HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1990-03-0734 /
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. March 7, 1990
PRESENT:
Mayor Nichols
Alderpersons (10) - Booth, Hoffman, Peterson, Cummings, Daley,
Schroeder, Johnson, Golder, Romanowski,
Blanchard
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk - Paolangeli
City Controller - Cafferillo
Deputy City Controller - Thayer
Superintendent of Public Works - Thadani
City Attorney - Guttman
Planning and Development Director - Van Cort
Planning and Development Deputy Director - Mazzarella
Police Chief - McEwen
Personnel Administrator - Walker
Fire Chief - Olmstead
Youth Bureau Director - Cohen
Historic Preservation /Neighborhood Planner - Chatterton
Board of Public Works Commissioners - Reeves, Berg, Cannon
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Nichols led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
American flag.
MINUTES:
Approval of Minutes of the February 7, 1990 Common Council
(400", Meeting
The approval of the Minutes of the February 7, 1990 Common
Council meeting was deferred until the April 4th Common Council
meeting.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
Budget and Administration Committee
Alderperson Booth suggested that Item 20.1 under New Business,
Request to Governor and State Legislature Regarding Restructuring
of Local Taxing Authority be moved to the end of the Budget and
Administration Committee agenda, Item 14.15.
No Council member objected.
MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS:
Shade Tree Advisory Committee
Mayor Nichols requested Council approval of the following
appointments to the Shade Tree Advisory Comittee:
Marvin Adleman
3
year
term
Nina Bassuk
1
year
term
Monika Crispin
3
year
term
Doris Ivey
1
year
term
Daniel Krall
2
year
term
Don Rakow
3
year
term
Mike Steigerwalt
2
year
term
Resolution
By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointments to the
Shade Tree Advisory Committee with the terms as listed.
Carried Unanimously
348
6
Commons Advisory Board
Mayor Nichols requested approval for the appointments of Sidney
Green and Penelope Wickham to the Commons Advisory Board with
terms to expire December 31, 1991.
Resolution
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointments of Sidney
Green and Penelope Wickham to the Commons Advisory Board with
terms to expire December 31, 1991.
Carried Unanimously
Board of Appeals on Building Code
Mayor Nichols requested approval of the appointment of Roger Beck
to the Board of Appeals on Building Code, with a term to expire
December 31, 1992.
Resolution
By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Golder
RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment of Roger
Beck to the Board of Appeals on Building Code with a term to
expire December 31, 1992.
Carried Unanimously
Appointments Not Requiring Council Approval
Mayor Nichols reported that he has appointed the following
persons:
Affirmative Action Advisory Committee - Alice Green,
alternate for Sam Cohen from the Youth Bureau.
Municipal Surgeon - re- appointment of Dr. John Costello
Liaison Appointments
Mayor Nichols reported that he has appointed the following
liaisons to the Interim Parks Commission:
Circle Greenway - Beth Mulholland
Conservation Advisory Council - Betsy Darlington
Shade Tree Advisory Committee - Nina Bassuk
Ithaca Youth Bureau Board - Francis Shattuck
Six Mile Creek Overseer Committee - Buzz Levine
Consultants named to the Interim Parks Commission are as follows:
Landscape Architecture - Joan Sears
Kathrin Wolf
Historic Horticulture - Brenda Bullion
Horticulture - William Dress
David Fernandez
'91UNICATIONS
Heritage Coalition, Inc.
;•or Nichols requested that the following letters in regard to
!Le designation of certain Cornell campus buildings be made a
part of the minutes:
"Dear Mayor Nichols and Council Members:
This letter is written in support of the designation of Cornell
University's central campus as a local historic district.
The buildings on the Arts Quad and the "informal brick group"
comprised of Sage Chapel, Sage College and Barnes Hall, are an
historically and architecturally important asset of the
community. This collection of buildings represents some of the
finest artistic talent of the day. Designed by Wilcox and Porter
of Buffalo, Archimedes Russell of Syracuse, and Carrere &
Hastings of New York [the same firm that was responsible for the
New York Public Library], as well as by Ithaca's own architects,
349
March 7, 1990
the Rev. Charles Babcock, William H. Miller and Arthur N. Gibb,
the central campus is well recognized in published books and
articles for its cultural importance. Indeed, for many people,
these buildings have already achieved landmark status. Now, they
need only be officially recognized as such.
Should there by any question about whether the city has the
authority to take this action, let me respond "yes." Buildings
on the campuses of several other major educational institutions,
(400,� including Harvard University, have been so designated. On behalf
of the Heritage Coalition, I ask that you recognize the
significance of these structures and support the proposed
designation.
Sincerely,
Ted Bartlett
Vice- President,
Chair, Issues Committee"
"Dear Mayor Nichols and Members of the Common Council:
I understand that at your meeting tomorrow evening, you will be
-� reviewing the proposed designation of an historic district for
° the Cornell University Arts Quad as well as designation of four
other buildings in the central campus as historic landmarks.
Enclosed you will find a letter from University Counsel and
Secretary of the Board of Trustees, Walter J. Relihan, to Lynn
Cunningham of Historic Ithaca, which confirms Cornell's
endorsement of these designations, with the exception of the
foundry. Cornell's review, reinforced by that of Professor
George Hascup, our historic preservation consultant, who has
worked on our behalf with Historic Ithaca in the preparation of a
joint proposal for state and federal designation of the Arts Quad
district and the so- called red brick group -- Sage Hall, Barnes
Hall and Sage Chapel -- is that the foundry is considerably less
meritorious than any and all of the other buildings proposed for
designation. As Mr. Relihan notes, although it no longer
occupies that status, the foundry "was conceived and built as
utility structure in a 'back of the house' location." Again, as
Mr. Relihan notes, the building occupies a key site at a major
entrance to the campus and "although we have no plans of any kind
to build on that site, we may in the future wish to remove the
building and make that area a more attractive and inviting
entrance to the Arts Quad historic district and to the campus."
That there is serious question as to the merits of the foundry's
designation was clearly evident in the Landmark Preservation
Commission's own debate and its members' 3 -2 vote on the
amendment which added the foundry to the three buildings in the
red brick group that the commission ultimately designated.
The university has welcomed the opportunity to work with Historic
Ithaca and Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission with regard
to historic designations on the central campus. With the
exception of the foundry, we are pleased to endorse the
designation before you of the Arts Quad Historic District and
the three red brick buildings for local landmark status. We
look forward to continued cooperation with Historic Ithaca and
the Landmarks Preservation Commission as we work with New York
State to achieve state and federal designation.
Finally, although it is not yet before you, we learned during our
review of central campus as apparently did the Landmark
Preservation Commission, that the A.D. White House does not have
local landmark status. It, of course, has been awarded state and
federal landmark status. We understand that a proposal to
nominate the A.D. White House for local landmark status is being
prepared and we look forward to working with the Ithaca Landmarks
3 '5 ( )
4 March 7, 1990
Preservation Commission to secure local landmark designation for
that historic campus building.
Sincerely,
John F. Burness
Vice President Cornell University, University Relations"
Ms. Lynn Cunningham
Architectural Conservator
Historic Ithaca & Tompkins County, New York
"Dear Ms. Cunningham:
Thank you for your note of March 1, 1990 and the map. As you
know, the University welcomes the opportunity of working with
Historic Ithaca in this endeavor.
The bonds described accurately reflect our views, excepting the
foundry. That building was conceived and built as a utility
structure in a "back of a house" location. Today, it has lost
its foundry function and, moreover, incongruously occupies an
important site at the entrance to the heart of the campus. In
our, view, it does not rank as an historical or aesthetic
monument of the importance we attach to the other buildings in
the district. Although we have no plans of any kind to build on
that site, we may in the future wish to remove the building and
make that area a more attractive and inviting entrance to the
Arts Quad historic district and to the campus.
Olin Library displaced Boardman Hall which had been designed by
William Miller to fit harmoniously with McGraw Tower and Uris
Library. Olin, alas, destroys that harmony. We understand,
however, that Olin Library is viewed as "non- contributing"
building within the Arts Quadrangle district, meaning that it
lacks the required historical and /or architectural significance
and merit. We concur in that judgment.
Again, thanks for you help and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Walter J. Relihan, Jr.
Office of the University Counsel and
Secretary of the Corporation"
"Dear Mayor Nichols and Council Members:
At the meeting held on February 22, 1990, the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission voted to designate the Cornell University
Arts Quadrangle as an historic district and to designate Sage
Chapel, Sage Hall, Barnes Hall and the Foundry as individual
landmarks. In response to questions raised regarding the merit
of the Foundry designation I would like to state that this
structure meets criteria in Chapter 32 of the Municipal Code used
by the Commission to evaluate proposed designations.
Specifically, the Foundry is one of few remaining examples of its
type, is a place representative of the activity of a past era,
and has special historical and aesthetic interest and value as
part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of
the City of Ithaca.
The purpose of local preservation law is not just the designation
of high style buildings representative of the grandeur, wealth or
elevated status of people or institutions, but also vernacular
buildings reflective of the diversity that shaped the city's
development. Such vernacular buildings include the Ithaca
Calendar Clock Works, the Ithaca Gas Works, and the proposed
0
19
1151
5 March 7, 1990
designation of the Foundry now before you. I regret that I could
not address the Council in person tonight and hope that these
remarks may clarify the Commission's application of criteria in
the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Coert Bontheius 109 W. State Street
Carl Feuer 310 First Street
Leslie Finch P.O. Box 289, Cortland
Mark Naess 113 Osmun Place
Cathy Valentino 110 Eastern Heights Drive
Shade Tree Advisory Committee
Nina Bassuk, Chair of the Shade Tree Advisory Committee, gave the
Council an update of the work that the Shade Tree Advisory
Committee and the City Forester are doing. She described the
locations of the planting of many new trees.
Alderperson Schroeder asked Ms. Bassuk about re- planting at the
City cemetery. Ms. Bassuk responded that there has been nothing
planned for that site during this year but the committee will
take a look at the area.
Alderperson Cummings stated that she wished to make sure that the
issue of trees on private property is not forgotten.
Ms. Bassuk said that the committee has not forgotten the matter
and will be looking at it in the near future.
Local Income Tax
Michael Cannon, 409 West Buffalo Street, stated he is opposed to
the idea of a local income tax and he urged Council to reconsider
the motion on the floor this evening and to strengthen the
language of the resolution.
Sciencenter
Martha Oschrin Robertson, P.O. Box 6697, urged Council to support
agenda item 14.6, under the Budget and Administration Committee,
which is in regard to the Department of Public Works request for
funds for the conceptual design for their new facility.
Ms. Robertson invited Council members to the Annual Egg Drop that
is sponsored by the Sciencenter on April 1 at Center Ithaca.
