Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1987-09-28 TOWN OF ITHACA SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING September 28, 1987 At a Special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, held at the Town Offices at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 12:15 P.M. , on the 28th day of September, 1987, there were: PRESENT: Noel Desch, Supervisor Henry McPeak, Councilman Shirley Raffensperger, Councilwoman Marc Cramer, Councilman Gloria Howell, Councilwoman Patricia Leary, Councilwoman ABSENT: Robert Bartholf, Councilman ALSO PRESENT: John Barney, Town Attorney Susan Beeners, Town Planner Edward King, 308 N. Tioga Street PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. YOUTH SERVICES - CONTRACT WITH THE CITY Supervisor Desch presented to the Town Board, the following memorandum dated September 28, 1987 on the Youth Services - Contract with the City: "We had our first meeting on Tuesday, September 22 on this matter with City officials. In attendance were Messrs. Cafferillo, Cutia, Gutenberger, Ms. Peterson and Beeners along with myself. The City distributed information pertaining to Town youth participation in the various programs (see attached) . The City hinted that they expected the Town to do two things (1) meet the City halfway on their request, i.e., double our current payment the first year from $80,000 to 160,000, and (2) go with them to the County to have the County pick up the missing 30% of the pie. I indicated that our 1988 budget planning included a 10a increase in the Town's share from $80,000 to $88,000/per year and that we would evaluate all of the options between now and the third quarter of 1988. They were not very happy and the meeting ended shortly thereafter. On Friday, September 25th the Mayor called to offer a •possible • compromise; they would accept 10% for next year if the Town would accept Town youth paying double the rate of the City youth for programs. We currently pay the same rate. They did not say what this would add in revenue but based on last years participation it would add about $20,000 to the $8,000 increase. If we decline the offer they may tell us costs will be 3-4 times the City rate. However, they realize (I think) that politically this will have a very adverse fall out from Town parents Town Board 2 September 28, 1987 complaining to Youth Bureau staff and a significant decline in participation will result. I'm inclined to believe we should say go ahead and double the rate but not increase the amount of Town contribution (i.e. , we would fix the amount at $80,000) . The problem is we have a gun to our head again and we need to make a decision before Thursday when the Council B&A Committee meets." Supervisor Desch went on to say that on the chart, that the Board members have, the soccer fee would be changed, Town kids are now paying $12.50 and the City wants it doubled to $25.00, Small Fry Football would go from $10.00 to $20.00, and so on down the chart. Councilman Cramer stated that he felt he would have to object because those are the programs in which the Town kids are predominately involved, they are the least expensive programs that the City Youth Bureau runs and it seemed to him that the real cost to the Youth Bureau are the costs of the Mechanical All-Stars and the One to One programs. He stated that he did not mind a fee for those types of programs but he did object to doubling of the fee where you have large usage. Supervisor Desch remarked, on the other hand, even at the double figures the price is pretty low and does not include their total costs. What they are looking for in the long term is to cover their overhead cost which is a very high cost as far as Youth Bureau is concerned. What they are going to have to do, he thought, is to look at the whole fee structure or think about cutting back on overhead. We are talking about long term arrangements because these figures do not represent the cost of running those programs. Councilman Cramer asked where were the cost figures for running the Program? Supervisor Desch replied, that is what we do not have. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, so there are eleven Town of Ithaca kids in this particular program, but what does that program cost per participant? Supervisor Desch replied, what we asked them for, when they wrote in July, was for the gross cost of the programs and the net cost of the programs because some programs have income coming in because they are eligible for State Aid, others do not have any income caning in. They have not put this information together at all, and this does not help us. Councilman McPeak remarked that some of the participation is very low. Councilman Cramer replied, that is because they are School District functions. He want on to say that what really bothered him was the analysis sheet, you have the number of participants and the percent of the total, if you total up the participants outside the City and • the Town you would find out that you have 32.30 of the total participants outside who are not paying a dime. He went on to say that it seemed to him that before the City came to the Town they should go to these people. Supervisor Desch responded that they do now pay double fees where the Municipalities are not participating. What the City would like to do is to launch an effort with the County, but the County is not going to do anything in the next few weeks about a contribution it going to take at least a year. So the options are do we say okay, Town Board 3 September 28, 1987 we will go with a loo increase on the same basis that we are paying now, or should we drop out or should we willing to accept the fact that the Town should pay double recognizing the fact that the actual costs of the programs are greater, or what. Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that there was only one thing she did not understand about paying double, and that is that a child from Dryden pays double but the Town of Dryden puts in no percentage. So not only are we going to put in a large chunk but our children are going to pay double. Supervisor Desch added and the Town of Dryden person probably will be paying three or four times more under the City's new approach. • Councilman Cramer remarked that he kind of resented the cost of ice skating lessons being doubled, he also resents the Hockey Program being double or tripled, it doesn't say so on the sheet but there is a fee that the Hockey Association pays to the Youth Bureau for the use of the rink. You start multiplying this out, and you take a kid who is in three or four activities, and you starting doubling those fees per kid it is then prohibitive for that family to be involved in those programs and I take an exception to that. Councilman McPeak added, especially if they have three or four kids. Councilwoman Raffensperger added, and the kids who most need the Youth Bureau programs are not going to be able to afford them. CouncilwOman Howell noted that before, any municipality who Participated in the Youth Bureau programs, as we have, they used to charge our children the same as the City and now they want to change. Supervisor Desch replied, when we met the other day their counter offer was that the Town's share should go up from $80,000 to $160,000. You are talking about, at that level, another $.50 a thousand on the tax rolls, so you are talking about $25.00 to $30.00 a year additional taxes on the average house, just for that. He stated that he would hate to try to defend and respond to this addition without having the proper information to substantiate this. Supervisor Desch asked if he should go back to them saying that the circumstances of the timing of year, we would be willing to continue the current program with our 10% increase on the same basis as the previous years? Councilman Cramer replied that until they provide us with real hard numbers, which we are entitled to, he was unwilling to see us contribute at the rate they are asking. Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that the Town must be realistic and find out what they will accept so that they will not be cutting of the services fram the kids. • Councilman Cramer remarked that they need our participants more than they need our money because it's the participants that generate the federal money. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked, what if we pay the additional 10% and then said we need this additional information in order evaluate the remainder of your request, but we will for a period of three months or six months, pay the difference that the doubling of the fees would mean. This will give us a chance to get the information we need. Town Board 4 September 28, 1987 Councilman Cramer replied that at the same time he would like a study done, inhouse, to determine what the real cost to offer the programs to Town residents would be, seperate from the City Youth Bureau Program. He stated that he would not like to be locked in, at the end of the evaluation period, into continuing the program. Supervisor Desch summarized the discussion by saying that since we need that information suppose we would accept their doubling of the fees as of September lst, 1988 and making no commitment as to 1989 and then that would allow most of the programs to have participation at the straight level. They won't be particularly happy with that but on the other hand that is a reasonable response because neither they nor we are going to have the time, nor the information to justify the doubling, as early as January 1988. As far as the cost to our Town parents, most of it will be the same. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if there was any middle ground in this, noting someone had heard the Supervisor on the radio talking about this, and they said they felt the fees were a little on the low side. And that individual parents should pay some more. She felt, however, that even this person would be stunned, having three children and having the fees doubled. Councilman Cramer replied that he still felt that the Town still needed some kind of an impact from the Youth Bureau Advisory Board to tell you what the most costly programs are and to be able to evaluate that. He went on to say that perhaps we don't want to Participate in some of those programs. Councilman McPeak agreed with Councilman Cramer. COVENANTS AND BY-LAWS FOR BLACK OAK PROTECT Supervisor Desch asked the Town Attorney where he was in his discussion with Mr. King? Town Attorney John Barney replied that he had been through them and Ed King and