HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1988-12-07303
Regular Meeting
PRESENT:
Mayor Gutenberger
`(wool Alderpersons (10)
1
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
7:00 P.M.
December 7,1988
- Booth, Cummings, Johnson, Nichols, Hoffman,
Killeen, Lytel, Peterson, Romanowski,
Schlather
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Attorney - Nash
City Clerk - Paolangeli
Deputy City Controller - Cafferillo
City Controller - Spano
Planning and Development Director - Van Cort
LO Youth Bureau Director - Cohen
I- Acting Personnel Administrator - Walker
LO Acting Building Commissioner - Dieterich
Fire Chief - Olmstead
Police Chief - McEwen
M Planning and Development Deputy Director - Mazzarella
Q Superintendent of Public Works - Dougherty
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Gutenberger led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the American flag.
MINUTES:
Approval of Minutes of November 2 1988 Common Council Meeting
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the November 2, 1988 Common Council
meeting be approved as published.
Carried Unanimously
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
New Business
Alderperson Nichols requested under New Business an item for
discussion proposes regarding the provision for the Council
comments on Route 96.
No Council member objected.
Executive Session
Alderperson Cummings requested that at the end of the meeting
there be an Executive Session to discuss sale of property.
No Council member objected.
DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Budget and Administration Committee
Alderperson Cummings requested that Item 14.16, Developer Impact
Fee Program, be deleted from the agenda as this item has already
been included in the 1989 budget.
No Council member objected.
COMMUNICATIONS:
New Fire Stations' Committee Memorandum
Alderperson Killeen requested that the following memorandum be
included in the Council Minutes:
304
December 7, 1988
2
TO : New Fire Stations' Committee
FROM: Sean Killeen, Chairman
DATE: December 5, 1988
RE Status Report
"I believe it is appropriate at this time to provide you with
for the
an updated report on the status of the bidding process
construction of two new fire stations and the renovation of three
existing stations, (Central, #7, #'9)• In a recent report I had
indicated that the scheduling for the bid process should
approximately coincide with Thanksgiving, Christmas, and
Valentine's Day. This schedule has slipped a little bit and most
recent reports from City Engineer Bill Gray, and Architect Tony
Egner, indicate that we should be receiving the bid
specifications hopefully before Christmas or at least in early
January.
I believe we should be prepared to meet, since it may be
essential, in order to develop and be aware of the schedule of
our involvement in reaction to the bid specifications, their
presentation to the public, the response by interested parties,
and then the formal award of bids. I do remain confident that
ground will be broken in the Spring and the new fire facilities
will be underway with the start of the warm weather and the
normal construction season in April 1989. One important
consideration that we should prepare for is the need to review
and perhaps adjust funding support. Because the development of
the bid specifications has been going on for many months since
our respective legislative bodies in the City and Town obligated
a specific level of financing, the bids may be in minor variance
with the amount of monies that have been earmarked. This may
necessitate, of course, some fiscal augmentation but it is my
sense that our respective legislative bodies remain solidly
supportive of fire station construction and renovation.
Equally, if not more importantly, and certainly centrally
related, is the matter of the Ithaca Fire Department personnel
levels. Assuming as we can that Ithaca Fire Department equipment
(vehicles) and buildings (new and renovated fire houses) are
planned both physically and financially, we should deal now with
the people needed to make these work and work well. Within the
context of our intermunicipal agreement and the spirit of mutual
commitment, I believe we can expedite the process of committing
ourselves (City and Town) to the costs of new and more personnel.
In terms of Ithaca Fire Department staffing, I mean career and
volunteer, including bunkers.
The issues of total number of fire fighters which can be
supported, the balance between career and volunteer, the indirect
costs of training, leading, and equipping Ithaca Fire Department
personnel, and the fine - tuning of vehicles and facilities
essential to the ultimate performance reality of Ithaca Fire
Department staffing, are all elements upon which we have dwelled.
We should offer our views which could help hasten the process of
determining personnel levels critical to community security and
Ithaca Fire Department well- being.
Other matters spotlighted in part by the recent and
beneficial public consciousness - raising of the fire fighters'
union, is the need to get more of the community more directly
supporting the new Ithaca Fire Department. Everyone through
their taxes, of course, supports the Ithaca Fire Department but
more specific resources need to be brought in to play if we are
to fully safeguard our overall community.
December 7, 19305
3
Let me offer some considerations for you to ponder. I base
these reflections upon my involvement over these past number of
years during the reinvigoration of the fire department and the
expansion of its service capacity.
The first order of business and objective towards which
efforts must be applied, is to induce our major institutions- -
Cornell, Ithaca College, Tompkins Community Hospital- into
willingly giving more to the community for support of Ithaca Fire
Department operations. The key words here are "induce" and
"willingly" and "support ", since _these institutions are major
service beneficiaries while being primary technological drivers
goading the modernization of the fire department. In addition to
that presently given, the kind of support these institutions can
and should be called upon to provide is personnel and training
(in general and EMS in particular) . In both types of civic -
minded support - training and personnel, these institutions enjoy
well- endowed capacities.
Cornell EMS is a very popular volunteer activity which a
LO hundred students vigorously participated in during this past
autumn, without very much institutional encouragement.
CO Throughout the community students, and not just in the
Q traditional bunker mode, have proven themselves to be generous
and willing to give of their time within the constraints of their
academic and social requirements. Likewise, women, as a distinct
category, are a tremendous pool of potential who must be
vigorously invited to participate in meeting the needs of the
Ithaca Fire Department, not withstanding the long- established
traditional practice of the fire house being a men's social club.
The Veteran Volunteer Association has vast accumulated
public service experiences and in recognition is annually awarded
a piece of every homeowner's fire insurance premium. The
we resources of this organization are latent and untapped in terms
of continuing civic contributions to aid in the support of
community protection.
The eight established volunteer companies should be
challenged to reinvigorate themselves and re- dedicate themselves
by redefining their missions of service. One area of mushrooming
need is the emergency medical services (EMS) which this year
accounts for one third of all Ithaca Fire Department calls.
Before 1979 there were virtually no EMS calls; in 1988 there will
be 1200. This is one more manifestation of "runaway health
costs" which we hear so much of. Some volunteer companies could
get into EMS service as many other nearby communities have
encouraged their volunteer companies to do. All Ithaca Fire
Department EMS work is now handled exclusively by career
personnel.
Volunteer companies could broaden their categories of
membership to recruit Senior Citizen, RSVP type of individuals or
teenage apprenticeship individuals. The successful efforts of
the handicapped community in building the ramp at the Alternative
Federal Credit Union at the corner of State and Albany is another
manifestation of a local resource which could be invited to
contribute to the Ithaca Fire Department.
A last observation is that the nerve center for all this
activity, needed to support the new Ithaca Fire Department, is
the Board of Fire Commissioners. This panel has proven itself
very effective in lobbying and supporting and arguing on behalf
of an increased augmentation of Ithaca Fire Department personnel.
Likewise, this nerve center, and legitimate recognition of it,
must be also encouraged to continue to take the lead in greater
steps. The Board of Fire Commissioners must be stimulated and
tasked to identify and induce new and strengthened resources for
the modernized Ithaca Fire Department operations. The Board must
3061
December 7, 1988
►,i
also plan to satisfy the future obligations which the Ithaca Fire
Department is being called upon by the community to assume.
Let us all be sufficiently reasonable to act accordingly and
provide adequate effort to preclude future regret.
Thank you."
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
1989 Budget
Mr. John Cook, 906 North Tioga Street, read the following
statement to Council in regard to the Fire Department budget for
1989:
"At a July 1st f ire in Hackensack, New Jersey this year, 5 f ire
fighters were killed. Inadequate manpower was cited as a
contributing factor. Hackensack has 98 fire fighters or 2.5 per
thousand population. Ithaca has 44 fire fighters or less than 1
per thousand population. Al Whitehead, President of the
International Association speaking of the Hackensack tragedy said
'we are asserting our public right to fight for increased safety.
It is up to us to raise the costs of these fire fighter deaths by
speaking the truth whenever and wherever necessary. Only then
can we be assured that real value is attached to our lives, our
lives will not be wasted.' Over the past several weeks the
Ithaca Paid Fire Fighters Association has campaigned for safety
through necessary increases in the fire department roster. This
has been a unique endeavor since unions are usually pushing for
more money, benefits and time off. Increasing the fire
department roster may in fact necessitate some sacrifice in these
areas. This is how important the safety issue is for our
membership.
Once again I would like to say that this is the City of Ithaca's
f ire department and the city needs to take a leadership role in
providing its fire fighters and residents the safety they
deserve. We feel that only by a strong commitment from the City
to increase manning and continued concern shown by the members of
the fire department will we receive the support we are owed from
the Town, Cornell and Ithaca College. We will be heard by the
Town, Cornell and Ithaca College and we hope you will support us
with the commitment to fund new fire fighter positions. We
remain committed to the original fire department request for 23
new positions of which 12 fire fighters are the most critical.
Get used to seeing our faces because we are not going to go away
until you let us know by funding the manpower that we need that
our lives will not be wasted.
Thank you."
Susan Cook, 204 East Yates Street, read the following statement
to Council on the 1989 fire department budget:
"The safety of our fire fighters are being comprised by the
shortage of our fire fighters. The Ithaca fire department is
currently operating with the same number of fire fighters it had
16 years ago yet the number of alarms have tripled in that time.
Ithaca homes and businesses are not adequately protected anymore
and the Ithaca fire department needs 22 additional fire fighters
this year; the City is proposing to give us 4. The National
Fire Protection Association recommends the minimum manning of 1.5
fire fighters per thousand people population in this
municipality. Twenty two added fire fighters would still leave
us far below the national safety standards. Our purpose tonight
is to request that the City Council members give us a plan and a
timeframe for bringing our fire department up to the national
safety standards. Until such a plan is implemented, we will hold
the city accountable if one of our husbands or wives is hurt or
killed as a result of the lack of fire fighters.
307
December 7, 1988
5
The safety of the fire fighters should be a primary concern.
Their lives are in danger as is every member of the public and
their property. Four fire fighters this year is not going to
change that. We respectfully are asking for a written response
on our concerns. We would like a timeframe, some sort of plan
as to how you plan on meeting the increase in manpower.
Personally I would like to say that I understand what's being
done as far as the money being put into contingency fund on 5 1/2
(two" new positions. I would like some sort of assurance now or in the
future that whether the Town of Ithaca agrees to pay their share
or whatever, we need those people." We need them whether the Town
agrees or not. It is our fire department.
Thank you."
City of Ithaca residents were asked to vote on this in a
referendum on the November 8th ballot. Newspaper ads paid for
with our tax dollars implied that 5 other potential developers
were waiting for the referendum to fail so that one of them could
exploit the site for hydropower. In fact, 5 other potential
developers did file applications for the federal license that the
City of Ithaca now holds but that was back in 1983. Since then
economic conditions are less favorable for hydropower development
(46we' of this kind at this site. Unfavorable economic conditions
whether foreseen or unforseen will surely affect the City's
investment in hydropower at the site if it is allowed to proceed
with this plan.
The City's ads implied that the city's plan is environmentally
benevolent but some members of the city appointed Hydropower
Commission as well as concerned citizens were not satisfied that
important environmental issues have been sufficiently studied in
the City's plan. Common Council has none the less ended its
review of the study documents and refuses to re -open
environmental study. The proposed plans impact on the salmon
fishery, for instance, is unknown. Furthermore, key components
of the City plan to limit environmental impacts at the site have
been adopted by the DEC and will be required of any hydro
developer, be it the City or a private concern. Ads painted
that if we don't do it someone else will, but earlier this year
Common Council rejected an offer made by our district
representative to seek legislative protection for the site.
Rather than acting on Mayor Gutenberger's public statements in
favor of protecting the site from any hydro development, the
City's intention seems clear, to exploit Ithaca Falls for
revenue. The hidden agenda in this issue was time. The City's
provincial license to build the plant expires in October 1990 but
it rushed to place the referendum on the November 8th ballot.
The reason has to do with the pending changes in laws affecting
small hydroelectric producers and the rate at which public
utilities buy back the electricity they produce.
The City needed a 'yes' vote on the referendum in order to sign
a contract with NYSEG for guaranteed buy -back rate of about 8
cents per kilowatt hour before January 1, 1989. After that
NYSEG's buy -back rate will be determined by competitive bidding
amongst many, many hydroelectric producers and it is sure to be
lower. There is some informed speculation that the number of
bidders could even include producers in eastern Canada as well as
the northeast U.S. because of the recent free trade agreements
Hydropower Plant at Ithaca
Falls
Penny Baron, 417 East
Lincoln
Street, read the following
statement to Council regarding the proposal for a Hydropower
Plant at Ithaca Falls:
LO
r
"The City of Ithaca ran a
bias ad
campaign to raise support for
M
its proposal to build and
operate a hydro - electric plant on Fall
Creek using water diverted
from the
above Ithaca Falls.
Q
City of Ithaca residents were asked to vote on this in a
referendum on the November 8th ballot. Newspaper ads paid for
with our tax dollars implied that 5 other potential developers
were waiting for the referendum to fail so that one of them could
exploit the site for hydropower. In fact, 5 other potential
developers did file applications for the federal license that the
City of Ithaca now holds but that was back in 1983. Since then
economic conditions are less favorable for hydropower development
(46we' of this kind at this site. Unfavorable economic conditions
whether foreseen or unforseen will surely affect the City's
investment in hydropower at the site if it is allowed to proceed
with this plan.
