HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-20 Common Council Meeting Agenda OFFICIAL NOTICE OF MEETING
A Regular meeting of the Common Council will be held on Wednesday, February 5,
2020, 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:
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
5.1 Reports of Municipal Officials
5.2 Special Presentation to Council Regarding the Conference Center
6. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
7. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR— COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR:
7.1 Announcement of the Availability of the 2020 Annual Disclosure Forms for
The Mayor and Common Council
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
City Administration Committee:
8.1 Youth Bureau — New York State (NYS) Grant for Enclosure of Cass Park Rink
Project - Resolution
8.2 Police Department— Request to Amend 2020 Budget for Grant— Resolution
8.3 Request to Fly Pan African Flag - Resolution
9. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
9.1 2020 Annual Common Council Concurrence that the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board be Lead Agency in Environmental Review for Site Plan
Review Projects for which the Common Council is an Involved Agency
Resolution
Common Council Meeting Agenda
February 5, 2020
Page 2
9. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (Con't.):
9.2 An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325
Entitled "Zoning" to Clarify the Definition of Community Gardens, to Add a
Definition for Neighborhood Gardens; and to Establish Guidelines for
Special Permit Requirements for Neighborhood Gardens
A. Designation of Lead Agency— Resolution
B. Declaration of Environmental Significance — Resolution
C. Adoption of Ordinance
9.3 An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 325 Entitled
"Zoning" In Order to Establish Regulations for the Development of Accessory
Dwelling Units
A. Designation of Lead Agency— Resolution
B. Determination of Environmental Significance — Resolution
C. Adoption of Ordinance
10. CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
10.1 City Apprenticeship Incentive Program for Public Works Contracts — Resolution
10.2 City Controller's Report
11. REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES:
12. NEW BUSINESS:
13. INDIVIDUAL MEMBER— FILED RESOLUTIONS:
13.1 Alderperson Brock - A Resolution Authorizing Implementation and Funding in the
First Instance 100% of the Federal Aid-Eligible Costs and Program-Aid Eligible
Costs, of a Transportation Federal-Aid Project, and Appropriating Funds
Therefore
13.2 Mayor Myrick - Community Conference Center Project - Commitment To Pursue
A City Of Ithaca Hotel Occupancy Tax And Commitment To Provide A Shared
Financial Guarantee With Tompkins County - Resolution
13.3 Alderperson Smith - Resolution to Approve Artwork for the Tompkins Giant No. 1
Proposal in Cass Park
13.4 Alderperson Murtagh - Common Council Resolution Opposing Relocation of
Downtown Post Office
14. MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS:
14.1 Appointments to Public Safety and Information Commission — Resolution
15. REPORTS OF COMMON COUNCIL LIAISONS:
16. REPORT OF CITY CLERK:
Common Council Meeting Agenda
February 5, 2020
Page 3
17. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY:
17.1 Proposed Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation
18. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
18.1 Approval of the January 8, 2020 Common Council Meeting Minutes —
Resolution
18.2 Approval of the January 15, 2020 Special 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 livestrearn on hit p�.ffitha�can �.viebit�.com/,"
Julie Conley Holcomb, CIVIC
City Clerk
Date: January 31, 2020
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
City Administration Committee:
8.1 Youth Bureau — New York State (NYS) Grant for Enclosure of Cass Park
Rink Project - Resolution
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca applied for financial assistance from the New York
State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation ("OPRHP") under the
Environmental Protection Fund Grant Program for the purpose of funding the Enclosure
of Cass Park Rink project; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca is authorized and directed to accept these grant
funds in an amount not to exceed $523,269 for the project described in the grant
application; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca is authorized and directed to agree to the terms
and conditions of the Master Contract with OPRHP for such Enclosure of the Cass Park
Rink project; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca is authorized and directed to agree to the terms
and conditions of any required deed of easement granted to OPRHP that affects title to
real property owned by the municipality and improved by the grant funds, which may be
a duly recorded public access covenant, conservation easement, and/or preservation
covenant; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the governing body of the municipality delegates signing authority to
execute the Master Contract and any required deed of easement to the individual(s)
who hold(s) the following elected or appointed municipal office(s) or employment
position title(s): Mayor and/or City Controller.
-40 trr Q
Q Ithaca Youth Bureau FIT,.e
iJames L. Gibbs DriveIthaca, New York 14850
Phone: (607) 273-8364 - ti
Fax: (607) 273-2817
"Building a foundation for a lifetime."
To: City Administration Committee
From: Liz Klohmann, Director
Re: Authorizing Resolution and Certification for EPF Grant Funding
Date: 1/15/20
The Youth Bureau was awarded a matching grant in the amount of $523,269 from the
Environmental Protection Fund Grant Program for Parks, Recreation, Preservation and
Heritage (EPF) for the Enclosure of Cass Park Rink.
To receive the award from a grant program administered by the New York State Office
of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation ("OPRHP"), we must submit a duly
adopted Resolution and Certification approving the City's acceptance of grant funds and
delegating signing authority to execute the New York State Master Contract for Grants
and any deed of easement that may be required.
8.2 Police Department— Request to Amend 2020 Budget for Grant - Resolution
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Police Department recently received a $10,000 grant from the
Jason Sokoloff fund of the Jewish Commercial Fund; and
WHEREAS, the grant is to be used for a ground control and arrest training room, which
will improve the hands-on skill for the officers during arrest situations; now, therefore be
it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2020 Authorized Police
Department budget for said grant as follows:
Increase Revenue Account:
A3120-2705 Police Gifts and Donations $10,000
Increase Appropriation Account:
A 3120-5435 Police Contracts $10,000
MEMORANDUM
Police
DonationDate: January 13,2020
Please is s donationr.Jason Sokoloff to the Ithaca
Police I used r the followingpurpose:
To finish a 1200 square r i i room at the IPD Range for the purposes of arrest
controli I officers on a regular basis. This room would include r
and partially Its to be utilizedfor takedowns,ground defenses,grappling training,
clinch , and other defensive tactics to help officersreduce the risk injury to bothe
officer and arrestee. it s purchase related r i ing equipment to help
achieve i objective.
The building exists on the IPD range. It has never been finished and is
currently s r a of equipment.
8.3 Request to Fly Pan-African Flag - Resolution
WHEREAS, the Community Life Commission was tasked with developing a policy
regarding the flying of advocacy and commemorative flags on City facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Community Life Commission has reviewed an application to fly the
Pan-African flag on City Hall during the month of February 2020 and has forwarded its
recommendation of approval to Common Council for its consideration; now, therefore
be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves the request to fly the Pan-African
flag on City Hall during the month of February 2020.
A-on Iication for F11 !D gLy o' d�,�ctcac y l'laag
Advocate Narne/Or, anization: M C�q ii I
� a
Address,
Website, Phone:
x
Contact ErnaiL V { �P� v4(�7�� t('/Fontact Plrtaaae:
t
Flag requested to be t`lcawn: _.� L t.
What are the dates you would like the City to fly this a `?
l^raarn to d
Is there a s eci ric location in the City where you would like to sec this flag flying'?
E C' tease flaoni this fist;
i °l�lall (flag dimensions ' x 5"
/City
ass Park, (flag di neaasions 3' x '
Stewart, Park- (flag dimensions ' x ll~)
NO: The City may choose where at is most a pa-aap6ate to fly this flag
Would the advocate like the [lag returned after it is flown?
/YES: The advocate should aaaaake arrangements to collect the flag in a tit aely
manner.
NO: The City can tale possession of the flag sea it can be flown again.
NOTE: The advocate is responsible for determining whether the City already
possesses the advocacy flag being requested. If the Cite does not possess it,the
advocate is responsible for roviding one to the Cit)r Clerk.
Applicant igaaattarc:
Please submit this form with an image of the flag to XXXX(rz;,Clt ofIthaeaor
(City Clerk's email).
9. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
9.1 2020 Annual Common Council Concurrence that the City of Ithaca Planning
and Development Board be Lead Agency in Environmental Review for Site Plan
Review Projects for which the Common Council is an Involved Agency Resolution
WHEREAS, 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead
agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law; and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action; and
WHEREAS, State Law also specifies that when an agency proposes to directly
undertake, fund or approve a Type I or Unlisted Action undergoing coordinated review
with other involved agencies, it must notify them that a lead agency must be agreed
upon within 30 calendar days of the date that the Environmental Assessment Form
(EAF) or draft EIS was transmitted to them; and
WHEREAS, Projects submitted to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review and
Approval, at times involve approvals or funding from Common Council, making Council
an involved agency in environmental review; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Law and the
City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, involved agencies are provided
with project information and environmental forms for their review, as well as all
environmental determinations; and
WHEREAS, Common Council did consent to the Planning & Development Board acting
as Lead Agency in environmental review for site plan review projects for which Common
Council has been identified as an Involved Agency since 2015; and
WHEREAS, in order to avoid delays in establishing a Lead Agency and to make the
environmental review process more efficient, it is desirous to continue the agreement in
which the Planning Board will assume Lead Agency status for such projects; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council does hereby consent to the Planning &
Development Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review for site plan review
projects for which Common Council has been identified as an Involved Agency through
December 31, 2020; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That for any future project Common Council may withhold or withdraw its
consent should it so desire.
R� CITY OF ITHACA
'T 108 E. Green St.—Third Floor Ithaca,NY 1.4850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JoAnn Cornish,Director
Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6565
A� 1 E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
To: Common Council
From: Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning
Date: January 16, 2020
Re: 2020 Annual Council Concurrence that the Planning Board be Lead Agency in Environmental Review
for Site Plan Review Projects for which the Common Council is an Involved Agency
Annually, Common Council passes a resolution concurring that the Planning Board will be Lead Agency in
environmental review for site plan review projects for which the Common Council is an involved agency.
Examples of such projects include the Chainworks District Project, 210 Hancock Street, Carpenter Circle and 320
W Buffalo (the Immaculate Conception Site). Asper the previously adopted resolutions,this arrangement ends
on December 31 of each year and must be renewed annually. Please find enclosed a proposed resolution which
extends this arrangement to December 31, 2020.
The purpose of this arrangement is to make the environmental review process more efficient while, at the same
time, keeping Council informed of its potential role in the environmental review of site plan projects.
Environmental forms and project information would continue to be forwarded directly to Council members
without the need to coordinate with a monthly meeting schedule. This prevents the difficulty of the 30-day
deadline to establish Lead Agency but preserves Council ability to not concur should that be the preferred course
of action for any future project. As an involved agency, Council could, if desired, provide input to the Lead
Agency. All comments from involved agencies are addressed during the environmental review.
The Planning Board also has this arrangement with the Board of Zoning Appeals.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 274-6557
9.2 An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325
Entitled "Zoning" to Clarify the Definition of Community Gardens, to Add a
Definition for Neighborhood Gardens, and to Establish Guidelines for
Special Permit Requirements for Neighborhood Gardens
A. Designation of Lead Agency — Resolution
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency
be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local
and state environmental law; and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an "Unlisted" Action under the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance, which requires environmental review; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself
lead agency for the environmental review of the proposal to amend the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Entitled "Zoning" to Clarify the Definition of Community
Gardens, to Add a Definition for Neighborhood Gardens, and to Establish Guidelines for
Special Permit Requirements for Neighborhood Gardens
B. Declaration of Environmental Significance — Resolution
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to
Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Entitled "Zoning" to Clarify the
Definition of Community Gardens, to Add a Definition for Neighborhood Gardens, and to
Establish Guidelines for Special Permit Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an "Unlisted" Action under the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been conducted, including the
preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Parts 1 and 2, dated
December 9, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has
reviewed the SEAF prepared by Planning Staff; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts
as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental
Assessment Form, dated December 9, 2019; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby
determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that
the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any
attachments, in the City Clerk's Office, and forward the same to any other parties as
required by law.