I talked briefly this morning about them. He stated that he would walk through what he had. The Town Attorney suggested that the Board start with the Covenants first. The Town Attorney noted that on the first page, Article I, he noted that no one had Exhibits B and C. Mr. King replied that they were not finished at that time, however, they are now. Town Attorney Barney went on to note that on the second page, he had sane discussion with Mr. King, he stated as he understood these Covenants they are to apply to two pieces of property, one about a half acre with a building on it at present and the remaining area, and that's going to count as one unit towards the twenty units total being developed up there, but that's already occupied or will be occupied or is under construction but it's going to have people in it and when you go to file with the Attorney General for • Homeowners Association is you have rental property where it is already rented you have some additional requirements that have to comply whereas if it is brand new construction for owner occupancy then you go a different route. Ed King as indicated a desire to exclude from the Covenants and therefore, from his Offering Plan with the Attorney General that one unit, at least initially. That is why there is a 6.55 acres parcel referred to in the first line of the second paragraph of Section 4 rather than 7.05. He went on to say that as he reads these Covenants and Mr. King can confirm my reading, the Declaration does apply to that entire 6.55 acre parcel Town Board 5 September 28, 1987 although it is the plan of the Developer to phase in various stages the actual conveyances of land to the Homeowners Association which would then be subject to the Covenants. So that initially you will start out with just Phase I then pick up the next phases, depending on how the phases are done. The Town Attorney went on to say that there was a little confusion when he read through that so Mr. King is going to look at it to see if it can be clarified to make it clear that the Declaration is across the Board and that nothing else can happen to this land except this development but he did not want his client to be committed to having to construct all 19 units at once. This is very similar to what we did with Eastwood Commons. • Supervisor Desch remarked, then Phase I is four units. Mr. King stated that there was no question but what the entire parcel should be subject to the Covenants and he wished to make it clear that it was stated saneplace. He went on to say that he agreed with Mr. Barney that the entire 6.5 acres must be subject to the Covenants and it will be cleared up. The Town Attorney went on to say that on page 3, it says that the commonland is subject to the use by the declarant. He stated that he was a little troubled by that kind of a broad statement. Once it is conveyed to the Homeowners Association, other use, unless made specific for construction on adjacent land should probably cease. Mr. King stated that the purpose was to make sure that the developer is able to extend rights-of-way across that to the South to continue the project. He also will likely have a show unit up there, in Phase I, and an Office even, that is why I had to make sure that they understood that the developer still has some rights in the Phase I area to be able to bring his trucks in and cross it and everything else. That's all its meant to be. May be that language needs some clarification. Town Attorney Barney stated that the term used is carte blanche and he thought it should be limited. Mr. King stated that he felt this was covered in another section. Town Attorney Barney went on to note that on page 4 the definition of lots, Class I lot, Class II lot and Class III lot, he stated that he had a little difficulty in going from a Class II lot to a Class III lot because Class II talks about a lot where there is substantial completion and doesn't have a certificate of occupancy and Class III lot is where no residence has been begun or substantially completed. There is kind of a loop hole there between what exactly is a unit that has been begun but has not substantially complete, is this a Class III or a Class II. He stated that he would suggest that Class III definition should be changed to say no residence upon which there has not been substantial completion of a unit, or change Class II to say its a lot on which no unit has been begun. • Mr. King stated that the classifications were from the Canmoniands project and he was not exactly sure what controlled. Town Attorney Barney remarked that the other area he had a question about was, is the intention here to have common areas designated for specific clusters and to be used by the people in that cluster only? Town Board 6 September 28, 1987 Mr. King replied that the bulk of the common area goes for the first phase, so that the people are assured of the use of all that land but I did not want them to get the impression that this was their land. They could then exclude anyone else from even getting into the project. Whether any land can ever be designated for a particular unit use only, will be up to the Board. Town Attorney Barney remarked that page 5 threw him as he read it but he understands the explanantion under "f" "Common Areas and