The City's ads implied that the city's plan is environmentally
benevolent but some members of the city appointed Hydropower
Commission as well as concerned citizens were not satisfied that
important environmental issues have been sufficiently studied in
the City's plan. Common Council has none the less ended its
review of the study documents and refuses to re -open
environmental study. The proposed plans impact on the salmon
fishery, for instance, is unknown. Furthermore, key components
of the City plan to limit environmental impacts at the site have
been adopted by the DEC and will be required of any hydro
developer, be it the City or a private concern. Ads painted
that if we don't do it someone else will, but earlier this year
Common Council rejected an offer made by our district
representative to seek legislative protection for the site.
Rather than acting on Mayor Gutenberger's public statements in
favor of protecting the site from any hydro development, the
City's intention seems clear, to exploit Ithaca Falls for
revenue. The hidden agenda in this issue was time. The City's
provincial license to build the plant expires in October 1990 but
it rushed to place the referendum on the November 8th ballot.
The reason has to do with the pending changes in laws affecting
small hydroelectric producers and the rate at which public
utilities buy back the electricity they produce.
The City needed a 'yes' vote on the referendum in order to sign
a contract with NYSEG for guaranteed buy -back rate of about 8
cents per kilowatt hour before January 1, 1989. After that
NYSEG's buy -back rate will be determined by competitive bidding
amongst many, many hydroelectric producers and it is sure to be
lower. There is some informed speculation that the number of
bidders could even include producers in eastern Canada as well as
the northeast U.S. because of the recent free trade agreements
308
December 7, 1988
the U.S. has made with Canada. The City could not afford to
waste time in re- opening environmental studies because it would
jeopardize their rosy revenue projections. The estimated cost of
constructing the plant is 5.4 million to be raised by floating a
bond. Can the City guarantee that it will not resort to dipping
into the general fund of my tax dollars to pay back should NYSEG
find a way to avoid a contract with the City? The City's ads
imply that my vote on the referendum represented actual power
over the outcome of this issue when in fact the referendum was
not legally binding. Its outcome would only influence Common
Council's decision but the real deciding factor would be based on
the City's ability to sign a contract with NYSEG before January
1, 1989. In fact the City had so little regard for the consensus
of resident's opinions that the City's Attorney investigated
whether the referendum was necessary at all. Proponents of the
plan in City government are so eager for this project to become a
reality that they are following every lead to win their way
despite the rights and concerns of citizens.
I feel this statement sums up many key issues not expounded on in
the City's flyer sent out to the public prior to election day.
The economic issue of developing the falls for hydropower seems
even more unfeasible to me today having carefully considered the
issue and discussed the economics of the project with individuals
with a business background. These two photos show Ithaca Falls.
In January, the waterfalls are white, majestic, powerful and
quite a site to behold. They are also partially or totally
frozen as this picture indicates. How much hydropower will the
falls generate in this state? How much revenue? The photograph
of the falls in the summer months shows the calm serenity of the
gorge, the beauty of the rock structure beneath the falls and the
gentle ripples of water. How much hydropower will a slow running
or dry waterfall produce? How much revenue? Only for part of
the Spring and Fall are the Ithaca Falls running full. The
overall concept of a hydropower plant at the falls is surely a
poor economic prospect at best for generating money and a
boondoggle for the City at worst. I believe that if the City
goes ahead with its plans to build a hydropower plant at Ithaca
Falls we will find its profits literally frozen right up. Who
will pay the cost of building the plant then? I hope not the
Ithaca taxpayers who have already foot the bill for the $10,000
bias media campaign based on fear."
Margaret Fabrizio, 213 King Street, read the following statement
to Council in regard to hydropower:
"Many residents of the Ithaca community believe that the City of
Ithaca is rushing into hydropower development without a thorough
and realistic analysis of the economics at stake. Serious
questions that have so far produced discrepancies among experts
need to be answered before the City compromises an irreplaceable
and unique area like Ithaca Falls. We doubt that this plant will
generate revenue for the City and in fact fear the City will lose
money on this venture. It has even been suggested that because
of the unpredictable flow rate of the creek NYSEG will not able
to plan for and therefore use the energy that could be produced.
The falls are frozen in the winter and dry in the summer, two
periods of highest energy demand and the flow is unpredictable
the rest of the year. The city could spend a large sum of money
to build a plant, compromise one of the few natural places within
the City limits, and ultimately produce a negligible amount of
energy which NYSEG could find cheaper to ignore rather than tap.
This is not thinking globally and acting locally. This is acting
foolishly. A hydroelectric plant that produces no electricity at
times of peak demand can make no contribution toward energy self -
sufficiency or affect the total energy picture. We applaud the
concept of energy self- sufficiency but we simply are not
convinced that this particular site is a good choice for
hydropower development.
IF&
30,1
December 7, 1988
7
The November 8 vote is no mandate for the City to proceed with
this project. A 'no' vote was only narrowly defeated after the
City waged a one -sided campaign which misused public funds and
did not provide the public with all the facts or accurate facts.
It is an outrage that such a brochure was approved by the Mayor
of the City. We urge all Common Council representatives to look
at the real economic facts. The City has repeatedly stated that
it proposed to build the plant to protect the falls from an
outside developer. Why then are we rushing into a contract with
NYSEG? If the buy -back rates become unattractive, would any
developer still think it economically feasible to construct a
facility at the site? Unreliable flow and unattractive rates
combined with strict local legislation could be a real deterrent
to development. We have two years and nine months before
construction is required by the City's federal license. During
this time permanent exemption status for the falls or other
possible measures pursued through federal and state governments
LO and conservation organizations should be wholeheartedly supported
by the City government. Most people in the City do not want any
Iq hydropower development at Ithaca Falls. Exemption status was
only briefly explored and not until April of this year. We ask
that Common Council suspend negotiations with NYSEG and pursue,
CO with the intent to secure, permanent exemption status for the
Q site.
We taxpayers think that this will be a drain, not a boost to our
budget. This plant will never have the capacity to produce large
amounts of electricity and there will undoubtedly be drought
years. How will the City meet the large amounts of money
required to pay the bond in years of low energy production?
Enactment of development taxes and tough negotiations with the
Town and tax exempt parties could be more creative and productive
to the problem of generating additional revenue without taxing
the environment.
Most importantly it is obvious to the citizens of Ithaca that
Common Council and the Mayor have been unwilling to commit
themselves to preservation of Ithaca Falls. There is now a group
of citizens organized and determined to stop any hydropower
development at Ithaca Falls. We believe there is a way to get
permanent exemption status and intend to pursue it and we would
very much appreciate Common Council's support.
Thank you."
The following persons also spoke to Common Council against the
hydropower project proposal at Ithaca Falls:
Alfredo Rossi - 409 Lake Street
Roger Beck - 316 Auburn Street
Proposed Sale of City Hall Annex
Jason Fane, 133 North Quarry Street, spoke to Common Council in
regard to the proposed sale of the City Hall Annex to Charles
Schlough. He stated that he is against the sale of the annex to
Mr. Schlough because the sale is not the best contract that the
(400e City can get in that it is at least $100,000 less than other
people are prepared to bid and it has many other provisions which
are not in the City's interest and is not in the interest of
.taxpayers, and he has been told by lawyers that some of the
provisions are not even permitted by law. He urged Council
members to vote 'no' on the proposed sale of the City Hall Annex.
Atty. Michael Pichel, 320 North Aurora Street, asked each of the
Council members to vote against the proposed sale of the City
Hall Annex. He stated that it is really hard for anyone who
would make a bid on city property to look at what has happened
here and feel they could possibly make a bid if they didn't
already have the bid locked up. He referred to the terms of the
310
December 7, 1988
N
purchase offer that were put out to the public before the bid for
this property went out last February.
Atty. Pichel stated that one of the items on the purchase offer
was that the proposed bidder would have until February 1 to
inspect the property and decide whether they found it to their
suiting structurally, asbestos wise, etc. The city made
arrangements for everybody to inspect it. According to the offer
from Charles Schlough, he wants thirty days to inspect the
property after the Council accepts his bid. This is absolutely
in violation of the terms of purchase.
Atty. Pichel related that another term of purchase was the City
will not participate in the financing of the property. Yet the
offer from Charles Schlough asks that the City grant him a
$30,000 loan in the form of an unsecured promissory note, not
even a mortgage. He stated that Mr. Schlough wanted it without
interest and apparently the city's negotiating committee
increased that to 8 1/2% interest rate but it is never payable at
all until or unless he gets a permanent certificate of occupancy.
He stated that according to the New York State Constitution,
Article VIII prohibits a City from loaning anyone any money, and
yet the City of Ithaca Common Council is approving the sale to
Charles Schlough and the City would loan him $30,000 at 8 1/2%
interest. He asked Council how they think people feel when a
person submits the highest bid and it is not accepted, then the
Council goes to their favorite sponsor and negotiates a bid still
not as high as the highest bid and the City breaks every rule
that they put on the terms of purchase. He further stated that
if this property is sold to Mr. Schlough he expects the City will
be in litigation over the sale.
1989 Fire Department Budget
Dan Rhoads, 201 West Lincoln Street, Captain of Volunteer Company
#1, and Chairman of the Ithaca Volunteer Company Captains, spoke
to the Council regarding the 1989 Fire Department Budget. He
urged Council not to cut the equipment increases. He stated that
the volunteers fully support the paid staff's request for
personnel increases and he asked Council to please support the
Fire Department's request for more manpower.
Fire Chief Olmstead spoke to Council on the 1989 Fire Department
Budget requests. He wanted to remind Council as they go into
the discussions tonight and make plans for the future, that
everyone is clear about the issue that was framed by the Board of
Fire Commissioners. He stated that the issues of determination
by the Board of Fire Commissioners in carrying out their Charter
powers and responsibilities for the City of Ithaca is that there
is an immediate need to add 22 people to the roster of the fire
department.
Fire Chief Olmstead said that discussion was first placed before
Common Council and before the Town Board in April 1987; it has
now been 18 months, we are on our second episode of money placed
in restricted contingency for possible additions to the
personnel roster of the fire department. He stated that the
Board of Fire Commissioners is a Board that represents both the
City and Town and it was a major issue in the settlement of the
contract, that the Town would have a voice in deciding the
management, the administration, and the future of the fire
department.
Fire Chief Olmstead went over the procedure that was used this
year for the budget process. He stated that there were two
meetings held with the Human Services Committee, and that
committee spent a lot of time with the Fire Commissioners and
himself. Chief Olmstead said that it was on the basis of those
two meetings with the Human Services Committee, and a very clear
message of support from the 5 members of Council on that
committee that the Fire Department came back to the Budget and
W,
311
December 7, 1988
0
Administration Committee with a request to add in about $120,000
to the budget for some immediate personnel requests,
understanding that discussions had to go forward with the Town.
He stated that the issue that is before Council and the Town
Board is for 22 people. The issue that is before Council tonight
is whether or not the Council can show their commitment to the
people of the Fire Department and do something right away and not
wait for the Town Board to do something.
Chief Olmstead stated that since the City's relationship began
with the Town Board the entire operation of the Fire Department
has been held hostage to the negotiations and discussions that
have to take place between two separate governments. He stated
that the Fire Department wants to see some meaningful action on
this matter.
RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC:
LO Proposed Sale of City Hall Annex
Iq Alderperson Booth asked the City Attorney to be prepared under
his report to respond to the issue of whether the provision of
Lo dealing with the $30,000 note in the contract is in fact a loan
F and if that is barred by the Constitution of the State of New
M York. He stated that he feels the City has complied with the
Q process it has set out and that it has reached a responsible
agreement.
Hydropower
Alderperson Booth stated that he feels that unfortunately the
information campaign was not balanced. However, the vote
occurred and he thinks it is valid. He believes that hydro
development by the City makes sense, even though he would prefer
that site not be developed for hydropower because of the
resources that are there. He stated in regard to the exemption
of Ithaca Falls from hydro development that the only mechanism he
knows of is to have that portion of that stream declared a
federal wild and scenic river and he cannot imagine that such a
designation would be proper given the rivers that are in that
system on the federal level. He further stated he does not
believe we will be entering into a contract by January 1st.
Alderperson Nichols commented that the public's remarks regarding
the flow of water over the falls for the different seasons is
correct. There have been figures computed on the water flow for
the falls for the past 30 years and have been taken into account
in every computation. He stated that the energy figure to be
negotiated is an average figure for the next fifteen years and is
based upon NYSEGIs own computation. He said that any agreement
that is made with NYSEG has to be approved by the Public Service
Commission who is charged with the authority of protecting and
making sure that this is not at the expense of the rate payers.
Alderperson Nichols stated that he feels it is very unfair to
assume that the City will go ahead with an actual project until
all financial liability in terms of the rates that will be
achieved, in terms of the actual bids for costs of construction,
etc. are established. He stated that what the referendum did was
give the authority to the City to go ahead if it so chooses. He
also stated that if there are further environmental studies that
need to be done they should be done. Alderperson Nichols further
stated that he resents the fact that some people assume that if
we are working on one project we are neglecting such issues as
child care, drug problems, homelessness, etc. He is prepared to
work with anyone and spend as much time as needed to try and
solve these problems.
