12
St. Paul, MN 12
Portland, OR 13
Nashville, TN 14
Feedback from City Departments 14
City Clerk 14
Engineering 14
Fire Department 14
Planning and Economic Development 15
City Attorney 15
Police Department 15
Feedback from Lime 15
New York State Law 16
NACTO Guidelines 16
Conclusion 16
Bibliography 18
Page 2
Executive Summary
The City of Ithaca Planning and Economic Development Committee (PEDC) asked the Mobility,
Accessibility, and Transportation Commission (MATCom) to research several facets of
e-scooter implementation to help the City of Ithaca determine whether and how to launch an
e-scooter sharing pilot program. This research was undertaken by Sarah Barden and Megan
Powers.
Given our research, we believe e-scooters represent an exciting opportunity for the City of
Ithaca and that it is in Ithaca’s best interest to establish a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) for an e-scooter pilot program beginning in Spring 2019. Creating a pilot program for
e-scooter sharing allows Ithaca to observe how e-scooter sharing impacts Ithaca and to collect
ridership data without tying the city to a permanent decision. Until e-scooter riding in Ithaca is
well understood, we believe establishing an exclusive agreement with one e-scooter provider is
reasonable.
The basics of a dockless e-scooter sharing program typically include:
●Access to e-scooters via a smartphone app, unless using the LimeAcess program (see
Equitable Ridership for more details).
●In-app User Agreement, education, and safety instructions.
●A daily curfew (as determined by the municipality) after which all e-scooters are turned
off and removed from city streets; during this time they are re-charged.
●A minimum age requirement of 18.
Any MOU regarding e-scooters should follow the guidelines outlined by the NACTO (2018) and
should establish clear regulations regarding e-scooter usage, including points listed below.
●Inclusion of insurance and indemnification clauses
●Establishment of a maximum e-scooter speed of 15 mph
●Establishment of fees or payments made to Ithaca by the e-scooter provider
Ithaca should consider requiring Lime to maintain a minimum fleet of bicycles along with the
e-scooter program to serve the youth and underprivileged population.
Even with a detailed MOU, Ithaca should expect challenges with an e-scooter program. Citizens
and tourists will ride e-scooters illegally on the sidewalks, and residents will express concern
about both improper ridership and lack of enforcement. Further, some e-scooters will be parked
inappropriately, possibly impacting ADA or rescue access. Ithaca can address these concerns
proactively by creating education initiatives, leveraging local interested NGOs, and formally
documenting expectations with Lime.
Page 3
All the cities we interviewed faced some challenges in implementing their e-scooter programs,
but all have chosen to renew the programs for the next year.
Methodology
Sarah Barden and Megan Powers have spoken with representatives from several cities to learn
how these municipalities have approached e-scooter sharing and what challenges they have
faced. We have also researched best practices for e-scooter implementation. We have shared
our initial findings with several city departments (City Clerk, Engineering, Planning and
Economic Development, and Fire) and collected their feedback. Finally, we have spoken with
Jeff Goodmark, local Operations Manager for Lime, to understand Lime’s hopes and
expectations for an e-scooter program in Ithaca. Our findings are summarized in the following
sections.
Pros and Cons of E-Scooter Sharing
E-scooters provide a new transportation option for residents and tourists, but they also have
drawbacks. See also data from
●“The State of E-Scooter Sharing in United States Cities” (Kaufman and Buttenwieser,
2018
●“E-Scooter Scenarios: Evaluating the Potential Mobility Benefits of Shared Dockless
E-Scooters in Chicago” (Smith and Schweiterman, 2018)
●“2018 E-Scooter Findings Report” (Portland Bureau of Transportation [PBOT], 2018)
Pros of E-Scooter Sharing
●E-scooters help solve the “last-mile” problem, giving people an easy option to make a
trip that is too long for a comfortable walk but too short for a car ride. In specific, Smith
and Schweiterman (2018) study found e-scooters were a strong, cost-efficient,
time-competitive alternative to cars for trips between 0.5 and 2 miles.
●E-scooters have a smaller parking footprint than bicycles or automobiles.
●E-scooters require little effort or skill to ride, especially compared to bicycles.
●E-scooters can provide a reliable means of transportation for those who cannot use or
afford a car. This, in turn, can have a positive impact on job accessibility and business
commuting.
●E-scooters have the potential to make jobs more accessible compared to public transit or
walking alone. For example, Smith and Schweiterman (2018) found this to be true for
16% of jobs in their study area.
●E-scooters can replace cars, especially among tourists. In the Portland survey, 34% of
residents and 48% of tourists reported that if e-scooters had not been available for their
most recent scooter ride, they would have chosen to take a personal vehicle or taxi,
Uber, or Lyft ride (PBOT, 2018).
Page 4
Cons of E-Scooter Sharing
●E-scooters are a new technology. Cities and residents must learn how to integrate them
into daily living while their risks are not yet understood.
●E-scooters are often used on sidewalks, increasing pedestrian discomfort and frustrating
those who would like to see sidewalk riding regulations enforced.
●E-scooters that are parked improperly can cause accessibility concerns.
●E-scooters bring some people a perception of danger and risk. The studies needed to
assess the risk have not yet been completed. A careful evaluation of bike-sharing and
e-scooter-sharing statistics would reveal the relative risks, but this has not been done.
●E-scooters may be more sensitive to irregular pavement than bicycles. Because of their
bigger wheels, bicycles tend to be more stable across bad pavement than e-scooters.
Note: the diameter of the Lime-S Gen 3.0 e-scooter is 10 inches, while the diameter of a
toddler’s balance bike is 12 inches.
●E-scooters are less visible than Lime bicycles. They can be less visible than general
bicycles because of their smaller profile, but they also have front and rear lights.
Safety
Like bicycles and other small transportation devices, e-scooters are associated with safety risks.
To date, few extensive studies have been completed regarding e-scooter safety, and results are
mixed. Most evidence suggests that the injury risk associated with e-scooter usage is
comparable to that of bicycle usage.
Fatalities
There have been two fatalities associated with e-scooter sharing programs in the United States.
At the time these fatalities occurred, there had been approximately 21 million rides on
e-scooters. Schmitt (Sept. 2018) used this statistic to suggest that e-scooter sharing was
approximately six times more deadly than bike share programs, using two US bike share
fatalities over the course of 123 million rides. With such a small number of incidents in each
case, however, the statistical uncertainty in the actual fatality rate is larger than the difference
between the two modes of transportation (2 ± 1.4 in each case). It is thus impossible to draw
useful conclusions from this data. A later report by the same author, Schmitt (Dec. 2018) took a
more nuanced approach.
Page 5
Injuries
E-Scooter Injury Statistics
Comprehensive injury statistics for e-scooter use are not yet available, but the CDC launched its
first study of e-scooter safety by evaluating data collected in Austin, TX, last fall (Solomon,
2018). Until those results are released, there are a few other sources of injury data collection
available for review. Austin’s Mobility Committee of Council (2018) reported that between Sept.
29, 2018 and Oct. 31, 2018, there were nine scooter injuries, compared to 32 bicycle injuries (all
bicycles), 44 pedestrian injuries, and 592 motor vehicle injuries in the same period.
A study done by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) studied injuries
related to standing e-scooters by reviewing data from emergency department visits to the
Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center and UCLA Medical Center–Santa Monica from
September 1, 2017 through August 31, 2018 (Trivedi, Liu, and Antonio, 2019) . The study
identified 249 patients with injuries from e-scooters. Of these injuries, fifteen required admission
to the hospital, with two patients requiring service from the intensive care unit.
The city of Portland, OR, found there were 176 e-scooter-related injuries reported to the
emergency room between July 25 and Nov. 20, 2018. During the same period, there were 429
bicycle-related ER visits (PBOT, 2018).
Relative Safety of E-Scooters Compared to Bicycles
As explained in the Portland report (PBOT, 2018), it is difficult to compare e-scooter and bicycle
injury rates because there is relatively little information about the number and length of bicycle
trips. Evidence suggests that where e-scooters are available, they are a far more popular mode
of transportation than bicycles. The City of Santa Monica, featured in Trivedi et al. (2019),
licenses 2,000 e-scooters but only 1,000 e-bikes in dockless sharing programs (Walker, 2018).
From July 1 to September 20, 2018, e-scooters outnumbered dockless bicycles in Houston
3,212 to 632 (5:1). Houston users traveled 595,437 miles on e-scooters compared to 41,973
miles on dockless bikes (14:1), with an average trip being 1.05 miles on an e-scooter compared
to 0.65 miles on a dockless bicycle (Chiquillo, 2018).
Helmet Use
In the JAMA study, ten of the patients said they had been wearing a helmet when the injury
occurred (Triveldi et al., 2019). The study included an observational study of the riding habits of
193 e-scooter users compiled from three different sessions. They observed only eleven riders
using helmets. The observational study also found 51 riders using the sidewalk. When the study
was conducted, both riding on the sidewalk and riding without a helmet were illegal in the study
area. A post-hoc review found 195 visits for bicycle injuries and 181 visits for pedestrian injuries
in the same time period.
Page 6
Injuries among Case-Study Cities
Among the cities we contacted to discuss e-scooter programs, Memphis and Harrisonburg
reported evidence of e-scooter injuries. According to McGowen (personal communication,
2019), there were a couple of serious head injuries in Memphis during the pilot period that were
related to e-scooter use. The city responded by mandating the e-scooter apps include rider
education, and they pushed for safety demonstrations and free helmet giveaways. Memphis
also trained its downtown tourism representatives about e-scooter usage for tourists. These
measures appeared to make a positive impact on rider safety.
Wesley Russ of Harrisonburg (personal communication, 2019) reported a James Madison
University student fell while riding down a steep hill, breaking his arm.
Providence and St. Paul both commented that safety was a priority for them and that they
wanted to provide education initiatives, but that they did not have injury statistics and had only
limited injury anecdotes (Ellis, personal communication 2019, and Collins, personal
communication, 2019).
