HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1986-11-0551
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 7:30 P.M. November S, 1986
PRESENT:
Mayor Gutenberger
Alderpersons (10) - Booth, Cummings, Dennis, Haine, Hoffman,
Lytel, Killeen, Peterson, Romanowski,
Schlather
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Nash
City Controller - Spano
Deputy City Controller - Cafferillo
City Clerk - Paolangeli
Building Commissioner - Hoard
Fire Chief - Olmstead
Director, Planning & Development - Van Cort
Superintendent of Public Works - Dougherty
Police Chief - Herson
N-1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Iq Mayor Gutenberger led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance
LO to the American flag.
T- SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Resolution of Sympathy
Q By Alderperson Romanowski: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
WHEREAS, this Common Council wishes to express its deep sorrow
at the untimely death of August Macali, and
WHEREAS, Augie served the City of Ithaca and the Common Council
faithfully as an alderman from 1964 through 1967; as a Fire
Department Commissioner from 1959 through 1962 and served
on the Public Safety Committee during the construction of
the new Central Fire Station, and
WHEREAS, Augie served his community by membership in many
civic and religious organizations; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That for his contribution to this community which
earned him its respect and deep appreciation, this Common
Council wishes to convey its sympathy to the members of his
family, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution of sympathy be spread upon
the minutes of this meeting and a copy thereof be transmitted
to his family.
Carried Unanimously
MINUTES:
Approval of Minutes of October 1, 1986 Meeting
Alderperson Lytel requeste that on page 7, under Finance
Department Computer System, in the final paragraph, the word
"technology" be deleted so as to read "information systems."
Resolution
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Lytel
RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the October 1, 1986 meeting
be approved as published with the correction as noted above.
Carried Unanimously
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
New Business
Alderperson Peterson requested a brief discussion on employee's
health insurance.
Alderperson Hoffman requested a discussion of enforcement
of building codes.
No Alderperson objected.
52
-2- November 5, 1986
Report of Special Committees
Alderperson Killeen requested a brief discussion on the RSVP
Organization regarding their efforts in trying to assistthe
elderly in tax preparation.
No Alderperson objected.
Executive Session
Mayor Guten erger requested an Executive Session regarding
contract negotiations and personnel items.
No Alderperson objected.
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
Stewart Par
Doria Higgins, 2 Hillcrest Drive, representing Citizens to
Save Stewart Park ", read the following statement to Common
Council:
"First I would like to say that Professor Darryl Bem of Cornell
University who has most generously acted as consultant for
us in examining the data of the Trowbridge Opinion Survey
of Stewart Park will speak to you on that matter later this
evening. Dr. Bem is known both nationally and internationally
for his work in the behaviorial sciences, more particularly
in the area of attitudes and attitude change and has testifed
frequently in Washington as well as elsewhere on these matters.
On your desks are two items: one is a Compilation of Letters,
Suggestions, Opinions and Articles by Citizens to Save Stewart
Park and Others, and the second item is an analysis of the
results of the Trowbridge survey coupled with a tabulation
of that data, using actual numbers of people rather than
the percentage figures used by Trowbridge -- an alternate
presentation which we think permits a more accurate interpre-
tation of the results.
This data clearly show that the people of Ithaca like Stewart
Park the way it is. They want some maintenance items renewed
but there is no mandate whatsoever in the Trowbridge data
for redesigning or relandscaping Stewart Park or any part
of the park.
So the results of this survey lead us back to the question
we have asked this Council a number of times. Why is Stewart
Park being redesigned? Who in the community is being served
by this project?
While we are encouraged by the Hoffman resolution and by
the modifications of it by Planning and Development Committee
which are to be discussed tonight, we are still concerned
that Common Council chooses to pursue plans to change Stewart
Park whether they be by Mr. Niederkorn or by Mr. Trowbridge.
Historically the first reference we can find to the current
changing of Stewart Park is a "Capital Improvement Program
Project Request" submitted by "BPW � P&,D" titled "Stewart
Park Improvement Plan" and received by you May 16, 1983.
It reads: "Public Works has determined that extensive but:
unspecified improvements are needed." So you can see that
from the beginning the project has been confusing. If the
improvements are unspecified, how does anyone know they'll
be extensive? This early request also says that the Stewart
Park Improvements would be "a component of the proposed Inlet
Valley Park and Recreation Master Plan." We find this information
disturbing, particularly when viewed with reference to the
Master Plan brochure map where there is a large white area on
the golf course mysteriously labeled "future shore development."
We call this matter to your attention to urge you to give it
53
-3- November S, 1986
your most careful scrutiny when it comes before you. Those
of you who have lived all your lives in Ithaca and think
of the city surround as rural may not realize how precious
inner city green space becomes as suburbia spreads -- as
it is doing in cities the world over.
While we were encouraged by that part of Trowbridge's third
public presentation which dealt with maintenance and restoration,
there were other items mentioned by him, notably changing
the roadway and parking system and segmentizing the elegant
simplicity of green lawn with walkways and promenades, which
we find disturbing.
Friends of ours who are handicapped and who find that the
present roadways and parking at Stewart Park give them a
freedom of movement they cannot find elsewhere are also worried
about the proposed changes by Trowbridge. These changes
cannot be defended legitimately on the grounds that they
increase handicap accessibility.
So we are left with the question why are you changing the
Iq park? By now more than 7,000 people have signed our petition
LO urging you to revoke plans to redesign the park and instead
to maintain, preserve and restore existing buildings, roads,
M landscaping and other facilities in the park. In the Citizens
Q to save Stewart Park Compilation before you are an outpouring
of concern by the people of our community -- people in wheel-
chairs, Cornell professors of architecture, people who have
lived long lives in Ithaca, the young, the old. Please listen
to these people -- read the letters in our compilation.
Let me close with two quotations (these are from the first
two statements in our Compilation). The first is by John
Shaw, Professor of Architecture at Cornell: "It is difficult
to understand the imagined need to make drastic changes in
(400'r, Stewart Park. Considering the inexhaustible demand for public
money, it seems frivolous to propose unnecessary and insensitive
alterations to one of Ithaca's great resources... The proposed
development seems to assume that the park is now inefficient,
boring and out -of -date. It is none of these. Contrived
charm dates itself as old Stewart Park will never be dated."
The second quotation is by Arch MacKenzie, Associate Professor
of Architecture at Cornell, and reads, after he has described
the qualities that "make Stewart Park work," "It would be
easy to disturb these delicate features by even a few ill- considered
improvements."
