HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2001-05-02
1
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 7:00 May 2, 2001
PRESENT:
Mayor Cohen
Alderpersons (10) Pryor, Sams, Blumenthal, Glasstetter, Manos,
Farrell, Vaughan, Spielho1z, Taylor, Hershey
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney - Schwab
City Controller – Cafferillo
Deputy Controller – Thayer
Planning and Development Director – Van Cort
Deputy Director of Planning and Development – Cornish
Economic Development Director - McDonald
Superintendent of Public Works – Gray
Human Resources Director – Michell-Nunn
Manager of Operations and Maintenance, TCAT - Oltz
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Cohen led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
American flag.
YOUTH AWARD:
Alderpersons Hershey and Taylor presented the May 2001
Distinguished Youth Award to members of the Tompkins County 4-H
Fair Board, for conceiving, developing, administrating the Duck
Race on Cascadilla Creek. This was an extraordinary event that
raised funds for the annual Tompkins County 4-H Fair and brought
hundreds of area residents to Ithaca’s second and fifth wards on
Sunday, April 22, 2001. The fair, itself, which will be held
July 26 – 28, 2001 will showcase the projects and achievements
of 4-H members throughout the county. Thanks to members of the
fair committee, the fund raising event was itself an exhibit of
the outstanding work the youth of our community can accomplish.
Working with the County Cooperative Extension office, the 4-
H’ers sold twenty-three corporate sponsorships and carried out
most of the arrangements for the event that attracted more than
eleven hundred participants, and grossed more than $5,000 which
will pay for all the expenses for their fair.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Human Resources Committee
Alderperson Manos requested the addition of Item 19.3 -
Possible Motion to Enter into Executive Session to Discuss
Pending Litigation and Possible Resolution.
Planning Committee
Alderperson Farrell requested the deletion of Item 17.5 A, B,
and C which all relate to zoning changes in the Southwest area.
She stated that further clarification is needed on comments made
by the Planning Board.
May 2, 2001
2
Mayor Cohen requested the addition of the Mayor’s Communications
on downtown traffic circulation.
B & A – Item 20.10 substitute resolution
MAYOR’S PROCLAMATIONS:
Mayor Cohen proclaimed the month of May to be Mental Health
Month.
Mayor Cohen proclaimed May 5, 2001 as Suicide Survivor’s Day and
the week of May 5-12, 2001 as Suicide Prevention Week.
Mayor Cohen proclaimed May as National Drug Court month.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
5.1 Designation of 2001 City of Ithaca Polling Locations
By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Sams
RESOLVED, That the following locations be designated as City of
Ithaca polling locations for the year 2001:
FIRST WARD
1st District Alternative Community School Chestnut Street
2nd District Alternative Community School Chestnut Street
3rd District Titus Towers I 800 S. Plain St
4th District South Hill School 520 Hudson St
5th District South Hill School 520 Hudson St
SECOND WARD
1st District GIAC 300 W. Court St
2nd District GIAC 300 W. Court St
3rd District Central Fire Station 310 W. Green St
4th District Central Fire Station 310 W. Green St
THIRD WARD
1st District Robert Purcell Union Jessup Road
2nd District Belle Sherman Annex Cornell St
3rd District Belle Sherman Annex Cornell St
FOURTH WARD
1st District Class of '22 Hall 659 Stewart Ave
2nd District #9 Fire Station 309 College Ave
3rd District #9 Fire Station 309 College Ave
FIFTH WARD
1st District Fall Creek School 202 King St
2nd District Fall Creek School 202 King St
3rd District Robert Purcell Union Jessup Rd
4th District Fall Creek School 202 King St
Carried Unanimously
5.2 Annual Appointment to the Tompkins County Board of Assessment
Review
By Alderperson Manos: Seconded by Alderperson Farrell
RESOLVED: That Mayor Cohen and Alderperson Sams be appointed to
the Tompkins County Board of Review.
Carried Unanimously
May 2, 2001
3
5.3 A Public Hearing to Consider a Proposed Amendment to the
FY 1998 Community Development Block Grant Program
Resolution to Open Hearing
By Alderperson Hershey, Seconded by Alderperson Manos
RESOLVED that the Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the
funding year 1998 Community Development Block Grant Program be
declared open.
Carried Unanimously
No one from the public appeared to provide comment.
Resolution to Close Hearing
By Alderperson Hershey: Seconded by Alderperson Manos
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the Adoption of the
funding year 1998 Community Development Block Grant Program be
declared closed.
Carried Unanimously
5.4 A Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Amend Chapter
325 Entitled” Zoning” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
Regarding Minor and Non-Substantive Changes to the Zoning
Ordinance
Resolution to Open Hearing:
By Alderperson Hershey: Seconded by Alderperson Sams
RESOLVED, That the Public hearing to consider the adoption of the
“Minor and Non-Substantive Changes” to the Zoning ordinance be
declared open.
Carried Unanimously
There was no discussion
Resolution to Close Hearing
By Alderperson Spielholz: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the adoption of the
“Minor and Non-Substantive Changed” to the Zoning ordinance be
declared closed.
Carried Unanimously
Alderperson Pryor arrived at the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
5.5 A Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Amend Chapter
325 Entitled “Zoning” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code to
Change the Zoning Designations of Certain Areas and Establish
District Regulations
Resolution to Open Hearing:
By Alderperson Hershey:
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the adoption of an
Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 Entitled “Zoning” of the City of
Ithaca Municipal Code to Change the Zoning Designations of Certain
Areas and Establish District Regulations be declared open
The following people addressed comments to Common Council
regarding the proposed zoning changes:
May 2, 2001
4
Scott Whitham – City of Ithaca, Chair of the City Planning and
Development Board thanked Alderperson Farrell, Council and the
Mayor for tabling legislation to allow further discussion and
recommendations by the Planning Board.
Steven Ehrhardt, City of Ithaca, Vice-Chair of the City Planning
and Development Board expressed his support for re-zoning in the
South West area and asked that the following three items be
considered during the process review: First, to clarify for the
Planning and Development Board the process by which overall
development of retail and office space in the south west area,
Elmira Road corridor is to be kept within the million square foot
limit assumed by the GEIS. This is important because the scope of
development should not exceed the GEIS stated limits on the
community’s capacity to gracefully absorb such development and
mitigate any negative impacts. Second, clarify for the Planning
and Development Board the process you have in mind for which the
Board is to go about planning the physical layout of this area
with respect to siting buildings, roads, and public spaces among
other things and whether you would support in principle allocating
reasonable funds for the Board should we require outside
assistance to do this. Thirdly, clarify for the Planning and
Development Board the process by which the Board is to coordinate
our approval of individual development projects with mitigation
efforts that neither the direct nor the full responsibility of the
developer and if no such process exists to reiterate Council’s
commitment to follow through on mitigation efforts. In short,
there is no guarantee of timely and sufficient mitigation other
than the political will of the Mayor and Common Council to pursue
the policy of providing it. The Planning Board knows that you’re
committed to a policy of adequate and timely mitigation, it will
be much easier for the Planning Board to do their job with
confidence that the overall result will be positive for the
citizens of Ithaca.
Phil Zhad, Town of Danby, expressed his concern about hydrological
data/impacts.
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, stated that the long environmental
assessment form has inconsistencies.
Joel Harlan, Town of Dryden, supports development in SW area.
Neil Oolie, City of Ithaca, spoke in regards to storm water
drainage concerns/developer mitigation fees.
Gary Jaynes, City of Ithaca, spoke in regards to safety concerns
for West End traffic.
Joe Wetmore, Town of Ithaca, requests that public hearings not be
closed, but after discussion of Planning Board’s comments give the
public another chance to speak.
Resolution to Close Hearing
By Alderperson Hershey: Seconded by Alderperson
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the adoption of an
Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 Entitled “Zoning” of the City of
May 2, 2001
5
Ithaca Municipal Code to Change the Zoning Designations of Certain
Areas and Establish District Regulations be declared closed.
Carried Unanimously
MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS:
Youth Bureau Advisory Board
By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Spielholz
RESOLVED, That David Delchamps be appointed to the Tompkins
County Youth Bureau Advisory Board.
Carried Unanimously
COMMUNICATIONS:
City Clerk Holcomb read one communication from Broome
County/Triple Cities Economic Development zone. They are
requesting that Common Council hold a public hearing regarding the
business re-location of FBM/BMX Incorporated from Ithaca to
downtown Johnson City. New York State Law requires a municipality
to approve a business re-location when the business plans to move
from outside of an Empire Zone to a location within the Empire
Zone without the approval from Ithaca FBM/BMX would not be
eligible for the benefits associated with the Empire Zone. City
Clerk Holcomb has been in contact with them and wanted to bring it
to your attention. She will be requesting that Mayor Cohen put it
on the Economic Development Committee agenda so that they have an
opportunity to explain their situation to council and the need for
a public hearing June 6, 2001 meeting exists at which time a
resolution will be presented. Any questions should be directed to
City Clerk Holcomb.
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
Bill Seldin, Town of Ithaca, Co-President of GIAC, stated that
GIAC is in desperate need of renovations and that the Thomas
Associates has presented a proposal to perform an evaluation on
the facility’s needs. He would like to see GIAC acknowledged as
a provider of exceptional youth services to the community and
not be combined into a city-wide facilities renovations plan.
The proposal to renovate Common Council Chambers should be not
be a higher priority than making the GIAC building safe for
Ithaca youth.
Frances Weissman, East Hill resident, speaks here tonight on two
issues that will be considered tonight. The issues that I
usually come and talk about are those that preserve and enhance
the quality of life in our neighborhoods. The first one I want
to speak about is the proposed zoning changes on East Hill. I
am particularly interested in the down zoning of Linden Avenue
which is a street just west of the street that I live on. I
think this measure can be an important first step in encouraging
owner occupancy and owner occupancy, I’m sure we agree, I’ve
heard Council Members say is a desirable goal and a condition
which is usually a very positive one in residential neighborhood
areas and one that the City has stated is a goal it’s trying to
foster. I would also like to say that I can’t see any problems
with this, any unfairness in changing the zoning, because my
understanding is that a property has to be utilized in the new
zoning charge for a year before the change actually become
effective. It will be something that if you allow the community
May 2, 2001
6
in the long run will decide and so I urge you to support that.
The second thing I want to say is that I am in favor of the
proposed changes to the new Exterior Property Maintenance Law.
Having sat on that committee for little more than a year that it
was in session, I know how arduous a task it was to write an
ordinance which reflects the current reality in the City and
with the measures that will be something that can used
effectively. The controversy that I’m aware of and that is the
fine structure and I’d like to say that the procedure of the
building department really makes that a fair proposal. Anyone
who is noted by the building department as having a violation on
their property gets a letter and period of time in which to make
amends before any fine is even considered. That can happen
numerable times. A property owner is notified, has a chance to
make amends, I don’t see that as an unfair proposal and so I
urge you to support this as well.
Harriet Becker, to speak about the Ithaca Children’s Garden.
She is one of the co-founders and I’m on their Board of
Directors and they’ve been working on this project for about
three years now. We’ve been working with the City on trying to
obtain a site for our community park and we’ve worked with
numerous community groups, school kids and we’ve gotten all
their input on what they’d like to see put in the garden and we
gave all our ideas to Rick Manning, our landscape architect.
Council should have a copy of the draft of what the garden could
look like. We’re going to go from there, we’re open more
opinions/suggestions. We’ve been working with the City on
getting this site and the planning committee passed a resolution
on it last week and we’re hoping that you will follow through on
it to give us the lease. We look forward to working there.
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, several points tonight. 1) I’m
very concerned about the assaults that happened last night. I
predict that that will continue and it’s going to get worse in
the City until we really tackle the problems that we face here.
2) Economics Committee that was separated from the Planning and
Development. I’m appalled Mayor Cohen at what you did. I’m
also appalled at the fact there are no cameras at that meeting,
there is no public speaking at that meeting. It’s not on the
agenda, is that correct. Is that correct Julie? It’s never on
the agenda – public comment at that meeting. That’s the
problem, you don’t want to respond and we’ll get to that point
in a second. That committee is not televised that committee
makes very important decisions, that committee needs public
input. Not only do I agree with Susan Blumenthal, I’m appalled
that no one else on Council has said anything about this. This
is a community that values democracy, this is a community that
values public hearing and public input. My third point is this,
In the ‘Daily Sun” that I read recently, it said Cohen returned
from 4th visit to the Ithaca sister city in the Ukraine. She
read part of that article to the all.
Joel Harlan, if you listen to these communists, you have nothing
to say.
Dick Booth, lives on Mitchell Street, I would like to comment on
the implications of your decision regarding Rick Eckstrom. I’ve
waited until now until the time for your filing of an appeal had
May 2, 2001
7
passed because I felt that was appropriate. I’ve sat here at
Common Council for ten years as a representative of the third
ward. I know you make difficult choices. I know that many of
the most difficult choices are the personnel choices. In the
years since I left Common Council I have made a conscious
decision to stay out of your hair. I have avoided criticizing
you in public and I’ve avoided applauding you in public at
various times. The Eckstrom case raises a number of serious
implications that I think that require comment and you deserve
the severe criticism of the City of Ithaca. At the outset, let
me make two points very clear, one I strongly condemn any
decision made on the basis of a public official on a racially
motivated basis. I don’t believe Rick Eckstrom acted on the
basis in this case, the hearing officer made clear that his
decision was not based on those allegations and I believe that
your decision ultimately was not based on those allegations.
Secondly, I strongly favor council oversight of major city
administrative heads and other employees. This is not a
statement in favor of advocation of strong over sight by Common
Council of those that carry on the City policy. My comments
break into three parts, first, regarding Rick Eckstrom, he was
Building Commissioner for much of the time that I was on Common
Council. My assessment of him was that he was straightforward,
honest, hardworking and above all fair. I didn’t always agree
with Rick, in fact, I quite often substantially criticized his
administration of various decisions particularly in terms of
resources. It was never of any question that he was a valuable,
hardworking, city employee who had a very hard job and who did
it well and was aware of the ambiguities and difficulties of
applying overlapping city codes and to try to do so to the best
of his ability. Secondly, regarding your decision respecting
Rick Eckstrom, you participated in and made a very unfair and
illogical decision. You badly hurt a valuable, highly capable
city employee on baseless grounds. I’ve read the hearing
officer’s 99 page decision and I will admit that you were badly
served by a person that should have been more capable in
exercising his responsibility. The decision is illogical, it’s
wandering, it is highly speculative and over and over again it
makes clear that the codes that Rick Eckstrom applied were open
to a number of interpretations and he chose reasonable
interpretations and yet the hearing officer recommended
termination of this gentleman.
Dan Hoffman, resident of Giles Street in the City, I am speaking
to you tonight as Chairperson of the Natural Areas Commission.
You have on your agenda a vote on approval of the proposed
master plan for the southwest natural area. I think you all
know that the Natural Areas Commission spent quite a bit of time
analyzing the proposed master plan and crafting comments and
recommendations. Those comments which were pretty lengthy were
submitted in a timely fashion, not only that, representatives of
the NAC attended meetings of both the planning board and the
planning committee to discuss those comments. The Commission is
very happy that the City is putting together a master plan, we
think that is the right direction. However, we did have several
things that we thought could be improved in the master plan and
we made over a dozen substantive recommendations, we understood,
particularly from our attendance at the planning board meeting
that that group at least agreed with several of our
May 2, 2001
8
recommendations. I don’t know if you’ve received anything in
writing from the planning board or not, however member of the
NAC were very surprised to see that none of our recommendations
are mentioned or reflected in the resolution of approval which
appears on tonight’s agenda. It would appear to us that none of
our comments are being incorporated into the master plan,
instead it is being approved as it was submitted in September of
2000. We hope that you have read our comments and would be
interested in hearing the reasons that none of those concerns
are reflected or added to the original proposed master plan. We
think that the plan could be approved by making certain changes
in it.
RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC:
Alderperson Pryor, in response to Mr. Hoffman’s petition.
Council has on the table tonight a revised resolution which does
incorporate some of the changes that had been recommended and
there will be another change included with that. Wanted to
thank Mr. Hoffman for his comments.
City Clerk Holcomb wanted to clarify for your purposes what she
explained to Ms. Gougakis on the phone when she expressed
concerns regarding the lack of public speaking session on the
Economic Development Committee agenda. I explained to her the
open meeting law provides that the public has to have the
opportunity to witness its government in action. However, we
are not required to let people speak. They have to be able to
witness it. A number of committees do allow public speaking on
their agenda but that is absolutely the option of the
chairperson of that committee. Mayor Cohen added that public
speaking is allowed at the Economic and Development Committee
meeting. The one meeting that Fay went to, it was not included
on the agenda itself and that’s where her conception comes from.
It is allowed and the public should be aware of that. As to the
question of televising these meetings, we’re constrained at
present by our current franchise agreement with Time Warner and
can only televise four out of our six meetings. We have other
meetings that are also not televised and we would like to see
them televised and we’re working on that at present in our
current franchise negotiations.
Alderperson Farrell wanted to concur with Alderperson Pryor and
to say that they got the recommendations quite late from the
Planning Board because they had to meet later than usual this
month.
Mayor Cohen wanted to make a general comment, Mr. Hoffman’s
comments are interesting and I think it raises questions as to
how we actually go forth and develop some of these plans. He
was impressed by the diversity of the people on that Natural
Area Plan, it included representatives from the Natural Areas
Commission and I’m not sure if the Planning Board was
represented, it was. We try to bring forth a balanced approach,
then we send forth for additional comments to these other boards
after we gone through a consensus driven process. It’s an
interesting way that we do this and I’m not sure if we’re
undermining that consensus driven process after we’ve gone to
May 2, 2001
9
that effort to bring different points of view to the table. It’s
something I think we should think about and look at in the
future the next time we put another committee together.
REPORT OF CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES:
None
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMON COUNCIL:
None
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR:
Mayor Cohen reported briefly on one of the trips he took
recently. Prior to his trip he had the opportunity to
participate in something called “The Mayor’s Institute on City
Design.” It’s a bi-monthly seminar that’s held for mayors
across the country. They bring eight mayor and eight design
professionals together from various design disciplines. Each
mayor presents a particular design question or scenario. It’s
critiqued by the design professionals and the other mayors in
the sessions give input. You not only benefit from the critique
of your own plan, but from listening to the critiques of the
other seven proposals as well. He presented the Cayuga Green
project and he got back many interesting comments. He shared a
few right now, he will be getting an audiotape of the entire
seminar and he’ll provide members of Common Council with a copy
of that. Some written materials may also be provided as well.