Designation of Central Cornell Campus Historic District
Barbara E. Ebert, Executive Director of Historic Ithaca, read the
following statement to Council members:
"The proposal you will be considering this evening - -the local
landmark nomination of thirteen buildings, their related
Susanne Lichtenstein
Vice -Chair
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission"
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
Issue of Octopus
Vincent Fuchs, Willseyville, addressed Council on the issue of
the Octopus and the need for an overpass in that area.
Lansing Residential Center
Sharon Merulla, 73 West Main Street, Dryden, addressed
Council on
Item 21.2, under New Business, Request to Governor
Regarding
(_)
Budget Cuts for Division of Youth- MacCormick Residential Center.
She urged Council's support for this resolution.
'
Ramada Labor Relations
The following persons addressed Council in regard to
Item 21.1,
under New Business, Ramada Labor Relations and urged
Council to
support this resolution.
Coert Bontheius 109 W. State Street
Carl Feuer 310 First Street
Leslie Finch P.O. Box 289, Cortland
Mark Naess 113 Osmun Place
Cathy Valentino 110 Eastern Heights Drive
Shade Tree Advisory Committee
Nina Bassuk, Chair of the Shade Tree Advisory Committee, gave the
Council an update of the work that the Shade Tree Advisory
Committee and the City Forester are doing. She described the
locations of the planting of many new trees.
Alderperson Schroeder asked Ms. Bassuk about re- planting at the
City cemetery. Ms. Bassuk responded that there has been nothing
planned for that site during this year but the committee will
take a look at the area.
Alderperson Cummings stated that she wished to make sure that the
issue of trees on private property is not forgotten.
Ms. Bassuk said that the committee has not forgotten the matter
and will be looking at it in the near future.
Local Income Tax
Michael Cannon, 409 West Buffalo Street, stated he is opposed to
the idea of a local income tax and he urged Council to reconsider
the motion on the floor this evening and to strengthen the
language of the resolution.
Sciencenter
Martha Oschrin Robertson, P.O. Box 6697, urged Council to support
agenda item 14.6, under the Budget and Administration Committee,
which is in regard to the Department of Public Works request for
funds for the conceptual design for their new facility.
Ms. Robertson invited Council members to the Annual Egg Drop that
is sponsored by the Sciencenter on April 1 at Center Ithaca.
Designation of Central Cornell Campus Historic District
Barbara E. Ebert, Executive Director of Historic Ithaca, read the
following statement to Council members:
"The proposal you will be considering this evening - -the local
landmark nomination of thirteen buildings, their related
352
R
March 7, 1990
landscapes and three commemorative objects which are located on
the central campus of Cornell University - -was initiated by the
Board of Directors of Historic Ithaca in December 1989.
Concurrently, our organization has been working with Cornell
University on a nomination of campus buildings to the State and
National Registers of Historic Places. Good progress has been
made in this effort, and it is anticipated that the first in a
series of designation requests will move forward during 1990.
Consideration of local landmark designation for the Arts Quad-
rangle Historic District and the Central Campus Multiple Resource
nomination should begin with the clear understanding that the
entire central campus of Cornell University is significant both
architecturally and historically. The nominated buildings are
the historic core of this university and represent the growth of
Cornell from its inception to its status today as a world -
renowned educational and research institution. More pertinent to
your discussion this evening is the importance of these resources
to the City of Ithaca. The development of Cornell University
could well be described as having had the single most significant
influence on the evolution of this City. The proposed nomination
incorporated the earliest buildings of the land grant college - -an
honor which Ithacans strove mightily to have for their village- -
to the research facilities which put Cornell University, and
thereby Ithaca, 'on the map'.
The nomination proposes designation not only for the 'monuments' -
-Stone Row, Uris Library, etc., -- but also for the working
buildings in which technology, innovation and students' education
were advanced. The Foundry is the only remaining example of the
complex of structures built to support the Sibley College of
Engineering. The Foundry is qualified for designation as "one of
the few remaining examples of a past architectural style "(City of
Ithaca Landmark Ordinance) , and it deserves your support. The
Board and the membership of Historic Ithaca urge you to approve
this entire nomination."
The following persons spoke in favor of the Landmarks Designation
for the Cornell University buildings:
Mary Raddant Tomlan - 200 Delaware Avenue
Prof. Jack Squire - 221 Berkshire Road
George Hascup, 115 McIntyre Place, spoke in favor of the
designation, but is against the Foundry being designated as a
landmark.
Film Commission for Ithaca
Annie Ball Hayward, Meadowbrook Park, Newfield, spoke to Council
about creating a film commission in the City of Ithaca.
REPORT OF CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
Board of Public Works
Commissioner Reeves reported on the following:
Pedestrian Bridge across Cascadilla Creek - Commissioner Reeves
introduced Paul Crovella from the American Society of Civil
Engineers, Cornell Chapter. He gave a short presentation on the
bikeway bridge that has been worked on by Cornell students and
displayed a model of the project. He stated that Asst. Supt
Fabbroni has been very helpful in terms of providing the students
with the assistance they needed to undertake this project. He
thanked the Planning Committee for being receptive to the
concept.
Discussion followed on the floor with Mr. Crovella answering
questions from Council members.
Transit Study - Commissioner Reeves reported that the Transit
Study is in progress. It. is being done with the help of the
Wt
7 March 7, 1990
School of Human Ecology at Cornell.
Trash Tag Update - Commissioner Reeves reported that she received
some figures from Asst. Supt. Fabbroni today and approximately
75% of the residents are in compliance. The remaining 23% took
their trash bag(s) in off the street once they got the orange
notices on their bags and about 2% were issued special pick up
fees after the City went back a second time to remove the trash.
It was also reported that a large number of tags were stolen off
QW0" bags in the Collegetown area.
Elm Street Reconstruction - Commissioner Reeves reported that
there was a meeting today which Mayor Nichols chaired.
Representatives from the West Hill Civic Association, neighbors,
Alderperson Blanchard, members of staff, and Betsy Darlington
for the Conservation Advisory Council attended. After hearing
many of the concerns the Board discussed at its Committee of the
Whole meeting this afternoon, the possibility of postponing the
project for a year. There will be a resolution on the Board of
Public Works agenda for the March 14, 1990 meeting asking that
I0, the project be postponed until next year.
�1'. Hudson Street - Commissioner Reeves stated that on February 28,
I_Y A 1990 the Board of Public Works passed a resolution to delete the
`1 sidewalk on the west side of Hudson Street. After further
consideration by the neighbors, the PTA, and people from the
school, they asked the Board not to put sidewalks at this
location and the Board concurred.
CITY CLERK'S REPORT:
Appointment of Election Custodians for 1990
By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski
(awoo, RESOLVED, That Michael Mosely and Claude Colleyacme be appointed
as Election Custodians for the City of Ithaca, New York for the
year 1990.
Carried Unanimously
CITY ATTORNEY'S_ REPORT:
Lawsuit re Property at 615 -619 Hector street
City Attorney Guttman reported that the City has been sued
regarding property at 615, 617,and 619 Hector Street. This
property was sold at a tax sale. Based on this lawsuit, the City
is now going through review of what the City's position is with
regard to tax sales of property belonging to people who may be
mentally incompetent to understand the proceeding.
American Red Cross
City Attorney Guttman reported that the case with the American
Red Cross /City Board of Zoning Appeals is now up to the Appellate
Division. Briefs have been submitted and the case will be heard
by the Appellate Division on March 19th.
Arbitration - Fire Fighter
City Attorney Guttman reported that in the arbitration of Juddson
Leonard, fire fighter, the arbitrator agreed with the fire
fighter that he should have been placed on light duty and the
matter is now concluded.
Jason Fane Lawsuit
City Attorney Guttman reported the action which the City had
brought against Jason Fane was successful and no appeal has been
filed and Mr. Fane has paid the fine.
Housing /Zoning Issues
City Attorney Guttman stated that the City has filed several
accusatory instruments regarding housing /zoning issues.
Sale of City Hall Annex
City Attorney Guttman reported that in January Council passed a
resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into an agreement with
354
8 March 7, 1990
Mr. Schlough extending the closing date with the provision that
Mr. Schlough would agree that the liquidated damages clause of
the original contract would be guaranteed. Attorney Guttman
stated that Mr. Schlough has been unwilling and has refused to
sign that agreement. The City Attorney and the Mayor have been
informed that Mr. Schlough does not at this time have any
financing to proceed with this project. Mr. Schlough is still
hopeful that he will get financing and is looking for it but at
this point he is unable to proceed with the project.
City Attorney Guttman stated that at this point, Mr. Schlough is
past the date to purchase the building. The Common Council
needs to decide what they wish to do now with the City Hall
Annex.
Alderperson Cummings commented that the Council might want to
discuss whether or not that building might be considered in terms
of Court space needs.
Discussion followed on the floor on the appropriate body to refer
this question to in terms of future action and to bring back a
report to the Council.
Motion to Refer to Committee
By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder
RESOLVED, That the matter of sale of the City Hall Annex be
referred to the Intergovernmental Relations Committee to make a
recommendation on procedure, disposal methods and whether or not
there are any possibilities in regards to the current offer on
the building to proceed with a comprable project. This
Committee will report back to the Common Council Committee of the
Whole meeting in March.
Carried Unanimously
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
* 16.4 Local Designation of Cornell Central Campus Buildings:
a. Cornell University Arts Quadrangle
By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission held a
public hearing on February 22, 1989 to consider local
designation of the Cornell University Arts Quadrangle as an
historic district, and
WHEREAS, no objections to local designation were delivered at the
public hearing, and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing the Commission, as lead
agency, determined that local designation of the Arts Quadrangle
as an historic district will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and
WHEREAS, following the Commission's determination that resources
in the proposed designation meet the definition of a Historic
District as specified in Section 32.3 of Chapter 32 of the
Municipal Code, (Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance), the
Commission voted to designate the Arts Quadrangle as an historic
district, and
WHEREAS, following review of the designation by the Board of
Planning and Development on February 27, 1990 it was determined
that local designation of the Arts Quadrangle as an historic
district will not conflict with the master plan, existing zoning,
projected public improvements or any plans for renewal of the
site and area involved, and
WHEREAS, all designation of the Arts Quadrangle as an historic
district provides an additional measure of protection for
historic and architectural resources of importance to the local
community; now, therefore, be it
lr�
k t" I
3J1
9 March 7, 1990
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council, in accordance
with provisions and procedures set forth in Section 32.6C of the
Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, approves local designation of
the Cornell University Arts Quadrangle as an historic district
with boundaries shown on the map entitled Cornell University
Central Campus Designations, dated 2/27/90, and as described in
the verbal description, and be it further
Alderperson Booth noted, for the record, that he works for
Cornell as an employee of the College of Architecture, Art and
Planning which is affected by this designation. He stated that
he has voted against Cornell on so many issues that he cannot
count them and he does not see any conflict of interest in him
voting for this resolution and he will so vote.
Alderperson Schroeder noted, for the record, that he is an
architecture student on leave from Cornell University and he does
not see any conflict either.