Please do not let Stewart Park become a political football.
Please let it be.
Ms. Higgins presented the Mayor with SS4 more signatures to
the group's petition, bringing the grand total to- 7,20S.
Darryl Bem, 301 Wyckoff Avenue, consultant for "Citizens
to Save Stewart Park," spoke to Common Council regarding the
Analysis of Data from Trowbridge and Trowbridge Survey of
Stewart Park. The overall conclusion that he drew from the
survey was that people overwhelmingly use Stewart Park, there
is no mandate for any major changes other than the restrooms,
general maintenance and the possible addition of swimming.
Kristen Schaffer, 411 Turner Place, spoke to Common Council
regarding Stewart Park. She asked that Stewart Park be kept
in its present form.
-4-
Wilcox Press
The following persons spoke to Common Council regarding the
emissions from the smoke stacks at Wilcox Press:
Ashley Miller, 118 Cascadilla Avenue
Richard Kinner, 112 Parker Street
Mayor Gutenberger stated that the City has had NYS DEC and the
County Department of Health here recently for a number
of meetings and has set up monitoring forms which are available
in the City Engineer's Office and the City Clerk's Office.
Volunteer Firefighters Exempt Parking
Daniel Rhodes, 201 W. Lincoln Street, volunteer firefighter,
spoke to the Common Council regarding exempt parking for
volunteer firefighters. He asked that the resolution that
will be presented to the Council tonight regarding exempt
parking for volunteer firefighters be passed.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR:
Energy Commission - State Award
Mayor Gutenberger announced that on November 6th, State Energy
Office Commissioner Cotter will be in Ithaca to present an
award to the Mayor and the Energy Commission for the weatherization
ordinance that was passed by Common Council. He commended
both Common Council and the City of Ithaca Energy Commission
for a job well done. There will also be a national award
given to the city later this month in Washington, D.C.
Street Improvements in Collegetown
Mayor Gutenberger read the following letter from Mr. Arthur
Berkey, 128 Christopher Circle, regarding the street improvements
in Collegetown:
"Dear John,
As a property owner and therefore a frequent traveler
in Collegetown, I am writing to express my surprise and dismay
about the new road /curb construction in this area. The new
construction creates a serious safety hazard, and is ill
advised from a maintenance and space reduction standpoint.
In addition, the unmarked 2" deep channels across the street
during construction were a hazard to tires, rims, and front
end alignment - which was uncalled for.
I am sure that the intent of the construction design
in this high density vehicle /pedestrian area was laudable.
However, good intentions do not excuse an unsafe and impractical
design. Let me be specific: (1) The curved curbs protrude
to narrow the street width of College Avenue. Now, if /when
as frequently happens, someone suddenly opens a car door
to exit on the street side, there is no room to avoid an
accident. When students walk in the street as also frequently
happens, they cannot stand next to a car and still have room
for vehicles to pass. There was hardly room for two large
trucks to pass before, now, as I observed last week, a truck
will be forced up on the protruding curb or have an accident.
Double parking for delivery vehicles is common - there is
no other alternative. Narrowing the street makes going around
vehicles even more hazardous. In the past, the parking lane
could be used to maintain 2 lane traffic when one of the
regular lanes was under repair. The protruding curbs preclude
this option and traffic bottlenecks will be even worse. Thus,
as described above, your design that narrows the street by
the protruding curved curbs intensifies an already serious
safety problem. Legal and insurance costs will rise.
(2) The protruding curved curbs reduce the number of
street parking spaces in an already critically short area.
In addition, since lost spaces were metered, meter income and
business from lack of parking spaces will be lost.
-S- November S, 1986
(3) The enclaves formed by the protruding curbs will
be difficult, if not impossible to plow in the winter. Accidents
involving the edge of the plow on curbs can be anticipated.
Thus, additional time and expense will be involved for snow
removal during the winter months. Curb surface materials
appear fragile since some are already broken from vehicles
forced upon the surface from the narrowed street. This will
be an additional expense.
In summary, however well intentioned, the design of
the protruding curbs in Collegetown is both unsafe and
impractical. Neither the designer(s) nor the persons
responsible to review /supervise the work of the designer(s)
have done their job satisfactorily.
I ask that this letter be copied to all members of the
City Council. Further, that it be read into the minutes
of the next Council meeting to provide a record of this unsafe
and impractical design.
T"I Please reply as to your intended action for remediation
d' of the concerns raised in this letter.
Sincerely,
Arthur L. Berkey
Q
Dated November 1, 1986"
MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS
Civil Service Commission
Mayor Gutenberger announced two appointments to the Civil
Service Commission. Lionel Martin, 1S0 West Village Place,
to complete the term of Louise Wilcox who resigned -from the
Commission; term to expire May 31, 199;,','4 Ann Bantuvanis,
203 Ithaca Road, to replace Mary Slaght who resigned from the
Commission; term to expire May 31, 1988. He asked for the Council's
concurrence.
Resolution
BY Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment to the
Civil Service Commission of Lionel Martin with a term to
expire May 31, 1991 and Ann Bantuvanis with a term to expire
May 31, 1988.
Carried Unanimously
Stewart Park Advisory Group Appointments
Mayor Gutenberger announced that he will be making a few
more appointments to the Stewart Park Advisory Group within
the next few weeks.
City Attorney Nash responded that NYS DEC has the primary
jurisdiction over release of noxious fumes. He doubts that
the city would have jurisdiction to enforce state law.
Alderperson Cummings stated that if a certain level of public
concern is documented DEC would hold a public hearing on
the problem. She asked that careful documentation be kept
by all concerned individuals.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Cornell Zoning Case
City Attorney Nash stated that
next week the Cornell
Heights
zoning case will be argued in
the Court of Appeals
in Albany
and he still has not heard on
request for leave to
appeal
the Stone Hall case.
Wilcox Press
Alderperson Hoffman asked City
Attorney Nash if he
could
look into the files to bring the
Council up to date
on the
Wilcox Press issue.
City Attorney Nash responded that NYS DEC has the primary
jurisdiction over release of noxious fumes. He doubts that
the city would have jurisdiction to enforce state law.
Alderperson Cummings stated that if a certain level of public
concern is documented DEC would hold a public hearing on
the problem. She asked that careful documentation be kept
by all concerned individuals.