Proposed Sale of City Hall Annex
Alderperson Cummings responded to Mr. Pichel's and Mr. Fane's
remarks that the City ought to be accepting the highest dollar
bid on that building. She thinks it is incumbent upon her to say
as second ward representative and downtown resident and taxpayer
312
December 7, 1988
10
that she objects very strenuously to what the highest dollar bid
boys are doing to her downtown. She stated she resents seeing
local merchants driven out of their shops by exorbitant rents
and seeing those shops then subdivided into cubicles so small
that local merchants can not make a go of it. Alderperson
Cummings said that owner occupancy on the Commons is very
important, and the City needs to make it possible for our
downtown merchants to control the fate and shape of their
downtown.
Town /City Fire Meeting
Alderperson Schlather noted that there is a joint meeting
scheduled for the fire issue between the Town and City for
January 18, 1989. He stated that assuming that there is a good
result from that meeting, the matter of transferring the money
from restricted contingency would then be discussed at the B &A
Committee meeting on January 26th, and there would be action by
Council at their February 1, 1989 meeting.
Hydropower
Alderperson Hoffman invited anyone who is concerned about this
issue to the meeting of the Hydropower Commission which will be
on December 13 at 7:30 in City Hall. He stated that he also was
disappointed with some of the aspects of the City's informational
campaign. He stated that his reaction to the City's brochure was
that it did not tell the whole story; it was not what he would
call even - handed and he feels that maybe there was not a
completely informed or balanced presentation.
1989 Fire Department Budget
Alderperson Peterson stated that as Chairperson of the Human
Services Committee, she is committed to the additional fire
fighter requests from the Fire Department.
Hydropower
Alderperson Peterson stated that she hopes that soon, through the
Hydropower Commission and perhaps the Planning Committee, that
there might be a clearer position and steps put forward as to
what the City is going to do next regarding the hydropower plant.
Proposed Sale of City Hall Annex
Mayor Gutenberger responded to the question that was raised by
Mr. Jason Fane regarding the refusal of Charles Francis to re-
appraise the Annex building at his request. Mayor Gutenberger
stated that remark was correct because Charles Francis was the
one who did the appraisal for the City and if there is any
litigation Mr. Francis would be called as the City's expert
witness and it would certainly be a conflict of interest for the
City's appraiser to also be appraising property for someone who
might be challenging the City's decision.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR:
Proposed Sale of City Hall Annex
Mayor Gutenberger asked that the
William Lower, which was received
included in the record:
"Dear Mayor Gutenberger:
following letter from Mr.
at 7:05 p.m. that evening be
I am writing this letter because I will be unable to attend the
City Council meeting tomorrow night, and I have just had an
opportunity to review the revised Schlough 'purchase offer' for
the City Hall Annex. Please read this letter into the Minutes
during the public portion of your meeting.
I have never withdrawn my $255,000 offer to purchase the annex.
My offer was submitted prior to the February 1, 1988 deadline.
My offer was non - contingent. I complied with the City's bid
proposal and had the annex inspected prior to submitting my bid.
The City stated that no financing was available. I did not
�1,4-
110
1q,
LO
T-
M
'Q
31 3
December 7, 1988
11
require the City loan me any money to purchase the annex (and I
am advised that the New York State Constitution prohibits such a
loan). I offered to renovate the annex exactly as the City
required. I offered, and still offer, to pay the highest price
(even if it is necessary to pay more than $255,000) . I made no
requirement that the City remove the walkways connecting the
annex to City Hall. I requested no guaranteed variance. I
requested no time to obtain financing for the purchase or for the
renovations. I believe that it is unfair to sell the annex for
less than full value and with contingencies that dramatically
reduce the true purchase price.
The Schlough offer is still subject to 'further design and
modification of the interior of the Premises by the Buyer', so
Mr. Schlough would, in effect, obtain the annex at less than my
offer, without really promising to do the project with the City
seems to be paying for.
I am one of the original bidders. My bid was the highest. I am
still ready, willing and able to purchase the annex for the
highest price (I would even increase my offer if necessary) and I
am willing to give the City the exact same development that is
offered by Mr. Schlough. I would develop the annex in
conjunction with Mr. Schlough's McKinney building so that the
City would get a higher price and everything else offered by Mr.
Schlough.
This project could be a model for downtown redevelopment, with
cooperation between adjoining property owners encouraged by the
City. There are very few Commons properties large enough for
redevelopment on the upper floors, because elevators and
requirement for 2nd means of egress make such redevelopment
impractical without cooperation and sharing of elevators and fire
stairs.
Please don't vote in favor of this resolution.
Yours truly,
William L. Lower"
Mayor Gutenberger also read into the record the following letter
from Stephen Sunderland of Compu Draft Services, New York, New
York, which was received at 4:35 p.m. that day:
"Dear Sirs:
I hereby raise my offer to purchase the City Hall Annex property
on the northeast corner of Cayuga and Green Streets, Ithaca, New
York as follows:
1. PRICE. The purchase price shall be three hundred
thousand dollars ($305,000.00). *(one figure a typo on letter)
2. TERMS. The terms and other features of the offer shall
be identical to that of Mr. Charles Schlough. I am willing to
cooperate with him on a joint project if that is the desire of
the City government.
If Mr. Schlough does not wish to develop his property
in conjunction with the annex, I am willing to induce another
downtown landlord or landlords to develop as many apartments as
Mr. Schlough would have developed in the McKinney building and be
subject to the same enforcement as Mr. Schlough on this matter.
3. NOTICE. I understand that the Ithaca City Charter
section 3.10(40) requires that City property be sold for the
highest bid or if the City elects to negotiate a sale the
property must be sold for full value.
314
12
Very truly yours,
Stephen Sunderland"
December 7, 1988
MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS:
Personnel Administrator
Mayor Gutenberger reported that he has appointed Valerie Walker
as Acting Personnel Administrator, retroactive to December 5,
1988, at a 10% increase in salary to $25,918 and he asked the
Council's concurrence.
Resolution
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski
RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment of Valerie
Walker as Acting Personnel Administrator, retroactive to December
5, 1988, at a salary of $25,918.
Carried Unanimously
Rental Housing Task Force
Mayor Gutenberger reported that he has appointed Laura Lewis, 509
Willow Avenue, representing Civic Associations and Sui -Sing
Shantur, 224 Bryant Avenue, representing mortgage officers, to
the Rental Housing Task Force.
Resolution
By Alderperson Killeen: Seconded by Alderperson Lytel
RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointments of Laura
Lewis and Sui -Sing Shantur to the Rental Housing Task Force.
Carried Unanimously
Search Committee for Personnel Administrator
Mayor Gutenberger explained the process for appointing a search
committee for Personnel Administrator. Common Council has to
appoint three Council members for the search committee of seven.
He has asked Jean McPheeters to represent the Affirmative Action
Committee and has asked the Civil Service Commission to appoint
two of their three members. He offered for the Council's
consideration the seventh member who is the person non-
affiliated with City Hall who would have expertise in the area of
the position being filled. He offered the name of James
Markowitz, Assoc. Professor of Law and Labor Relations at Ithaca
College, 110 Renwick Drive.
Resolution
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment of James
Markowitz to serve on the Search Committee for the Personnel
Administrator.
Carried Unanimously
Resolution
By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Lytel
RESOLVED, That the three Council members to serve on the Search
Committee for the Personnel Administrator are Alderpersons
Killeen, Nichols, and Johnson.
Carried Unanimously
Ithaca Housing Authority
Mayor Gutenberger offered the name of Frank Slattery, 960 East
State Street, for appointment to the Ithaca Housing Authority,
with a term to expire October 17, 1989, to fill a vacancy created
by the resignation of Edward Conley and he asked the Council's
concurrence.
Resolution
By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment of Frank
Slattery to the Ithaca Housing Authority, with a term to expire
October 17, 1989.
Carried Unanimously
M
Ln
S
M
Q
December 7, 1988
13
Cable TV Commission
Mayor Gutenberger offered the name of Thomas Terrizzi, 714 North
Cayuga Street to be appointed to the Cable TV Commission with a
term to expire July 30, 1991, to fill a vacancy created by the
resignation of Curt Dunnam and he asked the Council's
concurrence.
Resolution
By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman
RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment of Thomas
Terrizzi to the Cable TV Commission with a term to expire July
30, 1991.
Carried Unanimously
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
Proposed Sale of City Hall Annex
Alderperson Booth asked the City
that is in the contract with Mr.
Attorney about the $30,000 note
Schlough.
City Attorney Nash responded that it states in the State
Constitution, Article VIII, Section 1, that no City shall loan
any money or property to a private individual. He stated that
the question here seems to be, "Is the City making a loan in this
case or is it taking part of the compensation for the sale of
this property in a deferred payment ?" Attorney Nash said that
he will investigate further with the Attorney General and the
State Comptroller's Office for their opinion and report back to
Council.
City's Court Action Against Jason Fane
Alderperson Killeen asked City Attorney Nash for an update on the
City's court action against Jason Fane regarding the stacking of
a single - family historic dwelling on East Hill with 24 students.
City Attorney Nash answered that that proceeding is pending in
City Court. He stated that the defendant's attorney has made
several requests for discovery of information in connection with
the prosecution. The City has filed a response and he is sure
there will be some pre -trial proceedings on discovery of evidence
before that will actually go to a hearing. He thinks the
discovery stage will be done within 30 days.
Status of Senior Citizen Discount for TV Cable
Alderperson Killeen asked City Attorney Nash about the status of
the senior citizen discount for the TV Cable in regard to the
retroactive clause.
Attorney Nash responded that he has sent the list of senior
citizens who are entitled to that discount to Mr. Withiam and he
has not yet had a response from him on this matter.
Cable TV Franchise
Alderperson Hoffman stated that he understands that the public
access studios have been shut down somewhat indefinitely and he
asked City Attorney Nash if he has heard anything about it.
City Attorney Nash replied that he has not heard anything about
that. Alderperson Lytel stated that it is true that the studios
that are agreed to in the franchise do not exist right now; they
have been de- constructed. This matter will be considered at the
Cable Commission hearing on December 13th.
BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
*14.12 Cass Park Ice Rink
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That Common Council does hereby request that the City
Attorney prepare a Memorandum of Understanding and other
documents necessary to implement the new ice rink construction
project in Cass Park, as proposed by the Community Recreation
Center, Inc. in its letter of November 23, 1988 and report back
315
316
December 7, 1988
14
to Common Council in due course, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the issues of location, design, landscaping,
roadway and parking relocation, and related Cass Park concerns,
including environmental review be, and the same are hereby
referred to the Board of Public Works, the Ithaca Youth Bureau
and the Conservation Advisory Council for comment, review and
report back to Common Council in due course.
Alderperson Schlather gave background information on the
resolution. He stated that what this resolution will do is give
the Ithaca Youth Hockey people some sense that the Common Council
is willing to go forward with this project. The Ithaca Youth
Hockey Association's Attorney and the City Attorney will be
meeting to work out the legal details and be coming back to
Council with proposals and details.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) - Booth, Killeen, Schlather, Cummings, Peterson,
Lytel, Romanowski, Johnson
Nays (2) - Nichols, Hoffman
Carried
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
*16.5 Sale of Fire Station #5
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Common Council by resolution duly adopted at
its regular meeting on October 7, 1987 declared Fire Station #5,
Tax Map Number 70 -1 -14, 136 West State Street, with an appraised
value of $76,000 to be surplus property and authorized the Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency and its Executive Director to solicit
proposals for its sale, to evaluate purchase proposals according
to the stated criteria of purchase price, proposed reuse and
appropriateness of any planned alternations to the exterior of
the structure, and recommend to the Common Council its selection
f urchaser for Common Council review and action, and
o p
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency solicited and evaluated
proposals for the sale of Fire Station #5 and recommended to the
Common Council the sale of the property to Harvey Ferdschneider
and Anne Trovinger for the sum of $80,000, said recommendation
being accepted by the Common Council at their April 6, 1988
regular meeting, and
WHEREAS, at their September 7, 1988 regular meeting the Common
Council declared Harvey Ferdschneider and Anne Trovinger to be
the preferred buyers for the purchase of Fire Station #5 for the
amount of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000), in accordance with
the terms of the purchase proposal, and authorized and directed
the Director of Planning and Development to publish the
appropriate notification of the sale in accordance with the
provisions of City Charter Section 3.10 (40) in order to
facilitate the Common Council's consideration of the actual sale
of Fire Station #5 to the persons and upon the conditions noted
at its December 7, 1988 regular meeting; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby
approves the sale of Fire Station #5 to Harvey Ferdschneider and
Anne Trovinger in the amount of $80,000 in accordance with the
Purchase Proposal, and hereby authorizes and directs the City
Attorney to prepare and the Mayor to sign all instruments
necessary to effect the sale of the subject property.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
put to a vote on roll call which resulted as follows:
31'7
December 7, 1988
15
Hoffman - Aye Nichols - Aye
Peterson - Aye Schlather - Aye
Lytel - Aye Cummings - Aye
Booth - Aye Killeen - Aye
Johnson - Aye Romanowski- Aye
Ayes (10) Carried Unanimously
*16.6 Sale of Annex
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca by resolution
duly adopted at its regular meeting on October 7, 1987 did
declare the City Hall Annex, Tax Map Number 70 -5 -24, 123 South
Cayuga Street to be surplus property; and did authorize and
direct the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and its Executive Director
to solicit proposals for the sale of the Annex, to evaluate said
proposals according to the stated criteria of purchase price,
LO proposed reuse and appropriateness of any planned alterations to
LO the exterior of the structure, and recommend to Common Council
its selection of purchaser for Council's review and action, and
LD
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency did duly solicit and
M evaluate proposals for the sale of the Annex, and did recommend
the sale of the subject property to Charles Schlough in
accordance with the terms and conditions of his proposal dated
February 1, 1988, said recommendation being accepted by the
Common Council at their April 6, 1988 meeting, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council at their August 3, 1988 meeting
authorized and directed the Intergovernmental Relations Committee
of Council to meet with Charles Schlough to negotiate a purchase
offer for the Annex, and to report their findings to Council; and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee recommended
the sale of the City Hall Annex to Charles Schlough for the
amount of $245,000, in accordance with the Purchase Proposal at
the Common Council Meeting of November 2, 1988, at which meeting
the Common Council accepted the Committee's recommendation and
authorized and directed the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and its
Executive Director to publish the appropriate notification of the
sale of the Annex in compliance with City Charter Section
3.10(40) in order to facilitate the Common Council's
consideration of the actual sale of the City Hall Annex to the
person and upon the conditions noted at its December 7, 1988
regular meeting; now, therefore, be it
Alderperson Cummings explained the change that has been made in
item #8 of the Purchase Proposal. She stated that the change
was made at the Council's request to make sure that there would
not be a sale of the annex prior to completion of the entire
project.