Additional Comments about Safety
There is a learning curve associated with riding e-scooters that results in an initial elevated risk
of crashes when riding an e-scooter. Further, because e-scooter tires are smaller in diameter
than most bicycle tires, they can be comparatively more difficult to ride safely over cracks and
uneven pavement.
Lime is replacing all their e-scooters with the new Lime-S Gen 3.0 (MATCom, Apr. 2019), which
Wired reviewed in October of 2018 (Marshall, 2018). This model has notable safety
improvements over previous models, including larger (10-inch) tires, dual suspension, an
improved braking system (electrical and mechanical in front; step-based at the back), a
maximum speed of 14.8 mph, and an active rear light and reflectors for increased visibility.
Educational outreach and demonstration programs, along with customized safety tips, could be
used to help address e-scooter ridership risks. Eric Hathaway from Engineering has begun the
process of working with Cayuga Medical Center to help collect injury statistics.
Lime requires all e-scooter riders to be at least 18 years old.
Insurance and Liability
It is common for cities to include insurance and indemnification clauses in their agreements with
e-scooter providers, and NACTO guidelines recommend that cities require providers to hold
insurance and to indemnify the city in the event of injury (NACTO, 2018).
Page 7
The current MOU between Ithaca and Lime for bicycle sharing includes provisions for both
indemnification and insurance:
6. Indemnification. LimeBike shall defend, pay, indemnify and hold harmless City, its
officers, officials, employees, agents, invitees, and volunteers (collectively "City Parties")
from all claims, suits, actions, damages, demands, costs or expenses of any kind or
nature by or in favor of anyone whomsoever and from and against any and all costs and
expenses, including without limitation court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees,
resulting from or in connection with loss of life, bodily or personal injury or property
damage arising directly or indirectly out of or from or on account of:
a. Any occurrence upon, at or from City Property or occasioned wholly or in
part by the entry, use or presence upon City Property by LimeBike or by anyone making
use of City Property at the invitation or sufferance of LimeBike, except such loss or
damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City. b. Use of
LimeBike's bikes by any individual, regardless of whether such use
was with or without the permission of LimeBike, including claims by users of the bikes or
third parties.
7. Insurance. LimeBike shall procure and maintain for the duration of this
agreement insurance against claims for which LimeBike has indemnified the City
pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement. LimeBike shall maintain General Liability limits
no less than One Million and no/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence for bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage, and in the sum of One Million and no/100
Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for injury to or death of more than one person for each
occurrence, and Umbrella coverage no less than Five Million and no/100 Dollars
($5,000,000.00). Each insurance policy shall name the City as an additional insured and
it shall be endorsed to state that: (i) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, or
cancelled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
calendar days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been
given to City; and (ii) for any covered claims, the LimeBike's insurance coverage shall be
primary insurance as respects the City and any insurance or self-insurance maintained
by the City shall be in excess of the LimeBike's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
The insurance required to be provided herein, shall be procured by an insurance
company approved by City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Currently, insurance coverage for riders is handled through the e-scooter companies’ usage
agreements. There is no explicit coverage to protect riders in the event of an injury or
malfunction.
Lime’s User Agreement can be found here: https://www.li.me/user-agreement
Page 8
Equitable Ridership
Access to e-scooters can potentially provide a new, affordable mode of transportation to those
who need it most. To help encourage equitable distribution and usage of e-scooters, several
cities, including Providence, Portland, and St. Louis, have stipulations requiring e-scooter
providers to ensure e-scooters are distributed among a variety of neighborhoods (Ellis, 2019;
PBOT, 2018; St. Louis, 2014).
St. Louis (2014) did so by specifying Social Equity and Inclusion Target Neighborhoods “which
mapped out areas with high concentrations of low income households, people of color, households
with no access to a vehicle, and non-English speakers. The neighborhoods with high concentrations
of those factors that were also within reasonable biking distance of MetroLink and the urban core of
the city were chosen as places that could benefit the most from additional affordable transportation
option.”
Lime has a program called Lime Access which provides access to their bicycles for people
without smartphones, bank cards, or people who live in a low-income household. Lime Access
users can text-to-unlock bikes, pay in cash, and receive a 95% discount on pedal bikes and
50% discount on Lime-E. Jeff Goodmark from Lime has confirmed that Lime Access will be
active for e-scooters as well (MATCom, 2019).
Geography
Because of their relatively small motors, e-scooters struggle to climb steep hills such as those
that surround the Ithaca Commons. Scooters can be staged along hills and at the tops of hills to
provide users with downhill access.
Of the cities we questioned, both Providence and Harrisonburg have some significant hills.
Harrisonburg has a similar geography to Ithaca, with a flat downtown area surrounded by steep
hills. Harrisonburg reported that Bird stages quite a few e-scooters to serve students living at
the top of the hill. Ridership declines sharply in areas where the hills are steepest, but they did
report one student broke his arm as a result of a fall while riding an e-scooter down a steep
section of hill (Russ, personal communication, 2019).
Providence reported that e-scooters are not used as much on hills (Ellis, personal
communication, 2019).
Lime does not recommend geofencing the hills, since geofencing reduces the speed of the
e-scooter via motor throttling but does not initiate the braking system. Therefore, e-scooters may
Page 9
be ‘free-ridden” down the hill even if it was geofenced, removing the value of geofencing that
area (Goodmark, personal communication, 2019).
E-Scooter Sharing in Other Cities
Sarah Barden and Megan Powers have communicated firsthand with city employees about their
e-scooter programs in four cities: Harrisonburg, VA, Memphis, TN, Providence, RI, and St. Paul,
MN. Portland, OR, provides extensive information about its e-scooter program online. Reviewing
conversations with these cities revealed several common themes.
●Cities use the NACTO Guidelines to model their MOUs and ordinances.
●Cities rely on their existing bike infrastructure for e-scooters (as opposed to building new
infrastructure).
●Cities limit e-scooter speed to 15 mph, at least in some areas.
●Cities employ selective geofencing to prohibit e-scooters from particular areas.
Geofencing uses GPS to establish a virtual perimeter around an area. The device’s
software can respond to the geofence in a variety of ways. For example, a geofence can
be set up so that an e-scooter cannot be ridden within a particular boundary (for
example, on the Ithaca Commons).
●Cities are concerned about poorly parked e-scooters. Lime scooters have generally been
parked well, and Lime staffing has been responsive.
●Cities are concerned about safety and want to launch education initiatives. Most have
not done so because of the logistics and cost involved.
●Cities struggle with citizens riding e-scooters on sidewalks but do not have a good
solution.
Harrisonburg, VA
Of all the cities MATCom investigated, Harrisonburg is closest in size to Ithaca. Like Ithaca, it is
a college town with a centralized downtown area. Harrisonburg was the least prepared of the
cities for the influx of e-scooters. Both Bird and Lime brought e-scooters to Harrisonburg before
the city had prepared e-scooter guidelines or established an MOU. Harrisonburg found itself at
the center of an escalating e-scooter competition between Bird and Lime and became
overwhelmed with the number of e-scooters.
The city was able to rein in the e-scooter companies and now has a good relationship with Lime.
It has worked with Lime to implement temporary geofencing for events. Harrisonburg is now
looking to expand the Lime fleet to include bicycles.
More so than other cities we researched, Harrisonburg reported conflict between drivers and
e-scooters.
Page 10
After the first 32 days with Bird scooters, Bird told Harrisonburg that there had been 26,779 total
rides, with an average ride length of 0.77 miles and duration of 8.9 minutes. During this period,
Harrisonburg estimates the scooters received an average of close to 5 trips per day.
During January and February, the Lime scooters averaged only 1.6 rides per scooter per day,
but this included two days of inclement weather where there were no rides recorded. Removing
these days, the scooters average between 2 and 2.2 rides per day.
In early 2019, the city of Harrisonburg created an e-scooter regulation process and pilot
program (Peterson, 2019). Since then, Bird has applied for a permit to continue operations in
the city, which was approved. Bird is currently authorized to host up to 150 e-scooters in the city
(Russ, personal communication, 2019). Lime is not pursuing further e-scooters in Harrisonburg
at this time (Goodmark, personal communication, 2019).
Contact:
Wesley Russ
Assistant City Attorney
Wesley.Russ@harrisonburgva.gov
(540) 432-7110
Memphis, TN
Memphis studied how other cities responded to e-scooters and created an ordinance in
advance of their arrival in the city. When Nashville ejected Bird e-scooters from the city,
Memphis invited Bird there instead and quickly worked with Bird to create an interim operating
agreement.
Lime introduced 250 e-scooters after being asked by the city to wait for the interim agreement
with Bird, but Memphis responded by impounding the Lime e-scooters. Memphis negotiated a
deal with Lime two months later.
Improper parking that blocked ADA access was initially a problem in Memphis, but Bird helped
address the issue by firing some of the chargers who were not complying with regulations and
by including staffers who ride around the city and reposition poorly parked devices.
Memphis added e-scooter specific parking. Its bike infrastructure was lightly used, so the
introduction of e-scooters has not caused a strain.
Memphis manages volume by requiring e-scooters to average 3 rides per day.
A few citizens needed care at a trauma center following head injuries related to e-scooter use.
Memphis has since required that the e-scooter apps include rider education. Memphis has also
educated its downtown representatives about e-scooter usage for tourists.
Page 11
Contact:
Doug McGowen
Chief Operating Officer, City of Memphis
doug.mcgowen@memphistn.gov
(901) 636-6586
Providence, RI
Providence is interesting because it allows both cycling and e-scooter riding on its sidewalks.
The sidewalks in Providence are not particularly wide, and the increased ridership has caused
increasing tension. So far, there isn’t enough data to determine whether crashes between
e-scooter riders and pedestrians are more likely to occur in Providence than in other cities.
Providence is investigating several options to limit e-scooter riding on sidewalks, including
introducing a ban to riding e-scooters on downtown streets and explicitly linking allowed
sidewalk use with the lack of a designated bike lane.
