HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2001-12-19
1
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Special Meeting 7:30 p.m. December 19, 2001
PRESENT:
Mayor Cohen
Alderpersons (10) Pryor, Sams, Blumenthal, Manos, Spielholz,
Farrell, Vaughan, Taylor, Hershey, Mack
OTHERS PRESENT:
City Clerk – Conley Holcomb
City Attorney - Schwab
Deputy Controller – Thayer
Director of Planning and Development – VanCort
Deputy Director of Planning and Development – Cornish
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Cohen led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
American flag.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A Resolution Making Certain Determinations in Relation to
and Approving The Establishment Of The Proposed Benefit
Assessment District for the Southwest Area of the City
By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey
WHEREAS, a map, plan and report, entitled “City of Ithaca Proposed
Benefit Assessment District for the Southwest Area”, have been
prepared in such manner and in such detail as has heretofore been
determined by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York (the “City”), relating to the establishment of a
proposed benefit assessment district for local vehicular traffic
improvements in the Southwest area of the City, such district to
be known as the Benefit Assessment District for the Southwest Area
of the City of Ithaca (the “District”); and
WHEREAS, the District is proposed to encompass the commercial
properties in the Southwest Study Area of the City and the
commercial properties on the east side of South Meadow Street
south of Clinton Street to Elmira Road, commercial properties on
Old Elmira Road, and commercial properties on the southeast side
of Elmira Road to the City/Town of Ithaca line, and shall be
bounded and more fully described as set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the improvements proposed for the District are proposed
to consist of the widening of Route 13 to five lanes, at a maximum
estimated cost of $1,767,000, and the construction of a new
extension to Taughannock Boulevard, to be known as the Taughannock
Boulevard Extension, at a maximum estimated cost of $7,513,250,
for an aggregate maximum estimated cost of $9,280,250, including
incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, all
as more fully described in the aforesaid map, plan and report; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the aggregate maximum cost of the
proposed improvements shall be apportioned between the City at
large and upon the commercial properties within the District, with
35.3% of such cost being the portion of the cost proposed to be
borne by the City at large and with 64.7% of such cost being the
portion of the cost proposed to be assessed upon commercial
properties within the District; and
December 19, 2001
22
WHEREAS, the proposed method of financing the aggregate maximum
cost of the proposed improvements shall be by the issuance of
serial bonds of said City; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that assessments upon commercial
properties within the District shall be benefit assessments the
basis or formula therefor being annually determined based on the
square footage of commercial buildings, as provided by the
Tompkins County Division of Assessment, on commercial properties
within the District; and
WHEREAS, an order/resolution was duly adopted by said Common
Council on November 28, 2001, reciting a description of the
boundaries of the District, the improvements proposed, the
aggregate maximum amount proposed to be expended for said
improvements, the fact that said map, plan and report were on file
in the City Clerk's office for public inspection and specifying
the 12th day of December, 2001, at 7:30 o'clock P.M., Prevailing
Time, and the City Hall, in Ithaca, New York, in said City, as the
time when and the place where said Common Council would meet for
the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the
establishment of the District and said map, plan and report filed
in relation thereto and to hear all persons interested in the
subject thereof concerning the same; and
WHEREAS, notice of the aforesaid public hearing was duly published
and served in the manner and within the time prescribed by
Section 4 of that certain Local Law of the City providing for the
establishment of a benefit assessment district for local vehicular
traffic improvements in the Southwest Area of the City (“Local
Law, Section 4”), and proof of publication and service has been
duly presented to said Common Council; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held at the time and place
in said order/resolution, as aforesaid, at which all persons
desiring to be heard were duly heard; and
WHEREAS, said Common Council has duly considered said map, plan
and report and the evidence given at said public hearing; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, By the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York, as follows:
Section 1. Upon the evidence given at the aforesaid public
hearing, it is hereby found and determined as follows:
(a) The notice of hearing was published and served as
required by Local Law, Section 4 and is otherwise sufficient;
(b) All the property and property owners within the
boundaries of the proposed District are benefited thereby;
(c) All the property and property owners benefited by the
proposed District are included within the boundaries of the
proposed District;
(d) the proposed apportionment of the aggregate maximum cost
of the proposed improvements between the lands benefited and
the City at large is fair and equitable;
(e) the proposed benefit assessment basis or formula for the
portion of the aggregate maximum cost to be raised by benefit
assessment upon properties within the District is fair and
equitable;
December 19, 2001
33
(f) the proposed improvements and the aggregate maximum
amount to be expended for the construction of the proposed
improvements and the proposed method of financing are in the
public interest; and
(g) The establishment of the proposed District is in the
public interest.