-6- November S, 1986
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONINIITTEE
Stewart Par
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman
WHEREAS, Common Council on January 2, 1985 adopted the Stewart
Park Master Plan as the "official concept plan for that area,"
and
WHEREAS, Common Council on April 2, 1986 approved the expend-
iture of $21,500 for preparation of "design development
drawings for Stewart Park ", and the city subsequently hired
Trowbridge and Trowbridge for this task, and
WHEREAS, Trowbridge and Trowbridge expect to continue to
work until February 1987 on this project and have scheduled
a series of public meetings to present findings and to gather
public opinion about the park, and
WHEREAS, public involvement in the consideration of the Master
Plan has dramatically increased and broadened in scope over
the past five months, and many members of the public have
expressed great dissatisfaction with numerous elements of
the Master Plan; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That in order to take full advantage of the present
availability of the city's consultant, and in recognition
of the desire of the public to take an active and ongoing
role in determining any future design of Stewart Park, that
the Stewart Park Master Plan be set aside to allow continued
public discussion and the formulation of alternative design
development guidelines by Trowbridge and Trowbridge, and
be it further
RESOLVED, That the role of Trowbridge and Trowbridge be clarified
as follows:
1) The Master Plan may serve as a resource but is not
necessarily a guide to or a constraint upon further
park planning;
2) The following elements of the Master Plan shall
be specifically excluded from further consideration:
a. the spine road system and its large bermed,
aggregated parking lots
b. the off -shore island
C. the lighted promenade
d. the removal of the duck pond
e. the removal of the willow row
3. Any proposed design development should reflect as
accurately as possible the expressed concern of
the community to restore, preserve, and maintain
the character of Stewart Park.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That continuation of implacement of the gabions
is not to be considered ongoing maintenance and needs Common
Council approval.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Supt. Dougherty stated that this project was being partially
funded by a $15,000 grant. He would assume that the city
would lose at least part of the money for the project on
a pro -rated basis. The intent was to continue that section
of the project. He now has a "hold" on the project and the
work will not be started again until the Council gives the
go ahead.
Alderperson Peterson withdrew the amending resolution.
O
5
-7- November S, 1986
Mayor Gutenberger stated that the resolution that the Council
passed on October 1 referred this matter to the Stewart Park
Advisory Group and the Planning and Development Committee.
Because of vacancies on the Stewart Park Advisory Group they
have not had a chance to meet. Therefore, the Council's
directive of their own resolution hasn't been carried out.
He suggested that this resolution be tabled so that the Council
will follow its own resolution and allow the Stewart Park
Advisory Group to meet as was requested and come back with
their information.
(awo�l Alderperson Booth stated that he does not think that is necessary.
This is an issue that has received a great deal of airing
and while he appreciates what that group could add he thinks
this is an issue that is ripe for a decision.
Mayor Gutenberger stated that the Stewart Park Advisory Group
has been working since 1983 with new people on and off. It's
a community group and he thinks that to ignore them would
be a very poor display of asking for public participation.
ii There has been a public group in place since 1983 and to
I' make a decision tonight and ignore their input would be doing
Lo a disservice to that group.
Z A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
co Carried Unanimously
Mayor Gutenberger stated that he will be giving this issue
a lot of thought because he feels very strongly about the
Common Council ignoring a group that had been established
and been working for two and a half years. He reminded Council
that the City Charter states that any resolution passed by
Common Council does not go into effect for five days. The
Mayor has five days to review and consider any resolution
and he will be taking that five days to consider this very
(Woo" seriously.
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service Funding Request
Alderperson Cummings reporte that It aca Neig borhood Housing
Services has lost Community Development funding. They have
been able to receive State money to replace much of the Federal
project money. They have been able to replace the projects
they had on -line with State money. However, they have not
been able to secure administrative money and they are $65,000
short of administrative funding. They came to the Planning
and Development Committee for assistance. In light of the
city's commitment this year to housing and neighborhoods
we are going to have to address their concerns. She asked
Council members to contact INHS and talk to the people there
about their problem.
Ithaca Farmers' Market /Franklin Street Site
Alderperson Cummings reported that the Farmers' Market Board
members have been meeting with the liaison from the Planning
Board and Planning department staff and doing some preliminary
inquiries into the suitability of the Franklin Street site.
A recommendation will be made within a month.
Housing, Supply, Demand, Affordability
Al erperson Cummings passe out copies of Supply, Demand
and Atiordability booklet to Council members and made comments
on materials contained in the booklet.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Council recessed at 9:05 P.m. and reconvened in regular session
at 9:15 P.M.
-8- November 5, 1986
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
Community Recreational Planning /Facilities
Al erperson Peterson reported that at last months meeting
there were representatives from the City, the Fingerlakes
Parks, and the Human Services Coalition for a discussion
on whether there is a need for some kind of "overseeing body"
for the recreational needs in the community. The question
of long range planning for recreation facilities and space
was also discussed. These issues will be followed up at
the November meeting of Human Services.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Exempt Parking for Volunteer Firefighters
By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman
WHEREAS, the active volunteer firefighters perform an important
emergency service to the community, and
WHEREAS, increased recognition of this service would possibly
attract more volunteers to the fire department program; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council approves the exemption of active
volunteer firefighters whose vehicles display proper permits
from parking fees. It is the intent of this legislation
to provide free parking during emergencies and anytime fire-
fighters are available to respond to alarms, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Fire Chief and Superintendent of Public
Works are authorized and directed to establish a system for
issuing annual parking permits with a limit of one permit
per volunteer (except that 2 permts may be issued by the
Chief under extenuating circumstances) to those volunteers
who have met minimum response standards.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Booth
RESOLVED, That in the first Resolved, third line, after
the words parking fees the following be added: "incurred
during emergencies" and in the second Resolved, third line
after the word issuing it read "such limited" annual parking
permits for use during emergencies.
A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Ayes (2) Schlather, Booth
Nays (8) Romanowski, Cummings, Haine, Hoffman, Lytel,
Peterson, Killeen, Dennis
Motion Defeated
Main Motion
A vote on the main motion resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) Romanowski, Cummings, Haine, Hoffman, Lytel
Peterson, Killeen, Dennis
Nays (2) Schlather, Booth
Carried
Department Head Evaluations
By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Booth
WHEREAS, the Human Services Committee was requested by the
Common Council to devise a method for evaluating job perfor-
mance of management personnel in the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, an evaluation system can be valuable in providing
feedback to an employee, setting up goals and objectives,
and providing accountability of adequate job performance,
and
It
19
y i
-9- November 5, 1986
WHEREAS, information was gathered from other municipalities
and input was sought from department heads and other management
personnel; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the following document be adopted by the City
of Ithaca as the Department Head Performance Evaluation System:
(Copy of Document attached to Minute Book)
Amending Resolution
By Al erperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman
RESOLVED, That on page 1 under paragraph entitled Evaluation
Process, line 12 be changed from "the Mayor is encouraged
to seek information and /or advice ...etc." to read: The Mayor
shall seek information and /or advice ...etc.
