Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1991-09-04COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. September 4, 1991 PRESENT: Mayor Nichols Alderpersons (10) - Booth, Johnson, Golder, Hoffman, Peterson, Daley, Cummings, Blanchard, Romanowski, Schroeder OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk - Paolangeli City Controller - Cafferillo Deputy City Controller - Thayer Planning and Development Director - VanCort Police Chief - McEwen Youth Bureau Director - Cohen Personnel Administrator - Saul (�• Fire Chief - Olmstead (o Acting Building Commissioner - Eckstrom City Attorney - Guttman -� Acting Superintendent of Public Works - Gray m County Board of Representatives - Lerner Q PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nichols led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of the August 7, 1991 Common Council Meeting By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the August 7, 1991 Common Council meeting be approved as published, with the wording of the Resolved (400'.1 Clause on page 6 (Item 15.2 - Location of New Street - Main Motion as Amended) to be clarified. Carried Unanimously ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: New Business Alderperson Peterson referred to the Item under New Business, Appeal to Common Council Regarding Denial of the Vacancy Committee to Fill a Youth Worker Position (Teen Program- GIAC). She reported that the matter has been resolved within the Vacancy Committee and the position will be filled; therefore the item is withdrawn from the agenda. MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS: Re- apportionment Committee Mayor Nichols requested approval of Council for the appointment of the following persons to the Re- apportionment Committee: Ray Schlather - Ward 1 - 201 Sunrise Road Bill Myers - Ward 2 - 313 Hudson Street Ann Clavel - Ward 3 - 109 Cornell Street John Marcham - Ward 4 - 414 East Buffalo Street Frank Moore - Ward 5 - 116 Dearborn Place Tony Poole - Ward 5 - 107 West Jay Street (400" Jean Cookingham - Ward 2 - 119 East Buffalo Street Keith McNeil - Ward 1 - 139 Oakwood Lane Cassandra Nelson - Ward 2 - 502 South Albany Street Resolution By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment of the above - named persons to the Re- apportionment Committee. Carried Unanimously 1 -IH6 September 4, 1991 PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: City Budget Guy Gerard spoke to Council regarding the attrition policy that Council put in place to help close the budget gap. He asked Council to consider putting a cap on the number of employees each department might lose. GIAC P001 Guy VanBenschoten, 602 North Cayuga Street, spoke to Council and outlined his reasons for not supporting the resolution regarding the GIAC Pool. He urged Council not to pass this resolution. Save Our Strand Paul Sayvetz, 201 Elm Street, representing "Save Our Strand ", extended an invitation to Council members and the public to attend a public forum which will include a representative from the League of Historic American Theatres on September 9th at 7:30 p.m. in the second floor Conference Room of City Hall. RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC: GIAC Pool Mayor Nichols stated that what is being proposed is a neighborhood pool. It may be across from GIAC, it may be used for GIAC programs but it is a neighborhood pool that may be used by all members of the community. Alderperson Romanowski stressed the importance of the understanding that the proposed pool will be a municipal pool that will be serving a neighborhood. REPORT OF BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES: Mr. Eric Lerner, 1st Ward Rep. of the City updated Council on the following items: 1992 Budget Cycle - The County is entering the first phase of the 1992 budget cycle. They are going to have to respond to the rather painful State budget cuts as well as growing expenses that for the County come directly from the recession. The County is hoping to avoid lay -offs but at this point it is not clear if they will be able to do that. Off -Track Betting - The Board has approved going forward with Off - Track Betting in Tompkins County, which would hopefully generate some revenue for the County. It will be subject to a permissive referendum at the next general election if a sufficient number of signatures are gathered within the next 45 days. Bus Garage - The cooperative City, County, Cornell bus garage project has been moving forward and is about ready to go out for bid. Job Training Program - The County is running into some complex problems with the Job Training Program. The Board may have to re- think the entire program. Local Unit Pricing Legislation - The Board is taking a serious look at local unit pricing legislation so the consumer can tell the price of the things they are buying in a reliable way. Local Law C, Gav and Lesbian Fair Practice Ordinance - There is a group working on a revised version of the Fair Practices Ordinance and it probably will be back before the Board before the end of the year. 2 /7 September 4, 1991 REPORT OF CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES• Board of Public Works Mayor Nichols read the following resolution that was passed unanimously at the BPW Committee of the Whole meeting today: "WHEREAS, the Downtown Ithaca Inc. has urged that the reconstruction work on The Commons be done in the Spring of 1992, and (4000e WHEREAS, this Board sees no engineering disadvantages to a Spring or Summer project; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That The Commons reconstruction be delayed to the Spring or Summer of 1992, and be it further RESOLVED, That all bids received for the reconstruction of The Commons be rejected, and be it further RESOLVED, That an opportunity be given to the groups that may be CD affected by reconstruction work on The Commons in the Spring or CD Summer, to present their views to the Board before the project with revised construction schedule is submitted for bids, and be it further m Q RESOLVED, That Common Council be requested to amend the Capital Project Budget for The Commons reconstruction to provide sufficient funds to complete the entire project." Mayor Nichols explained to Council why the project is being delayed and answered questions from Council. Disability Advisory Council LeMoyne Farrell, representing DAC, thanked Council for the automatic door openers that have been installed in City Hall. Ms. Farrell thanked Acting Supt. Gray for his interest in the proposed improvements for the handicapped at Stewart Park. Ms. Farrell reported on a workshop that was held in Syracuse in August regarding enforcement of handicapped parking by volunteers. Ms. Farrell stated that the DAC is considering public announcements regarding the necessity of clearing sidewalks of ice and snow in the winter, etc. BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: * 16._5_ Request to Increase Authorization of Capital Project #217 GIAC Pool Project By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder WHEREAS, the conceptual design of the GIAC Pool project has been completed, and RESOLVED, That Capital Project #217 for the construction of the GIAC Pool be amended from $450,000. to a maximum cost of $520,000., and be it further 3 WHEREAS, based on said design, the Client Committee has recommended that the original project authorization of $450,000. be amended to reflect a revised scope of work and the corresponding projected increase in cost, and (600", WHEREAS, due to budgetary constraints, the B &A Committee has recommended certain further economies should be made in the design of the facility; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Capital Project #217 for the construction of the GIAC Pool be amended from $450,000. to a maximum cost of $520,000., and be it further 3 qq" RESOLVED, That the additional $70,000 September 4, 1991 be financed as follows: A. Down payment of $3,500. shall be transferred from Account A1990 Unrestricted Contingency. B. The balance of $66,500 shall be derived from the issuance of Serial Bonds. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Schroeder: Seconded by Alderperson Daley RESOLVED, That the first Resolved Clause be amended to read as follows: "RESOLVED, That Capital Project #217 for the construction of the GIAC Pool be amended from $520,000. to a maximum cost of $550,000., for the purpose of including the corner pavilion ", and the figures in the second Resolved Clause be changed accordingly. Ayes (6) - Schroeder, Daley, Hoffman, Cummings, Golder, Johnson Nays (4) - Romanowski, Blanchard, Booth, Peterson Carried Main Motion as Amended A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (5) - Schroeder, Daley, Cummings, Golder, Johnson Nays (5) - Booth, Hoffman, Romanowski, Blanchard, Peterson Mayor Nichols Voted Nay, breaking the tie. Motion Fails PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: * 17.3 City of Ithaca Municipal Pool - Exemption from Zoning Ordinance Area Requirements By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder WHEREAS, a plan for a proposed City of Ithaca Municipal Pool has been prepared and approved by the Client Committee and by the Planning and Development Board; and WHEREAS, Common Council has reviewed the schematic drawings and approved a construction budget based on these drawings; and WHEREAS, certain factors in the plan do not conform with the area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, including the parking requirements and the front yard setback requirements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to New York law as stated by the New York Court of Appeals in the case of Matter of Monroe County and its progeny, it is the responsibility of Common Council to determine whether it must follow its own zoning regulations to balance the public interests of a municipal project with the public interests of local land use regulations; and WHEREAS, Council has balanced the following factors with regard to the City of Ithaca Municipal Pool: 1. Parking: a. The mini pool has operated on the subject site since 1968 and has not caused parking problems for the neighborhood. b. Most of the users of the City of Ithaca Municipal Pool will be neighborhood residents and, therefore, very few users of the pool will drive to the site. C. Construction of additional parking at the site would require the paving of existing green space which is an important recreational asset for the neighborhood. 4 D J ZII-19 September 4, 1991 d. During the summer months when the pool will be in operation, there are currently no parking problems in the neighborhood. 2. Side Yard Deficiencies: a. The placement of the pavilion at the corner is necessary to meet its function as a community gathering space. b. Careful analysis of the design has demonstrated that no vehicular visibility problems will be caused by the placement of any improvement on the site. c. Relocation of the structures to meet area zoning criteria would seriously compromise the design goals of the project. 3. The non - conformities to the Zoning Ordinance represent a relatively minor deviation from the area requirements. 4. The development of this project as planned would produce a co substantial positive change to the neighborhood. M 5. The development of this project as planned will result in the immediate improvement of the delivery of governmental services to m the neighborhood. Q 6. The neighborhood to be benefitted by a Municipal Pool includes a proportionately high percentage of low- income, single parent families with a high proportion of school age children for whom the existence of the pool is an extremely important resource. 7. Any redesign of the project to meet the zoning requirements would delay completion of the project and the opening of the pool (40e, beyond December of 1992 which would severely negatively affect the neighborhood; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the construction of a City of Ithaca Municipal Pool as currently designed is exempt from the area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Alderperson Romanowski spoke in opposition to waiving the zoning requirements for this project. He stated, for the record, "If our zoning requirements are so inflexible that all people are not able to work on projects, no matter who they are, within a framework which is able to make allowances for the common good, then maybe there requirements should be changed in the Zoning Ordinance. If we have elements of this particular project that need to be addressed pertaining to meeting zoning requirments, let us do that. By waiving our Zoning Ordinance in relation to this project because it is a municipal or governmental project invites justifiable criticism from the private sector that we are establishing a double standard and for this reason I am going to vote against this. I am not voting against this because I think the project is bad or any other element in the project but because we have a double standard as far as government and the private sector are concerned and I think that is wrong." Extensive discussion followed on the floor with GIAC Director Fort and Planning and Development Director VanCort answering questions from Council members. Alderperson Booth referred to a memo that he sent to the Mayor and Council members and explained in detail his reasons for objecting to this waiver of the Zoning Ordinance. (A copy of the memo is attached to the Minute Book). 5 City Attorney Guttman responded regarding the Zoning ordinance waive the same. September 4, 1991 to Alderperson Booth's remarks and the right of the Council to Further lengthy discussion followed on the floor with Alderpersons expressing their opinions the regards to he Zo i g ordinance and whether or not the City as ct Alderperson Schroeder noted his reasons bforotfeeling tthe pzoning and explained in de A complete text of his statement requirements should be waived. ( P is attached to the Minute Book). that Further discussion folfoog the dresolutioneterNo Cougngcile member item 2a be stricken objected. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson after Blanchard the words RESOLVED, That in the last Resolved Clause, "currently designed ", the words "without the pavilion" be added. Discussion followed on the floor on the pros and cons of adding the pavilion to this project. A vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (5) - Blanchard, Romanowski, Peterson, Booth, Hoffman Nays (5) - Daley, Cummings, Johnson, Schroeder, Golder Mayor Nichols voted Nay, breaking the tie. Motion Fails After further discussion, the vote on the ,Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (5) - Johnson, Golder, Daley, Cummings, Schroeder Nays (5) - Booth, Hoffman, Peterson, Blanchard, Romanowski Mayor Nichols voted Aye, breaking the tie. Carried Mayor Nichols, for the record, stated that he does not think the it Council made any mistakes. He thinks it is a good Jhdesign; the serves the neighborhood and the people of the City, intention of the Zoning Law. He said that he voted against the pavilion because he thought it complicated the issue. He further stated that he will have no trouble defending this to anybody in the community and he does not expect to regret this at any time in the future. Recess Common Council recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:5 p.m. HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: * 14.1 Cit 's Commitment to Human Service A encies By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Daley WHEREAS, the City, families and individuals are feeling the effects of the current economic crisis, and WHEREAS, this crisis affects low- income families and individuals more severely than others, and WHEREAS, the human services agency portion of the City budget attempts in part to help meet the needs of those families and individuals, and 101 0 19- m Q September 4, 1991 WHEREAS, not providing or reducing needed services in times of crisis to those populations eventually costs more to the City and to the larger society, with increased crime, drug abuse, need for welfare and unemployment benefits, etc., and WHEREAS, the benefits of human service programs cannot be measured in dollars, alone, and WHEREAS, Ithaca prides itself on being a fair and caring community, and WHEREAS, the physical infrastructure of the city does not deteriorate more quickly during economic hard times, while families and individuals do, and WHEREAS, funding of private volunteer agencies is one of the more efficient uses of city funds; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council asserts that human service agency funding is of the highest priority, and be it further RESOLVED, That State funding portion of the budget, but as further in reducing the total City budget due to cuts in and other shortfalls, the human service agencies budget not be seen as equal to other parts of the critical for assisting those in need, and be it RESOLVED, That every attempt be made to fund the human service agencies at the same level as last year. Alternative Resolved Clauses By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard RESOLVED, That the following three Resolved Clauses replace the three Resolved Clauses in the original resolution: RESOLVED, That funding for human service agencies will be of the highest priority in setting the 1992 City budget, such agencies being those that have been recommended for City funding by the Human Services Coalition as a result of a review conducted by the Coalition on the City's behalf, and be it further RESOLVED, That in setting the 1992 City budget Common Council shall recognize that funding for said human service agencies is critical for assisting those in need, and be it further RESOLVED, That in setting the 1992 City budget Common Council shall make every reasonable effort to provide a total amount of funding for said human service agencies for both existing and any new programs considered collectively, that is equal to the total amount of funding committed to those purposes in the 1991 City budget ($147,738). Council does not hereby make any statement regarding potential City funding that may be available to any particular human service agency. Alderperson Booth explained the three Resolved Clauses. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote to accept the three alternative Resolved Clauses in place of the three Resolved Clauses in the original resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously 7 L)S Z September 4, 1991 The Main Motion as Amended shall read as follows: WHEREAS, the City, families and individuals are feeling the effects of the current economic crisis, and WHEREAS, this crisis affects low - income families and individuals more severely than others, and WHEREAS, the human services agency portion of the City budget attempts in part to help meet the needs of those families and individuals, and WHEREAS, not providing or reducing needed services in times of crisis to those populations eventually costs more to the City and to the larger society, with increased crime, drug abuse, need for welfare and unemployment benefits, etc., and WHEREAS, the benefits of human service programs cannot be measured in dollars, alone, and WHEREAS, Ithaca prides itself on being a fair and caring community, and WHEREAS, the physical infrastructure of the city does not deteriorate more quickly during economic hard times, while families and individuals do, and WHEREAS, funding of private volunteer agencies is one of the more efficient uses of city funds; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That funding for human services agencies will be of the highest priority in setting the 1992 City budget, such agencies being those that have been recommended for City funding by the Human Services Coalition as a result of a review conducted by the Coalition on the City's behalf, and be it further RESOLVED, That in setting the 1992 City budget Common Council shall recognize that funding for said human service agencies is critical for assisting those in need, and be it further RESOLVED, That in setting the 1992 City budget Common Council shall make every reasonable effort to provide a total amount of funding for said human service agencies for both existing and any new programs considered collectively, that is equal to the total amount of funding committed to those purposes in the 1991 City budget ($147,738). Council does not hereby make any statement regarding potential City funding that may be available to any particular human service agency. Main Motion as Amended A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (8) - Johnson, Daley, Cummings, Peterson, Romanowski, Golder, Schroeder, Booth Nays (2) - Blanchard, Hoffman Carried CHARTER AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: * 15.1 A Local Law Amending Section 3.3 Entitled `Procedure at Meetings Minutes; Quorum' of the Ithaca City Charter By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 1991 CITY OF ITHACA A Local Law Amending Section 3.3 of the Ithaca City Charter �fs:s September 4, 1991 BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, as follows: Section 1. Amend Article 3 of the City of Ithaca Charter Article 3, Section 3.3 of the Ithaca City Charter is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 3.3 Procedure at Meetings: Minutes: Quorum At all meetings of the Common Council, the Mayor, when present, shall preside. In the proceedings of the Common Council, each member present shall have a vote except the Mayor, who shall have only a casting vote when the votes of the other members are tied, and except as hereinafter provided. The sittings of the Common Council shall be public except when the public interests shall require secrecy. The minutes of the proceedings shall be kept by the City Clerk, and the same shall be open at all times to public inspection. A majority of the members of the Common Council shall be quorum for the transaction of business. In the event that (� fewer than ten members of Common Council vote on any substantive question (if a member abstains from voting, it shall be considered as if that member did not vote) the concurring vote of five or more [�] alderpersons shall be sufficient to exercise any power which maybe exercised by the majority vote of Common Council, but no tax or assessment shall be ordered except by a concurring vote of majority of all members of the Common Council in office, including the Mayor, who shall be entitled to vote thereon as a member of the Council, and no tax levied, assessment bill ordered, resolution or ordinance shall take effect until the same shall receive the approval of the Mayor, as hereinafter provided." * 15.2 An Ordinance Amendinq Chapter 5 Entitled `City Officers and Employees', Article IV Entitled `Reimbursement of Defense Costs of City Employees for Civil Actions' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski ORDINANCE NO. 91- An Ordinance amending Chapter 5 entitled "City Employees" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK, AS FOLLOWS: (awoel Section 1. That Chapter 5, entitled "City Officers and Employees" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is amended to add a new Article to read as follows: A new Article to be known and designated as Article IV, to follow Article III, and is hereby added to said Chapter to read as follows: ARTICLE IV REIMBURSEMENT OF DEFENSE COSTS OF CITY EMPLOYEES FOR CIVIL ACTIONS. 9 Section 2. Effective Date This law shall take effect immediately after filing in the Office of the Secretary of State. Carried Unanimously Mayor Nichols stated that with the enactment of this Local Law it is necessary to have the concurring vote of at least five alderpersons. If it is a 5 -5 vote then the Mayor could vote to break a tie. * 15.2 An Ordinance Amendinq Chapter 5 Entitled `City Officers and Employees', Article IV Entitled `Reimbursement of Defense Costs of City Employees for Civil Actions' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski ORDINANCE NO. 91- An Ordinance amending Chapter 5 entitled "City Employees" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK, AS FOLLOWS: (awoel Section 1. That Chapter 5, entitled "City Officers and Employees" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is amended to add a new Article to read as follows: A new Article to be known and designated as Article IV, to follow Article III, and is hereby added to said Chapter to read as follows: ARTICLE IV REIMBURSEMENT OF DEFENSE COSTS OF CITY EMPLOYEES FOR CIVIL ACTIONS. 9 �5q Section 5.40 September 4, 1991 Subject to the limitations set forth in subsequent sections of this Article, the City of Ithaca desires to and hereby does provide for the defense of its officers and employees, whether the employee is sued individually or in his or her capacity as a City officer or employee, in all civil actions and proceedings, whether in state or federal court, based on acts or omissions alleged to have occurred while the officer or employee was acting within the scope of his or her duties for the City of Ithaca. Section 5.41 Employee: The term employee shall mean any commissioner, member of a public board or commission, trustee, director, officer, employee, volunteer expressly authorized to participate in publicly sponsored volunteer programs, or any other person holding a position by election, appointment or employment, including the City Attorney, in the service of the City of Ithaca, whether or not compensated. The term "employee" shall include a former employee, his or her estate or judicially appointed personal representative. Section 5.42 Limited Right to Defense: The City of Ithaca shall defend or provide for the defense of its employees and officers in any civil action or proceeding, State or federal, arising out of any alleged act or omission which occurred or allegedly occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his or her public employment or duties. This duty to provide for a defense shall not arise where such civil action or proceeding is brought by or at the behest of the City. Section 5.43 Limited right to private representation: Subject to the conditions set forth in the preceding paragraph, the employee shall be entitled to be represented by private counsel of his or her choice in any civil action or proceeding whenever the City Attorney or other counsel designated by the City determines that a conflict of interest exists; whenever a court, upon appropriate motion or otherwise by special proceeding, determines that a conflict of interest exists, and that the employee is entitled to be represented by counsel of his or her choice; or whenever the City determines that it is appropriate for the employee to be represented by private counsel of his or her choice. The City Attorney or other counsel designated by the City may require, as a condition of the payment of the fees and expenses of such representation, that appropriate groups of employees be represented by the same counsel. Reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses shall be paid by the City to such private counsel from time to time during the pendency of the civil action or proceeding with the approval of the Budget & Administration Committee of Common Council. Section 5.44 Disputes: Any dispute with respect to representation of multiple employees by a single counsel or the amount of litigation expenses or the reasonableness of attorney's fees shall be resolved by a court upon motion or by way of a special proceeding if it cannot be resolved by the employee and the City Attorney or the Budget & Administration Committee. Section 5.45 Duty to avoid default: Where an employee delivers process and a written request for defense to the City pursuant to Section 5.49 below, the City shall take the necessary steps on behalf of the employee to avoid the entry of a default judgment pending resolution of any question pertaining to the obligation to provide a defense. Section 5.46 Conditions on duty to defend: The duty to defend or indemnify and save harmless prescribed by this Article shall be conditioned upon: 10 J CD M D CO a September 4, 1991 a. delivery by the employee to the City Attorney a written request to provide for his or her defense together with the original or a copy of any summons, complaint, process, notice, demand or pleading, within ten (10) days after he or she is served within such document, and b. the full cooperation of the employee in the defense of any such action or proceeding in defense of any action or proceeding against the City based on the same act or omission, and the assistance of the employee in the prosecution of any appeal. Section 5.47 The benefits of this Article shall inure only to employees as defined herein and shall not enlarge or diminish the rights of any other party nor shall any provision of this Article be construed to affect, alter, or repeal any provision of the worker's compensation law. Section 5.48 This Article does not in any way affect the obligation of any claimant to give notice to the City as required under Section 50 -e of the General Municipal Law or any other provision of law. Carried Unanimously Postering Issue - Report Alderperson Peterson reported that at the Charter and Ordinance Committee meeting on September 12, the issue of postering will be discussed. BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: * 16.1 DPW Request to Amend 1991 Equipment List By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson RESOLVED, That the Authorized Equipment List of the Department of Public Works' Water and Sewer Funds be amended by adding one two - way radio at $900 to the Water Fund authorized equipment list and one two -way radio at $900 to the Sewer Fund authorized equipment list, and be it further RESOLVED, That the $1,800 be derived from available funds in the following accounts: F 8316 -225 Shop & Equipment Other Equipment $900 G 8116 -225 Shop & Equipment Other Equipment $900 to allow the acquisition of said equipment. Carried Unanimously * 16.2 Fire Department Request for Expenditure of Code Reimbursement Funds By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson RESOLVED, That the Authorized Equipment List of the Fire Department be amended by adding two flat files with mounting base for $1,095 and one software upgrade for $100, and be it further RESOLVED, That $1,195 be transferred from Account A690 -6 New York State Building and Fire Code Aid to the following accounts: A 3410 -225 Other Equipment A 3410 -425 Office Expense $1,095 $ 100 to allow for the acquisition of such equipment. Carried Unanimously 11 L15, _ rf � September 4, 1991 * 16.3 Finance De artment Request to Transfer Funds By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski WHEREAS, the City has received the final utility bill for Fire Station No. 6 in the amount of $2,307.41 for the period of December 1990 through April 1991, and WHEREAS, the City's portion of the utility bill, based on an allocation of agencies occupying Fire Station No. 6 prior to its closure in April 1991, is $449.23; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That $449.23 be transferred from account A1990 Unrestricted Contingency to account A3410 -410 Fire Department Utilities for the purpose of paying the City's portion of the final utility bill for Fire Station No. 6. Carried Unanimously * 16.6 Audit By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski RESOLVED, That the bills presented, as listed on Audit Abstract 16/1991 in the total amount of $55,940.63 be approved for payment. Carried Unanimously PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: * 17.1 Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Two -year Limit on Zoning Variances -.Call for Public Hearing By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder RESOLUTION OF COMMON COUNCIL INTRODUCING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING BE IT RESOLVED that Ordinance Number 91- entitled "An Ordinance Amending Section 30.58 Entitled `Board of Appeals' of Chapter 30 Entitled Zoning' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code" be and is hereby introduced before the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Common Council shall hold a public hearing in the matter of the adoption of the aforesaid ordinance to be held at the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, on Wednesday, October 2, 1991, at 7:00 p.m.; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk give notice of such public hearing by the publication of a notice in the official newspaper, specifying the time when and the place where such public hearing will be held, and in general terms describing the proposed ordinance. Such notice shall be published once at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall transmit forthwith to the Board of Planning and Development and the Tompkins County Planning Board a true and exact copy of the proposed ordinance for its report thereon. Carried Unanimously ORDINANCE NO. 91- An Ordinance amending Section 30.58 entitled "Board of Appeals" of Chapter 30 entitled "Zoning" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, as follows: Expiration of Variances 12 0 L J--7 September 4, 1991 Section 1. That Section 30.58(B)(4) is hereby amended to read as follows: a) "When an area variance is granted by the Board of Appeals which enables an applicant to do construction which requires a building permit, or a use variance is granted by the Board of Appeals and construction which requires a building permit is necessary for conversion to the use for which the variance is granted, and the applicant has not obtained a building permit to construct the building or part thereof for which the variance has been granted [ has not been obtained within one year from the day of the granting of the variance, said variance shall become void.] and initiated the construction work within two (2) years from the date of the granting of the variance, the said variance shall become void; and b) when an area variance is granted by the Board of Appeals which enables an applicant to do construction which requires a This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication and notice as provided in Section 3.11(B) of the Ithaca Citv Charter. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Two -year Limit on Zoning Variances: Environmental Review - Negative Declaration By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard WHEREAS, a proposed ordinance amending Section 30.58(B)(4) of the City of Ithaca Code providing that area and use variances terminate within two (2) years from the date of the granting of the variance if appropriate construction work has not been started, completed, or certificates of occupancy granted, has been drafted and submitted to Common Council for consideration, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action is an "unlisted" action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEAR), including the Part 617 regulations thereunder, and is an "unlisted" action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act (EQR Section 36.5 (E)), and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby does adopt as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form dated August 27, 1991, and be it further 13 building permit, or a use variance is granted by the Board of is granted Appeals and construction which requires a building permit is 1 _ no construction necessary for conversion to the use for which the variance is is granted and a building permit to construct the building or part D thereof for which the variance has been granted has been obtained, (o and the construction has not been substantially completed prior to Q the expiration of the building permit, the said variance shall two become void; and the This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication and notice as provided in Section 3.11(B) of the Ithaca Citv Charter. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Two -year Limit on Zoning Variances: Environmental Review - Negative Declaration By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard WHEREAS, a proposed ordinance amending Section 30.58(B)(4) of the City of Ithaca Code providing that area and use variances terminate within two (2) years from the date of the granting of the variance if appropriate construction work has not been started, completed, or certificates of occupancy granted, has been drafted and submitted to Common Council for consideration, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action is an "unlisted" action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEAR), including the Part 617 regulations thereunder, and is an "unlisted" action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act (EQR Section 36.5 (E)), and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby does adopt as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form dated August 27, 1991, and be it further 13 cZ__-when a use variance is granted by the Board of Zoning Appea' �: 1 _ no construction which requires a building permit is necessu:__- .___tor conversion to the use for which the variance is granted and the applicant has not obtained a certificate of occupancy for the use for which the variance was granted within two (2) years from the date of the granting of the variance, the variance shall become void." Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication and notice as provided in Section 3.11(B) of the Ithaca Citv Charter. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Two -year Limit on Zoning Variances: Environmental Review - Negative Declaration By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard WHEREAS, a proposed ordinance amending Section 30.58(B)(4) of the City of Ithaca Code providing that area and use variances terminate within two (2) years from the date of the granting of the variance if appropriate construction work has not been started, completed, or certificates of occupancy granted, has been drafted and submitted to Common Council for consideration, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action is an "unlisted" action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEAR), including the Part 617 regulations thereunder, and is an "unlisted" action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act (EQR Section 36.5 (E)), and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby does adopt as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form dated August 27, 1991, and be it further 13 'J'� - September 4, 1991 RESOLVED, that this Common Council as lead agency, hereby does determine that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary under the circumstances, and be it further RESOLVED, that this resolution shall constitute notice of this negative declaration and the City Clerk be and she is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with the attachment, in the City Clerk's Office and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Carried Unanimously Six Mile Creek Natural Area - Investigation of Land Purchases..__- Report Alderperson Hoffman reported that the City Attorney and Director of Planning and Development have been asked to investigate the possible purchase of property in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. The matter will be coming before Council in the near future. 1992 Planning Department Work Program - Report Alderperson Hoffman reported that the 1992 Planning Department Work Program is being worked on at this time. He said if people have priorities, they should bring them up to the Committee now. ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m. (�fc F. Paolange City Clerk 14 Benjamin Nichols Mayor I F- � 0 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Common Council 4. From: Richard S. Booth Subject: Proposal to "Waive" the City Zoning Ordinance with respect to the GIAC Pool Date: September 3, 1991 I. INTRODUCTION I believe that waiving the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance (hereafter referred to as "the Ordinance ") with respect to building a new municipal pool near GIAC (or any other capital project undertaken by the City) would constitute a significant mistake. have been, and I remain, a very strong supporter of the City's decision to build that pool, and I am very conscious of the fact that any delays in that project will probably mean that the new GIAC pool will not be open for swimming in the summer of 1992. Nevertheless, I am firmly opposed to the proposal to exempt the pool from the Ordinance, and I will vote against it. I urge all of you to do the same. Please consider the following items. II. ARGUMENTS AGAINST WAIVING THE ORDINANCE AS IT APPLIES TO THE PROPOSED GIAC POOL I raise three arguments here to support my conclusion that Council should not waive the application of the Ordinance in this case: first, that such a waiver will reflect a seriously flawed public policy choice; second, that Council is considering this proposed waiver because the City made some serious mistakes in its decision - making processes regarding the pool, and those mistakes do not begin to constitute a proper basis for waiving the Ordinance; and third, that waiving the Ordinance will constitute a violation of the City Code. I wish to stress the first and second arguments, which address matters of public policy, much more heavily than the third, which is based on a legal interpretation of the City Code. This is 1 not to suggest to Council that I do not think the law is important. You know me too well to reach that conclusion. I stress the first two arguments because they reflect what Council should do in this case; they should be enough by themselves to convince Council that it will not waive the application of the Ordinance in this case. A. WAIVING THE ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED POOL WILL CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS ERROR OF PUBLIC POLICY 1. This issue does not primarily involve a question of law, but rather an important question of public policy. While I have not researched this issue, I believe a local government in New York State has the legal authority to decide that under certain circumstances its own public projects will not have to comply with its zoning ordinance. I assume for the purposes of this section of this memo that the City has the authority to exempt the pool from the application of the Ordinance. THE CENTRAL ISSUE FACING US IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, IS NOT WHETHER WE HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THE ORDINANCE, BUT RATHER WHETHER WE SHOULD DO SO. (Note: Subdivision C below takes a different look at the legal issue raised by the proposed waiver of the Ordinance.) 2. A decision to waive the Ordinance in this case will constitute an important and, I believe, troubling precedent for future Council decisions. While this decision may have some importance as a legal precedent, I am much more concerned with the possibility that a decision to waive the Ordinance in this case will in all likelihood generate widely varying requests for similar action in other cases. Already it is evident that the very question raised in this case is present with respect to the proposed Transit Facility and certain renovations being considered at Southside. There will be others, perhaps many others. I have to believe that what we do in this case will create substantial expectations that we will do so again. The nature and numbers of cases in which this type of waiver question will arise in the future cannot be accurately estimated at this time. Suffice it to say that they will be likely to vary significantly from the type of choice Council believes it is making here. These future cases will not in my opinion be limited to purely 2 J public projects (like the municipal pool at GIAC). They almost certainly will involve cases in which the City government is co- sponsoring a project with another government entity or with a private entity. They almost certainly will arise in future cases involving P -1 zoning. They are likely to involve cases in which the City government is not a sponsor but is a major proponent of certain projects undertaken by non -City entities. Future cases may well encompass purely private projects. I happen to believe that it would be illegal with respect to a purely private project for Council to waive the Ordinance, but that is beside the point. The critical point is that the action Council is considering in this case is likely to generate future zoning waiver requests to Council in a wide range of circumstances. 3. Government entities make serious mistakes when they set up one set of land development rules for the private sector and another for themselves. This type of double standard erodes the public's confidence in what government is doing in its development activities. Projects undertaken by government entities can create just as many problems as private projects, and often more. The public well understands that government projects need to be regulated. In this regard, Council might reflect on the complicated history that led the U.S. Congress to amend both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act to require federal facilities to acquire pollution permits from state environmental agencies. In addition, creating a double standard by not requiring government projects to meet the same requirements as private projects generates tremendous bitterness on the part of private sector interests. When a private project sponsor seeks to proceed, he /she has to comply with certain development restrictions, and it is very common for those restrictions to limit the nature and scope of the private project being undertaken. Many citizens deeply resent the fact that government quite often exempts itself from the rules that govern the private sector. Common Council is badly advised to say with respect to this project (or any other it undertakes) that "we set the rules, but we are not going to abide by them here because we do not like the way they apply." That type of attitude on the part of government is destructive to the general sense of community responsibility to serve the larger public good that government should always try to 3 foster. The obvious and significant benefits of the GIAC pool do not outweigh the need for the City to abide by the rules governing land development that it has itself set. 4. Council will be correctly criticized for being very hypocritical if it waives the Ordinance in this case. With respect to the County Mental Health Building (and perhaps the County's renovations at the jail), the City has made a variety of statements about how important it is for the County to abide by the Ordinance. With respect to the Mental Health Building, the County has said that it will abide by the Ordinance even though it is riot legally required to do so. I believe the County is correct in its assessment of its legal position in this case, and I think the County is similarly correct in its position that it should abide by the ordinance. The County's position will stand in sharp contrast to the City's should Council adopt the proposed waiver position. 5. In considering whether Council will determine to waive the application of the Ordinance to a City project, Council should consider the City's position in two famous historic preservation law cases in which the City was involved. They are highly instructive in the present circumstances. In City of Ithaca v. County of Tompkins, 355 N.Y.S.2d 275 (1974), the City successfully argued that Tompkins County could not tear down the Boardman House unless the County complied with the provisions of the City's historic preservation ordinance. That decision stands as a landmark in the field of Historic Preservation Law with respect to a municipal government's authority to regulate the activity of a county government. The second case did not turn out so well for the City, but the City's statement of principle was nevertheless important. In In the Matter of Barbara Ebert v New York State Office of Parks. Recreation. and Historic Preservation, 505 N.Y.S.2d 470 (1986), the City argued that New York State could not tear down Stone Hall at Cornell unless it first complied with the City's historic preservation ordinance. The City's position initially prevailed in the state's Supreme Court, but that position was overturned by the Appellate Division. The state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, refused to hear a further appeal. rd O While the City's legal position did not prevail in the Stone Hall case against the state, it is of great importance to note that in both cases the City argued that another government entity, including the state, must comply with a local ordinance. The City took those positions because it recognized that actions by government entities can have just as serious impacts on important values as can private projects and that, therefore, the actions of those government entities should be subject to applicable regulations. The City's position in those two cases will stand in extraordinarily sharp contrast to a Council decision that a City project does not have to comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance 6. Council may decide to say the following with respect to the GIAC Pool: "We are waiving the ordinance in this case because the City has skillfully designed a. project that will serve the public good even though it does not satisfy the Ordinance's requirements. In fact, we have designed this pool project to be a better project than it could be if it did comply with the Ordinance." If Council does that, it must understand that it will be echoing the claims of countless project sponsors who have sincerely believed that they could have designed and built far better projects were they not required to comply with government- imposed restrictions for such things as setbacks, parking spaces, and minimum lot sizes. Zoning requirements are not enacted because they will allow the best or even a highly desirable project to be designed and built in any particular case. They are enacted because the public good will be served by having everyone abide by a set of rules governing land development, except in special circumstances. I may be able to design a more attractive project if I do not have to abide by the minimum side yard requirements, but everyone, including me, is better off because those requirements exist and are applied to all. 7. Where there are special circumstances which may justify a waiver of zoning requirements, those circumstances are best judged by a neutral body that has expertise in making decisions about varying the uniform requirements that have been set for the good of all. Those special circumstances should not be judged by those who are the proponents of a particular project, which the Council is in this case. Under the Ordinance, those decisions are left to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and any decision to grant a "waiver" (variance) in the case of the GIAC pool should be left to the Board. 