Carried Unanimously
* 16.4 Local Designation of Cornell Central Campus Building
.T b The Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall
By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission held a
public hearing on February 22, 1989 to consider local
designation of four Cornell University central campus buildings,
the Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks,
and
WHEREAS, no objections to local designation were delivered at the
public hearing, and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing the Commission, as lead
agency, determined that local designation of the Foundry, Sage
Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks will not have a
RESOLVED,
That in accordance with provisions and procedures set
Landmarks Preservation Ordinance,
forth in
Section 32.6C of the
the designation
will become effective March 8, 1990.
VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTIONS FOR ARTS UAL D HISTORIC DISTRICT
North:
The inside curb edge of University Avenue, following
the inside curb edge of the Rand Hall turn - around to
its point of intersection with East Avenue.
East:
The inside curb edge of East Avenue, from its
intersection with the Rand Hall turn - around to its
point of intersection with Tower Road.
-
South:
The inside curb edge of the Tower Road Extension, from
=L
its intersection with East Avenue to a point ten feet
out from the wall of Uris Library and McGraw Tower.
Continuing from that point around Uris Library and
McGraw Tower on a line following the contours of the
building, and being always ten feet out from the
farthest projecting feature of the building, to include
but not limited to facade walls, foundation walls and
retaining walls.
West:
Continuing around Uris Library as described above to
this boundary with the
the point of intersection of
curb of Central Avenue. From this point of
intersection, along a line running due East -West, to
the point of intersection of this line and the inside
curb edge of Central Avenue, and continuing thence
along this inside curb line to its point of
intersection with the northern boundary at University
Avenue.
Alderperson Booth noted, for the record, that he works for
Cornell as an employee of the College of Architecture, Art and
Planning which is affected by this designation. He stated that
he has voted against Cornell on so many issues that he cannot
count them and he does not see any conflict of interest in him
voting for this resolution and he will so vote.
Alderperson Schroeder noted, for the record, that he is an
architecture student on leave from Cornell University and he does
not see any conflict either.
Carried Unanimously
* 16.4 Local Designation of Cornell Central Campus Building
.T b The Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall
By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission held a
public hearing on February 22, 1989 to consider local
designation of four Cornell University central campus buildings,
the Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks,
and
WHEREAS, no objections to local designation were delivered at the
public hearing, and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing the Commission, as lead
agency, determined that local designation of the Foundry, Sage
Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks will not have a
35(),
, 5 (),
10 March 7, 1990
significant effect on the environment, and
WHEREAS, following the Commission's determination that resources
in the proposed designation meet the definition of a "Landmark"
as specified in Section 32.3 of Chapter 32 of the Municipal Code,
(Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance), the Commission voted
to designate the Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall
as landmarks, and
WHEREAS, following review of the designation
by
the Board of
Planning and Development on February 27, 1990
it
was determined
that local designation
of these four buildings
as
landmarks will
not conflict with the
master plan, existing
zoning, projected
public improvements or
any plans for renewal
of
the site and
area involved, and
WHEREAS, local designation of these buildings as landmarks
provides an additional measure of protection for historic and
architectural resources of importance to the local community,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council, in accordance
with provisions and procedures set forth in Section 32.6C of the
Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, approves local designation of
the four Cornell University central campus buildings, the
Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks with
boundaries shown on the map entitled Cornell University Central
Campus Historic District and Landmark Designations, dated
2/27/90, and as described in the verbal description, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That in accordance with provisions and procedures set
forth in Section 32.6C of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance,
the designation will become effective March 8, 1990.
Discussion followed on the advantages and disadvantages of
separating the Foundry Building from the rest of this resolution
and voting on it as a separate resolution.
Motion to Separate The Foundry from the Resolution
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard
RESOLVED, That the matter of historic designation for The Foundry
as a Local Landmark be dealt with as a separate resolution.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) - Booth, Hoffman, Daley, Romanowski, Blanchard
Nays (5) - Schroeder, Johnson, Peterson, Cummings, Golder
Mayor Nichols voted Aye, breaking the tie.
Carried
Motion to Vote on Each Building (Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall, Sage
Hall) Separately
By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That each of the buildings being considered for
historic designation be voted upon separately.
Discussion followed on the floor. After further discussion the
motion was Withdrawn.
Main Motion (without The Foundry)
The Main Motion on the historic designation of Sage Chapel,
Barnes Hall and Sage Hall will read as follows:
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission held a
public hearing on February 22, 1989 to consider local
designation of three Cornell University central campus buildings,
Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks, and
WHEREAS, no objections to local designation were delivered at the
public hearing, and
351
11
March 7, 1990
WHEREAS, following the public hearing the Commission, as lead
agency, determined that local designation of Sage Chapel, Barnes
Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks will not have a significant
effect on the environment, and
WHEREAS, following the Commission's determination that resources
in the proposed designation meet the definition of a "Landmark"
as specified in Section 32.3 of Chapter 32 of the Municipal Code,
(Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance), the Commission voted
to designate Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks,
and
WHEREAS, following review of the designation by the Board of
Planning and Development on February 27, 1990 it was determined
that local designation of these three buildings as landmarks will
not conflict with the master plan, existing zoning, projected
public improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and
area involved, and
WHEREAS, local designation of these buildings as landmarks
�= provides an additional measure of protection for historic and
architectural resources of importance to the local community,
Ln now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council, in accordance
with provisions and procedures set forth in Section 32.6C of the
Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, approves local designation of
the three Cornell University central campus buildings, Sage
Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks with boundaries
shown on the map entitled Cornell University Central Campus
Historic District and Landmark Designations,dated 2/27/90, and as
described in the verbal description, and be it further
RESOLVED, That in accordance with provisions and procedures set
forth in Section 32.6C of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance,
the designation will become effective March 8, 1990.
Verbal Boundary Description for Sage Chapel
North: The inside curb edge of the Tower Road Extension.
West: The inside curb edge of the Central Avenue Extension.
South: An East -West line, parallel to the line of the Tower Road
Extension, being 30 feet out from the farthest projecting
facade wall of the building, to enclose, but not be
measured from, the porches and patio on this facade.
East: A north -South line, being 10 feet out from the farthest
projecting feature on this facade (the north wall of the
Sage Memorial Apse as it is reflected on the building's
exterior).
Verbal Boundary Description for Barnes Hall
South: A line drawn ten feet out from any wall, foundation, or
retaining wall, or any other integral feature, being
always measured from the farthest projecting surface of
any such feature, and to follow the contours of the
building.
West: A line ten feet out as described above, with the
exception of the northwest corner, where the boundary
becomes a line drawn North - South, parallel to the facade,
from the end -point of the North boundary to its
intersection with the ten foot line following the
contours of the building.
North: The wall of Barnes Hall, being always the farthest
projecting feature of the building, and to include, but
not be limited to facade walls, retaining walls and
12
March 7, 1990
foundation walls. Specifically included is the farthest
projecting northwest stone wall, curving out from the
building, and creating the endpoint from which the
western boundary shall begin.
East: The inside curb edge of Sage Avenue.
Verbal Boundary Description for Sage Hall
North: The inside edge of the footpath which runs parallel and
closest to the Sage Hall facade, and following this path
as it curves around the northwest corner.
West: The inside edge of the sidewalk which runs parallel to
and in front of Sage Hall, to its intersection with Sage
Avenue, and then becoming the inside curb edge of Sage
Avenue to its intersection with Campus Road.
South: The inside curb edge of Campus Road.
East: The inside curb edge of East Avenue.
Main Motion
A vote on the Main Motion (without The Foundry) resulted as
follows:
Carried Unanimously
Local Designation of Cornell University Central Campus Buildin
The Foundry
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission held a
public hearing on February 22, 1989 to consider local
designation of a Cornell University central campus building, the
Foundry, as a landmark, and
WHEREAS, no objections to local designation were delivered at the
public hearing, and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing the Commission, as lead
agency, determined that local designation of the Foundry, as a
landmark will not have a significant effect on the environment,
and
WHEREAS, following the Commission's determination that resources
in the proposed designation meet the definition of a "Landmark"
as specified in Section 32.3 of Chapter 32 of the Municipal Code,
(Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance), the Commission voted
to designate the Foundry as a landmark, and
WHEREAS, following review of the designation by the Board of
Planning and Development on February 27, 1990 it was determined
that local designation of this building as a landmark will not
conflict with the master plan, existing zoning, projected public
improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and area
involved, and
WHEREAS, local designation of this building as a landmark
provides an additional measure of protection for historic and
architectural resources of importance to the local community,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council, in accordance
with provisions and procedures set forth in Section 32.6C of the
Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, approves local designation of
the Foundry as a landmark with boundaries shown on the map
entitled Cornell University Central Campus Historic District and
Landmark Designations,dated 2/27/90, and as described in the
verbal description, and be it further
13
March 7, 1990
RESOLVED, That in accordance with provisions and procedures set
forth in Section 32.6C of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance,
the designation will become effective March 8, 1990.
Verbal Boundary Description for The Foundry
South: The inside curb edge of University Avenue.
s. West: Ten feet out from the farthest projecting feature of the
building, on a line following the contours of the
building.
North: Ten feet out from the farthest projecting feature of the
building as above.
East: Ten feet out from the farthest projecting feature of the
building as above.
ed Discussion followed on the floor with Alderpersons Johnson,
(0 Cummings, Schroeder and Booth participating.
If )
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
,:.:.g
Ayes (7) - Johnson, Schroeder, Golder, Hoffman, Peterson,
Daley, Cummings
Nays (3) - Booth, Blanchard, Romanowski
Carried
NEW BUSINESS'
* 21.1 Ramada Labor Relations
By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Golder
WHEREAS, amicable labor relations is an important community
(Wooe objective, and vital to the economic and social health of
Ithaca's workers and businesses, and
WHEREAS, a liveable wage, allowing a worker freedom from the
necessity of public assistance should be provided by any
employer, and
WHEREAS, Ramada /Divi service staff average under five dollars an
hour, with only 15% of the staff earning above that amount, and
WHEREAS, management of the Ramada /Divi refused a mediator's
request to extend the now expired labor agreement with Local
2300, UAW; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council expresses its concerns for the
deteriorating state of labor relations at the Ramada, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That Common Council strongly encourages both labor and
management to bargain in good faith to reach a prompt and fair
settlement that includes a liveable wage.
Discussion followed on the floor with the Alderpersons stating
their reasons for supporting or not supporting the resolution.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That the 2nd and 3rd Whereas clauses of the resolution
be deleted.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the elimination of the
second and third whereas clauses.
Motion to Refer to Committee
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That the Ramada Labor Relations Resolution be referred
to the Human Services Committee for review.
1160
14 March 7, 1990
Discussion followed with Kathy Valentino answering questions from
the Council members.
A vote on the motion to refer to committee resulted as follows:
Ayes (2) - Booth, Cummings
Nays (8) - Johnson, Golder, Schroeder, Peterson, Hoffman,
Romanowski, Blanchard, Daley
Motion Fails
Amendment to the Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That the 4th Whereas clause be added to the motion to
delete the 2nd and 3rd Whereas clauses.