Page 2, item 6 reads "The Mayor is encouraged to request
information. etc." should read : The Mayor shall seek information
and /or advice ...etc.
The following sentence on page 2, item 6 should be deleted:
"The Mayor may seek formal or informal input from those boards,
LO as the Mayor determines is needed."
[n A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Q Ayes (6) - Cummings, Hoffman, Lytel, Haine, Peterson,
Dennis
Nays (4) - Booth, Killeen, Schlather, Romanowski
Carried
Mayor Gutenberger requested that the resolution be tabled
for one month to give department heads and staff opportunity
to look at the document more closely.
Alderperson Booth stated that department heads have had
substantial opportunity to look at the drafts of the document
and there has been inpu'Z from several of them.
Motion to Table
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
RESOLVED, That the Department Head Evaluations document be
tabled for one month.
Ayes (9) - Schlather, Romanowski, Cummings, Lytel, Dennis,
Killeen, Haine, Hoffman, Peterson
Nay (1) - Booth
Carried
BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Youth Bureau Application to New York State
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is about to submit an application
for continuation of the Youth Bureau Project to the New York
State Division for Youth for its approval, and if approved,
to apply subsequently to the State of New York for partial
reimbursement of funds expended on said Project, as provided
by Chapter 556 of the Laws of 1945, as amended; now, therefore,
be it
RESOLVED, That such application is in all respects approved
and John C. Gutenberger, Mayor, is hereby directed and authorized
to duly execute and present said application to the New York
State Division for Youth for its approval, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this Resolution shall take effect January
1, 1987.
Carried Unanimously
-10-
November 5, 1986
Deputy City Controller Salary
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
RESOLVED, That the 1986 salary of Dominick R. Cafferillo,
Deputy City Controller, be established at $41,346, effective
November 10, 1986.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) - Schlather, Dennis, Lytel, Haine, Booth, Killeen
Nays (4) - Hoffman, Peterson, Romanowski, Cummings
Carried
Ithaca Housing Authority Comparability
By Al erperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
WHEREAS, according to Article 3, Section 32 (1), of the New
York State Public Housing Law, it is necessary for the local
legislative body to approve the compensation of personnel
in the Local Housing Authority, as fixed by the Local Housing
Authority, and
WHEREAS, this Common Council has received a Resolution from
the Ithaca Housing Authority establishing positions, compara-
bility, salary range and salaries for its personnel; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council approves the following
positions, comparability, salary ranges and salaries, as
adopted by the Ithaca Housing Authority for its fiscal year
October 1, 1986 to September 30, 1987.
Pn c i t i nn
Executive Secretary
Assistant Director
Principal Account
Clerk
Admin. Secretary
Site Manager
Account Clerk/
Typist
Account Clerk/
Typist
Stock Manager
Supervisor of
Maintenance
Building .Main-
tenance Mechanic
Building Main-
tenance Mechanic
Building Main
tenance•Mechanic
Maintenance Worker
Maintenance Worker
Salary
Comparability Range
Director of Plan- *$33,565- $49,685
ping & Development,
Controller
Deputy Director
Planning & Deve-
lopment
City of Ithaca
C.S.E.A.
City of Ithaca
C.S.E.A.
Planner III
City of Ithaca
C.S.E.A.
City of Ithaca
C.S.E.A.
City of Ithaca
C.S.E.A.
Salary
$39,984
$31,324 - $38,111 $28,557
$13,554 - $19,292 $19,441
$12,427- $17,687 $15,146
$15,582 - $22,178 $17,669
$ 9,485- $13,500 $10,400
$ 9,485- $13,500 $10,090
$15,654 - $22,280 $16,112
School District * $16,480- $23,748 $22,050
C.S.E.A.
School District
C.S.E.A.
School District
C.S.E.A.
School District
C.S.E.A.
City of Ithaca
C.S.E.A.
City of Ithaca
C.S.E.A.
$13,692- $21,240 $21,073
$13,692 - $21,240 $20,066
$13,692- $21,240 $18,847
$5.11 - $5.97 Hr. $6.13 Hr.
$5.11 - $5.97 Hr. $5.68 Hr.
Iq
LSD
m
Q
Maintenance Worker
Laborer
Laborer
1 Summer Camp
Director
1 Assistant Director
3 Counselors
Section 8
Administrator
Part -Time Tenant
Relations Clerk
Part -Time Account
Clerk /Typist
Modernization
Coordinator
- 11 -
City of Ithaca
C.S.E.A.
City of Ithaca
C.S.E.A.
City of Ithaca
C.S.E.A.
City of Ithaca
(seasonal)
City of Ithaca
(seasonal)
City of Ithaca
(seasonal)
Planner III
City of Ithaca
C.S.E.A.
City of Ithaca
C.S.E.A.
Planner II
November 5, 1986
$5.11 -$5.96 Hr.
$4.75 -$5.56 Hr.
$4.75 -$5.56 Hr.
$7.00 Hr.
$5.00 Hr.
$4.00 Hr.
$15,582 - $22,178
$5.32 Hr.
$5.32 Hr.
$5.07 Hr.
$2,450
$1,750
$4,200
$18,105
$ 8,379 - $11,926 $ 3,200
$ 8,379- $11,926 $ 1,200
$17,909 - $25,490 $24,500
* 1986 Salary Range (1987 Not Available)
Carried Unanimously
Bond Authorization
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
BOND RESOLUTION DATED NOVEMBER S. 1986
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $203,845
SERIAL BONDS OF THE CITY Or ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY,
NEW YORK, TO PAY THE COST OF THE PURCHASE AND INSTAL-
LATION OF COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE FOR THE USE
OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT
OF SAID CITY.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York, as follows:
Section 1. For the specific object or purpose of paying
the cost of the purchase and installation of computer hardware
and software for the use of the Police Department and the
Finance Department, in and for the City of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York, there are hereby authorized to be issued
$203,845 serial bonds of said City pursuant to the provisions
of the Local Finance Law.
