HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2002-03-06
1
COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. March 6, 2002
PRESENT:
Mayor Cohen
Alderpersons (10) Pryor, Sams, Blumenthal, Mack, Manos,
Whitmore, Vaughan, Peterson, Cogan, 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
Human Resources Director – Michell-Nunn
Community Development Director - Bohn
Assistant Superintendent of Water & Sewer - Fabbroni
Acting Director of the Youth Bureau - Green
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Cohen led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
American flag.
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Planning & Economic Development Committee:
Alderperson Manos requested the deletion of Item 11.1 – Tompkins
County’s Vital Communities Initiatives - Resolution.
No Council member objected.
Human Resources Committee:
Alderperson Peterson requested the deletion of Item 9.1 – GIAC –
Amendment to Personnel Roster – Resolution.
No Council member objected.
New Business:
Mayor Cohen requested the addition of an update on the Cayuga
Green Project.
Mayor Cohen further requested the addition of a motion to enter
into executive session to discuss the acquisition of property and
the employment history of an individual employee.
No Council member objected.
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
Joel Harlan, Town of Dryden, addressed Common Council regarding
parking garage improvements.
Neil Oolie, City of Ithaca, spoke about concerns regarding the
Mayor’s role as Chair of the IURA and the Boatyard Grill grant
funding. He further asked the Mayor questions regarding his
residency status.
Lydia Werbizsky, City of Ithaca, addressed Council in opposition
of creating a special advisory committee for the Plain Street
Bridge project.
March 6, 2002
2
Steve Ehrhardt, City of Ithaca, spoke in opposition to the
creation of an advisory committee for the Plain Street Bridge
project, traffic calming, and West Spencer Street configuration.
Shelley Garvey, City of Ithaca, voiced concerns about the
Exterior Maintenance Ordinance.
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, spoke in favor of banning jet skis
on Cayuga Lake. She also voiced concerns regarding downtown
development and the creation of expensive apartments that will
force rents to increase.
Jennifer Dotson, City of Ithaca, spoke in support of the
resolution for the community committee regarding the South Plain
Street bridge project.
Catherine Robertson, City of Ithaca, spoke in support of the
community committee regarding the South Plain Street bridge
project.
Lauri Dahl, and Stanton Loh, City of Ithaca, addressed Council
regarding the potential impacts of the Six Point Traffic Plan on
Spencer Street. They asked the City to consider additional
options, and further requested a venue in which they could be
more involved in the planning process.
Joe Wetmore, Town of Ithaca, addressed Council regarding the City
not being in compliance with the City’s Code of Ethics
legislation in regards to the filing of annual disclosure
statements.
Richard Entlich, City of Ithaca, spoke about the need for a City
Ethics Board to oversee that the Code of Ethics legislation is
followed by City officials.
Barbara Ebert, City of Ithaca, spoke about Six Point Traffic Plan
and the poor process it followed.
RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC:
Alderperson Vaughan thanked Mr. Entlich for his courtesy in
alerting her earlier this week to what he would be addressing.
She disclosed that she owns a property on Elmira Road, which she
has been actively and very openly trying to sell since 1999.
Approximately one year ago, the Tompkins County Assessor’s office
conducted a revaluation of her property along with others, which
resulted in a slightly lower assessment. She stated that she
retained Mr. Lopinsky of Pyramid Brokerage to sell her property.
At the time, Mr. Lopinsky was affiliated with Robert A. Mead
Associates of Elmira. Some months later, Robert Mead and
Associates was purchased by Pyramid Brokerage, a company
specializing in commercial real estate. After receiving Mr.
Entlich’s e-mail, she investigated and learned that Widewaters
Development was founded in 1982 by one of the principles of
Pyramid Brokerage. The companies are separate and each has its
own officers and employees. Further, realtors like Mr. Lopinsky
operate as independent agents whose license is under New York
State Law. She has never had any contact with Mr. Lopinsky, nor
any other person affiliated with him about the Widewaters parcel
or any property other than her own. She has recused herself from
discussions, as well as votes about matters that might affect her
property in any direct way and has sought, and followed the City
Attorney’s advice carefully on these issues.
March 6, 2002
3
Alderperson Pryor stated that there will be a presentation by
staff of some initial sketches of the proposed Spencer Street
widening at the March 13, 2002 Neighborhood and Community Issues
meeting. These sketches are not design plans, but are intended
to provide the kind of information that Council will need in
order to make decisions regarding the width of Spencer Street.
Alderperson Sams responded to concerns raised about the City’s
Code of Ethics legislation. She stated that she shared some of
the concerns and has contacted the New York State Attorney
General’s Office for additional information. One of their
suggestions was to establish a Code of Ethics Board, and she
requested that members of Common Council to give serious
consideration to this idea. She further stated that City
Attorney Schwab explained in correspondence that Tompkins County
has an established Code of Ethics Board that could hear City
appeals. Alderperson Sams stated that she felt it was
inappropriate for the City to use the County Board of Ethics when
the City should create its own Board.
Alderperson Hershey responded to comments made by Ms. Garvey
regarding the Property Maintenance Ordinance. He stated that
there are many reasons why the updated legislation is not
available on the City’s website including the lack of both
financial and staff resources. He stated that he believes
keeping the website up to date is a vitally important task and is
interested in dedicating the necessary resources to see that it
is accomplished.
Alderperson Cogan echoed Alderperson Hershey’s comments. He has
been contacted by a constituent who was concerned that updated
Council member information was not available on the website.
He further addressed comments made by Ms. Gougakis regarding high
rents. He also encouraged Common Council members to complete
their Annual Disclosure Statements as by law elected officials
must not only avoid a conflict of interest, but also the
appearance of a conflict. He supported the idea of creating a
City Code of Ethics Board.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that she concurs with a lot of what
has been said about the ethics issue and other topics. She
responded to comments made about a community committee to work on
the South Plain Street bridge project. She voiced her support
for the steering committee, and stated that she hopes there is a
way to bring the neighborhood back together, and to solve this
problem effectively.
City Clerk Holcomb stated that her office and the office of
Information Technology is working on a large website update
project. This work is being contracted out, but training will
occur after the update so that the website can be updated in a
timely manner. She thanked Council members for their support and
stated that she looks forward to their continued support as the
City starts to look at alternative website options.
City Attorney Schwab stated that she welcomed the opportunity to
clarify her role. One of the foremost duties of the City
Attorney is to act as legal advisor to elected officials, boards,
commission members, etc. She does her utmost to advise them on
the law when things come to her attention or when she is asked
specific questions. She also has the duty to take steps to
defend City Officials if they are charged with some kind of
violation of the law. She does not represent individual citizens
March 6, 2002
4
in the City of Ithaca, if they want to challenge her opinion on a
conflict of interest issue or the action of a Common Council
member or other elected official or appointed official that’s
made based upon her opinions, she cannot and will not advise
individual citizens in the City of Ithaca how they should go
about filing a legal challenge.
City Attorney Schwab further addressed comments made by
Alderperson Sams regarding a “City Board of Ethics”. She
clarified that General Municipal Law states that every
municipality is required to have a “Code of Ethics”, but it is
voluntary as to whether or not each municipality has an Ethics
Board. If a City does not have an Ethics Board, then the County,
which does have a Board of Ethics, is a default. The County has
jurisdiction over all the municipalities in the County, unless a
City has created their own Board.
Mayor Cohen noted that within the past couple of years, a County-
wide revaluation was conducted for every single property in the
City of Ithaca. He thanked Mr. Wetmore for reminding him of his
duty to announce the availability of annual disclosure statements
at Common Council meetings annually. Mayor Cohen stated that
where is initial reaction was to create a City Ethics Board, the
reality is that its members would most likely be appointed by the
Mayor or Common Council which defeats the purpose. The Tompkins
County Board of Ethics is an objective body, not involving
anybody that is appointed by officials that could be subject to
the scrutiny of that particular Board.
Mayor Cohen further addressed several of the questions asked
regarding his former residency at 226 N. Meadow Street. He
stated that he has answered in an e-mail to a citizen who asked
him this maybe four or five or six months ago and he copied his
response to several media representatives. He did live at 226 N.