Ayes (6) - Peterson, Booth,
Blanchard
Nays (4) - Johnson, Hoffman,
Cummings, Daley, Romanowski,
Schroeder, Golder
Carried
Amending Resolution
A vote on the Amending Resolution to delete the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Whereas clauses from the main motion resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) - Booth, Romanowski, Blanchard, Peterson, Daley,
Cummings, Schroeder, Hoffman
Nays (2) - Johnson, Golder
Carried
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
RESOLVED, That a final resolved be added to the resolution to
read as follows: "The Common Council offers to provide both
labor and management an opportunity to discuss their concerns
about this issue with Common Council".
After discussion, the amending resolution above was withdrawn.
Main Motion as Amended
WHEREAS, amicable labor relations is an important community
objective, and vital to the economic and social health of
Ithaca's workers and businesses; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council expresses its concerns for the
deteriorating state of labor relations at the Ramada, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That Common Council strongly encourages both labor and
management to bargain in good faith to reach a prompt and fair
settlement that includes a liveable wage.
A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
* 21.2 Request to Governor Regarding Budget Cuts for Division of
Youth- MacCormick Residential Center
By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Golder
WHEREAS, the New York State Division of the Budget and the New
York State Division for Youth have changed the facility classroom
teacher - student ratio in the recommended 190 -191 budget to the
Legislature, and
WHEREAS, the resultant reduction means the combined loss of six
teaching positions at the MacCormick and Lansing Residential
Centers and the financial loss of six jobs to the City of Ithaca
area, and
15
March 7, 1990
WHEREAS, the ratio change means the elimination of some of the
most critical services to troubled youth, in that students show a
three to five year increase in skills in less than one year, and
WHEREAS, these employees work at the MacCormick and Lansing
Residential Centers just outside the City of Ithaca and the
teachers effected reside in the Ithaca area; now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council strongly opposes
such action by the Division for Youth and the Division of the
Budget and urges that the Governor reverse this unjust action and
that our elected State Representatives formally and officially
reinstate the original teacher - student ratio to the New York
State Budget, thereby opposing this action and restoring
essential personnel.
ird Motion to Refer to Committee
By Alderperson Schroeder: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That the matter of budget cuts for the Division of
--- Youth- MacCormick Residential Center be referred to the Human
Services Committee for review.
4 Ayes (9) - Blanchard, Romanowski, Cummings, Daley, Booth,
Golder, Schroeder, Hoffman, Peterson
Nay (1) - Johnson Carried
Recess
Common Council recessed at 9:40 and reconvened in regular session
at 9:50 p.m.
BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
* 14.2 Mayor's Office - Amend Authorized Equipment List
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson
RESOLVED, That the Authorized Equipment list for the Mayor's
office be amended to include the following:
1. Macintosh plus computer $999.
2. A 20 Meg DataFrame Hard Disk 495.
3. Word 4.0 Software 299.
4. DeskWriter Printer 990.
$2,783.
and be it further
RESOLVED, That $2,783 be transferred from Account A1990
Restricted Contingency to Account A1210 -210, Office Equipment, to
fund such acquisition. Carried
* 14.3 Building Department - Amend Authorized Equipment List
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Daley
RESOLVED, That the Authorized Equipment list for the Building
Department be amended to include the following:
1. 1 Everex 1A61386/25 MHZ Computer $4,590.00
2. 1 Hewlett Packard Laserjet Series 1,892.00
II Printer
3. A Logical Connection with 256K for 607.00
Printer Sharing
and be it further
RESOLVED, That $7,089 be transferred from Account A690 -7 New York
State Building and Fire Code Aid for such purpose.
W.
March 7, 1990
* 14.4 Fire Department - Amend Authorized Equipment List
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Golder
RESOLVED, That the Fire Department Authorized Equipment List be
amended as follows:
1. 1 Apple Micro - computer $3,775.
2. 1 Apple Printer 970.
3. 1 Gasoline Powered Fan (no additional funds required)
and be it further
RESOLVED, That $4,745 be transferred from Account A3410 -460,
Program Supplies for Hazardous Materials Control Programming, to
Account A3410 -225 Other Equipment, to finance the procurement of
items one and two above, with item three to be purchased from
available funds.
Carried
* 14.5 Request for Consulting Firm Services for City Court
Facility Plan
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard
WHEREAS, the Ithaca City Court has been mandated by the New York
State Unified Court System to expand and restore the existing
City Court and Facilities. The Superintendent of Public Works
has met with the City Court Judge and Court Clerk to discuss how
to achieve this, and has arrived at a variety of possible options
for renovations that would satisfy the decision of the New York
State Unified Court System, and
WHEREAS, the options which meet the State requirements include:
the expansion of the existing Court facilities building by either
adding an extra floor or the addition of a 6,000+ square foot
two -story facility behind the existing building; building a new
facility in the Police Department parking lot across East Clinton
Street from the Hall of Justice; relocating to another existing
building (to be identified) ; or building a brand new facility
elsewhere in the City, and
WHEREAS, the finalization of these options cannot be done by
staff in the time frame required because the professional
expertise of the Department is already tied up in various on-
going projects, and
WHEREAS, the State has mandated that this analysis must be
completed no later than March 31, 1990 and, therefore, the
results of the in -house analysis must be done by the middle of
March to provide time for review by City staff and the Board of
Public Works; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Superintendent is requested and authorized to
negotiate and execute a contract for the services of a consulting
firm to provide this analysis at a sum not to exceed $5,000, to
be taken out of Capital Reserve Account #25, for design of new
capital projects, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the firm undertaking this analysis be instructed
by the Superintendent to give sensitive consideration to the
historic importance and architectural significance of the
existing Hall of Justice building (identified as a monument in
the South Hill Historic and Architectural Resources Survey of
1987), and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council's final acceptance or approval of
any of the listed building alternatives shall require a further
decision by Council.
Carried
D
17
March 7, 1990
* 14 .6 DPW Request for Conceptual Design
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Daley
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has endorsed the concept for
a consolidated Department of Public Works operations; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the architectural firm of Trowbridge and
Trowbridge be engaged for an amount not to exceed $4,100., to
prepare a conceptual design relative to the proposed relocation
and consolidation of the Water, Sewer, and Streets and Facilities
Divisions of the Department of Public Works, and be it further
RESOLVED, That an amount not to exceed $4,100. be transferred
from the Design Capital Reserve #25 for such purpose.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
l.S.a Ayes (8) - Booth, Peterson, Daley, Romanowski, Blanchard,
Johnson, Schroeder, Golder
Nay (1) - Hoffman
f'),J Alderperson Cummings out of room at the time of the
vote.
Carried
* 14.7 Joint Transit Maintenance and Administration Facility
Study Design and Location of Said Project
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard
WHEREAS, staff from Cornell University, the City of Ithaca, and
Tompkins County have been exploring the possibility of
constructing a Joint Transit Maintenance and Administration
Facility, and
WHEREAS, staff has met with representatives of the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDot) and the Federal Urban Mass
Transit Administration (UPTA) relative to the design and location
of such facility, and
WHEREAS, funding for the construction of a Joint Facility, if
approved, would be financed by Federal Section 18 Aid of 2.1 %,
Federal Section 3 Aid of 67.2 %, New York State Aid of 9.6 %, and a
local share of 21.1 %, and
WHEREAS, NYSDoT has expressed a willingness to allocate a small
amount of available matching funds for the Design Phase of such
project, and
WHEREAS, the local cost of the entire project would be shared as
follows:
1. Cornell University 50%
2. Tompkins County 25%
3. City of Ithaca 25%
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Capital Project #229 for the construction of a
Joint Transit Facility, be and is hereby established to finance
the City's share of the design and construction of said facility,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That $45,000 be advanced from Capital Reserve #22 for
Bus Acquisition, to Capital Project #229 to fund the City's
initial share of the design phase (total cost for design is
projected to be $294,000), and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor be authorized, subject to review by the
City Attorney, to execute the appropriate agreements to
facilitate the City's participation in the design of a Joint
18 March 7, 1990
Transit Facility.
Discussion followed on the floor with City Controller Cafferillo
answering questions from Council members.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
* 14.1 Request Funding for Rental Housing Commission,
Cornell /City Relations Study Commission and Opportunities for
Youth Commission from Mavor's Office
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder
WHEREAS, the 1990 adopted budget included $10,000 in Account
A1990 Restricted Contingency for use by the Mayor's office to
provide Staff Support to various Boards and Commissions, and
WHEREAS, Mayor Nichols has requested that $5,000 of such fund be
allocated as follows:
$2,000 for the Rental Housing Commission
$1,500 for the Cornell -City Relations Study Commission
$1,500 for the Opportunities for Youth Commission
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That $5,000 be transferred from Account A1990
Restricted Contingency to the Mayor's Contractual Services line,
A1210 -435, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor be authorized to enter into the required
personal services contracts where applicable, or hire such Staff
on a part -time temporary basis, for the purposes described
herein.
Alderperson Blanchard asked that the three items being requested
be voted on separately.
Alderperson Booth, as maker of the motion, had no objection to
her request.
$2,000 for Rental Housing Commission
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Daley
RESOLVED, That $2,000 be allocated to the Mayor for staff support
to the Rental Housing Commission.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (8) - Romanowski, Booth, Johnson, Cummings, Peterson,
Schroeder, Hoffman, Golder
Nays (2) - Daley, Blanchard
Carried
$1,500 for Cornell -City Relations Study Commission
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Daley
RESOLVED, That $1,500 be allocated to the Mayor for staff support
for the Cornell -City Relations Study Commission. J_
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) - Booth, Johnson,
Peterson
Nays (4) - Cummings, Daley,
Golder, Schroeder, Hoffman,
Romanowski, Blanchard
$1,500 for the Opportunities for Youth Commission
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Daley
RESOLVED, That $1,500 be allocated to the Mayor for staff support
,) , r
40a
19 March 7, 1990
for the Opportunities for Youth Commission.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) - Booth, Golder, Schroeder, Hoffman, Peterson
Nays (5) - Johnson, Cummings, Daley, Romanowski, Blanchard
Mayor Nichols voted Aye breaking the tie. Carried
(400., * 14 8 Youth Bureau - Request to Amend_ 1990 Budget
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That the 1990 Budget be amended as follows:
1. Increase General Fund Revenue A2070 Contribution for
Youth by $5,000, to reflect a grant to be received
from the Cornell Exploring Careers in Informational
Technologies (CIT) Program.
2. Increase General Fund Appropriation for the Youth
Bureau, Account A7310 -120 Part -time Seasonal Salaries
°- by $5,000, for the implementation of such program
within the Youth Employment Service Division of the
Youth Bureau,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the operation of this Program remain budget
neutral, with said authorization being granted on a temporary
basis, subject to the availability and receipt of specific
outside funding.