Providence explicitly modeled its e-scooter policies on the NACTO guidelines and has the MOU
posted publicly via the city’s website:
(http://www.providenceri.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Scooter-policy-update-final-12-27-18.
pdf).
Citizens’ reception to the e-scooter program has been less enthusiastic than the reaction to the
bike-sharing program. The on-the-ground team for the bike share component has generally
been more responsive than a similar team for the e-scooter program.
Providence currently hosts two e-scooter companies. One of them pulled out for the winter, and
the other has significantly reduced ridership, even though Providence has had relatively little
snowfall to date.
Providence charges its scooter providers $1 per scooter per day, and its scooters have
averaged 2.5 trips per day per scooter.
Contact:
Alex Ellis
Principal Planner
(401) 680-8522
aellis@providenceri.gov
St. Paul, MN
St. Paul currently has agreements with both Bird and Lime for e-scooter sharing. The city
preemptively addressed concerns about poorly parked e-scooters by including a provision that
Page 12
the e-scooter providers would pay the city whenever a city employee was called to reposition an
e-scooter. The agreement gives the e-scooter company a window before the city employee is
called. St. Paul has still struggled with illegally or poorly parked e-scooters, but the city has
found that the e-scooters are repositioned or re-rented before its staff can arrive on the scene.
St. Paul struggles with citizens riding e-scooters on the sidewalks (which is illegal) and in
various parks where bicycles and similar devices are banned. They hope to launch an education
initiative in the future.
Overall response to the e-scooter program has been positive. There have been complaints
about negative pedestrian-scooter interactions, but there has not been a noticeable uptick in
crashes.
St. Paul does not have an e-scooter program active for the winter but plans to renew
agreements for the spring.
The St. Paul MOU can be viewed here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3kAZ5t5YyDKem5LR3F3TDBoX1h5TUhxNHZpOU83YXVMeT
Q4/view?usp=sharing
Contact:
Reuben Collins
Transportation/Planning Engineer
reuben.collins@ci.stpaul.mn.us
(651) 266-6059
Portland, OR
We have not spoken with anyone in Portland firsthand, but Portland has made a wealth of
information available online.
Portland commissioned an independent, scientific study of e-scooter ridership and perceptions
as part of its pilot program.
On the whole, the people of Portland approve of the e-scooter program. Citizens with positive
views of the program stressed the flexibility, convenience, and fun of the program. Those with
negative views were concerned about improper or illegal use of e-scooters. Top priorities
among all survey respondents were education about and enforcement of the current rules
During its first pilot program, Portland had 2,043 e-scooters that covered 801,887 miles in
700,369 trips. The pilot lasted 120 days, so, on average, there were 2.86 trips per scooter per
day, and the average scooter ride was 1.14 miles long.
Page 13
See PBOT (2019) for more information and to read Portland’s reports.
Nashville, TN
We contacted Nashville, TN, in early April 2019 to learn more about why they had barred
e-scooters from the city.
Nashville initially transmitted a cease-and-desist letter to Bird (Costonis, 2018), the first
company to launch e-scooter sharing within Nashville, because the e-scooters were blocking
the public right-of-way, and there was no legislature in place to govern e-scooter sharing.
Since the initial cease-and-desist letter, Nashville has adopted city ordinances, and e-scooter
companies now operate within the city (following an application process) (Nashville, 2018).
Feedback from City Departments
Representatives from city departments we have interviewed have generally been positive about
implementing an e-scooter program. Most are concerned about helping to ensure safety and/or
to curtail improper parking.
City Clerk
Julie Holcomb is especially concerned about safety and is willing to collaborate with Lime and
NGO’s like BikeWalk Tompkins to deploy education initiatives. In particular, she would like to
see a proactive education campaign prior to the launch of any pilot program. She recommends
a FAQ and timeline to be provided to City staff and downtown representatives. She prefers a
curfew that aligns with sunset to prevent scooter use after dark.
Engineering
Tim Logue suggests Ithaca ask the Health Department to help collect e-scooter incident data.
He also recommends we ask Lime to sponsor an independent study about e-scooter usage. He
recommends we wait to see where the e-scooters are used before introducing new
infrastructure requests. He is in favor of using a pilot program to learn more about how this
alternate form of transportation would be utilized by residents and visitors.
Fire Department
Chief Tom Parsons has concerns about insurance and liability, but his top priority is safety. He
would be in favor of e-scooters if Ithaca can implement requirements and education to make
their use as safe as possible.
Page 14
Planning and Economic Development
The Planning and Economic Development Division was particularly interested in ensuring the
scooters and bikes are spread equitably throughout Ithaca. Scooter use is limited to people who
are 16 or older, but Ithaca Youth can benefit strongly from enhanced mobility options. An
agreement with Lime could also require Lime Bikes to be distributed so that they’re easy for
middle- and high-school students to use for accessing after-school activities.
They saw an opportunity to make The Commons more accessible by allowing scooters on The
Commons but limiting their speed to 5 mph. Unfortunately, the technology for scooters to
achieve this is not quite ready, and Lime recommends enforcing having no scooters on the
Commons.
JoAnn Cornish strongly endorses education initiatives and encourages training downtown
tourism staff to promote safe scooter ridership.
To address concerns about parking, Planning recommended considering drop-off zones for bike
and scooter share vehicles as seen in Seattle (Mah, 2018) to be designated with
on-street/sidewalk paint or installation of physical corrals or barriers. Locations would be chosen
not to detract from vehicle parking or interfere with accessibility.
The Planning Division appeared open to an interim scooter agreement with Lime and would
appreciate a draft MOU that meets the NACTO Guidelines to serve as a basis moving forward.
They believe Lime should pay an operating fee of some amount to the City of Ithaca.
City Attorney
Aaron Levine recommended that he be involved in drafting the MOU if the city indicated interest
in pursuing a pilot program for e-scooters, but that he did not need to weigh in at this time.
Police Department
To date, we have not been able to schedule a meeting with the Ithaca Police Department.
Feedback from Lime
Jeff Goodmark from Lime says his company places emphasis on safety foremost and also
concentrates on accessibility, affordability, and availability of shared transport devices
(Goodmark, personal communication, 2019). Since its bicycle-sharing launch in April 2018,
there have been approximately 90,000 rides, with 12,000 of these on e-bikes. Lime currently
employs several people in Ithaca depending on the season. Currently, in the winter, Lime has
Page 15
two full-time employees and six part-time employees. This will be increasing soon as
temperatures increase.
Lime attests it will not launch e-scooters without a formal agreement to do so with the city of
Ithaca (MATCom, 2019). The company is willing to conduct education and publicity events
leading up to a program launch. The maximum scooter speed will be set to 15 mph. The
company will target an average ridership of three rides per scooter per day. The Lime Access
program is still available with e-scooters.
While e-scooters are profitable to Lime, the bicycles are not. Consequently, Lime feels it is
important to introduce e-scooters to Ithaca (Goodmark, personal communication, 2019). Lime
would like to see e-scooters introduced in May and requests that Ithaca sign an exclusive
agreement with Lime for e-scooters.
New York State Law
Currently, e-scooters are illegal in New York State, but enforcement appears to be largely left to
individual municipalities. E-scooters are not clearly defined in New York State’s Vehicle Traffic
Law (Beltramo, 2018).
A proposal in Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s state budget would establish state traffic laws governing
electric bikes and scooters and authorize local governments to authorize them as they prefer
(FY2020 Executive State Budget, p102+).
NACTO Guidelines
NACTO, the National Association of City Transportation Officials, developed a set of policy
guidelines it believes all cities should follow when navigating “shared active transportation.” See
NACTO (2018 pp. 6-9)
Conclusion
Sarah Barden and Megan Powers have found that on the whole, e-scooters represent an
exciting opportunity for the City of Ithaca. We believe Ithaca should develop an exclusive
e-scooter agreement with Lime, separate from the bike-share MOU, to launch a pilot e-scooter
program for a predefined, renewable period of time.
Ithaca should expect citizens to ride e-scooters illegally on the sidewalks. Residents will express
concern about both improper ridership and lack of enforcement. The city can help alleviate
these concerns by working with Lime to ensure proper ridership is supported and to leverage
Page 16
local interested NGOs and groups to better educate residents. We strongly support a proactive
education campaign prior to the launch of the pilot program.
The parking of e-scooters will be a second area of concern. Ithaca should act proactively with
Lime to ensure its employees are actively monitoring scooters for improper parking.
Any MOU regarding e-scooters should follow the guidelines outlined by NACTO. Ithaca should
ensure the insurance and indemnification clauses are in place and that the maximum scooter
speed is limited to 15 mph. Ithaca should establish fees associated with e-scooter operation in
the city. Because e-scooters are more expensive to ride than bicycles, and because e-scooter
ridership is limited to those 18 and older, Ithaca should consider requiring Lime to maintain a
minimum fleet of bicycles along with the e-scooter program. Lime asked for an exclusivity
agreement for e-scooters. Ithaca is small enough that it is reasonable to work exclusively with
one provider until e-scooter riding is well understood.
Page 17
Bibliography
Beltramo, Wade (2018), The future of transportation: electric bicycles and electric scooters?
Municipal Matters. Fall 2018. Retrieved via e-mail. See
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_hYx1hDcDNyaUNDUHBjYmVNTW1MUzI1TWIxaGtnT
HNyWXZJ/view
Chiquillo, Julieta (2018), How many people are getting hurt on electric scooters in Dallas?