Meadow Street for almost a two-year period, he paid market rate
rent, and was actually was forced to move recently when the house
was sold. He stated that he is now a resident of 226 Pleasant
Street. The owner of that property is Susan Cummings, who is a
former member of Common Council, and he pays a market rent.
Mayor Cohen presented the State of the City Address, and
announced that he will distribute copies to Common Council, the
media, and members of the public.
Mayor’s State of the City Address:
Each year the Mayor is charged with delivering a State of the
City Address, in which he or she usually outlines the
accomplishments of the past year and a look at the year ahead.
This year I would like to talk specifically about the city budget
and the city economy, and the interrelationship of the two. In
retrospect, I do not feel I have done a good enough job of
clearly explaining to the community the fiscal state of affairs
of the city and the options that we have to pursue.
Managing the city budget the past six years has been, to say
the least, a challenge. Let me share with you some numbers and
statistics to highlight this point. In the past six years, the
city’s general fund appropriations has increased by $4,838,846.
Salary increases and health insurance costs during that same
period increased $2,874,254 and $1,448,629 respectively. That
means the rest of the city budget increased by only $515,963
during this period.
March 6, 2002
5
Comparing this to the rate of inflation yields some
interesting information. The rate of inflation for this period
was 14.4%. Employee salaries during this same period increased
by 21.7% and our health insurance costs increased by 76.1%.
Salaries and benefits account for over 70% of our budget, which
makes it no surprise that our overall general fund expenses
increased by 17.8%.
The only way we were able to keep our overall cost increases
somewhat in line during this same period was by cutting in other
areas. Due to inflationary pressures, the city experiences
increased costs in the equipment and supplies it purchases just
like you and I do. Yet during these six years when the rate of
inflation was 14.4%, our other expenses increased by only 1.9%.
We were only able to accomplish this by doing what I said a
moment ago, cutting costs. Had the rest of the budget increased
by the rate of inflation, it would have grown $3,902,335. In
fact it has grown, as I just stated, by only $515,963, which
translates into a budget reduction of $3,386,372.
Much credit goes to the Office of the City Controller.
Dominick, Steve and the rest of the staff have been instrumental
in finding fiscally sound and creative ways for the city to save
money. For example, savings in our health insurance program has
helped to keep increases in that area from going even higher. An
innovative way of restructuring our worker’s compensation program
has resulted in cost reductions. And both our solid bond rating
and the way we handle our debt portfolio, as compared to how the
county and school district handle their debt portfolios, has
resulted in additional savings to the city over and above the
$3.3 million of savings I referred to moments ago. We have saved
over $2.6 million in interest costs in the past five years and
over $3.4 million in the past ten years.
While we have been successful in trimming the budget, it is
now what I would call a bare bones budget. If there were any
other non-personnel related places to cut in our budget, I am not
aware of them. This year we unfortunately reduced areas like
staff development, which is critical for the long term health of
our organization. If city staff is to continue providing quality
service to our community, they must have the resources necessary
to do so. We must restore funding for areas like staff
development, and also make sure we are providing the right tools
and other equipment for our staff to perform their duties both
safely and effectively.
But I diverge, so back to the main subject at hand, the
budget and the economy. In 1996 we instituted five year
budgeting for the City of Ithaca. It became immediately apparent
that the city had what we called a structural spending gap or
revenue shortfall that cumulatively added up to over $5 million
over the next five year period. Simply put, our expenses
exceeded our revenues by that amount. To make matters worse, the
gap grew each subsequent year. While our revenues were stagnant
or growing slowly, our expenses kept growing at a very healthy
rate. The Common Council took the situation seriously and
authorized spending reductions, including staff reductions, in
most areas of the budget, and has done so every year since. Yet
still we find ourselves in a position that is not much improved.
Despite our best efforts to cut expenses, we have protected, with
good reason, our core services, and the cost of those keeps going
up.
March 6, 2002
6
On the revenue side, we have little to show in gains. If we
were to continue this trend over the next five years, without new
revenues coming in from development in the southwest, then the
cumulative structural spending gap would be $9.75 million. Next
year’s gap alone would be $1.7 million, and that is after we have
already legitimately bonded for every general fund expense that
we could. Under this scenario, and without other additional
revenue, we would have to increase property taxes by over 18% to
balance the budget. But we are not in a position where we can
continue to bond all these additional general fund expenses,
another subject I will discuss in a moment. So in reality, we
would have to increase property taxes by over 35% next year in
order to balance the budget. And it does not end there. Because
property taxes account for only 27% of our general fund revenues,
a rate of inflation increase in property taxes the following year
and subsequent years would still leave us with a spending gap; we
would still need to again increase property taxes above the rate
of inflation.
We have other options, one of which is to cut city jobs.
Because of our civil service rules and our union contracts, it is
typically not possible to target a higher paying position and
layoff the person in that position from our workforce. They
usually have the right to bump or displace someone else, and in
doing so keep earning practically the same salary. What results
in most cases is that the person at the bottom making the least
is the one let go, and instead of laying off a person making
$40,000 a year, you lay off a person making $20,000 a year. In
the process you move any number of other people from their
current positions to another that they are not as familiar with.
So let’s liberally say that you would save $26,000 by cutting the
$40,000 a year position. If for the moment we ignore the
associated unemployment insurance cost liability and just focus
on the savings we would experience from layoffs, it would take a
cut of at least 105 jobs to cover the gap for next year. For the
record, the city currently has 435 full time employees. A
reduction of 105 city jobs would result in a 24% workforce
reduction, and a dramatic decrease in services to the community.
So how can we otherwise cover this shortfall. Our largest
general fund revenue source, and the one with the best potential
to grow, is sales tax. The growth of our sales tax revenues
depends on two things; the general state of the local economy and
opportunities for new sales tax generating businesses to locate
in the city. Our efforts over the past six years have focused on
both of these things. We have worked to improve the local
economic climate, and in essence, the image of the city in the
eyes of the business community. And we have strived to locate
new businesses in the city. Our efforts are paying off, business
development is moving forward on a number of fronts in the city,
including in the southwest, and this new development will bring
us these much needed new revenues.
So what do our five year projections look like with this new
development? Not an easy answer, because of the complication of
new infrastructure costs and who pays for them. There are
essentially two alternatives for us to consider. The city pays
for all the new infrastructure or the city pays for some of the
cost and a benefit assessment district generates the rest of the
revenue needed. In the scenario where the city pays the total
cost of the new infrastructure, our cumulative spending gap for
the next five years is over $1.7 million dollars. In the
March 6, 2002
7
scenario where we create a benefit assessment district, we would
have a balanced budget each of the next five years.
I have from the start been committed to having developers
pay for the cost of new infrastructure. While there has been
much debate on this subject, we now clearly see that we do not
have a choice in the matter. The city can not afford to solely
pay for the new infrastructure.
But one might ask, how can the city afford to pay all the
costs if we continued to bond more general fund expenses and thus
free up monies to pay these other costs. The answer is no, and I
can give you two reasons why. First, to do so would be like
charging an unreasonable amount on your credit card and then to
be in the position where your monthly payments on the card do
not, due to additional interest charges, reduce the overall
amount that you owe. The second reason is a little more
complicated. It has to do with the city’s constitutional debt
limit and the authorized debt the city can issue. With the most
recent authorizations by the Common Council on not only the
southwest projects, but the South of the Creek neighborhood
projects and all the other capital projects the council has
approved, the resultant bonding authorization the council has
given will increase the city’s debt to a level that is
approximately 91% of its bonding capacity.
A New York State city’s general fund constitutional debt
limit is 7% of its taxable property base. Based on a current
taxable property base of $841 million, our debt limit is $58.8
million dollars. Our current authorized indebtedness now stands
at $52 million, leaving only $6.8 million in bonding capacity.
As I mentioned before, we are no longer in the position to
continue bonding general fund expenses. The city has been
bonding approximately $500,000 a year in general fund items over
the past 12 years, and in the last two years we have increased
that by another $1 million. If we continued this current trend
and authorized no other capital projects, we would exhaust our
bonding capacity in just 4 years. That would not only take away
the city’s ability to pursue infrastructure improvements; it
would eliminate an important fiscal cushion that we have to
absorb unexpected revenue cuts that we might experience in the
future.
So all this makes it sound as if the city could go belly up.