Carried Unanimously
*14.9 Finance Department - Employee Salary Adjustment
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has recommended
he nterms Holcomb of he o CSEA
mployee Incentive Awar d pursuant
Administrative Unit Contract, and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has provided the Budget and
Administration Committee with substantial justification for
granting the Employee Incentive Award, and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk's recommendation complies with the
procedure and guidelines outlined in the CSEA Administrative Unit
Contract; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Connie Holcomb's salary be increased by eight (8 %)
percent to an annual salary of $20,570, retroactive to January
30, 1990.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Ayes (9) - Booth, Cummings, Peterson, Hoffman, Daley,
Blanchard, Romanowski, Johnson, Schroeder
Nay (1) - Golder Carried
*
14.10 Youth Bureau - Appointment of Administrative Secretary
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
RESOLVED, That Marilyn Hall be provisionally appointed to the
position of Administrative Secretary in the Youth Bureau at an
annual salary of $19,043, that being Step 7 on the 1990
Compensation Plan for Confidential Employees, effective March 12,
1990.
Ayes (9) - Booth, Cummings, Peterson, Hoffman, Daley,
Blanchard, Romanowski, Johnson, Schroeder
Abstention (1) - Golder
20
March 7, 1990
Carried
* 14.11 Youth Bureau - Request to Amend 1990 Budget
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson
RESOLVED, That the 1990 Budget be amended as follows:
1. Increase General Fund Revenue Account A2001
Recreational Program Fees by $26,000., to reflect
increased Program Fees recommended by the City Youth
Bureau Advisory Board.
2. Increase General Fund Appropriation Account:
A. A7310 -120, by $7,875. to fund salary increases for
part -time seasonal staff at Cass Park and Stewart
Park, and by $5,500. to fund salaries for extended
hours of services at Cass Park Pool.
B. A7310 -105 Staff Salaries by $3,000., to fund
additional salary requirements relative to the
appointment of Marilyn Hall to the position of
Administrative Secretary.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard
RESOLVED, That in Item 2A, there be a period (.) placed after the
words Stewart Park and the rest of that sentence be deleted from
the resolution.
Discussion followed on the floor on the amending resolution
regarding cutting the hours at the Cass Park pool. Youth Bureau
Director answered questions from Council members.
A vote on the amending resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (2) - Booth, Blanchard
Nays (8) - Johnson, Romanowski, Daley, Cummings, Peterson,
Hoffman, Schroeder, Golder
Motion Fails
Main Motion
A vote on the Main Motion resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
* 14.12 Youth Bureau - Request to Accommodate a Maternity Leave
Request
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson
RESOLVED, That the Personnel Roster of the Youth Bureau be
temporarily amended from May 24, 1990 to May 24, 1991, to
accommodate a maternity leave request, as follows:
Delete: 1 Youth Program Coordinator (full -time)
Add 1 Youth Program Coordinator (17 hours /week)
Carried Unanimously
* 14.13 Various Bond Resolutions
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That a resolution authorizing the issuance of
$2,926,250. Serial Bonds of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County,
New York, to pay for the following projects be hereby approved:
Hudson Street Reconstruction $1,425,000
Elm Street Reconstruction 475,000
City Hall Phone System 45,000
Cass Park Improvements 88,500
Ithaca Industrial Park 400,000
Asbestos Removal Project 140,000
Thurston Avenue Bridge Reconstruction 251,750
Addition to existing Resolution:
Computer Acquisition 1011000
3 6
21 March 7, 1990
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski
RESOLVED, That the first two items (Hudson Street Reconstruction
and Elm
tionStreet
truct The obher � terns d should e tr
remainthe
Construe $1,900,000-"
same.
Alderperson Booth explained that there is concern about the Elm
Street project. He stated that the City Controller believes it
would be wise to authorize this amount, then it would leave us
some flexibility. If he does not have to issue all that amount,
he would oardoofoPublic Worksrmeetingnto wait least
the next Board B formally
decide.
City Controller Cafferillo stated that after the Budget the
Administration Committee addressed the original resolution,
Superintendent of Public Works requested that Elm Street be
withdrawn. In discussions with Assistant Superintendent
Fabbroni, he wants to propose additional work to keep his
construction program going, but possibly on an alternative site.
J Mr. Cafferillo stated that he has worked out the mechanism with
[41 our bonding attorneys to generalize the total amount to be issued
as street construction. Then we can distribute it between Hudson
Street and some area of the City or several areas of the City and
authorize it at a subsequent point in time.
Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the Elm Street
Reconstruction project.
Alderperson Romanowski stated for the record that he wants to
make sure that the Elm Street reconstruction will still take
place.
Further discussion followed with Alderpersons Hoffman, Daley,
Cummings and Johnson participating.
As no Councilperson objected to the Amending Resolution it was
duly adopted.
BOND RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 7, 1990.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $2,926,250 SERIAL BOND
AND THE APPROPRIATION AND EXPENDITURE OF $319,750 MONEYS OF THE
CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK, TO PAY COSTS OF
VARIOUS CAPITAL PROJECTS.
WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to the financing of the capital
projects hereinafter described, including compliance with the
provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, have
been performed, and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize the financing of such
capital projects; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York, as follows:
Section 1. For the purpose of paying the cost or additional
costs of the specific objects or purposes or classes of objects
or purposes of the capital projects specified in Section 2
hereof, there are hereby authorized to be issued $2,926,250
serial bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Local Finance Law,
and there are hereby authorized to be expended $319,750 moneys of
the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York which moneys are
hereby appropriated therefor.
Section 2. The capital projects in and for the City of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, for which such serial bonds,
368
22 March 7, 1990
bond anticipation notes and moneys shall be expended, the maximum
estimated cost of each such capital project and whether a capital
project is a specific object or purpose or a class of objects or
purposes as follows:
a) The reconstruction of various streets located throughout
and in and for said City, a class of objects or purposes, at
a maximum estimated cost of $2,000,000;
b) The purchase and installation of a telephone
communication system in City Hall, a specific object or
purpose, at a maximum estimated cost of $50,000;
c) The original improvement and embellishment of Cass Park,
a specific object or purpose, at a maximum estimated cost of
$100,000;
d) The construction of a new road at Route 13 to be an
extension to Third Street, a specific object or purpose, at
a maximum estimated cost of $470,000;
e) The purchase and installation of sanitary sewers to
serve the area along the Third Street Extension described in
paragraph d hereof, a specific object or purpose, at a
maximum estimated cost of $55,000;
f) The purchase and installation of water mains to serve
the area along the Third Street Extension described in
paragraph d hereof, a specific object or purpose, at a
maximum estimated cost of $55,000;
g) The reconstruction of various City buildings, for the
purpose of removing asbestos therein, a class of objects or
purposes, at a maximum estimated cost of $150,000;
h) The reconstruction of the Thurston Avenue Bridge, a
specific object or purpose, at a maximum estimated cost of
$265,000; and
i) The payment of additional costs of the purchase of a
computer system for said City, a specific object or
purposes, at a maximum estimated cost of $101,000.
Section 3. The plan for the financing of each of the
specific objects or purposes or classes of objects or purposes
set forth in Section 2 hereof shall consist of the issuance of
the serial bonds and the bond anticipation notes and the
expenditure of the moneys of said City authorized to be issued
pursuant to this bond resolution, which serial bonds and moneys
shall be allocated as follows:
a. $1,900,000 serial bonds and $100,000 moneys, being
provided from the Consolidated Highway Improvement Program,
shall be allocated to the payment of the reconstruction of
streets described in subdivision a of Section 2 hereof;
b. $45,000 serial bonds and $5,000 moneys to the payment of
the purchase and installation of the telephone system at
City Hall described in subdivision b of Section 2 hereof;
C. $88,500 serial bonds and $11,500 moneys to the payment
of the original improvement and embellishment of Cass Park
described in subdivision c of Section 2 hereof;
d. $320,000 serial bonds and $150,000 moneys, being
provided from the Appalachian Regional Commission, to the
payment of the construction of the Third Street Extension
described in subdivision d of Section 2 hereof;
O
23 March 7, 1990
e. $40,000 serial bonds and $15,000 moneys, being provided
from the Sewer Fund, to the payment of the purchase and
installation of sanitary sewers, described in subdivision e
of Section 2 hereof;
f. $40,000 serial bonds and
from the Water Fund, to the
installation of water mains,
Section 2 hereof;
$15,000 moneys, being provided
payment of the purchase and
described in subdivision f of
g. $140,000 serial bonds and $10,000 moneys to the payment
of the cost of the reconstruction of buildings described in
subdivision g of Section 2 hereof;
h. $251,750 serial bonds and $13,250 moneys, being provided
from Capital Reserve Fund No. 4, to the payment of the
reconstruction of the Thurston Avenue Bridge described in
subdivision h of Section 2 hereof; and
i. $101,000 serial bonds to the payment of additional costs
of the purchase and installation of the computer system
described in subdivision i of Section 2 hereof.
Section 4. The periods of probable usefulness of the
capital projects described in Section 2 hereof shall be,
respectively, fifteen years, ten years, fifteen years, fifteen
years, forty years, forty years, twenty years, twenty years, and
five years, pursuant to subdivisions 20 (c), 25, 19 (c), 20 (c),
4, 1, 12 (a)(1), 10 and 32, respectively, of paragraph a of
Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law.
Section 5. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation
notes may be contested only if:
1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose
for which said City is not authorized to expend money, or
2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at
the date of publication of this resolution are not
substantially complied with,
and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is
commenced within twenty days after the date of such publication,
or
3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the
provisions of the Constitution.
Section 6. This resolution, which takes effect immediately,
shall be published in full in the Ithaca Journal, the official
newspaper, together with a notice of the City Clerk in
substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local
Finance Law.
The foregoing resolution was duly voted on by a roll call vote
which resulted as follows:
Romanowski - Abstention (possible conflict
of interest)
Peterson -
Schroeder -
Daley -
Golder -
Ayes - 7
Nays - 1
Abstentions
Aye
Aye
Aye
Abstention
- 2
(not sufficient
information to
make an informed
vote)
Booth - Aye
Blanchard
- Aye
Johnson
- Aye
Hoffman
- Nay
Cummings
- Aye
Carried
370
24 March 7, 1990
* 14.14* Audit
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson
RESOLVED, That the bills presented, as listed on Audit Abstract
#4/1990, in the total amount of $21,580.94, be approved for
payment.
Carried Unanimously
* 14.15 Request to Governor and State Legislature Regarding
Restructuring of Local Taxing Authority
By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman
WHEREAS, tax cuts at federal and state levels, and the lack of
federal and state aid to municipalities have resulted in placing
increasingly serious burdens on local taxes, and
WHEREAS, the cuts in federal and state income taxes have resulted
in a shift from progressive to regressive taxes with benefits to
the affluent and increases to lower and middle income New
Yorkers, and
WHEREAS, the level of local property taxes represents an
excessive burden on both property owners and renters; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca call on
the Governor and the State Legislature to restructure local
taxing authority throughout the state in order to reduce
significantly the burdens placed on the local property tax, and
be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca does not have authority to
impose a local income tax, and the Common Council is not
attempting to impose a local income tax.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Romanowski: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard
RESOLVED, That the first three Whereas clauses and the first
Resolved clause be deleted from the Resolution.