In regard to the language in the Resolved paragraph in the
Resolution, City Attorney Nash explained that Common Council
wanted to forbid any transfer, except such transfer that it would
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby
approves the sale of the City Hall Annex to Charles Schlough for
the amount of $245,000, in accordance with the Purchase Proposal,
and does also agree to allow the purchaser Charles Schlough to
transfer his interest in said proposal and the property covered
thereby to any entity in which he has a controlling interest and
which agrees to be bound by all the terms and conditions of said
proposal, and hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney to
prepare and the Mayor to sign all instruments necessary to effect
the sale of the subject property, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution is subject to the certification by
the City Attorney that item #2C of the Purchase Proposal is
consistent with the State Constitution and State law.
Alderperson Cummings explained the change that has been made in
item #8 of the Purchase Proposal. She stated that the change
was made at the Council's request to make sure that there would
not be a sale of the annex prior to completion of the entire
project.
In regard to the language in the Resolved paragraph in the
Resolution, City Attorney Nash explained that Common Council
wanted to forbid any transfer, except such transfer that it would
31_g
December 7, 1988
16
specifically approve, so language was written into the contract
so the ad could be published after the November Council meeting.
In discussions with the developer Mr. Schlough, he indicated that
he would like Council's approval for transfer to a partnership or
other entity of which he would have a controlling interest for
development purposes, so that was put in the resolution so
Council could authorize that pursuant to the contract.
Further discussion followed on the floor on the legality of the
$30,000 provision.
Alderperson Romanowski read the following statement into the
record:
"Mr. Schlough has proposed an innovative and far - reaching project
to add much needed housing stock to the City of Ithaca. It
hopefully will set an example for other developers and
businessmen in the downtown area. For this I commend Mr.
Schlough. His willingness to work within the system, and to take
this economic gamble shows his commitment and faith in the life
of this City.
However, I will vote against this project not because of Charlie
Schlough - but for these 3 reasons:
1. I believe that the appraisal price and selling price is
not a true reflection of the value of this property.
2. More importantly - uncertainty of contract provision.
3. I am also not sure that it is in the best interests for
the City to sell this property. In a few years the
value of the present City Hall in conjunction with this
corner property will enable the City to realize the
funds to build a new and more efficient seat of
government to better serve its people."
Alderperson Schlather stated that he is voting against the
resolution because the City is not getting enough money for this
property and because the City really should not be selling City
property, it should be leasing it; a 50 or 100 year lease is
what the Council should be talking about.
Alderperson Hoffman explained his reasons for not supporting this
resolution. He cannot in his judgment support the purchase offer
with the $30,000 provision in it.
Resolution to Table
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman
RESOLVED, That the matter of the proposed sale of the City Hall
Annex be tabled.
Ayes (9) - Cummings, Hoffman, Booth, Nichols, Peterson,
Lytel, Schlather, Romanowski, Johnson
Nay (1) - Killeen
Carried
Common Council recessed at 9:12 p.m. and reconvened in regular
session at 9:25 p.m.
DG
ST
TT
*14.10 Building Department Administrative Secretary
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That Carol Shipe be provisionally appointed to the
position of Administrative Secretary in the Building Department,
with an annual salary of $19, 015, that being Step 6 of the 1988
Confidential Employees Not Covered by a Union Compensation Plan,
effective December 12, 1988, as requested by the Acting Building
Commissioner.
Discussion followed on the floor.
L0
NT
L0
F
M
Q
17
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
December 7, 1988
Carried Unanimously
*14.11 Building Department Plan Review Officer
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That Richard Eckstrom be permanently appointed to the
position of Plan Review Officer in the Building Department, with
an annual salary of $26,352, that being Step 5 on the 1988
C.S.E.A. - Administrative Unit Compensation Plan, effective
December 12, 19881 as requested by the Acting Building
Commissioner.
Carried Unanimously
REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND COUNCIL LIAISONS:
Conservation Overlay Zones
Alderperson Johnson presented the following report to Common
Council on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Council:
The Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) recommends that Common
Council adopt the following conservation overlay zoning in
sensitive natural areas of the city.
I. Purpose.
The purpose of conservation overlay zoning (COZ) is to
give added protection to environmentally sensitive areas
without changing the overall zoning of the given areas. The
CAC feels that our wetlands, waterways, and woodlands are
Ithaca's most sensitive and valuable natural resources. The
purpose of COZ would be:
• to protect the water quality of the streams
themselves and Cayuga Lake into which they flow;
• to preserve plant and wildlife habitat;
• to minimize excessive increases in water volume
flowing through the creeks, and consequent erosion
of the banks, siltation of the streams and lakes,
loss of riparian (streambank) vegetation, and loss of
habitat for fish and other wildlife;
• to protect land from periodic excessive flooding due
to removal of riparian vegetation, dredging,
filling, damming, or channelization;
• to prevent degradation or loss of wetlands;
• to safeguard scenic views and vistas from and to the
lakes, wetlands, creeks, and gorges; and
• to enhance the recreational (including tourism)
values of these important places.
II. Background and rationale
Ithaca's waterways have often been treated as nuisances
rather than the tremendous natural assets that they are.
Especially in downtown Ithaca, the result has been polluted
water, channelization, disregard for plant and wildlife
habitat, litter, and inappropriate development. Loss of
fisheries, and possible contamination of remaining fish
species, has been another result.
Runoff from streets is a major cause of water
pollution, and in addition, the replacement of permeable,
vegetated surfaces with impervious ones leads to gullying on
the slopes and greater volumes of water in the streams with
resulting erosion, siltation, loss of plant life, loss of
fisheries and other wildlife. Buildings close to waterways
can degrade the aesthetic appeal of these resources.
The CAC feels that it is important to preserve the
features we have left and improve water quality, enhance
aesthetic appeal and recreational value, and improve plant
and wildlife habitats of our waterways. The COZ proposed
319
320
December 7, 1988
UN
here would be a first step in that process. In addition, we
hope that the city will give attention to rehabilitating
areas along our waterways that have been degraded.
While increasing the enjoyment of city residents in
these important natural resources, tourism will also be
enhanced, with consequent economic benefits to the city.
In addition to the waterways, the city boasts several
woodlands that deserve protection. Woodlands provide a
number of benefits; for example:
* enjoyment of the people who live near them, see
them, or use them;
* noise buffer;
* visual buffer;
* habitat for wildlife and plants;
* protection of waterways from excessive runoff,
pollution, erosion, and siltation;
* protection from flooding;
* protection of air quality by trapping or absorbing
pollutants;
* cooling through shading and evapotranspiration;
* absorption of CO2 , one of the major greenhouse
gases.
Note: An alternative to including the woodlands in the COZ
would be to designate them as Critical Environmental Areas
under the local Environmental Quality Review Ordinance.
III. Proposed provisions of the ordinance
1. In the overlay zones, no new construction except
for certain accessory uses to existing structures, as
specified below, may take place without a special permit and
environmental review. Existing structures, roads,
driveways, etc. may remain, but may not be replaced without
a special permit and environmental review (with the same
exceptions as for new construction). In the absence of a
permit for replacement, demolition must return the site to a
stable, vegetated condition. Replacement of existing
structures may not result in an increase in density.
2a. Construction activities in an overlay zone must
make provisions for protecting the zone from environmental
damage: to avoid such problems as erosion and increased
runoff, compaction of soil around trees, piling of soil
around trees, trash and pollution, etc. The
owner /contractor must spell out in advance what actions will
be taken, and if problems arise during or after
construction, must take corrective action.
2b. Construction activities outside of the overlay
zones may not encroach on the areas inside the zones.
Appropriate construction fencing must be installed to ensure
that this provision is not violated. Any debris that gets
into the overlay zone must be removed by the project's
contractor or owner, and any accidental damage must be
remedied by same. Water runoff from such nearby activities
must be controlled by same.
3. No trees above 12" DBH, and no more than 10 trees
above 2" DBH, may be cut in either zone without a special
permit and environmental review. Criteria to consider
before granting or denying a permit should include such
things as species of trees and appropriateness of habitat,
health of the trees, endangerment of nearby structures and
utilities.
321
December 7, 1988
19
Note: Loss of tree cover is one of the major threats to our
waterways. The CAC views this provision of the proposal as
vital.
5. A no -build buffer zone should be established in
especially critical areas such as along waterways, in which
no new structures could be built - -that is, a permit could
not be issued. Exemptions to such a provision - -along the
flats but not the gorges - -could include boat launching
sites, boathouses, poles, lean -tos, docks, fences, bridges
(list taken from state guidelines -- Appendix R of the Stream
Corridor Management Manual - -a DEC publication).
(Replacement of existing structures might be exempted.)
These same guidelines recommend buffer strips of varying
widths, depending on slope of the land, in watersheds and
other critical areas:
0%
4. Consideration in granting or denying permits shall
10%
be given to such things as slope, existing vegetation,
20%
views, size and appearance of project, and of course,
30%
findings of the environmental review. The reviewing board
40%
may place any conditions on the owner /developer that it
etc.
deems necessary to ensure the protection of the critical
area. The board should have broad powers in terms of design
and layout of structures, both of which should blend with
their surroundings and be as unobtrusive as possible. If
mitigating measures, spelled out in the permit, prove to be
inadequate as a project proceeds, the review board may
require additional protective measures before work may
proceed.
homes, and similar small -scale residential uses.
Note: The CAC recognizes that there will be controversy
LD
concerning the degree of specificity that is needed in
identifying the criteria. It would be very difficult in
M
Ithaca to come up very specific criteria because each
situation is likely to be so different from every other;
Q
what might be entirely appropriate in one setting could be
disastrous in another. The CAC feels that it would be best
to leave each determination up to the good sense of the
reviewing board (whatever body that may be), acting with
advice from the CAC and possibly outside experts.
5. A no -build buffer zone should be established in
especially critical areas such as along waterways, in which
no new structures could be built - -that is, a permit could
not be issued. Exemptions to such a provision - -along the
flats but not the gorges - -could include boat launching
sites, boathouses, poles, lean -tos, docks, fences, bridges
(list taken from state guidelines -- Appendix R of the Stream
Corridor Management Manual - -a DEC publication).
(Replacement of existing structures might be exempted.)
These same guidelines recommend buffer strips of varying
widths, depending on slope of the land, in watersheds and
other critical areas:
0%
50' (from high water mark)
10%
90'
20%
130'
30%
170'
40%
210'
etc.
(whichever is farther) (or use guidelines in #5):
6. Members of the CAC and the reviewing board may enter
any site in an overlay zone in order to evaluate the
environmental impacts of a proposal and, after work has
begun, to assess compliance with protective measures and the
8. Any dispute regarding the intent of this ordinance
possible need for additional measures.
7. Accessory uses that are permitted without a permit,
PROVIDED these do not come closer than 50 feet to the edge
of a creek's high water mark nor closer than 50 feet to
slopes that are greater than 15% adjacent to a creek
(whichever is farther) (or use guidelines in #5):
a. Driveways larger than (360- 400 ? ?) square feet
b. Parking lots for 4 or fewer vehicles
C. New attached construction that would not increase
the existing footprint by more than (10 % ?) nor
density of use by more than (10 % ?).
d. Small garden sheds, children's play apparatus,
picnic tables, patios for single or double - family
homes, and similar small -scale residential uses.