C. An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter
325 Entitled "Zoning" to Clarify the Definition of Community Gardens, to Add a
Definition for Neighborhood Gardens, and to Establish Guidelines for Special
Permit Requirements for Neighborhood Gardens
ORDINANCE NO. 2020-_
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
that Chapter 325 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby
amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-3, Definitions, be amended to add a new definition
of Neighborhood Garden and to amend the existing definition of Community Gardens, to
read as follows:
§ 325-3. Definitions and word usage.
[COMMUNITY OR ] NEIGHBORHOOD GARDEN. An area used by
several individuals or families, operating in association with each
other and under sponsorship by a nonprofit or voluntary organization,
Primarily for seasonal production of vegetables and other garden
produce for home consumption by the individuals or families directly
engaged in such production or for food donations. [Added 7-10-
1985 by Ord. No. 85-6]
COMMUNITY GARDEN. A lot that is specifically intended to b
public, operating in association with each other and under
sponsorship by a nonprofit or voluntary on utilizing
either individual or shared plots o_2pj2rivate or ublic land. The
la
culinary, medicinal, or beneficial plants; and/or ornamentals. It
rn ar round
gardening, c2MMunity events or education of t rdening
2[2_cess.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-9, Special Permits, be amended to remove
Community Gardens from this section, to read as follows:
§ 325-9 Special Permits
B. Applicability.
(1.) The uses listed under the district regulations in §325-8,
District Regulations, which require a special permit from
the Planning and Development Board are as follows:
(m) neighbo#iGod [Community e
heeclj Neighborhood gardens in all districts.
F. Expiration and Renewals.
(1.) Special permits do not expire, with the following exceptions:
(d) A GGn4nquR4y--,c)f—neighborhood garden special permit
shall expire automatically if the site is not used as a
GGmnTjP#y--Gr—neighborhood garden, as defined in
§325-3, for one complete garden season.
(1) If a c- n neighborhood garden special
permit should expire, a new application must be
submitted pursuant to §325-9C of this chapter.
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-10, Additional Conditions for Special Permits, be
amended to remove Community Gardens from this sections to read as follows:
4325-10 Additional Conditions for Special Permits
B. Applicability. All uses allowed by special permit shall be subject to the
criteria set forth in §325-9, Special Permits. In addition, accessory
apartments, bed-and-breakfast homes, bed-and-breakfast inns,
[GOMmunit [RLNeighborhood gardens, and schools and related
uses shall be subject to additional conditions as set forth in §325-10C.
C. Additional Conditions.
(3) -Gf-PNeighborhood gardens. The following specific
conditions shall be applicable to all special permits for Gornn4u-R4
Gr- neighborhood gardens:
(n) Approved special permits for --Gmmi inih/
-1 and
neighborhood gardens shall be reviewed by the
Director of Planning and Development or designee at
least annually for compliance with the above noted
conditions and other conditions specific to each
permit's approval. If, following such review or
investigation of any complaint, the Director of
Planning and Development or designee determines
that a substantial violation exists, notice of such
violation shall be mailed to the designated contact
person, requiring that such violation be corrected
within 15 days. If satisfactory correction is not made,
the special permit may be revoked by the Director of
Planning and Development or designee.
(o) In consideration of the fact that such gardens may be
of an interim nature, may occupy only a portion of a
parcel and may be located on property unsuited for
other uses permitted under this chapter, the district
regulations specified for permitted uses under §325-8
of this chapter shall be superseded, where applicable,
by the following regulations for
neighborhood gardens:
Section 4. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of
this local law. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
local law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
TA CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St.—Third Floor Ithaca,NY 14850-5690
i DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
" JoAnn Cornish,Director
Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: January 17, 2020
RE: Proposal to Amend the Zoning Code Regarding Community Gardens
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to make minor amendments
to the zoning code regarding community gardens.
At last month's meeting the Committee discussed a proposal to amend the City Code in order to
clarify the definition of community gardens, to add a new definition for neighborhood gardens, and
to amend the guidelines for special permit requirements for neighborhood gardens. The Committee
directed staff to circulate the proposal for comments. The proposed amendments were circulated
and also submitted to the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability for
review pursuant to§239-1-m of New York State General Municipal Law. The County's response
is enclosed. No other comments have been submitted to date. Also enclosed for your
consideration is the completed Short Environmental Assessment Form, and draft resolutions for
declaration of lead agency and determination of environmental significance.
If you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at
jenniferk@ityofithaca.org.
Tompkins County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY
121 East Court Street
Ithaca,New Y(,,)rk 14850
Katherine Borgella,llAtCP Telephone ( 07) 274-5560
Commissioner ofPlai rriai and Sustainability
January 10,2020
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner
City of Ithaca
108 East Green t�
Ithaca,NY 14850
e: Review Pursuant to §239-1,-era and-n of the New York State General Municipal Lame
Action:: City ii t ra a Proposal to airmend the Zoning Carle Regarding Community unit gardens
Dear Ms. Kus nir:,
This letter acknowledges tet referral of the proposal identif led above liar review and comment by the
Tompkins County Department of Planning trstainability ,pursrtarat to§239-1, -rn and-n of*the New
York State General Mnni deal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted,and has
determined that it has no negative inter-community,or county-wide impacts.
Please itiforni,us of your decision so that we can make it a}cart of the record..
Sincerely,
w
Katheriiae Borgella, AICP
Ceanunissieane:r of Planning and Sustainability
lnclu.46 t through cDiver:si�la
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part I -Project Information
Instructions for Completing
Part 1—Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the
application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on
information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as
thoroughly as possible based on current information.
Complete all items in Part 1.You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the
lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.
Part 1—Project and Sponsor Information
City of Ithaca
Name of Action or Project:
Proposal to Amend the Zoning Code Regarding Community Gardens
Project Location(describe, and attach a location map):
City of Ithaca
Brief Description of Proposed Action:
An proposal to change the 325-3 Definitions,325-9 Special permits,and 325-10 Additional Conditions for Special Permits in order to amend the
existing regulations to refer to neighborhood gardens and to create a new definition for community gardens. Enclosed is a draft ordinance.
Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Telephone: 607-274-6650
City of Ithaca E-Mail:
jenniferk@cityofithaca.org
Address:
108 East Green Street
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Ithaca NY 14850
1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO YES
administrative rule,or regulation?
If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that ❑ ❑
may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2.
2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES
If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval: ❑ ❑
3. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? NA acres
b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? NA acres
c. Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? BA acres
4. Check all land uses that occur on,are adjoining or near the proposed action:
5. ❑Urban ❑ Rural(non-agriculture) ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Residential(suburban)
❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Aquatic ❑ Other(Specify):
❑Parkland
Page 1 of 3 SEAF 2019
5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A
a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑ ❑
b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑ ❑� ❑
NO YES
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape?
a ❑
7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES
If Yes,identify: ❑� ❑
NO YES
8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? ❑ ❑
b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? Z ❑
c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed ❑
action?
9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES
If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies:
1.0. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing potable water:
11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES
If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment:
12. a.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district NO YES
which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the ❑
Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the
State Register of Historic Places?
b.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑� ❑
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory?
13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES
wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency? Z ❑
b. Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? Z ❑
If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres:
Page, 2 cal"
1 C Identify are typical habitat types that occrar on,or are likely to he found on the prq�iect site.t'heck all th^,it apply:
horeline El Forest gricerlttrr°ala'drasslands 0 Early mid-successional
Wctlrrnd El Urban El Suburban
1 I?raes the srtr-raf`thc pr'o]?c?sGd action c riat rin ar�y spec(:s s 1" arrirr �lA c,r t sta irtt cl Irrrbi rtsa lit l] v°t1t tart r `;;Z
fteder°al government as threatened orendangered? -
16. is the project site located in the l00-year flood plan? NO YES
17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point,or non-paint sources` O YF
If Yes,
a. Will storm muter discharges flow to adjacent proper tics?
h° Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoffaad storm drains)?
If Yes,briefly describe 9
18. Does the proposed action include constrrrct.ion or other activities that would result in the impoundment of waterm. O YES
or other liquids( .g.,retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)?
If Yes,explain the purpose and size of the irr�ptwundmant.��
1. ffns the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste 0 Yla a
inana enrent facility's
If Yes,describe:
ihe.
Ck.hfas,the site of the proposed action ear an adjoining property be the subject ofrenrediation(ongoin oar �f Yl°'a
completed) for hazardous waste
l f Yes,describe;
f CERTIFY T IIA°F`l TI C IN FORMATION PROVIDED T OVE IS T k.]E AN D ; Ctm.IIRA`f"E TO T HE BESTO F
Y KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/sponsor/name.- City of Ithaca ate 12"9'2019
Signature Title enrarPlanner
3
PR,INT FORM Page 3 of.
II
Agency Use Only [If applicable]
Project• Proposal to Amend the Zoning Code R
Date: 12/19/2019
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 2 -Impact Assessment
Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency.
Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by
the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by
the concept"Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?"
No,or Moderate
small to large
impact impact
may may
occur occur
1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning
regulations? Z El
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? ❑✓ ❑
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? ❑✓
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
establishment of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)?
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or ❑
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway?
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate ❑
reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
7. Will the proposed action impact existing:
a.public/private water supplies?
b.public/private wastewater treatment utilities? F✓ ❑
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,archaeological,
architectural or aesthetic resources?
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands,
waterbodies,groundwater, air quality,flora and fauna)?
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage
problems?
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health?
PRINT FORM Pagel of 2
SEAF 2019
AgenwUi!SEe20!JlJY�Ilf a �Iicable�l
Project: Proposal to Amend the
A
Dale: 12/19/2019
Short Envirciiimental Assesirnent Forni
Part 3 Detertnination of Significance
For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur",or if there is a need to explain why,a
particularelerneut of then proposed action may or will not result in a signifirant,adverse environmental impact,please
complete Part 3.Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including arty measures or design elements that
have been included by tile project sponsor to avoid or reduce Urnpacis. Part,3 Should also explain how the lead agency
determined that the impact may or will not be sigmificant,Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,
probability of occurring,doration, irreversibility,gcogn-aphic scope and magnitude, Also consider the potential for Short-
term,long-term and cumulative impacts.
Check this box if you have determined,based oil tile informarion and analysis above,and any supporting docarnentation,
that the proposed action may result in one oruflore potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an
environmental impact statement is required-
Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action will not result in any sigilificant adverse environmental hllprlcts.
City of Ithaca 12119/2019
Name of Lead Agency Date
Svante Myrick Mayor
-Print col-"type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead.A_w',ncy Title of Responsible 0117icer
——--------------- sal L}re Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signatur" P '{ifrffers ru from Responsible Office()
PRINT FORM Page2 of2
9.3 An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 325
Entitled "Zoning" In Order to Establish Regulations for the Development of
Accessory Dwelling Units
A. Declaration of Lead Agency— Resolution
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency
be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local
and state environmental law; and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is a "Unlisted" Action pursuant to the City
Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental
review; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself
lead agency for the environmental review of the establishment of regulations regarding
accessory dwelling units.
B. Determination of Environmental Significance — Resolution
WHEREAS, demand for additional housing development has resulted in an increase in
residential infill development within neighborhoods in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City would like to allow for appropriate levels of residential development
of accessory dwelling units, while also protecting neighborhoods from development that
is out of scale and character with the surrounding neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, in August 2019, staff held a community conversation on accessory dwelling
units and solicited comments from the public; and
WHEREAS, staff evaluated all of the public feedback and spent several months
evaluating options to regulate accessory dwelling units, while taking into consideration
public concerns; and
WHEREAS, staff has drafted an ordinance that will establish guidelines for developing
accessory dwelling units in the R-1 and R-2, CR-1, and CR-2 zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been conducted, including the
preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated November 22,
2019; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a "Unlisted" Action under the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has
reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts
as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental
Assessment Form, dated November 22, 2019; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby
determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that
the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any
attachments, in the City Clerk's Office, and forward the same to any other parties as
required by law.