Section 2. The establishment of the Benefit Assessment District
for the Southwest Area of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New
York, to be bounded and described as hereafter set forth, and the
improvements proposed therefor, consisting of the widening of
Route 13 to five lanes and the construction of an extension to
Taughannock Boulevard, to be known as the Taughannock Boulevard
Extension, including incidental improvements and expenses in
connection therewith, all as more fully described in the aforesaid
map, plan and report, at an aggregate maximum estimated cost of
$9,280,250, of which 35.3% shall be borne by the City at large and
of which 64.7% shall be assessed upon commercial properties within
the District, are hereby approved.
Section 3. The District shall be bounded and described as set
forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
Alderperson Manos stated for the record that her husband owns
property in the proposed Benefit Assessment District therefore she
will recuse herself from the deliberation of this legislation and
the vote.
Alderperson Vaughan stated for the record that she owns property
within the proposed Benefit Assessment District and she is
recusing herself from the discussion and vote on this legislation.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor with Planning and
Development Director VanCort and Deputy Planning and Development
Director Cornish answering questions from members of Council.
Alderperson Sams stated that she was distressed that some of the
affected business owners were not talked to. She stated that she
is not comfortable voting on this legislation until sufficient
input has been obtained from affected businesses.
Alderperson Farrell questioned the statistical changes in the
proposed fees being assessed. Deputy Planning and Development
Director Cornish explained that the original figures were based on
property information from the City’s GIS system. The revised
figures are from the tax rolls provided by the Tompkins County
Assessment Department which is what the Benefit Assessment
District will be established from.
Alderperson Blumenthal asked whether language should be added to
the Resolution to include potential phasing of the two projects.
City Attorney Schwab stated that she does not believe it is wise
to obligate the City in that regard at this point.
Alderperson Taylor arrived at the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Further discussion followed on the floor regarding on how the
assessments were derived. Planning and Development Director Van
Cort stated that property owners would only be charged for
projects for which debt has actually been issued. The assessment
December 19, 2001
44
fees would begin approximately two years after the issuance of the
debt, based on the Tompkins County Assessment Department’s records
on building size at that point.
Planning and Development Director Van Cort and Mayor Cohen noted
that the Planning Department will seek outside aid very
aggressively, however some aspects of the project are more
fundable than others, for example the bridge.
Alderperson Pryor asked why other assessment alternatives were
eliminated. Planning and Development Director stated that the
City Controller’s Office worked with the City’s Bond Counsel, and
the Tompkins County Assessment Department to determine which
alternative would be the most equitable. Other alternative
considered included: parking spaces, trip generation, road
frontage, lot size, assessed value. The consensus was the most
equitable alternative to use was building square footage.
Alderperson Blumenthal questioned whether a broader assessment
district had been analyzed. Deputy Planning and Development
Director Cornish stated that outside Counsel determined that the
best approach was to keep within the boundaries developed by the
Southwest study area, and the area to be re-zoned. The boundaries
could be changed in the future, but it would require additional
studies including a new traffic study.
Alderperson Mack asked what the process would be if Council
approved the Benefit Assessment District now, and changed the
boundaries in the future. Mayor Cohen explained that Council
would have to go back through the legislative process.