8. The City Attorney has argued that an application by one part of the City government to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances respecting the GIAC Pool would place the City in an awkward position. That situation would involve one part of the City applying to another part of the City government for permission to do something. He also points out that should the Board deny the variance request, the City government would possibly be in the awkward position of considering whether to ask a court to reverse the Board's decision. He correctly points out that a party other than the City itself would readily go to court to challenge an unfavorable decision by the Board, something that Council might have a difficult time deciding to do. Council should realize that its potential position vis -a -vis the Board is neither difficult nor particularly strange. While Council might not as readily sue the Board as another party in the event the Board should reach an unfavorable decision, Council has far, far greater powers vis -a -vis the Board than does any other party: i.e., Council may change the legislation under which the Board operates. Furthermore, it is not at all unusual to require. that one part of a government structure apply to another part of the same government for permission to do something. The State of New York has a number of requirements of this kind - i.e., requirements that one state agency obtain permits from another state agency and even, in at least one case, requirements that one part of a state agency obtain permits from another part of the same agency. These arrangements obviously raise questions about what one agency should /can do if another agency prevents it from pursuing some sort of activity. If New York State can find a way to live with the situation in which one part of it does not allow another state entity to undertake some activity, I am confident that the City of Ithaca can do the same. 9. Legislative bodies function best and most properly when they weigh a variety of appropriate considerations and establish policies that govern societal behavior. In most cases legislatures are not the proper government decision - makers to decide how legislation should or should not apply in specific factual situations. Where, as here, Council has established the City's land use regulation policies R through enactment of the Zoning Ordinance, Council is best advised to leave the application of that ordinance in particular factual situations to other bodies in City government. i 10. If Council reached the conclusion that certain rules in the Ordinance were not the correct ones, Council could have and should have changed those rules. As pointed out in B below, that certainly could have occurred in this case. Some may argue that if Council could have amended the Zoning Ordinance to accomplish certain desired changes in P -1 districts, it should accomplish the same thing by exempting the GIAC pool from those provisions now and then amending the appropriate provisions in the future. Similar to points made above, it is important that Council abide by the land development rules that have been set until such time as they are amended pursuant to legally required decision - making processes. If Council does not believe that existing rules are correct, it should change those rules by following the amendment provisions set forth in the Ordinance. Maintenance of the proper legal process established for implementing and amending the Ordinance is every bit as important as abiding by the substantive land use restrictions in the Ordinance. 1 r B. THE WAIVER PROPOSAL BEFORE COUNCIL STEMS FROM A SERIES OF MISTAKES MADE IN REVIEWING THE GIAC POOL; MISTAKES IN THE DECISION - MAKING PROCESS CONSTITUTE A TOTALLY IMPROPER BASIS FOR MAKING LEGISLATIVE EXCEPTIONS TO THE CITY'S BASIC LAND USE CONTROL ORDINANCE 1. Council is considering waiving the Ordinance in this case because the processes it established to advise it on this capital project did not work properly - i.e., because the City government and the professionals it hired for this case made mistakes. That is clearly an improper basis on which to waive the application of the Ordinance. 2. If Council had become aware of those mistakes some months ago, before various commitments were made with respect to this project, there would have been sufficient time to explore reasonable alternatives. In my opinion, Council would not be seriously 7 considering the waiver proposal before us if there were adequate time to consider alternatives that would allow the project to proceed on a timely basis. 3. Evidently several mistakes were made over a period of months respecting the applicability of the Ordinance to this project. Council is responsible for the mistakes that were made; it clearly failed to identify the project's lack of compliance with the Ordinance. I certainly share that responsibility, as does every other member of Council. Beyond Council's responsibility, however, it is important to recognize that there were other serious mistakes. Apparently one of three things initially went wrong in this case: either the architects the City hired failed to do their job of identifying the zoning issues at hand and pursuing them until they were handled properly; OR the Client Committee and City staff that worked with that committee failed to pursue these issues adequately; OR both of these mistakes were made. Most importantly, the Client Committee and /or City staff failed to bring these problems to the attention of Council on a timely basis and did not provide information about them to Council when the critical decisions authorizing and funding this project were made. 4. 1 am confident that had the full Council or any Council committee been made aware that this project would not comply with the Ordinance at a proper time in the Council's decision - making processes, this project would have been designed differently. With respect to the zoning setback problems, the project could easily have been designed differently. With respect to the parking problem under the Ordinance, other alternatives could have been explored in a timely fashion, perhaps including finding a way to utilize the School District parking that exists near the pool site. Indeed, it is possible that if Council had been properly alerted to the zoning problems that exist in this case because of the P -1 zoning, it could have considered making certain desirable amendments to the Ordinance. For example, those amendments might have created some new provisions that apply to public swimming pools in P -1 districts. That would have been a proper course of action. 0 5. Clearly there are some circumstances in which time considerations impose tremendous burdens on government, and there can be circumstances of an emergency nature that require certain legal mandates to be set aside. The time elements surrounding the building of this pool do not in my opinion come close to amounting to an emergency that justifies setting aside the City's major legal structure for governing land use and development. C. THE PROPOSED WAIVER WILL VIOLATE THE CITY CODE 1. As I discussed previously, I believe a local government has the authority under the laws of this state to exempt its own municipal projects from its zoning ordinance. I also believe that a local government may choose to require that all of its municipal projects comply with its zoning ordinance. If a local government takes the latter step, it is required to abide by the zoning ordinance until such time as the ordinance is amended. 2. The wording of Ithaca's Zoning Ordinance does not specifically state whether or not City- initiated projects are required to comply with its provisions. However, the Ordinance can be most easily and clearly read to mean that City projects do in fact have to satisfy its provisions. Section 30.24 of the Ordinance is entitled "Application of Regulations ". It states in part: "No building or land shall hereafter be used or occupied and no building or part thereof shall be erected, moved or altered unless in conformity with the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is located." In addition, section 30.55 of the Ordinance is entitled "Building Permits ". It states in part: "No building or structure shall be erected, added to or structurally altered until a building permit therefor has been issued by the Building Commissioner. All applications for such permits shall be in accordance with the requirements of all applicable 9 regulations. The Building Commissioner shall not issue a building permit hereunder until he has determined that all of the provisions of this Chapter and any other applicable laws or regulations have been complied with ..." The language in these two sections clearly does not exempt municipal projects. I can find no other language in the ordinance that does so. The broad and widely applicable language of sections 30.24 and 30.55 suggests very strongly that the City's Zoning Ordinance does in fact require City projects to comply with its provisions. III. MISCELLANEOUS POINTS A. I do not intend to delve deeply into the substantive merits of the proposed resolution that would waive the application of the Ordinance in this case. I am going to vote against it, and no changes that I can possibly imagine in the proposed resolution will cause me to support it. However, I would point out that it seems ridiculous to argue that very few people will drive to the site of this pool or that parking will not be a problem. Any municipal pool in downtown Ithaca big enough to serve 160 to 200 kids at any one time is likely to attract a considerable number of adults who drive to the pool and park in the vicinity. B. Whether or not Council approves this waiver request, steps must be taken to prevent this type of problem with the application of a major City ordinance from occurring in the future. Presumably a number of changes must occur, and it would be useful for the Charter and Ordinance Committee or the Budget and Administration Committee to consider what those changes might be. Without trying to be exhaustive in this regard, let me suggest just three. 1. Early in the discussions of a proposed City project, the Building Commissioner's conclusions regarding the applicability of the Ordinance and other ordinances for which he /she is responsible for implementation must be made a formal part of the deliberations at hand, and those issues must remain an important focus for the various City groups that subsequently review that project. 10 I F-� 0 2. Similar to the first item, the conclusions of other City officers (e.g., the Fire Chief) with jurisdiction over a proposed municipal project must formally be made part of the discussions regarding that project and must remain a focus of the City's decisions regarding the project. 3. Council should stop using the term "Client Committee" for the committees we set up to review these projects. Perhaps they should be called something like "Project Review Committees ". In any case, these review committees must understand from the outset that they must examine closely all of the relevant issues that relate to (illoe, whether the particular project is feasible and desirable. I fear that what has happened in this case may have happened with a number of other City projects - i.e., in this case the Client Committee became more of an advocacy group for the project than a project review group, and it failed to examine critically and fully all of the issues relevant to a City decision whether, when, and how to proceed with this project. IV. CLOSING I realize that this document is quite long. I appreciate your willingness to read it. I urge you to vote against the proposed waiver of the Zoning Ordinance in this case. Thank you. cc Building Commissioner City Attorney GIAC Coordinator Planning Director (Acting) Superintendent of Public Works Youth Bureau Director Chair, Board of Zoning Appeals 11 Remarks by Alderperson John Schroeder at the September 4, 1991 Common Council Meeting, Concerning the Proposal to Waive Certain Zoning Provisions With Respect to the New Municipal Pool: Let's descend for a moment from high principle, and consider what specifically will happen if we fail to grant the municipal pool project a waiver from zoning provisions. Without this waiver, the City will likely seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the BZA will probably turn the variance request down. So, here is what will likely happen, if we reject the waiver: We will delay, (400e at least for a year, a project much needed by the children and families of Ithaca. We will very likely have to rip out grass next to the pool site and replace it with an unneeded 20 -car parking lot. We will severely compromise a very compact, efficient and aesthetically pleasing design, and probably cause an expensive redesign, unnecessarily wasting tight City money. These are severe damages. If we choose to do these several harmfiil things, we ought to have an awfully good reason for inflicting such harm on our City, for inflicting such harm on a very good and very popular project. The reasons others give for opposing this waiver boil down to a single principle. Simply stated, the principle is that the City should adhere to the same zoning standards as apply to private landowners, that there should not be a "double standard." On the surface, this sounds very good, very noble, like something one could proclaim ringingly on the floor of Common Council. I know the alderpersons making this argument are doing so from the bottom of their hearts. LV-01 But I wonder if this "principle" really applies to the municipal pool project, in the first place. After all, we are not talking here about an "R" residential zone, affecting many private home owners and property owners. Nor are we talking about a "B" business zone, full of privately owned businesses. We aren't even talking about an "I" industrial zone, also with many privately owned parcels. Instead, we are talking about a public zone — the P -1 zone. This is a very special, 0J indeed unique district on our zoning map. The P -1 zone, including the parcel where this municipal pool will be built, is dedicated to public recreational and educational purposes. It is not a zone of private property owners. It is a zone overwhelmingly occupied by City land (for our parks, the Department of Public Works, the City cemetery and other City purposes), by school district land and by the Cornell University campus. Indeed, the special character of the P -1 district is clearly recognized in the Zoning Ordinance. It is one of the very few zones that is non - cumulative, as you look down the the zoning chart. It is the only district with no maximum building height. There are very special circumstances in this zoning district; it is not just another zone like the others. This is a district specifically populated by institutions that serve the public good, that provide the public with education and recreation. In any of our City zoning districts, we present generalized standards. The P -1 zone's standards are particularly general and average, because this zone deals with such special circumstances. For example, the main Cornell University campus is one big building lot. So language about a 25 -foot front yard setback or a 10 -foot side yard setback only applies to an extremely minute percentage of Cornell projects — just those bordering a City street. In the overwhelming majority of cases, these provisions do not affect Cornell at all. Furthermore, when the Zoning Ordinance was written in the 1970s, it was simply assumed that City government projects were exempt from City zoning regulations. Of course there is no literal language in our ordinance explicitly stating this exemption, because — at the time — such an exemption was simply presumed. I think we should understand the existing P -1 regulations as general, average standards for protecting the public interest with respect to future non - City institutional projects, whose specific attributes — obviously — could not be foreseen when the Zoning Ordinance was written. Any future Cornell project or school district project might indeed need a dedicated parking lot or a setback from the street. But with the municipal pool project we are considering this evening, we 3 are not dealing with "maybes" or "possibilities." Rather, we are dealing with a very specific project that can be evaluated readily on its own merits. We can see that an additional parking lot is not needed, that it would be damaging, by evaluating the usage patterns at the mini -pool existing now. We can look at the project drawings and see that adding corner -lot yard setbacks would seriously compromise a very efficient and very compact design. We know the pool project has broad popular support. In fact, the private landowner who would be most directly affected by the new pool, Jacqueline Livingston, spoke strongly in favor of the project last month. That is why the "balancing test" between the "public interests of a municipal project" and