9.3 An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Chapter 325
Entitled "Zoning" In Order to Establish Regulations for the Development of
Accessory Dwelling Units
WHEREAS, in 2017, the City established the South Hill Overlay District (SHOD) in
response to concerns that were raised by the South Hill neighborhood rapid in-fill
development of multiple primary structures (in the neighborhood and the impacts on
both the aesthetic qualities and the character of the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the SHOD was intended to be a temporary measure to prevent further
development until the City could establish regulations for this type of infill (ADUs); and
WHEREAS, in the interim, similar concerns about development pressure were raised
throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff were directed to research how infill (ADUs) development is
regulated in other municipalities; and
WHEREAS, Planning Staff spent several months researching other communities and
developing proposals to encourage the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
that would protect neighborhoods while allowing for housing options that could provide
property owners with additional income; and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2019, a community meeting was held, with approximately 70
people in attendance, who offered opinions on options to allow the development of
appropriate ADUs; and
WHEREAS, staff has considered feedback from the public, the Common Council, and
other communities and has developed a set of regulations allowing property owners to
develop ADUs, where appropriate, and the means to protect neighborhoods from the
negative impacts of over development; now, therefore
ORDINANCE NO. 2020-
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
that Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled, "Zoning", be amended as
follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325-313 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled
"Definitions and Word Usage", is hereby amended to add the following new definitions:
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)— A second dwelling unit located in the rear or
side yard on a lot with any one-family dwelling in R-1 and CR-1 zoning districts, or in
any one-family dwelling or two-family dwelling in R-2 and CR-2 zoning districts (see
Section 2F (3)(d). The second unit is created secondary to, and is always smaller than
the primary one-family dwelling. The unit includes its own independent habitable space
including provision for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation, and is designed to be occupied
by an individual or a family, plus not more than one unrelated occupant, independent of
the primary dwelling unit.
1. Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (AADU)— A room or set of rooms, basement,
or any other space that is located within a primary structure, but is established as a
separate dwelling unit. AADUs may be occupied by an individual or a family, plus
not more than one unrelated occupant.
2. Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU)— A separate dwelling unit that is
constructed on a single family lot that is not connected to the primary structure.
DADUs may be occupied by an individual or a family, plus not more than one
unrelated occupant.
3. Out Building Conversion - A separate dwelling unit that is converted from an
existing garage, carriage house, or other accessory structure. Out Building
Conversion's may be occupied by an individual or a family, plus not more than one
unrelated occupant.
Contiguous Green Space - Green Space on a lot that is uninterrupted by structures or
paved surfaces. Contiguous green space must be at least 15' in width.
Section 2. Chapter 325-8 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled "District
Regulations", is hereby amended to add a new section F, entitled "Additional
Restrictions in the R-1, R-2, CR-1, and CR-2 Zoning Districts", to read as follows:
F. Additional Restrictions in the R-1, R-2, CR-1, and CR-2 Zoning Districts.
(1) Intent. This section authorizes the installation of accessory dwelling units
in the R-1, R-2, CR-1, and CR-2 districts. The purpose and intent of
permitting accessory dwelling units is:
(a) To provide homeowners, especially those of low and moderate
income, with a means of obtaining through rental income,
companionship, security and services and thereby to enable them
to stay more comfortably in homes and neighborhoods they might
be forced to leave.
(b) To add inexpensive rental units to the housing stock to meet the
needs of smaller households, both young and old.
(c) To make housing units available to low and moderate income
households who might otherwise have difficulty finding homes
within the City.
(d) To develop housing units in family neighborhoods that are
appropriate for households at a variety of stages in the lifecycle,
thereby lessening fluctuations in neighborhood demand for
services.
(e) To preserve and allow more efficient use of the City's existing stock
of dwellings while ensuring healthy and safe living environments.
(f) To allow for the creation of additional housing, while minimizing
impacts to surrounding properties.
(2) General Restrictions.
(a) In the R-1, R-2, CR-1, and CR-2 Zoning Districts, only one primary
structure is permitted as of right.
(3) Additional Requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units
(a) All Accessory Dwelling Units that have any exterior changes to
existing structures or any new ADUs that are new construction are
subject to site plan review.
(b) Number of Accessory Dwelling Units. Only one accessory dwelling
unit, attached or detached, is permitted on a lot.
(c) Parking. No additional parking is required for accessory dwelling
units.
(d) Location. Accessory Dwelling Units may be located on any lot in the
CR-1 or R-1 zoning district that contains a one-family dwelling and
on any lot in the CR-2 and R-2 zoning district that contains a one-
or two-family dwelling. ADUs are permitted in any side or rear yard
but not in the required front yard. Corner Lots shall be considered
to have two front yards.
(e) Additional Requirements for Detached ADUs.
[1] Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section,
Setbacks for ADUs are consistent with existing zoning
setbacks for primary structures
[2] A DADU may not be placed less than 5 feet from the primary
structure.
[3] ADUs are not subject to the maximum lot coverage
requirement, however, properties with ADUs are required to
maintain 35% contiguous green space.
on I gP g er �,apm 15 81 K a h�t
u,
r 9;A
„ ,.. kn tW a El B Ul a HII k k, _. ..w...b.: .........,
9k ae6�PF s
n•r9 pvr afi fig@ rev,@ '"y, 00�€t.
(f) Number of Residents. Accessory Dwelling Units may be occupied
by an individual or a family, plus not more than one unrelated
occupant.
(g) Appearance of Accessory Dwelling Units. Accessory Dwelling Units
should not disrupt the overall architectural character of the
neighborhood. A similar architectural style and roof pitch should
connect the primary structure to the accessory dwelling unit.
[1] Location of Entrances. New or additional front entrances are
discouraged, but in any event must be compatible with the
architectural style of the existing structure. Detached
accessory dwelling units (DADU) are exempt from this
standard.
(h) Size Allowances.
[1] Detached Accessory Dwelling Units- The maximum size of a
DADU may be no more than 75% of the habitable area of
the primary structure or 800 square feet, whichever is less.
[2] Attached Accessory Dwelling Units- The maximum size of an
AADU that is added onto the existing structure may be no
more than 33.3% of the habitable area of the primary
structure. AADUs which do not change the exterior
appearance of the primary structure have no maximum size
limit.
[3] Out Building Conversion- Outbuilding conversions are
exempt from all area requirements, including maximum lot
coverage requirements, minimum green space
requirements, and any setback requirements.
Section 3. Chapter 325-10 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled
"Accessory Apartments", is hereby deleted in its entirety.
Section 4. The City Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk and the Planning
Department shall amend the district regulations chart in accordance with the
amendments made herewith.
Section 5. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of
this local law. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
local law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
Section 6. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
^ CITY OF ITHACA
CV
108 E. Green St.—Third Floor Ithaca,NY 1.4850-5690
' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
IT JoAnn Cornish,Director
Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6565
- � E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
To: Common Council
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner
Alexander Phillips, Planner
Date: January 30, 2020
Re: Establishment of Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
The purpose of this memo is to provide information on a proposal to establish regulations for developing
ADUs in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts.
Concerns were raised regarding infill housing development in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts that is
not in character with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Department has worked over the past
year evaluating the issues and researching different options, has held public discussions and has been at
the Planning Committee repeatedly in order to develop the enclosed draft ordinance. In November of
2019, staff was directed to circulate a draft ordinance for comments. At the December Planning
Committee meeting staff presented a summary of comments received,many of which had been received
the day of the meeting, including a letter from Tompkins County Planning Commissioner that stated
that the ordinance as written would require a super majority vote unless amended. Staff also presented
an updated ordinance that contained recommended changes based on the comments that had been
received. At the meeting the proposal was discussed,but ultimately tabled because of the late arrival of
the comments and the need to clarify what was being requested by the County. After the meeting staff
corresponded with the County to provide additional information and the updated draft ordinance that
contained the recommended staff changes. This version of the ordinance that was considered and voted
on by the Planning Committee meeting at their January meeting was reviewed by the County,however,
it contained some changes that were not re-circulated. These changes were made in response to the
comments that were received. Generally, our practice is to recirculate draft ordinances if there are
significant changes made. The changes in this draft ordinance include the following:
• Language was added to provide the minimum width for contiguous greenspace of 15' and new
diagrams were added. Staff feels that these changes are not significant changes, since they were
only meant clarify the language that was already circulated.
• Language was added that states that there is no maximum size for an attached accessory dwelling
unit (AADU), if it doesn't change the exterior of the structure. This language was added in
response to the Planning Board recommendations. This is a potentially significant change that
can be removed or can be recirculated for comment.
• The Planning Committee voted to change the ordinance to include language allowing multiple
primary structure by special permit. This is a potentially significant change that was added in
response to the County's request. If the Council decides to remove this language the ordinance
will require a super majority vote in order to be adopted.
An environmental review of this action has been completed. Draft resolutions for Lead Agency, and
environmental significance are enclosed. If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this
information, feel free to contact us at 274-6410.
10. CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
10.1 City Apprenticeship Incentive Program for Public Works Contracts —
Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca, from time to time, undertakes construction contracts
which involve the construction, reconstruction, improvement, or rehabilitation of
buildings, facilities, and structures in the City of Ithaca; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is making considerable efforts to increase the number of
jobs in the city, and is consistently advocating for quality employment opportunities for
city residents, in particular young people in the city; and
WHEREAS, maintaining a qualified and skilled labor force is essential to a healthy and
dynamic local economy; and
WHEREAS, per Common Council resolution of January 2005, the City previously
required all contracts in excess of$500,000 to include apprenticeship programs,
repealing that requirement in December 2010 due to the "substantial expense incurred
by the City ... without a showing that this extra expense resulted in the local job creation
that was originally intended; internal administrative problems associated with the
selection process for qualified bidders ..."; and
WHEREAS, the City has successfully implemented and/or funded other workforce
development programs such as the Hospitality Employment Training Program, the
Finger Lakes ReUse Job Skills Training program, and an internship program in the
City's Department of Public Works, each of which have successfully developed a talent
pool of benefit to the City; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council is committed to providing such additional funding to
pending, already-funded 2020 projects as may be necessary to cover the expenses of
this Program's cost arising from those projects; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby establish the
City Apprenticeship Incentive Program as follows:
1. Any contractor that is awarded a contract by the City of Ithaca, and any
subcontractors to that contractor, shall thereafter be eligible to participate in
the City Apprenticeship Incentive Program for purposes of fulfillment of the
awarded contract, thereby receiving:
a. An incentive of $5 per hour for each hour worked by an eligible
apprentice on the awarded contract, subject to a minimum of 100-
hours of apprentice work on the project per Program-participating
contractor or subcontractor,
b. up to an aggregate project-wide maximum of 2% of the total
contract amount.
2. In order to qualify under the preceding paragraph, the contractor and/or
subcontractors must:
a. reasonably demonstrate as part of its application to the Program that
the eligible apprentices to be employed on the project are either (or
both)
i residents of the City of Ithaca, or
ii residents of Tompkins County who also either satisfy the
definition of "minority group member" in New York State
Executive Law Section 310(8) or are women (or both), and
b. maintain or participate in a bona fide New York State Apprentice
Program approved by, and with a graduation rate of at least thirty
percent as determined by, the Division of Apprentice Training of the
Department of Labor for each apprenticable trade or occupation
represented in their workforce and must abide by the apprentice to
journeyman ratio for each trade prescribed therein in the performance
of the contract,
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council directs that the City Apprenticeship Incentive
Program be funded by the department responsible for funding of each associated
contracts, except that where the City has agreed to bid out a contract for an outside
entity (generally, a non-profit organization), which outside entity is in fact paying the cost
of that contract in part or whole, the outside entity shall also be responsible for
reimbursing the City for the out-of-pocket costs of the Program incurred by the City in
connection with that contract; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the department responsible for accepting the certified payroll of the
contractor pursuant to any given public works contract shall also be the department
responsible for administering the Program with respect to that project, in accord with a
Program Participation Agreement, including by tracking the per-project costs of this
Program; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Engineering Office of the Department of Public Works together
with the City Attorney's Office and the Controller's Office shall prepare a template
Program Participation Agreement for use under this Program, containing recommended
terms not inconsistent with this resolution; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution shall take effect 90 days after passage.