Facilities" the definition in the bracketed material, you indicated that no common areas have initially been so designated. He went on to say that when he read that, initially, I thought that no area had been really designated as the entire area. But I see what you are saying, no area has been designated as a cluster common area. • May be we can just add that. Councilman Cramer stated that he read that to mean that no common land, has infact, been designated in the entire project. Town Attorney Barney replied that that was how he read it at first, and that was what threw him. Town Attorney Barney remarked, for the Boards information, if you go on to page 7 there is a definition of quorum of owners and a requirement that the Class B member must be present in order to have a quorum, this means that the Class B member is a declarant, this means that no action can be taken for as long as there is a Class B member chooses not to show up for a meeting. Later on the termination period of a Class B membership is defined as being 5 years from the first residential sale, eight years from the declaration or at a time when there are more Class A members than there are Class B votes. As long as that Class membership exists, he can defeat any action by simply not showing up at a meeting. Supervisor Desch asked if this was consistent -with Commonland? Mr. King replied yes, as far as I know. Town Attorney Barney remarked, it is not an unheard of thing. Councilman Cramer questioned page 7, Article III, where it refers to exhibits, will those exhibits be before the Town Board before the final vote on this? Mr. King replied that they are strictly deed descriptions which John Barney can check against the land. He stated that he had a copy with him. Supervisor Desch asked Mr. King to describe the exhibits. Mr. King replied, Exhibit A is the owner deed, Exhibit B covers all of the Phase I and Phase II areas, Exhibit C is a definition of each of the other phases. Supervisor Desch asked how many phases would there be? • Mr. King replied, there are six phases, the sixth phase not having been approved for units but having been approved for the construction of a garage. Town Supervisor Desch asked the Town Attorney if he planned to work further on Article IV? Town Attorney Barney replied yes and Article III, also. He went on to say that Section B "On Other Additions" allows additional lands to be added and made subject, when there are 750 of the Town Board 7 September 28, 1987 Association in favor. It is a little inconsistanct because later on there seems to be the privilage of the declarant to add property, period. We should have some consistency. Mr. King felt this was phasing in. Cornell owns the adjoining property so the only way any additional land could be added is if Cornell decided to sell. This is unlikely. Town Attorney Barney went to page 11, remarking that Subparagraph D at the bottan of the page say that the devleloper alone has the right to grant easements across common areas. He stated that he felt some kind of a time limit should be put on this priviledge. Something consistent with as long as he is a Class B member, at the most. Subparagraph F on the top of page 12 give the Owners • Association the right to mortgage, among other things, the common areas and he felt this should be subject to access rights of the other owners. May be even subject to this declaration. Mr. King replied that there was no way they could not be subject to the declaration. Town Attorney Barney replied, it's interesting, you have a declaration saying they have the right to mortgage it and this is what worried him, it should be subject to the declaration. Supervisor Desch remarked that on page 13, "F", it bothered him that only 10 days are given after service. He went on to say that he was thinking of 30 days and asked if this was unreasonable? If saneone was away for any length of time this could be a problem. Town Attorney Barney remarked that there is still a process that must be gone through above the 10 days inorder to forclose the lien, if someone came through with the money in 20 days this would end the foreclosure. However, he stated that he had no strong feels either way. Mr. King remarked that he thought the reason for this was that it would give the Association authority to act in an emergency situation. The Association should be able to act without having to wait through the summer while someone is away. Supervisor Desch remarked that the relationship of the statement "are not paid" is what bothered him, within 10 days. you may have a case where someone might have difficulty in arranging financing within 10 days. The Supervisor remarked that it was no so much the commitment but the action itself that bothered him. Town Attorney Barney asked Mr. King if he saw a problem with 30 days? Mr. King replied, that it probably would not make any difference because it would take 30 days to get around to it anyway. Town Attorney Barney noted that on page 14, subparagraph i, again the developer has the privilege of doing all kinds of things with no time frame expressed. He suggested that "i" be limited to as • long as he is a Class B member. Mr. King agreed this would seem reasonable. Town Attorney Barney noted the top of page 15, he stated that he was not sure the