Hospitals may have the answers. DallasNews.com. Retrieved from
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas/2018/10/24/many-people-getting-hurt-electric-s
cooters-dallas-hospitals-may-answers
Costonis, Theresa (2018), Bird cease and desist. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and
Davidson County. Retrieved from
https://mediaassets.newschannel5.com/document/BirdCeaseAndDesist.pdf?_ga=2.6558
0460.344641949.1525861247-416227429.1525861247
FY2020 New York State Executive Budget (2018), Transportation, Economic Development, and
Environmental Conservation. Article VII Legislation. Retrieved from
https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/archive/fy20/exec/artvii/ted-artvii.pdf
Kaufman, Sarah M., and Luke Buttenwieser (2018), The state of scooter sharing in United
States cities. Rudin Center for Transportation. Retrieved from
https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/publications/Rudin_ScooterShare_Aug2018_0.pdf
Mah, Norm (2018), New in Ballard: designated bike share parking areas. SDOT Blog. Retrieved
from
https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2018/03/15/new-designated-bike-share-parking-areas-come-
to-ballard/
Marshall, Aarian (2018), Lime’s new scooter is hardier, heavier, and built for life on the streets.
Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/lime-scooter-gen3-design/
Mobility, Accessibility, and Transportation Commission (2019, February 25). Mobility,
Accessibility, and Transportation Commission Minutes. Retrieved from
https://lfweb.tompkins-co.org/weblink/13/doc/857475/Page1.aspx
Mobility Committee of Council (2018), Dockless mobility program update. Austin Mobility
Committee of Council. Retrieved from
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=311739.
Page 18
Nashville (2018), Second substitute bill BL2018-1441 (as amended). Nashville.gov. Retrieved
from
https://www.nashville.gov/Metro-Clerk/Legislative/Ordinances/Details/9335c292-44c6-40
fe-8255-8797080472ab/2015-2019/BL2018-1441.aspx
National Association of City Transportation Officials [NACTO] (2018), Guidelines for the
regulation and management of shared active transportation version 1: July 2018.
NACTO Policy 2018. Retrieved from
https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NACTO-Shared-Active-Transportation-Gui
delines.pdf
Peterson, Megan (2019), Harrisonburg further regulates e-scooters ahead of possible Bird
return. The Breeze. Retrieved from
https://www.breezejmu.org/news/harrisonburg-further-regulates-e-scooters-ahead-of-pos
sible-bird-return/article_b31aaeb2-344d-11e9-9b26-234f43e0580c.html
Portland Bureau of Transportation [PBOT] (2018), 2018 e-scooter findings report. Author.
Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/709719
Portland Bureau of Transportation [PBOT] (2019) Shared electric scooter pilot. Author.
Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/77294
.
Schmitt, Angie (Sept. 2018), E-scooter deaths show urgent need for safer streets. StreetsBlog
USA. Retrieved from
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/09/24/e-scooter-deaths-underscore-the-urgent-need-for-
safer-streets/
Schmitt, Angie (Dec. 2018), Deep dive: are e-scooters unsafe at any speed? StreetsBlog USA.
Retrieved from
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/12/19/deep-dive-are-e-scooters-unsafe-at-any-speed/
Smith, C. Scott and Joseph P. Schweiterman (2018). E-scooter scenarios: evaluating the
potential mobility benefits of shared dockless scooters in Chicago. Chaddick Institute for
Metropolitan Development at DePaul University. Retrieved from
https://las.depaul.edu/centers-and-institutes/chaddick-institute-for-metropolitan-develop
ment/research-and-publications/Documents/E-ScooterScenariosMicroMobilityStudy_FIN
AL_20181212.pdf
Solomon, Dan (2018), The CDC’s first study of dockless electric scooters will happen in Austin.
Texas Monthly. Retrieved from
https://www.texasmonthly.com/article/cdc-study-electric-scooters-austin/
Page 19
St. Louis (2019), Bike share social equity and inclusion neighborhoods. St. Louis Bike Share.
Retrieved from
http://www.stlbikeshare.org/uploads/7/8/3/3/7833643/bike_share_social_equity_and_incl
usion_target_neighborhoods.pdf
Trivedi, Tarak K., Charles Liu, and Anna Liza M. Antonio (2019), Injuries associated with
standing electric scooter use. JAMA Network Open. 2019;2(1):e187381.
doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7381. Retrieved from
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2722574
Walker, Alissa (2018), Bird, Lime, Lyft, Uber will all be allowed to operate scooters in Santa
Monica. Curbed: Los Angeles. Retrieved from
https://la.curbed.com/2018/8/30/17800498/scooters-santa-monica-bird-lime-lyft-uber
Page 20
Statement regarding e-scooters in Ithaca
Submitted by Traci Nathans-Kelly, 105 Cornell St., Ithaca NY 14850
Submitted May 8, 2019
E-scooters are billed as a “disruptive” business model, and disruptive they are. The rollout of these
scooters in various cities in the US has caused many problems, ranging from traumatic personal injury
and serious accidents to blocking the right of way for all citizens using sidewalks. The research that
Ithaca provided is cherry-picked, and the statement of equity doesn’t address people with disabilities
being able to have equal access to all passages.
The City of Ithaca has stars in its eyes about e-scooters, touting how it will make Ithaca more
accessible and friendly. I expect the opposite will be true. Let me give an example. Just about 18
months ago, Nashville decided to end its e-scooter program because it was, quite precisely, disruptive to
the city’s health and livelihood. Memphis swooped in and invited Bird to bring the scooters there.
Memphis also had an MOU, with many of the same pieces that the drafted one for Ithaca has. Yet,
daily, my friend Charles—who has severe mobility issues—has to navigate the scooters that litter the
sidewalks and passages as he tries to get to his university job each day with his walker. In Memphis, the
scooters are literally everywhere, and no law, regulation, warning, training, ticketing or other tactic has
curbed the significant problems. The Ithaca MOU has language about the scooters being removed within
35 minutes to 2 hours, but that does nothing to solve the problem in the moment.
As well, scooters have a lower visual profile than any other mode of transport, and riders sense
that vulnerability, so they take to the sidewalks. Ithaca does not have enough bike lanes, and now we
want to increase the problem? We don’t have enough police to do regular work, let alone ticket scooter
abuse. And I am terrified at what will happen to an out-of-control scooter rider down one of our hills.
We all know it’s a catastrophe waiting to happen. The agenda put out by the board has language about
bike, but not scooters, in many places, creating loopholes. While the MOU has information about
collecting crash data, injury data, there is no information the trial period will be assessed and by what
metrics or if public hearings will
contribute to the assessment of
the trial period.
I include recent photos from my
friend Charles taken within one
day of his trying to get to work in
Memphis, shared with his
permission.
Supporting the gig culture in
favor of taking care of all of our
citizens—especially those that
already face mobility challenges
every day-- is a poor choice, in
my view.
May 7, 2019
TO: City of Ithaca Common Council
FROM: Gary Ferguson, Downtown Ithaca Alliance
RE: A CASE FOR A SCOOTER PILOT PROGRAM
Scooters will be an important and welcome part of a broad based transportation system needed here in
Ithaca.
For several years, the Downtown Ithaca Alliance has been working to implement a strategy to promote
transportation demand management (TDM). The notion of TDM is that we work to shift people from
single occupancy vehicles to alternative modes of transportation. We do this for multiple reasons: to
reduce stress and demand on the crowded Downtown parking garages; to reduce our carbon footprint;
and to relieve traffic congestion. We also believe TDM can be a cost effective tool for individuals and
households, to reduce their personal parking and transportation costs.
We continually seek alternative modes for moving people from place to place: we currently can use
TCAT buses, Gadabout shuttles, Lime bikes, and walking. But we would really like the opportunity to test
and make use of scooters.
Personal mobility devices (scooters/bikes) have become a new form of transit in many cities across the
country. While bikes and scooters have been with us for over a century, the personal mobility device
movement is a relatively new occurrence. Packaged as affordable tools for short distance travel, today’s
bikes and scooters fill a tremendous void in the transportation matrix. Transportation planners often
talk about “first mile/last mile” connections—getting from your residence to a bus stop, for example.
Scooters and bikes provide a great tool for making these connections. They will replace some
automobile trips; they will give mobility to those unable to buy an automobile. In cities across America,
scooters have already begun to change the way people travel short distances.
Walking and biking are not for everyone. Likewise, Scooters are not for everyone, although I’ve seen
people of all ages riding them in other cities. But, in a world where we desperately want people to
adopt and embrace other non-automobile modes of travel, scooters can be an important part of a
holistic transportation package.
Larissa Ortiz, a NYC based Downtown planning and retail consultant, recently visited Ithaca to help us
with our strategic planning. She remarked about the importance of scooters to a community and noted
that resistance to the idea of introducing a new form of travel is not a new idea. It took several decades
before people came to fully embrace the automobile. But our forefathers and foremothers didn’t ban
this new-fangled form of transportation- they allowed it to grow and learned to regulate and govern it.
In the same way, scooters and other personal mobility devices are the new transportation tools of this
generation. While it might also take time for some of us to integrate them into our life, we should follow
the same lead as those who went before us.
MAT Comm has done an excellent job researching other cities and reviewing the history and record
scooter use and impact. Their recommendations are solid and sensible.
Make no mistake; scooters will undoubtedly provide us with challenges in the months and years to
come. They are a different way of moving around, one that requires us to share our roads in ways we
have not previously done. They require rules and regulation, just like any other form of travel.
It is time for Ithaca to join the hundreds of cities that are now using and living with scooters. If we are
committed to combatting climate change, we want to embrace scooters. This proposed pilot is an
excellent and appropriate way to introduce them to our community and to evaluate their impact and fit.
We look forward to including scooters into our TDM toolkit.