December 1, 2010
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff
RESOLVED, That the third, fourth, and fifth Resolved clauses be amended to read as
follows:
"RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to sign said contract,
upon consultation with the Attorney for the SJC, and be it further
RESOLVED, That said contract shall be contingent on its approval of the contract by
the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden, and be it further
RESOLVED, That in accordance with the performance contract to be negotiated by the
IAWWTF Chief Operator and JCI, funding for said project minus the $406,179
NYSERDA grant award will be provided by the owners based on the following
schedule,"
Carried Unanimously
Main Motion As Amended:
A Vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
9.4 Findings and Recommendations on the Apprenticeship Polic
Background
In 2001 the New York State Legislature adopted a new law (Labor Law, Section 1 -b
that gives municipalities the option of requiring contractors and subcontractors for a
construction contract (to which the municipality is a direct or indirect party) to have
apprenticeship agreements (providing for the approved training and placement of
apprentices).
In January 2005 Common Council exercised its authority under said statute, ,and
adopted a resolution that required that all City construction contracts for more than
00,000 "must include contractors that participate in New York State certified
apprenticeship programs," that this requirement is to be imposed upon "all bidders and
all subcontractors under the bidder," and is to apply to "each apprenticeable trade or
occupation represented in their workforce" and that all bidders and their subcontractors
`must abide by the apprentice-to-journeyman ratio for each trade prescribed therein,"
but that 2 % of the monetary value of the general contract may be exempted from the
apprenticeship requirement "to permit the use of small or specialty subcontractors who
would otherwise be excluded".
By 2009 the Mayor and the Council had become aware of certain problems and
concerns associated' with the implementation of the City"s Apprenticeship Policy. As a
result of these concerns, Common Council decided in December 2009 to suspend' the
Apprenticeship Policy until August S, 2010, and to ask for a "working group" (including
staff and Council members) appointed to research the matter to make a
recommendation on the subject to Common Council before August S, 2010.
The working group, which consisted of Mayor Carolyn Peterson, Alerpersons J.R.
Clairborne (Chair), Dan Cogan, and Eddie Rooker; and Staff members City Attorney
Daniel Hoffman„ Building Commissioner Phyllis Radke, City Controller Steve Thayer,
Assistant City Attorney Khandikile Sokoni, Assistant City Engineer Tom West, and
Community Development Deputy Director Sue Kittel, met regularly over the past year
and heard directly from union representatives, affected contractors and others. Included
among the various issues aired were difficulty in navigating the intricacies of the policy,
how the policy's implementation affected competition, gauging and monitoring success
via hires of local and diverse labor, and what other vehicle(s) could deliver the intended
benefits per Common Council's resolution of 2005 absent an apprenticeship policy.
Note: The working group viewed "local" as residents of Tompkins County.
14
December 1, 2010
The working group sought an extension until November 10, 2010 (Common Council
Resolution of August 4, 2010), to allow the group additional time to complete its
examination of, and deliberation about, the issue of the Apprenticeship Policy or
possible alternative approaches to the goal of enhancing employment readiness and
opportunities for City residents, particularly those who are young and/or disadvantaged,
and to provide a recommendation to the Mayor and the Chair of the City Administration
Committee.
Findings
The working group made the following findings:
1. The Apprenticeship Policy costs the City a significant amount of money (e.g. 2%
extra for the Columbia Street bridge project, and 21% extra for the Cayuga
Waterfront Trail Project) because, where applicable, the City is compelled, by this
policy to award the contract not to the lowest qualified bidder but to one that also
has a qualifying Apprenticeship Program.
2. The policy does not result in the placement of significant numbers of apprentices.
For instance, for the South Aurora Street Bridge over Six-Mile Creek and Green
Street project, which cost the City $2 million, approximately 11 hours out of a
total of 8,512 hours were documented as hours worked by apprentices.
1 Apprenticeships are not widely available. For instance, at one time in the
electricians' apprenticeship program there were 250 applications for only 10
available slots.
4. A majority of the unions that are most likely to have apprenticeship programs
cover multi-county areas. For instance, the painters' union covers the
Binghamton, Rochester, Buffalo, and Erie, Pa, area. Other unions cover similarly
large areas and do not necessarily provide,job opportunities locally.
Recommendations
The working group, having identified several flaws with the Apprenticeship Policy
(including the substantial expense incurred by the City in selecting only those
contractors with an accredited apprenticeship policy without a showing that this extra
expense results in the local job creation that was originally intended; internal
administrative problems associated with the selection process for qualified bidders
whose apprenticeship programs qualify for consideration, etc), concluded that the
existing Apprenticeship Policy had not yielded the intended results as outlined in the
original resolution establishing the policy and that, as such, its continued
implementation was not justified.
The working group supports a separate initiative to explore alternative ways of creating
local job opportunities (possibly in conjunction with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency),
Alderpersons J.R. Clairborne and Eddie Rooker undertook to continue exploring, in
conjunction with the relevant City and JURA staff, other ways of generating the local job
opportunities that were envisioned by the original apprenticeship policy. More
specifically the working group would like Common Council to recommend that the JURA
view the implementation of a job-training/skills-development program as a priority in
accordance with the 12009-2013 City of Ithaca Consolidated Plan.
For the reasons and based on the findings outlined above, the working group
recommends that the "Apprenticeship Policy" that was established by resolution of the
Common Council of the City of Ithaca, on January 5, 2005, be repealed.
Discussion followed on the floor with Alderperson McCollister asking how the Findings
were determined, particularly the cost differential. Alderperson Cogan explained that
staff had researched the certified payrolls of the identified projects.
9.5 Repeal of the of the City of Ithaca's Apprenticeship Policy - Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Rooker
WHEREAS, in 2001 the New York State Legislature adopted a new law (Labor Law,
Section 816-b) that gives municipalities the option of requiring contractors and
subcontractors for a construction contract (to which the municipality is a direct or
indirect party) to have apprenticeship agreements (providing for the approved training
and placement of apprentices); and
15
December 1, 2010
WHEREAS, in January 2005 Common Council exercised its authority under said statute
and adopted a resolution that required that all City construction contracts for more than
$500,000 "must include contractors that participate in New York State certified
apprenticeship programs," that this requirement is to be imposed upon "all bidders and
all subcontractors under the bidder," is to apply to "each apprenticeable trade or
occupation represented in their workforce," and that all bidders and their subcontractors
"must abide by the apprentice-to-journeyman ratio for each trade prescribed therein,"
but that 25% of the monetary value of the general contract may be exempted from the
apprenticeship requirement "to permit the use of small or specialty subcontractors who
would otherwise be excluded;" and
WHEREAS, by 2009 the Mayor and the Council were made aware by staff of certain
problems and concerns associated with the implementation of the City's Apprenticeship
Policy; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these concerns, Common Council decided in December 2009
to suspend the Apprenticeship Policy until August 5, 2010, and to ask for a "working
group" (including staff and Council members) appointed to research the matter to make
a recommendation on the subject to Common Council before August 5, 2010; and
WHEREAS, this working group, chaired by Alderperson J.R. lairborne, met regularly
over the past year and heard directly from union representatives, affected contractors
and others; and
WHEREAS, the working group sought an extension until December 2, 2010 (Common
Council Resolution of August 4, 2010), to allow the group additional time to complete its
examination of, and deliberation about, the issue of the Apprenticeship Policy or
possible alternative approaches to the goal of enhancing employment readiness and
opportunities for City residents - particularly those who are young and/or disadvantaged
- and to provide a recommendation to the Mayor and the Chair of the, City
Administration Committee; and
WHEREAS, the working group, having identified several flaws with the Apprenticeship
Policy (including the substantial expense incurred by the City in selecting only those
contractors with an accredited apprenticeship policy without a showing that this extra
expense results in the local job creation that was originally intended; internal
administrative problems associated with the selection process for qualified bidders
whose apprenticeship programs qualify for consideration, etc), concluded that the
existing Apprenticeship Policy had not yielded the intended results as outlined in the
original Resolution establishing the policy, and that as such its continued
implementation was not justified, and
WHEREAS, the 2009-2013 City of Ithaca Consolidated Plan, which sets priorities for
_
spending of HUD Entitlement Funds in Ithaca, establishes a goal of Job Training and
Placement in the City and job-training programs and/or job-creating activities have been
funded yearly since 2004 under this program, and
WHEREAS, the working group supports these activities and the exploration of additional
job-creating opportunities, possibly in conjunction with the IURA, and
WHEREAS, the working group has submitted a report to the Mayor and the Common
Council with its findings and recommendations, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the, "Apprenticeship Policy" that was established by resolution of the
Common Council of the City of Ithaca, on January 5, 2005, be and hereby is repealed.
Carried Unanimously
9.6 HUD Entitlement Program — Reaffirm Job Training as a Priority, Communit
Development Need - Resolution
By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Rooker
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is making considerable efforts to increase the number of
jobs in the city and is consistently advocating for quality employment opportunities for
city residents, in particular young people in the city, and
16
13. INDIVIDUAL MEMBER— FILED RESOLUTIONS:
13.1 Alderperson Brock - A Resolution Authorizing Implementation and Funding
in the First Instance 100% of the Federal Aid-Eligible Costs and Program-Aid
Eligible Costs, of a Transportation Federal-Aid Project, and Appropriating Funds
Therefore
WHEREAS, a Project for the Hector Street Complete Street, P.I.N. 395063 (the
"Project") is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended, that calls for the
apportionment of the costs of such program to be borne at the ratio of 80% Federal
funds and 20% non-federal funds; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca desires to advance the Project by making a commitment
of 100% of the non-federal share of the costs of all phases of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2017, Common Council authorized Capital Project#846 for this
Project in the amount of$331,800 for preliminary engineering/final design of the project,
with the understanding that the City share would be $66,360 to be covered by Sidewalk
Improvement District#5; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works, acting as the lead agency, declared on May 15,
2018, that the project would not have a significant negative environmental impact in
accordance with the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act; and
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2020, Common Council authorized an amendment to CP
#846, Hector Street Complete Street, to bring the total authorized budget to $2,500,000,
which included $1,400,000 in federal aid, and $1,100,000 in non-federal aid, which was
comprised of City general fund borrowing, Sidewalk Improvement District (SID) 5
funding (both operating and financed), NYS Consolidated Highway Improvement
Program (CHIPs), and Town of Ithaca funding; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2020, construction bids were opened and the qualified, low-
bidder's price was $2,264,689, which, in addition to Engineering and Construction
Inspection costs, requires a total project budget of$2,740,000 in order to award the
construction contract, a difference of$240,000 from the authorized budget; and
WHEREAS, staff has identified the following additional funding sources that can be
applied against this $240,000 difference, namely, an additional $50,000 from Town of
Ithaca and approximately $70,000 in additional fund balance from SID 5, leaving a gap
of$120,000 to be filled; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby approves the above-subject project;
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby authorizes the City of Ithaca to pay in
the first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal share of the cost of all phases of
work for the Project or portions thereof; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends Capital Project #846 in the amount
of $240,000 for a total project authorization of $2,740,000, of which addition it is
expected that $120,000 will be General Fund borrowing in addition to the $350,000
previously authorized in the 2019 Capital Budget; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the sum of $2,740,000 is hereby appropriated from the issuance of
serial bonds and made available to cover the cost of participation in the above phase of
the Project; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this project be undertaken with the understanding that the final cost
of the Project to the City of Ithaca General Fund will be roughly 17% of said portion,
currently estimated at $470,000 of the $2,740,000 authorized for this portion of the
project, in monies and in-kind services as managed by the Superintendent of Public
Works and monitored by the City Controller, with the balance of other funds currently
estimated as follows:
• $1,400,000 in federal-aid
• $360,000 approved via 2019 SID #5 capital project cost
• $205,000 approved via SID #5 (Fund Balance for Hector St)
• $209,000 from CHIPS reimbursement
• $70,000 Town of Ithaca for share of work in Town
• $26,000 from 2020 SID #5 Work Plan
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That in the event the full federal and non-federal share costs of the project
exceeds the amount appropriated above, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
shall convene as soon as possible to appropriate said excess amount immediately upon
the notification by the NYSDOT thereof; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor of the City of Ithaca be and is hereby authorized to
execute all necessary Agreements and the Superintendent of Public Works is hereby
authorized to execute all necessary certifications or reimbursement requests for Federal
Aid on behalf of the City of Ithaca with the New York State Department of
Transportation in connection with the advancement or approval of the Project and
providing for the administration of the Project and the municipality's first instance
funding of Project costs and permanent funding of the local share of federal-aid and
state-aid eligible Project costs and all Project costs within appropriations therefore that
are not so eligible; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the New York State
Commissioner of Transportation by attaching it to any necessary Agreement in
connection with the Project; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
Office of City Engineer
Telephone: 607 / 274-6530 Fax: 607 274-6415
To: Common Council
From: John Licitra, Sidewalk Program Manager
Tim Logue, Director of Engineering
Date: 29 January 2020
Re: Hector Street Complete Street Project
Please find enclosed a resolution authorizing the additional funding for the
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) federal-aid project known as Hector
Street Complete Street. This project was authorized by Common Council on Aug
7th, 2019 at a not to exceed amount of$2.5 million for engineering and
construction project costs. Of this amount, 80% is federal aid eligible, but capped
at$1.4M maximum reimbursement.
