HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2011-05-12COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Special Meeting 5:30 p.m. May 12, 2011
PRESENT:
Mayor Peterson
Alderpersons (9) Dotson, Rosario, Clairborne, McCollister, Zumoff, Rooker,
Myrick, Cogan, Mohlenhoff
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney – Hoffman
City Controller – Thayer
Planning & Development Director – Cornish
Deputy Director of Economic Development - DeSarno
Superintendent of Public Works – Gray
Youth Bureau Director – Green
City Chamberlain – Parsons
GIAC Director – Fort
Building Commissioner – Radke
EXCUSED:
Alderperson Coles
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Mayor Peterson requested the addition of Item 3.3 – Attorney’s Office – Authorization
for Home Rule Request to Correct Retirement Service Credit Erroneously Omitted by
Another Employer – Resolution and Item 3.4 – Process to Fill the Vacancy of the First
Ward Common Council Seat – Discussion.
No Council member objected.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
2.1 Special Common Council Budget Session:
A. Revenue streams
City Controller Thayer distributed packets that contained a history of tax rates, property
assessment increases, and revenue sources. He explained that revenues are expected
to increase very little in 2012; however, expenses are expected to increase as follows:
Health Insurance costs: $690,000
Pension costs: 30.7% - approximately $1 million
Debt payments: 5-6%
General expenses: 10%
He stated that he is hopeful that any property tax cap legislation passed will include
mandate relief and exclusions for pension and health care costs.
• Property tax is the largest revenue stream for the City – 40%
• The 2012 projected property assessments is 1.81% or $376,000.
• 62% of property in the City is tax exempt – of that figure 87% is owned by Cornell
University and the remainder is owned by other municipalities (Town of Ithaca
and Tompkins County) and not-for-profit organizations. This fact makes it appear
as though Ithaca has one of the highest tax rates in New York State.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the trend of not-for-profits contributing to
municipalities and whether that was a viable method for Ithaca. The voluntary
contribution from Cornell University ($1.2 million) can be found in the budget under
“Gifts and Donations.” Further discussion followed on Payments in Lieu of Taxes
(PILOTs), abatement programs, and organizations such as the Ithaca Neighborhood
Housing Services. The tax foreclosure rate for 2010 was 1.26%, an increase from .5%
in 2005 but a decrease from the 2009 figure of 1.56%
May 12, 2011
2
Sales tax is the next largest source of revenue, although it is not guaranteed, at $12.3
million. The trend is increased sales tax due to development; however, the last quarter
of 2011 saw a downturn in collections.
The Town of Ithaca fire contract represents 6.6% of the City’s revenues (approximately
$3 million) and pays for 32-33% of the costs of the Ithaca Fire Department. The Town
of Ithaca has a study group that is reviewing the possibility of creating a volunteer fire
department and other options.
New York State AIM payments have not changed much. The City receives the majority
of the revenue in December.
Parking fees equals 4.3% of the City’s revenues (approximately $2 million).
Discussion followed on the floor regarding whether a dedicated parking position would
pay for itself. City Chamberlain Parsons noted that there are several departments who
are involved in parking and an Ad-hoc Working Group is looking into this issue as it
believes that there are efficiencies and consistencies that could be found. City
Controller Thayer noted that hourly parking revenues have increased due to meter rate
adjustments and the elimination of the 1st hour of free parking in the garages; however,
parking permit revenue has decreased due to the relocation of key downtown
businesses. The new parking equipment has resulted in better data to work with.
Fines equal approximately 2.3% of the City’s revenue ($1.2 million). This figure has
seen significant increases due to the elimination of the 1st ticket free program.
Gifts and donations: the Cornell University contribution varies as it is aligned with the
annual Consumer Price Index (CPI). The City uses the Northeast Region/small cities
CPI; Cornell uses the US cities CPI which varies approximately 1% or so.
B. Shared services (interdepartmental and inter-municipal)
City Controller Thayer reported that the City has good contracts in place (Recreation
Partnership, SJC, City/Town Fire Contract, Shared use of Recreation Facilities, etc.);
however, there may be opportunities for more departments to share services such as
building inspection services.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the legal requirements to have certain
departments (i.e. there is no requirement to have a Code Enforcement department, if
the City did not provide this service the County or State would have to do it).
Further discussion followed regarding posting a “reader-friendly” budget to the City’s
website.