The understanding that the design professions were looking at
this completely objectively because they’re not from this
community, they made some interesting comments. For example,
the Green Street garage, they said to get rid of it. I informed
them that we had some resource constraints in that regard. They
were very interested in the kind of activity of the site to the
Ithaca Commons and talked a little about that. There were
concerns of the scale and massing of the project on the site.
How it relates to the library and also its relationship to the
creek. One of the interesting comments we heard about the creek
was an idea of eliminating the straight wall on the library side
and actually terracing back the that creek wall so that the end
result would be a wall that is just as high as it is now but the
vista to the creek would be opened up and we could actually
create a new public space for people to hang out in downtown.
Another idea was the possibility of a little farther downstream
putting in a damn to raise the water level in this certain area
of the creek in the downtown area to make it a nicer amenity and
that could be utilized during low water times of the year.
There are issues of course with the DEC on that particular idea,
but I’m still relating it to you. Pedestrian transportation
issues were discussed, they were all very vociferous about
eliminating our one way streets to the greatest extent possible
and coincidentally we do have a presentation on two of those one
way streets, Cayuga and Aurora Streets. That’s part of the
downtown circulation plan so we’ll be hearing more about that in
a little while. All the information will be shared with Council.
Mayor Cohen stated that he came back with a lot more confidence
May 2, 2001
10
about the direction the City is going and he also came back with
some insights as to how we need to look at this project from
different perspectives. All in all, they were very positive
about the project, they thought it would a very good addition to
our downtown if it was done appropriately so to speak. He looks
forward to sharing further information with you when he gets it
from the institute. Mayors from Rome, NY, Masa AZ, Lakewood CO,
Indianapolis and Carmel, Indiana; Birmingham, AL, and Monroe,
MI. The city’s ranged in size from 20,000 upwards to 900,000. It
was an interesting group. The Mayor of Masa, AZ almost didn’t
go. This institute is funded by the National Endowment for the
Arts. People had some very interesting outlooks about the
National Endowment and they don’t realize that they fund many
different types of arts and design-related activity. He was
cajoled by some fellow mayors to go and he didn’t regret it. He
was very excited and he said he would go back and talk to his
other colleagues that might be hesitant to do this as well.
Mayor Cohen will urge whoever is the next Mayor of Ithaca to
attend this institute as well. It’s something any mayor of any
city should try to take advantage of.
MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS:
Youth Bureau Advisory Board
By Alderperson Pryor, Seconded by: Alderperson Spielholz
RESOLVED, That David DelChamps be re-appointed to the County
Youth Advisory Board.
Carried Unanimously
REPORT OF THE CITY CLERK:
No report
REPORT OF THE CITY CONTROLLER:
No report
May 2, 2001
11
CONSENT AGENDA:
16.1 Human Resources - Request to Designate Managerial Position
By Alderperson Manos, Seconded by: Alderperson Glasstetter
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby designates the position of
Safety and Health Coordinator to the Managerial Compensation
plan, salary grade 2.
Carried Unanimously
PLANNING COMMITTEE:
17.1 An Ordinance Amending Section 325 of the Municipal Code
Regarding Exterior Property Maintenance - Call for Public
Hearing
By Alderperson Farrell: Seconded by Alderperson Pryor
RESOLVED, That Common Council shall hold a public hearing in the
matter of the adoption of AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTIONS 325-
23B(2), 325-23B(3), 325-23B(4), AND 325-23C FROM CHAPTER 325,
ENTITLED “ZONING,” ADDING CHAPTER 197, ENTITLED “EXTERIOR
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE,” ADDING SECTION 325-29.2, ENTITLED
“DUMPSTERS” AND AMENDING SECTIONS 325-15D AND 325-46C OF CHAPTER
325, ENTITLED “ZONING,” AMENDING SECTION 1-1B OF ARTICLE 1,
ENTITLED “PENALTIES,” SECTIONS 276-7A(2) AND 276-7A(12) OF
CHAPTER 276, ENTITLED “SITE PLAN REVIEW,” THE TITLE TO CHAPTER
196 AND SECTIONS 196-1, 196-2A, 196-3B, 196-3C(1), 196-3D, 196-
3F, 196-4, 196-5, 196-7, AND 196-8 OF CHAPTER 196, ENTITLED
“GARBAGE, RUBBISH AND REFUSE,” OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO GARBAGE, RECYCLING, EXTERIOR PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND YARD SALES, in the Common
Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, in the City
of Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 6, 2001,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall 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. This 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
Tompkins County Planning Board and to the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board true and exact copies of the
proposed zoning ordinance for their reports thereon.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that a comprehensive review of the
legislation was conducted by the committee, and the proposed
revisions to the ordinance are a result of that review. There
are a number of new provisions that will significantly
strengthen the ordinance related to the designation of an agent
for out-of-town landlords. There is a new penalty structure,
fee schedule, and civil penalties have been added. There are
new provisions related to dumpsters and appropriate screening.
Included in the legislation is the addition of regulation of
garage sales and new construction. The criteria for the
handling of solid waste has been discussed extensively as it
pertains to the fee structure, and using closed containers at
the curb instead of plastic bags.
May 2, 2001
12
Alderperson Hershey noted that there was a 3-2 vote in the
Planning Committee to change the recommendation for closed
containers, and to stay with the plastic bags. He explained the
numerous problems being experienced throughout the City from
animals and vermin strewing garbage from plastic bags around the
neighborhoods. He spoke in support of closed containers and
addressed cost concerns, as well as concerns raised relating to
physically challenged people and senior citizens regarding the
weight of lidded trash cans.
Amending Resolution
By Alderperson Hershey: Seconded by Alderperson Blumenthal
RESOLVED, that the section 197.3B be amended to read as
follows:
“B. [(2)] That all garbage, when stored outside is completely
contained in nonabsorbent, watertight, durable containers having
a tight-fitting lid in place. Plastic bags are not considered
durable containers. All property owners shall be responsible for
providing their tenants with such containers, and the containers
shall be sufficient in size and number to assure all garbage is
completely contained within such containers. Garbage containers
shall not be stored in front yards or any other yards that have
frontage on a public street unless all yards on the property
have frontage on public streets. Composting materials, so long
as they are maintained as defined by this section, shall not be
considered garbage.”
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the
difficulty this language would cause to the large population of
elderly and physically disabled people in the community who may
have to navigate stairs and other obstacles when taking their
garbage to the curb.
Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the removal
of choice for residents as to how they set out their trash, bags
or cans, and where they can take their trash, curbside or and
approved refuse disposal site.
Alderpersons Pryor, Taylor, Sams and Farrell voiced their
opposition to the Amending Resolution.
Alderperson Spielholz stated that she lives in a neighborhood
where 99% of the residents are students that are not always sure
what days and weeks to take out their trash and recycling. In
some neighborhoods, nuisance wildlife and vermin are an
important issue.
Alderperson Glasstetter stated that the primary issue one of
enforcement. He stated that he fully supports the increase in
fines and increasing the enforcement.
A vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (3) Blumenthal, Hershey, Spielholz
Nays (7) Pryor, Manos, Farrell, Sams, Vaughan,
Glasstetter, Taylor
Fails
May 2, 2001
13
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Blumenthal: Seconded by Alderperson Farrell
RESOLVED, That the Chapter number for the new Exterior Property
Maintenance Chapter be changed from 197 to 178, and that the
references to Sections in Chapter 197 be changed to Chapter 178.
Carried Unanimously
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Glasstetter: Seconded by Alderperson Manos
RESOLVED, That Section 3 of the Proposed Ordinance, Section 325-
29.2 Dumpsters, subsection C(3) be amended to read as follows:
(3) A dumpster in the R-1 and R-2 zoning district can serve
only the property on which it is located and can serve only one
property. Responsibility for the dumpster exists with the
property owner where the dumpster exists.
Alderperson Glasstetter stated that he felt the City should take
advantage of opportunities to consolidate, and have one dumpster
serve two or more separate tax parcels, which are owned by the
same individual or company. He stated that it makes sense in
the R3 and possibly the RU zones to have an exemption in
allowing multiple property use for an individual dumpster.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the use,
placement, screening, and enforcement issues pertaining to
dumpsters.
A vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (1) Glasstetter
Nays (9) Pryor, Manos, Sams, Farrell, Vaughan,
Blumenthal, Spielholz, Taylor, Hershey
Fails
Main Motion
A vote on the Main Motion as Amended, to Call for a Public
Hearing on the Proposed Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance
resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
The proposed legislation reads as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. _________, 2001
AN ORDINANCE DELETING SECTIONS 325-23B(2), 325-23B(3), 325-
23B(4), AND 325-23C FROM CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING,” ADDING
CHAPTER 178, ENTITLED “EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE,” ADDING
SECTION 325-29.2, ENTITLED “DUMPSTERS” AND AMENDING SECTIONS
325-15D AND 325-46C OF CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING,” AMENDING
SECTION 1-1B OF ARTICLE 1, ENTITLED “PENALTIES,” SECTIONS 276-
7A(2) AND 276-7A(12) OF CHAPTER 276, ENTITLED “SITE PLAN
REVIEW,” THE TITLE TO CHAPTER 196 AND SECTIONS 196-1, 196-2A,
196-3B, 196-3D, 196-3F, 196-4, 196-5, AND 196-8 OF CHAPTER 196,
ENTITLED “GARBAGE, RUBBISH AND REFUSE,” OF THE CITY OF ITHACA
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GARBAGE, RECYCLING, EXTERIOR PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND YARD SALES.
May 2, 2001
14
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca wishes to
provide a minimum standard for the maintenance of the exterior
grounds and visible facades of all properties within the City,
and help provide stable and inviting neighborhoods and business
and commercial districts, and
WHEREAS, the City has received numerous complaints about
garbage and sanitary conditions, and wishes to prevent
conditions that attract rats, insects and other vermin, promote
public health and safety by prohibiting certain deficiencies in
exterior property maintenance which create or contribute to
unhealthy or hazardous conditions, and prevent deficiencies that
could become an attractive nuisance with regard to children,
trespassers or household pets; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to protect property investment and
the tax base by maintaining and enhancing the quality of life in
City neighborhoods, preserving the aesthetic character of
residential neighborhoods, and ensuring attractive commercial
districts;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common
Council of the City of Ithaca, New York as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-23B(2), entitled
“Exterior property maintenance,” Sections 325-23B(3)-(4) and
Section 325-23C are hereby deleted in their entirety from
Chapter 325 and the entire text is inserted in its entirety in
new Chapter 178, entitled “Exterior Property Maintenance,” with
the following amendments:
Chapter 178, EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
§ 178-1. [325-23B(2)(a)] Declaration of purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter [subsection] is to provide a
minimum standard for the maintenance of the exterior grounds and
visible facades of all properties within the city. This Chapter
[subsection] is intended to help provide stable and inviting
neighborhoods and business and commercial districts and to
promote public health and safety by prohibiting certain
deficiencies in exterior property maintenance which create or
contribute to unhealthy or hazardous conditions. This Chapter
[subsection] is also intended to ensure that property owners or
their delegated agents perform such repair and maintenance of
properties as will prevent deficiencies that could become an
attractive nuisance with regard to children, trespassers or
household pets or that may attract insect or animal pests. The
adoption and enforcement of this Chapter [subsection] is
intended to serve as a deterrence to substandard exterior
property maintenance and as a tool for protecting property
investment, the tax base and the health, safety and welfare of
all city residents.
§ 178-2. [325-23B(2)(b)] Definitions.
For the purposes of this Chapter [subsection], the
following definitions shall apply:
May 2, 2001
15
BULK ITEMS – Large items and materials, including furniture
(other than aluminum and plastic yard furniture), house
furnishings and large appliances, such as refrigerators, stoves,
washing machines and clothes dryers.
COLLECTIBLE YARD WASTES – Grass, leaves, brush, and other
plant wastes and soil materials from gardens, lawns and yards,
prepared for collection in conformance with city requirements.
DUMPSTER – A bulk storage container for garbage, recyclable
materials and other solid waste that can be hauled directly to
the point of disposal or emptied into a compactor-type truck for
disposal.
GARBAGE –
A. Discarded materials generated from the activities
of a household, business, institution, or public or quasi-
public facility, consisting of
(1) Food wastes, including but not limited to kitchen
and table scraps, decaying or spoiled vegetable, fruit and
animal matter, and fallen fruit.
(2) Any other used or discarded waste materials such
as paper, plastic, metal, rags, food wrappings and containers,
sweepings, rubber, leather, cloth, clothing, waste materials
from normal maintenance and repair activities, pasteboard,
crockery, shells, dirt, ashes, wood, and glass.
B. “Garbage” does not include properly prepared and
stored recyclable materials or collectible yard wastes, properly
stored and maintained composting materials, rubble, bulk items,
industrial waste, hazardous materials, automobile or other motor
vehicle tires, or any other material that the City or private
waste hauler has specified will not be picked up curbside at a
property as part of the regular collection.
[Food wastes, food wrappers, containers, non-
recyclables or other materials resulting from the use,
consumption and preparation of food or drink, as well as other
expended, used or discarded materials, such as paper, plastic,
metal, rags or glass, etc., or any other wastes generated from
the day-to-day activities of a household, business or public or
quasi-public facility. The term “garbage” does not include
properly prepared and stored recyclable materials or properly
maintained compost areas.]
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – means, without regards to amount
and/or concentration, petroleum, petroleum distillates or
products, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos,
formaldehyde, radioactive materials, and any substances which
are defined as (or otherwise included in the definition of)
“hazardous substances,” “hazardous materials,” “hazardous
wastes,” “toxic substances,” “toxic pollutants,” “pollutants,”
or “contaminants” under any federal or New York State law,
statute, rule, regulation, or code.
May 2, 2001
16
INDUSTRIAL WASTE – Any substance resulting from any process
of industry or manufacturing, including but not limited to
chemical waste, sludge from air or water treatment facilities,
and incinerator residue.
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS OR RECYCLABLES – Materials that are
defined as recyclable materials or recyclables pursuant to
Tompkins County laws, rules or regulations, have not become
contaminated through household or other use, and are fit for
recycling.
REFUSE – Garbage, recyclable materials and collectible yard
wastes resulting from the normal day-to-day operation of a
household, business, institution or a public or quasi-public
facility. Refuse does not include properly stored and
maintained composting materials, rubble, bulk items, industrial
waste, hazardous materials, automobile or other motor vehicle
tires, or any other material that the City or private waste
hauler has specified will not be picked up curbside at a
property as part of the regular collection.
ROOF – The outer cover and its supporting structures on top
of a porch or building.
RUBBLE – Waste material typically resulting from
construction, demolition and major renovation activities,
including but not limited to waste cement, concrete, masonry,
bricks, tiles, sheetrock, plaster, shingles, lumber, telephone
poles, railroad ties, wooden pallets, doors and door frames,
windows and window frames and any similar material.
SOLID WASTE – [Includes] Any materials or substances that
are discarded or rejected as being spent, worthless, useless or
in excess to the owners or users at the time of such discard or
rejection, including but not limited to [materials or substances
such as] garbage, refuse, industrial waste, [and commercial
wastes,] hazardous materials, [sludge from air or water
treatment facilities, rubbish,] tires, [ashes, incinerator
residue, construction and demolition debris,] rubble, discarded
motor vehicles, and discarded bulk items. [household and
commercial appliances and discarded furniture.] Notwithstanding
the foregoing, “solid waste” shall not include properly prepared
and stored recyclables or collectible yard wastes, or properly
stored and maintained composting materials. An object shall be
presumed to be discarded or rejected solid waste when the object
is stored, placed or left on the grounds or exterior of the
property in the view of neighbors or passersby under
circumstances which meet any of the following criteria:
(1) The object produces an offensive smell.
(2) The object is of a type designed for interior use or
made of materials which are suitable only for interior use and
the object is left outside and exposed to the weather
[precipitation].
(3) The object has reached a degree of dilapidation or
disrepair that can reasonably be presumed to render the material
May 2, 2001
17
unsuitable for or incapable of being used for its original
intended purpose or some other reasonable purpose.
(4) The object is left, placed or stored in a manner which
appears likely to cause injuries.
§ 178-3. [325-23B(2)(c)] Standards for grounds and exterior
property.
It shall be the duty and responsibility of all owners of
property in the City of Ithaca to ensure:
A. [(1)] text unchanged.
B. [(2)] That all garbage, when stored outside, is
completely contained in nonabsorbent, watertight, durable
containers having a tight fitting lid in place. Plastic bags
are not considered durable containers. Strong, waterproof
plastic bags may be used to place garbage at the curbside on the
evening before scheduled collections or may be taken to an
approved refuse disposal site. Garbage containers shall not be
stored in front yards, or any other yards that have frontage on
a public street unless all yards on the property have frontage
on public streets. Composting materials, so long as they are
maintained as defined by this section, shall not be considered
garbage.
C. [(3)] That solid waste, other than garbage stored in
proper containers and in the locations described above, and
other than recyclable materials stored in accordance with
Section 197-3K below, is not stored in the public view, except
that construction and demolition debris related to an ongoing
construction project with a valid building permit may be stored
in the public view for not more than 30 days. Rest of text
unchanged.
D. [(4)] That[, within all residential zoning districts]
no more than one unlicensed motor vehicle may be stored in the
public view in a side or a rear yard, and such storage shall be
in compliance with § 325-20. If there is no side or rear yard,
one unlicensed motor vehicle may be stored in the front yard in
compliance with § 325-20. However, this section shall not apply
to a motor vehicle which constitutes solid waste as defined in §
197-2 [§ 325-23B(2)(b)] above, nor shall it apply to licensed
car dealers in non-residential zoning districts.