Ayes (4) - Romanowski, Blanchard, Cummings, Booth
Nays (6) - Johnson, Schroeder, Peterson, Hoffman, Daley,
Golder
Motion Fails
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That the last Resolved in the resolution be amended to
read as follows:
"RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is not
considering and has no plans to consider implementing an income
tax limited to the City of Ithaca as a means of shifting the
local tax burden."
Discussion followed on Alderperson Daley's Amending Resolution.
A vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) - Peterson, Schroeder, Daley, Cummings, Johnson
Nays (5) - Romanowski, Booth, Golder, Hoffman, Blanchard
Mayor Nichols voted Aye, breaking the tie.
Carried
Substitute Resolution
By Alderperson Blanchard: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski
WHEREAS, a great deal of public anxiety has been created as a
result of discussion relating to a local income tax; now,
therefore, be it
371
25
March 7, 1990
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca is not considering the
imposition of a local income tax.
Ayes (2) - Blanchard, Romanowski
Nays (8) - Peterson, Schroeder, Hoffman, Golder, Daley,
Cummings, Johnson, Booth
Motion Fails
Ayes (9) - Cummings, Romanowski, Peterson, Daley, Johnson,
Blanchard, Hoffman, Golder, Schroeder
(� Nay (1) - Booth
Carried
._3
Amending Resolution
;A By Alderperson Golder: Seconded by Alderperson Daley
((.1 RESOLVED, That the a third Resolved be added to the Resolution
to read as follows: "RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the
City of Ithaca will explore all avenues of addressing the problem
of unfair tax burdens on the citizens of Ithaca."
Aye (1) - Golder
Nays (9) - Blanchard, Romanowski, Johnson, Booth, Daley,
Schroeder, Peterson, Hoffman, Cummings
Motion Fails
Main Motion as Amended
The Main Motion as Amended reads as follows:
WHEREAS, tax cuts at federal and state levels, and the lack of
federal and state aid to municipalities have resulted in placing
increasingly serious burdens on local taxes, and
WHEREAS, the cuts in federal and state income taxes have resulted
in a shift from progressive to regressive taxes with benefits to
the affluent and increases to lower and middle income New
Yorkers, and
WHEREAS, the level of local property taxes represents an
excessive burden on both property owners and renters; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca call on
the Governor and the State Legislature to restructure local
taxing authority throughout the state in order to reduce
significantly the burdens placed on the local property tax, and,
be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca call on
Representative Matthew H. McHugh to initiate legislation designed
to re- institute federal revenue sharing with localities, and, be
it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is not
considering and has no plans to consider implementing an income
tax limited to the City of Ithaca as a means of shifting the
local tax burden.
Amending Resolution
Golder: Seconded
by Alderperson Daley
By Alderperson
insert a Resolved
to read: "RESOLVED,
After the First Resolved,
Council of
the City
of Ithaca on
That the Common
Representative Matthew H. McHugh
to initiate
'call
legislation designed
to re- institute federal revenue
sharing with
localities.
Ayes (9) - Cummings, Romanowski, Peterson, Daley, Johnson,
Blanchard, Hoffman, Golder, Schroeder
(� Nay (1) - Booth
Carried
._3
Amending Resolution
;A By Alderperson Golder: Seconded by Alderperson Daley
((.1 RESOLVED, That the a third Resolved be added to the Resolution
to read as follows: "RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the
City of Ithaca will explore all avenues of addressing the problem
of unfair tax burdens on the citizens of Ithaca."
Aye (1) - Golder
Nays (9) - Blanchard, Romanowski, Johnson, Booth, Daley,
Schroeder, Peterson, Hoffman, Cummings
Motion Fails
Main Motion as Amended
The Main Motion as Amended reads as follows:
WHEREAS, tax cuts at federal and state levels, and the lack of
federal and state aid to municipalities have resulted in placing
increasingly serious burdens on local taxes, and
WHEREAS, the cuts in federal and state income taxes have resulted
in a shift from progressive to regressive taxes with benefits to
the affluent and increases to lower and middle income New
Yorkers, and
WHEREAS, the level of local property taxes represents an
excessive burden on both property owners and renters; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca call on
the Governor and the State Legislature to restructure local
taxing authority throughout the state in order to reduce
significantly the burdens placed on the local property tax, and,
be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca call on
Representative Matthew H. McHugh to initiate legislation designed
to re- institute federal revenue sharing with localities, and, be
it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is not
considering and has no plans to consider implementing an income
tax limited to the City of Ithaca as a means of shifting the
local tax burden.
72
26 March 7, 1990
A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows:
Ayes (7) - Daley, Cummings, Johnson, Peterson, Hoffman,
Schroeder, Golder
Nays (3) - Booth, Romanowski, Blanchard
Carried
CHARTER AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE:
* 15.1 Penalties on Miscellaneous Bills
By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works in a meeting held on January
17,1990 resolved to amend Sections 244.53, 245.8, 272.2 and 272.9
of the Regulations of the Board of Public Works, to authorize a
late penalty of 12 percent per annum or $3.00 a month, whichever
is greater, on unpaid balances of miscellaneous bills after a 30-
day due date, and
WHEREAS, the City Chamberlain has determined that such charges
are reasonably related to the expenses the City incurs in
collecting such late miscellaneous bills; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council endorses a decision by the
Board of Public Works to amend its regulations as follows:
Section 244.53 Duty to keep sidewalks clear of snow, ice and
other obstructions
It shall be the duty of all persons owning property on a
public street to keep the sidewalks in front of such property
clear of snow and ice and any other obstruction including free
flowing water from drains, ditches or downspouts. In case of
failure or neglect to clean any such walk within a reasonable
time following its deposit, such time to be determined by the
Superintendent, the sidewalk may be cleaned by employees of the
Board of Public Works at the expense of the property owner. The
charge to the owner for cleaning any such walk will be the actual
cost, plus 50% for overhead and administration for such charges
and shall be due 30 days from the date ordered rendered by the
Board of Public Works. Bills remaining unpaid after 30 days
shall accrue a late penalty at the rate of twelve percent per
annum from the date of the bill or $3.00 per month, whichever is
greater.
Section 245.8 Board of Public Works Regulations
Owner of Property Liable for Charges
All water rents, sewer rental fees, accounts or other
charges relating to water and sewer service, shall be a charge
against the owner or agent of the premises connected with the
City water and /or sewer mains and such owner or agent shall be
held responsible for all such accounts and charges.
Bills for work done b'
expense shall be due 30 da,
the Board of Public Works.
shall accrue a late penalt,
annum from the date of the b
ctreater. .
Y City forces at a property owner's
7s from the date ordered rendered by
Bills remaining unpaid after 30 days
at the rate of twelve percent per
ill, or $3.00 per month, whichever is
In default of payment of any such charges within sixty days
after becoming due, the water and /or sewer service may be cut off
such premises without further notice. Any service and
consumption charge shall be a lien upon the premises served and
shall be collectible as provided by Section 5.19 and Section 5.20
of the Ithaca City Charter.
Section 272.2 Payment for Service
Bills rendered for mowing grass and similar services shall
be due thirty (30) days from the date of such bills. Bills
1
27 March 7, 1990
remaining unpaid after 30 days shall accrue a late_ penalty at the
rate of twelve Percent per annum from the date of the bill or
$3.30 per month, whichever is greater. The owner of the premises
shall be held responsible and liable for all charges for such
service. In case of default of payment, these charges will be
collected in the manner provided for by the provisions of the
City Charter relating thereto.
(aw." Section 272.9 Collection Regulations
D. Service Charges
b. Such charges levied shall be due 30 days after the
bill is ordered rendered by the Board of Public Works. Bills
remaining unpaid after 30 days shall accrue a late penalty at the
rate of twelve percent per annum from the date of the bill or
$3.00 per month, whichever is greater, and shall be collectible
in accordance with the City of Ithaca Charter, Section 5.33.
(rj And be it further
y RESOLVED, That these amendments become effective immediately.
Carried Unanimously
15.2 Handicapped Accessibility
By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder
RESOLVED, That the following guidelines are to be employed by the
City of Ithaca Building Department in their decisions regarding
access for handicapped individuals to buildings and facilities:
It is the intent of the City of Ithaca, when handicapped access
is required by the State Building Code, that the exterior
accessible route to a building or a facility either be the same
one that the general population uses or be located at a principal
entrance to the building or facility. A principal entrance is
one by which a substantial number of users enter or leave a
building. If the building is a multi -use building, consideration
must be given to more than one entrance so that if a handicapped
person wants to gain access to one use of a building, he or she
does not have to get there through circuitous or demeaning
circumstances. To determine whether an access point is
appropriate, factors such as safety, the number of "users,
location and humaneness are to be considered. Examples of
conditions that are generally deemed unacceptable for meeting
handicapped access are an access that is poorly lit, is a shared
use with an entrance that is primarily for delivery purposes, is
not off a main public way, or demeans or singles out the
handicapped user. Recognizing that every building situation is
unique, the Building Commissioner shall make every effort to
incorporate these guidelines into decisions on appropriate
handicapped access.
Carried Unanimously
_* 15.3 Amendments to Smoking Regulations
By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson
1990 Amendmen
of Smoking"
67, entitled " Regulatio
of Ithaca Municipal Cod
Section 1. Chapter 67, entitled "Regulation of Smoking ", of the
City of Ithaca Municipal Code, as amended, is hereby repealed.
Section 2. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of
the City of Ithaca, New York, that a new Chapter 67, entitled
"Regulation of Smoking ", be added to the City of Ithaca Municipal
Code to read as follows:
28 March 7, 1990
Chapter 67
Regulation of Smoking
Section 67.1 Purpose
A. It is the purpose of this ordinance to protect and
enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare by
limiting the exposure of all persons to second -hand smoke.
B. It is the further purpose of this ordinance to regulate
smoking in Ithaca in a manner consistent with Article 13 -E of the
New York State Public Health Law, as adopted into law on
July 5, 1989. To this end this ordinance incorporates the
smoking regulations established by that law and supplements those
regulations with additional smoking regulations as is permitted
by Section 1399 -r (3) of that law.
Section 67.2 Declaration of Findings and Intent
A. The City government of Ithaca has an obligation to try
to protect persons from involuntary exposure to public health
hazards and public nuisances.
B. Reliable studies have shown that breathing second -hand
smoke is a significant health hazard for several population
groups, including children, fetuses, elderly people, individuals
with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired
respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with
obstructive airway disease. These health hazards include lung
cancer, respiratory infection, decreased exercise tolerance,
decreased respiratory function, bronchoconstriction and
bronchospasm.