9.5 Resolution Supporting New York State (NYS) Emergency Tenant Protection
Act (ETPA) of 1974
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has documented and identified unmet need for affordable
housing opportunities to serve low and moderate income residents; and
WHEREAS, as a result, in 2018, Common Council amended the Community Investment
Incentive Tax Abatement Program (“CIITAP”) to expand its applicable boundaries and
to require new residential developments participating in the program of 10 units or more
to have a minimum of 20 percent of their housing units be affordable to households
earning up to 75 percent of the Area Median Income (“AMI”) calculated using the
average AMI of the 3 most recent years; and
WHEREAS, CIITAP is only one way to address housing affordability, and aside from the
new construction that is required to be affordable according to this program, currently
state law does not provide local authority to form a local board that would determine
annual allowable rental increases in order to protect tenants from arbitrary rent
increases; and
WHEREAS, according to recent data, 73% of the residents in the City of Ithaca are
renters, and the average vacancy rate is the lowest in Tompkins County at
approximately one percent; and further, over 50% of Tompkins County residents pay 30
percent or more of their income (a standard affordability metric) to pay their rent; and
WHEREAS, the New York State’s Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA) of 1974
provides rental protections including rent stabilization whereby landlords are subject to
regulated rent increases1 and tenants have the right to renewal leases2; and
WHEREAS, under the current ETPA law only municipalities in Nassau, Westchester,
Rockland counties and New York City are eligible to adopt a form of rent stabilization,
resulting in rent protections only applying to tenants in 8 of the state’s 62 counties; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, New York State’s Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA) of
1974 will be expiring, presenting an opportunity for our leadership in Albany to improve
and extend the tenants’ rights moving forward; now therefore be it
1 https://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2069/new-york-city-rent-increase
Market rate apartment rental rates and lease terms are negotiated between the owner and tenant. The
New York City Rent Guidelines Board (NYCRGB) determines rent increases for lease renewals of rent
stabilized apartments, lofts, hotels and single room occupancies (SROs). It does not set the rent increase
for vacancy leases, rent controlled apartments, unregulated apartments, or subsidized housing. Rent
increase percentages for rent stabilized apartments and lofts are adjusted each year.
For renewal leases beginning between October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019, the rent increase
for rent stabilized apartment and loft renewals is:
● 1-year lease: 1.5%
● 2-year lease: 2.5%
2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ETP
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council supports and endorses A7046
(Cahill)3 in the Assembly, and S5040 (Breslin)4 in the Senate, which calls upon our
leaders in Albany to strike the geographic restrictions from the ETPA so that local
governments can take an active role addressing the cost of rental housing and provide
critical rental rights to tenants in the City of Ithaca and across the state; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution to U.S.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, Governor Andrew Cuomo,
New York State Senator Thomas O’Mara, New York State Assemblywoman Barbara
Lifton, Senate Assembly Chair Brian Kavanagh, and Assembly Housing Chair Steven
Cymbrowitz.
3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/a7046
4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s5040
Web Site: www.nyshcr.org
Email address: rentinfo@nyshcr.org
Rent InfoLine (718) 739-6400
FACT SHEET
A PUBLICATION OF NEW YORK STATE
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor
Revised (12/18)
# 1 Rent Stabilization and Rent Control
#1 pg. 1 of 5
Introduction
A number of communities in New York State have rent regulation programs known as rent control and
rent stabilization. Rent regulation is intended to protect tenants in privately-owned buildings from
illegal rent increases and allow owners to maintain their buildings and realize a reasonable profit.
Rent control is the older of the two systems of rent regulation. It dates back to the housing shortage
immediately following World War II and generally applies to buildings constructed before 1947. Rent
stabilization generally covers buildings built after 1947 and before 1974, and apartments removed from
rent control. It also covers buildings that receive J-51 and 421-a tax benefits. Outside New York City,
rent stabilization is also known as ETPA, short for the Emergency Tenant Protection Act and is
applicable in some localities in Nassau, Westchester and Rockland counties.
RENT STABILIZATION
Rent stabilization provides protections to tenants besides limitations on the amount of rent. Tenants are
entitled to receive required services, to have their leases renewed, and may not be evicted except on
grounds allowed by law. Leases may be renewed for a term of one or two years, at the tenant's choice.
Tenants can file relevant complaints on a variety of forms created by the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR). DHCR is required to serve the complaint on the owner, gather evidence
and then can issue a written order which is subject to appeal.
If a tenant's rights are violated, DHCR can reduce rents and levy civil penalties against the owner. Rents
may be reduced if services are not maintained. In cases of overcharge, DHCR may assess penalties of
interest or treble damages payable to the tenant.
Rent Increases
The Rent Guidelines Boards (one in New York City and one each in Nassau, Westchester, and Rockland
counties) each set rates for rent increases in stabilized apartments. These guidelines rates are set once a
year and are effective for leases beginning on or after October 1st of each year. New York State Law
sets vacancy lease increases for new tenants who sign vacancy leases.
Rent InfoLine (718) 739-6400Revised (12/18)#1 pg. 2 of 5
Both in New York City and the ETPA counties, rents can be increased during the lease period in any one
of three ways, so long as the lease provides for the collection of an increase during the lease term:
1. with the written consent of the tenant in occupancy, if the owner increases services or
equipment, or makes improvements to an apartment;
2. with DHCR approval, if the owner installs a building-wide major capital improvement; or
3. in cases of hardship with DHCR approval.
Rent Overcharges
For rent stabilized apartments, owners may be ordered to refund excess rent collected based upon a
finding of a rent overcharge. A finding by DHCR of a willful rent overcharge by the owner may result
in the assessment of treble (triple) damages payable to the tenant. DHCR is generally prohibited from
investigating issues concerning rent overcharges and registrations for years occurring more than four
years before the filing of a rent overcharge complaint.
Rent Reductions for Decreases in Services
Rents may be reduced if the owner fails to provide required services, or fails to make necessary repairs
for an individual apartment or on a building-wide basis. Examples of such conditions are lack of heat/
hot water, unsanitary common areas (halls, lobby), and broken door locks. If a tenant receives a rent
reduction from DHCR, the owner cannot collect any rent increases until services are restored and DHCR
restores the rent.
Harassment
The law prohibits harassment of rent regulated tenants. Owners found guilty of intentional actions to
force a tenant to vacate an apartment can be denied decontrol and lawful rent increases and may be
subject to both civil and criminal penalties. Owners found guilty of tenant harassment are subject to
fines of up to $5,000 for each violation.
Rent Registration
Within 90 days after an apartment first becomes subject to rent stabilization, an owner is required to file
an initial registration. After the initial registration, owners must file an annual registration statement
giving the April 1st rent for each unit and provide tenants with a copy of their respective apartment's
registration form. Owners who do not file initial or annual statements will not be eligible for rent
increases and are subject to additional penalties.
Web Site: www.nyshcr.org
Email address: rentinfo@nyshcr.org
Rent Increases
In New York City, rent control operates under the Maximum Base Rent (MBR) system. A maximum
base rent is established for each apartment and adjusted every two years to reflect changes in operating
costs. Owners, who certify that they are providing essential services and have removed violations, are
entitled to raise rents up to 7.5 percent each year until they reach the MBR. Tenants may challenge the
proposed increase on the grounds that the building has violations or that the owner's expenses do not
warrant an increase.
For New York City rent controlled apartments, rents can also be increased because of increases in fuel
costs (passalongs) and in some cases, to cover higher labor costs. Outside New York City, the New
York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) determines maximum allowable
rates of rent increases under rent control. Owners may apply for these increases periodically.
Rents can also be increased in any one of three ways, both inside and outside of New York City:
1. with the written consent of the tenant in occupancy, if the owner increases services or
equipment, or makes improvements to an apartment;
2. with DHCR approval, if the owner installs a building-wide major capital improvement;
or
3. in cases of hardship with DHCR approval.
Revised (12/18) #1 pg. 3 of 5
Rent InfoLine (718) 739-6400
However, upon the service and filing of a late registration, an owner cannot be found to have collected
an overcharge for the period of non-registration, provided the increases in the rent were lawful except
for the failure to file a timely registration. The penalty of treble damages cannot be assessed against an
owner based solely on that owner's failure to file a timely registration.
RENT CONTROL
Rent control limits the rent an owner may charge for an apartment and restricts the right of any owner to
evict tenants. Tenants are also entitled to receive essential services. Owners are not required to offer
renewal leases, as tenants are considered "statutory" tenants. Tenants may file relevant complaints on a
variety of forms created by DHCR. DHCR is required to serve the complaint on the owner, gather
evidence and then can issue a written order which is subject to appeal.
If a tenant's rights are violated, DHCR can reduce rents and levy civil penalties against the owner. Rents
may be reduced if services are not maintained. In cases of overcharge, DHCR may establish the lawful
collectible rent.
Web Site: www.nyshcr.org
Email address: rentinfo@nyshcr.org
#1 pg. 4 of 5 Revised (12/18)
Web Site: www.nyshcr.org
Email address: rentinfo@nyshcr.org
Rent InfoLine (718) 739-6400
Rent Overcharges
For rent controlled apartments, complaints submitted by tenants will result in an order by DHCR that
establishes the Maximum Collectible Rent and directs that any overcharge be refunded for a period of
no greater than two years before the filing of the complaint. If the refund is not made, the tenant can
proceed to court to calculate the overcharge and enforce the order.
Rent Reductions for Decreases in Services
Please refer to the section above under Rent Stabilization.
Harassment
Please refer to the section above under Rent Stabilization.
Rent Registration
Apartments subject to Rent Control are not required to be registered annually with DHCR.
HIGH-RENT VACANCY DEREGULATION AND HIGH-RENT HIGH-INCOME DEREGULATION
The rent laws provide for the deregulation of apartments based on rents and occupants' incomes
reaching certain levels.
The Deregulation Rent Threshold (DRT) can be adjusted on January 1st of each year based on
the one year renewal lease guideline percentage issued the prior year by the local rent guidelines
boards.
The Deregulation Rent Thresholds for 2019, for both kinds of deregulation are:
New York City $2,774.76
Nassau $2,774.89
Rockland $2,733.75
Westchester $2,830.21 ($2,803.86 if tenant pays for heat or hot water)
Ossining $2,774.72 ($2,759.70 if tenant pays for heat or hot water)
The Deregulation Income Threshold, which is not adjusted annually, is $200,000. Deregulation
of an apartment for High-Rent High-Income requires the issuance of a written order by DHCR.
For more information or assistance, call the DHCR Rent InfoLine, or visit your Borough Office or call or visit your County Rent Office.