That is not at all the case. Our credit rating is good because
our financial structure is sound, and because we do have other
options, albeit undesirable ones, to address future
possibilities. On the other hand, the city is clearly in a
position where its options to fund new initiatives is limited.
And this leads to the question of how can we legally bond for and
financially afford to pay off the debt from the Cayuga Green
initiative. In short, we can not bond for it, but we can
reorganize our spending to fund the project.
An option we are exploring is the possibility of having the
County or the County Industrial Development Agency (IDA) float
the bonds for the Cayuga Green project. While the city has
authorized 91% of its bonding capacity, the county has only
authorized 16%. The IDA does not have any constitutional debt
limits imposed on it by the state. So either entity is in the
financial position to do it. Former County Board Chairperson
Barbara Mink was open to the idea when I first approached her
with it, and current County Board Chairperson Tim Joseph has
March 6, 2002
8
expressed initial support for the idea. Tim recognizes this as a
good way for the county and city to collaborate for the benefit
of the entire community. He recognizes the importance of a
strong urban center to the health of the entire county and he
supports efforts to increase density in the urban core as a way
to mitigate pressures that lead to sprawl and the continued
development of open space throughout our community.
Even if the County or the IDA agrees to bond the project,
the city would still have to pay off the bonds. To do so, we
would have to, among other things, be more conservative in the
rest of our capital program. That means little to no investment
in the short term on new infrastructure and a slowing down of our
infrastructure maintenance program. We have fortunately been
aggressive in this area over the past six years and have caught
up on a good deal of deferred maintenance.
Cayuga Green is still then an option for us, but only if new
revenues from new development, particularly in the southwest,
materialize. That is more than likely in light of recent
Planning Board approvals and other new development applications
coming in to city hall. We of course will not know this for sure
until construction starts and stores actually open. Until then,
we still have to consider our other options as real
possibilities.
I hope I have been able to make the case that new revenues
from development in the southwest and other parts of the city are
crucial to the city’s financial health and its ability to
continue delivering the current level of services that our
community enjoys and expects without unreasonable increases in
the property tax rate. These new revenues will also go a long
way to addressing the financial needs of both the county and the
Ithaca City School District. Both entities will see multimillion
dollar revenue increases as a result of this development
activity. The city’s long term picture also looks bright.
Projecting out twenty years, after the bonds are paid off on our
current infrastructure investments, the city budget will enjoy a
surplus of well in excess of $2 million. The development
initiatives that we have worked so hard to see happen in the city
will not only address our short term needs, they will provide the
city with financial stability for many decades to come. While
none of us sitting here today will likely see our names on a
plaque somewhere as a result of our efforts, it will be a legacy
that we can all be proud of.
CONSENT AGENDA:
8.1 Common Council – Request Sponsorship of Celebration
By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Sams
WHEREAS, the Cornell-Ithaca Partnership is requesting the City to
sponsor five area women to attend the Room Full of Sisters
luncheon in Auburn on March 7, 2002, and
WHEREAS, the event will celebrate womanhood and costs $35 per
person, and
WHEREAS, the cost of the sponsorship of five women to attend the
event will be $175; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves the sponsorship of
five women from our community to attend the Room Full of Sisters
luncheon on March 7, 2002 at a cost not to exceed $175, and be it
further
March 6, 2002
9
RESOLVED, That said funds shall be transferred from account A1990
Unrestricted Contingency to account A1012-5435 Community
Services.
Carried Unanimously
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE
9.1 GIAC - Amendment to Personnel Roster - Resolution
This item was withdrawn from the agenda
NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE
10.1 An Ordinance to Amend Ordinance 2001-01 Regarding Vehicles &
Traffic
By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan
ORDINANCE NO. ________-2002
WHEREAS by Ordinance No. 2001-01, the Common Council of the
City of Ithaca enacted Chapter 346 of the Ithaca Municipal Code
Entitled “Vehicles and Traffic”, to replace the former Chapter 60
entitled “Traffic and Vehicles”, and
WHEREAS the intention of Common Council in adopting Chapter 346
of the City Code was to repeal the previous Chapter 60 in its
entirety, and to replace it with the newly enacted Chapter 346,
and
WHEREAS Chapter 346 does not expressly state that it repealed
Chapter 60; now
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Ordinance 2001-01 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 1. Chapter 346 Entitled “Vehicles and Traffic” of the
City of Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby enacted to repeal Chapter
60 of the Ithaca Municipal Code and to adopt new Vehicle and
Traffic provisions as follows:
ARTICLE I
General Provisions
~ 346-1. Definitions.
A. The words and phrases used in this chapter shall, for
the purposes of this chapter, have the meanings respectively
ascribed to them by Article 1 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of
the State of New York.
B. The following words and phrases, which are not defined
by Article 1 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New
York, shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in
this section for the purposes of this chapter:
BUSINESS DISTRICT -- The territory contiguous to and
including a roadway when within any 600 feet along such roadway
there are buildings in use for business or industrial purposes,
including but not limited to hotels, banks or office buildings,
railroad stations, and public buildings which occupy at least 300
feet of frontage on one side or 300 feet collectively on both
sides of the roadway.
March 6, 2002
10
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT --- All streets and portions of
streets within the area bounded by both sides of the following
streets:
(a) State Street from Plain Street to a point six hundred
(600) feet west of Cayuga Street.
(b) Seneca Street from Aurora Street to Cayuga Street.
(c) Green Street from Tioga Street to a point two hundred
(200) feet west of Cayuga Street.
(d) Aurora Street from Buffalo Street to Six Mile
Creek.
(e) Tioga Street from Buffalo Street to Six Mile Creek.
(f) Cayuga Street from Seneca Street to a point two
hundred
twenty (220) feet south of Clinton Street.
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE -- [Reserved]
CURBLINE -- The prolongation of the lateral line of a curb
or, in the absence of a curb, the lateral boundary line of the
roadway.
GROSS WEIGHT --- The weight of a vehicle without load plus
the weight of any load thereon.
HOLIDAYS -- New Year's Day, Lincoln's Birthday, Washington's
Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus
Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.
ITHACA COMMONS --- Unless otherwise stated, “Ithaca
Commons” or “Commons” shall mean both Primary and Secondary
Commons as described below:
Primary Commons – All streets and portions of streets within the
area described as follows: All that area bounded by the property
between the south building lines on the north side and the north
building lines on the south sided of the former bed and
associated sidewalks of East State Street between the east line
of Cayuga Street and the west line of Aurora Street and that area
of public property between the west building lines on the east
side and the east building lines on the west side of the former
bed and associated sidewalks of North Tioga Street between the
north line of State Street and the south line of Seneca Street.
Secondary Commons – All streets and portions of streets within
the area described as follows: All that area bounded by the
property between the south building lines on the north and north
building lines on the south side of the 100 and 200 blocks of
East Green Street, the 300 block of East State Street, the 100
block of West State Street and the 100 block and 200 blocks of
North Aurora Street, the 100 block of South Aurora Street, the
200 block of North Tioga Street, the 100 block of South Cayuga
Street and the 100 block of North Cayuga Street.
OFFICIAL TIME STANDARD -- Whenever certain hours are named
herein or on traffic control devices, they shall mean the time
standard which is in current use in this state.
PARKING METER -- Any mechanical device or meter not
inconsistent with this article placed or erected for the
regulation of parking by authority of this article. Each parking
meter installed shall indicate by proper legend the legal parking
time established and, when operated, shall at all times indicate
March 6, 2002
11
the balance of legal parking time and, at the expiration of such
period, shall indicate illegal or overtime parking.
PARKING METER SPACE -- Any space within a parking meter
zone, which is adjacent to a parking meter and which is duly
designated for the parking of a single vehicle by lines painted
or otherwise durably marked on the curb or on the surface of the
street or lot adjacent to or adjoining the parking meters.
PARKING METER ZONE --- A designated on-street parking area
or off-street parking lot location within which the parking of
vehicles is regulated by parking meters.
SCHOOL --- Any public, private, or non-profit educational
institution providing pre-school, elementary, or secondary
educational instruction. For purposes of this Chapter, the term
school includes a facility designed to provide day care, nursery
school or pre-school in an institutional setting.