C. Exposure to second -hand smoke precipitates and /or
aggravates allergic attacks in persons with respiratory
allergies, and accelerates such allergic symptoms as eye
irritation, nasal symptoms, headaches, coughing, wheezing, sore
throats and hoarseness.
D. The preponderance of available evidence and the trends
reflected in that evidence all indicate that exposure to second-
hand smoke is a significant health hazard which exposes members
of the public to increased risk for developing disease and
adversely affects the public health. This exposure has caused,
continues to cause and will continue to cause, needless pain,
suffering, and death.
E. The health hazards caused by second -hand smoke are of
variable degree, depending upon such factors as length of
exposure and the age and physical condition of those exposed.
F. In addition to the public health problems it causes and
the public health threats it poses, second -hand smoke constitutes
a public nuisance for many people.
G. In some cases, there is a voluntary assumption of the
health hazards and public nuisance impacts caused by second -hand
smoke. In many other cases, however, there is an involuntary or
coerced exposure to these hazards and impacts, and persons are
exposed to second -hand smoke against their will in a wide variety
of places and circumstances.
H. It is understood that regulations addressing the hazards
and undesirable impacts of second -hand smoke will cause certain
economic dislocations and governmental intrusions into private
activities that must be justified by the nature and extent of the
public health hazards and public nuisance impacts presented by
second -hand smoke. Therefore, a balance must be struck between
safeguarding citizens from involuntary exposure to second -hand
`7 ,i
29 March 7, 1990
smoke on the one hand, and minimizing governmental intrusion into
the affairs of its citizens on the other.
I. It is recognized that certain voluntary efforts have
been carried out independent of governmental intervention seeking
to address the problem of second -hand smoke and that it is in the
public interest to enact smoking regulations which harmonize with
such efforts so long as they do not compromise the public health,
(*mowel safety, and general welfare.
J. The widely varying range of conditions under which
persons are exposed to second -hand smoke necessitates tailoring
the regulation of smoking to match various circumstances.
K. Because the State of New York has adopted comprehensive
legislation regulating smoking throughout the state, it is in the
best interests of the residents of the City of Ithaca that
smoking be regulated by the City in a manner consistent with that
state law (Article 13 -E of the New York State Public Health Law,
(. as signed into law on July 5, 1989). It is, therefore, the
intent of this ordinance that the smoking regulations established
by that state law be incorporated into this local ordinance and
that those smoking regulations be supplemented by additional
ELI smoking regulations as permitted by Section 1399 -r (3) of that
` state law.
Section 67.3 Definitions
Except for the definitions stated in this section, this
ordinance incorporates the definitions set forth in Article 13 -E
of the Public Health Law, as signed into law on July 5, 1989;
and those definitions shall be utilized in interpreting and
applying this ordinance unless the context requires otherwise.
Except where the context requires otherwise, the following words
and phrases shall have the following meanings when used in this
ordinance.
A. "Food service establishment" means any indoor area open
to the public or portion thereof in which the business is the
sale of food for on- premises consumption, including but not
limited to restaurants, cafeterias, coffee shops, diners,
sandwich shops, short order cafes, ice cream and soda shops, and
lunch counters. " Food service establishment" does not include a
"bar" as defined in Article 13 -E of the Public Health Law.
B. "Public" includes all of those persons who visit, do
business at, attend, congregate or otherwise typically utilize an
indoor area open to the public. Provided, "public" does not
include persons who normally live at the particular place in
question, or their private guests or invitees, or persons who are
regularly employed at that place.
C. "Separate enclosed room" means a room set aside for use
as a smoking room by the owner, operator, manager, sponsor, or
person in charge of a particular facility, which room shall have
solid walls that reach from ceiling to floor and separate that
room from other parts of the building in question and a
(400", ventilation system that removes air, smoke and associated gases
from that room to the ambient air outside the building in which
the room is located. All of the doors to such a room must be
capable of being shut.
Section 67.4 General Smoking Restrictions; Incorporation of
State Law Governing Smoking; Additional
Regulations Governing Smoking
A. Subject to the provisions of subdivision B of this
section, the City of Ithaca hereby adopts and establishes
regulations on smoking, including definitions pertaining thereto,
that are the same as those established by sections 1399 -n through
37Fi
30 March 7, 1990
1399 -r of Article 13 -E of the New York State Public Health Law
(as signed into law on July 5, 1989) . It is the intent of this
subdivision that smoking shall be governed by the City of Ithaca
in the same way as the State of New York governs smoking under
the Public Health Law, except as provided in subdivision B of
this section. Accordingly, Article 13 -E of the Public Health
Law (as signed into law on July 5, 1989) is set forth in Appendix
A of this ordinance, and sections 1399 -o through 1399 -r of that
law are adopted and incorporated in this ordinance. (Sections
1399 -s through 1399 -x of that state law deal with violations,
enforcement, waivers, penalties, limitation of causes of action,
and rules and regulations under state law; and those sections
are not incorporated in this ordinance).
B. Section 1399 -r(3) of Article 13 -E of the New York State
Public Health Law explicitly permits county, city, town, and
village governments to enforce additional regulations on smoking
that go beyond the minimum standards on smoking established by
the state pursuant to Article 13 -E of the Public Health Law.
Accordingly sections 67.5 through 67.9 of this ordinance
establish regulations on smoking that supplement those
established by subdivision A of this section, and unless the
context requires otherwise, the provisions of sections 67.5
through 67.9 of this ordinance shall be interpreted as providing
stricter regulation of smoking than is provided by Article 13 -E
of the Public Health Law. Sections 67.10 through 67.14 of this
ordinance establish the mechanisms necessary to administer and
implement this local system of smoking regulation.
C. Nothing stated in this ordinance shall be deemed to
prevent or limit the applicability or enforcement of Article 13 -E
of the Public Health Law within the City of Ithaca.
Section 67.5 Indoor Areas Open To The Public In Which Smoking
Shall Not Be Permitted
A. Smoking shall not be permitted, and no person shall
smoke in any of the areas listed in section 1399 -o (1) of Article
13 -E of the Public Health Law or in any of the following indoor
areas open to the public:
1. Indoor arenas, enclosed stadiums, and all other
enclosed athletic facilities, except bowling
establishments;
2. All indoor areas open to the public in food stores;
3. Police vehicles while being used to transport members
of the public;
4. Bus shelters.
B. Except as permitted by subdivisions (3), (4), and (5)
of section 1399 -o of the Public Health Law or section 1399 -q of
that law and subject to the further provisions of Section 67.6 of
this ordinance, smoking shall not be permitted, and no person
shall smoke in any indoor area open to the public, including but
not limited to any of the places specifically listed in section
1399 -o (2) of the Public Health Law and any of the following
places that constitute, or are part of, indoor areas open to the
public:
1. Food service establishments, bingo establishments;
bowling establishments; and bars;
2. Any indoor area primarily used for or primarily
designed for the purpose of exhibiting any motion
picture, stage drama, musical recital, dance, lecture,
or other performance;
19
13'x'7
31 March 7, 1990
3. Clubhouses and service clubs; spas and health clubs;
4. Lobbies, stairways, hallways, and atria in indoor
places;
5. Laundromats;
6. Meeting rooms, offices and other facilities where the
public routinely conducts business;
7. Places of worship;
8. Hotels, motels, and all other places of public
accommodation; and
9. Jails.
Section 67.6 Exceptions to General Smoking Restrictions in Indoor
Public Places
(t.S Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 67.5 of this
�d..i ordinance, smoking may be permitted in those places and
circumstances covered by this section. The provisions of this
section shall be interpreted narrowly so that the general
prohibitions of Section 67.5 shall have the broadest possible
applicability.
A. Subject to the other subdivisions of this section, the
owner, operator or manager of an indoor area that is open to the
public and that is subject to Section 67.5(B) of this ordinance
may designate a separate enclosed room or rooms in such area
where smoking may be permitted, provided the primary use of such
room or rooms is to provide an area where smoking may occur
separate from the other public areas of that facility. No such
smoking room or rooms shall be designated in any area covered by
Section 67.5(A) of this ordinance.
B. Smoking may be permitted in a food service establish-
ment in accord with Subdivision (A) of this section or with the
provisions of this subdivision.
(1) Smoking may be permitted in a separate enclosed room or
rooms in a food service establishment. Provided any such room,
or any such rooms taken collectively, that the owner, operator,
manager, sponsor or person in charge of that facility provides
for smoking purposes shall not exceed fifty percent of the
seating capacity of that establishment or of the area occupied by
customers in that establishment, whichever calculation results in
the larger area being maintained as a smoke -free area; and
further provided that the provision of such a separate enclosed
room or rooms shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this
ordinance pertaining to separate enclosed rooms. The
satisfaction of the requirements of this ordinance does not
eliminate the obligation of the owner, operator or manager of a
food service establishment to comply with Section 1399 -o (5) (a)
of the Public Health Law, (the "Seventy Percent rule ") . Where
such a room or rooms is provided for smoking, notice thereof
shall be prominently posted at each entrance to the facility. In
such establishments in which one or more separate enclosed rooms
are provided for smoking, each patron shall be given an
opportunity to state his /her preference regarding where the
patron wishes to be seated.
(2) Notwithstanding the language of the preceding paragraph
of this subdivision, smoking may be permitted in a food service
establishment that has a seating capacity of 50 or fewer
persons, as certified annually by the owner of such establishment
to the City Attorney, provided such establishment complies with
the following requirements and complies otherwise with the
provisions of this ordinance:
1178
32 March 7, 1990
(a) The owner, operator, manager, sponsor, or person in
charge of such facility provides a non - smoking area in
such establishment sufficient to meet customer demand,
which non - smoking area shall be a contiguous section
comprising in any event not less than thirty percent of
the seating in such establishment; and
(b) The owner, operator, manager, sponsor or person in
charge of such facility provides, operates, and
maintains in proper working order a ventilation system
or electronic air cleansing system with odor removing
filters that removes at least 50% of the smoke and
associated gases from that place on a continuing basis
and provides 4 -5 changes of air in that place per hour.
(c) Such food service establishment shall be separately
enclosed from any other indoor area open to the public.
C. (1) Smoking may be permitted in a bar that does not
contain or adjoin a food service establishment.
(2) Smoking may be permitted in a bar that contains or
adjoins a food service establishment only if the bar is in a
separate enclosed room or rooms vis -a -vis that food service
establishment; provided, any such bar may be part of a separate
enclosed room or rooms that are part of that food service
establishment.
(3) Notice shall be prominently posted at the main
entrance(s) to each bar stating the smoking policy established
for that facility.
D.(1) Smoking may be permitted in not more than 70 percent
of the individual rooms rented to guests at hotels, motels, and
all other places of public accommodation that can accommodate ten
or more persons. The owner, operator, manager, or person in
charge of any such establishment where smoking is permitted in
certain individual rooms shall maintain at least thirty percent
of the rooms in that facility as smoke -free areas. Notices
advising guests of the availability of smoke -free rooms shall be
prominently posted in each hotel, motel or other public
accommodation covered by this provision.