On January 16, 2020, construction bids were opened and the low bid was Bothar
Construction at$2,264,689. While this bid is about 9% over the engineer's
estimate, it is $456,000 lower than the next bidder. The Engineering division is
recommending award of contract, contingent on a budget amendment.
Unfortunately, we are asking for a member file petition in order to stay within
the 45 day bidding terms to award the contract, and to ensure that selective tree
cutting will occur before March 31st for the protection of the Northern Long-
Eared Bat, a federally protected species. While the total project authorization
needs to be increased by $240,000, staff has worked with the Town of Ithaca
towards an agreement that the Town will contribute $50,000 toward this amount,
and staff has worked with the Controller's office to identify approximately
$70,000 from Sidewalk Improvement District 5's fund balance.
The proposed project total cost is $2.74M. With$1.4M available in federal aid, the
local share will be $1.34M as a local share, paid via the following sources:
0 $470,000 total proposed for 2019 General Fund Capital
Project program
0 $360,000 previously approved in 2019 SID#5 capital project
costs
0 $205,000 approved via SID#5 (Fund Balance for Hector St)
0 $209,000 from NYS Consolidated Highway Improvement
Program (CHIPs) reimbursement
0 $70,000 Town of Ithaca contribution toward local share
• $26,000 from 2020 SID#5 Work Plan
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
There are two reasons why we are comfortable recommending an increase to the
project budget to be funded by general fund borrowing. First is that we need it to
authorize the contract,but we might not need much of it in practice. Already
included in the contract is a field change order worth about$100,000. This item is
like a built in change order. If we need it, we use it and it's already built-in to the
contract. If we don't, we get it back in a negative change order at the end of the
project. In our experience, more than half the time, we don't use more than a
quarter of the field change item. So that might reduce our need by$75,000. We
are also looking at a few cost savings by reducing the scope of work (e.g., reusing
some catch basins instead of using new, and possibly eliminating some work at
the bottom of the hill). These items could save us $30,000 and $100,000
respectively. We are still exploring them with our engineer, but we think there is
a good chance we can do one or maybe both.
The second reason is that we feel that the low bid is a good one. The other two
were over $450,000 higher. We know Bothar and they are a qualified bidder. It
seems these days, all our bid prices are higher than our engineer's estimate, due
to our construction climate with high demand for labor and increasing material
costs. We also think there is a compelling argument why the general fund should
pick up this balance - primarily that the scope of work has increased to
accommodate some DPW needs that are only tangentially related to sidewalk -
$100,000 for new culvert headwalls, over $240,000 in storm sewer work, about
$130,000 in new curbing, and an improved road realignment at Vinegar Hill.
Also, we shifted the road to the south in the upper curve in order to minimize
the grading impacts on neighbors to the north. And, lastly, we've committed
quite a bit of SID 5 funding (about $200,000 in fund balance and about$360,000
in financed work), and think it would be too much to bond further against the
district.
If you have any specific questions about the project, please let us know. You can
reach John directly at 274-6534 or You can reach Tim at
274-6535 or TLo�uecit ofithaca°or
13.2 Mayor Myrick - Community Conference Center Project - Commitment To
Pursue A City Of Ithaca Hotel Occupancy Tax And Commitment To Provide A
Shared Financial Guarantee With Tompkins County - Resolution
WHEREAS, a Conference Center Organizing Committee comprised of multiple
stakeholder groups including Tompkins County, the City of Ithaca, the Tompkins County
Chamber of Commerce, the Ithaca Tompkins County Convention and Visitors Bureau
(CVB), the Downtown Ithaca Alliance (DIA), the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA),
the Tompkins County Strategic Tourism Planning Board (STPB), Tompkins County Area
Development (TCAD), and the local hotel industry has been meeting regularly for over a
year to create a financially feasible and operationally sound strategy for developing and
funding a conference center project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca recognizes the importance of the tourism and hospitality
economy to Tompkins County as a major economic sector, which in 2018 generated
$227 million in economic activity, over $16.7 million in local taxes, supported $746 per
household in property tax savings, and supported over 2,600 in direct local jobs; and
WHEREAS, two market demand and feasibility study projects were performed in the
last year and funded through County Tourism Program funds, and both of these studies
demonstrated the market demand for a new conference center in Ithaca and projected
the appropriate size and capacity of the center; and
WHEREAS, Tompkins provided funds for a consulting engagement between the CVB
and Civitas to assist in the creation of a viable and reliable lodging industry stream of
income for a conference center project; and
WHEREAS, a successful Community Conference Center project will be an asset for the
City of Ithaca resulting in significant increased room tax and sales tax revenues, the
addition of new direct and indirect jobs; significant economic impact beyond center
operations through the purchase of supplies and services; an estimated 22,000 new
room nights as well as annual visitation of over 63,000 after center operations are
stabilized in year five; and
WHEREAS, recognizing the economic development value to the City, County and
Southern Tier Region, the State of New York has awarded the Tompkins County
Chamber of Commerce Foundation a $5.0 million grant through Southern Tier Regional
Economic Development Council to establish base equity in support of the Community
Conference Center project; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Downtown Ithaca Alliance (DIA) has voted to
support and endorse possible ownership of the project and, if required, will provide a
baseline guarantee of fiscal support up to $25,000 per year to ensure that lease
payment obligations are met; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that Vecino Group would own the Green Street Garage
property and enter into a 30-year lease with the DIA for the conference center portion of
the project and that the DIA would hire a professional operator to run the center; and
WHEREAS, a municipal financial guarantee has also been requested from the City of
Ithaca and Tompkins County for the approximate annual $1.5M lease payment for the
duration of the debt project financing period to secure project financing for the
Community Conference Center; and
WHEREAS, a City hotel room occupancy tax - which requires the adoption of a state
enabling law specific to the City of Ithaca as well as the adoption of a new local law - is
the preferred means of securing a new source of annual funding from the lodging
industry to support the financing, operations and reserves for the Center; and
WHEREAS, a City tourism improvement district (TID), has been identified as a
secondary option in lieu of hotel room occupancy tax for generating the required
revenues from the lodging industry for the conference center, which does not require
action by the State Legislature; and
WHEREAS, the project plan includes the development and long term management of
several reserve funds that would serve to protect all involved parties, including:
• Operating Reserve Fund - to provide assurance to operator during years when
the annual operating loss exceeds revenues for direct conference center
operations
• FF&E/Capital Replacement Fund - to ensure replacement, repair, and
replenishment as needed of all furnishing, fixtures, and equipment of the
conference center
• Rental Reserve Fund - to ensure additional protection for DIA to mitigate any
cash flow concerns and ensure two months of lease payments are available to
DIA at all times
• Developer Operating Reserve Fund - to be established and held by Vecino as
required by their lender, and maintained to equal two months' rent throughout
lease term; and
WHEREAS the Tompkins County Legislature has expressed its willingness to enter into
an agreement with the City of Ithaca to support the City's financial guarantee for the
annual project lease payments throughout the life of the lease; and
WHEREAS the Tompkins County Legislature has agreed that should the new City of
Ithaca hotel room occupancy tax or TID revenues not cover annual lease payments,
and all reserve funds are depleted, and the DIA financial support is exhausted, the
Tompkins County Legislature will commit revenues from County hotel room occupancy
tax for the purposes of generating additional funds to support a portion of the City
financial guarantee for annual lease payments; and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned reserve funds except for the Developer Operating
Reserve Fund will be managed by the Downtown Ithaca Alliance, or its subsidiary, as
project owner; and DIA or its subsidiary shall report the balances of each fund to the
City of Ithaca on at least a quarterly basis; and
WHEREAS, there is a deadline of February 6, 2020 for the IURA, in consultation with
Vecino Group, to decide whether the Community Conference Center project has a
financially feasible and implementable plan for moving forward as part of the overall
Green Street Garage project; now, therefore be it:
1. RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council supports the development
of the community conference center project; and, be it further
2. RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council does hereby express its
commitment to provide a financial guarantee for the project financing to be
shared with Tompkins County throughout the life of the lease, and behind a
limited financial guarantee of the Ithaca Downtown Alliance, subject to
establishment of a City hotel room occupancy tax or tourism improvement district
revenue source in an amount sufficient to pay rent and projected operating
deficits; and, be it further
3. RESOLVED That the City of Ithaca Common Council commits to pursuing New
York State authorization for the establishment of a new City hotel room
occupancy tax and subsequent adoption of a new local law to provide the
necessary revenues from the lodging industry to support the conference center
project; and, be it further
4. RESOLVED, That in the event that the New York State does not support the
establishment of a new City hotel room occupancy tax as anticipated, the City of
Ithaca Common Council expresses its interest and support for instead pursuing a
City tourism improvement district which can be established through local action;
and, be it further
5. RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca will explore additional methods for mitigating
risk to the City, including, but not limited to establishing a reserve fund at the City
to be capitalized with initial City hotel room occupancy tax funds to be used for
risk mitigation and future funds dedicated to the long term fiscal support of the
project; and, be it further
6. RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Commons Council authorizes the Mayor,
subject to review by the City Attorney, to execute a memorandum of agreement
with Tompkins County outlining roles and responsibilities on the shared financial
guarantee for the Conference Center lease; and, be it further
7. RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council authorizes the Mayor,
subject to review by the City Attorney and satisfaction with the terms of the City-
County MOU on the roles and responsibilities for the shared financial guarantee,
to execute a memorandum of agreement with Vecino Group to commit to enter
into a legally binding lease guarantee for the Conference Center, and further
requests staff to continue its work with the conference center organizing
committee to ensure the best possible project be planned, developed, and
operated on behalf of the residents of the City of Ithaca.
Back-Up Item 13.2
THE DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY CONFERENCE CENTER
A REPORT TO THE CITY OF ITHACA COMMON COUNCIL
January 31, 2O3O
This summary report is intended to accompany the formal presentation nfthc Community
Conference Center organizing Committee on the proposed Downtown Community Conference
Center project. The report is divided into six sections:
(}) Financial and community benefit nf the conference center
(2) Market feasibility and demand
(3) Project p6mmion\ description
(4) The deal structure and roles of each participant(Ci1v, County, l)l/\, hotels)
(5) How room tax/TID revenue sources work, and why guarantors can be comfortable that at
least $|.VM will be received annually
(8) Explanation ofthe guarantee, including the maximum financial liability, length o{the
guarantee and why it should not need 1obc called on.