8. Any dispute regarding the intent of this ordinance
322
December 7, 1988
20
shall be resolved to give the maximum protection to the
critical area.
9. Except for small projects as described under #7
above, granting of permits in an overlay zone may not be
treated as ministerial acts.
10. Severability: If any provision of this ordinance or
the application thereof is held invalid, the remainder of
this ordinance and the application thereof to other persons
or circumstances shall not be affected by such holding and
shall remain in full force and effect.
IV. Areas to be covered
A large map marked with the proposed overlay zones is
available for examination in the Planning Department.
In some municipalities with overlay zoning, 200 feet in
each direction is the standard distance from critical areas.
A. Waterways
The CAC took a trip (with a 100' tape measure) to five
different sites in the city to see what the implications of
various distances would be. In most cases, the CAC is
recommending a distance of 200 feet in each direction,
measured horizontally from the center of a stream. Where
the stream is unusually wide, such as along the Flood
Control Channel and Cayuga Inlet, the measurement has been
taken from the top of the bank next to the creek. A few
other exceptions to the 200 -foot rule (in some spots leaving
less than 200' and in other spots, more than 2001):
a) From College Avenue, going east along the south
side of Cascadilla Creek, follow the north side of
Oak Avenue to rt. 366.
b) From College Avenue, going east along the north
side of Cascadilla, the distance shall be 250'
from the center of the creek until reaching the
east end of the Theory Center. From there, follow
Campus Road east to the stairs (leading to the
stadium) just before the bridge at rt. 366. The
gorge is unusually wide in many areas of the
stretch from College Avenue to the rt. 366
intersection. Furthermore, the north side has a
number of building in close proximity to the
gorge. Further infilling in that area would be
harmful to the gorge and the water quality of the
creek, as well as to aesthetic values.
C) Along the connector between Cayuga Inlet and the
Flood Control Channel, follow Taber Street on the
south side.
d) Along south side of Six -Mile Creek, east of Aurora
Street Bridge, follow Hudson and Giles Streets;
except note additional protective band along south
side of road (under "other protected areas ").
e) Along north side of Six -Mile Creek, east of Aurora
Street, follow State Street to Ferris Place. From
there go southeast along a line 250' below State
Street to the city line; except note additional
protective band ( "under other protected areas ").
f) Going east along south side of Fall Creek, near
Johnson Art Museum, starting at N -S intersecting
rd. (Central Avenue) , follow north side of
University Avenue and first part of Forest Home
Drive. Thereafter follow a line 200' south of
Forest Home Drive, to the city line (south side of
Beebe Lake). (See map.)
323
December 7, 1988
21
g) Zone extending 200' to 300' - -as shown on map- -
south from Giles Street between Columbia and Van
Atta's Dam, to where the area abuts the City's
Watershed holdings. (See map) This area consists
of important protective forest.
h) As much as possible of the remaining woodland (now
about 100 acres ?) on West Hill, with help from the
West Hill neighborhood in defining the boundary of
the protected area.
i) The Hog's Hole next to Cass Park, an area with
valuable wetlands and a large stand of massive
trees (boundaries to be determined). Important
habitat for birds - -and birders! Valuable remnant
of the once -vast wetland that used to border this
end of the lake. Now owned by the state park
system.
(two" (j. Other possible areas.)
Resolution
By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the Conservation Overlay Zones Report be referred
first to the Planning and Development Committee and then to the
Charter and Ordinance Committee for consideration and report back
to Council.
Carried Unanimously
Park and Ride Facility
Alderperson Johnson presented the following report to Common
Council on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Council:
g)
Going northeast along the NW shore of Beebe Lake,
follow the service road that leads to Newman Gym;
from there follow a line 250' from the old north
shore of Beebe Lake, east to the city line.
B.
Other protected zones: (see map)
a)
Linn Street woods (on EMC's unique areas list) and
narrow band of woods north and east of Lake Street
on the south side of Fall Creek (use treeline as
the boundary in both instances). (Not precisely
marked on map.)
b)
200 feet from, and including, Fuertes Sanctuary.
This is one of the best examples in the state of
now -rare old- growth flood plain forest.
C)
200 feet from, and including, Cornell's
Biological Field Station (boundary needs to be
LD
more clearly delineated on map).
d)
100 feet from, and including, rare remnant old -
LD
growth flood plain forest and other mature woods
S
at SE corner of SW Park and along the southern,
eastern, and northern boundaries of SW Park. Use
(Y]
line of mature trees as boundary - -not accurately
d
marked on map.
e)
Wooded area of SW Park (not precisely marked on
map).
f)
Zone extending from Ferris Place southeast to the
city line, and from State Street south and
southwest to the boundary of the creek overlay
zone. This area has seen intensive development in
close proximity to the gorge. Serious damage to
the creek and the gorge could result from further
increases in density. Furthermore, there would be
severe loss of neighborhood and aesthetic values
and of wildlife and plant diversity (with all that
this entails).
g) Zone extending 200' to 300' - -as shown on map- -
south from Giles Street between Columbia and Van
Atta's Dam, to where the area abuts the City's
Watershed holdings. (See map) This area consists
of important protective forest.
h) As much as possible of the remaining woodland (now
about 100 acres ?) on West Hill, with help from the
West Hill neighborhood in defining the boundary of
the protected area.
i) The Hog's Hole next to Cass Park, an area with
valuable wetlands and a large stand of massive
trees (boundaries to be determined). Important
habitat for birds - -and birders! Valuable remnant
of the once -vast wetland that used to border this
end of the lake. Now owned by the state park
system.
(two" (j. Other possible areas.)
Resolution
By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the Conservation Overlay Zones Report be referred
first to the Planning and Development Committee and then to the
Charter and Ordinance Committee for consideration and report back
to Council.
Carried Unanimously
Park and Ride Facility
Alderperson Johnson presented the following report to Common
Council on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Council:
324
December 7, 1988
22
We would like to recommend that the City, together with the Town
and County, develop a park- and -ride facility in conjunction with
planning for Rt. 96. We envision a parking lot near the
hospital, with small buses taking people into the city, and
especially to major centers of employment, at nominal or no cost.
The optional Plan A alternative would cost about $12 million.
The various Plan C's would cost about $40 million. The
difference - -$28 million -- invested at 3 %* interest per year, would
generate $840,000 per year, or about $3360 per work day (figured
at 250 work days per year) - -an amount that would probably be
sufficient to operate such a facility with no fares. This is not
intended as an endorsement of Plan A, but merely to illustrate
the extent to which the State is willing to subsidize the private
automobile.
Several problems would
1) Less traffic
2) Less traffic
problem.
be alleviated under
through the Octopus;
in downtown Ithaca,
such a plan:
and less of a parking
3) Less air pollution, and in particular less CO2
added to
the atmosphere. (CO z is the most important of the
greenhouse gases.)
4) Less dependence on foreign oil.
We heavily subsidize private automobiles. It's time we
subsidized public transportation as a way of dealing with
congested street and global warming.
*3% allows for inflation. Actual interest of course would be a
lot higher.
Resolution
By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the report on the Park and Ride Facility be
referred to the Planning and Development Committee for action.
Carried Unanimously
Six Mile Creek Acquisition
Alderperson Johnson presented the following report to Common
Council on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Council:
In view of the city's recent acquisition of land along Six -Mile
Creek, and with the prospect of further acquisitions, the CAC
recommends that Common Council state what its policy will be
regarding these lands. Over the course of several meetings, we
came up with the following recommendations for your
consideration:
1. The overall objective for the lands below the rr bed, and for
a buffer zone 200 - feet -wide above it, should be to protect the
natural character of these areas. Recreation should be entirely
of the passive sort -- walking, and bird - watching, for example.
The CAC feels that the city must commit itself to not putting in
active recreational facilities below the tracks. Perhaps,
although at least some of the land would be officially designated
as "park ", it could be called the Six -Mile Creek Natural Areas
Park. The Adirondack Park sets a good precedent: the term
"park" does not need to imply active uses of the land, and the
state recognizes this.
The city is fairly well endowed with developed parks and vast
expanses of mowed grass. Unfortunately, it is not well supplied
with areas of unspoiled natural beauty where one can go for quiet
reflection and renewal. This type of recreation is just as
important as ball fields and skating rinks; each type of facility
meets different needs. As the city expands, we will continue to
need both types of recreational areas; the need for natural areas
�i
325
December 7, 1988
23
could well grow disproportionately,
growth of the city and surrounding towns�nsidering the continual
Open areas (abandoned fields) below the rr tracks should be
left to continue their succession back to forest.
2. We understand that the two acres of frontage along Coddin ton
Road on the Maylin /Brahm parcel were a g
($15,000 each). It would seem reasonable rtoSesellt Off30this
portion, or perhaps one slightly larger, for housing. The
remaining 14 acres of the upper
per acre, pp parcel is appraised at only $700
p The city acquired it for even less than this. In
other words, we got a terrific deal, and it would not make
economic sense to sell it for the paltry returns that could be
expected - -at most, $9800.
The CAC feels that it would be prudent for the city to hold
onto that above - the -rr land as protection for the watershed.
Another reason to hold onto the above - the -rr property is
that NYSEG currently sprays herbicides in certain areas below
their power line. Last June or July, Darlington and others
observed large bands of dead woody plants, and a letter to NYSEG
confirmed that they spray in that area. NYSEG claims to stay 600
feet from any stream, but at least one recent spraying went much
closer to the stream on the upper section of the Maylin /Brahm
parcel -- Darlington estimates perhaps only fifty feet away. NYSEG
does not spray on City watershed holdings. Unless the new
property is already officially part of the "city watershed ", we
request that the city look into so designating it.
In any case the city would undoubtedly have more leverage in
convincing NYSEG not to spray there than would a private owner.
(There are, of course, good reasons to avoid spray.)
3. Without having explored the parcel a bit to the SE of the
Maylin /Brahm piece (and adjoining it on the downhill side of the
rr bed) , our tentative recommendation is that the city purchase
only the portion below the rr bed and a buffer of at least 200
feet above the rr bed - -the quantity of land should be determined
by the natural and recreational value of it. For example, if the
upper part of the parcel includes the stream that is near its
boundary, the city should retain a buffer of at least 200 feet in
each direction along the stream. (This stream runs through the
Maylin /Brahm parcel below the rr, and drains into the Reservoir.)
Alternatively, the city could purchase the entire parcel and
sell off whatever it decides is not needed.
4. The 7 1/2 -acre triangle just outside the city, below the
switchback, goes down very close to the creek and is in one of
the most beautiful, unusual, and unspoiled areas of the
watershed. It is exactly this sort of area that we must pass on
to future generations in an unspoiled state. This must be kept
off limits (to city crews) for anything but the most minimal
trail maintenance. Natural refuges such as this will be needed
more than ever as the City grows and takes on more of the
problems associated with large size.
5. The CAC recommends that any future acquisitions follow these
guidelines:
a. Hands -off policy on acquisitions below the rr bed and
for a 200 - foot -wide buffer above it. For example, no facilities
for active recreation, and no clearing of trees or other
vegetation.
b. On the north side of Six -Mile Creek there is no neat
dividing line (such as a rr bed) . Distances to the water are
generally shorter and steeper than on the Coddington side. Any
acquisitions on the north side must be protected from overuse.
326
December 7, 1988
24
The Six -Mile Creek Committee has made recommendations for
acquisitions in that area, and we recommend that the city follow
their advice.
C. We feel that the city must exercise great care regarding
any lands that it decides to condemn and purchase, especially
those on which the owners reside. The city must not find itself
in the position of taking property for preservation or passive
recreation purposes, and then of turning around and selling
portions for possible development. There may be many instances
in which the current owners are planning to give their properties
long -term protection from development; the city must be able to
assure such owners that the city's aim in acquiring the land is
to protect it as a natural area and to protect the city's water
supply, not to either develop it as a high -use recreation area
nor to sell it for development.
d. We propose that the city acquire conservation easements
along any streams that flow between Coddington Road and the rr
bed, even if the adjacent property is not one the city wishes to
buy. We recommend a band extending at least 200 feet in each
direction from the banks of such streams, in order to give the
water the needed protection from pollution. Alternatively, the
city could purchase these waterway bands, or negotiate
restrictive deed covenants with the owners.
e. Except for item (d) , we suggest that the city aim to
acquire only lands below the rr bed and 200 feet above it (as a
buffer). Exceptions could be made, however, for critical or
unique areas above the rr bed.
6. Acquisition and protection of lands in the Six -Mile
Creek corridor is of such overriding importance to the city that
it must be seen on its own merits and not be contingent upon any
other city projects.
7. The CAC recommends that the City set up a special fund
for acquisition of Six -Mile Creek land. We also recommend that
any income from sale of road - frontage land on Coddington Road or
Slaterville Roads be put into this fund. EQBA funds should also
be sought -- matching funds in particular may be relatively easy to
get.
8. We also passed the following resolution:
Be it resolved that
the City of Ithaca create, maintain, and support by budget
allocation a small (5 person maximum) Committee for Land
Acquisition Within the Six -Mile Creek Watershed that is empowered
to publicize City policy in this area, make and receive offers
for the purchase of land (subject to Common Council approval),
prepare and administer a budget, seek outside funding, and
develop creative procedures in an aggressive program of land
acquisition and watershed protection.