E. [(5)] text unchanged.
F. [(6)] That the area along public rights-of-way adjacent
to or on the property, including but not limited to the area
between the front property line or sidewalk and the curb or
street pavement, is maintained in a reasonably clean and
sanitary condition free of garbage and/or solid waste, with any
grass, weeds and brush in said area cut or trimmed in compliance
with [§ 325-23B(2)(c)(5)] Section 178-3E above. Rest of text
unchanged.
G. [(7)] text unchanged.
May 2, 2001
18
H. [(8)] text unchanged.
I. [(I)] text unchanged.
J. [(10)] text unchanged.
K. That recycling containers and recyclable materials
shall not be stored in front yards, or any other yards that have
frontage on a public street unless all yards on the property
have frontage on public streets. If recyclable materials are
stored in plastic bags, such bags must be made of clear plastic.
Recyclable materials placed at curbside before a scheduled
collection may not be in plastic bags. This prohibition against
the use of plastic bags at curbside shall not apply to
collectible yard wastes as long as the provisions of Code
Section 196-3C(1) are met.
L. That all provisions regarding dumpsters set forth in
Code Section 325-29.2 are met.
§ 178-4. [325-23B(2)(d)] Standards for exterior structures.
It shall be the duty and responsibility of all owners of
property in the City of Ithaca to ensure:
A. [(1)] text unchanged.
B. [(2)] text unchanged.
C. [(3)] text unchanged.
D. That no furniture shall be permitted on any roof that
has not been specifically designed for occupancy and does not
have guardrails meeting the State Building Code requirements at
the time of construction. Roofs shall be kept free of solid
waste.
§178-5. [325-23B(2)(e)] Responsibilities of agents
delegated by property owners.
Property owners who do not reside in Tompkins County or one
of its contiguous counties must file an agency agreement with
the City Building Department designating an agent (i) to be
responsible for all of the responsibilities outlined in this
Chapter, and (ii) to accept service of process on behalf of the
property owner. Property owners residing within Tompkins County
or one of its contiguous counties may delegate the [The]
responsibilities outlined in this Chapter [§ 325-23B(2) may be
delegated] to an agent [by the property owner], so long as at
the time of any violation of this subsection, an agency
agreement is on file in the City Building Department. The
property owner and agent shall both be liable for violations of
this Chapter and the City may bring an enforcement action
against either the property owner or agent, or both. If a
property owner who does not reside in Tompkins County or one of
its contiguous counties fails to file an agency agreement with
the Building Department within sixty (60) days of the effective
May 2, 2001
19
date of this law, then the City Clerk shall be deemed to be the
owner’s agent for the limited purpose of accepting service of
process on behalf of the owner. All agency agreements shall be
in the form specified by the City Building Department and [which
contains] shall contain at a minimum the following information:
the identity of the owner and the agent, the owner’s and agent’s
addresses and current phone numbers, the property or properties
the agent is accepting responsibility for, the beginning and
ending date of the agreement, [the exact sections of this Code
assigned to the agent] and the signatures of both the property
owner and agent, along with each party’s date of birth. The
agent must be a resident of or maintain business in Tompkins
County. Post office boxes will not be accepted as addresses for
agents. The owner shall be responsible for informing the
Building Department in writing of changes to the owner’s and
agent’s addresses and telephone numbers that occur after the
owner files the agency agreement with the Building Department.
The property owner may not designate a residential tenant as the
agent pursuant to this section, except where such designation is
contained in an employment agreement between the property owner
and the tenant. The employment agreement shall not be contained
in the lease agreement between the property owner and the
tenant, and the tenant’s acceptance of designation as the agent
shall not be a condition of the lease agreement.
§ 178-6. New construction.
For new construction of multiple dwellings, commercial
buildings, and office buildings, facilities for the storage and
collection of solid waste and recyclable materials shall be
subject to and meet the requirements of Code Section 276-7A(12).
§ 178-7. [325-23B(3)] Notification when City
intends to correct violation.
In any case in which the city intends to correct a
violation of this Chapter [§ 325-23B(1) or (2)] and then bill
the property owner for the correction [the of] of the violation,
the Building Commissioner or his/her designee shall notify the
owner of the property, and, where relevant the registered agent
who has assumed responsibility as outlined in § 197-5 [325-
23B(2)(e)] of this Code, in writing, of any violation of this
Chapter [section]. Such notice shall be served in person or by
mail to the address appearing on the city tax roll, requiring
such person, within a time specified in such notice but in no
event less than five days from the service or mailing thereof,
to comply with this Chapter [section] and to cause the grass,
brush or solid waste [rubbish] to be cut back or removed or, if
graffiti, to have the same removed so as to comply with this
Chapter [section]. Rest of text unchanged.
§ 178-8. [325-23B(4)] Board of Zoning Appeals
exemptions.
In cases where the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that a
property is of such size or of such topographical
characteristics as to make compliance with this Chapter
[section] impractical or a financial hardship to the owner, the
Board may grant an exemption (or a partial exemption to the
May 2, 2001
20
extent dictated by the special circumstances) from the
requirement. Similarly, if the Board finds that there exists a
situation involving desirable plant species or animal habitats
deemed worthy of preserving, it may grant an exception from the
requirements.
§ 178-9. [325-23C] Liability for area between sidewalk and
curb.
Property owners shall be liable for any injury or damage
resulting from or caused by reason of omission, failure or
negligence to maintain the area between the sidewalk and the
curb of the street in the manner described in § 197-3F [325-
23B(2)(c)(6)].
§ 178-10. Enforcement.
Violations of this Chapter and of Section 325-29.2
(Dumpsters) shall be punishable as follows:
A. Criminal Penalties
(1) Any property owner and/or agent who violates any
provision of this Chapter or of Section 325-29.2, except those
provisions specified in subsection (2) below, shall be guilty of
an offense and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of
fifty dollars ($50.00) for a first offense at a property within
a twelve (12) month period, two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a
second offense at the same property within a twelve (12) month
period, and three hundred dollars ($300.00) for a third or
subsequent offense at the same property within a twelve (12)
month period.
(2) Any property owner and/or agent who violates any
provision of Section 197-3E, 197-3G, 197-3I, 197-3J, or any of
the provisions in Section 197-3F regarding grass, weeds, brush,
plantings, or obstruction of views, shall be guilty of an
offense and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of forty
dollars ($40.00) for a first offense at a property within a
twelve (12) month period, sixty dollars ($60.00) for a second
offense at the same property within a twelve (12) month period,
and one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a third or subsequent
offense at the same property within a twelve month period.
(3) Each violation of this Chapter or of Section 325-29.2,
and each day during which a violation continues, shall be deemed
to be a separate offense.
(4) Violation of any provision of this Chapter or of
Section 325-29.2 shall be a violation as defined by Section
55.10(3) of the New York Penal Law.
B. Civil Penalties
(1) Any property owner and/or agent who violates any
provision of this Chapter or of Section 325-29.2, except those
provisions specified in subsection (2) below, shall be liable
for a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first
violation at a property within a twelve (12) month period, two
May 2, 2001
21
hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second violation at the same
property within a twelve (12) month period, and three hundred
dollars ($300.00) for a third or subsequent violation at the
same property within a twelve (12) month period.
(2) Any property owner and/or agent who violates any
provision of Section 197-3E, 197-3G, 197-3I, 197-3J, or any of
the provisions in Section 197-3F regarding grass, weeds, brush,
plantings, or obstruction of views, shall be liable for a civil
penalty of forty dollars ($40.00) for the first violation at a
property within a twelve (12) month period, sixty dollars
($60.00) for a second violation at the same property within a
twelve (12) month period, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) for
a third or subsequent violation at the same property within a
twelve month period.
(3) Each violation of this Chapter or of Section 325-29.2,
and each day during which a violation continues, shall be deemed
to be a separate violation.
(4) The City Attorney or his or her designee may commence
an action or special proceeding against the violator in a court
of competent jurisdiction to collect these penalties, together
with costs, disbursements and recoverable attorneys’ fees,
and/or to compel compliance with or restrain by injunction any
such violation.
(5) When the City Attorney obtains a judgment in an action
or proceeding under this section either against the property
owner or agent, or both, in addition to the appropriate methods
for enforcement of judgments established in the Civil Practice
Law and Rules, such judgment for penalties may constitute a
lien, be a lien on the subject property and on the rents
therefrom, or may be collected in the manner of any other civil
judgment.
C. Appearance Tickets and Appeals
Notwithstanding any contrary Code provision,
appearance tickets may be issued by the Building Commissioner
and/or Commissioner’s designee(s) charging violations of this
Chapter or of Section 325-29.2 whenever there is probable cause
to believe that said violations have occurred. Any rights to
administrative appeals to any board or commission of the City of
Ithaca mentioned elsewhere in this Code shall not apply as a
condition precedent to issuing an appearance ticket charging a
violation of this Chapter or of Section 325-29.2. Any right to
an administrative appeal from a decision or determination of the
Building Commissioner or other city official with regard to the
above Code Chapter and section shall apply only in cases in
which the city intends to correct the violation and seek to
charge the property owner or agent for the costs of correction.
SECTION 2. Section 1-1B of the Ithaca City Code, entitled
“Penalties for offenses,” is hereby amended to delete the
reference to Code Section [325-23B(2)] and the phrase [(Exterior
property maintenance)].
May 2, 2001
22
SECTION 3. Chapter 325, entitled “Zoning,” is hereby amended by
adding Section 325-29.2 as follows:
§ 325-29.2. Dumpsters.
A. Declaration of purpose. The purposes of Chapter 197,
as set forth in Section 178-1, are hereby incorporated into and
apply to this section.
B. Definitions. The definitions in Chapter 178, as set
forth in Section 178-2, are hereby incorporated into and apply
to this section.
C. It shall be the duty and responsibility of all owners
of property in the City of Ithaca to ensure the following:
(1) No dumpster may be placed or allowed to remain on any
properties in the R1 or R2 zoning district except pursuant to a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, as provided by this
section. Dumpsters for which variances are granted must be out
of the public view or meet all of the screening requirements of
subsection 7 hereof and may be located in front yards only if
the Board of Zoning Appeals finds there is no practical
alternative location.
(2) Dumpsters may be placed and allowed to remain on
properties in the R3 or RU zoning district if they are out of
the public view or meet all of the screening requirements of
subsection 7 hereof. Screened dumpsters may not be placed or
allowed to remain in place in front yards unless the Board of
Zoning Appeals finds there is no practical alternative location
and grants a variance, as provided by this section.
(3) A dumpster in the R-1, R-2, R-3 or RU zoning district
can serve only the property on which it is located and can serve
only one property.
(4) All dumpsters must have tightly fitting covers that are
kept closed at all times except when the dumpster is in the
process of being filled or emptied. Garbage, recyclable
materials, and other solid waste must be completely contained
within the dumpster and shall not accumulate so that the
dumpster cover cannot be firmly closed.
(5) Dumpsters shall not be located in any area that the
City Code requires must be constructed or maintained
unencumbered to comply with fire, building or public safety laws
or requirements.
(6) All dumpsters shall have the name and telephone number
of the company or individual owning such dumpster clearly
printed, in letters at least three inches high, on either the
front or back of the dumpster.
(7) Dumpsters in the R-1, R-2, R-3 or RU zoning district
that are located in the public view must meet the following
screening requirements:
May 2, 2001
23
(a) Dumpsters shall be surrounded on all sides that are
visible from the public view by enclosure walls or vegetation
screens such as trees or hedges. There shall be a minimum of
two (2) feet of clearance between the dumpster and each wall or
vegetation screen. The walls or vegetation screen shall be a
minimum of four (4) feet in height, but in any event the walls
or vegetation screen shall be higher than the dumpster and shall
fully screen the dumpster from the public view.
(b) Constructed enclosure walls shall be made of wood,
masonry or other materials compatible with the main structure or
surroundings. Chain link fencing shall not be considered
acceptable screening material. Enclosure walls must be
constructed of masonry or other noncombustible materials if they
are within the fire limits of the City, as that term is defined
in Section 181-13 of the City Code. The minimum dimension for
wood screening materials shall be 1 inch by 4 inches.
Enclosures and partial enclosures shall be constructed to be as
inconspicuous as possible.
(c) Where vegetation screens are used, they shall form a
year-round dense screen at least four (4) feet high, and in any
event at least as high as the dumpster, within two (2) years of
the initial planting.
(d) Where a gate is necessary to provide access to the
hauler, the gate shall either swing fully outward or slide
parallel to the wall of the enclosure. Gates shall be designed
to be secured when in the open and closed positions. Gates
shall be closed at all times except when the dumpster is being
accessed. There shall be a minimum of ten (10) inches of
clearance between the bottom of the gate and ground.
(e) All enclosures and partial enclosures (whether
constructed or created by vegetation screens) shall be easily
accessible to collection vehicles and personnel. The area
directly in front of an enclosure or partial enclosure shall
have less than a two percent (2%) slope to make manipulation of
dumpsters as easy as possible. Steel poles or other types of
stop devices shall be placed near the back of the
enclosure/partial enclosure to prevent damage from the dumpster
when it is set back in the enclosure/partial enclosure. In
addition, where vegetation screens are used to screen one or
both sides of a dumpster, the plantings shall be curbed or
otherwise protected from damage by collection vehicles and the
dumpster as it is moved in and out of the enclosure.
(f) Property owners must keep constructed enclosures and
partial enclosures in good repair and in a safe and structurally
sound condition. Property owners must maintain the
effectiveness of vegetation screens by properly caring for and
replacing, as necessary, the plantings that serve as screening
devices.
(g) The property owner shall be responsible for the cleanup
of the interior of each enclosure and partial enclosure.
Enclosure areas and partial enclosure areas shall be kept free
from litter and other solid waste except for that which is
placed in dumpsters. Enclosure areas and partial enclosure
May 2, 2001
24
areas shall be maintained to prevent odors and rodent and insect
infestation. Garbage and other solid waste shall not accumulate
in any manner that creates a visual or public health or safety
nuisance.
(h) Recycling receptacles may be located inside the
enclosure or partial enclosure.
(8) Property owners in the R3 or RU zoning district who
have dumpsters on their property as of the effective date this
subsection and who intend to comply with this section by
screening the dumpster shall have one (1) year from the
effective date of this subsection to complete the plantings or
the construction of the enclosure or partial enclosure and other
related construction requirements.
(9) Property owners in the R1 and R2 zoning districts who
have dumpsters on their property as of the effective date this
subsection, apply for a variance from the Board of Zoning
Appeals within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this
subsection, and obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning
Appeals to maintain a screened dumpster shall have one (1) year
from the date of the variance to complete the plantings or the
construction of the enclosure or partial enclosure and other
related construction requirements.
D. In making any determination with respect to any
proposed dumpster, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be guided
by the general purpose of this section, as stated in Section
325-29.2A, and shall also consider the following:
(1) Need for the dumpster: the number of tenants to be
serviced by the dumpster and the availability of alternative
methods of solid waste storage and disposal.
(2) Proximity to neighbors: the proximity of the proposed
dumpster to neighboring properties and residences.
(3) Other dumpsters: other dumpsters in the vicinity of the
proposed dumpster.
(4) The character of the neighborhood: the proposed use
shall not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood
character so as to cause a devaluation of neighboring property
values or material inconvenience to neighboring inhabitants or
material interference with the use and enjoyment by the
inhabitants of the neighboring property.
E. In granting any variance, the Board of Zoning Appeals
shall specify the exact location of any dumpster on a property,
make a determination as to whether the dumpster will be out of
the public view, require the dumpster to be screened as provided
in subsection 7 hereof if it will not be out of the public view,
and impose other requirements as necessary to meet the general
purpose of this Chapter.
F. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board of
Zoning Appeals may have the decision reviewed by a Special Term
May 2, 2001
25
of the Supreme Court in the manner provided by Article 78 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules.
G. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
dumpsters used solely for construction and demolition debris.
The use of such dumpsters shall be regulated by Building
Department construction or demolition permits.
SECTION 4. Chapter 325, Section 325-46C, entitled
“Penalties for offenses,” is hereby amended as follows:
[Violations of § 325-23B(2) shall be punishable in accordance
with § 1-1 of this Code.] Violations of § 325.29.2 shall be
punishable in accordance with Section 178-10 of this Code.
SECTION 5. Chapter 276, Section 276-7A(2), entitled
“Project review criteria,” is hereby amended as follows:
Compliance with all other regulations applicable to the
development. These include, but are not limited to, the Zoning
Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance, Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinance
and Environmental Quality Review ordinance of the City of
Ithaca, and the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
SECTION 6. Chapter 276, Section 276-7A(12), entitled
“Project review criteria,” is hereby amended by deleting
[Screening of dumpsters from public view and from adjoining
properties] and adding the following: For new construction of
multiple dwellings, commercial buildings and office buildings,
adequate and appropriately located facilities for the storage
and collection of solid waste and recyclable materials shall be
required. Developers of new commercial and mixed occupancy
buildings must design a waste management system that can support
the needs of any allowable use in the building, including those
uses that could result in maximum garbage generation. Screening
of these facilities, as well as other actions relating to the
appearance of the facilities, may be required.
SECTION 7. The title of Chapter 196 is hereby amended
as follows: GARBAGE[, RUBBISH] AND REFUSE.
SECTION 8. Chapter 196, Section 196-1, entitled
“Definitions,” is hereby amended as follows:
BULK ITEMS – Large items and materials, including furniture
(other than aluminum and plastic yard furniture), house
furnishings and large appliances, such as refrigerators, stoves,
washing machines and clothes dryers.
COLLECTIBLE YARD WASTES – Grass, leaves, brush and other
plant wastes and soil [waste plant and dirt] materials from
[vegetable and flow] gardens, lawns and yards, [and brush]
prepared for collection in conformance with city requirements.
COMPOSTING MATERIALS – Yard trimmings, vegetable wastes and
other organic matter managed for the purpose of natural
transformation into compost and stored in a container or compact
pile that contains no sewage, sludge or septage; contains no
inorganic materials, such as metal, plastic or glass; and is
May 2, 2001
26
maintained in a manner to minimize odors and the attraction of
insect and animal pests.
GARBAGE –
A. Discarded materials generated from the activities
of a household, business, institution, or public or quasi-
public facility, consisting of
(1) Food wastes, including but not limited to kitchen
and table scraps, decaying or spoiled vegetable, fruit and
animal matter, and fallen fruit.