Alderperson Farrell questioned whether there was an assessment
appeal process for property owners. City Attorney Schwab
explained that if the Benefit Assessment District is adopted,
property owners would be notified once the actual assessment is
complete. Common Council is required to hold a public hearing for
property owners to appeal their assessments. Council is further
required to conduct an annual public hearing to hear appeals
throughout the life of the assessment district.
Alderperson Spielholz read the following correspondence received
from the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce into the record:
“December 19, 2001
To Mayor Alan Cohen, members of Common Council
Since our last communication to the Council, the Tompkins County
Chamber of Commerce’s Executive Committee has met with Mayor Cohen
and one of the property owners who would be most affected by the
proposed Benefit Assessment District. The Executive Committee now
understands that the City of Ithaca Planning Board has indicated
its unwillingness to move forward with the Southwest Area
development projects without a clear commitment from City Council
to implement all of the traffic mitigation projects outlined in
the Six Point Plan. The Tompkins County Chamber strongly supports
development in the Southwest Area of the city and realizes that
establishing a Benefit Assessment District appears to be the most
effective approach to the continued development in the Southwest.
If the Benefit Assessment District is approved by Council, the
Chamber offers its assistance to work with the Council, the City
December 19, 2001
55
administration, and area businesses towards a mutually beneficial
agreement.”
Alderperson Spielholz questioned what type of assistance the City
can expect from the chamber. Mayor Cohen stated that the Chamber
of Commerce is willing to facilitate as much communication as
necessary between the City and the affected property owners and
businesses within the Assessment District.
Further discussion followed on the floor with Mayor Cohen
estimating project and study timelines.
Alderperson Pryor addressed concerns raised by the public and
Alderperson Sams regarding the by-passing of traffic on Route 13
due to the Taughannock Boulevard extension. She stated that she
believes the by-pass will be an overall benefit to the traffic
flow within the grid.
Alderperson Pryor extended her thanks to Council along with a
special thanks to Alderperson Blumenthal for her vision, hard
work, and planning on the Southwest area development.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that with difficulty, she will not
support this legislation as she has concerns about the process
that was followed specifically the lack of sufficient time and
notice to property owners in the proposed district. She stated
that she does not believe people understand how this district will
affect them, and hopes that the City will strive for process
improvement in the future.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (5) Taylor, Hershey, Mack, Spielholz,
Pryor
Nays (3) Blumenthal, Farrell, Sams
Recusals (2) Manos, Vaughan
Failed
Planning Department – Request To Establish Capital Project
#450 Southwest Area Improvements
By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey
WHEREAS, the Six Point Traffic Plan has been adopted by Common
Council, and
WHEREAS, two points of the Six Point Plan relate to the Route 13
widening to five lanes and the Taughannock Blvd. Extension, and
WHEREAS, cost estimates from Wilbur Smith Associates for
construction, land acquisition and contingencies for the Route 13
widening are $1,767,000 and for the Taughannock Blvd. Extension
are $7,513,250; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby establishes Capital Project
#450 Southwest Area Improvements at an amount not to exceed
$9,280,250 for the purposes of making street and road
improvements as described above in the Southwest Area per the
approved Six Point Plan, and be it further
RESOLVED, That funds necessary for said project shall be derived
from the issuance of Serial Bonds.
December 19, 2001
66
Alderperson Hershey stated that he will vote in favor of this
Resolution as he believes these roads need to be built to
accommodate future traffic resulting from the development of the
Southwest Area of the City.
Mayor Cohen stated that the City will not commit to projects if
funding is not available.
Alderperson Sams questioned the approval process for these
projects, as the Plain Street pedestrian bridge did not come back
to Council for approval.
Alderperson Vaughan stated for the record that due to previously
disclosed property interests she had recused herself from
consideration, deliberation, and voting on actions pertaining to
the enactment of a benefit assessment district. She will be
voting on matters pertaining to financing and bonding of the
improvements contemplated. She has been informed by the City
Attorney that the decision to do so, is not a conflict of
interest, the decision on financing and bonding will not impact
her anymore than it will affect any other member of the general
public.