C. Mandated services
Mayor Peterson shared e-mails received from City departments regarding the services
that they are mandated by law to provide. She also noted other types of mandates such
as equipment mandates (pool drain caps, rope systems), inspection mandates (Health
Dept. pool checks, staff ratios, etc.).
Building Commissioner Radke distributed packets regarding NYS mandated services
and discussed the ability to increase fees for services.
Further discussion followed regarding potential new revenue sources such as a storm
water utility, and services/programs that generate funds such as school district tax
collections and the CHIPS program.
Council members suggested that further information be provided on services the City
provides that have fees associated with them.
May 12, 2011
3
NEW BUSINESS:
3.1 Determination as to the Effect of a Protest of Collegetown Zoning
Amendments, Received on May 4, 2011 – Suggested Resolution Revised 5/12/11
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick
WHEREAS, at the Common Council meeting of May 4, 2011, a written protest was
presented to the Council, pursuant to Section 83 of General City Law, by or on behalf of
certain, affected property owners, objecting to “enactment of an ordinance to amend the
Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, entitled ‘Zoning’ to establish certain
district regulations and to change the zoning description of certain areas of the City of
Ithaca (see attached);” and
WHEREAS, the attachment referred to was a copy of the agenda materials for the May
4th Common Council meeting, which includes four proposed ordinances intended to
repeal, modify or add to parts of Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code, pertaining to
portions of the Collegetown area of the City, and/or to replace the City’s existing design
review process; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinances and the votes taken on them on May 4, 2011, can
be summarized as follows:
#1. Establishment of new “form-based zoning districts” (replacing current
districts), primarily in the central area of Collegetown, affecting approximately 250
parcels and a total land area of 2,326,908 square feet. (Also repeals City’s existing
design review process, now located in Chapter 325.) Vote: 7-3.
#2. Establishment of height incentive overlay district, affecting one of the new
form districts (“MU”) to be created by Ordinance #1. Vote: 8-2.
#3. Revision of Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone (CPOZ), which repeals and
replaces existing CPOZ parking requirements (in an area affecting approximately 350
parcels and a total land area of 3,815,766 square feet, and implements a reduced
parking requirement in 3 of the new form districts to be created by Ordinance #1. Vote:
7-3.
#4. Establishment of new design review procedure and rules (as a new Code
Chapter - #160), including binding design review within all the new form districts to be
created by Ordinance #1. Vote: 7-2 (with Council member Dotson out of the room); and
WHEREAS, such a protest, if it includes owners of 20% or more of the land area to be
affected by a proposed zoning change (or 20% or more of the land area of properties
immediately adjacent to that proposed to be rezoned), requires an affirmative vote of
75% or more of the Common Council (i.e., at least 8 votes) for passage of the zoning
amendment in question; and
WHEREAS, a review of the protest documents by the City’s Planning Department and
Attorney’s Office has revealed the following:
1. 46 protest documents were submitted, involving approximately 95
properties (as some owners own multiple parcels).
2. Protests regarding 6 of the parcels were deemed inadequate by staff
involved in the review, either because property identification was
lacking, not all of the property’s owners signed the protest, or the
protests were duplicative.
3. For the remaining 89 parcels, ownership was confirmed to be as stated
in the protest, and location of the parcels within one or more of the
areas proposed to be re-zoned was confirmed.
4. The protest represents approximately 27% of the land area within the
area proposed to be rezoned into form-based districts – i.e., by
Ordinance #1, above – or that would be affected by binding design
review as proposed in Ordinance #4.
5. The protest represents approximately 15% of the land area within the
Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone.
now therefore be it
May 12, 2011
4
RESOLVED, That, upon consultation with the City Attorney and the City’s Planning
Department and consideration of their analysis of the protest, as summarized
immediately above, the Common Council hereby makes the following determinations:
1. The zoning protest submitted on May 4, 2011, shall be treated as applying to the
proposed zoning ordinances referenced above as #1, #2 and #3.
2. As for the protest of Ordinance #1, the protest exceeded the legal threshold of
20% (of the land area within the proposed, new form-based districts), and
therefore required there to be at least 8 votes in favor of said ordinance. As a
result, Ordinance #1failed to pass.
3. As for the protest of Ordinance #2, it likewise exceeded the 20% threshold, but
since the ordinance was supported by 8 votes, the protest was overridden and
Ordinance #2 was passed.
4. As for the protest of Ordinance #3, it did not represent 20% or more of the
property included in the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone, and it therefore is
ineffective. Ordinance #3 was passed.