(2) Any other used or discarded waste materials such
as paper, plastic, metal, rags, food wrappings and containers,
sweepings, rubber, leather, cloth, clothing, waste materials
from normal maintenance and repair activities, pasteboard,
crockery, shells, dirt, ashes, wood, and glass.
B. “Garbage” does not include properly prepared and
stored recyclable materials or collectible yard wastes, properly
stored and maintained composting materials, rubble, bulk items,
industrial waste, hazardous materials, automobile or other motor
vehicle tires, or any other material that the City or private
waste hauler has specified will not be picked up curbside at a
property as part of the regular collection.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – means, without regards to amount
and/or concentration, petroleum, petroleum distillates or
products, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos,
formaldehyde, radioactive materials, and any substances which
are defined as (or otherwise included in the definition of)
“hazardous substances,” “hazardous materials,” “hazardous
wastes,” “toxic substances,” “toxic pollutants,” “pollutants,”
or “contaminants” under any federal or New York State law,
statute, rule, regulation, or code.
INDUSTRIAL WASTE – [Chemical waste generated by any
industrial process or operation.] Any substance resulting from
any process of industry or manufacturing, including but not
limited to chemical waste, sludge from air or water treatment
facilities, and incinerator residue.
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS OR RECYCLABLES – [These include
materials defined as recyclable materials or recyclables
pursuant to county law.] Materials that are defined as
recyclable materials or recyclables pursuant to Tompkins County
laws, rules or regulations, have not become contaminated through
household or other use, and are fit for recycling.
REFUSE – [The rubbish,] Garbage, recyclable materials and
collectible yard wastes resulting from the normal day-to-day
operation of a household, business, institution or a public or
quasi-public facility. [“Refuse” may be generated by a
household, a business establishment or a public or quasi-public
facility.] “Refuse” does not include properly stored and
maintained composting materials, rubble, bulk items, industrial
waste, hazardous materials, automobile or other motor vehicle
tires, or any other material [not covered under this definition]
May 2, 2001
27
that the City or private waste hauler has specified will not be
picked up curbside at a property as part of the regular
collection.
[RUBBISH:
A. Includes:
(1) Food wastes, including but not limited to table
cleanings; fruit, vegetable and
animal matter parings and scraps; decaying or spoiled
vegetable, animal and
fruit matter; and fallen fruit.
(2) Any paper, plastic, cardboard or other material used
to wrap, cover or contain
food, other than certain materials defined in this
section as “recyclable materials,”
and any other household waste resulting from the use,
consumption and
preparation of food.
(3) Any other waste materials, other than those materials
defined as “recyclables,”
such as plastic, metal, rags, drugs, health aids and
materials, sweepings,
excelsior, rubber, leather, cloth, clothing, waste
materials from normal
maintenance and repair activities, pasteboard,
crockery, shells, dirt, filth, ashes,
wood, glass and brick.
B. “Rubbish” does not include recyclable materials as
defined in this section. However, “rubbish” shall include
recyclable materials which cannot be recycled because of
secondary household use.]
SOLID WASTE – Any materials or substances that are
discarded or rejected as being spent, worthless, useless or in
excess to the owners or users at the time of such discard or
rejection, including but not limited to garbage, refuse,
industrial waste, hazardous materials, tires, rubble, discarded
motor vehicles, and discarded bulk items. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, “solid waste” shall not include properly prepared and
stored recyclables or collectible yard wastes, or properly
stored and maintained composting materials. An object shall be
presumed to be discarded or rejected solid waste when the object
is stored, placed or left on the grounds or exterior of the
property in the view of neighbors or passersby under
circumstances which meet any of the following criteria:
(1) The object produces an offensive smell.
(2) The object is of a type designed for interior use or
made of materials which are suitable only for interior use and
the object is left outside and exposed to the weather.
(3) The object has reached a degree of dilapidation or
disrepair that can reasonably be presumed to render the material
May 2, 2001
28
unsuitable for or incapable of being used for its original
intended purpose or some other reasonable purpose.
(4) The object is left, placed or stored in a manner which
appears likely to cause injuries.
SECTION 9. Chapter 196, Section 196-2A, entitled
“Collection,” is hereby amended as follows: The Department is
authorized to collect on a regular basis those waste materials
that constitute refuse, namely [rubbish] garbage, recyclable
materials and collectible yard wastes.
SECTION 10. Chapter 196, Section 196-3B, entitled
“Preparation and placement at curb,” is hereby amended as
follows: No person shall place any [rubbish] garbage at or near
any curb, sidewalk or street for purposes of collection [by the
Department] unless that person complies with one or both of the
following requirements:
(1) Each person shall provide and utilize separate
containers for disposal of [rubbish] garbage. Any such
containers shall be made of metal, plastic or other suitable
material, shall have tight-fitting covers, shall have handles on
the top and sides and shall be shaped so that all materials flow
freely when the container is dumped. No such container shall
exceed 32 gallons in capacity, and, when filled, no such
container shall weigh more than [100] seventy (70) pounds.
(2) Each person shall provide and utilize disposable
plastic bags for disposal of rubbish. Any such bag shall be at
least 1.5 mils thick and sufficiently strong to contain the
materials enclosed. When filled, each such bag shall be
securely tied and shall weigh no more than fifty (50) pounds.
SECTION 11. Chapter 196, Section 196-3D, entitled
“Preparation and placement at curb,” is hereby amended as
follows: No person shall place any recyclable materials at or
near any curb, sidewalk or street for purposes of collection [by
the Department] unless that person separates the recyclable
materials, [and] prepares and places them at or near the curb,
sidewalk or street in a manner consistent with that required by
county and state rules and regulations, and complies with the
requirements of City Code Section 178-3K.
SECTION 12. Chapter 196, Section 196-3F, entitled
“Preparation and placement at curb,” is hereby amended as
follows: Refuse, as well as any other waste material the
Superintendent announces will be collected, shall be placed for
collection [by the Department] at or near a curb, sidewalk or
street after 2:00 p.m. on the day prior to the day designated
for collection and before [5:30] 4:00 a.m. on the day designated
for collection. For collections performed by the Department,
there [There] will be no callbacks to collect refuse or any
other wastes that are placed for collection after [5:30] 4:00
a.m. on the designated collection day.
SECTION 13. The first sentence of Chapter 196, Section
196-4, entitled “Removal of empty containers,” is hereby amended
as follows: All empty refuse containers and any other empty
May 2, 2001
29
waste containers shall be removed from the curb, sidewalk or
street where they have been placed as soon as possible after
collection [by the Department] and, in any event, on the same
day as collection.
SECTION 14. Chapter 196, Section 196-5, entitled “Removal
of uncollected materials,” is hereby amended as follows: Where
the Department or private hauler has not collected certain
refuse and/or waste materials because those materials were not
placed or prepared in accord with the provisions of this chapter
and/or the private hauler’s requirements, the person responsible
for putting those waste materials at or near a curb, sidewalk or
street for collection [by the Department] shall remove those
wastes from that location as soon as possible after the
Department or private hauler has refused collection and, in any
event, by the end of the designated collection day.
SECTION 15. Chapter 196, Section 196-8, entitled
“Collection or removal of recyclables,” is hereby amended as
follows: From the time any person places any recyclable
materials at or near any curb, sidewalk or street for purposes
of collection [by the Department], no person who is not acting
under authority of the city, Tompkins County, or [its] their
authorized agents [agent] shall collect, pick up, remove or
cause to be collected, picked up or removed any recyclable
materials so placed for collection, and each such unauthorized
collection, pickup or removal shall constitute a separate
violation of this chapter. However, where the Department or
County has refused to collect certain recyclable materials
because they have not been placed or treated in accord with the
provisions of this chapter, the person responsible for initially
placing those materials for collection may and shall remove
those materials from any curb, sidewalk or street side in accord
with the provisions of this chapter.
SECTION 16. Chapter 325, Section 325-15D, entitled “Use
regulations,” is hereby amended as follows: Garage sales. No
household, garage, porch or yard items for sale may be stored in
the open or continually displayed within any district where the
same may be construed by proper authority to be a menace to the
public health or safety or may be held to have a detrimental
influence upon adjacent properties or upon the neighborhood at
large. Household, garage, porch or yard sales shall not be held
on a property for more than seven (7) days (including weekends)
in a calendar month, nor shall such sales be held on a property
during the weekend for more than two consecutive weekends or for
more than two weekends in any month. For the purposes of this
subsection, “weekend” shall mean Saturday and/or Sunday. This
prohibition should not be construed to ban household, garage,
porch or yard sales themselves as long as they do not exceed the
frequencies listed in this subsection.
SECTION 17. Severability is intended throughout and within
the provisions of the ordinance. If any section, subsection,
sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to
be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
May 2, 2001
30
SECTION 18. This ordinance shall take effect immediately
in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as provided
in the Ithaca City Charter.
17.2 Ithaca Children’s Garden – Resolution of Requesting State
Authorization for Lease
By Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Blumenthal
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Garden has requested permission
to lease for an extended period of time a portion of the
southern end of Cass Park in the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Garden will provide an
opportunity for hands-on educational opportunities for youth of
all ages, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Garden would be a tourist
attraction, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Garden activities would
complement existing youth focused, sports recreation and summer
camp activities already in existence in the park, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Garden would provide a highly
visible, attractive entrance to the City, and
WHEREAS, the southern end of Cass Park is the least intensively
used part of the park and has space which could be made
available to the Ithaca Children's Garden, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Gardens would complement the
recently approved Waterfront Development Plan, and provide a
stopping point on the proposed New York State Black Diamond
Trail, and
WHEREAS, existing infrastructure facilitates the development of
the Children’s Garden in that area, and
WHEREAS, the site is served by public transit during the summer
months, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children's Garden has strong organizational
and community support, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Children’s Garden has offered to make
improvements to the area in Cass Park that they wish to lease in
lieu of lease payments,
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, by resolution
dated September 6, 2000, gave conceptual approval for locating
the Children’s Garden in the southern end of Cass Park, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council does hereby request that
Senator James Seward and Assemblyman Martin Luster introduce
legislation in the New York State Senate and Assembly
respectively, authorizing the City of Ithaca to enter into a
long term lease with the Ithaca Children’s Garden for a site at
May 2, 2001
31
the southern end of Cass Park.
Carried Unanimously
17.3 (a) CDBG Program Amendment to Fund Phase I of the State
Theatre Restoration Project - Declaration of Lead Agency
By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Manos
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require
that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental
review of projects in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local
environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or
carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed plan adoption is an Unlisted Action
pursuant to the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance
which requires review under the City's Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca does
hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review
for the proposed CDBG program amendment to provide funding for
Phase I of the State Theatre restoration project being
undertaken by Historic Ithaca, Inc.
Carried Unanimously
17.3 (b) CDBG Program Amendment to Fund Phase I of the State
Theatre Restoration Project - Determination of Environmental
Significance
By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor
WHEREAS, Historic Ithaca, Inc. (HI) is undertaking a two phase
project to restore the State Theatre located at 117 W. State
Street, and
WHEREAS, Phase I restoration focuses on basic stabilization and
code compliance work necessary to reopen the theatre is
estimated to cost $1.3 million, and
WHEREAS, HI requested funding from the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency (IURA) to fill a projected financial gap to complete
Phase I restoration of the State Theatre, and
WHEREAS, at their 1/23/01 meeting, the IURA approved funding for
Historic Ithaca, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $320,000 for
phase I of the State Theatre restoration project, and
WHEREAS, the IURA recommended that such funding shall derive
from the following sources:
1. FY 1998 Small Cities CDBG, activity 1.1, W. State Street
Commercial Loan Program (approximately $280,000), and
2. Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) repayments
(approximately $40,000), and
May 2, 2001
32
WHEREAS, use of CDBG funds for the State Theatre restoration
project requires approval by the U.S. Department of Housing &
Urban Development of program amendment, and
WHEREAS, at the March 7, 2001 meeting, the Common Council
authorized submission of a request to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development for a program amendment to the
1998 CDBG award to provide up to $282,000 of funds from the W.
State Street Commercial Loan Program (Activity 1.1) to a
Community-Based Development Organization (CBDO) to fund the
Phase I State Theatre Restoration project on behalf of the City
as a neighborhood revitalization and community economic
development activity in a low/mod income neighborhood in
accordance with CFR 24 §570.204, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is classified as an unlisted action
under the City Environmental Quality Review Act [CEQR Sec. 176-
12], and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted
including the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Form
(EAF), now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this
matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions
more fully set forth on the Environmental Assessment Form dated
April 2, 2001, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency, hereby
determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a
significant effect on the environment, and that further
environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this
negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed
to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in
the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other
parties as required by law.
Carried Unanimously
17.4 An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map Established Pursuant to
Chapter 325 Entitled "Zoning" of the City of Ithaca Municipal
Code -- Call for Public Hearing
By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor
RESOLVED, That Ordinance ___-___ entitled “An Ordinance Amending
the Zoning Map, Section 325-5 of the City of Ithaca Municipal
Code” is hereby introduced before the Common Council of the City
of Ithaca, New York, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council shall hold a public hearing in the
matter of the adoption of the aforesaid ordinance in the Common
Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, in the City
of Ithaca, New York, on Wednesday, June 6, 2001, 7:00 p.m., and
be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall 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. This notice shall be published once at least fifteen
(15) days prior to the public hearing, and be it further
May 2, 2001
33
RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall transmit forthwith to the
Tompkins County Planning Board and to the City of Ithaca Planning
and Development Board true and exact copies of the proposed
zoning ordinance for their reports thereon.
The ordinance to be considered shall be as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. --
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map, Section 325-5 of the City
of Ithaca Municipal Code.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca, New York, as follows:
Section 1. The City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Section 325-5
entitled "Zoning Map" is hereby amended to add the following:
"Section 325-5. Zoning Map.
That an area generally bounded by the western boundary of
Tax Parcel 83-6-2 and extending northward along the rear lot
lines of properties facing on Linden Avenue to the northern
boundary of Tax Parcel 67-2-6, then easterly across Linden Avenue
and along the northern boundary of Tax Parcel 67-3-2 to the
eastern boundary of said parcel, then southward along that
boundary and the rear lot lines of properties facing on Linden
Avenue to the southern boundary of Tax Parcel 84-1-1, then across
Mitchell Street to the beginning, is reclassified from the R-2b
and R-3b districts to the R-1b district. (LOWER END OF LINDEN)
That an area generally bounded by the southern boundaries of
Tax Parcels 67-2-5 and 67-3-23, extending along the rear lot
lines of properties facing Linden Avenue to Bool Street on the
west side of Linden Avenue and, on the eastern side of Linden
Street to the northern boundary of Tax Parcel 67-3-28, is
reclassified from the R-3b district to the R-2b district. (LINDEN
BUFFER)
That the following Tax Parcels are reclassified from the R-
2b district to the R-1b district, 68-7-9, 68-7-10, 68-7-11, 68-8-
1, 68-8-2, 68-8-3, and 68-8-4. (ORCHARD PLACE)
That the following Tax Parcels are reclassified from the R-
3a district to the R2-b district, 68-7-1, 68-7-2, 68-7-3, 68-7-4,
68-7-5, 68-7-6, 68-7-7, 68-7-8, 68-7-12, and 68-7-13. (NORTH OF
ORCHARD PLACE TO COOK ST)
Motion to amend
By: Alderperson Blumenthal, Seconded by: Alderperson Farrell
That Tax Parcels 67-4-1, 67-4-3, 67-4-9, and 67-4-2 are
reclassified from the R-2a district to the R-1b district. (BRYANT
TRIANGLE)
Carried Unanimously
That the following Tax Parcels are reclassified from the B-
2a district to the B2-d district, 63-1-5, 63-1-6, 63-8-1, 63-8-
22, 63-8-23, 63-8-24, 63-10-3, 63-10-4, 63-10-5. (WILLIAMS &
STEWART)
Motion to amend
By: Alderperson Glasstetter, By:
That the following Tax Parcels are reclassified from the {B-
2b} district to the B-2d district, 63-8-11, 63-8-12, 63-8-13, and
63-8-14. (400 BLOCK WEST SIDE OF EDDY ST)
May 2, 2001
34
Motion failed for lack of second
Section 2. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately in accordance
with law upon publication of a notice as provided in the Ithaca
City Charter.
Alderperson Vaughan as someone who represents citizens in areas
that are largely concerned with this, she thinks this is an
excellent piece of work and she would like to thank the group
that worked on it.
Alderperson Glasstetter stated that he was unable to be here for
the committee discussion about this. He would just like to
briefly get some explanation about the connection between the
two very different changes here. The more residential one and
what’s going on on Stewart Avenue and Williams Street. Just
want to figure out the rationale there. He doesn’t understand
the connection. He understands what ‘s going on in the other
area, but taking the four story buildings on Eddy Street and
then the basically three stories down on Stewart Avenue, and
reducing those area’s maximum building heights from six to four.
He’s just trying to figure out what the incentive is.
Especially down on Stewart Avenue where you’re much further down
on the hill. It doesn’t seem to me like there would be a
radical kind of impact there. He could understand more on top
of the hill on Eddy Street. He doesn’t see the rationale at
this point, it just seems like there are some rather
unattractive buildings there that are serving a purpose and he
doesn’t see why we would put ourselves in the way of progress in
those areas.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that there’s progress and then
there’s progress. She’s not sure she followed all of the
questions, but the is the question about Stewart Avenue? Both
of those are within these four districts for one thing. The
Eddy Street buildings are in the historic district and the
Stewart Avenue buildings are in the historic district and so the
building height. There is a 70’ allowable on Stewart Avenue
which she thinks the committee worked on this which she was a
part of felt that that was not in keeping with the neighborhood
character of that east hill area and the same thing for the Eddy
Street.
Alderperson Glasstetter doesn’t understand why? We don’t have
the choice of saying what is going to go there, but we do have
the choice of providing incentives or not allowing certain
opportunities to exist.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that if we had 70’ buildings on
Stewart Avenue, there would be a real anomaly given the
residential character of the residential neighborhood. Those
area seen as provisions for local services with mixed commerical
buildings. That doesn’t prevent those buildings from changing
in the future, it doesn’t stop anything. It just provides the
zoning envelope for something to happen there.