TRUCK --- A commercial motor vehicle with a weight in
excess of 10,000 pounds, which motor vehicle is designed, used,
or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. For
purposes of this Chapter the applicable weight shall be either
the registered weight, the gross weight, or the vehicle
specification plate weight, whichever is higher.
~ 346-2. Authority to install traffic control devices.
The City Traffic Engineer in cooperation with the Department of
Public Works, shall install and maintain traffic control devices
when and as required under the provisions of this chapter, to
make effective the provisions of this chapter, and may install
and maintain such additional traffic control devices as he/she
may deem necessary to regulate, warn or guide traffic under the
Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York, subject to the
provisions of ~~ 1682 and 1684 of that law.
~ 346-3. Delegation of authority to regulate traffic.
A. Emergency and experimental regulations. The Chief of
Police, by and with the approval of the City Traffic Engineer, is
hereby empowered to make regulations to make effective the
provisions of this chapter and to make and enforce temporary or
experimental regulations to cover emergency or special
conditions. No such temporary or experimental regulations shall
remain in effect for more than 90 days, without formal enactment
by the Common Council.
B. Stop and yield signs. The City Traffic Engineer shall
be authorized to determine and designate intersections where a
particular hazard exists upon other than through streets and to
determine whether vehicles shall stop or yield at one or more
entrances to any such intersection, and shall erect a stop or
yield sign at every such place where a stop or yield is
respectively required.
C. Traffic and turning lanes. The City Traffic Engineer is
authorize to place markers, buttons or signs within or
approaching intersections indicating the course or lanes to be
traveled by vehicles turning at such intersections, and such
course or lane to be traveled as so indicated shall conform to
this chapter or as the City Traffic Engineer shall prescribe.
March 6, 2002
12
D. Restricted turning. The City Traffic Engineer is hereby
authorized to determine those intersections at which drivers of
vehicles shall not make a right, left or U-turn, and shall place
proper signs at such intersections. The making of such turns may
be prohibited between certain hours of any day and permitted at
other hours, in which event the same shall be plainly indicated
on the signs or the signs may be removed when such turns are
permitted.
E. Crosswalks, safety zones and traffic lanes. The City
Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized:
(1) To designate and maintain, by appropriate devices,
marks or lines upon the surface of the roadway, crosswalks at
intersections where, in his opinion, there is particular danger
to pedestrians crossing the roadway and at such other places as
he/she may deem necessary.
(2) To establish safety zones of such kind and
character and at such places as may be deemed necessary for the
protection of pedestrians.
(3) To mark lanes for traffic on street pavements at
such places as may be deemed advisable, consistent with the
traffic regulations of the city.
F. Play streets. The City Traffic Engineer shall have
authority to declare any street or part thereof a play street and
to place appropriate signs or devices in the roadway indicating
and helping to protect the same.
G. Parking adjacent to schools. The City Traffic Engineer
is hereby authorized to erect signs indicating no parking upon
that side of any street adjacent to any school property when such
parking would, in his/her opinion, interfere with traffic or
create a hazardous situation.
H. Parking on narrow streets. The City Traffic Engineer is
hereby authorized to erect "No Parking" signs:
(1) On both sides of any two-way street where the
width of roadway does not exceed 26 feet.
(2) On one side of any two-way street where the width
of roadway does not exceed 32 feet.
(3) On both sides of any one-way street where the
width of the roadway does not exceed 20 feet.
(4) On one side of any one-way street where the width
of roadway does not exceed 26 feet.
I. Parking or standing on one-way streets. The City
Traffic Engineer is authorized to prohibit parking or standing
upon the left-hand side of any one-way street.
J. Divided highways. In the event that a highway includes
two or more separate roadways and traffic is restricted to one
direction upon any such roadway, the City Traffic Engineer may
prohibit parking or standing upon the left-hand side of such one-
way roadway.
March 6, 2002
13
K. Stopping, standing or parking in hazardous places. The
City Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized to determine and
designate places open to vehicular traffic not exceeding 100 feet
in length in which the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles
would create an especially hazardous condition or would cause
unusual delay to traffic.
L. Passenger and freight loading zones. The City Traffic
Engineer is hereby authorized to determine the location of
passenger and freight curb loading zones and the hours during
which such zone shall be operable.
M. Bus stops and taxicab stands.
(1) The City Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized and
required to establish bus stops and taxicab stands and stands for
other passenger common carrier motor vehicles on such public
streets in such places and in such number as he shall determine
to be of the greatest benefit and convenience to the public.
(2) The operator of a bus or taxicab shall not park
upon any street in any business district at any place other than
at a bus stop or taxicab stand respectively.
N. Application of pavement markings. The City Traffic
Engineer is hereby authorized to apply or cause to be applied
pavement markings in accordance with the standards and
specifications established by the Department of Transportation on
such highways or portions of highway as shall be determined to be
necessary or appropriate.
O. Traffic-control signals. The City Traffic Engineer is
hereby authorized to regulate traffic by means of traffic-control
signals.
§346-4. Schedules; adoption of regulations.
A. The Board of Public Works is hereby authorized to
adopt, and from time to time, to amend, appropriate regulations
for the effective administration of the provisions of this
Ordinance. Such regulations shall be kept in the Office of the
Ithaca City Clerk.
B. Except as provided in §346-3 above, Common Council
delegates to the Board of Public Works, the authority to adopt
regulations in accordance with the provisions of General City
Law, and the Vehicle and Traffic Law, §1603.
C. For the purpose of maintaining an accurate record of
all regulations adopted under the provisions of this chapter,
there is hereby established a system of schedules, appearing as
regulations of the Board of Public Works. Such schedules shall be
deemed a part of the section to which they refer. All regulations
shall be adopted with reference to the appropriate schedule as
indicated in the various sections of this chapter.
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.
March 6, 2002
14
Discussion followed on the floor with City Attorney Schwab
explaining the history of this ordinance.
Mayor Cohen stated that the City has sought the opinion of the
State Comptroller regarding the City adopting portions of the
State Vehicle and Traffic Law. He stated that the City is still
waiting for the written response from the State.
Alderperson Pryor clarified that this legislation will be subject
to continual review and updating.
A vote on the legislation resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
10.2 Support of a Crosswalk Planning Initiative - Resolution
By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan
WHEREAS, the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Council (BPAC)
unanimously adopted a resolution at their December 13, 2001
meeting (amended unanimously on January 10, 2002), encouraging
the City to adopt a system of Pedestrian Accessibility Routes,
and
WHEREAS, BPAC presented this resolution to the Neighborhood and
Community Issues Committee on January 9, 2002, and
WHEREAS, in creating BPAC, under Section 12-1 of the City Code,
Common Council included, in its declaration of legislative
findings and purpose, the following:
• that "walking [is an] efficient, clean, healthy, inexpensive,
non-congesting means of transportation, which benefit[s] the
City of Ithaca and its citizens, including but not limited to
people who cannot afford a car, people who chose not to own or
not to use a car, people with disabilities, the elderly, and
children";
• that "there are gaps in the sidewalk and crosswalk system for
pedestrians";
• that "accommodation and promotion of safe, legal pedestrian
travel, and travel by people with disabilities on Ithaca's
street, sidewalk, and recreation way systems deserves formal
attention from the city"; and
WHEREAS, the City is currently conducting a sidewalk study to
evaluate sidewalk conditions throughout the City and to
prioritize sidewalk segments for repair and construction, and
WHEREAS, crosswalks are critical nodes in a broader sidewalk and
walkway system, and
WHEREAS, the City currently has no planning process for the
provision of crosswalks; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That it is the intent of Common Council to work towards
the full implementation and maintenance of pedestrian facilities,
so as to provide safe and appropriate accommodations for
pedestrians with and without disabilities throughout the City,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council directs the Bicycle/Pedestrian
Advisory Council to create a planning process and a Crosswalk
Plan for the City to include the following: a set of criteria for
determining where crosswalks should be constructed;
March 6, 2002
15
recommendations for a first phase of crosswalk placements;
recommendations on crosswalk materials and associated crosswalk
facilities, estimates of construction costs, methods and
opportunities for public input; a close collaboration with the
Department of Public Works, the Department of Planning and
Development, and the Disability Advisory Council, and
coordination with the City's Sidewalk Study, and be it further
RESOLVED, That BPAC will provide recommendations for crosswalks
at twenty (20) intersections, construction of which could be
phased in at a rate of ten intersections per year over a two year
period, and be it further
RESOLVED, That BPAC will submit recommendations to the Capital
Program Committee by April 15, 2002 for inclusion in the City's
2002-2003 Capital Project budgeting process, as specified in
Section 4-2 and Section 4-6 of the City Code.