the "public interests of local land use regulations" — as (awe, described in the waiver resolution before us tonight — makes so much sense. As others have pointed out, in the instances of the Tompkins County mental health building and the City court facility, no good reasons existed for waiving our zoning regulations. A waiver would not have made sense. In fact, the court project was greatly improved by literally applying zoning provisions. That is not the case here. Literally following the Zoning Ordinance would significantly damage the municipal pool project. Common Council establishes the Zoning Ordinance to serve the public interest. And our P- I zone is very especially dedicated to serving educational and recreational goals. For us to delay — and possibly severely harm — an excellent recreational project that the public broadly supports, by mechanically applying provisions that were never intended to apply to the City in the first place, would be a small tragedy. It would be to obstruct the public interest with needless bureaucratic hurdles. Let's not trip ourselves up with intellectual abstractions and non - applicable "principles" that — however well- intentioned frustrate the public good. Let's let the children swim. in truth only 3 are not dealing with "maybes" or "possibilities." Rather, we are dealing with a very specific project that can be evaluated readily on its own merits. We can see that an additional parking lot is not needed, that it would be damaging, by evaluating the usage patterns at the mini -pool existing now. We can look at the project drawings and see that adding corner -lot yard setbacks would seriously compromise a very efficient and very compact design. We know the pool project has broad popular support. In fact, the private landowner who would be most directly affected by the new pool, Jacqueline Livingston, spoke strongly in favor of the project last month. That is why the "balancing test" between the "public interests of a municipal project" and the "public interests of local land use regulations" — as (600.11 described in the waiver resolution before us tonight — makes so much sense. As others have pointed out, in the instances of the Tompkins County mental health building and the City court facility, no good reasons existed for waiving our zoning regulations. A waiver would not have made sense. In fact, the court project was greatly improved by literally applying zoning provisions. That is not the case here. Literally following the Zoning Ordinance would significantly damage the municipal pool project. Common Council establishes the Zoning Ordinance to serve the public interest. And our P- I zone is very especially dedicated to serving educational and recreational goals. For us to delay — and possibly severely harm — an excellent recreational project that the public broadly supports, by mechanically applying provisions that were never intended to apply to the City in the first place, would be a small tragedy. It would be to obstruct the public interest with needless bureaucratic hurdles. Let's not trip ourselves up with intellectual abstractions and non - applicable "principles" that — however well- intentioned — in truth only frustrate the public good. Let's let the children swim. Remarks by Alderperson John Schroeder at the September 4, 1991 Common Council Meeting, Concerning the Proposal to Waive Certain Zoning Provisions With Respect to the New Municipal Pool: Let's descend for a moment from high principle, and consider what specifically will happen if we fail to grant the municipal pool project a waiver from zoning provisions. Without this waiver, the City will likely seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the BZA will probably turn the variance request down. So, here is what will likely happen, if we reject the waiver: We will delay, at least for a year, a project much needed by the children and families of Ithaca. We will very likely have to rip out grass next to the pool site and replace it with an unneeded 20 -car parking lot. We will severely compromise a very compact, efficient and aesthetically pleasing design, and probably cause an expensive redesign, unnecessarily wasting tight City money. These are severe damages. If we choose to do these several harmful things, we ought to have an awfully good reason for inflicting such harm on our City, for inflicting such harm on a very good and very popular project. The reasons others give for opposing this waiver boil down to a single principle. Simply stated, the principle is that the City should adhere to the same zoning standards as apply to private landowners, that there should not be a "double standard." On the surface, this sounds very good, very noble, like something one could proclaim ringingly on the floor of Common Council. I know the alderpersons making this argument arc doing so from the bottom of their hearts. But I wonder if this "principle" really applies to the municipal pool project, in the first place. After all, we are not talking here about an "R" residential zone, affecting many private home owners and property owners. Nor are we talking about a "B" business zone, full of privately owned businesses. We aren't even talking about an "I" industrial zone, also with many privately owned parcels. Instead, we are talking about a public zone — the P -1 zone. This is a very special, PA indeed unique district on our zoning map. The P -1 zone, including the parcel where this municipal pool will be built, is dedicated to public recreational and educational purposes. It is not a zone of private property owners. It is a zone overwhelmingly occupied by City land (for our parks, the Department of Public Works, the City cemetery and other City purposes), by school district land and by the Cornell University campus. Indeed, the special character of the P -1 district is clearly recognized in the Zoning Ordinance. It is one of the very few zones that is non - cumulative, as you look down the the zoning chart. It is the only district with no maximum building height. There are very special circumstances in this zoning district; it is not just another zone like the others. This is a district specifically populated by institutions that serve the public good, that provide the public with education and recreation. In any of our City zoning districts, we present generalized standards. The P -1 zone's standards are particularly general and average, because this zone deals with such special circumstances. For example, the main Cornell University campus is one big building lot. So language about a 25 -foot front yard setback or a 10 -foot side yard setback only applies to an extremely minute percentage of Cornell projects — just those bordering a City street. In the overwhelming majority of cases, these provisions do not affect Cornell at all. Furthermore, when the Zoning Ordinance was written in the 1970s, it was simply assumed that City government projects were exempt from City zoning regulations. Of course there is no literal language in our ordinance explicitly stating this exemption, because — at the time — such an exemption was simply presumed. I think we should understand the existing P -1 regulations as general, average standards for protecting the public interest with respect to future non - City institutional projects, whose specific attributes — obviously — could not be foreseen when the Zoning Ordinance was written. Any future Cornell project or school district project might indeed need a dedicated parking lot or a setback from the street. But with the municipal pool project we are considering this evening, we 2. Similar to the first item, the conclusions of other City officers (e.g., the Fire Chief) with jurisdiction over a proposed municipal project must formally be made part of the discussions regarding that project and must remain a focus of the City's decisions regarding the project. 3. Council should stop using the term "Client Committee" for the committees we set up to review these projects. Perhaps they should be called something like "Project Review Committees ". In any case, these review committees must understand from the outset that they must examine closely all of the relevant issues that relate to whether the particular project is feasible and desirable. I fear that what has happened in this case may have happened with a number of other City projects - i.e., in this case the Client Committee became more of an advocacy group for the project than a project review group, and it failed to examine critically and fully all of the issues relevant to a City decision whether, when, and how to proceed with this project. IV. CLOSING I realize that this document is quite long. I appreciate your willingness to read it. I urge you to vote against the proposed waiver of the Zoning Ordinance in this case. Thank you. cc Building Commissioner City Attorney GIAC Coordinator Planning Director (Acting) Superintendent of Public Works Youth Bureau Director Chair, Board of Zoning Appeals 11 5. Clearly there are some circumstances in which time considerations impose tremendous burdens on government, and there can be circumstances of an emergency nature that require certain legal mandates to be set aside. The time elements surrounding the building of this pool do not in my opinion come close to amounting to an emergency that justifies setting aside the City's major legal structure for governing land use and development. C. THE PROPOSED WAIVER WILL VIOLATE THE CITY CODE 1. As I discussed previously, I believe a local government has the authority under the laws of this state to exempt its own municipal projects from its zoning ordinance. I also believe that a local government may choose to require that all of its municipal projects comply with its zoning ordinance. If a local government takes the latter step, it is required to abide by the zoning ordinance until such time as the ordinance is amended. 2. The wording of Ithaca's Zoning Ordinance does not specifically state whether or not City- initiated projects are required to comply with its provisions. However, the Ordinance can be most easily and clearly read to mean that City projects do in fact have to satisfy its provisions. Section 30.24 of the Ordinance is entitled "Application of Regulations ". It states in part: bNo building or land shall hereafter be used or occupied and no uilding or part thereof shall be erected moved or altered unless in conformity with the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is located." In addition, section 30.55 of the Ordinance is entitled "Building Permits ". It states in part: "No building or structure shall be erected, added to or structurally altered until a building permit therefor has been issued by the Building Commissioner. All applications for such permits shall be in accordance with the requirements of all applicable regulations. The Building Commissioner shall not issue a building permit hereunder until he has determined that all of the provisions of this Chapter and any other applicable laws or regulations have been complied with ..." The language in these two sections clearly does not exempt municipal projects. I can find no other language in the ordinance that does so. The broad and widely applicable language of sections 30.24 and 30.55 suggests very strongly that the City's Zoning Ordinance does in fact require City projects to comply with its provisions. III. MISCELLANEOUS POINTS A. I do not intend to delve deeply into the substantive merits of the proposed resolution that would waive the application of the Ordinance in this case. I am going to vote against it, and no changes that I can possibly imagine in the proposed resolution will cause me to support it. However, I would point out that it seems ridiculous to argue that very few people will drive to the site of this pool or that parking will not be a problem. Any municipal pool in downtown Ithaca big enough to serve 160 to 200 kids at any one time is likely to attract a considerable number of adults who drive to the pool and park in the vicinity. B. Whether or not Council approves this waiver request, steps must be taken to prevent this type of problem with the application of a major City ordinance from occurring in the future. Presumably a number of changes must occur, and it would be useful for the Charter and Ordinance Committee or the Budget and Administration Committee to consider what those changes might be. Without trying to be exhaustive in this regard, let me suggest just three. 1. Early in the discussions of a proposed City project, the Building Commissioner's conclusions regarding the applicability of the Ordinance and other ordinances for which he /she is responsible for implementation must be made a formal part of the deliberations at hand, and those issues must remain an important focus for the various City groups that subsequently review that project. 10 through enactment of the Zoning Ordinance, Council is best advised to leave the application of that ordinance in particular factual situations to other bodies in City government. 1-11. i 10. If Council reached the conclusion that certain rules in the Ordinance were not the correct ones, Council could have and should have changed those rules. As pointed out in B below, that certainly could have occurred in this case. Some may argue that if Council could have amended the Zoning Ordinance to accomplish certain desired changes in P -1 districts, it should accomplish the same thing by exempting the GIAC pool from those provisions now and then amending the appropriate provisions L'00� in the future. Similar to points made above, it is important that Council abide by the land development rules that have been set until such time as they are amended pursuant to legally required decision - making processes. If Council does not believe that existing rules are correct, it should change those rules by following the amendment provisions set forth in the Ordinance. Maintenance of the proper legal process established for implementing and amending the Ordinance is every bit as important as abiding by the substantive land use restrictions in the Ordinance. B. THE WAIVER PROPOSAL BEFORE COUNCIL STEMS FROM A SERIES OF MISTAKES MADE IN REVIEWING THE GIAC POOL; MISTAKES IN THE DECISION - MAKING PROCESS CONSTITUTE A TOTALLY IMPROPER BASIS FOR MAKING LEGISLATIVE EXCEPTIONS TO THE CITY'S BASIC LAND USE CONTROL ORDINANCE 1. Council is considering waiving the Ordinance in this case because the processes it established to advise it on this capital project did not work properly - i.e., because the City government and the professionals it hired for this case made mistakes. That is clearly an improper basis on which to waive the application of the Ordinance. 2. If Council had become aware of those mistakes some months ago, before various commitments were made with respect to this project, there would have been sufficient time to explore reasonable alternatives. In my opinion, Council would not be seriously 7 considering the waiver proposal before us if there were adequate time to consider alternatives that would allow the project to proceed on a timely basis. 3. Evidently several mistakes were made over a period of months respecting the applicability of the Ordinance to this project. Council is responsible for the mistakes that were made; it clearly failed to identify the project's lack of compliance with the Ordinance. I certainly share that responsibility, as does every other member of Council. Beyond Council's responsibility, however, it is important to recognize that there were other serious mistakes. Apparently one of three things initially went wrong in this case: either the architects the City hired failed to do their job of identifying the zoning issues at hand and pursuing them until they were handled properly; OR the Client Committee and City staff that worked with that committee failed to pursue these issues adequately; OR both of these mistakes were made. Most importantly, the Client Committee and /or City staff failed to bring these problems to the attention of Council on a timely basis and did not provide information about them to Council when the critical decisions authorizing and funding this project were made. 4. 