Alderperson Manos stated for the record that due to previously
disclosed property interests she had recused herself from
consideration, deliberation, and voting on actions pertaining to
the enactment of a benefit assessment district. She will be
voting on matters pertaining to financing and bonding of the
improvements contemplated. She has been informed by the City
Attorney that the decision to do so, is not a conflict of
interest, the decision on financing and bonding will not impact
her anymore than it will affect any other member of the general
public.
Alderperson Manos further stated that she will not support this
Resolution or the next Resolution regarding the widening of
Spencer Street and the Plain Street Pedestrian Bridge tonight as
the public has stated that they are not yet comfortable with these
changes, and has asked for time to provide additional input. She
reaffirmed her commitment to the Six Point Plan, but would like to
step back and gather more public input.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) Mack, Hershey, Vaughan, Farrell,
Pryor, Blumenthal
Nays (4) Spielholz, Taylor, Sams, Manos
Carried
Planning Department – Request To Amend Capital Project #447
By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2001, Common Council passed a
resolution establishing the Southwest Area Traffic Improvement
Capital Project, at a maximum estimated cost of $2,000,000, and
WHEREAS, the 2002 Authorized Capital Projects included a $500,000
project for Six Point Plan Street and Road Construction
Improvements, including the converting of Spencer Street to two-
way traffic, and rebuilding the Plain Street Pedestrian Bridge
over Six Mile Creek as a traffic bridge, and
December 19, 2001
77
WHEREAS, it has been determined by staff that the initial
construction estimates did not include potential land acquisition
costs, demolition fees and other project-related costs; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Capital Project #447 for the Six Point Plan Street
and Road Construction Improvements be hereby amended by
$2,200,000 from the previous $2,500,000 authorization to a
maximum authorized cost of $4,700,000 to reflect the revised
estimate, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the financing necessary to fund said additional
project costs shall be derived from the issuance of Serial Bonds.
Mayor Cohen clarified that the increase in the cost of the
project is due to the fact that the original figure was not a
project cost estimate, it was designed to be a place-marker
capital project in the budget. The full amount of the project
was not put into the budget as he did not want more than $2
million of bonds issued in 2001.
Alderperson Sams stated that she would vote in opposition to this
Resolution as this issue has caused discord in the community, and
she feels that Council should facilitate bringing the community
together, with input from all of the stakeholders, to cause
positive effects.
Alderperson Farrell asked for the costs of the full projects.
Alderperson Pryor reported that the report estimated the
approximate costs for the projects as follows (not including
property acquisition):
$1,590,650 Plain Street Pedestrian Bridge
$1.7 million Spencer Street – narrowest option
$2.1 million Spencer Street – middle option
$4.6 million Spencer Street – Widest option
Alderperson Spielholz stated that she will support this
Resolution as it is an amendment to an existing capital project.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (5) Pryor, Vaughan, Spielholz, Taylor,
Hershey
Nays (4) Blumenthal, Farrell, Sams, Manos
Abstentions (1) Mack
Failed
REQUEST TO SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL:
Alderperson Pryor requested to seek the advice of legal counsel.
Mayor Cohen clarified that the City Attorney has spoken with
Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open
Government regarding Council’s ability to seek legal counsel
during public meetings. Mr. Freeman stated that seeking legal
counsel is not an item for Executive Session, it is an item that
is exempted from the Open Meetings Law due to Attorney-Client
privilege, so an Executive Session is not needed.
Mayor Cohen and Common Council adjourned into a session with the
City Attorney.
December 19, 2001
88
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
By Alderperson Farrell: Seconded by Alderperson Pryor
RESOLVED, That Common Council adjourn into Executive Session to
discuss the employment history of an individual employee.
Carried Unanimously
Alderperson Blumenthal left the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
RECONVENE:
Common Council reconvened into Regular Session at 10:30 p.m.
REQUEST TO RE-VOTE:
Alderperson Mack stated that he did not understand the voting
procedure and requested the ability to re-vote on the Request to
Amend Capital Project #447.
The Mayor called the question regarding the re-vote.