This memorandum has been prepared by Gary Ferguson oo behalf of the Downtown Community
Conference Center Organizing Committee.
Other attachments: Conference Center summary handout, risk memo, Construction Sources and
uses m|ujcmeot, Draft Ten-year operating yro-fmrn/u, \7eoiunproject sketches
Part One
Financial and Community Benefit
Why is this project important to the community?
The conference center project delivers a number ofimportant benefits tn our community:
- |tisa long term community infrastructure asset.The Center will serve our community for
decades.This isan investment in the future of Ithaca and Tompkins County.
- |t creates an indoor large format public meeting&event space. VVedo not have such aspace
for community use in the region. Our citizens and our organizations need such a space.
- |tisa significant visitor traffic generator.A conference center represents the largest and most
significant project we can undertake to bolster our hospitality businesses at this time.
It provides room tax stabilization and growth.The tourism industry needs more demand to fill
the rooms we have and to maintain and grow the room tax that supports so many of our
community institutions throughout the City and County.
- It provides new sales tax growth. With new room tax comes additional new sales tax. Half
empty hotels represent lost tax revenue opportunity for the City and County.
It provides a major foot traffic boost to the downtown economy. Downtown |Lhaca's small
retail and restaurant businesses rely on visitor and tourism traffic for at least half of their annual
sales. Aoonference center will boost downtown foot traffic and materially help these
businesses.
Downtown Ithaca Community Conference Center Report, 1/3I/20 11 P a g e
It is a job creator.The center itself will result in up to 60 new jobs, many available to people
earning low- and moderate-incomes.
It preserves and retains hospitality sector jobs.The conference center will help to strengthen
the hospitality industry and its 2,600 countywide jobs. By filling in currently high vacancy dates,
the project will help preserve and grow job stability in the industry,
by is this project imp ortant,try the City of Ithaca?
The conference center project delivers real and tangible benefits that will directly benefit our City as
well as all County residents:
- It builds and strengthens our local hospitality and tourism industry.
- It retains and builds wealth here in Ithaca and Tompkins County.
- It grows the lodging tax that supports arts, culture, and nonprofit organizations in the City and
countywide.
- it helps create and sustain low/moderate income jobs in our hospitality sector, and offers more
full employment opportunities for those who are marginally or seasonally employed.
- It strengthens our local community businesses.
- It builds a lasting and enduring community asset at an optimal City location.
How will the conference center benefit City residents and businesses?
Located in the heart of Downtown Ithaca, this project will deliver important benefits to the city and its
residents and businesses:
- This project will generate considerable new foot traffic and overnight stays in the City. This foot
traffic, in turn, results in new spending at our retails shops, restaurants,entertainment venues,
and of course, hotels.
- Hotels and other lodging properties throughout the City will see increased occupancy and rates.
This increase will be immediately felt in the major downtown hotels.As these downtown hotels
fill, overflow is channeled citywide, A number of conference attendees will choose lower price
point hotels located outside of downtown in other parts of the city and beyond.
- Room tax revenues will increase—room tax investments benefit the City and the entire
community, including arts &culture, events&festivals, outdoor recreation,theatres, museums,
parks, and trails throughout the City and beyond.
- City sales tax revenues will increase.
Who wants this center?
This project represents the aspirations and interests of a broad cross section of people and groups:
- City and regional tourism/hospitality stakeholders
- The city and county lodging industry
- Hundreds of City lodging workers
- The business community/our small local businesses who depend on tourism for their survival.
- Nonprofit organizations and other recipients of lodging room tax.
- City and county groups and organizations who can and will use the new facility,
- City and county residents who are affiliated with organizations and associations.
Downtown Ithaca Community Conference Center Report, 1/31/20 2 e
Part Two
Market Feasibility and Demand
Will there be an aural demand to support this center?
Considerable research and study was commissioned to determine demand feasibility for this project.
w It is important to note that the demand for this project is the result of over a decade of growth
and development.A 2003 Pinnacle study suggested that Tompkins County was not yet ready at
that time for a conference center.
- 2016 and 2018/19 demand studies were performed by the national consulting firm Hunden
Strategic partners.
The demand is made possible by the clustering of 585 downtown hotel rooms..
- A dynamic downtown/Commons center and is attractive to conference-goers and meeting
planners who make decisions on booking business.
The 2018/19 Hunden study projected 180 events per year,
- The study projected nearly 63,000 attendees per year,
The study estimated 22,000 new room nights per year:
Demand will be driven by local higher education (Cornell and IC) and state associations,as well
as Kcal demand for large space
The project will substitute for the loss of The Space and the Women"s Community Building.
Why Downtown and why link it to the Vecino project?
The Hunden study was clear, The project needs to be located in downtown n Ithaca. Reasons include-
- The center needs to be adjacent to a major cluster of hotels.
The center needs to be in a walkable attraction and draw that will entice people to visit,
r The Vecino site is adjacent or near to 1,000 garage parking spaces.
- The Vecino site is located in the center of downtown, within steps of the Commons,
The Vecino site is equidistant from all major downtown hotels.
Piggybacking the Center with the Vecino project helps reduce casts.
The project will rise a City owned site provided at no cost.
The Economic Benefits
The Hunden study provided summary statistics on estimate 20-year economic impacts to the
community.These include:
Net'New Spending(in millions) Net New Wage Earnings (in millions)
Direct 16 - From Direct 58
Indirect' 3 - From Indirect 20
induced 3 - From Induced 22
Total 322' Total 11
Downtown Ithaca Community Conference Center Report, 1/31/20 3 1 Pr
Part Three
Project Physical Description
What is the conference center?
The center s
A 49,000 SF major indoor public meeting and event space
A$ 1 million two story facility with high ceilings for large rooms
Located on Green Street in the Veino Asteri project
Adjacent or near to over 1,000 garage parking spaces
It will be the largest conference facility in the Southern Tier region
It will feature a + - 12,000 SF ballroom
It will have 2®B breakout meeting rooms
It will have pre-function and exhibitor/booth space
It will contain kitchen and catering services
There will be seating.for+/- 900 and natal capacity+ -1,100
Who has been organizing this effort
A conference center organizing committee, initially created by the Tompkins County Strategic Tourism
Planning Board (STPB), has been working for several years on the development of this project.Key
members are.-
Peggy Coleman, Ithaca Tompkins County Convention and Visitors Bureau
Gary Ferguson, Downtown Ithaca Alliance
Nick Helmholdt,Tompkins County
- Torn Knipe, City of Ithaca
Nels Bohn, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
Jennifer Tavares,Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce
Also helped by Katie Bor elia,Jason Molino, Heather McDaniel, STPB, Hotel reps
Technical assistance and coordination with Vecino Group (developer), Hunden Associates
(feasibility study), Civitas (lodging revenues)
How much does this IProlect cosh What are the costs?
In simple terms,:.
- $ 1+/- Million total project oast
-> $26 M construction
- $5 M soft costs(financing costs, professional fees, reserves)
See attached sources and uses statement
Downtown Ithaca Community Conference center Report, l 1 1 ` g ,''
Part Four
The Deal Struc�ture and Role of Participants
mom= icipan�
How are conference centers typically funded around the country?
According to Hunden Strategic Partners and confirmed by our own research and investigation...
- Public conference center projects are typically funded through general obligation (GO) bond
financing from either a City or County,
- We determined this was not a route to pursue here.
What are the project capital so roes
Our sources and uses statement shows the following sources of capital funding:
- $24 M private financing
- $5:O M state grants
- $2;5 M accrued lodging industry revenues (City room tax)
$0.2 M—other
New York State (through Empire State Development) has granted our community$5.0 million in
two grants to incentivize this project.
These sources were selected because they are predictable and certain.They can be affirmed by the IURA
on February 6. There could be other possible,sources,given more time. One example may be funds from
a city or countywide Tourism Improvement District.
Does this project cash flow or breakeven?
The organizing committee has pledged that it would only submit a plan that would cash flow and break
even. See the attached summary and ten-year pro forma.The project does indeed break even, with
revenue coming from two primary sources— center operations and the City room tax/TID.
Who owns the center and why?
Ownership is driven by the financing and funding tools used for the project. Under the preferred private
financing path,Vecino,would build and own the property and then enter into a long term lease with the,
Downtown Ithaca Alliance (DIA),who would be tapped to own the facility lease.This arrangement keeps
the project from affecting either City or County debt caps, The ILIA is located downtown and is a 501(c)3
community organization that has the capacity and motivation to oversee this enterprise.The CIA
intends to create a new, special purpose nonprofit to oversee conference center operations in order to
protect and preserve existing DI A operations and resources.
Who is being asked to do what?
This project requires a number of entities to work together to undertake and provide specific elements
that all must be assembled to make this a success-.
- City—provision of land, PPP through IU RA(avoided land acquisition cost of$7.0 M)
- City—shared lease guarantee with County
City—authorize the creation of a citywide room tax or TID
County-funds for feasibility and market demand studies,and for TIts organization assistance
County—shared lease guarantee with City
DIA—lease ownership
DIA- 'first-in' limited annual financial guarantee of$25,000
Downtown Ithaca Community Conference Center Report, 1/31/20 5 1 P
CVB—support sales and marketing efforts of conference center; help identify qualified
operators, bring industry expertise and collaboration from statewide partners
City Hotels—collect and remit room tax/TID revenues
City Motel guests—pay additional assessment +/_( ,5%)to support conference center`)
New York State—Grants to subsidize and incentivize the project
New`fork:.State- Enabling legislation for City room tax
Vecino- secure financing, construct turnkey project, and lease to community(DI )
=Lodgingindustry
:Revenue and the Project
How will a lodging stream of revenue be created?
Working with the City Attorney and City staff and elected leadership, it was determined that there
should be a primary and secondary recommended process for securing the needed lodging stream of
revenue,
The primary and recommended route is for the City of Ithaca Common Council to authorize the creation
of a citywide room tax.This tax is commonly allowed under state law and will be applied to all lodging
properties within the City. The tax is paid by hotel patrons and then remitted to the City/County on a;
periodic basis.To raise the needed $1.9 million annual tax neededfor the project pro forma, a citywide
room occupancy tax of approximately . 5�'.�will be required.
It is important to note that the creation of a citywide room tax will require enabling legislation specific
to the City of Ithaca to be passed by the New York State Legislature, Given that the State has already
expressed strong support for the project through its award of a$5,0 million grant and,that the use of
these roots tax funds (for the construction and operation of a conference center)will be narrowly
defined in a way that supports the industry, this approval seems very likely;
Should the primary citywide room tax route not prove to be feasible, a secondary route that will be
pursued will the creation of a citywide Tourism Improvement District (TID), utilizing the City`s authority
under New York special benefit assessment district law.
City room tax/TID is being proposed to assist the project in two essential ways.,
It provides some up front capital to help write down the cost of the project.We are estimating
$ .5 million, the equivalent of 1.3 years of TID revenues collected prior to project completion„
The room tax also provides an earmarked lodging stream of income necessary to help cash flow
the project.The annual room tax stream of income provides the primary source of revenues to
pay conference center rent, which Vecino relies on to repay debt to construct the conference
center:
The City Common Council will be asked to create this tool and the organizing hotels are cognizant of
how it would be used to support the conference center project.One point to note: history shows that
room tax revenue will grow over time,as evidenced by the County"s 0+-year history of room tax
collection, including during two major recessions.We have conservatively not considered any of this
growth in our projections.
Downtown Downtown Ithaca Community Conference Center Report,t/ 1/ IP 6 1 P ; :;
E
Six
ncing 8t Financial Guarantees
Why private financing?
Two primary funding options were explored: private financing and revenue bond funding. While both
options can work,the private financing route was selected as the preferred option for several reasons:;
- While it had higher interest rates, it involved fewer"issuance and financing fees.