Resolution
By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the report on Six Mile Creek Acquisition be
referred to the Planning and Development Committee for review and
report back to Common Council.
Carried Unanimously
BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
*14.1 Adoption of 1989 Budget
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
WHEREAS, this Common Council has reviewed the Executive Budget as
proposed by Mayor John C. Gutenberger, and the Budget and
Administration Committee recommendations, and
0
m
Q
December '1, 198127
25
WHEREAS, it is the consensus of this Common Council that the
total appropriations and estimated revenues are adequate for the
operation of the City for 1989; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Budget for 1989, in the total
amount of $25,175,110, be approved, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the following sections of the 1989 Budget be
approved:
(A) General Fund Appropriations
(B) Water Fund Appropriations-
(C) Sewer Fund Appropriations
(D) Joint Activity Fund Appropriations
(E) General Fund Revenues
(F) Water Fund Revenues
(G) Sewer Fund Revenues
(H) Joint Activity Fund Revenues
(I) Debt Retirement Schedule
(J) Capital Projects
(K) Schedule of Salaries and Positions - General
(L) Schedule of Salaries and Positions - Water
Fund
(M) Schedule of Salaries and Positions - Joint
Fund
(N) Authorized Equipment - General Fund
(0) Authorized Equipment - Water Fund
(P) Authorized Equipment - Sewer Fund
(Q) Authorized Equipment - Joint Activity Fund
Fund
and Sewer
Activity
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Nichols: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson
RESOLVED, That the appropriation of $130,000 now in Restricted
Contingency for Fire Department personnel shall be made available
to the Fire Department no later than March 1, 1989.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Ayes (3) - Booth, Peterson, Nichols
Nays (7) - Schlather, Killeen, Johnson, Cummings, Hoffman,
Lytel, Romanowski
Motion Defeated
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Lytel: Seconded by Alderperson Booth
RESOLVED, That $30,000 be added to Restricted Contingency for the
1989 Fire Department Budget with the understanding that this
money was set aside and not spent in the 1988 budget.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Ayes (2) - Lytel, Booth
Nays (8) - Schlather, Killeen, Romanowski, Peterson,
Hoffman, Cummings, Johnson, Nichols
Motion Defeated
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Lytel: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That this Council restores full funding to the Tompkins
County Area Development Corp. by adding $3,900.00 to A1010 -435,
Legislative, which brings the total funding to $7,800.00.
Discussion followed on the floor.
328
December 7, 1988
26
A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Ayes (5) -
Lytel, Cummings, Johnson, Killeen, Peterson
Booth, Schlather, Romanowski
Nays (5) - Nichols, Hoffman,
Mayor Gutenberger voted Aye,
breaking the tie.
Carried
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded
by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That
$2,500.00 be added
to the request of the Tompkins
full request of
County Art Council to bring the amount to the
$10,000.00.
Ayes (4)
- Lytel, Cummings,
- Booth, Schlather,
Johnson, Killeen
Romanowski, Peterson, Hoffman,
Nays (6)
Nichols
Motion Defeated
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Killeen: Seconded by Alderperson Booth
RESOLVED, That $10,000.00 be added to A1990, Restricted
Contingency, for an organizational, managerial study of the
Department of Public Works prior to selection of new leadership.
Alderperson Killeen gave background information on this request.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) - Hoffman, Lytel, Cummings, Johnson, Booth,
Killeen
Nays (4) - Schlather, Peterson, Nichols, Booth
Carried
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That $13,000 be added to A1990, Restricted Contingency,
to provide acoustical tiles for the Youth Bureau Building.
Alderperson Booth gave background information on this request.
He explained that the building is not being used to capacity
because of the noise level.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Ayes (7) - Lytel, Hoffman, Johnson, Booth, Killeen,
Peterson, Cummings
Nays (3) - Nichols, Schlather, Romanowski
Carried
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
RESOLVED, That $28,000 be added to the budget to hire a half -time
City Attorney for Codes enforcement.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Ayes (3)
Nays (7)
- Johnson, Booth, Hoffman
- Killeen, Schlather, Romanowski,
Peterson, Lytel, Nichols
Motion Defeated
Cummings,
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That $26,000 be added to A1990, Restricted Contingency,
32,)
December 7, 1988
27
to reach an agreement with BOLES on drug education, which would
be able to put a full -time person in the City who would work
through G.I.A.C. and Southside.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Motion to Amend Amendment
By Alderperson Killeen: Seconded by Alderperson Nichols
(Soo., RESOLVED, That the figure to be added to A1990 Restricted
Contingency, for drug education, be changed to $20,000.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Ayes (7) - Lytel, Johnson, Nichols, Booth, Killeen, Hoffman,
Peterson
Nays (3) Cummings, Romanowski, Schlather
Amendment Carried
Main Motion As Amended
LO A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows:
MZ Ayes (5) - Lytel, Nichols, Johnson, Booth, Killeen
Nays (5) - Cummings, Peterson, Hoffman, Romanowski,
Q Schlather
Mayor Gutenberger voted Nay, breaking the tie.
Motion Defeated
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
RESOLVED, That $22,000 be added to Reserve Contingency to hire a
Building Inspector.
Ayes (4) - Lytel, Johnson, Killeen, Booth
Nays (6) - Hoffman, Peterson, Schlather, Romanowski,
Nichols, Cummings
Motion Defeated
WSKG Radio Station Request
Mayor Gutenberger asked City Attorney Nash for his opinion on the
legality of the request from WSKG for city money to help build a
new pubic radio station in Ithaca.
City Attorney Nash responded that it appears to him to violate
Article VIII of the New York State Constitution because it is a
contribution.
Discussion followed on the floor. Mr. John Schier spoke to
Common Council representing WSKG radio station. He stated that
they do not consider this to be a donation; it is a grant. It
will be used to get a matching grant from Albany and Washington.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Nichols
RESOLVED, That until the issue of the legality of the request
from WSKG is settled, the $3,000.00 be put in to A1990,
Restricted Contingency.
City Attorney Nash will investigate the legality of the request.
Ayes (9) - Schlather, Booth, Killeen, Lytel, Romanowski,
Cummings, Nichols, Johnson, Hoffman
Nay (1) - Peterson
Carried
330
December 7, 1988
W1
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
RESOLVED, That $100,000.00 be added to F9951, Transfer to Capital
Reserve, to create Capital Reserve Account for purchase of lands
for watershed purposes.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) - Schlather, Booth, Romanowski, Peterson, Hoffman,
Johnson, Nichols, Lytel
Nays (2) - Cummings, Killeen
Carried
Discussion followed on the floor on the budget process and on the
tax rate. City Controller Spano answered questions from Council
members.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution, on the
adoption of the 1989 budget, as amended, was duly put to a vote
on roll call, which resulted as follows:
Hoffman -
Aye
Romanowski
- Aye
Peterson -
Aye
Schlather
- Aye
Killeen -
Aye
Cummings
- Aye
Booth -
Nay
Nichols
- Aye
Lytel -
Aye
Johnson
- Aye
Ayes (9)
Nays (1)
Carried
*14.2 Adoption of 1989 Tax Rate
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
WHEREAS, the 1989 City of Ithaca Budget was approved, adopted and
confirmed in the total amount of $25,175,110, on December 7,
1988, in accordance with a detailed Budget on file in the Office
of the City Controller, and
WHEREAS, available and estimated revenues total $19,463,083,
leaving $5,712,027, as the amount to be raised by taxation, and
WHEREAS, the Assessment Roll for 1989, certified and filed by the
Assessment Department of Tompkins County, has been footed and
approved and shows the total net taxable valuation as
$316,455,804, and
WHEREAS, under Charter provisions, the tax limit for City
purposes amounts to $8,636,026 for 1989; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Tax Rate for general purposes, for the fiscal
year 1989, be, and the same hereby is, established and fixed at
$18.05 per $1,000 of taxable valuation as shown, certified and
extended against the respective properties on the 1989 Tax Roll,
thereby making a total tax levy, as near as may be, of
$5,712,027, and be it further
RESOLVED! That the amount of said tax levy be spread, and the
same hereby is levied upon and against the respective properties
shown on said City Tax Roll, in accordance with their respective
net taxable valuation, at the rate of $18.05 per $1,000 of such
taxable valuation, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Chamberlain be, and hereby is, directed
to extend and apportion the City Tax as above, and that upon the
completion of the extension of said Roll, the City Clerk shall
prepare a warrant on the City Chamberlain for the collection of
said levy; and the Mayor and the City Clerk hereby are authorized
and directed to sign and affix the corporate seal to such warrant
Iq
LO
T.
M
Q
331
December 7, 1988
29
and forthwith to file the same with said Tax Roll with the City
Chamberlain, and be it further
RESOLVED, That upon the execution and filing of said warrant and
Tax Roll with the City Chamberlain, the amounts of the City Tax
set opposite each and every property shall hereby become liens,
due and payable and collectible in accordance with provisions of
the City Charter and other laws applicable thereto, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the total sum of $25,175,110 be appropriated in
accordance with the Budget adopted, to the respective Boards,
Offices and Departments of the City, for the purposes
respectively set forth therein. The 1989 Assessment Roll has
been completed and approved by the Assessment Department of
Tompkins County and resulted in the following valuation:
Value of Land
Value of Buildings
Total Value of Real Property
Less: Value of Exempt Property
Plus: Value of Special Franchises
$ 84,393,950
529,778,460
$614,172,410
311,975,851 (50.80 %)
$302,196,559
14,259,245
Net Value of Taxable Property $316,455,804
Discussion followed on the floor.
Alderperson Schlather thanked City Controller Joseph Spano for
(aw" his work during the budget season.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
put to a vote on roll call which resulted as follows:
Romanowski
- Aye
Schlather
- Aye
Cummings
- Aye
Lytel
- Aye
Killeen
- Aye
Peterson
- Aye
Hoffman
- Aye
Nichols
- Aye
Johnson
- Aye
Booth
- Aye
Ayes (10)
Nays ( 0 )
Carried Unanimously
*14.3 Youth Bureau Application to New York State
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
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
(600e John C. Gutenberger, Mayor, is hereby directed and authorized to
duly execute and submit 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, 1989.
Carried Unanimously
*14.4 Final Audit for 1988
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the Budget and Administration Committee and City
Controller be empowered to approve and audit for payment any
bills for 1988 as may require such action.
Carried Unanimously
332
December 7, 1988
30
*14.5 New York State Office of the Aging Application
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is about to submit an application for
continuation of the Recreation for the Elderly, and if approved,
apply subsequently to the State of New York for partial
reimbursement of funds expended on said project, as provided by
Sections 541 -546 of Article 19 -1 of the Executive Law of New
York, entitled "Recreation Programs for the Elderly "; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That said application is in all respects approved and
John C. Gutenberger, Mayor, is hereby directed and authorized to
duly execute and submit said application to the New York State
Office for the Aging, for its approval.
Carried Unanimously
*14.6 Audit
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson
RESOLVED, That the bills presented as listed on Audit Abstract
#22/1988, in the total amount of $24,022.64, be approved for
payment.
Carried Unanimously
*14.7 D.P.W. Authorized Equipment List
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the 1988 Authorized Equipment List of the
Department of Public Works be amended to include the purchase of
a car for the Transit Division to replace a vehicle, damaged
beyond repair, which was involved in an authorized use accident,
at a cost not to exceed $7,000, as requested by the Board of
Public Works, and be it further
RESOLVED, That an amount not to exceed $7,000 be provided from
Capital Reserve #22 - Bus Replacement.
Carried Unanimously
*14.8 D.P.W. Authorized Personnel Roster
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Nichols
RESOLVED, That the 1988 Authorized Personnel Roster of the
Department of Public Works be amended, as requested by the Board
of Public Works, as follows:
Delete - 1 Senior Engineering Aide Position
Add - 1 Junior Engineer Position
Carried Unanimously
*14.9 Stewart Park Repairs
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Nichols
RESOLVED, That an amount not to exceed $8,586 be transferred from
Account A1990, Restricted Contingency, and an amount not to
exceed $4,000 be transferred from Youth Bureau Building Account
A1623 -483, Construction Materials and Supplies, to Stewart Park
Account A7112 -435, Contractual Services, to complete the ongoing
roof projects and to prepare specifications for removal of
asbestos in the boathouse, as requested by the Board of Public
Works.
Carried Unanimously
*14.13 Police Dispatcher
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the 1988 salary of Claudia Hutchinson, Dispatcher
for the Police Department, be set at $16,148, retroactive to
August 21, 1988, that being Step 5 on the C.S.E.A.-
Administrative Unit Compensation Plan, as requested by the Police
Chief.
Ayes (7) - Booth, Nichols, Schlather, Peterson, Hoffman,
Romanowski, Johnson
Nays (3) - Killeen, Lytel, Cummings
Carried
33:3
December 7, 1988
31
*14.14 Employee Health Plan Booklet
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Labor /Management Health Insurance
Committee has reviewed and amended the Employee Health Plan
Booklet, and
WHEREAS, the Labor /Management Health Insurance Committee has
approved the revised booklet; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That said Booklet is adopted effective with the passage
of this resolution, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Personnel Department be authorized to
coordinate the printing and distribution of the Employee Health
Plan Booklet to all employees and retirees covered by the Health
Plan.