Ayes (7) Pryor, Farrell, Vaughan, Spielholz,
Mack, Hershey, Taylor
Nays (2) Manos, Sams
Carried
Re-Vote on the Request to Amend Capital Project #447
A re-vote on the Resolution to Request to Amend Capital Project
#447 resulted as follows:
Ayes (6) Pryor, Vaughan, Spielholz, Mack,
Hershey, Taylor
Nays (3) Manos, Sams, Farrell
Carried
REQUEST TO RECONSIDER:
Alderperson Spielholz requested the ability to reconsider on the
Request to Establish Capital Project #450 Southwest Area.
The Mayor called the question regarding the re-vote.
Ayes (7) Pryor, Vaughan, Spielholz, Mack,
Hershey, Taylor, Farrell
Nays (2) Manos, Sams
Carried
Vote to Reconsider the Request to Establish Capital Project #450
Southwest Area
Mayor offered new language for the Request to Establish Capital
Project #450
Resolution
By Alderperson Spielholz: Seconded by Alderperson Taylor
WHEREAS, the Six Point Traffic Plan has been adopted by Common
Council, and
WHEREAS, two points of the Six Point Plan relate to the Route 13
widening to five lanes and the Taughannock Blvd. Extension, and
WHEREAS, cost estimates from Wilbur Smith Associates for
construction, land acquisition and contingencies for the Route 13
widening are $1,767,000 and for the Taughannock Blvd. Extension
are $7,513,250, and
WHEREAS, Common Council has undertaken significant efforts to
establish a Benefit Assessment District; now, therefore, be it
December 19, 2001
99
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby establishes Capital Project
#450 Southwest Area Improvements at an amount not to exceed
$9,280,250 for the purposes of making street and road
improvements as described above in the Southwest Area per the
approved Six Point Plan, and be it further
RESOLVED, That it is the intent of the Common Council to continue
working on the establishment of a Benefit Assessment District,
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That funds necessary for said project shall be derived
from the issuance of Serial Bonds.
Ayes (7) Pryor, Vaughan, Spielholz, Mack,
Hershey, Taylor, Farrell
Nays (2) Manos, Sams
Carried
A Resolution Authorizing The Issuance Of Serial Bonds To
Pay The Cost Of Various Objects Or Purposes
By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey
WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to the financing of the capital
projects hereinafter described, including compliance with the
provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, have
been performed; and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize the financing of such
capital projects; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, By the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York, as follows:
Section 1. For the specific objects or purposes or classes of
objects or purposes of paying the costs of the following capital
improvements in and for the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New
York, there are hereby authorized to be issued $21,810,461 serial
bonds of said City pursuant to the provisions of the Local Finance
Law, apportioned among such improvements in accordance with the
maximum estimated cost of each. Such improvements are as follows:
a) The construction or reconstruction of works for the
improvement of drainage, and electric lighting improvements,
each in connection with road and bridge improvements located
in the Southwest area of the City, including incidental
improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a
maximum estimated cost of $1,821,362. It is hereby determined
that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class
of objects or purposes is thirty years, pursuant to
subdivision 94 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local
Finance Law, as each of the objects of purposes in said class
has a period of probable usefulness of at least thirty years
under subdivisions 3, 4 or 5 of paragraph a of Section 11.00
of the Local Finance Law;
b) The making of various improvements to City bridges located in
the Southwest area of the City, including incidental
improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a
maximum estimated cost of $3,516,933. It is hereby determined
that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class
of objects or purposes is twenty years, pursuant to
subdivision 10 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local
Finance Law;
c) The making of various improvements to City streets and roads
located in the Southwest area of the City, including
December 19, 2001
1010
incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith,
at a maximum estimated cost of $3,941,955. It is hereby
determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid class of objects or purposes is fifteen years,
pursuant to subdivision 20(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00
of the Local Finance Law;
d) To pay the cost of a 2002 street and road construction
program to be undertaken by Department of Public Work
employees, throughout and in and for said City, including
incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith,
at a maximum estimated cost of $1,180,315. It is hereby
determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid class of objects or purposes is fifteen years,
pursuant to subdivision 20(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00
of the Local Finance Law;
e) To pay the cost of park improvements at Ithaca Falls, in and
for the City, including incidental improvements and expenses
in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of
$115,000. It is hereby determined that the period of
probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or
purpose is fifteen years pursuant to subdivision 19 of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