RESOLVED, That the BPAC will review the capital project schedule
for 2002 and submit recommendations to the Board of Publics by
April 1, 2002 on whether any of the 2002 projects should include
crosswalks.
Carried Unanimously
10.3 Creation of a Plain Street Bridge Steering Committee -
Resolution
By Alderperson Pryor: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
WHEREAS, the Common Council passed the Six Point Plan as well as
capital project resolutions for the Plain Street Bridge, Spencer
Street Widening, Taughannock Boulevard Extension, and Meadow
Street projects, and
WHEREAS, the Plain Street Bridge project is the first in line for
environmental assessment and implementation, and
WHEREAS, Common Council is entrusted with an open process that
guarantees efficient, effective, and environmentally sound
planning and implementation, and
WHEREAS, the concerns raised by neighbors of the Southside and
South-of-the-Creek neighborhoods demand the attention of their
elected officials, and
WHEREAS, the effectiveness of the Plain Street Bridge and the
traffic impact on surrounding neighborhoods, as described in the
report given by Wilbur Smith Associates, depend on the
implementation of all six points, and
WHEREAS, questions still remain regarding the environmental
impact and feasibility of the other points in the Six Point Plan,
and
WHEREAS, the quality of life for many residents hangs in the
balance and their input should be sought early on, so that they
are participants in the decision-making process, and
WHEREAS, the complexity of the issues raised by this project and
potential for significant impact require that a diverse body of
Common Council members, residents, and staff oversee its
implementation, and
March 6, 2002
16
WHEREAS, as the initiator of the Six Point Plan, Common Council
has a responsibility to sufficiently address these concerns; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council will create a Plain Street Bridge
Steering Committee to provide suggestions to the Board of Public
Works on the planning and implementation of this project in order
to guarantee balanced involvement of various stakeholders, and be
it further
RESOLVED, That this Steering Committee will consist of all four
Common Council representatives from Wards One and Two, six
neighborhood residents (including representation from Titus
Towers, Cleveland Area Neighborhood Diversity Overall, Southside
Community Center, and Southview public housing apartments), and
three technical staff (two from the Department of Public Works
and one from the Department of Planning and Development), and be
it further
RESOLVED, That the appointment of this committee is not intended
to change the timeline for implementation of the Plain Street
bridge project, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Plain Street Bridge Steering Committee is
expected to provide its suggestions to the Board of Public Works
within the timeline for the project that has already been
prepared by City staff.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor with Alderperson
Whitmore stating the reasons he proposed this Resolution that
include addressing specific impacts and issues regarding the
design, implementation and planning of the South Plain Street
bridge. He explained that since his original proposal he has had
additional conversations with constituents and will propose an
Amending Resolution that will address the removal of traffic
diverters on Wood and South Street, the building of the South
Plain Street bridge, and the widening of Spencer Street.
Amending Resolution:
By Alderperson Whitmore: Seconded by Alderperson Sams
RESOLVED, That the following language replace the language in the
Main Motion:
“WHEREAS, the Common Council passed the Six Point Plan as well as
capital project resolutions for the Plain Street Bridge, Spencer
Street Widening, Taughannock Boulevard Extension, and Meadow
Street projects, and
WHEREAS, the Plain Street Bridge and the West Spencer Street
projects are [is the] first in line for environmental assessment
and implementation, and
WHEREAS, Common Council is scheduled to make a decision regarding
[will be making critical decisions in the coming months
regarding] the implementation of the West Spencer Street widening
project by June 5, and the Board of Public Works is tentatively
scheduled to make a decision regarding final design for the
Plain Street Bridge by May 15, and
WHEREAS, Common Council is entrusted with an open process that
guarantees efficient, effective, and environmentally sound
planning and implementation, and
March 6, 2002
17
WHEREAS, concerns about traffic calming and bicycle/pedestrian
issues have not been fully incorporated into the planning for
this neighborhood and timelines for these projects, and
WHEREAS, the Southside/South of the Creek neighborhood is divided
as a result of the Six Point Plan and deserves the efforts of
Common Council and the City to bridge this divide, and
WHEREAS, the concerns raised by neighbors of the Southside and
South-of-the-Creek neighborhoods demand the attention of their
elected officials, and
WHEREAS, there is currently no civic or neighborhood association
that represents all areas of the Southside/South of the Creek
neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, many residents in Southside/South of the Creek
neighborhoods feel that information exchange between the City and
residents has not been sufficient given the scope of the Six
Point Plan and
WHEREAS, the effectiveness of the Plain Street Bridge and the
traffic impact on surrounding neighborhoods, as described in the
report given by Wilbur Smith Associates, depend on the
implementation of all six points, and
WHEREAS, questions still remain regarding the environmental
impact and feasibility of the other points in the Six Point Plan,
and
WHEREAS, the quality of life for many residents hangs in the
balance and their input should be sought early on, so that they
are participants in the decision-making process, and
WHEREAS, the complexity of the issues raised by this project and
potential for significant impact require that a diverse body of
Common Council members, residents, and staff oversee its
implementation, and
WHEREAS, as the initiator of the Six Point Plan, Common Council
has a responsibility to sufficiently address these concerns, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that Common Council will create a Southside/South of
The Creek Traffic Steering Committee [Plain Street Bridge
Steering Committee] to serve in an advisory capacity to the Board
of Public Works to disseminate information to the public and
Common Council regarding the progress and process of planning and
implementation of the Plain Street Bridge project, Spencer Street
widening and removal of the diverters on Wood and South Streets,
to provide suggestions to the Board of Public Works on the
planning and implementation of these projects [this project] to
hold periodic public meetings to gather information from all
residents of this neighborhood in order to guarantee balanced
involvement of various stakeholders, and to adequately address
traffic calming and bicycle/pedestrian concerns for the entire
neighborhood, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Steering Committee will consist of all four
Common Council representatives from Wards 1 and 2 [One and Two],
two neighborhood residents from Albany Street, two neighborhood
residents from Plain Street, two neighborhood residents from West
March 6, 2002
18
Spencer Street, one neighborhood resident from Wood Street, one
neighborhood resident from South Titus and/or South Streets, one
neighborhood residents from North Titus, one neighborhood
resident from Center Street, and technical staff from the
Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning and
Development in addition to one liaison from the Bicycle
Pedestrian Advisory Council (BPAC) and one liaison from the Board
of Public Works [six neighborhood residents (including
representation from Titus Towers, Cleveland Area Neighborhood
Diversity Overall, Southside Community Center, and Southview
public housing apartments), and three technical staff (two from
the Department of Public Works and one from the Department of
Planning and Development)], and be it further
RESOLVED, that the steering committee will complete its work in
time for a contract to be let for the Plain Street Bridge by
Spring 2003 and for a decision regarding the width of West
Spencer Street by June 5th, 2002 and potential traffic calming
and traffic regulations by Spring 2003.
[RESOLVED, that the appointment of this committee is not intended
to change the timeline for implementation of the Plain Street
bridge project, and be it further]
[RESOLVED, that the Plain Street Bridge Steering Committee is
expected to provide its suggestions to the Board of Public Works
within the timeline for the project that has already been
prepared by City staff.]”
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the issues
that have divided the South of the Creek neighborhood and the
need for a steering committee to discuss the complex issues
involved in the Six Point Traffic Plan as it pertains to the
Southside neighborhood. It was clarified that the proposed
steering committee would be purely advisory in nature and would
report its findings to the Board of Public Works.
Alderperson Hershey stated that he is opposed to an advisory
committee but will support the Amending Resolution for discussion
purposes.
A Vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (7) - Sams, Blumenthal, Mack, Whitmore, Peterson,
Cogan, Hershey
Nays (3) - Manos, Pryor, Vaughan
Carried
Alderperson Hershey read the following Resolution into the record
that the Board of Public Works adopted at its meeting earlier
this evening:
“WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has been designated as the
lead agency for environmental review of the proposed
reconstruction of a vehicular bridge across Six Mile Creek at
South Plain Street, and
WHEREAS, this Board is fully prepared to carry out that mission
in a clear and inclusive manner, and
March 6, 2002
19
WHEREAS, this Board has the authority and responsibility pursuant
to the City Charter to undertake this mission; now, therefore be
it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works respectfully asks Common
Council to refrain from any action including the creation of an
advisory committee that would impede our ability to undertake and
implement the Plain Street Bridge project in a timely manner
consistent with our responsibility and authority.”
Alderperson Hershey stated that this resolution was passed 5-0
with Mayor Cohen abstaining from the vote.
Alderperson Hershey further stated that the Board of Public Works
has indicated that they are prepared to match and exceed the kind
of public input program that the proposed advisory committee
describes.
Mayor Cohen stated that the next Board of Public Works meeting is
going to focus on community involvement and neighborhood
notification procedures.
Alderperson Whitmore stated that he has no reservations about the
ability of the Board of Public Works to get public input in a
particular format for this project. His concern is mostly with
the format given the complexity and the depth these issues.
Alderperson Cogan stated that the copy of the timeline that was
distributed by Superintendent of Public Works Gray is relatively
aggressive with a meeting with the project coordinating committee
on March 12, 2002, final design approval in May, and a
construction starting date of July 1, 2002. He stated that
Common Council committed to making sure traffic calming is in
place before the diverters are removed because the increase in
traffic will be significant. He stated that his intention in
voting for this proposal is not to stop the project, but to
ensure that the project is as good as it can be. He stated that
if the project was put out to bid next year it would allow the
neighbors to have input into what the traffic calming, and
pedestrian measures would be, and would give the community time
to buy into the project.
Alderperson Peterson stated that language in the resolution talks
about having public meetings to gather information, and she feels
that part of the neighborhood frustration is that people don’t
feel sustainability and continuity after those meetings are
conducted, there’s no sense of what happens next. This project is
very controversial and it is broad reaching. It affects the
entire City, but it’s going to hurt the heart of those residences
located on Spencer, Albany, and Plain Streets.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that she will also support this
resolution as she thinks having a steering committee is a much
more interactive process between the people representing the
neighborhood and City staff. She further stated that the process
was a little rushed earlier last December, and she thinks that
Common Council needs to make an effort to bring the neighborhood
back together.
Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the need for
this legislation.
March 6, 2002
20
Alderperson Pryor stated that a few years ago the City put
together a group of people from various neighborhoods who worked
with a consultant to learn about state-of-the-art traffic calming
measures in various parts of the country. Based on that
information, the City has developed a traffic calming initiative
which over the course of time that it’s been operating used a
very specific set of criteria and identified a number of
neighborhoods in the city that were in need of traffic calming.
In relation to that, a model for traffic calming has been
developed which is neighborhood based, and very participatory.
The example that is the furthest along in terms of implementation
is the Washington Park area, it is predicated on education, so
that people understand what the various options are for traffic
calming. This traffic calming model is now moving forward for
the South of the Creek and Southside neighborhood. In May 2000,
a group of people, representative to the area met to look at
traffic calming for the South of the Creek area. The plan that
was developed in May of 2000, with a lot of resident
participation became the Six Point Plan. The plan and was based
on the fact that the diverters were intact, and did not take into
consideration the fact that a bridge would be built, and the
diverters removed. That May, 2000, plan needs revision. Members
of the Planning Department staff have already initiated the next
steps for planning traffic calming in that area. There will be a
broad based community meeting in the very near future, in which
all residents of the area will be invited to participate in the
traffic calming planning process. This is a regular part of the
way we do business in the City. The addition of a steering
committee would duplicate the efforts that are already being
undertaken and would further strain the resources of our staff
who are already actively engaged in this effort. She described
the efforts undertaken in the Northside Planning Initiative and
stated that she has spoken to Planning Department staff about
extending that process to the Southside neighborhood.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding open
government and community participation in planning processes.
Alderperson Manos reminded Council that the Southside and South
of the Creek neighborhoods are physically divided because there
is not a bridge on Plain Street. Before the bridge was reduced
to pedestrian scale, it was all one huge neighborhood. There was
easy access back and forth between the various neighbors. When
the bridge was reduced to pedestrian access only, the neighbors
in that area were very upset that they would no longer have a
vehicular bridge. With regard to the design of the bridge, she
referred to the Board of Public Works’ authority under the City
Charter. She stated that she believes the Board is responding in
a very responsible way. She voiced her concern that a steering
committee made up of two neighbors from here and two neighbor
from there and one from there will continue to divide the
neighborhood. She believes that it is the Council
representative’s responsibility to ensure that the process is
followed through properly.
Alderperson Cogan suggested that a just compromise would be to
delay the bridge project for a year to give time for many of
these other initiatives that people have mentioned to take place.
He stated that in order for a good process to happen more time
needs to be given to it. He requested that if this Resolution
fails that the Board of Public Works delay the project a year in
March 6, 2002
21
order to give time for neighborhood planning initiative to
happen.
Alderperson Sams clarified that the Board of Public Works
resolution doesn’t oppose the committee, it simply asks that the
project stays within the timeline. The appointment of the
committee is not intended to change the timeline for
implementation of the project
Main Motion as Amended:
A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows:
Ayes (5) Peterson, Cogan, Sams, Whitmore, Blumenthal
Nays (5) Hershey, Pryor, Manos, Vaughan, Mack
Mayor Cohen stated that he found a lot of the discussion
compelling on both sides of the issue. He stated that he clearly
agrees that the creation of a steering committee would be a
duplication of effort and an additional drain on staff time that
we cannot afford given the status of the City budget. The real
issue being discussed is the design of the bridge, not whether
the project will or will not happen as that decision has already
been made. He further stated that he is unclear about how
discussing bridge design will heal a neighborhood. The Linn
Street bridge project was lauded by at least two members of
council as a good example of how a process should work. That
project did not have an advisory committee, it was a process that
involved a lot of community input, it was intersection of three
different wards and it was run by the Department of Public Works.
The Board has clearly expressed a commitment to gather more input
from the public as well as provide more information to the
public. As Chair of the Board of Public Works, he stated that his
committed to doing his utmost to see that this happens.
Mayor Cohen voted Nay, breaking the tie.
Motion Failed
RECESS:
Common Council recessed at 9:10 p.m.
RECONVENE:
Common Council reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
11.1 Tompkins County’s Vital Communities Initiatives - Resolution
This item was withdrawn from the agenda
11.2 Department of Planning & Development’s High Priority List
2002 Resolution
By Alderperson Manos: Seconded by Alderperson Vaughan
WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Development’s proposed
list of 2002 Priority Projects has been reviewed by the Planning
and Economic Development Committee of Council; now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council designates the following
as the Department’s Priority Projects for 2002:
List of priority projects follows:
2002 Priority Projects
Department of Planning and Development
March 6, 2002
22
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
Provide assistance to major downtown development projects,
including Cayuga Green, the Cornell office building (Ciminelli),
Hilton Hotel, Gateway Project and State Theater.
Complete planning for an additional parking structure or
structures in Central Business District (CBD).
In cooperation with the private sector continue work in the West
End.
Complete alienation of Inlet Island.
In cooperation with the private sector, begin implementation of
Inlet Island Plan.
Complete alienation of Southwest Park.
Review major development projects as submitted.
Complete parking study for downtown, Collegetown, West End and
Inlet Island.
Adopt Economic Development Plan.
NEIGHBORHOODS AND QUALITY OF LIFE:
In cooperation with Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS)
begin implementation of $2 million Neighborhood Housing
Initiative.
Provide assistance to Mutual Housing Association of Tompkins
County (MHA) in developing scattered site housing.
Prepare plans for a second neighborhood planning initiative.
Construct traffic calming pilot project. Continue planning for
city-wide program.
Begin planning for a city wide trail system connecting
residential neighborhoods and commercial areas to open space,
natural areas and regional trail system.
Continue work on acquisition of critical parcels in Six Mile
Creek gorge.
Complete work with County on Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program (LWRP). Begin work on developing implementation
strategies.
Complete Historic Preservation Guidelines.
Complete design for Inlet Island Promenade and construct first
phase.