Queens Lower Manhattan 92-31 Union Hall Street 25 Beaver Street 6th Floor 5th Floor Jamaica, NY 11433 New York, NY 10004 (718) 739-6400
Brooklyn Bronx 55 Hanson Place 1 Fordham Plaza 7th Floor 4th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11217 Bronx, NY 10458
Upper Manhattan Westchester 163 W. 125th Street 75 South Broadway 5th Floor 3rd Floor New York, NY 10027 White Plains, NY 10601
#1 pg. 5 of 5 Revised (12/18)Rent InfoLine (718) 739-6400
Web Site: www.nyshcr.org
Email address: rentinfo@nyshcr.org
May 2, 2019
Joanne Cornish
Director of Planning and Development
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Universal Rent Stabilization and Control
I own and manage a number of multi-family apartment buildings which I
rent primarily to students. I am commenting on the resolution entitled
“Supporting Universal Rent Stabilization and Control”. Nels Bohn, in an
email, suggests that if the regulation is adopted, landlords would be
required to renew all residential leases unless the tenant violates the lease
agreement and the maximum allowable rent increase in the renewal would
be capped at 150% of the trailing annual CPI as of August.
As best as I can tell, this legislation is driven by tenant needs in New York
City. It would relate to tenants being pushed out of long-term residential
leases by unscrupulous landlords. I rent to many students. No lease is
longer than 1 year and our renewal rate for student leases is high at 25-30%
suggesting that we are renewing virtually all leases that are possible
renewals. these numbers would be vastly different in New York City. We of
course are thrilled to renew leases, but students tend to change their living
situation frequently and, of course, they graduate and leave town.
There are sometimes good reasons not to renew a given lease. There are
times when a tenant causes problems to ourselves and/or our tenants, and
these problems are not lease related. Who from the City will perform lease
review if a tenant complains to the City concerning our unwillingness to
renew their lease? At times, when we learn that students have financial
problems, problems with other landlords, are fire victims, or come from
other untenable living situations, we will give these students either low or
free rent to help them through the semester or the year. If we are bound by
this new law to continue to offer a free or lower than market lease, we
would be unable to offer this good service.
Our lease terms are usually for 12 months, starting either June 1 or August
15th. New student tenants start signing leases the October of the prior year
of occupancy. It would be impossible to apply a CPI increase starting in June
or August for the new lease term when the August CPI of their lease term is
not published until October or November after the time they occupy the
apartment. In other words, basically with this law in place, we would need
to apply a CPI increase to their lease almost a year before that CPI increase
is published.
We, and developers in general, often purchase buildings which come with
tenants and their current leases. Should we wish to take these buildings off
line for demolition in order to create better housing in our com munity, how
would we deal with the above proposal? I think that while there are real
benefits to the proposed legislation, there is more benefit to the
applicability of this proposal in New York City and that it will have many
unintended consequences here in Ithaca.
More generally, I think Common Council would benefit by including business
people to help study proposals so that rules or laws that Common Council
pass can achieve the correct results without burdening given businesses
with unintended consequences. Thank you.
John Novarr
10. CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
10.1 Adoption of the Ithaca Green New Deal - Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council has demonstrated its desire and
commitment to be a leader in sustainability and social equity by passing resolutions to:
Join the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (2001)
Endorse the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement (2005)
Adopt the Climate Smart Communities Pledge (2009)
Adopt the City of Ithaca Energy Action Plan 2012-2016 (2013)
Adopt Plan Ithaca, the City’s Comprehensive Plan (2015), which features
equity and sustainability as thread-through themes and contains the chapter
Sustainable Energy, Water, & Food Systems
; and
WHEREAS, the October 2018 report entitled ‘‘Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5
C’’ by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth
National Climate Assessment report found that human-caused climate change is
causing an increase in extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy
communities, and critical infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, there is a clear emerging international consensus that to avoid the most
severe impacts of a changing climate, we should work together to limit global warming
to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is even more ambitious than the previous target of 2
degrees; and
WHEREAS, to accomplish this, scientists say that the entire world needs to get to net-
zero emissions by 2050, meaning the same amount of greenhouse gases would have to
be absorbed as released into the atmosphere; and
WHEREAS, the United States should take a leading role in achieving that, but with
active resistance at the federal level, it has fallen to the states, to local governments and
to individual citizens to lead the way; and
WHEREAS, versions of a Green New Deal, which have been proposed at both the
Federal and the State level, aim to address climate change and other societal problems
like economic inequality and racial injustice; and
WHEREAS, local sustainability professionals, activists, and a growing youth climate
movement have urged the City of Ithaca to show more leadership on these challenges;
and
WHEREAS, the City has already taken several steps to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, including the following:
Performed energy efficiency upgrades and installed rooftop solar energy
systems at several locations. The Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment
Facility, recognized by the U.S. DOE for its efforts, has improved the
efficiency of its operations dramatically and produces up to three quarters of
its energy needs on-site through the production and use of biogas;
The City is actively working to upgrade its entire inventory of streetlights to
LED technology, cutting greenhouse gas emissions 50-60% and slashing
lighting costs even more dramatically;
The City worked for years to develop a large scale solar array located at the
Ithaca Tompkins airport, which would have generated enough clean electricity
to power about one third of City government operations, with significant cost
savings. Due to circumstances beyond the City’s control, the project
ultimately fell though;
Since 2014, the City has shared a Sustainability Coordinator with the Town of
Ithaca; The position is dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in
government operations and the Ithaca community;
In 2018 the City adopted the Ithaca Green Building Policy report, with the
intention of enacting legislation in 2019, which is currently under
development;
The City installed five electric vehicle charging stations in three public parking
garages and is an active partner in the EV Tompkins program, which aims to
double the number of local EV drivers. The City is working on incorporating
the first EV into its fleet;
In collaboration with four other municipalities, the City developed a residential
energy score program that would tap market forces to improve the energy
efficiency of existing homes. New York State is now rolling out regional home
energy score pilot programs in several locations across the state, including
Ithaca, thanks in part to these efforts;
The City enabled the innovative Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
financing program to offer long-term low-cost financing for energy efficiency
and renewable energy projects in commercially-owned buildings. The City of
Ithaca and Tompkins County were the first two upstate NY communities to
offer this program
; and
WHEREAS, by adopting a Green New Deal for Ithaca, the City has the opportunity to
build on existing momentum and be the most climate forward city in New York State;
and
WHEREAS, there would be multiple benefits besides greenhouse gas reduction,
including local job creation and improved community health; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca acknowledges that to implement a Green New Deal will
require support from New York State and the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, to be successfully implemented, the Ithaca Green New Deal must have the
support of the City of Ithaca at all levels of government; and
WHEREAS, this support can be demonstrated at first by the City of Ithaca Common
Council through the adoption of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code §176-5C (26) “adoption of
regulations, policies, procedures and local legislative decisions in connection with any
action on this list”, this action does not require a City Environmental Quality Review
(CEQR); now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca adopts a goal to meet the electricity needs of City
government operations with 100% renewable electricity by 2025; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca adopts a goal to reduce emissions from the City
fleet of vehicles by 50% by 2025; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca hereby adopts a goal of achieving a carbon neutral
city by 2030; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca endorses the following actions to achieve these
goals:
Create a climate action plan (CAP) in 2020 to provide details on how to achieve
the Ithaca Green New Deal, and update the CAP every five years;
Adopt a Green Building Policy for new buildings in 2019;
Adopt a Green Building Policy for existing buildings by 2021; and
Assign additional staff as needed to implement the plan
; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor and Common Council will work with department heads
and city staff, members of appropriate boards and commissions, businesses,
community groups, academic institutions, organizations, and other local governments to
develop a comprehensive public input process to enable achievement of these goals;
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk send copies of this resolution to United States
Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand; United States Representatives Tom
Reed and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Governor Andrew Cuomo; Assemblywoman
Barbara Lifton; State Senator Tom O’Mara, and all the other members of the Honorable
New York State Congressional delegation.