f) To pay the cost of street and road improvements for traffic
calming purposes, throughout and in and for said City,
including incidental improvements and expenses in connection
therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $100,000. It is
hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of
the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is fifteen years,
pursuant to subdivision 20(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00
of the Local Finance Law;
g) To pay the cost of the reconstruction and replacement of
various City sidewalks, throughout and in and for said City,
including incidental improvements and expenses in connection
therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $103,000. It is
hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of
the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is ten years,
pursuant to subdivision 24 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of
the Local Finance Law;
h) To pay additional costs of the acquisition and installation
of City computer network improvements, including incidental
expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost
of $676,654 (including the $346,050 serial bonds authorized
by bond resolution dated and duly adopted December 6, 2000;
revised maximum estimated cost of this class of objects or
purposes is now $676,654; amount of serial bonds authorized
by this bond resolution, $330,604. It is hereby determined
that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class
of objects or purposes is five years, pursuant to subdivision
32 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
and
i) To pay costs of the acquisition and installation of
additional GIS computer equipment, including incidental
expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost
of $25,000. It is hereby determined that the period of
probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or
purposes is five years, pursuant to subdivision 32 of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law]; and
j) To pay costs of the acquisition and installation of
additional voting machines, including incidental expenses in
connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $15,000.
It is hereby determined that the period of probable
usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is
December 19, 2001
1111
five years, pursuant to subdivision 32 of paragraph a of
Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and
k) To pay additional costs of the acquisition and installation
of parking meters, including incidental expenses in
connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $128,656
(including the $65,000 serial bonds authorized by bond
resolution dated and duly adopted December 6, 2000; revised
maximum estimated cost of this specific object or purpose is
now $128,656; amount of serial bonds authorized by this bond
resolution $63,656). It is hereby determined that the period
of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or
purpose is five years, pursuant to subdivision 50 of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and
l) To pay costs of the acquisition and installation of equipment
and related software to develop a City document management
system, including incidental expenses in connection
therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $34,000. It is
hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of
the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is five years,
pursuant to subdivision 32 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of
the Local Finance Law; and
m) To pay the cost of the purchase of various equipment and
vehicles for construction and maintenance purposes, in and
for said City, including incidental improvements and expenses
in connection therewith, each item of which will have a
maximum estimated cost of $30,000 or more, at a maximum
estimated cost of $387,136. It is hereby determined that the
period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of
objects or purposes is fifteen years, pursuant to subdivision
28 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
and
n) To pay the cost of the purchase of various equipment and
vehicles for construction and maintenance purposes, in and
for said City, including incidental improvements and expenses
in connection therewith, each item of which will have a
maximum estimated cost of more than $15,000, at a maximum
estimated cost of $140,500. It is hereby determined that the
period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of
objects or purposes is ten years, pursuant to subdivision 28
of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and
o) To pay the cost of renovations to the Greater Ithaca
Activities Center Facility, in and for said City, including
incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith,
at a maximum estimated cost of $270,000. It is hereby
determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid class of objects or purposes is twenty years,
pursuant to subdivision 12 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of
the Local Finance Law, because said Facility is a class “A”
building within the meaning of subdivision 11 of paragraph a
of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and
p) To pay the cost of the reconstruction or replacement of
various sanitary sewer lines in and for the City, including
incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith,
at a maximum estimated cost of $2,316,000. It is hereby
determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid class of objects or purposes is forty years,
pursuant to subdivision 4 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of
the Local Finance Law.