Section 2. The maximum estimated cost of the aforesaid specific
object or purpose is $203,845 and the plan for the financing
thereof is by the issuance of the $203,845 serial bonds of
said City hereby authorized to be issued.
Section 3. It is hereby determined that the period of probable
usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is
five years, pursuant to subdivision 35 of paragraph a of
Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law.
Section 4. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance
Law, the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell bond
anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale
of the serial bonds herein authorized, including renewals
of such notes, is hereby delegated to the City Comptroller,
the chief fiscal officer. Such notes shall be of such terms,
form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may
be prescribed by said City Comptroller, consistent with the
provisions of the Local Finance Law.
1 --
-12-
November 5, 1986
Section 5. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York, are hereby irrevocably pledged
for the payment of the principal of and interest on such
obligations as the same respectively become due and payable.
An annual appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient
to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations
becoming due and payable in such year. There shall annually
be levied on all the taxable real property- of said City, a
tax sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such
obligations as the same become due and payable.
Section 6. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation
notes may be contested only if:
1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or
purpose for which said City is not authorized to
expend money, or
2) The provisions of law which should be complied with
at the date of publication of this resolution are
not substantially complied with,
and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity
is commenced within twenty days after the date of such
publication, or
3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of
the provisions of the Constitution.
Section 7. This resolution, which takes effect immediately,
shall be published in full in the Ithaca Journal, the-official
newspaper, together with a notice of the City Clerk in substan-
tially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance
Law.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was duly put to a vote on roll call, which resulted as follows:
Schlather
Aye
Booth
Aye
Romanowski
Aye
Killeen
Aye
Cummings
Aye
Haine
Aye
Lytel
Aye
Hoffman
Aye
Dennis
Aye
Peterson
Aye
Carried
Unanimously
Audit
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That bills presented, as listed on Audit Abstract
#20/1986, in the total amount of $30,869.67, be approved
for payment.
Carried Unanimously
Revenue Sharing Public Hearing
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk be authorized and directed
to advertise for a Public Hearing on the proposed use of
Federal Revenue Sharing Funds in the 1987 Budget, to be held
by the Budget and Administration Committee, on November 20,
1986, at 7:30 P.M., in the Common Council Chambers, 108 East
Green Street, Ithaca, New York.
Carried Unanimously
Public Hearing on 1987 Budget
By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk be authorized and directed
to advertise for a Public Hearing on the 1987 City Budget,
to be held by the Budget and Administration Committee, on
November 25, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., in the Common Council Chambers,
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York.
Carried Unanimously
D
-13- November S, 1986
CHARTER AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE:
Resolution Calling fo r Public Hearing: Modification of Sections
30.3, 30.25 and 30.26 of the Municipal Code Rezoning an
Family
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski
RESOLVED, That Ordinance No. 86 - , entitled "An Ordinance
To Amend Section 30.3, 'Definitions'; Section 30.25 'District
Regulations' and Section 30.26 'Standards for Special Conditions
and Special Permits' of the City of Ithaca Munucipal Code"
be, and it hereby is, introduced before the Common Council
(Wvo� of the City of Ithaca, New York, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council shall hold a public hearing
on the matter of adoption of the aforesaid ordinance, to
be held at Common Council Chambers, City Hall, No. 108 East
Green Street, in the City of Ithaca, New York, on Wednesday,
the 3rd day of December, 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m., and be
it further
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk give notice of such public
hearing by the,publication of a notice in the official newspaper,
�- specifying the time when and the place where such public
LO hearing will be held, and in general terms describing the
proposed ordinance. Such notice shall be published once
m at least fifteen days prior to the public hearing, and be
it further
Q RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall transmit forthwith to
the Board of Planning and Development and to the Tompkins
County Planning Board a true and exact copy of the proposed
zoning ordinance for its report thereon.
Carried Unanimously
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 30, Sections 30.3, 30.25, and
30.26 o the City o It aca Municipal Code Rezoning and
Family
WHEREAS, the definition of "family" within the City of Ithaca
Zoning O:�I:.c_. :•. has heretofore been limited to groups of
persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Court of Appeals has recognized
that there are certain groups of persons living together
in the same dwelling unit who are unrelated yet are the
functional equivalent of a traditional "family" for the pur-
poses of zoning restrictions, and
WHEREAS, there are certain areas within the City of Ithaca
which should be preserved as quiet, low density, single family
or two family residential neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the presence of groups of persons which are the
functional equivalent of a traditional "family" is not incon-
sistent with the goals of low density residential zoning
within the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca wishes
to accomodate such functional equivalents of a traditional
"family" while still preserving the characteristics of single
and two family residential neighborhoods within the City
of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the various types of such functional equivalents
of a family may present differing and unique impacts on single
and two family residential neighborhoods for the purpose
of zoning considerations; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New
York, as follows:
-14- November S, 1986
ORDINANCE NO. 86 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED "ZONING" OF
THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the
City of Ithaca, New York, as follows:
Section 1. That paragraph 28 of subdivision (B) entitled
"Specific terms or words" of Section 30.3 entitled "Definitions"
of Chapter 30 entitled "Zoning" of the City of Ithaca Municipal
Code is hereby renumbered as Section 30.3 (B) 28 -a.
Section 1. That a new subparagraph of subdivision B of Section
30.3 entitled "Definitions" of Chapter 30 entitled "Zoning" of the
City of Ithaca Municipal Code is Hereby added and shall read as
follows:
"28 -b. "Functional Family Unit" shall mean a group of individuals
living together in a single dwelling unit and functioning
as a family with respect to those characteristics that are
consistent with the purposes of zoning restrictions in residential
neignnornooas.
a. In determining whether or not a group of unrelated
individuals is a functional family unit under the
definition set forth above, the following criteria
must be present:
1. The occupants must share the entire dwelling unit.
A unit in which the various occupants act as separate
roomers cannot be deemed to be occupied by a single
family.
2. The household must have stability with respect to
the purpose of the zoning ordinance. Evidence of
such stability may include the following:
i. the presence of minor, dependent children
regularly residing in the household;
ii. proof of the sharing of expenses for food, rent
or ownership costs, utilities and other household
expenses and sharing in the preparation, storage
and consumption of food.
iii. whether or not different members of the household
ave t o same address or t o purposes o:
voter registration;
driver's license;
motor vehicle registration;
summer or other residences;
fling of taxes.
iv. common ownership of furniture and appliances
among the mem ers o t e household.