May 2, 2001
35
Alderperson Glasstetter questioned about what about Eddy Street
though.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that those are in the historic
district and same holds true.
Alderperson Glasstetter asked where the historic district was on
Eddy Street.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that he was calling into question
the whole East Hill Historic District. She doesn’t have the
boundaries with her.
Alderperson Farrell expressed her thanks to Pat Pryor for
chairing the client committee that worked on this.
17.5 (a) An ordinance amending the Municipal Code of the City
of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Section 325-4 ‘Zoning” to Change the
Zoning Designation of Certain Areas of the City from B-5, B-2a
(Business), I-1 (Industrial) and MH-1 (Mobile Home) as
applicable to the Southwest District (SW-1/SW-2/SW-3
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is proposing a zoning amendment
which would create a new zone to be know as the Southwest
District, SW, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted
including the preparation of a Long Environmental Assessment
Form (LEAF), and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I action under the City
Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQR Sec. 176-12B), and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to § 239 –l and –m of the New York State
General Municipal Law, the Tompkins County Department of
Planning has reviewed and commented on the proposed rezoning,
and
WHEREAS, The Conservation Advisory Council for the City of
Ithaca (CAC) has reviewed and commented on the proposed
rezoning, and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2001 Common Council adopted the Southwest
Area Land Use Plan which included rezoning certain areas of the
City from B-5, B-2a (Business), I-1 (Industrial) and MH-1
(Mobile Home) as applicable to the Southwest District (SW-1/SW-
2/SW-3, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca, acting as
Lead Agency, has reviewed the LEAF Part I and Part II, dated
July 17, 2000, and Part III dated July 17, 2000, revised April
26, 2001, for the Southwest Zoning District, submitted by the
applicant, and prepared by City of Ithaca Planning Staff,
comments prepared by the Tompkins County Department of Planning
and the City of Ithaca Environmental Advisory Council, and
supplemental information, and has determined that the proposed
action will not have a significant effect on the environment;
now, therefore, be it
May 2, 2001
36
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this
matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions
more fully set forth on the Long Environmental Assessment Form
Parts I, II, and III, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead
agency, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will
not have a significant effect on the environment, and that
further environmental review is unnecessary, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution constitutes notice
of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to file a copy of the same, together with any
attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to
any other parties as required by law.
17.5 (b) DRAFT – January 10, 2001 (Revised 3/12/01)
(Revised March 14, 2001)
(Revised March 28, 2001)
(Revised April 9, 2001)
(Revised April 26, 2001)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF
ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED "ZONING" TO CHANGE THE ZONING
DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY OF ITHACA AND TO
ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Section 325-4 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca be amended to create a new zoning district to
be known as the Southwest District (SW-1/SW-2/SW-3).
Section 1. Declaration of the Legislative Findings and
Purpose
The Common Council finds that this Ordinance:
1. Will support the goals set forth in the Southwest Area
Land Use Plan.
2. Will ensure development in this area of the City
creating an urban pattern.
3. Will reinforce the Design Guidelines for the Southwest
Area, Meadow Street, and Elmira Road Corridor.
4. Will provide opportunities for large-scale development
currently lacking in other parts of the City.
5. Will restrict the number of small stores allowed in
the Southwest Area that could potentially limit the
amount of land available for large-scale development.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code
of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to change the zoning
designation of the following area from B-5, B-2a (Business), I-1
(Industrial) and MH-1 (Mobile Home) as applicable to the
Southwest District (SW-1/SW-2/SW-3), portions of which are shown
on the attached map.
May 2, 2001
37
Section 3. Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City
of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows to establish district
regulations for the new SW District and Sub-Districts as
follows:
Permitted Primary Uses:
SW-1: 1. Any use permitted in B-5 except offices as a
primary use, (with the exception of medical and
dental, or unless the office is a minimum of 25,000
square feet with a single tenant), motor vehicle sales
and service, gasoline stations as a primary use, and
redemption centers.
2. Light industrial and manufacturing; wholesaling,
warehousing, storage and handling of bulk goods,
lumberyards, printing, heating, plumbing, welding, and
air conditioning.
3. Recreational or cultural facility such as park,
playground, and museums.
SW-2: 1. Any use permitted in B-5.
2. Light industrial and manufacturing; wholesaling,
warehousing, storage and handling of bulk goods,
lumberyards, printing, heating, plumbing, welding, and
air conditioning.
3. Recreational or cultural facility such as park,
playground, and museums.
SW-3: Same as SW -1
Permitted Accessory Uses:
SW-1: Any accessory use permitted in B-5, except gasoline
filling stations and redemption centers.
SW-2: Any accessory use permitted in B-5
SW-3: Same as SW - 1
Off-Street Parking Requirements:
SW-1: Same as B-5
SW-2: Same as SW-1
SW-3: Same as SW-2
Off-Street Loading Requirements:
SW-1: Same as B-5
SW-2: Same as SW-1
SW-3: Same as SW-2
Minimum Lot Size:
SW-1: 1. Area in Square Feet - 10,000
2. Width in Feet at Street Line - 40 ft.
SW-2: Same as B-5
2. Width in Feet at Street Line – Same as SW-1
SW-3: Same as SW-2
Maximum Building Heights:
SW-1: 1. Number of Stories - 5
2. Height in Feet - 60
SW-2: Same as SW-1
May 2, 2001
38
SW-3: 1. Number of Stories – 2
2. Height in Feet – 40
Maximum percent lot coverage by buildings:
SW-1: Maximum 60%
SW-2: Same as SW-1
SW-3: Same as SW-2
Subject to further provisions of § 325-30.
Yard Dimensions:
SW-1: 1. Front Yard - maximum 30 feet from curb1
2. Side Yards - none required
3. Rear Yard - 15% or 20 feet, whichever is less
SW-2: 1. Front Yard - minimum 15; maximum 34 feet from
curb.
2. Side Yard – Same as SW-1.
3. Rear Yard – Same as SW-1.
SW-3: Same as SW-2.
Subject to further provisions of § 325-30.
Minimum height of building:
SW-1: None.
SW-2: Same as SW-1
SW-3: Same as SW-2
Minimum store size:
SW-1: 5000 square feet
SW-2: None
SW-3: Same as SW-1
Section 4. Chapter 325, Article V of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca entitled "Supplementary Regulations" is
hereby amended to add a new section to be known as Section 325-
30 Southwest District to read as follows:
A. General Note.
Any and all development projects within the SW-1 district and
sub-district SW-2 and SW-3 shall be subject to the guidelines
set forth in the Design Guidelines for the Southwest Area,
Meadow Street, and Elmira Road Corridor. The design guidelines
shall be implemented by the Planning Board during the Site Plan
Review (S.P.R.) process. No building permits shall be issued
until the Planning and Development Board has granted final site
plan approval and all conditions of site plan approval have been
met.
B. Building Setback.
SW-1: A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of a lot's street
frontage must be occupied by a building or buildings. The
building or buildings, which occupy the front yard, may not
be setback more than 30 feet from the curb. The Planning
Board may allow a portion, not to exceed a third of the
1 General Notes:
10. All columns established by this section are subject to the
supplementary regulation stated in Article V of this ordinance.
(Please see Chapter 325, Article V Supplemental Regulations,
Section 325-30 Building Setback.)
May 2, 2001
39
required 60% building frontage to be occupied by an
integrated architectural wall.
SW-2: A minimum of 35% of a lot’s street frontage must be
occupied by a building or buildings. The building or
buildings, which occupy the front yard, may not be setback
more than 34 feet from the curb. The Planning Board may
allow a portion, not to exceed a third of the required 35%
building frontage to be occupied by an integrated
architectural wall.
SW-3: Same as SW-2
C. Minimum Store Size.
SW-1: Retail store size must be a minimum of 5,000 square
feet with the exception of individual freestanding
structures having only one tenant, food establishments,
banks, and light industrial uses. A freestanding structure
is considered one that has a minimum of fifty (50) feet of
separation from any other building. For buildings with
multiple tenants, each retail space must be at least 5000
square feet except that in any one building, there may be
one tenant with square footage of less than 5,000 square
feet.
SW-2: None
SW-3: Same as SW-1
Section 5. The City of Planning and Development Board, the
City Clerk and the Planning Department shall amend the zoning
map and district regulations chart in accordance with the
amendments made herewith.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication
of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
17.6 (a) Adoption of the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan as
Parat of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Declaration of
Lead Agency
By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Manos
WHEREAS: State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require
that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental
review of projects in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local
environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or
carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the proposed plan adoption is a Type I Action pursuant
to the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance which
requires review under the City's Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, now therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca does
hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review
for the proposed adoption of the Southwest Natural Area Master
Plan.
May 2, 2001
40
Alderperson Farrell expressed her thanks to Pat Pryor for
chairing the client committee that worked on this.
Carried Unanimously
(Spielholz absent from vote)
(b) Adoption of the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan as Part
of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Declaration of No
Environmental Significance
By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor
Whereas, the City of Ithaca Common Council has reviewed the
proposed final draft of the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan,
City of Ithaca, dated September 12, 2000, prepared by Trowbridge
and Wolf Landscape Architects and Planners, and
Whereas, appropriate environmental review for the adoption of
the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan has been conducted
including the preparation of a Long Environmental Assessment
Form Parts 1 and 2, and
Whereas, the action necessary to adopt the Southwest Natural
Area Master Plan is a Type I Action under both the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO) and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and a Long
Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) including Parts I, II, and
III has been completed and reviewed by appropriate City staff
and agencies, and
Whereas, the Tompkins County Department of Planning, the City of
Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and the Natural Areas
Commission have all commented on the plan, and recommended a
negative declaration of environmental impacts, and
Whereas, Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead
Agency, has reviewed the LEAF Parts 1 and 2 dated December 9,
2000 and supplemental information, and has determined that the
adoption of the proposed plan will not have a significant effect
o the environment, now therefore be it
Resolved, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this
matter, hereby adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions
more fully set forth on the Long Environmental Assessment Form
Parts I, II, and III, and be it further
Resolved, that this Common Council, as lead agency, hereby
determines that the proposed action will not have significant
environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact be issued, and further
Resolved, that this resolution constitutes notice of this
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and that the
City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same,
together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and
forward the same to any other parties as required by law.
Carried Unanimously
(Glasstetter absent from vote)
May 2, 2001
41
(c) Adoption of the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan as a
Part of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council has reviewed the
proposed final draft of the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan,
City of Ithaca, dated September 12, 2000, prepared by Trowbridge
and Wolf Landscape Architects and Planners, and
WHEREAS, key proposals and components of the plan include:
a detailed site inventory and analysis
vegetation management
site access and circulation
programming
stormwater management
WHEREAS, members of Common Council recognizes that the proposed
Southwest Natural Area Master Plan is the product of an
extensive process that involved public participation including
public review and comments of proposals developed by a client
committee, a consultant, and Planning Department staff, and
WHEREAS, members of Common Council also recognize that the
Southwest Natural Area Master Plan includes sufficient
flexibility for future decision-makers to allow for the
implementation of items proposed in the plan, and,
WHEREAS, the Southwest Natural Area Master Plan and supplemental
information has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning
Department Pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General
Municipal Law, which requires all actions within 500 feet of a
county or state facility, including county and state highways,
be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has also been
reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council,
and
WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Planning Department has had the
requisite 30 days to review and comment on the Southwest Natural
Area Master Plan, and
WHEREAS, the required public hearings have been held for the
adoption of the Plan on February 7, 2001 and on April 4, 2001,
and
WHEREAS, concerns have been raised regarding certain activities
proposed for the Southwest Natural Area, specifically
picnicking, and
WHEREAS, it s recommended that all references t picnic sites
and picnicking be removed from the recommendations in the
Southwest Natural Area Master Plan and
WHEREAS, Common Council has considered comments from the
Tompkins County Planning Department, the City of Ithaca
Conservation Advisory Council, the City of Ithaca Natural Area
Commission and recommendations made by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board, dated April 30, 2001, attached
to this resolution and
May 2, 2001
42
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby adopts
the September 12, 2000 Southwest Natural Area Master Plan as
part of the City of Ithaca’s Comprehensive Plan.
Carried Unanimously
17.7 (a) An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 Entitled “Zoning” of
the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Regarding Minor and Non-
Substantive Changes to the Zoning Ordinance – Declaration of Lead
Agency
By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Hershey
WHEREAS: State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require
that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental
review of projects in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local
environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or
carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the proposed zoning amendment is a Type I Action
pursuant to the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance
which requires review under the City's Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, now therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca does
hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review
for the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca, Chapter 120, and Section 325-45 of Chapter 325 entitled
“Zoning”.
Carried Unanimously
(b) An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 Entitled “Zoning” of the
City of Ithaca Municipal Code Regarding Minor and Non-Substantive
Changes to the Zoning Ordinance – Declaration of No Environmental
Significance
By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Hershey
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is proposing a zoning amendment
whereby Chapter 120 of the Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled
“Zoning Amendments Procedure” shall be amended and transferred
to Chapter 325 of the Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled
“Zoning” and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is also proposing to amend Section
325-45 of chapter 325 of the Code of the City of Ithaca,
entitled ‘Zoning”, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted
including the preparation of a Long Environmental Assessment
Form (LEAF), and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type I action under the City
Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQR Sec. 176-12B), and
WHEREAS, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca, acting as
Lead Agency, has reviewed the LEAF Part I, and Part II, prepared
by City of Ithaca Planning Staff, comments prepared by the City
May 2, 2001
43
of Ithaca Environmental Advisory Council, and supplemental
information, and has determined 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 adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions
more fully set forth on the Long Environmental Assessment Form
Parts I, and II, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead
agency, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will
not have a significant effect on the environment, and that
further environmental review is unnecessary, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution constitutes notice
of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to file a copy of the same, together with any
attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to
any other parties as required by law.
Carried Unanimously
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that she would like to propose a
small change in language. There is some concern at the Planning
Board about minor and non-substantive changes. They had actually
requested that we send them all changes. We have a memorandum
from them and so in an attempt to allay some of their concerns, it
would defeat the purpose if we did start sending them back and she
supports this effort. She has actually worked with the City
Attorney on this a bit. She would consider under what is now
she’ll just call it the second page.
Mayor Cohen interrupted to say that we’re on b right now which is
the Neg. Dec. So if you could save your comments.
(c) An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 Entitled “Zoning” of the
City of Ithaca Municipal Code Regarding Minor and Non-Substantive
Changes to the Zoning Ordinance
By: Alderperson Farrell; Seconded by Alderperson Blumenthal
Discussion by Alderperson Blumenthal, under 1 on the second page
“minor and non-substantive” changes. There was a concern that
revision. In particular the number. If we could add, alterations
that do not modify existing zoning concepts and then add content
or substance. There is a concern that the numbers could be
changed someway. It just clarifies it.
ORDINANCE NO. 01 –
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 120 of the Code of the City of Ithaca,
entitled “Zoning Amendments Procedure” shall be amended and
transferred to Chapter 325 of the Code of the City of Ithaca,
entitled “Zoning.”
May 2, 2001
44
Section 2. Section 325-45 of Chapter 325 of the Code of the City
of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning,” shall be amended as follows:
§ 325-45. Amendment procedure outlined.
A. Compliance with General City Law. The Common Council may
from time to time, on its own motion, on petition or on
recommendation of the City Planning and Development Board
or the Department of Planning and Development, amend,
supplement or repeal the regulations and provisions of this
chapter after public notice and hearing as required by the
General City Law.
B. Referral to City Planning Board. Every such proposed
amendment or change, except for those of a minor or non-
substantive nature, whether initiated by the Common Council
or by petition, shall be referred to the City Planning and
Development Board for report thereon before the public
hearing hereinafter provided for.
Section 3. A new subsection “C” shall be added to section
325-45 consisting of the former Chapter 120, as amended,
and the remaining subsections renumbered as appropriate:
C. [Chapter 120,] ZONING AMENDMENTS PROCEDURE
[§ 120-]1. Procedural guide adopted.
The guide for Zoning Ordinance amendments dated October 3,
1990, as amended, is hereby adopted by the Common Council to
serve as a procedural guide for the consideration of proposed
amendments to Chapter 325, Zoning.
[§ 120-]2. Construal of provisions.
[A] a. The adoption of this guide shall not in any way
substitute for or obviate the need for strict compliance
with the procedural requirements for Zoning Ordinance
amendments contained in state or local laws.
[B] b. The adoption of this guide shall not constitute a
new set of binding procedural requirements for the
amendment of Chapter 325, Zoning, and failure to follow the
procedural suggestions in this guide shall not cause a
defect in the approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment,
provided that all legal requirements are met.
[§ 120-]3. Guide for amendments.
[A] a. This guide for the review of Zoning Ordinance
amendments is designed to accommodate three different types
of situations. The procedure used would depend on the
complexity of the zoning amendment being considered. The
Planning [and Economic Development] Committee would
determine which procedure is appropriate. The steps
May 2, 2001
45
outlined are intended as a guide, not as rigid
requirements.
[B] b. The three different procedures are as follows:
Motion to amend
By: Alderperson Blumenthal, Seconded by: Alderperson Farrell
(1) Minor and non-substantive changes or amendments
(minor word, number, placement, or other similar changes,
modifications, or alterations that do not modify existing
zoning concepts. – add content or substance)
Alderperson Blumenthal withdrew her request to amend the above.
(a) The Planning and [Economic] Development
[Department] staff or other interested parties provide
an explanatory memorandum to the Planning [and
Economic Development] Committee. This explanatory
memo will set forth the current zoning language and
the proposed change of a minor or non-substantive
nature. The memo should also propose how to correct
the unclear provision (i.e., how to correct a
typographical error, numbering change, or better
placement within the Zoning Code Chapter 325). If the
Planning [and Economic Development] Committee desires
additional information, the information shall be
provided.
(b) Referral to Common Council for action: the
Planning [and Economic Development] Committee shall
forward the proposed changes, with its endorsement, to
Common Council; Common Council votes on the proposed
amendments.
(c) The procedures in the remaining subsections of
this part shall not apply to minor and non-substantive
changes or amendments.