definitions were consistent with what was defined for the class lots. He went on to say that on page 16, subparagraph b, this is the area where we define the duration of the Class B membership, he stated that he would like to suggest Town Board 8 September 28, 1987 that subparagraph b, be from the completion of the construction of the first new residential building. Mr. King replied that this was meant to continue the construction even though it have been more years. He stated that "c" actually covers this. John Barney replied, he misread this but also he felt eight years was a long time for the declarant to retain this control, unless there is a rapid sellout where you get to the 15 units early. Mr. King replied that the reason for such a period is to take care of what could happen. Suppose we are in a recession next year and for the next two years you can't even borrow money to complete the • project, these things do happen, he is going to complete it if there is money in it and he can finance it. There may be a substantial period of lets say after the first two buildings are done, there might be a time when he could not move for several years. Supervisor Desch asked the Town Attorney if he was saying that if this was to remain as eight years that something would have to be done about the ability of the Class B member to prevent any action on the part of the Association? Town Attorney Barney replied, I think so. He stated that it troubled him that who ever buys a house up there has to wait eight years before there vote is really worth something. Supervisor Desch remarked, suppose you limit that phrase to something less, say four or five years. Town Attorney Barney replied, that is how it is accomplished through this provision, right here. This is where they define a Class B member and as long as it is for eight years a Class B member, unless 15 units are sold, retains control of the Association. Mr. King remarked that perhaps the point could be covered by saying in the By-Laws that if a meeting is called and the Class B member has received notice of it and does not attend, they can adjourn it once and if he does not show up at the adjourned meeting then they can go ahead without his vote. Town Attorney Barney replied, even with that he still has a three to one voting ratio so it continues and even if he shows up he controls the action until this ends. As a potential buyer, he did not think it was appropriate to ask them to wait eight years before he had a real voice. Supervisor Desch asked Mr. King to talk to his client and see if he would be willing to go for five years. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked what "B" means? She went on to say that it means a period of five years passes since completion of construction of, does it really mean any building? • Supervisor Desch replied, yes. Councilwoman Raffensperger went on to say, the next one is the transfer of title of the first lot, she stated that somehow she had gotten all mixed up. Mr. King replied that the eight years is the ultimate maximum expansion, anyway. Town Board 9 September 28, 1987 Councilwoman Raffensperger questioned, its transfer of the title of the first lot, not two right? Town Attorney Barney replied, transfer of a lot to any owner. Supervisor Desch questioned page 16 where it refers in section 1, property tax assessment for real property taxes, is it necessary to put in there including benefit assessments? Town Attorney Barn::=r7 rAnlied, we can put it in. Most of the benefit assessment would go against units but there could be acreage benefits. Mr. King remarked, on the question of the termination of Class B, can we try to resolve that? Supervisor Desch replied yes. The thought is that we will try to finish this up on the 5th of October. Supervisor Desch noted that on page 17 there was a reference to improvement of community facilities, the use of the word community canes up for the first time and it didn't seem to him that it was consistent with the definitions. Does that mean common facilities or is it yet a different meaning? Mr. King replied, actually part of his problem was that some of it, like common facilities like the sewer lines, pumps, etc. , which are generally in common areas may cross in lots. Supervisor Desch asked if there was a need for a separate definition? Mr. King replied, that it gets used to mean the whole 6.5 acres, the whole development. Supervisor Desch remarked that from what you are saying, it is not covered by the definition of common areas or cluster common areas. Mr. King replied that community is not intended to cover private lots and commons lands. Supervisor Desch noted that on page 6, definition "p" states project community development. The word community being often used to reference the group of owners in a residence as well as the property. Town Attorney Barney indicated that he felt this was okay. Town Attorney Barney, referring to page 18 and 19 questioned the last sentence which authorizes the developer to satisfy his obligation for such assessment in whole or part by providing maintenance services, he went on to say that he did not know if this came out of Ccmmonlands or what but he stated that it bothered him a bit when you have a situation where a developer again has the control and