q) To pay the cost of the reconstruction or replacement of
various water lines in and for the City, including incidental
improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a
maximum estimated cost of $3,621,000 (including the $916,000
serial bonds authorized by bond resolution dated and duly
December 19, 2001
1212
adopted December 6, 2000; revised maximum estimated cost of
this class of objects or purposes is now $3,621,000; amount
of serial bonds authorized by this bond resolution,
$2,705,000). It is hereby determined that the period of
probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or
purposes is forty years, pursuant to subdivision 1 of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law.
r) The making of various improvements to City bridges in and for
said City, including incidental improvements and expenses in
connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of
$1,630,000. It is hereby determined that the period of
probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or
purposes is twenty years, pursuant to subdivision 10 of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
s) The making of various improvements to City streets and roads
in and for said City, including incidental improvements and
expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost
of $3,070,000. It is hereby determined that the period of
probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or
purposes is fifteen years, pursuant to subdivision 20(c) of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
t) To pay the cost of conceptual design and a hydrology and
engineering study for the Cayuga Green Development Project,
in and for said City, including incidental expenses in
connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $45,000.
It is hereby determined that the period of probable
usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is
five years, pursuant to subdivision 62 of paragraph a of
Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;
Section 2. The aggregate maximum estimated cost of the
aforesaid specific objects or purposes and classes of objects or
purposes is $21,810,461, and the plan for the financing thereof is
by the issuance of the serial bonds authorized by Section 1
hereof, allocated to each specific object or purpose or class of
objects or purposes in accordance with the maximum estimated cost
of each set forth in Section 1 hereof.
Section 3. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance
Law, the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell bond
anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the
serial bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes,
is hereby delegated to the City Controller, the chief fiscal
officer. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents,
and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by said
City Controller, consistent with the provisions of the Local
Finance Law.
Section 4. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York, are hereby irrevocably pledged for the
payment of the principal of and interest on such obligations as
the same respectively become due and payable. An annual
appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the
principal of and interest on such obligations becoming due and
payable in such year. There shall annually be levied on all the
taxable real property in said City a tax sufficient to pay the
principal of and interest on such obligations as the same become
due and payable, except to the extent otherwise provided for
through the collection of benefit assessments.
Section 5. The bonds authorized pursuant to this bond
resolution shall be in fully registered form and shall be signed
in the name of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, by
December 19, 2001
1313
the manual or facsimile signature of the City Controller and a
facsimile of its corporate seal shall be imprinted or impressed
and may be attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the
City Clerk.
Section 6. The powers and duties of advertising such bonds
for sale, conducting the sale and awarding the bonds, are hereby
delegated to the City Controller, who shall advertise such bonds
for sale, conduct the sale, and award the bonds in such manner as
he shall deem best for the interests of the City, including, but
not limited to, the power to sell said serial bonds to the New
York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, provided,
however, that in the exercise of these delegated powers, he shall
comply fully with the provisions of the Local Finance Law and any
order or rule of the State Comptroller applicable to the sale of
municipal bonds. The receipt of the City Controller shall be a
full acquittance to the purchaser of such bonds, who shall not be
obliged to see to the application of the purchase money.
Section 7. The power to issue and sell notes to the New York
State Environmental Facilities Corporation pursuant to Section
169.00 of the Local Finance Law is hereby delegated to the City
Controller. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents
as may be prescribed by said City Controller consistent with the
provisions of the Local Finance Law.
Section 8. The City Controller is hereby further authorized,
at his sole discretion, to execute a project financing and loan
agreement, and any other agreements with the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation and/or the New York State
Environmental Facilities Corporation, including amendments
thereto, and including any instruments (or amendments thereto) in
the effectuation thereof, in order to effect the financing or
refinancing of the specific object or purpose described in
Section 1 hereof, or a portion thereof, by a serial bond, and, or
note issue of said City in the event of the sale of same to the
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation.
Section 9. The intent of this resolution is to give the
City Controller sufficient authority to execute those
applications, agreements, instruments or to do any similar acts
necessary to effect the issuance of the aforesaid serial bonds
and, or notes without resorting to further action of this Common
Council.