Complete master plan for Cayuga Waterfront Trail and construct
first phase (Cass Park Loop).
Construct pedestrian linkages across Route 13 at Dey and Third
Streets.
March 6, 2002
23
Complete revisions to the adopted Bicycle Plan and begin
implementation.
INFORMATION ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT:
Complete city-wide Geographic Information Systems (GIS) needs
assessment and development plan.
Automate Planning and Development Department processes such as
site plan review.
Develop user friendly formats for dissemination of 2000 Census
data.
Provide support for redistricting.
REGULATIONS AND MAJOR PERMITS:
Review of Cornell’s West Campus Project.
Amend local City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) to conform
with State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) law.
Alderperson Sams stated that she would abstain from this vote as
there is an association on the list in which she is in the middle
of a lawsuit with.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (9): Blumenthal, Mack, Vaughan, Hershey, Pryor, Cogan,
Whitmore, Manos, Peterson
Nays (0)
Abstention: (1) Sams
Carried
Report of City Owned Properties:
Alderperson Manos stated that the Planning and Economic
Development Committee reviewed a list of city owned surplus
properties which staff has recommended for sale at public
auction. After discussion, two of the properties were removed
from the list. Public notice will be served within the month,
and the Committee will have a chance to review the list again.
The auctioneer will be encouraged to send a notice of sale to
property owners within 200 feet of the affected property.
Mayor Cohen stated that he has requested a list of the properties
that have been removed from the list along with the explanation
of why they were removed.
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
12. 1Police Department – Request Approval of Mutual Aid Assistance
Agreement with the County of Tompkins
By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Pryor
WHEREAS, local governments are authorized to request and provide
police assistance to each other pursuant to Section 209-m of the
New York General Municipal Law (GML), and
WHEREAS, the temporary exchange of Law Enforcement Officers and
equipment for the purpose of mutual assistance is further
contemplated by GML, and
March 6, 2002
24
WHEREAS, GML Section 119-0 authorizes municipal corporations to
enter into agreements for the performance of their respective
functions, powers and duties on a cooperative basis, and
WHEREAS, GML Section 209-m, New York Criminal Procedure Law
Sections 140.10-1 & 3, 120.60 et seq., and 690.25, and other
applicable authority authorize Law Enforcement Officers to
exercise certain police powers and authorities outside their
geographic area of employment when a request for assistance is
forthcoming from another law enforcement agency, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County have determined
that it is in the best interests of the respective communities
and of mutual advantage to enter into an assistance agreement for
the provision of inter-agency Law Enforcement Services, and
WHEREAS, a Mutual Aid Assistance Agreement has been negotiated
and drafted by the Tompkins County Sheriff and the City of Ithaca
Chief of Police, as well as by the County Attorney and the City
Attorney; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City enter into such Mutual Aid Assistance
Agreement, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor and the Chief of Police are hereby
authorized to execute any documents necessary to formalize such
Agreement.
Tompkins County Sheriff Peter Meskill explained purpose of
agreement. He thanked Chief Basile for this opportunity to work
collaboratively, and for his vision.
Sergeant John Barber explained the benefits derived from being
able to share resources with the Sheriff’s Department, and
thanked the City Attorney’s Office, Chief Basile, and Sheriff
Meskill for their work on this agreement.
City Attorney Schwab stated that the duration of this agreement
is in perpetuity, but there are ways for either party to revoke
the agreement.
Alderperson Sams questioned whether she had a conflict of
interest as her son will be involved in this agreement.
City Attorney Schwab stated that this is a generic contract that
doesn’t provide any direct, enhanced, enumeration so therefore
there is no conflict of interest.
Mayor Cohen thanked all the parties involved in this agreement.
He applauded Sheriff Meskill and Chief Basile for moving beyond
turf issues and focusing on inter-municipal cooperation.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
12.2 Youth Bureau – Request to Approve 2002 Recreation Partnership
Agreement
By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Manos
RESOLVED, That the Mayor be authorized to enter into an agreement
with the Towns of Caroline, Danby, Dryden, Enfield, Groton,
March 6, 2002
25
Ithaca, Newfield and Ulysses, the Village of Lansing and Tompkins
County for the term beginning January 1, 2002 and continuing
through until December 31, 2006 for the Intermunicipal
Cooperative Recreation Partnership Agreement.
Alderperson Cogan asked about the clause pertaining to an
acceptable facilities agreement.
Mayor Cohen stated that the costs of the Youth Bureau Building
and other facilities were charged to the partnership years ago.
Those costs were renegotiated and the partnership was charged for
the cost to run the rink, the pool, and the actual physical
facilities that the partnership uses on an ongoing basis.
It was agreed that the programmatic costs should be separated
from the infrastructure costs for the short term. This agreement
is solely focused on the delivery of services within the
partnership. There is a separate concurrent initiative going on
right now to do a study on the infrastructure involved and it’s
an effort that is co-funded by the City, the County and the Town
of Ithaca and is reviewing at the City’s facilities.
Mayor Cohen further explained that the City has been fully
funding the cost of the infrastructure that is being used by all
of the members of the partnership. The City needs to find a more
equitable solution. The clause that Alderperson Cogan referred
to is reserves the City’s option to withdraw from the partnership
if and equitable solution is not found.
Acting Youth Bureau Director Alice Green stated that the costs
that are charged to the partners are renegotiated annually. The
fees are based on a formula that reviews each municipality’s
participation over three years.
Mayor Cohen thanked Acting Youth Bureau Director Green,
Alderperson Whitmore and former Alderperson Spielholz for all of
their efforts on this agreement.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
12.3 Planning Department – Approval of Funding for Parking
Facilities & Circulation Study
By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
WHEREAS, proposals for new parking structures on Green Street and
Cayuga Street have been submitted and are currently being
considered by the City, and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that before the City can approve
of these new parking structures, [traffic circulation within the
garage as well as] the impacts on the surrounding intersections
must be studied, and
WHEREAS, SRF Associates has submitted a proposal to perform a
parking circulation study on the proposed garages and their
impacts on the surrounding intersections, and
WHEREAS, staff has evaluated the proposal and recommends that the
City hire SRF Associates to complete the study, and
WHEREAS, the proposal submitted by SRF Associates is for $14,000
and there is $1,600 remaining in Capital Project #250 and
$150,000 reserved for Parking Area in Capital Reserve Fund #14;
now, therefore, be it
March 6, 2002
26
RESOLVED, That the Mayor for the City of Ithaca is hereby
authorized and directed to enter into contract with SRF
Associates to study and make recommendations to the City in
regard to the traffic circulation associated with the proposed
parking structures for an amount not to exceed $14,000, including
all reimbursable expenses, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby establishes Capital Project
#458 Parking Area Studies in an amount not to exceed $52,400, and
be it further
RESOLVED, That a contract with SRF Associates be funded with
transfers from Parking Area Capital Reserve Fund #14 in the
amount of $12,400 and Capital Project #250 in the amount of
$1,600 to fund Capital Project #458.
Mayor Cohen stated that this is not a new capital project, the
monies already exist in the budget in an existing capital
project, and an existing reserve fund.
Alderperson Blumenthal requested clarification on the affected
areas of the study.
City Planner Tim Logue stated that study is supposed to look at
circulation on the streets surrounding the proposed parking
garages. The biggest focus area will be the ingress and egress
points of the parking garages and the proposed Cayuga Green
building. The study will look at circulation patterns on Cayuga
Street, Clinton Street, Green Street and even Prospect and South
Aurora Street to see how that intersection is going to function
with the new Cayuga Green buildings. He further stated that
interior circulation, including stacking and queing space, within
the parking garages will also be studied.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that she believes a traffic impact
analysis that looks at on-street parking as well as circulation
will be needed. She further stated that other blocks farther out
are going to need to be studied as well. She questioned the
overall scope of the study and whether the direction of the study
should be reconsidered. She asked that the title be changed to
Cayuga Green Traffic Impact Analysis so that the study would meet
requirements for SEQR.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the need for
further information on the Cayuga Green project.