V. enrollment of dependent children in local schools.
vi. employment of householders in the local area.
vii. a showing that the household has been living
together as a unit or a year or more; whet er
in the current dwelling unit or other welling units.
viii. any other factor reasonably related to whether
or not the group of ersons is the functional
equivalent oi a family.
66-
-is-
November 5, 1986
b. A group of individuals living in the same dwelling
unit shall be presumed not to be a Functional Family
Unit as defined in this section if such welling
unit contains four or more college students over
the age of 16 years.
C. A group of individuals living together in the same
welling unit shall be presumed not to be a Functional
Family Unit as defined in this section it it is occupied
by four or more adults over tfie age of 18 years an
N-i is not occupied by minor, dependent c it ren.
Iq d. The presumptions set forth in sections (b) and _(c)
Ln above may be rebutted by sufficient evidence of the
= characteristics set forth in section (a above."
M
Q Section 3. Section numbered 30.26 (C) entitled "Special
Permits" shall be amended to add a new section numbered Section
30.26 (C) i (n) which shall read as follows:
"n. Residential occupancy by a Functional Family Unit
in all districts to the same extent as residential
occupancy by a "family" in all districts."
Section 4. Column 2 of the District Regulations Chart,
as made part of Chapter 30 of the City of Ithaca Municipal
Code by section numbered 30.25 entitled "District Regulations,"
is hereby amended as follows:
a. Column 2, row R -1 containing a list of permitted
primary uses for an R -1 district is hereby amended to add
a new item numbered "10" which shall read as follows:
1110. Functional Family Units (see definition Section 30.3
and special permit Section 30.26."
b. Item 5 in Column 2, row R -1 containing a list of permitted
primary uses for an R -2 district is hereby amended to delete
the words "7 -9" and replace them with the words "7 -10" to
read as follows:
"5. Uses [7 -9] 7 -10 under R -1."
C. Item 12 in column 2, row R -1 containing a list of
permitted primary uses for an R -3 district is hereby amended
to delete the words "7 and 8" and replace them with the words
"7 -10" to read as follows:
"12. Uses [7 and 8] 7 -10 under R -1."
d. Item 10 in Column 2, row R -1. containing a list of
permitted primary uses for an R -U district is hereby amended
to delete the words "7 -9" and replace them with the words
"7 -10" to read a follows:
1110. Uses [7 -91 7 -10 under R -l."
Section S. This ordinance shall take effect immediately
and in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as
provided in Section 3.11 (B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
i. A college
student is a person who attends at
least half
time
any college, university or other
institution
authorized
to confer degrees by t e
State of
New York.
ii. For the purpose
of this presumption, minor dependent
children
of any
other member of the household
shall be
excluded
in calculating the number of
college stu
ents
in the household.
C. A group of individuals living together in the same
welling unit shall be presumed not to be a Functional
Family Unit as defined in this section it it is occupied
by four or more adults over tfie age of 18 years an
N-i is not occupied by minor, dependent c it ren.
Iq d. The presumptions set forth in sections (b) and _(c)
Ln above may be rebutted by sufficient evidence of the
= characteristics set forth in section (a above."
M
Q Section 3. Section numbered 30.26 (C) entitled "Special
Permits" shall be amended to add a new section numbered Section
30.26 (C) i (n) which shall read as follows:
"n. Residential occupancy by a Functional Family Unit
in all districts to the same extent as residential
occupancy by a "family" in all districts."
Section 4. Column 2 of the District Regulations Chart,
as made part of Chapter 30 of the City of Ithaca Municipal
Code by section numbered 30.25 entitled "District Regulations,"
is hereby amended as follows:
a. Column 2, row R -1 containing a list of permitted
primary uses for an R -1 district is hereby amended to add
a new item numbered "10" which shall read as follows:
1110. Functional Family Units (see definition Section 30.3
and special permit Section 30.26."
b. Item 5 in Column 2, row R -1 containing a list of permitted
primary uses for an R -2 district is hereby amended to delete
the words "7 -9" and replace them with the words "7 -10" to
read as follows:
"5. Uses [7 -9] 7 -10 under R -1."
C. Item 12 in column 2, row R -1 containing a list of
permitted primary uses for an R -3 district is hereby amended
to delete the words "7 and 8" and replace them with the words
"7 -10" to read as follows:
"12. Uses [7 and 8] 7 -10 under R -1."
d. Item 10 in Column 2, row R -1. containing a list of
permitted primary uses for an R -U district is hereby amended
to delete the words "7 -9" and replace them with the words
"7 -10" to read a follows:
1110. Uses [7 -91 7 -10 under R -l."
Section S. This ordinance shall take effect immediately
and in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as
provided in Section 3.11 (B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
-16- November 5, 1986
Discussion followed on the floor.
Mayor Gutenberger asked that the ordinance be sent to the
NYS Conference of Mayors for their input and comments and
also so that they would have a copy to share with other
communities.
An Ordinance Amending Section 54.38 entitled "License Fees"
of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
By Al erperson Scilat er: Seconded by Alderperson Haine
ORDINANCE NO. 86 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 54.38 ENTITLED "LICENSE
FEES" OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the
City of Ithaca, New York, as follows:
Section 1. That Chapter 54 entitled "Animals" of the
City of Ithaca Municipal Code is amended as follows:
1. That Section 54.38 of Article III entitled "Dogs"
is hereby amended to read as follows:
"§ 54.38 License Fees
The annual fee for each dog license issued in the City
of Ithaca pursuant to Section 109 of the New York State
Agriculture and Markets Law for dog licenses issued for
1987 and subsequent years shall be:
A. Seven and one -half dollars ($7.50) for each neutered
male dog or spayed female dog.
B. Twelve and one -half dollars ($12.50) for each unneutered
male dog or unspayed female dog."
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately
and in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as
provided in §3.11 (B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (9) - Schlather, Cummings, Lytel, Dennis, Booth,
Killeen, Haine, Hoffman, Peterson
Nav (1) - Romanowski
Carried
Alderperson Schlather stated that the Charter and Ordinance Committee
recommended that the Budget and Administration Committee
consider the question of an enumeration which is a method
whereby the City hires someone to count all the dogs residing
in the City of Ithaca. Once there is an enumeration the
SPCA, by law, has an obligation to ensure that all dog owners
license their dogs.