Adoption of the Ithaca Green New Deal
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council has demonstrated its desire and commitment to
be a leader in sustainability and social equity by passing resolutions to:
Join the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (2001)
Endorse the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement (2005)
Adopt the Climate Smart Communities Pledge (2009)
Adopt the City of Ithaca Energy Action Plan 2012-2016 (2013)
Adopt Plan Ithaca, the City’s Comprehensive Plan (2015), which features equity and
sustainability as thread-through themes and contains the chapter Sustainable Energy,
Water, & Food Systems, and
WHEREAS, the October 2018 report entitled ‘‘Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 C’’ by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National
Climate Assessment report found that human-caused climate change is causing an increase in
extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure,
and
WHEREAS, there is a clear emerging international consensus that to avoid the most severe
impacts of a changing climate, we should work together to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees
Celsius, which is even more ambitious than the previous target of 2 degrees, and
WHEREAS, to accomplish this, scientists say that the entire world needs to get to net-zero
emissions by 2050, meaning the same amount of greenhouse gases would have to be absorbed as
released into the atmosphere, and
WHEREAS, the United States should take a leading role in achieving that, but with active
resistance at the federal level, it has fallen to the states, to local governments and to individual
citizens to lead the way, and
WHEREAS, versions of a Green New Deal, which have been proposed at both the Federal and
the State level, aim to address climate change and other societal problems like economic
inequality and racial injustice, and
WHEREAS, local sustainability professionals, activists, and a growing youth climate movement
have urged the City of Ithaca to show more leadership on these challenges, and
WHEREAS, the City has already taken several steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
including the following:
Performed energy efficiency upgrades and installed rooftop solar energy systems at
several locations. The Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Facility, recognized by the
U.S. DOE for its efforts, has improved the efficiency of its operations dramatically
and produces up to three quarters of its energy needs on-site through the production
and use of biogas;
The City is actively working to upgrade its entire inventory of streetlights to LED
technology, cutting greenhouse gas emissions 50-60% and slashing lighting costs
even more dramatically;
The City worked for years to develop a large scale solar array located at the Ithaca
Tompkins airport, which would have generated enough clean electricity to power
about one third of City government operations, with significant cost savings. Due to
circumstances beyond the City’s control, the project ultimately fell though;
Since 2014, the City has shared a Sustainability Coordinator with the Town of Ithaca;
The position is dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in government
operations and the Ithaca community;
In 2018 the City adopted the Ithaca Green Building Policy report, with the intention
of enacting legislation in 2019, which is currently under development;
The City installed five electric vehicle charging stations in three public parking
garages and is an active partner in the EV Tompkins program, which aims to double
the number of local EV drivers. The City is working on incorporating the first EV
into its fleet;
In collaboration with four other municipalities, the City developed a residential
energy score program that would tap market forces to improve the energy efficiency
of existing homes. New York State is now rolling out regional home energy score
pilot programs in several locations across the state, including Ithaca, thanks in part to
these efforts;
The City enabled the innovative Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing
program to offer long-term low-cost financing for energy efficiency and renewable
energy projects in commercially-owned buildings. The City of Ithaca and Tompkins
County were the first two upstate NY communities to offer this program, and
WHEREAS, by adopting a Green New Deal for Ithaca, the City has the opportunity to build on
existing momentum and be the most climate forward city in New York State, and
WHEREAS, there would be multiple benefits besides greenhouse gas reduction, including local
job creation and improved community health, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca acknowledges that to implement a Green New Deal will require
support from New York State and the Federal government, and
WHEREAS, to be successfully implemented, the Ithaca Green New Deal must have the support
of the City of Ithaca at all levels of government, and
WHEREAS, this support can be demonstrated at first by the City of Ithaca Common Council
through the adoption of this resolution, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code §176-5C (26) “adoption of regulations,
policies, procedures and local legislative decisions in connection with any action on this list”,
this action does not require a City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR); now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca adopts a goal to meet the electricity needs of City
government operations with 100% renewable electricity by 2025, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca adopts a goal to meet 100% of its electricity needs for City
government operations with renewable electricity by 2025, without the use of renewable energy
credits (RECs), and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca adopts a goal to reduce emissions from the City fleet of
vehicles by 50% by 2025, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca hereby adopts a goal of achieving a carbon neutral city by
2030 - that is, reducing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 100% by 2030, and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca endorses the following actions to achieve these goals:
Create a climate action plan (CAP) in 2020 to provide details on how to achieve the
Ithaca Green New Deal, and update the CAP every five years;
Adopt a Green Building Policy for new buildings in 2019;
Adopt a Green Building Policy for existing buildings by 2021; and
Assign additional staff as needed to implement the plan, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor and Common Council will work with department heads and city
staff, members of appropriate boards and commissions, businesses, community groups, academic
institutions, organizations, and other local governments to develop a comprehensive public input
process to enable achievement of achieve these goals; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk send copies of this resolution to United States Senators Chuck
Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand; United States Representatives Tom Reed and Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez; Governor Andrew Cuomo; Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton; State Senator Tom
O’Mara, and all the other members of the Honorable New York State Congressional delegation.
Page 1 of 2
To: Members of Common Council
From: Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator
Date: May 29, 2019
Re: Adoption of the Ithaca Green New Deal Resolution
Dear Common Council,
This document provides additional information related to the Adoption of the Ithaca Green New
Deal resolution, which is on the agenda for your June meeting.
Several proposed changes to the resolution were discussed at the City Administration Committee
meeting on May 15. In the attached updated resolution, I have incorporated these changes, and
also proposed a few clarifications. All proposed changes are addressed below in order.
1) First resolved
Existing language:
“RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca adopts a goal to meet 100% of its electricity needs for City
government operations with renewable electricity by 2025, without the use of renewable energy
credits (RECs), and, be it further”
Proposed language:
“RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca adopts a goal to meet the electricity needs of City
government operations with 100% renewable electricity by 2025, and, be it further”
Explanation:
The intent is for the City to develop solar farms or other renewable energy projects that generate
at least the amount of electricity that City government operations use on an annual basis. The
City currently purchases RECs to offset its electricity use.
2) Additional resolved (new second resolved)
As proposed by Common Council member Nguyen:
“RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca adopts a goal to reduce emissions from the City fleet of
vehicles by 50% by 2025, and, be it further”
For the City to meet the community-wide goal of carbon neutrality by 2030, roughly speaking,
we would have to reduce emissions from all City operations by about 50% by 2025. The
proposed fleet goal is a specific instance of this.
Brian Carman, the City’s Fleet Manager, provided data about the City vehicle fleet. The major
takeaways from the data include:
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JoAnn Cornish, Director
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Page 2 of 2
The City operates about 400 vehicles and equipment units.
The City fleet is responsible for about one quarter of the GHG emissions from government
operations (2010 data). Carbon dioxide emissions from the fleet in 2018 are estimated at
1,660 tons CO2.
Year over year, emission levels fluctuate greatly. 2018 emissions were estimated to be 11%
higher than 2017. In addition to weather-related changes, increases are thought to be partly
due to a trend of rising infrastructure maintenance needs.
By department, the top two fuel users are responsible for almost half of all fleet emissions.
The top four fuel users are responsible for three quarters of fleet emissions. The top fuel
users, in order, are: Police; Water & Sewer; Highway; and Fire.
Carman also provided feedback in relation to the proposed goal:
“A plan to reduce GHG emissions from any municipal fleet poses a long list of variables
to consider. Our fleet contains every type of vehicle class on the road today, from
passenger to heavy haul, emergency response to trenching and paving. Each class
presents a unique set of circumstances when it comes to reducing emissions while still
fulfilling the intended mission. From my perspective we need a plan that is formed and
followed from the top down and is also well-funded. By that I mean everyone - from
administration to the staff on the street - has to buy into it and know their role in
achieving the goals. Some actions could be very easy, such as reducing idle time in our
vehicles. Others will be more complex, especially when it comes to heavy trucks and
construction equipment. Realistic goals with a solid plan and staff support are
achievable.”
Carman adds that he fully supports the goal of aggressively reducing fleet GHG emissions, but
doesn’t have enough information on hand to say whether the 50% reduction by 2035 goal is
realistic.
3) Third resolved (previously second resolved)
Deleted “that is, reducing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 100% by 2030,” as
discussed in CA meeting.
4) Fifth resolved (previously forth resolved)
Small edits were made in an attempt to capture the spirit of the suggestions made at the CA
meeting.
I am happy to discuss the items above in more detail with you. Please feel free to contact me at
your convenience.
10.2 A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $2,669,000 Bonds of the City of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to Pay the Cost of Certain Capital
Improvements in and for said City.
WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to the financing of the capital projects hereinafter
described, including compliance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, have been performed; and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize the financing of such capital projects; now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the total voting
strength of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as
follows:
Section 1. For the object or purpose of paying the cost of certain capital
improvements in and for the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, there are
hereby authorized to be issued $2,669,000 bonds of said City pursuant to the provisions
of the Local Finance Law, apportioned among such capital improvements in accordance
with the maximum estimated cost of each. The capital improvements to be financed
pursuant to this bond resolution, the maximum estimated cost of each, the amount of
bonds to be authorized therefor, the period of probable usefulness of each, and whether
said capital improvements are each a specific object or purpose or a class of objects or
purposes, including in each case incidental improvements, equipment, machinery,
apparatus, appurtenances, furnishings and expenses in connection therewith, are as
follows:
a) Replacement of the Cecil A. Malone Drive Bridge, at a maximum estimated cost
of $2,172,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific
object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $2,172,000 bonds of the $2,669,000
bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution; provided,
however, that to the extent that any Federal or State grants-in-aid are received for such
specific object or purpose, the amount of bonds to be issued pursuant to this resolution
shall be reduced dollar for dollar. It is hereby determined that the period of probable
usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 20 years, pursuant to
subdivision 10 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
b) Construction of sidewalks along Elmwood Avenue and Valley Road, at a
maximum estimated cost of $195,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the
financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $195,000 of
the $2,669,000 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond
resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid specific object or purpose is 10 years, pursuant to subdivision 24 of paragraph
a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
c) Computer equipment and software upgrades for the Storage Area Network, at a
maximum estimated cost of $102,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the
financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $102,000
bonds of the $2,669,000 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this
bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 89, based
upon subdivisions 32 and 108 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance
Law; and
d) New improvements to the Dryden Road Parking Garage, at a maximum
estimated cost of $200,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of
such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $200,000 bonds of the
$2,669,000 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution.
It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific
object or purpose is 25 years, pursuant to subdivision 12(a) of paragraph a of
Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law.
Section 2. The aggregate maximum estimated cost of the aforesaid objects or
purposes is $2,669,000, and the plan for the financing thereof is by the issuance of the
$2,669,000 serial bonds authorized by Section 1 hereof, allocated to each of the objects
or purposes in accordance with the maximum estimated cost of each stated in Section 1
hereof; provided, however, that the amount of serial bonds will be reduced by any
Federal or State grants-in-aid received therefor, as specifically provided herein.
Section 3. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,
are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on such
obligations as the same respectively become due and payable. An annual
appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on
such obligations becoming due and payable in such year. There shall annually be
levied on all the taxable real property of said City, a tax sufficient to pay the principal of
and interest on such obligations as the same become due and payable.
Section 4. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize
the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and
sale of the bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes, is hereby
delegated to the City Controller, the chief fiscal officer. Such notes shall be of such
terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by
said City Controller, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law.
Section 5. The powers and duties of advertising such bonds for sale, conducting the
sale and awarding the bonds, are hereby delegated to the City Controller, who shal l
advertise such bonds for sale, conduct the sale, and award the bonds in such manner
as he shall deem best for the interests of the City; provided, however, that in the
exercise of these delegated powers, he shall comply fully with the provisions of the
Local Finance Law and any order or rule of the State Comptroller applicable to the sale
of municipal bonds. The receipt of the City Controller shall be a full acquittance to the
purchaser of such bonds, who shall not be obliged to see to the application of the
purchase money.