Section 4. Chapter 120-3(B)(i) shall be deleted in its
entirety, as follows.
[(1) Expedited Zoning Ordinance amendment (minor word or
number change which only modifies the existing zoning
concept).
(a) Referral. The Planning and Development Board or
the Common Council refers a zoning issue to the Planning
[and Development] Committee. Changes may also be undertaken
by the Planning [and Development] Committee without
referral.
(b) Concept memo. The Planning [and Development]
Committee directs the Planning and Development staff to
draft a memorandum explaining the concept of the proposed
zoning change. The memorandum is referred to the Planning
and Development Board for review and comment. If, in the
opinion of the Planning [and Development] Committee, the
concept does not require drafting of a concept memorandum,
May 2, 2001
46
the proposed concept may be referred orally to the Planning
and Development Board by the liaison to the Board.
(c) Comments received. Comments on the proposed
change are brought back to the Planning [and Development]
Committee through an oral report from the liaison. Comments
may also be referred in writing. The Planning [and
Development] Committee may advance the proposed amendment,
modify it, request more information or terminate
consideration. The Planning [and Development] Committee may
request that the Planning and Development Board take a lead
role in drafting a zoning amendment.
(d) Amendment first draft. The Planning [and
Development] Committee directs the Planning and Development
staff in conjunction with the City Attorney to draft the
proposed change. Environmental review is initiated. If
possible, the Planning [and Development] Committee
Chairperson reviews the draft. The draft, edited by the
Chairperson, is circulated to the Attorney, the Building
Commissioner, the Engineering Department, the Conservation
Advisory Council and the Planning and Development Board.
(e) Referral to the committee of the whole (or a
combined meeting of the affected committees or boards). The
Planning [and Development] Committee receives comments on
the draft and directs the Planning and Development staff to
make appropriate modifications to the amendment. The
modified amendment is referred by the Planning [and
Development] Committee to the committee of the whole (or a
combined meeting of the affected committees or boards). The
committee of the whole refers the amended draft to the
Common Council.
(f) Public hearing. The Common Council calls for a
public hearing and directs that the change be advertised.
(g) Council actions. The Common Council votes on the
proposed amendment.]
(2) Complex Zoning Ordinance amendments (extensive changes
to the rules for a zoning district, a map change or similar
major modification to the Zoning Ordinance).
(a) Referral. Planning and [Economic] Development
staff, t[T]he Planning and [Economic] Development
Board or the Common Council refers a zoning issue
to the Planning [and Economic Development]
Committee. Changes may also be undertaken by the
Planning [and Economic Development] Committee
without referral.
(b) Concept memo. The Planning [and Economic
Development] Committee directs the Planning and
[Economic] Development staff to draft a
memorandum explaining the concept of the proposed
zoning change. The memorandum is referred to the
Planning and Development Board, the Conservation
Advisory Council, the City Attorney, the Building
May 2, 2001
47
Commissioner, the City Engineer, [and] the
Director of Planning and [Economic] Development,
and other relevant boards, commissions, or City
departments, for review and comment.
(c) Comments received. The Planning and [Economic]
Development Department receives and compiles
written comments for consideration by the
Planning [and Economic Development] Committee.
[Written comments are preferred.] The Planning
[and Economic Development] Committee may advance
the proposed amendment, modify it, request more
information or terminate consideration. The
Planning [and Economic Development] Committee may
request that the Planning and Development Board
take a lead role in drafting a zoning amendment.
(d) Amendment first draft. The Planning [and Economic
Development] Committee directs the Planning and
[Economic] Development staff in conjunction with
the City Attorney to draft the proposed change.
Environmental review is initiated. If possible,
the Planning [and Economic Development] Committee
Chairperson reviews the draft. The draft, edited
by the Chairperson, is circulated to the
Attorney, the Building Commissioner, the
Engineering Department, the Conservation Advisory
Council, [and] the Planning and [Economic]
Development Board, and other relevant boards,
commissions, or City departments.
(e) Referral to the Common Council or to the
committee of the whole (or a combined meeting of
the affected committees or boards). The Planning
[and Economic Development] Committee receives
comments on the draft and directs the Planning
and [Economic] Development staff to make
appropriate modifications to the amendment. The
modified amendment is referred by the Planning
[and Economic Development] Committee to the
Common Council, the committee of the whole (or a
combined meeting of the affected committees or
boards). If the amendment is referred to the
latter two groups, t[T]he committee of the whole
will refer[s] the amended draft to the Common
Council.
(f) Public hearing. The proposed change shall be
advertised and a public hearing shall be held.
[The Common Council or the Planning [and Economic
Development] Committee or the Planning and
Development Board arranges [calls] for a public
hearing and directs that the change be
advertised.]
(g) Council action. The Common Council votes on the
proposed amendment.
May 2, 2001
48
(3) Extensive Zoning Ordinance amendments (development of
a new zoning district or ordinance section or extensive map
changes). The procedure shall be the same as in Subsection
[B(2)] C(2) above, except that the draft amendments may be
referred back to the various boards and committees for
comments. Several drafts of the ordinance will likely need
to be prepared.
[C.] D. [The Common Council, or the Planning [and Economic
Development] Committee, or the Planning and Development
Board by resolution, shall fix] T[t]he time and place of a
public hearing on the proposed amendment shall be fixed and
[cause] notice shall [to] be given by publishing a notice
at least 15 days prior to the date of the public hearing in
the official newspaper of the City of Ithaca.
[D.] E. Compliance with General Municipal Law. In amending
this chapter, the Common Council shall, before taking final
action thereon, comply with General Municipal Law § 239-l
and 239-m.
[E.] F. Conduct of public hearing. The public hearing shall be
held by the Common Council [or the Planning [and Economic
Development] Committee or the Planning and Development
Board] in accordance with its own rules and General City
Law § 83.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notice as provided
in the Ithaca City Charter.
Carries Unanimously
17.8 A Local Law to Amend Chapter 4 Entitled “Administration of
Government” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Regarding the
Duties of the Planning and Development Board
By: Alderperson Farrell, Seconded by: Alderperson Hershey
Local Law -2001
BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as
follows:
Section 1. Chapter 4 Entitled “Administration of Government”,
Article V, Section 4-23 Entitled “Planning and Development
Board” is hereby amended as follows:
Section 4-23, B1(c)
Advising the Common Council regarding the preparation and
revision of the city ordinances related to planning, zoning,
site plan review, signs, mobile home parks, subdivisions,
historic landmarks and/or districts, land use and related
subjects properly within its jurisdiction (with the exception of
minor and non-substantive changes or amendments as set forth in
Section 325-45 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code).
Section 2. Effective Date.
May 2, 2001
49
This Local Law shall take effect immediately in accordance with
law upon filing with the Secretary of State.
Carried Unanimously
May 2, 2001
50
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
18.1 SUPPORT OF THE 2000-2010: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY"
By: Mayor Cohen, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor
WHEREAS, Downtown is the physical and emotional center of the
greater Ithaca region, and
WHEREAS, Downtown is an urban, multi-use, multi-dimensional,
organically-built environment that is fundamentally different
and distinct from other commercial centers and neighborhoods,
and
WHEREAS, Downtown is a geographic area shared by all members of
the greater Ithaca community, a place that belongs to us all,
and
WHEREAS, Downtown reflects the identity of the entire Ithaca
community, and
WHEREAS, Downtown should be a place where residents want to
visit regularly, and tourists want to explore, and
WHEREAS, Downtown is a cherished community asset that should be
presented and enhanced, and
WHEREAS, The vitality of downtown is important to us all, and
WHEREAS, The community needs long term strategy to guide the
allocation of staff and financial resources to downtown, and
WHEREAS, A development strategy will provide the community with
a blueprint for future growth and revitalization activity, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, The Ithaca Common Council supports and endorses the
2000-2010 Downtown Development Strategy and will work to use it
as a tool for future downtown growth and revitalization
decision-making.
Carried Unanimously
May 2, 2001
51
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE:
19.1 DPW-Request to Hire Above Minimum Salary –
Resolution
By: Alderperson Manos, Seconded by: Alderperson Farrell
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works TCAT operation has four
positions to fill, and
WHEREAS, TCAT has had difficulty hiring individuals for the City
positions because comparable Cornell University TCAT positions
are offered at a significantly higher salary, and
WHEREAS, the starting salary for the City TCAT Bus Drivers is
$9.28/hour since 1994 and the new hire rate for Cornell
University TCAT Bus Drivers is $11.20/hour; and
WHEREAS, the CSEA DPW unit contract provides for hiring at a
rate above the minimum in view of special circumstances or
scarcity of qualified employees upon approval by Common Council,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that Common Council hereby grants approval to fill the
four current Bus Driver vacancies at a salary rate of $10.02,
$.74 above the contract rate.
Carried Unanimously
19.2 Youth Bureau – Request to Create a Temporary
Position - Resolution
By: Alderperson Manos, Seconded by Alderperson Sams
Whereas, The current Cass Park Recreation Supervisor has
announced her resignation effective August 10, 2001, and
Whereas, This position has a major responsibility for managing
the aquatics program, ice rink scheduling and concessions, and
Whereas, In order to ensure uninterrupted services and a smooth
transition the Youth Bureau is requesting the opportunity to
overlap the newly hired Recreation Supervisor with the current
Recreation Supervisor to allow training for three weeks (from
July 23, 2001 – August 10, 2001), now therefore be it
Resolved, That Common Council authorizes the creation of a
temporary position for three weeks at a cost of $1,662 for which
$1,294 is budgeted and $368 will be transferred from Cass Park
Account A7310-5120-01513 (Cass Park Pool hourly part-time) to
the 110 line.
Carried Unanimously
19.3 Resolution for settlement agreement between City of Ithaca
and Richard Eckstrom
By Alderperson Manos: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the expenditure
of funds to satisfy the Settlement Agreement to be entered into
between the City of Ithaca and Richard Eckstrom, wherein all
pending and asserted claims, as of the effective date of the
Settlement Agreement, against the City of Ithaca, its Common
May 2, 2001
52
Council, as a whole and individually, its Mayor, and any other
employee or agent, are settled, resolved, and released by
Richard Eckstrom, in exchange for:
The payment to Richard Eckstrom of Three Hundred Seventy
Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($375,000) to be paid out
in twenty (20) even installments over the next five (5)
years
Payment to True, Walsh & Miller, LLP, as counsel for
Richard Eckstrom, the sum of One Hundred Sixty Thousand and
no/100 Dollars ($160,000)
Such monies to be derived from the following sources:
One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars
($125,000) from insurance funds to settle claims against
the City
The remainder to be derived from current and future budget
appropriations.
Carried Unanimously
Alderperson Hershey stated that this was discussed extensively in
Executive Session. What we do tonight is effectively carry out
the budgetary aspects of the vote that we took in Executive
Session already. I’ve thought a lot about this and with your
permission, I’ve reduced a few of my thoughts to paper. The matter
we propose to bring to closure tonight first came to the attention
of many of us more than two years ago, at a meeting at what was
then called the Community Issues Committee. How taken aback I was
to see this room packed to the rafters that March night for what
seemed to be a fairly mundane agenda. We soon understood why.
Dozens of Ithaca’s African Americans had come with friends and
sympathizers to protest what they said was the racially inspired
eviction of a black owned barbershop on Cayuga Street on orders
from the City. It was a serious charge demanding immediate action
on at least two fronts. First, we had to determine how the shop
could re-open, then we had to discover what had happened and why.
To accomplish this second task we turned to the Tompkins County
Human Rights Commission. It was clear from the Commission’s
report of that July allegations of racism aside, that our building
department was in chaos, with almost all of the men and women
under his supervision convinced that the commissioner was ill
suited to lead them or interpret City regulations. This was hardly
an insurrection, members of the department had been encouraged to
testify with assurances of confidentiality, instead they were
identified by name and the document leaked to the press
practically before the ink was dry. Premature exposure of such a
deep-rooted dispute may have been a good story but it was also a
damaging development. It eliminated any chance we might have had
to air the issues internally with an eye toward mediation.
Instead, the City Attorney and Human Resources Director were
instructed to investigate, evaluate and report. Their findings,
in my estimation, as true today as they were the day we first day
we heard them late in the summer of 1999, placed the blame
squarely with the Commissioner. Worse, as I saw it, we were now
confronted with a second substantiate issue at least as troubling
as the allegations of racism over the barbershop. We were told
May 2, 2001
53
that our Commissioner had overruled members of his own staff and
liberalized requirements for the conversion of a multi-unit
residence in ways that they believed would jeopardize the lives of
inhabitants in the event of a fire. Would you say that was a
serious charge? In most organizations, managers of major
departments serve at the pleasure of their employer or under
renewable term contracts. They can be demoted or invited to
resign if they act in less than best interest of the organization,
providing that the disciplinary is not arbitrary, capricious or
discriminatory. But, Ithaca’s executives seem almost immune from
such accountability. As Judge Walter Relahan noted with apparent
puzzlement when he finally ruled on the matter in November. In
the wake of a 1997 referendum this City is not free to terminate a
number of ranking officials, including the Building Commissioner,
merely because of policy differences or a loss of confidence.
More is now necessary. A termination requires the service of
written charges, a formal hearing may be demanded, proof of
misconduct or incompetence or both must be produced. To conduct
that hearing and rule on the case Common Council reviewed the
resumes of a half dozen experts in such matters. We settled on a
attorney who seemed especially well suited to the task. He had
acceptance of credentials and no discernable bias. I gather he
conducted the hearing with great care, members of Common Council
were advised to stay away so as not to prejudice our own reaction
to the findings because in the event of a recommendation to
terminate, we would have to make the ultimate determination, and
we did; although it has turned out to penultimate. Why did we
follow Mr. Crotty’s advice? And vote to terminate Mr. Eckstrom?
Read his review of the facts. Crotty cited Eckstrom’s own account
of the circumstances that lead him to recommend termination. It
was Rick Eckstrom who acknowledged that he conducted back gentle
conversations with a realtor. Threatening to act in a way that
would deprive the barbershop landlord of tens of thousands of
dollars of property value unless the shop was evicted. Even giving
the man a deadline. Forget about the motivation, would you want
our Building Commissioner to act that way under any circumstances?
It was Rick Eckstrom who testified that he refused to ask the
State for an independent opinion on the level of fire protection
needed at Whiton House because he knew the State would side with
his subordinates and he already decided otherwise. Eventually,
the higher standard was required and I don’t know about you, but
as the parent of a college age youngster, I think that alone could
have been the pain and expense of what we have gone through here.
I’m not happy about the expense, far from it. It is a price we
pay for being a City, State and Nation of laws. Judge Relahan
ruled that given the City’s peculiarly high standard for dismissal
and the State’s very wide latitude of discretion afforded such
officials as our Building Commissioner. Mr. Eckstrom was not
incompetent in the legal sense of the word and thus should not
have been dismissed. But even Judge Relahan suggested that it was
impractical to have Mr. Eckstrom return to work and later rebuffed
our efforts to find a way to do that without jeopardizing the
employee’s who had spoken out. And so, as Judge Relahan broadly
hinted we should in his decision, we are settling. I will vote
aye on this resolution as well as with every other action taken
with every twist of the case since that March night of 1999. I do
so because I believe that it is in the best interests of the
residents and the employees of the City of Ithaca. Thank you.
May 2, 2001
54
Alderperson Pat Vaughan spoke that her first reaction to Mr.
Eckstrom’s settlement demands was shock. Surely he had confused
this employment controversy, profound though it might be, with
winning the lottery. His first demand was for a million dollars.
A sum vastly out of proportion to the circumstances. We urged our
professional staff to work diligently toward a solution that would
permit an honorable return to work. At the same time, we pursued
discussions which explored what shade the settlement might take
should we not be able to find common ground for future employment.
Then we were informed that even if Mr. Eckstrom were returned to
work, he was planning to sue the City in Federal Court, requiring
the City to spend a very large amount of money to defend against
this new suit. Though it might have been possible for us to
prevail in the Federal case, we would be required to spend a great
deal of money doing so and if we did not prevail, our exposure
would be substantially greater than before. Probably in the
millions of dollars. Though paying money to settle this case, was
distasteful to us, we came to understand that not settling would
put the City at risk of being required to pay Mr. Eckstrom
extraordinary amounts of money, money which could be used far more
productively to provide service for our citizens. Roads, Youth
Programs, Planning, all of these basic services and more could be
placed in jeopardy by this Federal suit and the astonishing sums
claimed as damages. As chair of the Budget and Administration
Committee, am I comfortable with the amount of this settlement?
Only when I look at the probable consequences of not settling.
Council and the professional staff did their collective best to
limit what was paid and to obtain insurance reimbursement for as
much as possible of the cost. After more than two years of
controversy and months of haggling over the numbers, I believe
that this settlement of the case is the best option for the City.
Alderperson Spielholz spoke on behalf of our City employees in the
Building Department. Their show of courage during these past two
years, working under the most difficult conditions cannot be
heralded enough. We are all paying a price for this human
tragedy, but these are the men and women who continue to find a
way to function under the close scrutiny of the public microscope.
In the very beginning of this crisis, these City workers stepped
forth to speak honestly when called upon by the Humans Rights
Coalition. Their hope was to reveal, under individual anonymity,
the chaos that had already existed in the City of Ithaca’s
Building Department. They had no hidden agenda, there was no
conspiracy, but the inquiry by the HRC had hurt nerve with
individuals who found that coping with their everyday workplace
lives had become more stressful. And there was no anonymity.
When the HRC report was leaked out to the public, there were names
for all to see. We do care about the welfare of our employees and
have a responsibility to create a civil and functional workplace.
Our workplace development task force survey highlighted the need
for more attention to human resource issues and we, the Common
Council, the City Attorney and the Human Resources Department were
faced with the task of reinstating Mr. Eckstrom as the Building
Commissioner as ordered by Judge Relahan. I do believe we tried
to accommodate the judge’s wishes and simultaneously preserve the
equanimity of our employees who feared for constant confrontation.
We looked for honest solutions and for equitable remedies, we
envisioned the possibilities that two building commissioners doing
prescribed tasks could co-exist and that the City’s work could
May 2, 2001
55
continue without further interruption. But it was not to be.