5. The protest shall be treated as not pertaining to Ordinance #4, because
Ordinance #4 does not amend Chapter 325, does not establish “district
regulations” as that term is used in the City Code, and does not “change the
zoning description” of any area of the City. Therefore, Ordinance #4 was
passed.
City Attorney Hoffman offered a recap of the actions taken at the May 4, 2011 Common
Council meeting including the protest that was filed. In order to override the protest,
Common Council needed to have a 75% majority vote (8 votes); however, two
ordinances only received 7 votes. The protest involved 95 different parcels but six
parcels were disqualified by staff, leaving 89 parcels. The 89 parcels represent 27% of
the land area proposed to be rezoned into form-based districts (20% of the land area is
required by State law). The Ordinance to establish new “form-based zoning districts” is
deemed not to be adopted due to lack of affirmative votes.
The Ordinance to establish a height incentive overlay district was adopted by an 8-2
vote of Council.
The proposed revision of the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone was deemed adopted
as it included a larger land area and the protest only represented 15% of the land area
(20%).
The Ordinance that established new design review procedures and rules was deemed
adopted as the action was not covered by the language of the protest specifically, it did
not change Chapter 325 and did not establish district regulations or zoning.
City Attorney Hoffman noted that all four ordinances were inter-connected and were not
written to stand independently of each other. Further discussion followed regarding the
impact the failure to adopt the form-based zoning districts will have on the other
ordinances.
Alderperson Dotson disclosed that she works for Ithaca Carshare, located in
Collegetown. Ithaca Carshare receives an on-going donation from one of the landlords
involved in the protest. She further explained that she was not intentionally absent from
the vote on the proposed design review procedures, and had intended to vote for the
Ordinance.
May 12, 2011
5
Main Motion
A vote on the Main Motion resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
3.2 Suspension of the Implementation of Zoning Ordinance and Design Review
Amendments Adopted on May 4. 2011 – Suggested Resolution Revised 5/12/111
By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick
WHEREAS, the four ordinances concerning Collegetown re-zoning and/or modification
of the City’s design review process, which the Common Council considered and acted
upon at its meeting on May 4, 2011, are inter-related and were intended to be enacted
as a package; and
WHEREAS, one of the proposed ordinances (which would have established form-based
districts, and repealed the existing design review procedure) failed to pass (as a result
of the greater majority required by the property-owner protest submitted on that date),
and
WHEREAS, the remaining ordinances, which were in fact approved by the Council,
nevertheless cannot be properly implemented or enforced in the absence of certain
provisions contained in the failed ordinance, or without modification so as to make them
“stand-alone” statutes; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby directs that the zoning and design
review ordinances that were approved on May 4, 2011, not be published (by the City
Clerk) without further authorization from the Council (in effect, temporarily “suspending”
their enactment), in order to give the Council sufficient time to determine the appropriate
course of action in this unusual situation.
City Attorney Hoffman explained that pursuant to the City Charter, ordinances become
effective upon their publication in the City’s Official Newspaper. This action directs the
City Clerk not to publish the ordinances adopted by Common Council on May 4, 2011
so therefore they would not become effective at this time.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the modifications that would be needed to
allow the three remaining ordinances to stand independently of the form-based zoning
district legislation.
Planning & Economic Development Director JoAnn Cornish explained that the Planning
Department would like to see form districts come to a vote again in the near future. She
noted the recent fire at Cook Place and voiced her concerns about the potential to re-
develop the property to the maximum envelope and the reduced level of protection that
the neighborhoods have under the current zoning provisions. The R3AA zoning
regulations would not apply to Collegetown as it was being considered as part of the
form districts.
City Planner Megan Gilbert noted that the majority of the protests were filed by a
minority of land owners that own a lot of property in Collegetown (4 families own more
than 20% of the land area).
Alderperson Rooker noted that some of the petitions were signed out of confusion and
questioned what would happen if the land owners chose to revoke their petitions. City
Attorney Hoffman stated that there is nothing in the law that applies to repealing
petitions.
City Attorney Hoffman stated that a public hearing for a re-vote on the form-based
zoning districts should be published tomorrow if it is going to be considered at the June
Common Council meeting. He briefly reviewed Robert’s Rules of Order regarding re-
votes.