- The private financing model had overall lower costs and was a.simpler project structure,
Bond financing by the CIA may impact the City's debt capacity/borrowing limits;
In the private financing model,Ve ino retains ownership of the reel estate and enters into a long term;
lease with the DIA.This model protects both City and County debt caps. But, every though the project
cash flows and has established reserves, the leader will still require public guarantees.
Why is a lease guarantee required? o will It work?
Both the private financing and revenue bond funding options required revenue guarantees. Lenders are
inherently risk averse and always seek multiple layers of protection;
We have proposed'and the bank will accept a municipal guarantee package that would involve the City
and County, plus the DIA;While one entity(the City) would sign the lease document, there would be a
formal guarantee participation plan put into place between the City and the County and DIA to split the
risk of the guarantee for the duration of the lease.,
it is possible that guarantee exposure can decrease over time.
It is recommended`that the City use a portion of the citywide room tax collected pricer to the opening of
the conference cuter to create its own reserve/contingency fund that could be called upon in the event
of any call for guarantee support. It is anticipated that this citywide room tax or TID would be created
and approved by December 2020, and would have nearly 2.5 years of collection opportunity prior to the
opening of the center.As previously mentioned, 13 years of this pre-opening collection will be
earmarked for construction capital. A portion of the balance can also be earmarked toward a city
reserve/contingency fund for guarantee mitigation:
What protections are put into place to assure that the project can cover costs without turning to the
County and City for activating the guarantee?
Please refer to the attached risk analysis plan that details the specific risks and the protections put into
place to mitigate these risks. Among those mitigations described in this plan are:=
The operating,pro forma calls for cash flow/ break even.This project has been designed to work
without subsidy over and above the operations revenues and room tax/TID collections,.
- The early ramp up years will have designated extra dollars to cover costs.
Project reserve funds totaling over$1.5 million will be put into place.
The City can also create an additional dedicated reserve fund from early room tax collections-
and any roam tax growth above projected values:
Included is a Ff /capital replacement reserve fund is also in place to assist with capital updating
and repair costs.
Downtown ithaca Community Conference Center Deport, 1/ 1/ tl 7 1 P ,a 1�, e
The DIA Board has pledged a willingness to extend $ 5, 00 toward a guarantee.This can be
first-in money.
It is also important t to note that room tax or TID revenues will grow while lease payment will remain flat.
Our annual pro forma projections do not account for this additional revenue, But, we can count on room
tax revenues to improve dramatically over time, providing an additional layer of protection,
Summary: Role of the City of Ithaca
To summarize,the City of Ithaca has been previously asked to assist in the development of the project
through including the conference center in the IURAb preferred redevelopment plan.This is a significant
decision—it allows the project to be built on a site that does not have any acquisition costs.
Now, the City is being asked to participate in the project with Tompkins County,the DI ,the State o
New York, and area hotels.The specific asks are:
(1) To agree to create a citywide room tax or TII (if necessary)for the express purpose of
supporting a conference center project;and
) To participate with the County and CIA in a revenue guarantee plan for the project financing.
[Su�mma hI'�p f'�t)f+AI'�'
Why not wait until another time?The Conference Center organizing committee believes this is the best
time to move forward with this project:'
The Vecino site is available now, and the deadline to decide the fate for this project at this site is
February1r
We now have the requisite hotel rooms needed to support this project.
e have documented the demand and the need:
We have access to no-cost land.
We, have an ideal site location within a block of 58 hotel rooms,
Wehave$5.0 million in state grants awarded to the community for this project_
e have years of preparation and feasibility work,,
/e have the backing and support of the STPB and local, regional and state economic
development partners.
We have a developer willing to build it
e have a lender willing to loan funds for it
We will protect and grow jobs for hundreds of people in the lodging industry.
e have a workable model that maximizes benefit and minimizes risk to City and County
taxpayers.
Downtown Ithaca Community Conference Center Report,1/31/20 8 1 ° "i ,-
Downtown Ithaca Conference Center vecilax
113012020 medo red profo redo 50%delayed
grant disburs, AiLriLral Debt Se ridge
instruction KWMNM-�M
Revised Draft Sources&Uses/Pro Forma PRIVATE Corot CostlSond offering, $2?,4J4,9#V
FINANCE years; 2
Sources of Funds 30-YR LEASE i'rote: AUX
Private Loan to Developer or Di A Bond 2 ,-8-14-'970 2,year accurn.Ofterest: $2r401,551
Empire State Development e$4 90,150,$c00KMarketNY3 $ S'OR0,000 kvt?raqe Amt.Draverdown, WX
TIC/lodging source Accrual $ 2,500,000 1 1/3 years Aware Sonk fraerest Learned-cosh;
TCTP Capital Grant rrequest sprung,1020 pa,d aver two veatO S 150,000 Constr,Loan Interest Expensee t,440,9(V
Sponsors h ip/underwrit ing From rates $ 50,000
Total Sources for Construction. 31,514,970 8Enrnqmqt-EhW
Project cost 11,514,970
Total ESD grantelTID of"Clual,etc
Development Perrearlern-Loare
Uses of Funds Budget Outstanding Bond Amt,
Dernoliton 300,655— Yeam
Site Improvement $ 200,000 rate(fixedl:
Construction,Bond,Insurance,Const Mgmt 20,475,496 �-nnual Debt service; $1,427,6"
Furnishings,Fixtures&EqnIpment(FFE) 1,600,000 for non fixed furn shingy m LeChose scenow
lsrofessaonol Fees 1,774,375
Envirenr"rital S 140,000
Soft Costs 526,300
Contingency (8%, of shell comtruLtion&rotr rosrsi 1,025,000
Construction Loan Fee $ 274,150 1%offoort
Construction Loan Interest $ 1,440,900 see cokkdouon tit Annuol Debt Series,e reirt box
Permanent Loan Origination Fee $ 238,150 1%, of loon
Vecino Operating Reserve(lender reqWred) $ 300,000 50,%of annual raebt service
FFE/Capital Repiacentent Reserve-initial corritolizatron $ 500,000 $10/51
Operating Reserve Fund-Corif Ctr Operations S 500,D00 erolecred total operotmil deficits over,5250K(Hunden)
Rental Reserve Fund-For Iessee(2 months reno S 300,000 2 month-5 reel
Subnotal Construction,Reserves&Cinoncing 29,594,370
DevOoper lee 1,920,600 mamiatned at i,41K,of totAf co t5 cimy(not reservesP
Total Project Costs 9 31,514,970 -=First uses of Tm(reserves�Iccovnts)
Private,30 years,revised Vecine#'s Proforma Operating Statement of Revenue&Expenses($000's,inflaited)
112212020 updated profornho
Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year I Year 8 Year9 Year 10
Revenue
Event Revenue
Space Rental $104 $142 $175 $200 $212 $217 $222 $228 $234 $239
Equipment Rental 16 21 26 30 82 33 3 34 35 36
Net Food&Beverage 403 488 596 708 755 773 793 913 $33 854
Event Services Income 29 38 47 54 57 59 60 62 63 65
Subtotal 551 689 844 992 1056 1082 1108 1137 1165 1194
Other Revenue
Advertising/Sponsorships 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12
Other Revenue 17 21 25 30 32 32 33 34 35 36
Total Operating Revenue 578 720 Uo 1033 1099 1125 1153 1183 1212 1241
Expenses
Wades&Wages 490 502 515 528 541 554 568 582 597 612
Employee Benefits 123 126 129 132 135 139 142 146 150 153
Passthrough Labor 26 34 41 47 49 50 51 53 54 55
Maintenance&Repairs 39 52 65 77 89 91 94 96 98 101
Cleaning 32 35 38 40 43 45 48 51 54 57
Utilities 71 76 81 85 88 90 92 94 96 98
Marketing&Advertning/Trade shows 60 55 50 50 50 53 55 57 60 60 *ftpush needed mfiru,few yeans
General&Administrative 47 49 49 51 52 53 55 56 57 59
Insurance 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 34 34 35
Other Operating Expenses 38 40 42 44 45 47 48 49 50 51
Management Fee-Operator 58 72 88 103 110 112 115 118 121 '124
Misc other expenses 10 12 14 16 18 20 20 20 20 20
Total Expenses 1022 1081 1142 1203 1251 1286 1321 1356 1391 1425
cumaratrVe average
Net Operating Income -444 -361 -262 -170 -152 -161 -168 -173 -179 -183 -2253 -225,3
Annual Cash Flow Projection-,DI A Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Revenue
Net Operating(from above) -444 -361 -262 -170 -152 -161 .168 -173 -179 -183
Lodging Revenue/roorn tax support 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Vedno Rent Abatement 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229 229
Ratan Rentals list floor) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
DPW Rent 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
Sponsorships/Hotel support so 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68
Total Revenue 1778 1863 1964 2058 2078 2071 2066 2063 2059 2057
Expenses
Annual Roit to Vecino(DIA) 1,714, 1,714 1,714 1,714 1,714 1,714 1,714 1,714 1,714 1.114 V Venna a-51f.c-mmeost rernvw.poo Ix,,DCR
Accounting/Audit 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 'Added ecadarrr
Sales/lvlark6ng 100 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 *Annool lnerme�toaccoinphsh ioki goahar revenue projecrion
Reserve for FME/Upgrades/Replacernent 25 3Q 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 are reoun,4r ptuferSIOOK
Fee to DIA/owner organization so 55 60 70 75 so 80 85 90 95
Total Expenses 1,909 1,941 1,978 21000 2,017 2,034 2,046 2,063 2,080 2,097
Net cash flow from operations -131 -78 -14 58 61 37 20 0 -21 -40
Bepnning operating reserve Soo 369 291 277 335 396 433 453 453 432
Net operating reserves+or 369 291 277 M 396 433 453 453 432 392
Asterml Ithaca
Sketch Plan Presentation
.2 .2
z
tj.
�y
l s
` 4
l
' Iff �� , T. G . MILLER, P. C .
Ots4GN NIA 1 -1 111 -11
EW, GM,ENGNEE
PRO jECT r tH:TE`
Aster'l' Ithaca
• Mixed-use affordable housing buildingin current location of West garage
• Expansion of public parking in existing Center garage
"Housing for the greaterGood"
vita
Process . R P
• Affordable Housing
218 Affordable housing units with conference center, or
273 Affordable housing units with ground fluor retail
• Ground floor use TBD
Conference canter on levels 1 and 2, fir,
Ground floor retail
• 3 Parking spaces in Center garage.
Existing; 24 spacers
Addition of 4 levels of parking on Center garage
• High-quality, li ly accessible open space
• February 2020 - submit Site Plan Review Application
ZLIJ
.
CD
0
a,
< < <
CC
LIJ
Lu
eo
m
i
y
I 1 I n
:E kd J a*,vlawa.
!p
\ k
mrt
u
ICY
Uruj
2+ }
ui
z All
i
3
Q
V C TYHALL
td
l z v
(D a CL
Mr rrt
i St
iwfz 1 C3'
0 k _
r, mt
10
CL
., ..
r
X IY u
� '—, s rt-
p
0
^s �
4
8
SETBkCK FROM
SETBACK FROM � �� °�.r P••ROPERTY ILNE
PROPERTY ONE � # Y T
E
rr n.
w
p t a
:m
Gt �+
r
kA
fi+ �
:
{1 �
a x�w
;
Cam;
r a
�ig a
� p
120 EAST GREEN STREET
V
0
0
m
... r,
vw.
{
M
0 Y
tm
C) 120 EAST GREEN STREET
mm
�yy v
3
n
i
� e
;,,
10 I
0
0
0
0
'o 3
>
z
m
<
m
41
F—I
-0
11 M
0
0
Z yar
rm
o i i
41 ITHACA
ma
nASTER
120 EAST GREEN STREET
z
ITHACA,NEW YORK 14850
: ,r
V —
,P
-4 w -- _
(A P
k
fl. m x
i
t 1,,..
213
-,
0
to
s �
,.