This whole affair was a tragic experience for our entire
community. We need to heal, we need to put this behind us.
Alderperson Manos stated that this has truly been a long and
difficult process for everyone. Common Council adhered to the
procedures stipulated in Section 26.1 of the City code with regard
to discipline and removal of selected officers. Objectivity and
fairness were of utmost importance to us as we chose to appoint a
hearing officer to make findings of fact and to recommend possible
penalties. We selected a hearing officer with extensive
experience in this type of hearing and whom we were assured would
be impartial and non-biased in the performance of his duties.
Council then chose to take on the responsibility as the final
decision-maker in this matter. In time, Council’s decision to
terminate was overturned and Judge Relahan ordered the City to
return Mr. Eckstrom to his position as Building Commissioner or
try to settle the matter. Council spent countless hours
discussing the options: appeal, try to settle, or reinstate.
Each of those options came with a high price tag. We realized
again that we were in a no-win situation. With regard to
reinstatement, we discussed again and again, what the overall
impact would be on our most valuable resource, our employees.
Clearly, the employees of the building department were and
continue to be the most directly affected, but the impact has and
would reach far beyond the building department. We knew that
colleagues of Mr. Eckstrom as well the building department staff
has also had to endure these last 20 months. In an attempt to
comply with Judge Relahan’s decision to return Mr. Eckstrom to
work, and in recognition of how difficult and unhealthy it would
be for the building department and Mr. Eckstrom to just return him
to work without a functional transitional plan, we created the
second Building Commissioner position. In doing so, Common
Council restored Mr. Eckstrom’s Commissioner responsibilities with
the exception of direct supervision over the staff that had
testified against him during the hearing. All along it had been
our intent to protect the building department staff as well as Mr.
Eckstrom. Because Judge Relahan disagreed with our belief that we
had an obligation to protect the rights of the building department
employees, in addition to Mr. Eckstrom’s rights, we felt that
settling with Mr. Eckstrom was the only way to ensure that they
would continue to work as admirably and efficiently as they had
done over the course of the last 20 months. The Judge ordered Mr.
Eckstrom reinstated as Building Commissioner, including previously
assigned supervisory duties. We then began to what kind of
settlement we could agree upon and were able to negotiate Mr.
Eckstrom’s demands down to what you see in this resolution. We
received much advice from our community and we thank you. We
heard don’t appeal, appeal, don’t settle, settle, just bring him
back, don’t bring him back, to one couple who e-mailed us asking
us to “reinstate Mr. Eckstrom as long as he agrees not sue the
City.” I want you to know that that was never even a possibility.
Every option, except the one we were able to negotiate included
more law suits against the City. We balanced the information
before us, we thought things through carefully, we argued some, we
agreed some and over and over again. And then we resolved this
matter in the best way that we could under the circumstances.
May 2, 2001
56
Alderperson Sams spoke that after all her colleagues said, she
wants to say thank you for last two years of this, we’ve had some
really rough times in executive session. She knows that she
hasn’t been as cooperative as some thought she should be, but
there has been some stress and she thinks that the public needs to
know that Council did agonize long and hard over all this
situation and had a hard decision to make. Actually, she has
always been the one who has abstained or said no all the time with
this, but tonight after revealing and going over it, it has been a
lot of soul searching. She thinks that we have come to what is
best for the staff and for what is best for this community. She
is going to support this tonight, with some real hurt, but she’s
going to go ahead and support it. Also, she thinks that is
important to note to clear a staff member’s name and myself that
it needs to be known that Mike Dickerson or myself did not leak
any information to the press as it was said. The press had that
information long before Council ever got the report. She thinks
that it is important that that is cleared up and really
understood.
Mayor Cohen stated that given the gravity of the situation, he
took the unusual step of actually writing down some of his
thoughts down as well. There are so many things that he would
like to talk about pertaining to this situation, but when he
thought about it, he realized that doing so would end up sounding
like he was trying to explain the situation away. So, instead, he
will simply point out some specific things that trouble him. He
thought that code enforcement was a fairly objective cut and dry
process, he has learned how subjective it can be. At present, we
simply do not have the organizational capacity to recognize and
deal with all the problems that might exist within City
government. While we have made important strides in this regard,
we still have ground to cover. I am troubled by the disciplinary
process itself. The way the Charter was changed in 1997 ties the
hands of the City in cases when there are problems in the
organization and actions need to be taken. Judge Relahan
specifically pointed out this fact in his decision as Mr. Hershey
just spoke about a minute ago. This should be addressed. As
Paulette just spoke about, the City hired a hearing officer with
impeccable credentials and whose objectivity could not be called
into question, yet his decision was overturned. After 13 days of
testimony, and many more months of reviewing the record, he made a
very clear recommendation to terminate the employment of Rick
Eckstrom. While we now know that his technical decision was
flawed, what was it that this person saw in those hearings that so
thoroughly convinced him that Rick Eckstrom should not get his job
back? I am disheartened that to this day, some members of this
community have not been able to objectively review the facts of
this case. The improper leaking of the Human Rights Commission
report caused an uproar and whatever action was taken after that,
was looked upon in light of that first report. His actions were
independent of that report as were the actions of Common Council.
Until people can set aside their anger over what first happened,
they will not be able to reasonably consider our actions. He is
troubled by what this settlement decision might signal to some
people. This is not a vindication of an innocent person. This is
a damnation of a long and convoluted process. Were it not for the
fact that this settlement is truly in the best interests of the
City, he could not support it and he knows his colleagues could
May 2, 2001
57
not either. He supports the settlement, but he is still sick
about it. The charges he filed were based on administrative
misconduct and incompetence. There are still questions of racial
motivation to be decided. He was now presented with enough
evidence to file sustainable disciplinary charges on these
grounds. Our investigation was specifically limited by the City
Charter to the previous twelve months from the data that the
charges were filed. A broader body of evidence exists and still
needs to be fully explored and I hope that both the NYS Attorney
General and the NYS Human Rights Commission will now step in and
investigate the situation. He wants to close his remarks by
acknowledging the efforts of our staff and elected officials. The
situation has been terribly straining on the staff of the building
department, they stuck their necks out and testified on the wrong
doings of their boss and they have lived under the shadow of this
situation ever since. Despite the uncertainty and anxiety about
what might happen, they not only continued to perform their jobs,
but the building department has never operated more efficiently or
effectively. His thanks go out to Phyllis and Mike and their
entire staff for hanging in there and getting the job done. The
offices of Human Resources, City Controller and City Attorney have
put in countless hours on this as well. In particular, Norma and
Schelley have worked with other City staff and with Common Council
to keep things going and to find workable solutions. He is deeply
grateful for the extra effort they put in to help bring us all
through this. He acknowledges the efforts of this Common Council.
From the outset, it would have been easier to walk away from this,
but you understood that something had to be done to right a wrong.
None of us ever expected what would happen next, but through it
all you maintained your objectivity and your commitment to doing
what was right. You’re to be commended for your dedication to the
employees of this organization and to the people of this
community.
20. BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
20.1 Common Council – Approval of 2002 Guidelines for Community
Service Funding
By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has in the past appropriated funds to
agencies for cultural enrichment, economic promotion, and other
purposes aside from human services, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council intends that all such requests be
subject to a standardized review process; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Budget and Administration Committee of Common
Council be authorized to review all fiscal year 2002 requests for
non-mandated city funding from private, non-profit agencies who
have been granted IRS 501 status, or whose application for such
status is pending, and that are not subject to Human Services
Coalition review, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the following requirements and criteria shall be
applied to all such requests:
Requirements
All applications for 2002 funding must be submitted in writing to
the City Controller by June 15, 2001.
May 2, 2001
58
Each application must include a statement that explains how the
activity proposed for City funding will benefit the social,
cultural, economic, and/or environmental well being of city
residents, in terms as specific as possible. Information
presented should include the groups or individuals to be served,
the number of people to benefit from the activity, and the
duration of the benefit (long term or short term).
A) Each application must include budgets for 2001 and 2002,
financial reports from 1999 and 2000, and an enumeration of other
funding sources.
B) The application should also include a count of individuals
served, by municipality, for prior years, and a report on any
positive impacts and benefits of programs previously funded.
C) The application must include a description of methods for
measuring positive outcomes from funding requested for fiscal year
2002.
Criteria and Evaluation Scoring
The Committee shall assign points for the degree to which the
proposed use of City funds meets each of the following criteria.
If the applicant does not supply sufficient information for the
Committee to make a judgment, the proposal shall receive zero
points in each such case.
These criteria and evaluation scores will be used by the Budget &
Administration Committee as guidelines in evaluating requests for
funding:
1. The proposed activity will benefit the social, cultural,
economic and/or environmental well being of residents of the
City of Ithaca.
A) The proposal will service city residents in proportion
to City funding requested.
B) The sponsor of the proposed activity:
has received funding, or
is reasonable assured of receiving funding, or
has made a good faith effort to receive funding
from the County, appropriate towns, school
districts, or other funding sources in proportion
to non-city residents served.
2. The proposed activity will serve an identified need in the
city and does not duplicate another service.
3. The proposed activity is designed to effectively meet the
needs of those to be benefited; and the proposal includes
measurable objectives and outcomes.
4. The applicant demonstrates sound management practices.
May 2, 2001
59
5. The proposed activity will especially benefit a population in
financial need (i.e., below federal poverty guidelines) or
the disabled.
6. The proposed activity will produce a long-term benefit.
Now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That by August 1, 2001, the Budget & Administration
Committee shall forward its recommendations to the Mayor for
consideration in the 2002 budget.
Carried Unanimously
(Blumenthal absent from vote)
20.2 Common Council – Request to Approve Participation in the
Financial Assistance to Business Program and Filing of an
Application with the NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation
By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Alderperson Manos
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of 1996,
being Chapter 413 of the Laws of New York of 1996, the New York
State Environmental Facilities Corporation (the “Corporation”)
through the Financial Assistance to Business Program (the “FAB
Program”) is authorized to provide state assistance to villages,
towns, and cities with a population of less than one million, for
small business environmental compliance assistance projects which
enhance the quality of the air or waters of the State through
compliance with environmental laws and regulations, or to remedy
or prevent environmental deficiencies; and
WHEREAS, the governing body of the City of Ithaca (hereinafter,
the “Municipality”), after due consideration, has determined that
participation in the FAB Program is desirable and in the public
interest; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE MUNICIPALITY AS FOLLOWS:
1. The filing of an application, or applications, with the
Corporation for financial assistance under the FAB Program in
the form required by the Corporation is hereby authorized,
including all understandings and assurances contained in said
application.
2. The individual holding the following office is directed and
authorized as the official representative of the Municipality
to identify entities that will participate in the FAB
Program, to execute and deliver said application(s), to
execute and deliver any other documents necessary for
participation in the FAB Program, to provide such additional
information as may be required, and to take all actions on
behalf of the Municipality as may be required in order to
effectuate the intent and purpose of this resolution: Alan J.
Cohen, Mayor.
3. The Corporation is hereby authorized, on behalf of the
Municipality to deliver payments made pursuant to the FAB
Program directly to the entities identified above, or such
further entities as may from time to time be named by the
individual identified in paragraph 2 above.
May 2, 2001
60
4. A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared and
delivered to the Corporation as part of said application.
5. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
Carried Unanimously
(Blumenthal absent from vote)
20.3 Common Council – Request for Funds for First Friday Program
By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Alderperson Spielholz
WHEREAS, First Friday of Central New York (FFCNY) is requesting
funds from the City to assist the program in May, June and July of
2001, and
WHEREAS, FFCNY is a monthly business and social networking event
meeting on the first Friday of every month, which fosters
communication, interaction and involvement among professionals of
color in the Central New York Region, and
WHEREAS, First Friday is a nationally recognized institution that
brings people of color together in approximately 35 locations all
over the United States and Canada, and
WHEREAS, FFCNY is requesting $3,800 in funds from the City to
assist with their upcoming monthly events; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves funding in the
amount not to exceed $3,800 for First Friday of Central New York
for 2001 from the following sources:
Unrestricted Contingency account A1990 transfer to
A1012-5435 $1,800
Human Resources account A1430-5450 transfer to
A1012-5435 $2,000
and be it further
RESOLVED, That FFCNY is encouraged to submit application for 2002
Community Service Agency funding through the City’s established
funding procedures.
Carried Unanimously
(Blu
20.4 DPW – Request to Approve Exchange of Land from Johnson Boat
Yard
By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Alderperson Manos
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is interested in working with
Tom Cleveland and Johnson Boat Yard to clear up a number of
property issues to both parties’ mutual benefit by addressing lot
lines and permanent easement locations, and
WHEREAS, the proposed exchanges of land and relocation of a sewer
easement will recognize current uses the city has made of private
property, such as the sewer lift station and the turn around at
the west end of Pier Road, and will improve the utility of the
boat yard to the property owner, and
May 2, 2001
61
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works at its April 11, 2001 meeting
approved the land swap and recommends it on to Council; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves the sale of land in
exchange for the purchase of land of equal area as shown on the
survey map of Johnson Boat Yard by T. G. Miller, P.C. dated
October 14, 1992 last amended July 21, 1999, as well as the
exchange of sewer easements and other easements, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the Mayor in
consultation with the City Attorney and the Superintendent of
Public Works to negotiate said land exchange.
Carried Unanimously (8-0)
(Blumenthal absent from vote)
20.5 DPW – Request Amendment to Stewart Avenue Bridge at
Cascadilla Street
By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Aldeperson Pryor
WHEREAS, Common Council at its regular meeting of July 1, 1998
approved the Stewart Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation Project in the
amount of $526,000, of which 95% would be funded by federal and
state funds, and 5% would be City-funded, and
WHEREAS, bids were received on April 3, 2001 reflecting a post bid
budget of $1,270,000 as follows:
Design $ 210,000
Construction 976,071
Construction Inspection 83,929
$1,270,000
and
WHEREAS, the cost increases of the project were associated with
the two-year delay in bidding, the additional cost associated with
replacement of major portions of the bridge’s substructure and
substantial increases in the amount of bridgework in the bid; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends Capital Project #266
Stewart Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation by an amount not to exceed
$744,000, for a total project cost of $1,270,000, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor be authorized to sign all necessary
agreements with New York State Department of Transportation to
secure Federal Aid and Marchiselli Aid on behalf of the City of
Ithaca, and the Superintendent be authorized to sign all necessary
construction documents, contracts, certifications, and
reimbursement requests, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this project be undertaken with the understanding
that the final cost to the City will be five percent (5%) of the
final approved project cost, currently estimated at $63,303 of the
$1,270,000 authorized for the project, in monies and in-kind
May 2, 2001
62
services as managed by the Superintendent and monitored by the
City Controller, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the funds for said project amendment shall be
derived by the issuance of Serial Bonds with later reimbursement
from Federal and State funds.
Carried Unanimously
20.6 DPW – Request to Amend Capital Fund for Various Streets and
Facilities Projects
By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor
WHEREAS, the New York State Retirement System has incurred losses
from its investments during the recent downturn of the world’s
stock markets, and
WHEREAS, the City has been notified by the New York State
Retirement System that it plans on billing local municipalities an
additional 1.5 percent of their total payroll, over the initial
estimates, as their contribution to the Common Retirement Fund for
2001, and
WHEREAS, the budget impact of this additional bill could be as
much as $250,000 - $300,000 in additional funds required by the
City not originally budgeted in the 2001 City Budget, and
WHEREAS, as a result of this possible additional bill from the NYS
Retirement System, the City Controller’s Office is recommending
that a budget amendment be made to offset the needed funds, and
WHEREAS, the Controller’s Office and the DPW have reviewed various
options and are recommending that several force account DPW
Capital Projects be implemented to offset the $300,000 needed in
additional funds; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2001 City Budget
by an amount not to exceed $300,000 for the possible increase in
contribution needed to the New York State Retirement System as
follows:
Increase Revenue Account:
A2803 Transfer from Capital Fund $300,000
Increase Appropriation Accounts:
A9010 & A9015 Employees, Police and Fire
State Retirement (amounts will be distributed
by Controller’s Office based on program budgets) $300,000
and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby establishes and amends the
following Capital Projects in a total amount not to exceed
$300,000:
Establish Capital Project #441 Flood, Erosion and Storm
Water Improvements $128,810
May 2, 2001
63
Establish Capital Project #442 Various Park
Improvements 21,600
Amend Capital Project #430 DPW Street & Road Programs 128,226
Amend Capital Project #386 Commons Improvements 21,364
$300,000
and be it further
RESOLVED, That said funds for Capital Projects shall be derived
from the issuance of Serial Bonds.
Carried Unanimously
20.7 DPW – Request to Amend City Hall Renovation Project
By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey
WHEREAS, the City’s Information Services and Technology (IT)
Department will be increasing in staff over the next few months,
and
WHEREAS, there is a need to improve the IT Department’s City Hall
work space to allow for the office to function effectively with
the increased staff, and
WHEREAS, funds were originally budgeted in the Computer Network
Project for said structural improvements, but will be better
utilized if they are used for computer networking purposes, and
WHEREAS, the City’s Engineering Department has estimated the IT
Work Space improvements will cost $42,000, $35,000 in renovation
work and $7,000 in code compliance work; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends Capital Project #381
City Hall Renovations by an amount not to exceed $35,000 for a
total project authorization of $842,000 to make structural
improvements to the Information Services and Technology
Department, and be it further
RESOLVED, That $7,000 of $42,000 total improvement budget shall be
derived from Capital Project #423 Code Compliance, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That said new money shall be derived from the issuance
of Serial Bonds.