is making determinations as to whether the maintenance service he performs are equal to the amount of money he owes as a lot owner. He stated that it would seem cleaner to simply strick that and have the developer presume he is going to have a management contract which defines what he is supposed to do and what he is going to be paid for that, and then have him pay his money as any other lot owner would except the ratios are reduced. Mr. King replied that the reason it is there is that certainly for the first year, the developer will probably just go in and, do everything, period. There won't be any assessments, there won't be a charge. He will be doing it because he wants to work in the Town Board 10 September 28, 1987 project and he wants to get the stone out of there, he will actually be doing more than his share. Town Attorney Barney- asked who was going to determine whether that's worth 25% of what everyone else is paying? Is the developer going to determine that? In effect he does, he controls the Board. Mr. King replied that the developer has so much at stake. Town Attorney Barney replied that it opens the door to much unhappiness. It's much cleaner to say we have signed a maintenance agreement which says what the developer will do. Mr. King agreed this was reasonable. • Town Attorney Barney mentioned page 22, The Management Agreement, he noted that there was a provision there, as drafted, that say the Management Agreement can only be terminated, again, by vote of a super majority of the Class A members which is a 2/3 vote and the Class B member. The Class B member is usually the manager or he has a company that is affiliated with him that acts as a manager. He stated that he had suggested to Mr. King, this morning, that if that is the case, then the requirement of the Class B vote should be eliminated. This is quite a conflict of interest and that he had drafted some new language which Mr. King has agreed to. Town Attorney Barney continued, on the section of "Mortgagee Interests" it talks about the Association shall if, the first mortgagee so requests, . ...he stated that he could contemplate a multitude of first mortagees, each unit owner could have a different institution. Is it the contemplation of this section that every first mortgagee if they so request will be given notice? Mr. King replied yes, I think that is right. Town Attorney Barney replied, we may want to change that to any first mortgagee on any unit so requests. .. . . He went on to say that he thought it was implicit because later on I think we say that these won't be changed except with the consent of the Town. But certainly items "a", "b" and "e" would require Town approval before any change. There should be flat statement. He suggested it be added to Article 17, page 36 and 37. The Town should see any significant or material amendments. The Town Attorney noted that Section 17, page 32 talks about "Self Help" and it says that the Plan or the Association can use such force as may be reasonable. He stated that he would like to see this limited to force against the property. He went on to say that on page 34 is the limitations on leasing and assumed these were satisfactory in gross terms. He noted, however, that there is a kind of a escape hatch here which allows the Board of Directors variations in the leasing. If there are going to be any allowances which increase the number of months that a unit can be leased this should come back to the Town Board. Supervisor Desch, noting the section on public hearings asked if they should not be required to notify the Town. Town Attorney Barney agreed and suggested that it go further stating that no such rules which increase the permissible period of renting in any 36 months or 60 month period will be effective only with the consent of the Town. Councilwoman Raffensperger questioned, these are attached units, right, no where in here, she noted, did she see a unit defined as a single family dwelling and, therefore, as far as she could figure Town Board 11 September 28, 1987 out there are no occupancy restrictions whatsoever on units because our Zoning Ordinance only restricts occupancy in single family and two family dwellings. John Barney responded, on page 35 at the top subparagraph "c" limits it to the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that he wanted to take this out and say that no owner would permit his unit to be occupied by (a) family related by blood, marriage or adoption; (b) a single person or (c) not more than unrelated persons. This would spell it out as part of the Declaration so that it is part of the Declaration. Councilwoman Raffensperger added, if you just leave this, the Zoning Ordinance, as far as she could see, doesn't address the • question. Town Attorney Barney asked how many unrelated person per unit does the Board wish to permit? Supervisor Desch replied that he thought it was spelled out in other Covenants. Town Attorney Barney replied that he thought it was three. Supervisor Desch replied, two. Councilwoman Raffensperger agreed two, if you double them up and you look at what the Zoning Ordinance says about it, it's a two family dwelling, we had some kind of an in between figure. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was duly adjourned. V�75w-n Clerk •