'=q
�. m
z
e
TE
(±
CY
SD
u5
C4`
C_?
N
woe s+m:
i
t
"..
wnI L I ro atx
i#
I
litala" ,a M Go r.m
rl
ASTERI IT' 'AC.
l
120 EAST GREEN STREET
k ITHACA,NE 'YORK 14850
1±k
r
ll
HAROLD'S SQUARE
�.
SIES
JE .
Proposed - sin iew - rba nt , �. �3 �.��t< �".� ,
k�arar��^&aura F do^:,;.r7a�ah�an�ka+��r��Y�E� 1(d217 .��o-.,f. t ,. a
a+
uv,
Z� x
v r
i
.s
r�.
2
a
Y
�t t �
t
ti rd6R4
L i
yw
t
1 ry
�n� ro.a�w mi o
zis.i�"m. wm Mwwwe*�e A...0 w..o»w.
13.3 Resolution to Approve Artwork for the Tompkins Giant No. 1 proposal in
Cass Park
WHEREAS, Plan Ithaca, the City's comprehensive plan, identifies public art as an
important cultural resource that contributes to quality of life and economic vitality and
calls for the City's continued support of public art (see Cultural Resources); and
WHEREAS, Community Arts Partnership has submitted a proposal to install a
freestanding sculpture in Cass Park; and
WHEREAS, the creation of the sculpture has been privately funded by the project
organizer; and
WHEREAS, City staff including City Forester, Jeanne Grace, Recreation Supervisor,
Jim Dalterio, and Planner, Alex Phillips, visited Cass Park on September 06, 2019 and
identified a specific site in the park that would not impact any surrounding natural or
recreational features; and
WHEREAS, the City Code §8-13 Duties, tasks the Community Life Commission, to
advise on issues related to art and public art in Ithaca, including public art displays,
programs, and exhibitions, the Community Life Commission accepted staff's request to
circulate the Tompkins Giant No. 1 proposal at its meeting on September 16, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works heard the public art proposal at its meeting on
September 17, 2019 and approved Cass Park as a potential site for sculpture at its
meeting on October 15, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Community Life Commission extended the public comment period for
the sculpture proposal at its meeting October 21, 2019 to consider the Parks,
Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission input given the proposal's placement in
a city park; and
WHEREAS, the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, considered the
proposals and raised concerns to the Community Life Commission regarding safety
(climbing), appropriateness of site, and maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the Community Life Commission and staff addressed the concerns
identified by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission along with the
mixed responses from public comment at its meeting on November 18, 2019. The
Community Life Commission determined the proposal worthy of consideration for the
Planning and Economic Development Committee; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council addressed the concerns identified by
the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council accept the proposal by
Community Arts Partnership to create a sculpture for the city in Cass Park; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the selected artist may proceed with the installation of the sculpture
upon the execution of an agreement with the City as reviewed by the City Attorney.
O a CITY OF ITHACA
ry
108 E. Green St.—Third Floor Ithaca NY 14850-5690
tt JoAnn Cornish,Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING,ZONING, &ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
� RAI Division of Planning& Economic Development
Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
To: Planning &Economic Development Committee
From: Alexander Phillips,Planner
Date: December 04, 2019
Re: Approval for Public Art Sculpture Proposals
The purpose of this memo is to provide information on two public art proposals sited in two of the city's
parks.Enclosed are detailed project proposals including renders of the proposed sculptures and representation
of the sculpture's location for your consideration as well as public comment and a memo from Parks,
Recreation, and Natural Resources.
The proposals were independently submitted to city staff and privately funded by the respective project
organizers; Community Arts Partnership for the Tompkins Giant No.l proposal, and Monica Franciscus and
Tom Hirschl for the Anthropocene proposal.
The Anthropocene proposal requested Baker Park as a prospective location. City staff, Jeanne Grace and
Alex Phillips visited the site on September 17, 2019 and identified the proposed location as a site that would
not impact any existing natural or recreational features of the park.
The Tompkins Giant No.1 proposal requested Cass Park as a prospective location. City Staff, Jeanne Grace,
Jim Dalterio,and Alex Phillips discussed multiple locations in Cass Park and identified the proposed location
as a site that would not impact any existing natural or recreational features in the park.
The Board of Public Works heard the public art proposals at its meeting on September 17,2019 and approved
Baker Park and Cass Park as potential sites for sculpture at its meeting on October 15, 2019.
Community Life Commission sought public comment on the proposal through city-wide notification and
City staff. Community Life Commission extended the public comment period to consider additional input
from residents and the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, given the proposals location
in city parks. The public comment period was held through the November 18th CLC meeting to gather input
on the proposed design and location, and the comments received were mixed for both projects.
The Community Life Commission and staff addressed the concerns identified by Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Resources Commission along with the mixed responses from public comment. The Community Life
Commission determined the proposals worthy of consideration for the Planning and Economic Development
Committee and City of Ithaca Common Council.
The Planning and Economic Development of the Common Council will consider this proposal at their
regularly scheduled meeting on December 11, 2019. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at
274-6556.
Public Art Pro ' ect 2019
Tompkins Giant No.i
Oil
U
a +
U
¢a
U;
P
iY 4 r cggy f i x t�s<st , i
t
is
I
t+
[j
U
I.=
This project started in 2017 when Tom Knipe,
then working as staff for the Tompkins County
Tourism program and the Strategic Tourism Planning MEN
Board met with John Spence from the Community Arts
Partnership, Jennifer Tavares from the Chamber of
Commerce and others to talk about putting 2ol8
public art funding toward the purchase and installation
of a piece of sculpture. Previous funding had gone to
supporting the creation of murals. The work of
Thomas Dambo, pictured above and to the right, was
very much the inspiration for the initial conversations.
Page 1
a
THE TAUGHANNOCK GIAN
1 r
t aU began on July 2,IBM
v
It%vas a hot day,and thew ork.-uen,.whio ive. vviden" g the carriage
drive to the upper glen at Taughannnck Falls,a fesv rr;l es scuthaast of
Trurnansburg,were wishing forcool.erweather.Despite this,however,the
-6vark of excav adnA the road hF d progressed,as far as the land of One John
Thompsnn,who owned a summer hotel nearby-
Sudd r ,r,tine-of the mrkers felt his pkk stnUe SOMRtbJT)8 hard in lbe din-
ftflhnrynq he had'oraxne aGross a large,TwIK,he began to loOSaL1 rloe d rr
The group initially thought that a tie to the legend of the Taughannock Giant made sense from a
local history and tourism point of view. We were unaware that the Tompkins County History
Center was working on a presentation about the Taughannock Giant that included the production
of a full scale model of the original "giant".
Very quicldy there was confusion wedding the two distinct projects in people's minds. We also
learned that there were people for whom the Taughannock Giant represented a hoax and a scam
and did not appreciate what might seem like a celebration of this dark piece of Tompkins County's
past.
For those reasons the group started to refer to our project simply as the Tompkins Giant No. 1
There is the thought that perhaps several giants, each by a different artist,placed throughout the
County would create an entertaining tour for residents and visitors alike.
Page 2
The request for proposals went out to artists nation wide and, of course
local artists were encouraged to submit there designs.
Artists were told that we were not necessarily looking for literal giants.
The final piece need only suggest the concept of a giant. A large hat, a
giant footprint in the ground, fingers reaching up from the ground would
all meet our criteria.
Specifically the artists were told, "The artwork sought should be the
vision of the artist, using the term "giant" as a starting point to create a
piece of public art that elicits joy and wonder and illustrates a phrase
often used to describe Ithaca, New York as being"ten square miles
surrounded by reality."
IMENEWAFAMEM
t
a v '
�w
s
a
1 x v
t
W t ,
4
s
Page 3
s s
Tompkins Giant
Celebrating the imagination in fs land
where all things are possible!
Thanks to the Tompkins CountyTourism Program, the City of
Ithaca, and a gift from an anonymous foundation
The committee feels that almost any piece of sculpture will benefit from a plaque placed
in close proximity that puts the piece into context for the viewer. The wording on the
artwork above is only a suggestion and may be improved upon .
U w
i
Q
i
i
t
l t Ge
for (bi ty pr t%A, i 0 ttm
Page 4
Public Art Project Committee
• Nick Helmholdt - T.0 Planning Department
• John Spence - Community Arts Partnership
• Jennifer Tavares - TC Chamber &Visitors Center
• Peggy Coleman - Vice President of Tourism and Community Relations
• Susan Holland - Executive Direct Historic Ithaca
• Kelsey Gardner - Community member
• Linda Jaffe - Community member
Funding provided by the Tompkins County Tourism Program (2018 & 20ig) and
by a private foundation.
Questions can be directed to:
John Spence
Community Arts Partnership
director@artspartner.org
607-276-5072 Ext 19
xl}�
0r
4,
Y;l
Nick Helmholdt
Tompkins County Planning Department
NHelmholdt@tompkins-co.org
607-274-5575 ''
t
1111
Page 5
Tompkins Giant Project
a{
t t
t s r} t
e
Y 5
m
w� {
z �
Tompkins Giant Project
w,
p�VVj 4
n Y
I'
S.k
w y
I y�
t �e
Y
. „ u
k
SS
w
a.
4
e
"
"
y i
1 U �" � n a
v
n �t
S
r
3)
v
13.4 Common Council Resolution Opposing Relocation of Downtown Post
Office
WHEREAS the Downtown Ithaca Post Office represents a key civic institution that is of
vital importance to City of Ithaca residents and employees; and
WHEREAS the Downtown Ithaca Post Office is an extremely busy destination that
serves businesses and residents in the City of Ithaca, including residents of limited
means who would find a bus or car trip to a more remote post office to be burdensome
and costly; and
WHEREAS, over the past 15 years Downtown Ithaca has been one of the region's and
upstate New York's fastest growing districts, with over 1,000 new residents and over a
half billion dollars in new downtown investment; and
WHEREAS, this growth is expected to continue in the foreseeable future with the
pending redevelopment of the Green Garage superblock, which will add at least another
400 units of housing; and
WHEREAS, Downtown Ithaca has emerged as a center of technology and commerce,
supporting some 100 retail businesses, 65 food and beverage businesses, and over
400 professional and office businesses employing approximately 3,500 people, many of
whom rely on quick, walkable access to the post office and who utilize Post Office
services for their on-line packaging fulfillment needs; and
WHEREAS, within walking distance of Downtown Ithaca reside over 10,000 people,
representing some six different neighborhoods who utilize the different services of the
Post Office, including post office boxes, money orders, and mailing/packaging services;
and
WHEREAS, Downtown Ithaca serves as a transit hub connecting over 21,000 Cornell
students, 6,700 Ithaca College students, and thousands of other City of Ithaca residents
who do not have cars; and
WHEREAS, this area is known for its walkability, for both residents and employees; and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Common Council is concerned that the relocation or moving of
the Post Office out of Downtown Ithaca would materially affect the operations of
businesses and the lives of the many residents, including many international students
living in and around the downtown core, who currently depend on this Post Office to be
centrally located and within walking distance and adjacent to our community's transit
hub; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has reported that the Post Office has re-signed a lease
for only a two-year period and may want to seek alternative locations outside of
Downtown; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council does hereby express its concern
about any possible plans to relocate the U.S. Post Office out of Downtown Ithaca; and,
be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council respectfully requests the U.S.
Postal Service to retain a downtown location in the years to come in recognition of
Downtown's status as the commercial and social center of the Ithaca community; and,
be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca will work with local stakeholders and local and
federal officials to ensure that the Ithaca Post Office remains in Downtown Ithaca.
14. MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS:
14.1 Appointments to Public Safety and Information Commission — Resolution
RESOLVED, That Peter Thorman be appointed to the Public Safety and Information
Commission to replace Mark Spadolini with a term to expire December 31, 2021; and,
be it further
RESOLVED, That Mike Brindisi be appointed to the Public Safety and Information
Commission to replace Kenneth McLaurin with a term to expire December 31, 2020.