Carried Unanimously
20.8 Police Department – Request to Amend Budget for Grant
By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Manos
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Police Department has been notified by the New
York State Department of Motor Vehicles Governor’s Traffic Safety
Committee that the City will receive a $7,500 grant to purchase
Sobriety Checkpoint Equipment; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2001 Authorized
City Budget as follows to account for said Sobriety Checkpoint
Equipment grant:
Increase Revenue Account:
A3120-3389-05001 $7,500
May 2, 2001
64
Increase Appropriation Account:
A3120-5225-05001 $7,500
Carried Unanimously
20.9 Police Department – Request to Amend Budget for Grant
By: Alderperson Vaughan, Seconded by: Alderperson Hershey
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Police Department has been notified by the New
York State Department of Motor Vehicles Governor’s Traffic Safety
Committee that the City will receive a $7,090 grant for Vehicle
and Traffic Enforcement, and
WHEREAS, the grant funds will allow the Police Department to
purchase new equipment to assist in vehicle and traffic
enforcement; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2001 Authorized
City Budget as follows to account for said Vehicle and Traffic
Enforcement grant:
Increase Revenue Account:
A3120-3389-05001 $7,090
Increase Appropriation Account:
A3120-5225-05001 $7,090
Carried Unanimously
20.10 Planning Department – Request to Approve Contract with the
National Development Council
By: Mayor Cohen, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it needs the professional
services of an advisor to work with the City to develop and assist
in the implementation of their community and economic development
programs, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has selected The National
Development Council to assist the City with community and economic
development at an estimated cost of $50,000, and
WHEREAS, the contract period will begin June 1, 2001 and end April
30, 2002; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the Mayor, subject
to the final review of the City Attorney, to enter into the
attached lump-sum contract with The National Development Council
at a cost not to exceed $50,000 to assist the City with its
community and economic development programs for the period May 1,
2001 through April 30, 2002, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes a Capital Project
in the amount not to exceed $50,000 for the planning and related
feasibility studies in connection with economic and housing
projects, which may lead to the reconstruction or new construction
May 2, 2001
65
of one or more parking facilities, or other capital improvements,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the funds for said contract shall be derived as
follows:
A. Transfer unneeded funds from existing
Capital Project #250 $28,000
B. Transfer of unneeded funds from Capital
Reserve #14 to this new Capital Project $22,000
Dan Marsh, Eastern Regional Director, of the National Development
Council gave a quick explanation of what the NDC is. The NDC is a
National, not-for-profit, charitable foundation. Established in
1969. Since 1969 it has been doing financial consulting, real
estate consulting, and general community development, planning and
consulting work around the country. They currently work for about
130 different municipal governments around the country ranging in
size from the Federal government down to very small communities of
5,000 or less. They provide technical assistance services as well
as product services to their municipal clients and they assist
them not only in developing programs but structuring financing for
specific projects, negotiating on behalf on the City and providing
equity and loan capital for projects that occur within the
client’s city. They are headquartered in New York City and they
have offices across the United States and they currently work in
the continental United States plus the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. They are considered a training organization, a technical
assistance consulting organization and a product service delivery
organization and their client’s projects range from housing to
public facilities to neighborhood economic development
revitalization. They’ve have been doing this since 1969. They’re
happy to be here and hope that if the City decides to hire them
that they can start immediately on some of these exciting projects
that they’ve heard about over the last several months coming to
Ithaca and meeting with staff and most of you. He’ll be glad to
answer any specific questions about NDC and what they’ve been
doing if you have any.
Alderperson Pryor spoke that she was really appreciative of the
fact that although she is not on the Economic Development
Committee, she had the opportunity to have a briefing between a
person from the NDC and she was able to ask a lot of questions at
that time.
Alderperson Sams spoke that she was glad to have an opportunity to
speak with NDC and get some questions answered. Her questions are
more for Council and the ED Committee and some of the processes
and procedures that are going to be done and her concern and she
thinks this is a wonderful idea, it’s good and she really wishes
that it had been thought of before and it had come before Council
before now. Her concern is about the fact that when she talked
with NDC earlier, housing was talked about and the community and
so on and so forth, her concern and it’s put out to Council and
it’s really not for you, but for Council itself that we have just
given two million dollars to INHS to do some housing stock, but
NDC can only with CHODOS on housing which is mutual housing. She
has great questions about that and she has in front of her the
May 2, 2001
66
mutual housing handbook which talks about permanent life time
residency and all the things that we talked about that they’ve
written grants on and we’ve supported which is not happening.
Which as of just last week, another resident was evicted which was
a black female, a head of a household which makes three which I’m
not sure on what grounds, but she is concerned that if we are
going to support CHODOS that we are supporting CHODOS that believe
in what they say and they do and she’s hoping that’s what the NDC
can really do for this CHODA if it plans to take it on. To take a
look at that and to take a look at the commitment that it made to
the community, not just some of the community, but all of the
community. Lifetime residency means lifetime residency and she
doesn’t think they’re living up to it. She feels really bad that
the City has continued to support somebody/organization that
hasn’t lived up to their commitment and has intentionally written
another grant, not living up to their commitment. She’s hoping
that when NDC comes in, if that is the thought of the CHODAs and
what is going to be done that that will be investigated and looked
into thoroughly before we move forward with anymore of that. She
is also concerned about the two million dollars that the City has
given INHS as to exactly what is going to be happening in the
scheme of things with this picture if we’re going to be doing
these things, where does all that fall in? She is concerned about
process and procedures as to where things go and how they go and
if something comes up that isn’t ED where does it go? How does it
work? Who makes these decisions? She’d like to know a little bit
more about that, not that she doesn’t support this because she
does, but she’d like to see some things ironed out for her on the
process.
Mayor Cohen explained that Alderperson Sams was referring to a new
housing program that the City funded. There might be some
misunderstanding where those funds are being directed and perhaps,
he has not done a good enough job of communicating in that regard.
The funds are in the hands of the City of Ithaca, not in the hands
of INHS and will continue to remain in the hands of the City.
Alderperson Sams replied that she knew this, Mayor Cohen stated he
wanted to clarify for the public to think the City turned over two
million dollars to INHS notwithstanding that they are a wonderful
organization and could do good work with that money.
Mr. Marsh stated that his work with CHODOS or any neighborhood
organization is at the direction of the client. What they would
do is look at projects and programs at the City’s direction and
they would assist those CHODOS or other neighborhood organizations
only if they are directed by staff and council to do so.
Alderperson Spielholz thanked Mr. Marsh for his time to adjust to
all of council’s schedule because of schedule conflicts and for
the many, many briefings. The oneness is on the City now. If the
City requests the NDC’s services they have to figure out what the
requests pertain to and the list is very, very long and it will be
difficult to hone down to use you the best we can. She hopes the
City is up to the test.
Alderperson Blumenthal had a question about the staff training and
training in general. Certainly development efforts will require
City efforts, but also we’ll be working with private developers
and non-for-profits which have already been mentioned. There is a
May 2, 2001
67
clause in here that there would be staff training provided in-
house and she is wondering about possibilities for training for
private developers, not-for-profit that would increase the
knowledge base in the community so that we have more highly
skilled people in a greater capacity to work with us and benefit
us in the end.
Mr. Marsh responded that that was something that is very
important. Their contract provides, he believes, for two
different training vehicles. One is onsite staff training to
teach staff more about financial underwriting, project
development, project negotiating, which can be general in nature
or it can be very specific. It could be in a classroom setting or
it could be in a project work setting. That really is a
discussion that our staff will have to have with your staff to
figure out what is best. The other part of the training that is
in the contract, he believes that there a free tuition slots to
their classroom training program for staff that the City
designates. He’s not sure if there’s one or two in the contract.
There’s one in the contract. What that is, is a free tuition slot
to one of their training courses whether it be housing, economic
development, finance or economic development finance professional.
That’s a very rigorous week long program, one is in four week
session, the other is a three week session. That is available to
your staff that you designate. The question of training the
community and training developers which really is knowledge
building or increasing the knowledge base of the people who you
are going to rely upon to help implement some of your programs
here in Ithaca. It’s not included in our base contract price, it
is something they have done in the past for large cities, for
small communities, we do it on a continuing basis for State
organizations such as housing/finance agencies. If it is something
that appears to be important to the community once we know
precisely what the goal is, we can talk to the staff about ways to
possibly accomplish that. It would have to be an add on to the
contract which would then need approval from Common Council. An
intensive training program could not be included in this contract.
They have the capacity and time within their contract to work on a
general basis with the community and with developers, to set up a
training program with workbook products and textbooks and the way
they normally run a training program, that cost is not included in
the contract. They would have to talk about that. Certainly
neighborhood information sessions, maybe a day long session on tax
credits, maybe a day long session on balance sheets and
profit/loss statement analysis for the community. They can
certainly look at that as part of the contract, but if they were
to do formal training with textbooks and materials like that we’d
have to look it up.
Alderperson Blumenthal asked if that was something in this
provision that they could assume that those kinds of sessions
which sound very good like the tax credits and so forth would be
in the contract?
Mr. Marsh responded affirmatively. He said that would be
something that they normally provide as part of their base
contract.
May 2, 2001
68
Alderperson Blumenthal brought up the question of how the
information gets processed. Discussion had taken place at the ED
meeting about sending materials to you. This is really somewhat
an internal question. There was a comment from the Mayor that
materials would be sent directly to you. For example, we have a
list of 17 items now and they vary from very large – Cayuga Green
to some smaller ones that are more abstract in their feasibility.
She wanted to ask Council to consider whether we should be
reviewing the documents prior to submission to the NDC because
there will be descriptions of the programs and projects. There
will be proposals for funding, for feasibility, for what the
projects contain. For example we talked about Marcos Flats for
example that was added on here, there might be interests of
neighborhoods that we would want to insert and put in for them to
understand and consider. She has a resolved clause that she wants
to proposed
Mayor Cohen stated that the City Attorney did review the contract,
there were three particular areas that were focused on and he’d
like to review those. They’ve been discussed with the NDC and
they need to be re-written and that’s why he’d like this
resolution to reflect that before he signs anything, it has to go
back to the City Attorney first. There was a clause in the
contract regarding the status of the NDC as independent
contractors when we do work with independent contractors, we
always insure that they provide certain benefits like worker’s
compensation in particular to their employees so that will be
added, the discrimination terminology used in NDC contract does
not match ours. Ours is much broader and NDC has agreed to
include our broader discrimination language. Lastly, there is an
indemnification clause that indemnifies the NDC, we have asked for
mutual indemnification so they will be providing the City with
indemnification. Basically, we’re both saying you take care of
yourself, if you mess up; we take care of ourselves if we mess up.
Those are three things that are going to be added, reviewed by the
City Attorney before the Mayor would sign it. That’s why he wants
that language in there, so that you’re aware of it and he would
not sign it without the City Attorney’s final review. The reason
the substitute resolution was put before you is there was
initially a question about the funding source, the City Controller
has reviewed that and has come up with these funding sources
instead which comply with all of the State Laws and would fulfill
Common Council’s wishes.
Main motion Carried Unanimously
Proposed Amendment
By: Alderperson Blumenthal, Seconded by: Alderperson Farrell
RESOLVED, that the Economic Development Committee shall review all
written materials [related to public facility, economic and/or
housing development] for projects and proposals prior to
submission to the National Development Council, as described in
Sections 203.1, 203.02, and 203.03 of the NDC contract agreement
and be it further
Alderperson Vaughan asked why Alderperson Blumenthal thought this
particular resolution was necessary.
May 2, 2001
69
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that because the information that
the Planning Department sends to the NDC has a lot of description
about a proposal about the intentions and the components and
financial feasibility, what kinds of public support there might be
and that we might have some thoughts on the input because what
goes to them gets molded or shaped and there are essentially a lot
of policies and things and components that she thinks Council
might want to shape more than what’s given to the NDC because then
what comes back is based on that and essentially it can save us
time because if we get something back that we haven’t had any
input on then we may want them to look at something that hasn’t
been looked at. For example, I don’t know what the Marco’s Flat,
if the neighborhood wants the daycare center or they don’t want a
daycare center or if it’s housing or a roller skating rink, we
don’t know what the Planning Department is giving them, could be
for space whatever and ideally it would come to all of council,
but in the interest of time, since it’s only a year contract, the
most efficient way is to have the ED Committee review the material
and then hopefully everyone that’s not on the committee gets the
material if they have things they want to suggest, they can come
to the meeting or they can call staff. It’s in our interest to
have some input and that’s our responsibility to do that.
Alderperson Hershey agrees that there ought to be a gateway. He
thinks that the nature of the contract suggests it to me that
there’s no dollar amount per hour that’s clicking away. In
theory, assuming that we don’t ask for items outside the scope,
that we can use you three times or thirty times depending on how
many. He is concerned about the specifics. There should be some
rational way, a liaison if you will, between the City whether it’s
the Economic Development Committee or Doug or Thys VanCort or
somebody, it ought to channel through someone, whether it stems
out of a ED or Neighborhood and Community Issues or wherever it
should come or perks up within our own departments. He has a
problem with the term written materials and committee review.
Only because it seems that one of the things this committee will
do for us will be in very incubatory way look at projects and do
it’s own brainstorming. He thinks that he doesn’t want to get
involved with anything that puts a limitation on our ability to
get that going.
Mayor Cohen stated that he thinks this is good, as Susan points
out, some review is needed. He thinks this is reasonable, he hates
to disagree with Alderperson Hershey, he just doesn’t see any harm
with this at all. He stated that it will add to the workload of
the committee, but somebody has to be looking at it and Doug if
you would add this to our agenda next week because we want to
start sending materials out as soon as possible to take advantage
of this contract because we only have a year so we’ll start
working on this posthaste.
Alderperson Farrell stated that she sees this as helping to
provide accurate background information and ideas as far as the
City has thought on things and that Committee members may also be
able to add some important some background there.
Alderperson Pryor stated that her initial reaction was similar to
Alderperson Hershey’s because one of the things she thought of
would result in several months delay in what we’re able to get.
May 2, 2001
70
The way that it’s worded it said “shall review written materials”
doesn’t that imply approve. What if you get together month to
month to review, you’re not satisfied with it, keep reviewing it,
you need to come back with, she’s just a little concerned. She
thinks that it is really important that there be a group/committee
that works closely with the work that’s going to be going on to
NDC, she doesn’t have any problem with that, she thinks the issues
related to the contract, there ought to be a point person, like
Doug in terms of contact. She would want to see this process,
cause unnecessary delay when her perception as she understood it
as it was described to her is that the NDC would essentially
become a partner with us and there might be a real benefit of
having their input very early on in the process because of the
breadth of the expertise that they could bring. We might for
months try to hash out something that could get passed on to NDC
and get results quicker. She doesn’t want to see the process get
bogged down.
Alderperson Sams stated that she looked at it slightly
differently. She looked at it as the review being that if it was
added information. These are our wards and districts and
everything that we’re talking about. We may know something that
the staff may not know that would help NDC with the process so
that’s what she’s looking at is that maybe Susan can correct her
if she’s was looking at it wrong, that was the way she was looking
at it. We have the responsibility to our community, not just the
staff has that responsibility, but to make sure that input and
oversight is there. Then it goes to the committee and it goes on
to NDC and they make that decision and that’s what we’re hiring
them for. We still need to have a process where if the community
is not being heard from that the representation from the community
is being heard from. That has to be a step that has to be thought
about because otherwise she thinks that we’ve thrown something out
that might be missing and would come back in front of Council and
say nope that’s not because, she looks at it as a step less than a
step more.
Alderperson Spielholz doesn’t really see where this ties the hands
of NDC in anyway. She sees this as a way of having oversight and
one of the reasons for having the extra committee and going
through the processes of having this extra committee is so that we
have more of a handle on review that is open to public review too.
These are all done in public meetings. The only question she had
Susan, is why it doesn’t say “shall review all written materials
and proposal prior to submission” and why is only related to
public facility, economic, housing development projects. The list
is so long, she doesn’t know why it needs to be so specific even.
Why not have them review all materials for projects and proposals
prior to submission?
Alderperson Blumenthal responded to this by stating that it just
fits into the language on the contract. Those are categories that
describe what those things are. She could add the word all.
Alderperson Pryor stated that she is reiterating that she is not
disagreeing with the need for oversight and input of the community
and council in any. She just wants to make sure that we think
about this carefully so that it doesn’t prevent us from doing what
we want by the DNC. She totally understands Alderperson Sams
May 2, 2001
71
thoughts and she agrees with it and with Alderperson Spielholz and
the other people that have spoken.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that there is no attempt to bog us
down. She thinks that if something is that difficult to decide and
review, if it takes endless discussion then she’s not sure it’s
something we want to send to somebody. Most of these projects
have a lot of support in the community or there is at least a lot
of interest at this point in pursuing and she thinks that there
will be general agreement in that we’ll be taking about some of
the details and we’ll say okay and they can look at it, but at
least our opinions and our input is there at the outset. She
doesn’t think that some of the elements that will be talked about
will be make or break. Our input will be there for background for
the NDC to consider.
Mayor Cohen stated that in order that we don’t continue to have
endless discussion on something that we all seem to agree on. All
in favor of the proposed amendment. Date to begin will change from
May 1, 2001 to June 1, 2001.
Carried 9 to 1
The meeting adjourned for a brief recess
21. NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE:
21.1 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 164 Entitled “Dogs and
Other Animals” of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
By: Alderperson Pryor, Seconded by: Alderperson Spielholz
ORDINANCE NO. 01 -
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. Section 164-9 Entitled “Prohibited Acts” of
Chapter 164 Entitled “Dogs and Other Animals” of the City of
Ithaca Municipal Code be amended to include the following
addition:
A-1 Exemption: Subdivision A above does not apply to owners of
dogs whose dogs are off-leash in an area to be established and
designated as an off-leash dog park pilot project sponsored by
the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation and the non-profit Tompkins County Dog Owners’
Group (TCDOG). The dog park is to be located within the
boundaries of Treman Marina and the City owned land adjacent to
it as shown on the map entitled “Proposed Dog Park Area” dated
May 1992. The part of the dog park located on City land shall
be regulated by the Board of Public Works. This exemption shall
extend for the one year trial period of the pilot, but in no
event shall this exemption extend beyond August 31, 2002.
Section 2. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately in
accordance with law upon publication of a notice as
provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Carried Unanimously
May 2, 2001
72
22. NEW BUSINESS:
22.1 Possible Motion to Enter into Executive Session to discuss
Pending and Potential Litigation
By: Alderperson Manos, Seconded by: Alderperson Pryor
Carried 6-3
(Spielholz, Hershey, Farrell)
UNFINISHED AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
None
REPORT OF COUNCIL LIAISONS:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M.
________________________ _______________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Alan J. Cohen,
City Clerk Mayor