1 am confident that had the full Council or any Council committee been made aware that this project would not comply with the Ordinance at a proper time in the Council's decision - making processes, this project would have been designed differently. With respect to the zoning setback problems, the project could easily have been designed differently. With respect to the parking problem under the Ordinance, other alternatives could have been explored in a timely fashion, perhaps including finding a way to utilize the School District parking that exists near the pool site. Indeed, it is possible that if Council had been properly alerted to the zoning problems that exist in this case because of the P -1 zoning, it could have considered making certain desirable amendments to the Ordinance. For example, those amendments might have created some new provisions that apply to public swimming pools in P -1 districts. That would have been a proper course of action. While the City's legal position did not prevail in the Stone Hall case against the state, it is of great importance to note that in both cases the City argued that another government entity, including the state, must comply with a local ordinance. The City took those positions because it recognized that actions by government entities can have just as serious impacts on important values as can private projects and that, therefore, the actions of those government entities should be subject to applicable regulations. The City's position in those two cases will stand in extraordinarily sharp contrast to a Council decision that a City project does not have to comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance 6. Council may decide to say the following with respect to the GIAC Pool: "We are waiving the ordinance in this case because the City has skillfully designed a. project that will serve the public good even though it does not satisfy the Ordinance's requirements. In fact, we have designed this pool project to be a better project than it could be if it did comply with the Ordinance." If Council does that, it must understand that it will be echoing the claims of countless project sponsors who have sincerely believed that they could have designed and built far better projects were they not required to comply with government- imposed restrictions for such things as setbacks, parking spaces, and minimum lot sizes. Zoning requirements are not enacted because they will allow the best or even a highly desirable project to be designed and built in any particular case. They are enacted because the public good will be served by having everyone abide by a set of rules governing land development, except in special circumstances. I may be able to design a more attractive project if I do not have to abide by the minimum side yard requirements, but everyone, including me, is better off because those requirements exist and are applied to all. 7. Where there are special circumstances which may justify a waiver of zoning requirements, those circumstances are best judged by a neutral body that has expertise in making decisions about varying the uniform requirements that have been set for the good of all. Those special circumstances should not be judged by those who are the proponents of a particular project, which the Council is in this case. Under the Ordinance, those decisions are left to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and any decision to grant a "waiver" (variance) in 5 the case of the GIAC pool should be left to the Board. 8. The City Attorney has argued that an application by one part of the City government to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances respecting the GIAC Pool would place the City in an awkward position. That situation would involve one part of the City applying to another part of the City government for permission to do something. He also points out that should the Board deny the variance request, the City government would possibly be in the awkward position of considering whether to ask a court to reverse the Board's decision. He correctly points out that a party other than the City itself would readily go to court to challenge an unfavorable decision by the Board, something that Council might have a difficult time deciding to do. Council should realize that its potential position vis -a -vis the Board is neither difficult nor particularly strange. While Council might not as readily sue the Board as another party in the event the Board should reach an unfavorable decision, Council has far, far greater powers vis -a -vis the Board than does any other party: i.e., Council may change the legislation under which the Board operates. Furthermore, it is not at all unusual to require that one part of a government structure apply to another part of the same government for permission to do something. The State of New York has a number of requirements of this kind - i.e., requirements that one state agency obtain permits from another state agency and even, in at least one case, requirements that one part of a state agency obtain permits from another part of the same agency. These arrangements obviously raise questions about what one agency should /can do if another agency prevents it from pursuing some sort of activity. If New York State can find a way to live with the situation in which one part of it does not allow another state entity to undertake some activity, I am confident that the City of Ithaca can do the same. 9. Legislative bodies function best and most properly when they weigh a variety of appropriate considerations and establish policies that govern societal behavior. In most cases legislatures are not the proper government decision - makers to decide how legislation should or should not apply in specific factual situations. Where, as here, Council has established the City's land use regulation policies 0 LV- public projects (like the municipal pool at GIAC). They almost certainly will involve cases in which the City government is co- sponsoring a project with another government entity or with a private entity. They almost certainly will arise in future cases involving P -1 zoning. They are likely to involve cases in which the City government is not a sponsor but is a major proponent of certain projects undertaken by non -City entities. Future cases may well encompass purely private projects. I happen to believe that it would be illegal with respect to a purely private project for Council to waive the Ordinance, but that is beside the point. The critical point is that the action Council is considering in this case is likely to generate future zoning waiver requests to Council in a wide range of circumstances. 3. Government entities make serious mistakes when they set up one set of land development rules for the private sector and another for themselves. This type of double standard erodes the public's confidence in what government is doing in its development activities. Projects undertaken by government entities can create just as many problems as private projects, and often more. The public well understands that government projects need to be regulated. In this regard, Council might reflect on the complicated history that led the U.S. Congress to amend both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act to require federal facilities to acquire pollution permits from state environmental agencies. In addition, creating a double standard by not requiring government projects to meet the same requirements as private projects generates tremendous bitterness on the part of private sector interests. When a private project sponsor seeks to proceed, he /she has to comply with certain development restrictions, and it is very common for those restrictions to limit the nature and scope of the private project being undertaken. Many citizens deeply resent the fact that government quite often exempts itself from the rules that govern the private sector. Common Council is badly advised to say with respect to this project (or any other it undertakes) that "we set the rules, but we are not going to abide by them here because we do not like the way they apply." That type of attitude on the part of government is destructive to the general sense of community responsibility to serve the larger public good that government should always try to t1 foster. The obvious and significant benefits of the GIAC pool do not outweigh the need for the City to abide by the rules governing land development that it has itself set. 4. Council will be correctly criticized for being very hypocritical if it waives the Ordinance in this case. With respect to the County Mental Health Building (and perhaps the County's renovations at the jail), the City has made a variety of statements about how important it is for the County to abide by the Ordinance. With respect to the Mental Health Building, the County has said that it will abide by the Ordinance even though it is riot legally required to do so. I believe the County is correct in its assessment of its legal position in this case, and I think the County is similarly correct in its position that it should abide by the ordinance. The County's position will stand in sharp contrast to the City's should Council adopt the proposed waiver position. 5. In considering whether Council will determine to waive the application of the Ordinance to a City project, Council should consider the City's position in two famous historic preservation law cases in which the City was involved. They are highly instructive in the present circumstances. In City of Ithaca v. County of Tompkins. 355 N.Y.S.2d 275 (1974), the City successfully argued that Tompkins County could not tear down the Boardman House unless the County complied with the provisions of the City's historic preservation ordinance. That decision stands as a landmark in the field of Historic Preservation Law with respect to a municipal government's authority to regulate the activity of a county government. The second case did not turn out so well for the City, but the City's statement of principle was nevertheless important. In In the Matter of Barbara Ebert v New York State Office of Parks. Recreation. and Historic Preservation, 505 N.Y.S.2d 470 (1986), the City argued that New York State could not tear down Stone Hall at Cornell unless it first complied with the City's historic preservation ordinance. The City's position initially prevailed in the state's Supreme Court, but that position was overturned by the Appellate Division. The state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, refused to hear a further appeal. 0 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Common Council From: Richard S. Booth Subject: Proposal to "Waive" the City Zoning Ordinance with respect to the GIAC Pool Date: September 3, 1991 I. INTRODUCTION I believe that waiving the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance (hereafter referred to as "the Ordinance ") with respect to building a new municipal pool near GIAC (or any other capital project undertaken by the City) would constitute a significant mistake. I have been, and I remain, a very strong supporter of the City's decision to build that pool, and I am very conscious of the fact that any delays in that project will probably mean that the new GIAC pool will not be open for swimming in the summer of 1992. Nevertheless, I am firmly opposed to the proposal to exempt the pool from the Ordinance, and I will vote against it. I urge all of you to do the same. Please consider the following items. II. ARGUMENTS AGAINST WAIVING THE ORDINANCE AS IT APPLIES TO THE PROPOSED GIAC POOL I raise three arguments here to support my conclusion that Council should not waive the application of the Ordinance in this case: firs , that such a waiver will reflect a seriously flawed public policy choice; second, that Council is considering this proposed waiver because the City made some serious mistakes in its decision - making processes regarding the pool, and those mistakes do not begin to constitute a proper basis for waiving the Ordinance; and third, that waiving the Ordinance will constitute a violation of the City Code. I wish to stress the first and second arguments, which address matters of public policy, much more heavily than the third, which is based on a legal interpretation of the City Code. This is 1 not to suggest to Council that I do not think the law is important. You know me too well to reach that conclusion. I stress the first two arguments because they reflect what Council should do in this case; they should be enough by themselves to convince Council that it will not waive the application of the Ordinance in this case. A. WAIVING THE ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED POOL WILL CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS ERROR OF PUBLIC POLICY 1. This issue does not primarily involve a question of law, but rather an important question of public policy. While I have not researched this issue, I believe a local government in New York State has the legal authority to decide that under certain circumstances its own public projects will not have to comply with its zoning ordinance. I assume for the purposes of this section of this memo that the City has the authority to exempt the pool from the application of the Ordinance. THE CENTRAL ISSUE FACING US IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, IS NOT WHETHER WE HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THE ORDINANCE, BUT RATHER WHETHER WE SHOULD DO SO. (Note: Subdivision C below takes a different look at the legal issue raised by the proposed waiver of the Ordinance.) 2. A decision to waive the Ordinance in this case will constitute an important and, I believe, troubling precedent for future Council decisions. While this decision may have some importance as a legal precedent, I am much more concerned with the possibility that a decision to waive the Ordinance in this case will in all likelihood generate widely varying requests for similar action in other cases. Already it is evident that the very question raised in this case is present with respect to the proposed Transit Facility and certain renovations being considered at Southside. There will be others, perhaps many others. I have to believe that what we do in this case will create substantial expectations that we will do so again. The nature and numbers of cases in which this type of waiver question will arise in the future cannot be accurately estimated at this time. Suffice it to say that they will be likely to vary significantly from the type of choice Council believes it is making here. These future cases will not in my opinion be limited to purely 2 L -7 September 4, 1991 Section 1. That Section 30.58(B)(4) is hereby amended to read as follows: a) "When an area variance is granted by the Board of Appeals which enables an applicant to do construction which requires a building permit, or a use variance is granted by the Board of Appeals and construction which requires a building permit is necessary for conversion to the use for which the variance is granted, and the applicant has not obtained a building permit to construct the building or part thereof for which the variance has been granted (has not been obtained within one year from the day of the granting of the variance, said variance shall become void.] and initiated the construction work within two (2) years from the date of the granting of the variance, the said variance shall become void; and b) when an area variance is granted by the Board of Appeals which enables an applicant to do construction_ which requires a f` building permit, or a use variance is granted by the Board of is granted Appeals and construction which requires a building permit is co necessary for conversion to the use for which the variance is co granted thereof and a building permit to for which the variance has construct the building or part been granted has been obtained, (� and the construction has not been substantially completed prior to Q the expiration of the building permit, the said variance shall become void; and variance was granted within This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication and notice as provided in Section 3.11(B) of the Ithaca Citv Charter. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Two -year Limit on Zonina Variances: Environmental Review - Negative Declaration By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard WHEREAS, a proposed ordinance amending Section 30.58(B)(4) of the City of Ithaca Code providing that area and use variances terminate within two (2) years from the date of the granting of the variance if appropriate construction work has not been started, completed, or certificates of occupancy granted, has been drafted and submitted to Common Council for consideration, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action is an "unlisted" action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), including the Part 617 regulations thereunder, and is an "unlisted" action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act (EQR Section 36.5 (E)), and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby does adopt as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form dated August 27, 1991, and be it further 13 c)__when a use variance is granted by the Board of Zoning Appea_], oi(] no construction which requires a building permit is necessa_;_.__for conversion to the use for which the variance is granted and the applicant has not obtained a certificate of occupancy for the use for which the variance was granted within two {2) years from the date of the granting of the variance, the variance shall become void." Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication and notice as provided in Section 3.11(B) of the Ithaca Citv Charter. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Two -year Limit on Zonina Variances: Environmental Review - Negative Declaration By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard WHEREAS, a proposed ordinance amending Section 30.58(B)(4) of the City of Ithaca Code providing that area and use variances terminate within two (2) years from the date of the granting of the variance if appropriate construction work has not been started, completed, or certificates of occupancy granted, has been drafted and submitted to Common Council for consideration, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action is an "unlisted" action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), including the Part 617 regulations thereunder, and is an "unlisted" action under the City Environmental Quality Review Act (EQR Section 36.5 (E)), and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby does adopt as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form dated August 27, 1991, and be it further 13 September 4, 1991 RESOLVED, that this Common Council as lead agency, hereby does determine that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary under the circumstances, and be it further RESOLVED, that this resolution shall constitute notice of this negative declaration and the City Clerk be and she is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with the attachment, in the City Clerk's Office and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Carried Unanimously Six Mile Creek Natural Area - Investigation of Land Purchases - Report Alderperson Hoffman reported that the City Attorney and Director of Planning and Development have been asked to investigate the possible purchase of property in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. The matter will be coming before Council in the near future. 1992 Planning Department Work Program - Report Alderperson Hoffman reported that the 1992 Planning Department Work Program is being worked on at this time. He said if people have priorities, they should bring them up to the Committee now. ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m. C�Iista F. Paolange City Clerk 14 Benjamin Nichols Mayor F] co Q September 4, 1991 a. delivery by the employee to the City Attorney a written request to provide for his or her defense together with the original or a copy of any summons, complaint, process, notice, demand or pleading, within ten (10) days after he or she is served within such document, and b. the full cooperation of the employee in the defense of any such action or proceeding in defense of any action or proceeding against the City based on the same actor omission, and the assistance of the employee in the prosecution of any appeal. Section 5.47 The benefits of this Article shall inure only to employees as defined herein and shall not enlarge or diminish the rights of any other party nor shall any provision of this Article be construed to affect, alter, or repeal any provision of the worker's compensation law. Section 5.48 This Article does not in any way affect the obligation of any claimant to give notice to the City as required under Section 50 -e of the General Municipal Law or any other provision of law. Carried Unanimously Postering Issue - Report Alderperson Peterson reported that at the Charter and Ordinance Committee meeting on September 12, the issue of postering will be discussed. BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: * 16.1 DPW Request to Amend 1991 Equipment List By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson RESOLVED, That the Authorized Equipment List of the Department of Public Works' Water and Sewer Funds be amended by adding one two - way radio at $900 to the Water Fund authorized equipment list and one two -way radio at $900 to the Sewer Fund authorized equipment list, and be it further RESOLVED, That the $1,800 be derived from available funds in the following accounts: F 8316 -225 Shop & Equipment Other Equipment $900 G 8116 -225 Shop & Equipment Other Equipment $900 to allow the acquisition of said equipment. Carried Unanimously * 16.2 Fire Department Request for Expenditure of Code Reimbursement Funds By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson RESOLVED, That the Authorized Equipment List of the Fire Department be amended by adding two flat files with mounting base for $1,095 and one software upgrade for $100, and be it further RESOLVED, That $1,195 be transferred from Account A690 -6 New York State Building and Fire Code Aid to the following accounts: A 3410 -225 Other Equipment A 3410 -425 Office Expense $1,095 $ 100 to allow for the acquisition of such equipment. Carried Unanimously 11 L153— September 4, 1991 * 16.3 Finance Department Re guest to Transfer Funds By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski WHEREAS, the City has received the final utility bill for Fire Station No. 6 in the amount of $2, 307.41 for the period of December 1990 through April 1991, and WHEREAS, the City's portion of the utility bill, based on an allocation of agencies occupying Fire Station No. 6 prior to its closure in April 1991, is $449.23; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That $449.23 be transferred from account A1990 Unrestricted Contingency to account A3410 -410 Fire Department Utilities for the purpose of paying the City's portion of the final utility bill for Fire Station No. 6. Carried Unanimously * 16.6 Audit By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski RESOLVED, That the bills presented, as listed on Audit Abstract 16/1991 in the total amount of $55,940.63 be approved Ced Unanimously • rr PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: * 17.1 Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Two -year Limit on Zoning Variances Call for Public Hearing By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder RESOLUTION OF COMMON COUNCIL INTRODUCING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING BE IT RESOLVED that Ordinance Number 91- entitled "An Ordinance Amending Section 30.58 Entitled `Board of Appeals' of Chapter 30 Entitled `Zoning' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code" be and is hereby introduced before the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Common Council shall hold a public hearing in the matter of the adoption of the aforesaid ordinance to be held at the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, on Wednesday, October 2, 1991, at 7:00 p.m.; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk give notice of such public hearing by the publication of a notice in the official newspaper, specifying the time when and the place where such public hearing will be held, and in general terms describing the proposed ordinance. Such notice shall be published once at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall transmit forthwith to the Board of Planning and Development and the Tompkins County Planning Board a true and exact copy of the proposed ordinance for its report thereon. Carried Unanimously ORDINANCE NO. 91- An Ordinance amending Section 30.58 entitled "Board of Appeals" of Chapter 30 entitled "Zoning" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, as follows: Expiration of Variances 12 Vs:s September 4, 1991 BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, as follows: Section 1. Amend Article 3 of the City of Ithaca Charter Article 3, Section 3.3 of the Ithaca City Charter is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 3.3 Procedure at Meetings: Minutes: Quorum At all meetings of the Common Council, the Mayor, when present, shall preside. In the proceedings of the Common Council, each member present shall have a vote except the Mayor, who shall have only a casting vote when the votes of the other members are tied, and except as hereinafter provided. The sittings of the Common Council shall be public except when the public interests shall require secrecy. The minutes of the proceedings shall be kept by the City Clerk, and the same shall be open at all times to public inspection. A majority of the members of the Common Council shall be quorum for the transaction of business. In the event that fewer than ten members of Common Council vote on any substantive M question (if a member abstains from voting, it shall be considered as if that member did not vote) the concurring vote of five or more Co alderpersons shall be sufficient to exercise any power which may be < exercised by the majority vote of Common Council, but no tax or assessment shall be ordered except by a concurring vote of majority of all members of the Common Council in office, including the Mayor, who shall be entitled to vote thereon as a member of the Council, and no tax levied, assessment bill ordered, resolution or ordinance shall take effect until the same shall receive the approval of the Mayor, as hereinafter provided." r Section 2. Effective Date This law shall take effect immediately after filing in the Office of the Secretary of State. Carried Unanimously Mayor Nichols stated that with the enactment of this Local Law it is necessary to have the concurring vote of at least five alderpersons. If it is a 5 -5 vote then the Mayor could vote to break a tie. * 15.2 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 Entitled `City Officers and Employees', Article IV Entitled `Reimbursement of Defense Costs of City Employees for Civil Actions' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski ORDINANCE NO. 91- An Ordinance amending Chapter 5 entitled "City Employees" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK, AS FOLLOWS: (awooll Section 1. That Chapter 5, entitled "City Officers and Employees" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is amended to add a new Article to read as follows: A new Article to be known and designated as Article IV, to follow Article III, and is hereby added to said Chapter to read as follows: ARTICLE IV REIMBURSEMENT OF DEFENSE COSTS OF CITY EMPLOYEES FOR CIVIL ACTIONS. 9 �5q, Section 5.40 September 4, 1991 Subject to the limitations set forth in subsequent sections of this Article, the City of Ithaca desires to and hereby does provide for the defense of its officers and employees, whether the employee is sued individually or in his or her capacity as a City officer or employee, in all civil actions and proceedings, whether in state or federal officer employee was acting w thin tdhe to have scope of his or while the e of of r P her duties for the City of Ithaca. Section 5.41 Employee: The term employee shall mean any commissioner, member of a public boa d o c mmission, tr ee, director, officer, employee, expressly r ed participate in publicly sponsored volunteer programs, or any other person holding a position by election, appointment or employment, including the City Attorney, in the service of the City of Ithaca, whether or not compensated. The term "employee" shall include a former employee, his or her estate or judicially appointed personal representative. Section 5.42 Limited Right to Defense:_ The City of Ithaca shall defend or provide for the defense of its employees and officers in any civil action or proceeding, State or federal, arising out of any alleged act or omission which occurred or allegedly occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his or her public employment or duties. This duty to provide for a defense shall not arise where such civil action or proceeding is brought by or at the behest of the City. Section 5.43 Limited right to private representation: Subject to the conditions set forth in the preceding paragraph, the employee shall be entitled to be represented by private counsel of his or her choice in any civil action or proceeding whenever the City Attorney or other counsel designated by the City determines that a conflict of interest exists; whenever a court, upon appropriate motion or otherwise by special proceeding, determines that a conflict of interest exists, and that the employee is entitled to be represented by counsel of his or her choice; or whenever the City determines that it is appropriate for the employee to be represented by private counsel of his or her choice. The City Attorney or other counsel designated by the City may require, as a condition of the payment of the fees and expenses of such representation, that appropriate groups of employees be represented by the same counsel. Reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses shall be paid by the City to such private counsel from time to time during the pendency of the civil action or proceeding with the approval of the Budget & Administration Committee of Common Council. Section 5.44 Disputes: Any dispute with respect to representation of multiple employees by a single counsel or the amount of litigation expenses or the reasonableness of attorney's fees shall be resolved by a court upon motion or by way of a special proceeding if it cannot be resolved by the employee and the City Attorney or the Budget & Administration Committee. Section 5.45 Duty to avoid default: Where an employee delivers process and a written request for defense to the City pursuant to Section 5.49 below, the City shall take the necessary steps on behalf of the employee to avoid the entry of a default judgment pending resolution of any question pertaining to the obligation to provide a defense. Section 5.46 Conditions on duty to defend: The duty to defend or indemnify and save harmless prescribed by this Article shall be conditioned upon: 10 0 J September 4, 1991 WHEREAS, not providing or reducing needed services in times of crisis to those populations eventually costs more to the City and to the larger society, with increased crime, drug abuse, need for welfare and unemployment benefits, etc., and WHEREAS, the benefits of human service programs cannot be measured in dollars, alone, and WHEREAS, Ithaca prides itself on being a fair and caring community, and WHEREAS, the physical infrastructure of the city does not deteriorate more quickly during economic hard times, while families and individuals do, and WHEREAS, funding of private volunteer agencies is one of the more efficient uses of city funds; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council asserts that human service agency co funding is of the highest priority, and be it further RESOLVED, That in reducing the total City budget due to cuts in State funding and other shortfalls, the human service agencies m portion of the budget not be seen as equal to other parts of the Q budget, but as critical for assisting those in need, and be it further RESOLVED, That every attempt be made to fund the human service agencies at the same level as last year. Alternative Resolved Clauses By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard RESOLVED, That the following three Resolved Clauses replace the three Resolved Clauses in the original resolution: RESOLVED, That funding for human service agencies will be of the highest priority in setting the 1992 City budget, such agencies being those that have been recommended for City funding by the Human Services Coalition as a result of a review conducted by the Coalition on the City's behalf, and be it further RESOLVED, That in setting the 1992 City budget Common Council shall recognize that funding for said human service agencies is critical for assisting those in need, and be it further RESOLVED, That in setting the 1992 City budget Common Council shall make every reasonable effort to provide a total amount of funding for said human service agencies for both existing and any new programs considered collectively, that is equal to the total amount of funding committed to those purposes in the 1991 City budget ($147,738). Council does not hereby make any statement regarding potential City funding that may be available to any particular human service agency. Alderperson Booth explained the three Resolved Clauses. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote to accept the three alternative Resolved Clauses in place of the three Resolved Clauses in the original resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously 7 L) i-2, September 4, 1991 The Main Motion as Amended shall read as follows: WHEREAS, the City, families and individuals are feeling the effects of the current economic crisis, and WHEREAS, this crisis affects low - income families and individuals more severely than others, and WHEREAS, the human services agency portion of the City budget attempts in part to help meet the needs of those families and individuals, and WHEREAS, not providing or reducing needed services in times of crisis to those populations eventually costs more to the City and to the larger society, with increased crime, drug abuse, need for welfare and unemployment benefits, etc., and WHEREAS, the benefits of human service programs cannot be measured in dollars, alone, and WHEREAS, Ithaca prides itself on being a fair and caring community, and WHEREAS, the physical infrastructure of the city does not deteriorate more quickly during economic hard times, while families and individuals do, and WHEREAS, funding of private volunteer agencies is one of the more efficient uses of city funds; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That funding for human services agencies will be of the highest priority in setting the 1992 City budget, such agencies being those that have been as a result of af� eviewycondudcte by the Human Services Coalition d by the Coalition on the City's behalf, and be it further RESOLVED, That in setting the 1992 City budget Common Council shall recognize that funding for said human service agencies is critical for assisting those in need, and be it further RESOLVED, That in setting the 1992 City budget Common Council shall make every reasonable effort to provide a total amount of funding for said human service agencies for both existing and any new programs considered collectively, that is equal to the total amount of funding committed to those purposes in the 1991 City budget ($147,738). Council does not hereby make any statement regarding potential City funding that may be available to any particular human service agency. Main Motion as Amended A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (8) - Johnson, Daley, Cummings, Peterson, Romanowski, Golder, Schroeder, Booth Nays (2) - Blanchard, Hoffman Carried CHARTER AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: * 15.1 A Local Law Amending Section 3.3 Entitled `Procedure at Meetings Minutes; Quorum' of the Ithaca City Charter By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 1991 CITY OF ITHACA A Local Law Amending Section 3.3 of the Ithaca City Charter X. J W9 September 4, 1991 d. During the summer months when the pool will be in operation, there are currently no parking problems in the neighborhood. 2. Side Yard Deficiencies: a. The placement of the pavilion at the corner is necessary to meet its function as a community gathering space. b. Careful analysis of the design has demonstrated that no vehicular visibility problems will be caused by the placement of any improvement on the site. C. Relocation of the structures to meet area zoning criteria would seriously compromise the design goals of the project. 3. The non - conformities to the Zoning Ordinance represent a relatively minor deviation from the area requirements. 4. The development of this project as planned would produce a substantial positive change to the neighborhood. 5. The development of this project as planned will result in the immediate improvement of the delivery of governmental services to Q the neighborhood. 6. The neighborhood to be benefitted by a Municipal Pool includes a proportionately high percentage of low - income, single parent families with a high proportion of school age children for whom the existence of the pool is an extremely important resource. 7. Any redesign of the project to meet the zoning requirements would delay completion of the project and the opening of the pool (400.4-1 beyond December of 1992 which would severely negatively affect the neighborhood; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the construction of a City of Ithaca Municipal Pool as currently designed is exempt from the area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Alderperson Romanowski spoke in opposition to waiving the zoning requirements for this project. He stated, for the record, "If our zoning requirements are so inflexible that all people are not able to work on projects, no matter who they are, within a framework which is able to make allowances for the common good, then maybe there requirements should be changed in the Zoning Ordinance. If we have elements of this particular project that need to be addressed pertaining to meeting zoning requirments, let us do that. By waiving our Zoning Ordinance in relation to this project because it is a municipal or governmental project invites justifiable criticism from the private sector that we are establishing a double standard and for this reason I am going to vote against this. I am not voting against this because I think the project is bad or any other element in the project but because we have a double standard as far as government and the private sector are concerned and I think that is wrong." Extensive discussion followed on the floor with GIAC Director Fort and Planning and Development Director VanCort answering questions from Council members. Alderperson Booth referred to a memo that he sent to the Mayor and Council members and explained in detail his reasons for objecting to this waiver of the Zoning Ordinance. (A copy of the memo is attached to the Minute Book). 5 September 4, 1991 to Alder City Attorney Guttman respan de da d he right oof Btheh Counc ml rto regarding the Zoning Ordln waive the same. Further lengthy discussion followed on the floor with Alderpersons ard expressing their opinions in the gri ht to wai ve oit 9 Ordinance and whether or not the City has 9 Alderperson Schroeder noted that and explained in detail his requirements should be waived . is attached to the Minute Book). Alderperson Peterson suggested that the resolution. No Council member he will be voting for this project reasons for feeling the zoning (A complete text of his statement Further discussion followed. item 2a be stricken from objected. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson after words RESOLVED, That in the last Resolved Clause, "currently designed ", the words "without the pavilion" be added. Discussion followed on the floor on the pros and cons of adding the pavilion to this project. A vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (5) - Blanchard, Romanowski, Peterson, Booth, Hoffman Nays (5) - Daley, Cummings, Johnson, Schroeder, Golder Mayor Nichols voted Nay, breaking the tie. Motion Fails After further discussion, the vote on the 'Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (5) - Johnson, Golder, Daley, Cummings, Schroeder Nays (5) - Booth, Hoffman, Peterson, Blanchard, Romanowski Mayor Nichols voted Aye, breaking the tie. Carried Mayor Nichols, for the record, stated that he does not think the good design; it Council made anbmistakes. o and the people of the City, which i s the serves the neigh Law. He intention of the Zon ht it compliccat d the issue. against Hefurther said that he voted pavilion because he thou g this t stated that he will have tu aofregreg this ato any b�me in the community and he do not expect the future. Recess Common Council recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 P.m- HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: * 14.1 Cit ,s Commitment to Human Service A encies By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Daley WHEREAS, the City, families and individuals are feeling the of the current economic crisis, and families and individuals effects WHEREAS, this crisis affects low- income more severely than others, and services agency portion of the City budget help meet the needs of those families and WHEREAS, the human attempts in part to individuals, and 2 z7 /7 September 4, 1991 REPORT OF CITY BOARDS COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES: Board of Public Works Mayor Nichols read the following resolution that was passed unanimously at the BPW Committee of the Whole meeting today: "WHEREAS, the Downtown Ithaca Inc. has urged that the reconstruction work on The Commons be done in the Spring of 1992, and (410"" WHEREAS, this Board sees no engineering disadvantages to a Spring or Summer project; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That The Commons reconstruction be delayed to the Spring or Summer of 1992, and be it further RESOLVED, That all bids received for the reconstruction of The Commons be rejected, and be it further RESOLVED, That an opportunity be given to the groups that may be co affected by reconstruction work on The Commons in the Spring or co Summer, to present their views to the Board before the project with revised construction schedule is submitted for bids, and be it further m Q RESOLVED, That Common Council be requested to amend the Capital Project Budget for The Commons reconstruction to provide sufficient funds to complete the entire project." Mayor Nichols explained to Council why the project is being delayed and answered questions from Council. Disability Advisory Council LeMoyne Farrell, representing DAC, thanked Council for the automatic door openers that have been installed in City Hall. Ms. Farrell thanked Acting Supt. Gray for his interest in the proposed improvements for the handicapped at Stewart Park. Ms. Farrell reported on a workshop that was held in Syracuse in August regarding enforcement of handicapped parking by volunteers. Ms. Farrell stated that the DAC is considering public announcements regarding the necessity of clearing sidewalks of ice and snow in the winter, etc. BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: * 16.5 Request to Increase Authorization of Capital Project #217 GIAC Pool Project By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder WHEREAS, the conceptual design of the GIAC Pool project has been completed, and WHEREAS, based on said design, the Client Committee has recommended that the original project authorization of $450,000. be amended to reflect a revised scope of work and the corresponding projected increase in cost, and WHEREAS, due to budgetary constraints, the B &A Committee has recommended certain further economies should be made in the design of the facility; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Capital Project #217 for the construction of the GIAC Pool be amended from $450,000. to a maximum cost of $520,000., and be it further 3 qq-g September 4, 1991 RESOLVED, That the additional $70,000. be financed as follows: A. Down payment of $3,500. shall be transferred from Account A1990 Unrestricted Contingency. B. The balance of $66,500 shall be derived from the issuance of Serial Bonds. Amending Resolution Seconded by Alderperson Daley By Alderperson Schroeder: RESOLVED, That the first Resolved Clause be amended to read as follows: "RESOLVED, That Capital Project #217 for the construction of the GIAC Pool be amended from $520,000. to a maximum cost of $550,000., for the purpose Resolved of including th corner pavi accordingly. the figures in the second Ayes (6) - Schroeder, Daley, Hoffman, Cummings, Golder, Johnson Nays (4) - Romanowski, Blanchard, Booth, Peterson Main Motion as Amended A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (5) - Schroeder, Daley, Cummings, Golder, Johnson Nays (5) - Booth, Hoffman, Romanowski, Blanchard, Peterson Mayor Nichols Voted Nay, breaking the tie. Motion Fails PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: * 17.3 CitV of Ithaca Municipal Pool - Exemption from Zoning Ordinance Area Requirements By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder WHEREAS, a plan for a proposed City of Ithaca Municipal Pool has been prepared and approved by the Client Committee and by the Planning and Development Board; and WHEREAS, Common Council budget ebaseddonhthese drawings; and s and approved a construction WHEREAS, certain factors in the plan do not conform with the area requirements °a the front yard Ordinance, requiremengs; the and parking requirements an WHEREAS, pursuant to New York law as stated by the New York Court of Appeals in the case of Matter of Monroe County and its progeny, it is the responsibility of Common Council to determine whether it must follow its own zoning regulations to balance the public interests of a municipal project with the public interests of local land use regulations; and WHEREAS, Council has balanced the following factors with regard to the City of Ithaca Municipal Pool: 1. Parking: a. The mini pool has operated on the subject site since 1968 and has not caused parking problems for the neighborhood. b. Most of the users of the City of Ithaca Municipal Pool will be neighborhood residents and, therefore, very few users of the pool will drive to the site. C. Construction of additional parking at the site would require the paving of existing green space which is an important recreational asset for the neighborhood. 4 �i ��s COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. September 4, 1991 PRESENT: Mayor Nichols Alderpersons (10) - Booth, Johnson, Golder, Hoffman, Peterson, Daley, Cummings, Blanchard, Romanowski, Schroeder OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk - Paolangeli City Controller - Cafferillo Deputy City Controller - Thayer Planning and Development Director - VanCort Police Chief - McEwen Youth Bureau Director - Cohen Personnel Administrator - Saul Fire Chief - Olmstead (o Acting Building Commissioner - Eckstrom City Attorney - Guttman —� Acting Superintendent of Public Works - Gray County Board of Representatives - Lerner Q PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nichols led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. MINUTES• Approval of Minutes of the August 7, 1991 Common Council Meeting By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the August 7, 1991 Common Council meeting be approved as published, with the wording of the Resolved (40000, Clause on page 6 (Item 15.2 - Location of New Street - Main Motion as Amended) to be clarified. Carried Unanimously ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: New Business Alderperson Peterson referred to the Item under New Business, Appeal to Common Council Regarding Denial of the Vacancy Committee to Fill a Youth Worker Position (Teen Program- GIAC). She reported that the matter has been resolved within the Vacancy Committee and the position will be filled; therefore the item is withdrawn from the agenda. MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS: Re- apportionment Committee Mayor Nichols requested approval of Council for the appointment of the following persons to the Re- apportionment Committee: Ray Schlather - Ward 1 - 201 Sunrise Road Bill Myers - Ward 2 - 313 Hudson Street Ann Clavel - Ward 3 - 109 Cornell Street John Marcham - Ward 4 - 414 East Buffalo Street Frank Moore - Ward 5 - 116 Dearborn Place Tony Poole - Ward 5 - 107 West Jay Street (400'el Jean Cookingham - Ward 2 - 119 East Buffalo Street Keith McNeil - Ward 1 - 139 Oakwood Lane Cassandra Nelson - Ward 2 - 502 South Albany Street Resolution By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment of the above - named persons to the Re- apportionment Committee. Carried Unanimously 1 _1Hb September 4, 1991 PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: City Budget Guy Gerard spoke to Council regarding the attrition policy that Council put in place to help close the budget gap. He asked Council to consider putting a cap on the number of employees each department might lose. GIAC P001 Guy VanBenschoten, 602 North Cayuga Street, spoke to Council and outlined his reasons for not supporting the resolution regarding the GIAC Pool. He urged Council not to pass this resolution. Save Our Strand Paul Sayvetz, 201 Elm Street, representing "Save Our Strand ", extended an invitation to Council members and the public to attend a public forum which will include a representative from the League of Historic American Theatres on September 9th at 7:30 p.m. in the second floor Conference Room of City Hall. RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC: GIAC POOL Mayor Nichols stated that what is being proposed is a neighborhood poolit ismayneighboorho d pool that may be e beused by all members programs memberrsof but the community. Alderperson Romanowski stressed the importance of the understanding that the proposed pool will be a municipal pool that will be serving a neighborhood. REPORT OF BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES: Mr. Eric Lerner, 1st Ward Rep. of the City updated Council on the following items: 1992 Budget Cycle - The County is entering the first phase of the 1992 budget cycle. They are going to have to respond to the rather painful State budget cuts as well as growing expenses that for the County come directly from the recession. The County is hoping to avoid lay -offs but at this point it is not clear if they will be able to do that. Off -Track Bettinq - The Board has approved going forward with Off - Track Betting in Tompkins County, which would hopefully generate some revenue for the County. It will be subject to a permissive referendum at the next general election if a sufficient number of signatures are gathered within the next 45 days. Bus Garage - The cooperative City, County, Cornell bus garage project has been moving forward and is about ready to go out for bid. Job Training the Job Training Program.rThe 1Board may some havectop problems with re- think the entire program. Local Unit Pricing Legislation - The Board is taking a serious look at local unit pricing legislation so the consumer can tell the price of the things they are buying in a reliable way. Local Law C, Gay and Lesbian Fair Practice Ordinance - There is a group working obably revised version of the Fair Practices back before the Board before the nd of the and it probably year. 2