Ln Carried Unanimously
q. *14.15 Employee Dental Plan
�.� By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman
RESOLVED, That the Agreement between the City of Ithaca and Blue
Cross /Blue Shield of Central New York, for dental services to be
m provided to employees covered by the C.S.E.A. - Administrative and
Q C.S.E.A. - D.P.W. Units be approved, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign
such Agreement on behalf of the City, subject to review by the
City Attorney as to form and content.
Carried Unanimously
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE:
*15.1 Human Services Coalition Work Plan
By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That the following items be the 1989 City work plan for
the Human Services Coalition:
1. Review and make recommendations per City criteria for
1990 funding requests from human service agencies.
2. Perform staff work for Tompkins County FOCUS,
especially noting data on youth -at -risk population.
3. Continue to assess and assist in homelessness and
related issues (i.e. hunger) with a consideration as to
how the City fits into the whole plan for dealing with
a community wide issue.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Affirmative Action Statistics - Report
Alderperson Peterson reported that representatives from the City
Personnel Office and the Affirmative Action Advisory Committee
came to the Human Services meeting in November. She stated that
there was discussion of the need for a more interactive
relationship between the City Council and the Affirmative Action
Advisory Committee and the statistics that are received through
that office and committee. Common Council will be receiving
quarterly reports of our hiring statistics in the City as
compared with County -wide job statistics through the general
population in the county. The first report will be due in March
1989.
Handicapped Accessibility - Report
Alderperson Peterson reported that the Human Services Committee
had asked for an update on handicapped accessibility. She stated
that every item except one in the report that Carol Chock did as
consultant has been completed. Eric Datz, Building Systems
334
December 7, 1988
32
Supervisor, will be presenting by the end of the month, the
complete report on handicapped accessibility.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
Sale of City Hall Annex
Alderperson Cummings stated that Mr. Schlough and his attorney
had just returned to the meeting and indicated that they are
willing to change the purchase offer so that under II Price, Item
B, would be amended to read 11$240,000.0011, and to delete Item C,
which is in reference to the $30,000.00 in the form of a note.
Alderperson Schlather objected to this matter coming back before
the Council after it was tabled earlier.
City Attorney Nash ruled that the matter can be lifted from the
table on the vote of a simple majority.
Resolution to Lift From Table
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
RESOLVED, That the matter of the sale of the City Hall An
be
lifted from the table.
Ayes (8) - Booth, Cummings, Killeen, Johnson, Peterson,
Hoffman, Nichols, Lytel
Nays (2) - Schlather, Romanowski
Carried
Resolution
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca by resolution
duly adopted at its regular meeting on October 7, 1987 did
declare the City Hall Annex, Tax Map Number 70 -5 -24, 123 South
Cayuga Street to be surplus property; and did authorize and
direct the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and its Executive Director
to solicit proposals for the sale of the Annex, to evaluate said
proposals according to the state criteria of purchase price,
proposed reuse and appropriateness of any planned alterations to
the exterior of the structure, and recommend to Common Council
its selection of purchase for Council's review and action, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency did duly solicit and
evaluate proposals for the sale of the Annex, and did recommend
the sale of the subject property to Charles Schlough in
accordance with the terms and conditions of his proposal dated
February 1, 1988, said recommendation being accepted by the
Common Council at their April 6, 1988 meeting, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council at their August 3, 1988 meeting
authorized and directed the Intergovernmental Relations Committee
of Council to meet with Charles Schlough to negotiate a purchase
offer for the Annex, and to report their findings to Council; and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee recommended
the sale of the City Hall Annex to Charles Schlough for the
amount of $245,000, in accordance with the Purchase Proposal at
the Common Council Meeting of November 2, 1988, at which meeting
the Common Council accepted the Committee's recommendation and
authorized and directed the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and its
Executive Director to publish the appropriate notification of the
sale of the Annex in compliance with City Charter Section
3.10(40) in order to facilitate the Common Council's
consideration of the actual sale of the City Hall Annex to the
person and upon the conditions noted at its December 7, 1988
regular meeting; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby
approves the sale of the City Hall Annex to Charles Schlough for
the amount of $245,000, in accordance with the Purchase Proposal,
and does also agree to allow the purchaser Charles Schlough to
335
December 7, 1988
33
transfer his interest in said proposal and the property covered
thereby to any entity in which he has a controlling interest and
which agrees to be bound by all the terms and conditions of said
proposal, and hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney to
prepare and the Mayor to sign all instruments necessary to effect
the sale of the subject property, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution is subject to the certification by
the City Attorney that item #2C of the purchase offer is
consistent with the State Constitution and State Law.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
RESOLVED, That Item 2B of the purchase offer be amended to read
$240,000.00, and that Item 2C be stricken, and the language in
the resolution be changed to correspond to the purchase offer.
Mayor Gutenberger stated for the record that at the request of
the maker of the purchase offer the amendment is being put forth
and Mr. Schlough is present at the Council meeting.
Lo Alderperson Schlather stated that he does not think this matter
should be brought back to the Council in the manner that has been
M done. He said that there were a number of persons at the meeting
d earlier and members of the press that are no longer present, and
now the maker of the purchase offer returns at the end of the
meeting with his attorney and another member of the City staff
and is approaching Council with an amendment to his offer. He
remarked that it could be construed by the public and press that
this is a further irregularity, that having once acted and tabled
this matter, people have left satisfied that this action will be
discussed a month from now and now they will hear by the media or
the grapevine that Council had acted again tonight at the request
of the developer.
Alderperson Schlather stated that his concern is that there were
legitimate questions raised before and there are other questions
that ought to be explored before the Council votes on this matter
again. He said there is no reason why the City could not lease
this building on a 99 year lease and there is no reason why it
shouldn't be done. He feels that the Council is shirking its
responsibility by proceeding. For $245,000.00 you can hardly
buy housing in this City.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding leasing vs. selling of
this property.
Alderperson Booth commented that if the City was going to have
discussions about leasing vs. selling, it should have been done
months ago and the City could have gone in that direction. He
stated that he thinks that now the City is committed to this
course of action.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing amending resolution
of the purchase offer was duly put to a vote on roll call which
resulted as follows:
Killeen -
Aye
Nichols
- Aye
Cummings -
Aye
Johnson
- Aye
Schlather -
Nay
Peterson
- Aye
Romanowski-
Nay
Booth
- Aye
Lytel -
Aye
Hoffman
- Aye
Ayes (8)
Nays (2)
Carried
33()
December 7, 1988
34
*16.1 Central Business District Parkin Consultant Contract
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
WHEREAS, the City issued a request for proposals for a parking
consultant to study the Central Business District, and
WHEREAS, eight proposals were received, and
WHEREAS, an ad hoc group has reviewed these proposals; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, Upon the recommendation of the Planning and Development
Committee of Council that the Mayor be and hereby is authorized
and directed to execute upon advice from the City Attorney and
the Planning and Development Director a contract for services
with Rich and Associates, Inc., in an amount not to exceed
$40,000. Carried Unanimously
R -2c and R -3 Zoning - Report
Alderperson Cummings reported that the Planning and Development
Committee is discussing the location of the R -2c zoning which is
town house zoning and the creation of R -3 zoning. There is a
large map of the proposed R -2c zoning in the Planning Office.
*16.3 Ithaca Farmers' Market - Lead Agency Selection
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is the agency
charged with primary responsibility for implementation of the
city's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, as provided under
Section 36.6D1 of the ordinance, and
WHEREAS, it is the nature of certain matters brought before
Council for consideration that it is most appropriate for
environmental review to be performed under the direct guidance of
Council, with Council acting as Lead Agency, and
WHEREAS, this Common Council finds that the selection of a
permanent location for the Ithaca Farmers' Market is a matter
which requires environmental review, and that it would be
appropriate for Common Council to act as Lead Agency therefor;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council act as Lead Agency for
environmental review of the permanent location for the Ithaca
Farmers' Market, in accordance with the procedures established by
Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca.
Carried Unanimously
*16.4 West Hill Master Plan - Lead Agency Selection
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is the agency
charged with primary responsibility for implementation of the
city's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, as provided under
Section 36.6D1 of the ordinance, and
WHEREAS, it is the nature of certain matters brought before
Council for consideration that it is most appropriate for
environmental review to be performed under the direct guidance of
Council, with Council acting as Lead Agency, and
WHEREAS, this Common Council finds that the preparation of a
Master Plan for West Hill is a matter which requires
environmental review, and that it would be'appropriate for Common
Council to act as Lead Agency therefor; now, therefore, be it
December 7, 198;37
35
RESOLVED, That Common Council act as Lead Agency for
environmental review of the preparation of the West Hill Master
Plan, in accordance with the procedures established by Chapter 36
of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca.
Ayes (7) - Booth, Schlather, Johnson, Lytel, Peterson,
Hoffman, Romanowski
Nays (3) - Killeen, Nichols, Cummings
Carried
*16.7 Central Processing Facility Negotiating Sub - Committee
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
RESOLVED, That a Negotiating Committee be established by the City
of Ithaca to negotiate with Tompkins County regarding a site for
the County's solid waste central processing facility, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the committee be the City's Intergovernmental
Relations Committee and that the Director of Planning and
Development and the City Attorney serve as staff to the
d committee, and be it further
LO
RESOLVED, That Common Council does hereby reaffirm the conditions
m it enunciated in its Resolution of August 3 regarding the City's
Industrial Park land formerly owned by NYSEG (hereinafter
referred to as the "Ithaca Industrial Park ") and does further set
forth such other conditions as are outlined below, namely: 1)
that the City receive compensation from the County for the above
described Ithaca Industrial Park site which shall include fair
market value of the land, cost of replacement land for the
activities now programmed for the Ithaca Industrial Park site
(i.e., Industrial Park and Community Gardens) , replacement of
grant monies committed for improvement of the Ithaca Industrial
Park if such funds cannot be used elsewhere, reimbursement of any
grant funds which might be recaptured by the federal or state
governments as a consequence of sale of the Ithaca Industrial
Park site to the County, and reimbursement to the City for funds
(from the General Fund or other sources) already expended for
improvement of the Community Gardens and the Ithaca Industrial
Park if such expenditures are not otherwise compensated; 2) that
the County purchase and guarantee a site for the Community
Gardens upon terms acceptable to the City; 3) that the City be
compensated for the negative environmental impact of the location
of the Central Processing Facility on a highly visible site near
residential and commercial neighborhoods.
Discussion followed on the floor on the make -up of the committee
and on the resolution itself.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Nichols: Seconded by Alderperson Booth
RESOLVED, That item #3 in the resolved paragraph be stricken.
Discussion followed on the floor on the amendment.
A vote on
Ayes
Nays
Main Motii
A vote on
the amendment resulted as follows:
(4) - Booth, Johnson, Nichols, Peterson
(6) - Hoffman, Romanowski, Schlather, Cummings, Lytel,
Killeen
Motion Defeated
m
the Main Motion resulted as follows:
Ayes (7) - Schlather, Romanowski, Lytel, Cummings, Johnson,
Killeen, Hoffman
Nays (3) - Peterson, Booth, Nichols
Carried
338
December 7, 1988
36
*16.8 Street Tree Survey Recommendations Approval
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Shade Tree Advisory Committee has compiled
and edited a street tree survey for the City of Ithaca dated
1987, and
WHEREAS, this report has been submitted to the city with certain
recommendations regarding management of the city's street trees;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the city accept the Ithaca Street Tree Survey and
does hereby adopt the recommendations incorporated therein, and
be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council does hereby thank the Shade
Tree Advisory Committee, and more particularly, Commission
Chairperson Nina L. Bassuk for her contribution to this valuable
report, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council urges the Advisory Committee to
continue its work toward improvement of the city's street trees
and environment.
Alderperson Cummings explained the resolution.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Nichols: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski
RESOLVED, That the first Resolved paragraph be changed to read:
"RESOLVED, That the City accept the Ithaca Street Tree Survey and
agrees to move expeditiously to adopt the recommendations
incorporated."
Ayes (8) - Booth, Nichols, Schlather, Romanowski, Lytel,
Peterson, Cummings, Johnson
Nays (2) - Killeen, Hoffman
Carried
Main Motion as Amended
A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
CHARTER AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE:
An Ordinance Amending Article I of Section 30.3 and Article II of
Chapter 30 Entitled 'Zoning' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
(Cluster Housing) - Call for Public Hearing
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That Ordinance Number 88 - entitled "An Ordinance
Amending Article I, Section 30.3 and Article II of Chapter 30
Entitled 'Zoning' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code" be and it
hereby is introduced before the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council shall hold a public hearing in
the matter of the adoption of the aforesaid ordinance be held at
the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street,
Ithaca, New York on Wednesday, January 4, 1989 at 7:00 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 hearing
will be held, and in general terms describing the proposed
ordinance. Such notice shall be published once at least fifteen
days prior to the public hearing, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall transmit forthwith to the
Board of Planning and Development and the Tompkins County
Planning Board a true and exact copy of the proposed ordinance
for its report thereon.
33.)
December 7, 1988
37
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I, SECTION 30.3 AND ARTICLE II OF
CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED 'ZONING' OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL
CODE
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City
(WW", of Ithaca, New York as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDING ARTICLE I, SECTION 30.3 OF CHAPTER 30.