An Ordinance Adding Section 54.39 to Article III of Chapter
54 Entitled "Animals" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
By Al erperson Schlather: Seconded y Al erperson Dennis
ORDINANCE NO. 86 -
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 54.39 TO ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER
54 ENTITLED "ANIMALS" OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the
City of Ithaca, New York, as follows:
19
Iq
LO
Z
m
Q
0
-17-
November S, 1986
Section 1. That a new Section to be known and designated
,as Section 54.39 entitled "Impoundment Fees" to follow Section
54.38 of Article III entitled "Dogs" is hereby added to said
Chapter to read as follows:
"§ 54.39 Impoundment Fees
The impoundment fees for any dog impounded pursuant to
Section 118 of the New York State Agriculture and Marketing
Laws shall be paid by the owner of the dog in the following
amounts:
A. Fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the first impoundment
of any dog owned by that person within a one -year period;
B. Forty dollars ($40.00) for the second impoundment
of any dog owned by that person within a one -year period;
or
C. Sixty dollars ($60.00) for the third and subsequent
impoundments of any dog owned by that person within a one -year
period."
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately
and in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as
provided in § 3.11 (B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
Carried Unanimously
SPECIAL COMMITTEES:
R.S.V.P.
Alderperson Killeen, Liaison to the Retired Senior Volunteer
Program, spoke to Council about R.S.V.P. setting up a table
in the annex to City Hall to assist people in preparing their
income t2:Ces .
Questions arose regarding the City's right to allow a group
to occupy public space without paying rent or going through
the bidding process.
The matter was referred to the Charter and Ordinance Committee.
NEW BUSINESS:
Employee Health Insurance
Alderperson Peterson asked about a recent Health Insurance
meeting and if there is a Labor /Management Health Insurance
meeting being scheduled.
Deputy Controller Cafferillo responded that he thought the
meeting went quite well. It was an informational meeting
and he feels that we are hearing some of the questions and
providing a better understanding of some of the more complicated
areas relating to the health insurance program. There will
be a meeting set up as soon as the draft of the new plan
booklet and an updated draft of the plan document is received.
This material should be received by the week of November
17.
Enforcement of Building Code
Alderperson Schlat er referred to his memo of November S
regarding several articles in the Cornell Daily Sun on building
code violations. He suggested that the Council conduct an
investigation by setting up a hearing mechanism to see whether
there are some changes that need to be made in the City's
law or what other types of remedies would be appropriate
to insure that there is compliance with the law and that
there is full enforcement.
Building Commissioner Hoard responded to Alderperson Schlather
and commented on the problems that were referred to in the
Cornell Daily Sun.
-18- November 5, 1986
The Mayor stated he has asked Building Commissioner Board
to get together with Cornell University to discuss building
construction on the campus.
Executive Session
By Al erperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Booth
RESOLVED, That the Council adjourn into Executive Session
to discuss a contract and a personnel matter.
Carried Unanimously
ADJOURNMENT:
Council a journed into Executive Session at 11:20 P.M.
Callista F. Paolangeli
City Clerk
19
November 5, 1986
CITY OF ITHACA
DEPARTMENT HEAD PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION SYSTEM
PURPOSE OF EVALUATION SYSTEM
The government of the City of Ithaca believes it is vitally
important to evaluate on a regular basis the work performance
of its department heads. A continual and thorough process of
evaluating the city's department heads aids those employees in
the performance of their duties, improves the overall quality of
work by the city government, and makes the city government more
clearly accountable to the citizens of Ithaca and better able to
serve their needs.
EVALUATION PROCESS
Under this evaluation process the Mayor has responsibility for
preparing a written evaluation of each department head during
each calendar year. These written evaluations are based on two
sets of criteria: a set of general criteria that apply to all
department heads and a set of individually established job
objectives drafted initially by each department head for his or
her job, and agreed to by the Mayor, followed by submission of
those job objectives for comment and approval by the appropriate
committee of Common Council- The Mayor prepares these written
evaluations near the end of each calendar year. In preparing
these evaluations the Mayor shall seek information
and/or advice from the citizen boards that work with various
department heads and from other appropriate sources. The Mayor
discusses the written evaluation with the department head, and
that employee has an opportunity to comment on the Mayor's
evaluation' The Mayor then places a copy of the completed
evaluation in the department head's personnel file and sends
a copy of it to Common Council.
More specifically, the City's department head evaluation
system involves the following:
1' By October 15 of each year each department head prepares
and submits to the Mayor and the appropriate committee
of Common Council a draft statement of Individual Duties/
Responsibilities and Corresponding Objectives (hereafter
referred to as Duties/Responsibilities - Objectives).
This statement of Duties/Responsibilities - Objectives
should state those specific, job-related factors that the
department head believes should be utilized in evaluating
his or her work performance during the following year.
The department head, the Mayor, and the appropriate
committee of Common Council discuss this draft and by the
end of the year agree on a final statement of Duties/
Responsibilities - Objectives that the Mayor will use in
evaluating that department head's work during the next
calendar year'
The final, mutually agreed on statement of Duties/Responsibilities-
the meeting between the
Objectives for each department head should address those factors that
the department bead
are critical to the acceptable work performance by that particular
of comments as stated
department head over the next twelve rlionths. Each identified Duty/
above, the Mayor
Responsibility - Objective should be as specific as possible in
of the completed evaluation
identifying a particular duty or responsibility of the department
the Common Council
head and the performance objective that is expected. The total
copy of that form in the
number of identified :items typically shiould not exceed ten.
head's personnel
`. By June 1 of each Year the Mayor meets individually with each
department head and discusses that employee's work, performance
'.00)
up t� � that date in light of the criteria stated in the
department- head's work evaluation form. Normally the Mayor does
not prepare a formal written evaluation of the department head's
work at this point.
3. At any time during the year the individual department head,
the Mayor, and the appropriate_ committee of Common Council May
agree on any changes in the stated Duties/Responsibilities Objectives.
4. By November 15 of each year the Mayor completes a written
evaluation of each department Mead using the form provided in
this document. By December 15 of each year the Mayor meets with
each department head and discusses the smitten evaluation with
that employee. Following that discussion the Mayor adds any
comments meets t� i the written evaluation the Mayor decides are appro-
priate, and the department Dead makes any written comments about
the evaluation he or she desires to make.
5. Following
the meeting between the
Mayor and
the department bead
and the addition
of comments as stated
in item 4
above, the Mayor
sends a copy
of the completed evaluation
form to
the Common Council
and places a
copy of that form in the
department
head's personnel
file.
'.00)
S. The Mayor shall request information and /or advice
regarding the performance of a particular department head from
the citizen board that works most closely with that employee.