(2) Smoking may be permitted in any room rented to guests
at any place of public accommodation that is not covered by
clause (1) of this paragraph because that facility can
accommodate fewer than ten persons.
E. Smoking may be permitted in a jail cell, provided that
each occupant of that cell consents thereto.
Section 67.7 Regulation of Smoking In Places of Employment
In addition to the provisions of Article 13 -E of the Public
Health Law governing smoking in places of employment, the
following provisions shall apply:
A. In those areas that constitute both work places and
indoor areas open to the public, the provisions of Section 67.5
of this ordinance shall govern.
B. No employee shall be penalized or discriminated against
in any way for stating his or her preference for working in a
smoke -free area or for working in an area where smoking is
allowed, and no employee shall be penalized or discriminated
against in any way for seeking full compliance with this
ordinance in that employee's work place.
33
March 7, 1990
Section 67.8 Smoking Restriction Inapplicable
Except as otherwise specified in this ordinance, the smoking
restrictions in this ordinance shall not apply to any area listed
in section 1399 -q of the Public Health Law.
Section 67.9 General Provisions
A. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to deny the
(00", owner, operator, manager, or person in charge of any indoor place
the right to designate the entire place, or any part thereof, as
a smoke -free area.
B. Any question concerning the construction of this
ordinance shall be resolved in a manner that will provide the
greatest protection to all persons from second -hand smoke.
C. This ordinance does not permit, and shall not be
.�
construed in any way to permit smoking in any place where it is
� otherwise prohibited by any law, rule, or regulation.
d -� D. The owner, operator, manager, or person in charge of a
W71 place covered by this ordinance shall request compliance with
this ordinance by all persons in such place and shall ask persons
who do not comply with this ordinance to leave those premises.
E. The owner, operator or manager of a food service
establishment shall prominently post notices at each entrance
advising that a non - smoking section is available, and each patron
shall be given an opportunity to state his /her preference.
Section 67.10 Violations
A. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation
or other entity that owns, manages, operates or otherwise
controls the use of an indoor area open to the public in which
smoking is prohibited or restricted pursuant to this ordinance to
fail to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. For
violations of this subdivision, it shall be an affirmative
defense that during the relevant time period actual control of
the indoor area open to the public was not exercised by the
respondent, but rather by a lessee, the sublessee, or any other
person. To establish an affirmative defense, the respondent
shall submit an affidavit and may submit any other relevant proof
indicating that the respondent did not exercise actual control of
said area during the relevant time period. Such affidavit and
other proof shall be mailed by certified mail to the City
Attorney within thirty days of receipt of such notice of
violation.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation
or other entity that owns, manages or operates a food service
establishment in which smoking is restricted to fail to comply
with this ordinance or to fail to make good faith efforts to
ensure that employees responsible for seating arrangements
substantially comply with the requirements of this ordinance. In
actions brought for violations of Section 67.5(B) (1) or Section
67.6(B) of this ordinance, it shall be an affirmative defense
that notice of a violation was provided to a customer.
C. It shall be unlawful for an employer whose place of
employment is subject to this ordinance to fail to comply with
its provisions. For violations of this ordinance by an employer,
it shall be an affirmative defense that the employer has made
good faith efforts to ensure that employees comply with the
provisions of any policy adopted pursuant to this ordinance for
places of employment.
D. It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any area
where smoking is prohibited or restricted under this ordinance.
380
34 March 7, 1990
Section 67.11 Penalties and Enforcement
A. Any person who smokes in any place where this ordinance
prohibits smoking shall be guilty of a violation and subject to
a civil penalty not to exceed $50.00. Each separate act of
smoking in a place where this ordinance prohibits smoking shall
constitute a separate offense.
B. Any owner, operator, manager, or person in charge of any
place in which this ordinance prohibits or otherwise regulates
smoking who fails to comply with its provisions in the operation
and management of such place (including but not limited to
creating smoke -free areas, requesting that persons who come to
that place comply with the provisions of this ordinance or leave
the premises, and posting no- smoking signs) shall be guilty of 'a
violation and subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200.00.
Each day that any such owner, operator, manager, or person in
charge fails to comply with this ordinance shall constitute a
separate offense.
C. The City Attorney and the City Prosecutor shall have
authority to prosecute persons who violate this ordinance through
proceedings filed in City Court.
D. In order to enforce this ordinance, the City may seek
appropriate injunctive relief in a court of competent
jurisdiction.
E. As part of other inspections which their departments
routinely conduct, the Building Commissioner and the Fire Chief
shall make provision for inspecting smoke -free areas and no-
smoking signs required pursuant to this ordinance. In addition,
the Building Commissioner and the Fire Chief shall include
standard language in permits or other approvals their respective
departments issue requiring the persons who hold those permits or
approvals to comply with the provisions of this ordinance.
F. The Superintendent of Public Works shall make provision
for inspecting on a regular basis all smoke -free areas and no-
smoking signs required by this ordinance in all buildings and
other structures owned by the City. In addition, the
Superintendent of Public Works shall include standard language in
permits or other approvals issued by the Department of Public
Works for use of City property requiring the persons who hold
those permits or approvals to comply with the provisions of this
ordinance.
G. Where the Mayor determines that any inspection in
addition to those covered by subdivision E or F of this section
is necessary to enforce this ordinance, the Mayor shall have
authority to designate the appropriate City official to carry out
such inspection.
H. Any person who observes what he or she believes to be a
violation of this ordinance may file with the City Attorney a
written complaint concerning the alleged violation.
Section 67.12 Waivers
A. The Mayor or a person specifically designated by the
Mayor pursuant to this section may grant a waiver from the
application of a specific provision of this ordinance, provided
that prior to the granting of any such waiver the applicant for a
waiver shall establish in writing that compliance with a specific
provision of this ordinance would cause the applicant undue
financial hardship or that other factors, including but not
limited to physical layout, exist which would render strict
compliance unreasonable.
I V&
I rn
0
;s cy 1
35 March 7, 1990
It is the purpose of this section to provide an
opportunity for waivers to be granted in truly exceptional cases.
It is not the purpose of this section to provide a means for
avoiding the spirit and letter of this ordinance in the usual
cases where compliance with this ordinance will impose some level
of burden on those who must take specific actions in order to
comply with it.
B. Every waiver granted pursuant to this section shall be
stated in writing, shall state the basis for granting the waiver,
(Wwwl and shall be subject to such conditions or restrictions as may be
necessary to minimize the adverse effects of the waiver upon
persons subject to an involuntary exposure to second -hand smoke
and to ensure that the waiver is consistent with the general
purpose and intent of this ordinance.
c. Waivers granted pursuant to this section shall be valid
for a period of not more than twelve months and may be renewed
upon application. Applications for renewal shall be reviewed in
the same manner as provided for applications for waivers.
IJ
-�, D. The Mayor or the Mayor's designee may adopt any
procedures appropriate for consideration of waivers and waiver
renewals under this section.
E. Waivers granted pursuant to this section shall not be
transferred to any other party without prior written approval by
the Mayor or the Mayor's designee.
F. Notwithstanding subdivision A of this section, the Mayor
shall grant a waiver from the application of this ordinance to
any applicant who as the owner, operator or manager of a factory
or warehouse demonstrates that the effects of smoking on
(4moo'l employees in work areas have been reduced to a minimal degree by
factors, including but not limited to, the physical layout or
size of such factory or warehouse. This subdivision F of this
section shall not apply to work areas in separate enclosed
offices, employee cafeterias, lunchrooms or lounges in a factory
or warehouse.
G. A waiver may be granted pursuant to this section with
respect to the separate enclosed room requirement established for
food service establishments by Section 67.6(B) of this ordinance
if the owner, operator, manager, sponsor or person in charge of a
food service establishment demonstrates that a ventilation or
electronic air cleansing system with odor removing filters
installed at that location will remove at least 90% of the smoke
and associated gases from that place on a continuing basis.
(Industry standards are: 100 -299 cubic feet per
person- 8 - 10 changes per hour; 300 -499 cubic feet per
person- 6 - 8 changes per hour; 500 or more cubic feet
per person - 6 changes per hour; Metal Lab
Environmental Systems.)
Any waiver granted pursuant to this subdivision shall
contain a condition that the waiver shall be revoked should the
ventilation and /or electronic cleansing note be fail adequately
the above performance specifications o
maintained - (i.e. filter changes per manufacturer
specifications_) In addition, any waiver granted pursuant to
this subdivision shall specifically state that the waiver applies
only to the separate enclosed room requirement of Section 67.6(B)
of this ordinance and does not in any way waive the requirements
of Article 13 -E of the Public Health Law as they apply to that
food service establishment.
`1
;_
36 March 7, 1990
Section 67.13 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.
Section 3 Effective Date lk
This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance 11J
with law upon publication of a notice as provided in Section 3.11
(B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
Carried Unanimously
Noise Ordinance - Report
Alderperson Peterson reported that the Committee is still working
on amendments to the Noise Ordinance.
Motion to Extend Meetinq Deadline
By Alderperson Romanowski: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder
RESOLVED, That this Common Council meeting be extended until
11:45 p.m.
Carried Unanimously
* 16.1 NYSCA Grant Application
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is committed to the improvement of
conditions in the Central Business District, and
WHEREAS, one element of the proposed activities to be undertaken
in the CBD involves an evaluation of the physical form of the
area and the development of alternate design schemes for the
future, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Council on the Arts ( NYSCA) may make
grant money available to fund such activities, now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council does hereby authorize the
submission of a grant application to NYSCA to fund an urban
design study for the Central Business District of the City of
Ithaca, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the budget for the project shall be structured as
follows:
NYSCA Grant City of Ithaca Total Project Budget
$ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 30,000
and, be it further (maximum share)
RESOLVED, That the grant application shall request funding over a
two -year period, beginning in 1990, with one -half of the total
project costs to be expended in each year, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the $10,000 share by the City of Ithaca shall be
taken from unexpended salary for the currently vacant Planner II
position. _J
Ayes (8) - Blanchard, Romanowski, Peterson, Schroeder,
Daley, Johnson, Golder, Cummings
Nays (2) - Booth, Hoffman
Carried
* 16.2 Planning Department 1990 Work Program
By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Administrative Code requires that
both the Common Council and the Board of Planning and Development
approve an annual work program for the Department of Planning and
Development, and
37
March 7, 1990
WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development and the Planning
and Development Committee have jointly reviewed the proposed
draft of the 1990 Work Program; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council does hereby approve the 1990
Work Program for the Department of Planning and Development.
Discussion followed on the floor. (No vote taken).
Due to a fire emergency in Council Chambers, Fire Chief Olmstead
ordered Council to evacuate the Chambers. (Remaining items on
the agenda will be handled at a later date).
Callista F. Paolangel'
City Clerk
r
Benja in Nichols
Mayor
cl:7r)