That Article I, Section 30.3 is hereby amended to add the
following new definition:
"104. 'Cluster Subdivision' shall mean a subdivision in
which limited deviations from the regulations of a zoning
district in which it is built are permitted in accordance with
LO the provisions of Section 30.28 of the Municipal Code."
Iq
LO SECTION 2. AMENDING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 30.
That Article II of Chapter 30 is hereby amended to add the
m following new section:
Q
"Section 30.28 Cluster Subdivision Development
A. Intent
This section authorizes the Board of Planning and
Development, during the process of subdivision plat approval
pursuant to Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code, to make reasonable
changes in the existing zoning regulations for the property
affected so as to enable the development of a cluster
subdivision. This authorization permits deviatons in the
district regulations applicable to the affected property, subject
to the limitations contained in this section. Cluster
subdivisions may be approved in order to promote the following
purposes:
1. The preservation and enhancement of open spaces, water
courses, wetlands and areas designated as critical
environmental areas.
2. The development of active and passive recreation areas.
3. The development of residential dwelling units in forms
which are consistent with the public welfare and which
provide reasonable safeguards to the appropriate use of
adjoining land.
4. Efficient and cost - effective development of roads,
sidewalks, utilities, water and sewer lines and other
forms of public and private infrastructure.
5. The development of housing that is more affordable than
that normally developed under conventional zoning
regulations.
B. Authorization and Minimum Requirements for Cluster
Subdivisions.
The Board of Planning and Development is authorized,
upon petition by an applicant for subdivision approval, to
approve a cluster subdivision that includes reasonable deviations
from the existing regulations of the zoning district in which the
subdivision is located, in accordance with the following
limitations:
1. Cluster subdivisions may only be permitted in the R -1a,
R -lb, R -2a, R -2b, R -3a and R -3b zoning districts.
340
December 7, 1988
38
2. Cluster subdivisions shall contain only those primary
uses and accessory uses which are permitted in the
zoning district in which the cluster subdivision is
proposed, except as permitted by Paragraph B.3.
3. The following types of deviations from the zoning
regulations of the district in which the cluster
subdivision is proposed are permitted:
a. Building type for residential uses; provided that
in the R -la and R -lb districts, only one - family
detached dwellings are permitted as primary uses;
and in the R -2a and R -2b districts, no more than
two dwelling units may be attached to form a
single building, provided that each dwelling unit
shall have a separate ground -level entrance.
b. Lot area.
C. Lot width at street line.
d. Maximum percentage of land coverage by buildings
on any individual lot within the cluster
subdivision; provided that the total percentage of
land coverage by all buildings in the cluster
subdivision shall not exceed the following
percentages for the zoning district in which the
cluster subdivision is located:
i,
R -la
20%
ii.
R -lb
25%
R -2a
30%
iv.
R -2b
35%
V.
R -3a
35%
vi.
R -3b
40%
e. Front, side and rear yard dimensions, provided
that all buildings in a cluster subdivision shall
have a front yard of at least twenty -five (25)
feet in the R -la, R -lb, and R -2a zones and ten
(10) feet in the R -2b, R -3a and R -3b zones; and
further provided that all buildings in a cluster
subdivision shall be at least the following number
of feet from the boundary of a cluster subdivision
where it abuts land (other than a public right -of-
way) that is not part of the cluster subdivision:
in the R -1 districts, forty (40) feet; in the R -2
and R -3 districts, twenty (20) feet.
4. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a
cluster subdivision shall not exceed the number of
dwelling units that would be permitted on the site in a
conventional subdivision under the conventional zoning
regulations for the zoning district in which the
cluster subdivision is proposed, subject to all
applicable development regulations applying to the
property in question, plus any other restriction which
the Board of Planning and Development has the authority
to impose pursuant to Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code.
5. Any reduction in the lot area for buildings in a
cluster subdivision beyond the minimum allowed in the
zoning district in which the subdivision is located
shall require the reservation of an equivalent amount
of land as open space, passive recreation area or
active recreation area. Wetlands, flood plains, steep
slopes or other areas not normally appropriate for
building construction shall not account for more than
fifty (50) percent of the land area reserved.
December 7, 1988 341
W
6. All open space or recreation areas reserved in
accordance with Paragraph 5 of this subdivision shall
be dedicated as common land for the benefit of the
members of the subdivision. The development, operation
and maintenance of this property shall be in accordance
with the approved site development plan and in a manner
that is consistent with the public welfare.
b. A site development plan showing the
location, size, use and physical
features of all proposed buildings and
accessory uses; the location and design
of vehicular and pedestrian access and
the location of proposed parking areas.
C. A landscaping plan showing the type and
location of all existing trees,
vegetation and natural features on the
site; the identification of all existing
vegetation to be preserved; the
identification of all new vegetation to
be added; and the location and type of
fences, berms or buffer areas.
d. A plan showing the boundaries of common
areas to be reserved, and the proposed
(wwl use, development and maintenance of
those spaces.
e. Elevations of typical dwelling units to
be constructed in the cluster
subdivision.
f. Environmental review of the project at a
level deemed appropriate by the Board of
Planning and Development.
C. Approval of Cluster Subdivisions
1. The Board of Planning and Development may consider
a developer's request for approval of a cluster
subdivision or may require that a developer
prepare and submit plans for a cluster subdivision
that contains no greater number of dwelling units
than that proposed by the developer. The Board
shall adopt rules and regulations setting forth
the criteria pursuant to which such an application
may be required. The approval of a cluster
'Cf
subdivision shall follow the rules and procedures
LO
contained in Chapter 31 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code, Subdivision Regulation.
M
2. Developers submitting a cluster subdivision plan
Q
shall submit two subdivision plans, one showing
the land developed under the conventional zoning
regulations and the other showing development
under the cluster option. In addition to the
requirements of Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code,
the developer shall submit the following
information on or with the cluster subdivision
plan.
a. An area plan showing the proposed
cluster subdivision and all existing
land use and major natural features of
the land within five hundred (500) feet
of the project site.
b. A site development plan showing the
location, size, use and physical
features of all proposed buildings and
accessory uses; the location and design
of vehicular and pedestrian access and
the location of proposed parking areas.
C. A landscaping plan showing the type and
location of all existing trees,
vegetation and natural features on the
site; the identification of all existing
vegetation to be preserved; the
identification of all new vegetation to
be added; and the location and type of
fences, berms or buffer areas.
d. A plan showing the boundaries of common
areas to be reserved, and the proposed
(wwl use, development and maintenance of
those spaces.
e. Elevations of typical dwelling units to
be constructed in the cluster
subdivision.
f. Environmental review of the project at a
level deemed appropriate by the Board of
Planning and Development.
342
December 7, 1988
40
9. Any other information that the Board of
Planning and Development may reasonably
require.
3. The approval of a cluster subdivision shall
constitute the approval of a site development plan
for the affected area. No development shall occur
on the site that is not in strict conformance with
the elements of the approved site development
plan, nor shall the plan be modified without the
approval of the Board of Planning and Development.
4. A cluster subdivision shall not be approved unless
the Board of Planning and Development makes the
following affirmative findings, and states in
writing the facts that support those findings:
a. That the development is found to be
compatible in terms of appearance,
character and overall density with both
the existing and potential development
in the surrounding area.
b. That the development will not place an
unreasonable burden on the public roads
or utilities that will service the
project.
C. That the development will promote the
preservation of open space and natural
resources within the neighborhood to a
greater degree than would conventional
development.
d. That the development is consistent with
the public welfare and that the
appropriate use of adjoining land is
reasonably safeguarded.
e. That the development will not have an
undue adverse impact on any critical
area listed in Section 36.5(B)(1)(1) of
the Municipal Code.
f. That the development complies with the
approved street plan and master plan, if
any, for the area."
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
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.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski
RESOLVED, That C.1 (Approval of Cluster Subdivision), should read
as follows: The Board of Planning and Development may consider
a developer's request for approval of a cluster subdivision. For
conventional subdivision requests involving five (5) or more
dwelling units, the Board may require that a developer prepare
and submit plans for a cluster subdivision that contains no
greater number dwelling units than that proposed by the
developer; the Board shall adopt" ........ etc.
Discussion followed on the floor on the amendment.
December 7, 198,3 343
41
A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Ayes (3) - Schlather, Romanowski, Booth
Nays (7) - Nichols, Peterson, Hoffman, Lytel, Cummings,
Johnson, Killeen
Motion Defeated
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Romanowski: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather
(iwj� RESOLVED, That in Section 2 (Effective Date), it be changed to
read that the ordinance will take effect on March 1, 1989.
Discussion followed on the floor on the amendment.
A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Ayes (4) - Schlather, Romanowski, Booth, Peterson
Nays (6) - Hoffman, Johnson, Killeen, Cummings, Lytel,
LO Nichols
d- Motion Defeated
Li Amending Resolution
F By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman
RESOLVED, That the following sentence be added to the end of
paragraph 4: "Wet lands, flood plains, steep slopes or other
areas not normally appropriate for building construction shall
not be included in calculating this maximum number of dwelling
units."
Discussion followed on the floor on the amendment.
Ayes (7) - Booth, Nichols, Lytel, Hoffman, Johnson,
Cummings, Killeen
Nays (3) - Peterson, Romanowski, Schlather
Carried
RESOLUTION TO EXTEND CLOSING TIME OF COMMON COUNCIL MEETING
By Alderperson Nichols: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
RESOLVED, That the closing time for this Common Council meeting
be extended for 10 minutes.
Carried Unanimously
*17.2 An Ordinance Amending Article I of Chapter 31 Entitled
'Subdivision Regulations' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That ordinance Number 88 - entitled "An Ordinance
Amending Article I of Chapter 31 entitled 'Subdivision
Regulations' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code" be and it
(,aloe hereby is introduced before the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca, New York.
ORDINANCE NO. 88
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 31 ENTITLED
'SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS' 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. AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 31.
A vote on
the
amendment resulted as follows:
(6mool
Ayes
(4)
- Schlather, Romanowski, Hoffman, Peterson
Nays
(6)
- Booth, Killeen, Lytel, Johnson, Nichols, Cummings
Motion Defeated
Main Motion
A vote on
the
Main Motion resulted as follows:
Ayes (7) - Booth, Nichols, Lytel, Hoffman, Johnson,
Cummings, Killeen
Nays (3) - Peterson, Romanowski, Schlather
Carried
RESOLUTION TO EXTEND CLOSING TIME OF COMMON COUNCIL MEETING
By Alderperson Nichols: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
RESOLVED, That the closing time for this Common Council meeting
be extended for 10 minutes.
Carried Unanimously
*17.2 An Ordinance Amending Article I of Chapter 31 Entitled
'Subdivision Regulations' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen
RESOLVED, That ordinance Number 88 - entitled "An Ordinance
Amending Article I of Chapter 31 entitled 'Subdivision
Regulations' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code" be and it
(,aloe hereby is introduced before the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca, New York.
ORDINANCE NO. 88
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 31 ENTITLED
'SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS' 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. AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 31.
344
December 7, 1988
42
That Article I of Chapter 31 is hereby amended to add the
following new Section.
"Section 31.7 Authorization
The Board of Planning and Development shall have the
authority to implement the provisions of this Chapter and Section
30.28 of Chapter 30 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code."
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
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.
Ayes (8) - Killeen, Lytel, Booth, Cummings, Nichols,
Hoffman, Peterson, Johnson
Nays (2) - Romanowski, Schlather
Carried
*17.3 An Ordinance Amending chapter 60 Entitled 'Traffic and
Vehicles' by Adding a New Section to Be Known As Section 60.60
Entitled 'Civil Penalty For Delinquent Violations of Article'
of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Nichols
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 60 ENTITLED "TRAFFIC AND
VEHICLES" 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 60 entitled "Traffic and Vehicles"
of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is amended as follows:
That a new section to be known and designated as Section
60.60 entitled "Civil penalty for delinquent violations of
Article" to follow Section 60.59 is hereby added to said Chapter
to read as follows:
Section 60.60 Civil penalty for delinquent violations of
Article
That in addition to the penalties provided in Section
60.59 additional civil penalties shall be payable upon any
violation for parking for a longer period of time than is
permitted in accordance with the following schedule:
A. Penalty to be added after fifteen days $ 5.00
B. Penalty to be added after thirty days - an
additional $10.00
C. Penalty to be added after sixty days - an
additional $15.00
D. Upon submission of uncollectible fines to a
collection agency or other entity for enforcement,
an amount not to exceed 35 percent of the total
delinquent fine and penalties will be added to cover
collection fees.
Section 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
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.
Carried Unanimously
LO
LO
I-
M
345
December 7, 1988
43
NEW BUSINESS•
Route 96 Public Hearing
Alderperson Nichols stated that there will be public hearings on
Route 96 on December 14 and 15 and following those public
hearings there will be 30 days for written public comments. He
suggested that sometime before the end of January, the Council
should meet to come up with their written comments to the State.
Discussion followed on how this process should be handled. It
was decided that the Planning and Development Committee be
involved in setting up this process.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
i
Callista F. Paolangeli 0 hn C. Gutenberger
City Clerk Mayor