Main Motion
A vote on the Main Motion resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
May 12, 2011
6
3.3 Attorney’s Office - Authorization for Home Rule Request to Correct Retirement
Service Credit Erroneously Omitted by Another Employer
By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff
WHEREAS, Police Officer Michael P. Koval has been employed by the City of Ithaca
(“City”) Police Department as a police officer since December 9, 1992, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to New York State Retirement and Social Security Law § 384-d,
the State offered an optional twenty (20) year retirement plan for police officers who
choose to enroll in said plan, and
WHEREAS, since his employment commenced with the City, Officer Koval has been
enrolled in the § 384-d Plan, and
WHEREAS, prior to his employment with the City, Officer Koval was employed as a
police officer by the Village of Watkins Glen (“Village”) for the period of September 6,
1988 to July 1, 1991, and
WHEREAS, the Village unintentionally but erroneously failed to enroll Officer Koval in
the § 384-d Plan of the Retirement and Social Security Law for the period of September
6, 1988 to July 1, 1991, when he was employed as a police officer, through no
negligence on his part, and
WHEREAS, without service credit under § 384-d for his service in the Village, Officer
Koval would not be eligible for retirement under the § 384-d Plan until on or about
November 16, 2012, and
WHEREAS, if Officer Koval is given service credit under the § 384-d Plan for his service
in the Village he would be immediately eligible for service retirement under the § 384-d
Plan, and
WHEREAS, in order for Officer Koval to obtain service credit for the time period he was
employed by the Village, the State of New York must enact special legislation and the
City must make a home rule request, and
WHEREAS, the fiscal implications of this home rule request would result in a past
service cost contribution of approximately $66,000.00, and
WHEREAS, the Village of Watkins Glen has agreed to pay $60,000.00 of the past
service cost, and
WHEREAS, Officer Koval has agreed to pay the remaining $6,000.00 of the past
service cost by letter agreement dated January 26, 2011, and
WHEREAS, the City itself will make no monetary contribution to the past service credit
cost, and
WHEREAS, the City will forward the total service credit cost of $66,000.00 to the New
York State and Local Retirement System on behalf of Officer Koval, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca believes that it would be in the
best interest of the City to request the New York State Legislature to adopt such home
rule legislation; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, As follows:
1. The Mayor is hereby authorized to request the New York State Assembly and
New York State Senate to enact legislation to allow Police Officer Michael P.
Koval to obtain service credit under § 384-d of the Retirement and Social
Security Law for the police service he rendered with the Village of Watkins Glen
from September 6, 1988 to July 1, 1991;
2. The Mayor or her designee is hereby authorized to execute and to submit any
documentation or related paperwork that may be required to implement Officer
Koval’s obtaining his service credit under § 384-d of the Retirement and Social
Security Law for the police service he rendered with the Village of Watkins Glen
May 12, 2011
7
from September 6, 1988 to July 1, 1991, provided that such implementation does
not require the City itself to make or to advance any monetary contribution to
such service credit cost and with the understanding that the City will forward the
total service credit amount of $66,000.00 to the New York State and Local
Retirement System when it is paid for by Watkins Glen and the officer.
Carried Unanimously
Process to Fill First Ward Vacancy
Mayor Peterson explained that effective July 7, 2011, there will be a vacancy in a First
Ward Common Council seat due to the resignation of Alderperson Maria Coles. The
City of Ithaca Charter states that Common Council “shall” fill the vacancy. City Attorney
Hoffman distributed a memo that explains that there are no rules in the Charter or State
law as to how that vacancy shall be filled. In the past, Common Council has opened the
floor for nominations, and Council votes on each nomination. Six votes are needed for
a nomination to be approved.
Mayor Peterson explained that the First Ward Democratic Committee has sent her a
nomination for consideration. There are two people who have expressed interest in
running for the office; however candidates are not required to file their petitions for
Council seats until late July/early August. She noted that she would like to have the
vacancy voted on at the July meeting.
Discussion followed on the floor whether to accept the First Ward Democratic
Committee nomination as has been the practice in the past or to advertise the vacancy
and consider the applications received.
Alderperson Cogan noted that it would be great to seek out a person with prior
experience as they will only be filling the seat for 5 months and a difficult budget
process is looming in the near future. Alderperson Rosario noted that he would prefer
to open the nomination process up to anyone in the First Ward who is interested in
serving.
It was decided that the Mayor would prepare a news release requesting that letters of
interest and resumes be forwarded to the City Clerk’s Office by a deadline. The news
release will include the expectations of work load and salary information.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
______________________________ _______________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Carolyn K. Peterson,
City Clerk Mayor