Section 10. All other matters, except as provided herein
relating to such bonds, including determining whether to issue
such bonds having substantially level or declining annual debt
service, including prescribing whether manual or facsimile
signatures shall appear on said bonds, prescribing the method for
the recording of ownership of said bonds, appointing the fiscal
agent or agents for said bonds, providing for the printing and
delivery of said bonds (and if said bonds are to be executed in
the name of the City by the facsimile signature of its City
Controller, providing for the manual countersignature of a fiscal
agent or of a designated official of the City), the date,
denominations, maturities and interest payment dates, place or
places of payment, and also including the consolidation with other
issues, shall be determined by the City Controller. It is hereby
determined that it is to the financial advantage of the City not
to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial bonds
any charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred
or exchanged by the fiscal agent, and, accordingly, pursuant to
December 19, 2001
1414
paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the Local Finance Law, no such
charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent. Such bonds
shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause
provided for in section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall
otherwise be in such form and contain such recitals in addition to
those required by section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law, as the
City Controller shall determine.
Section 11. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation
notes may be contested only if:
1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose
for which said City is not authorized to expend money,
or
2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at
the date of publication of this resolution are not
substantially complied with, and an action, suit or
proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within
twenty days after the date of such publication, or
3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the
provisions of the Constitution.
Section 12. This resolution shall constitute a statement of
official intent for purposes of Treasury Regulations Section
1.150-1. Other than as specified in this resolution, no monies
are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on
long-term basis, or otherwise set aside with respect to the
permanent funding of the object or purpose described herein.
Section 13. This resolution, which takes effect immediately,
shall be published in full in the Ithaca Journal, the official
newspaper, together with a notice of the City Clerk in
substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local
Finance Law.
Alderperson Sams stated for the record that she is in favor of
some of these projects, but not all of them, so she will not vote
in favor of this Resolution.
A roll call vote resulted as follows:
Pryor – Yes Vaughan – Yes
Manos – Yes Spielholz – Yes
Sams - No Mack - Yes
Farrell - Yes Hershey - Yes
Blumenthal – Absent Taylor - Yes
Carried
Alderperson Taylor left the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Discussion Of The Mayor’s Veto On The Residency Requirement
Ordinance – Possible Resolution
Alderperson Manos read the Mayor’s Veto Message dated December 10,
2001, into the record:
“I am respectfully submitting this veto message for the residency
requirement resolution.
I do believe that residency requirements are appropriate in some
circumstances. Department Heads have a profound impact on the
development and implementation of city policy. They should live
in the community where these decisions are being made.
December 19, 2001
1515
The primary reason for my objection to the resolution as written
is that it does not provide for exceptions for promotional
situations. If every city employee is told when they are first
employed that, if they aspire to a management position, they will
have to live in the city, then each person can knowingly make
plans for where they live with this knowledge in mind. While the
charter does already have a residency provision in it, I doubt
many city employees have read it or have been given a copy to
read. And given our lack of enforcement to date because of the
weaknesses of the current provisions, why would they take is
seriously?
I also recently started questioning whether deputies should be
subjected to this requirement. Other questions were raised at the
Common Council meeting that merit discussion as well, and deserve
an airing. While Council has the right to discuss and override
this veto at its next meeting, I hope the opportunity for further
discussion at the committee level is afforded so that we can
ultimately craft a better resolution.”
Alderperson Manos clarified that the Mayor did have an opportunity
to work with the Human Resources Committee to offer input. The
Mayor asked Common Council to review residency requirements for
direction.
Mayor Cohen stated that he did raise promotional opportunities as
an issue to the Human Resources Committee.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the notification of
existing employees of the residency requirement, and the
definition of domicile.
Alderperson Sams questioned how this legislation would affect
minority hiring.
Resolution:
By Alderperson Manos: Seconded by Alderperson Hershey
RESOLVED, That the Residency Requirement Ordinance be referred
back to the Human Resources Committee for further discussion.
Carried Unanimously
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
________________________ _______________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Alan J. Cohen,
City Clerk Mayor