The Mayor is also encouraged to seek input from other appropriate
sources.
7. The Mayor's written evaluation of each department head
-
consists of three basic parts: General Criteria ( see Part I i_ � r-
the evaluation form), DLit ies /Resp! �nsibi 1 it ies "- Objectives (see
Fart II of the evaluation form) , and an overall evaluation (see?
Fart III of the evaluation form). . Each part of the Mayor's
evaluation is based on a six level rating scale. The meaning of
these rating levels is as follows:
91
0
Rating
1
J
4
C
el
Notes regarding Rating Scale
Explanation of Rating
Work performance is often
unacceptable in terms of
meeting the requirements or
expectations of the position;
much improvement is necessary.
Work performance is sometimes
unacceptable in terms of
meeting the requirements or
expectations of the position;
some improvement is necessary.
Work performance is almost
always acceptable in terms
of meeting the requirements
and expectations of the
position; gin; slight improvement
is needed.
Work performance is always
acceptable in terms of
meeting the requirements and
expectations of the position.
Work performance is always
acceptable and sometimes
exceptional anal in terms of
meeting the requirements and
expectations of the position.
Work performance is often
exceptional anal in terms of
meeting the requirements and
expectations of the position.
A rating of 1 � �r c on an individual criterion (see parts I and
II of the evaluation form) means that remedial action in that
particular aspect of the department head's performance is necessary
to bring that performance to a satisfactory level. Remedial
action may occur through training, increased experience, or,
other means. In some cases a rating of 1 or 2 on an individual
criterion means that disciplinary action should be considered,
regardless of whether the department head could improve his or her
work performance in the future. Any disciplinary action that might
be undertaken must comply with applicable law.
A rating of 1 or 2 in terms � �1- the overall evaluation (see
Part 111 of the evaluation form) means that remedial action is
critically needed and that disciplinary action in accord with
applicable law is a very likely co=urse of action. An overall
1
evaluation rating of 1 or 2 raises serious questions as to
whether the department head should continue to occupy his or her',
position in City government.
8. At this time neither the Mayor nor Common Council uses the
department head performance evaluation system in making salary
adjustments for its department heads. At some time in the future,
Common Council may decide to use this system to make salary
adjustments.
9. For the purposes of this document the term "department head"
means the following employees of the City: City Controller,
Personnel Administrator, Director of planning and Development,
Building Commissioner, Purchasing Agent, Director of Youth Bureau
Superintendent of Public Works, police Chief, and Fire Chief.
10. For the purposes of this document the "appropriate
committee of Common mon Lo unci l " means the following:
A. For the City Controller, Personnel Administrator, and
Purchasing Agent:, the "appropriate committee" t;ee" means
the Budget and Administration Committee.
B. For the Director of Planning and Development, the
Building Commissioner, and the Superintendent of
Public Works, the "appropriate committee" means the
Planning and Development Committee.
C. For the Director of the Youth Bureau, the Police Chief,
and the Fire Chief, the "appropriate committee" means
the Human cervices Committee.
R,
CITY OF ITHACA DEPARTMENT HEAD
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM
Department Head's Name
Department
Position/Title
Evaluation Period From to
Instructions for using evaluation form
1. Complete Parts I, II, and III. Provide a numerical rating
and explanation for each item in those three parts. For
explanation of the rating system, refer to the text that describes
(low Ithaca's Department Head Performance Evaluation System.
2. Have a personal discussion of this written evaluation with the
department head.
3. Complete Part IV as appropriate.
4. Have the department head complete Part V as he or she deems
appropriate.
5. Reach agreement with the department head regarding a statement
of Individual Duties/Responsibilities and Corresponding Objectives
for the next year, as required by Part VI.
E. Sign and date and have the department head sign and date the
evaluation form'
7' Send a copy of the completed form to the Budget and Adminis-
tration Committee of Common Council, and place a copy of the
completed form in the department head's personnel file.
I. General Criteria
The following criteria apply to all management personnel in the
Ithaca City government.
A. Department head gathers and provides information necessary
for sound decision-making by the department head and other elements
of the City government.
Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(poor) (excellent)
Explanation.
B. Department head exercises sound professional judgment in making
decisions he or she is responsible for making ("sound professional
judgment" to mean gathering and analyzing information at a level
equal to that generally expected of a competent professional in the
same field).
Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(poor) (excellent)
Explanation:
C. Department head organizes, and oversees department work so it
is effective, efficient, and timely.
Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(poor) (excellent)
Explanation:
D. Department head oversees training of department personnel so
their work is effective, efficient, and timely.
Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(poor) (excellent)
Explanation:
E. Department head works effectively to maintain and improve
morale of department personnel.
Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(poor) (excellent)
Explanation:
M,
F. Department head takes initiative in meeting department
responsibilities.
Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(poor) (excellent)
Explanation:
G. Department head exhibits adaptability and creativity in meeting
department responsibilities.
Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(poor) (excellent)
Explanation:
H. Department head communicates and cooperates effectively with other
elements of City government.
Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(poor) (excellent)
Explanation:
I. Department head communicates effectively with the public regarding
department matters.
Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(poor) (excellent)
Explanation:
I I. Individual Duties/Responsibilities and Corresponding Objectives
As agreed upon by this department Mead, the Mayer, and the Budget and
Administration Committee of Common Council, the Mayor evaluates
this employee on the basis of each of the following items.
Note: Each item in this Part should state a duty /responsibility
of this department head and an objective corresponding to that duty/
responsibility. The Mayor should evaluate each item according to
the same six part rating scale used in Part I and provide a written
explanation for each item. Each item should utilize the following
form.
Duty /Responsibility Objective
(text as agreed) (text as agreed)
Rating: 1 E C 4 5 6
(poor) (excellent)
Explanation:
III. Overall Evaluation
On the basis of I and II above, the overall evaluation of this
department head is as follows:
Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(poor) (excellent)
Explanation:
IV. Mayor's Comments Following Discussion of Evaluation with
department head.
9
V. Department head's Comments s n Evaluation Following Discussion
with Mayor.
VI. Statement of Individual Duties/Responsibilities and Corre-
sponding Objectives for thr following year.
(Name of department head) and the Mayor have agreed
on a statement of Individual Duties/Responsibilities and Corre-
sponding Objectives for the Mayor to use in evaluating this
department head during the next _year. This agreement is subject
to comment and approval by the appropriate committee
of Common
Council.
VII. The undersigned parties have read and discussed all of
this document:.
Department Head
Signature Dat e
May,_.r Signature D at e