Section 6. All other matters, except as provided herein relating to such bonds,
including determining whether to issue such bonds having substantially level or
declining debt service and all matters related thereto, prescribing whether manual or
facsimile signatures shall appear on said bonds, prescribing the method for the
recording of ownership of said bonds, appointing the fiscal agent or agents for said
bonds, providing for the printing and delivery of said bonds (and if said bonds are to be
executed in the name of the City by the facsimile signature of the City Controller,
providing for the manual countersignature of a fiscal agent or of a designated official of
the City), the date, denominations, maturities and interest payment dates, place or
places of payment, and also including the consolidation with other issues, shall be
determined by the City Controller. It is hereby determined that it is to the financial
advantage of the City not to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial
bonds any charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged
by the fiscal agent, and, accordingly, pursuant to paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the
Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent. Such
bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in section
52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and contain such
recitals in addition to those required by section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law, as the
City Controller shall determine.
Section 7. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested
only if:
1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said City is not
authorized to expend money, or
2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of
this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding
contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of such
publication, or
3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution.
Section 8. This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for purposes of
Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. Other than as specified in this resolution, no
monies are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis,
or otherwise set aside with respect to the permanent funding of the object or purpose
described herein.
Section 9. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published in
summary form in the Ithaca Journal, the official newspaper, together with a notice of
the City Clerk in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance
Law.
13.1 INDIVIDUAL MEMBER FILED RESOLUTIONS:
13.1 Alderperson Murtagh - Ithaca Common Council Resolution Supporting
Reproductive Rights
WHEREAS for nearly 50 years Roe v. Wade has been settled constitutional law in the United
States, upholding the individual’s right to privacy in healthcare decisions and the right to access
safe, legal abortion services; and
WHEREAS in 2019 Georgia, Alabama, and other states have passed extreme abortion bans
that are clearly meant as efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, providing no exception for cases of
rape or incest; and
WHEREAS these bans threaten medical professionals with jail time for carrying out legally-
sanctioned abortions; and
WHEREAS in addition to being unconstitutional, these bans are not based on sound medical or
scientific practice and if enacted would put women’s lives at risk by dramatically curtailing
access to reproductive healthcare services, especially among women with lower incomes and
women of color; and
WHEREAS a majority of people in the United States support legalized abortion, including many
conservative and religious leaders; and
WHEREAS, the State of New York recently enacted the Reproductive Health Act, which codifies
the constitutional standard of Roe v Wade in state law, removing abortion from the criminal code
and establishing it as a matter of public health; and
WHEREAS, Plan Ithaca, the City of Ithaca’s comprehensive plan, states that “preventative,
ongoing, and emergency healthcare will be available to all” and access to reproductive
healthcare is vital to ensuring the health and wellness of women and families in Ithaca and
Tompkins County; and
WHEREAS, in 2018 Planned Parenthood of the Southern Finger Lakes offered sexual and
reproductive healthcare and counseling services in more than 17,000 visits throughout their
region, including in their largest health center in the City of Ithaca; and
WHEREAS, Planned Parenthood of the Southern Finger Lakes would be directly impacted by
the rollback or reversal of Roe v. Wade; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council strongly condemns any effort at local,
state, or federal levels to roll back or overturn the rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, specifically
the rights of people to make their own reproductive health decisions in consultation with their
medical providers; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council directs the City Clerk to send a copy of this resolution
to Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, State Senator Tom O’Mara, Congressman Tom Reed, US
Senator Kirstin Gillibrand, and US Senator Charles Schumer.
13.2 Mayor Myrick - Establishment of the Salary for the Acting Police Chief -
Resolution
WHEREAS, Police Chief Pete Tyler retired from the Ithaca Police Department on May
30, 2019; and
WHEREAS, Deputy Chief of Professional Standards Dennis Nayor agreed to serve as
Acting Chief, effective May 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Acting Chief also continues to fulfill the duties of Deputy Chief of
Professional Standards; and
WHEREAS, Common Council has historically sought to avoid issues of internal salary
compression between supervisors and the employees whom they supervise; and
WHEREAS, according to Common Council resolution adopted May 3, 2017, after 30
days the Acting Chief's salary would be increased to Grade 12, Step 2 of the
Management Compensation Plan, which is lower than the salary of the Deputy Police
Chief who will supervised by the Acting Chief; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2019, in accordance with the aforementioned resolution,
the Acting Chief's salary would move to Grade 12, Step 3 of the Management
Compensation Plan; and
WHEREAS, to avoid the salary compression issue, it is recommended that the Acting
Chief’s salary be set at Grade 12, Step 3 after only 30 days; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the Acting Police Chief salary at
Grade 12, Step 3 of the Management Compensation Plan, effective June 30, 2019; and
be it further
RESOLVED, That the Acting Police Chief salary will remain at Grade 12, Step 3 until
the earlier of September 28, 2020, at which time it will move according to the resolution
adopted May 3, 2017, or upon the appointment of a permanent Police Chief.
2019 MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE GRADE PLAN (effective April 1, 2019)
Grade Point Range Title Points
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
12 490-529 City Attorney 505 102136 107243 112350 117457 122563
12 490-529 Controller 505 102136 107243 112350 117457 122563
12 490-529 Fire Chief 495 102136 107243 112350 117457 122563
12 490-529 Police Chief 500 102136 107243 112350 117457 122563
12 490-529 Superintendent of Public Works 525 102136 107243 112350 117457 122563
11 450-489 Assistant Superintendent of Public Works (S&F)455 93702 98387 103072 107757 112442
11 450-489 Assistant Superintendent of Public Works (W&S)465 93702 98387 103072 107757 112442
11 450-489 Deputy Fire Chief 450 93702 98387 103072 107757 112442
11 450-489 Deputy Police Chief 450 93702 98387 103072 107757 112442
11 450-489 Director of Human Resources 450 93702 98387 103072 107757 112442
11 450-489 Director of Planning and Development 480 93702 98387 103072 107757 112442
10 410-449 Assistant City Attorney 410 85966 90265 94563 98861 103159
10 410-449 GIAC Director 410 85966 90265 94563 98861 103159
10 410-449 Youth Bureau Director 410 85966 90265 94563 98861 103159
9 370-409 City Chamberlain 380 78868 82812 86755 90699 94642
9 370-409 Deputy Controller 370 78868 82812 86755 90699 94642
9 370-409 Deputy Director of Human Resources 370 78868 82812 86755 90699 94642
9 370-409 Deputy GIAC Director 375 78868 82812 86755 90699 94642
9 370-409 Deputy Youth Bureau Director 370 78868 82812 86755 90699 94642
9 370-409 Director of Code Enforcement 400 78868 82812 86755 90699 94642
9 370-409 Director of Engineering 390 78868 82812 86755 90699 94642
9 370-409 Director of Zoning Administration 380 78868 82812 86755 90699 94642
8 330-369 Deputy Director of Economic Development 345 72356 75974 79592 83210 86827
8 330-369 Deputy Director of Planning and Development 340 72356 75974 79592 83210 86827
8 330-369 Director of Parking 350 72356 75974 79592 83210 86827
8 330-369 Manager of Fiscal Operations 355 72356 75974 79592 83210 86827
8 330-369 Manager of Organizational Development 330 72356 75974 79592 83210 86827
7 290-329 Information Systems Manager 320 66381 69700 73019 76338 79657
6 250-289 no titles assigned 60900 63945 66990 70035 73080
5 210-249 Employee Health and Safety Coordinator 245 55872 58666 61459 64253 67046
4 170-209 no titles assigned 51258 53821 56384 58947 61510
3 130-169 no titles assigned 47026 49378 51729 54080 56431
2 90-129 no titles assigned 43143 45301 47458 49615 51772
1 below 90 no titles assigned 39580 41559 43538 45517 47496
40 hours/week
Back-Up Item 13.2
May 3, 2017 Common Council Meeting Minutes
8.14 Human Resources Department - Establishment of Promoted Acting
Department Head and Department Head Salaries - Resolution
By Alderperson Martell: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick
WHEREAS, in 2015, Common Council adopted the Management Compensation
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the newly adopted Management Compensation Plan did not include
a procedure for providing a salary increase to an employee who is acting in a
department head role, nor did it repeal the procedure established in 2009; and
WHEREAS, the 2009 procedure for calculating a salary increase for an acting
department head does not align with the 2015 procedure for calculating a salary
increase for a newly appointed department head; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That after acting in the role of a department head for thirty (30)
days, a deputy department head shall be assigned to the lowest salary step for
the department head position that results in a salary increase for the deputy; and,
be it further
RESOLVED, That if an employee other than a deputy department head is
appointed to serve in an acting department head role, the employee shall
immediately be assigned to the lowest salary step for the department head
position that results in a salary increase for the employee; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That an employee acting as a department head shall not be entitled
to annual salary step increases for the acting title, but shall remain eligible for
any step increases the employee would have otherwise received in the
employee’s permanent title; provided, however, that if a step increase in the
employee’s permanent title results in a higher salary than the employee’s current
acting department head salary, the acting department head salary shall be
recalculated as specified above; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That employees who are promoted to or within the Managerial
Compensation Plan shall be assigned to the lowest salary step that provides at
least an eight (8%) percent increase in the employee’s base salary, with
subsequent step movement occurring annually on the employee’s anniversary
date in the current job title, until the employee reaches the maximum step, at
which time step movement shall cease; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That under no circumstances shall a managerial employee earn a
salary greater than the maximum step for the employee’s position, or the position
in which the employee is acting, whichever is higher.
Carried Unanimously
14. MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS:
14.1 Appointment to Community Life Commission – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Joy Das be appointed to the Community Life Commission to replace
Carlie McClinsey with a term to expire December 31, 2019.