Mayor Cohen stated that all Common Council members were present
during the November meeting when the developers presented three
different project alternatives. Staff has been in contact with
Monihan Development to discuss various concepts.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that she appreciates that there
will be an effort to provide more information, but her sense is
that the Cayuga Green Project is only being treated as a parking
garage project and that the land use issues imbedded in it are
not being discussed. She further stated that Council has not
talked about things like whether or not it is a good idea to have
bus terminal next to the Commons, whether we should distribute
parking across the downtown rather than in one corner of
downtown, and whether or not there should be housing along the
creek behind the garages. She stated that Common Council has
March 6, 2002
27
been asking for information since August, and it had not been
provided to date.
Mayor Cohen stated that part of the reason that financial
information hasn’t been provided is because information is not
yet available regarding the structural integrity of the existing
structure. He further stated that he will ask staff to review
the previous requests for information and respond to them. He
suggested that if Council wanted to begin discussions on these
issues on a parallel track to what he and staff is doing, we
would schedule Committee of the Whole meetings to facilitate
those discussions.
Alderpersons Blumenthal and Peterson voiced their support of that
suggestion.
Mayor Cohen announced that the first Committee of the Whole
discussion on the Cayuga Green project would be held on
Wednesday, March 13, 2002, 8:30 p.m.
Alderpersons Vaughan and Whitmore withdrew their motion from the
floor pending further information.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding Item 12.4
Approval of Funding for the Wilbur Smith Contract Addendum. City
Planner Logue explained the reason why this is a time sensitive
issue.
Alderperson Blumenthal questioned why this study costs $5,000.
City Planner Logue stated that the cost is directly related to
the labor costs that are involved in not only running the model
on the computer, but then going intersection by intersection to
hand balance the intersections.
12.4 Planning Department – Approval of Funding for the Wilbur
Smith Contract Addendum
By Alderperson Hershey: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan
WHEREAS, a proposal for new parking structures on Green and
Cayuga Streets has been submitted and is currently being
considered by the City, and
WHEREAS, in order to complete the study, SRF Associates must use
the traffic count information that was collected by Wilbur Smith
Associates as part of the Evaluation of the Six Point Traffic
Plan, and
WHEREAS, the required information is not currently in the format
that is needed by SRF Associates, and
WHEREAS, Wilbur Smith Associates has prepared a proposal for an
addendum to their contract that would allow them to prepare the
data in the format that is needed for the Parking Facilities and
Circulation Study, and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the contract be amended to add the
additional required services, and
WHEREAS, the fee proposal for the contract addendum is $4,198 and
there is $150,000 reserved for Parking Area Capital Reserve Fund
#14; now, therefore, be it
March 6, 2002
28
RESOLVED, That the Mayor for the City of Ithaca is hereby
authorized and directed to amend the contract with Wilbur Smith
Associates to allow them to update the Six Point Travel Demand
Model and prepare the data to be used by SRF Associates, and be
it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council has previously approved Capital
Project #458 for this purpose, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the addendum to the Wilbur Smith contract be
funded with transfers from Parking Area Capital Reserve Fund #14
of the amount of $4,198.00 to said Capital Project #458.
Carried Unanimously
12.5 Planning Department – Approval of Funding for Green Street
Parking Garage Structural Evaluation
This item was deferred to the Special Common Council meeting on
March 13, 2002
WHEREAS, the City is currently considering a proposal to expand
the Green Street Parking Structure, and
WHEREAS, the engineering department recommended that, before the
City can expand the existing Green Street garage, a full
structural evaluation of the building must be completed, and
WHEREAS, staff has received proposals from three engineering
firms to evaluate the Green Street garage, and
WHEREAS, only one of the proposals submitted by Novelli
Engineering was for a full structural evaluation and testing of
the parking structure, and
WHEREAS, planning staff and engineering staff have reviewed the
submitted proposals and recommend that the City contract Novelli
Engineering to perform the structural evaluation of the Green
Street garage, and
WHEREAS, the proposal submitted by Novelli Engineering is for
$34,200 and there is $150,000 reserved for Parking Area Capital
Reserve #14; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Mayor for the City of Ithaca is hereby
authorized and directed to enter into contract with Novelli
Engineering to conduct a detailed structural analysis of the
Green Street Parking Garage and to make recommendations to the
City in regard to the structural condition of the Green Street
Parking Garage for an amount not to exceed $34,200, including all
reimbursable expenses, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council has previously approved Capital
Project #458 for this purpose, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the contract with Novelli Engineering Firm be
funded with transfers from Parking Area Capital Reserve Fund #14
to said Capital Project #458.
Extensive discussion followed on the floor regarding the need for
this study given the City’s financial status.
Mayor Cohen stated that a $30,000 investment to determine whether
the City should build a new garage and spend an extra million
dollars or refurbish the existing garage is a good investment.
March 6, 2002
29
Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the life
expectancy of both structures.
Alderperson Vaughan stated that if it is decided not to fund this
project for $34,000, a defacto decision would be made to tear
down the old garage. She stated that she is not sure there is
enough information at this point to make that decision.
Upon further discussion this item was deferred to next week.
Mayor Cohen called for a Special Common Council meeting on March
13, 2002, 9:00 p.m., to discuss various issues raised concerning
the parking garages and to consider Items 12.3 and 12.5.
March 6, 2002
30
12.6 Approval of 2002-2006 City of Ithaca/Town of Ithaca Fire
Contract - Possible resolution
By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Sams
WHEREAS, a committee comprised of representatives of Common
Council, City Staff, and members of the Town Board have been
meeting for two years, in the interest of negotiating a new Fire
Protection contract for a five-year period commencing January 1,
2002, and
WHEREAS, the negotiating committee has put forth a recommended
contract for the five-year period 2002 through 2006; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Mayor be hereby authorized to execute said
agreement as approved and recommended by the negotiating
committee, subject to Ithaca Town Board approval.
Fire Chief Wilbur stated that the previous Common Council had
approved a previous version of this contract and subsequent to
that, the Town of Ithaca determined that they needed to make some
changes. One of the changes was to add a new section which says
the City’s South Hill Station #5 and West Hill Station #6 shall
provide adequate insurance coverage for the property and
buildings during the duration of the lease. The cost of the
insurance shall be included in the annual operating budget, and
the City shall name the Town as an additional insured on said
coverage. Inadvertent errors in the contract have also been
corrected.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
12.7 Common Council – Request to Reallocate Funds for Public Art
and Design Plan
By Alderperson Vaughan: Seconded by Alderperson Blumenthal
WHEREAS, Common Council allocated $3,500 in operating funds as
part of the Community Services Agencies contract allocation in
the 2002 budget for the Firehouse Theater, and
WHEREAS, the Firehouse Theater is no longer operating, and
WHEREAS, a request has been made to reprogram this money to hire
consultant support {staff support} to assist the City in
developing a plan for public art [the Public Art and Design
Commission in developing a plan for public art], and
WHEREAS, the B & A Committee chair commenced a discussion about
what to do with these funds and
WHEREAS, said plan will provide a framework and mechanisms for
implementation of a public art program, and
WHEREAS, transferring the Firehouse funds to the public art
project will help enrich the visual and aesthetic environment of
public, private and semipublic spaces in the city, and
WHEREAS, the Budget and Administration Committee voted to approve
this request at its February 25, 2002 meeting; now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby reallocates the $3,500,
originally authorized to the Firehouse Theater, for the purposes
March 6, 2002
31
of the development of the public art plan [to the Public Art and
Design Commission for 2002.]
Alderperson Vaughan stated that the B & A Committee agreed to
hire a consultant, and not staff support for the Public Art &
Design Commission.
Mayor Cohen stated that he and Alderperson Blumenthal had a
discussion about a broader based task force developing this plan,
this Resolution is written as the commission performing the work,
not the task force.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that the language in the Resolved
clauses was prepared by the City Controller’s Office. She
further stated that she has attempted to schedule an appointment
with the Mayor to discuss this item. She suggested that the
Resolution reflect that the monies be re-allocated for the
purpose of assisting the City in the creation of a public art
plan.
Alderperson Hershey stated that he would not support this
Resolution as he believes that it’s not in the spirit of what the
community budget is about. He thinks there is adequate staff
expertise to complete this study, and that this funding should go
to a worthy community organization.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding notification to the
Community Arts Partnership of this funding reallocation.
Mayor Cohen stated that all of the City’s staff resources are
overwhelmed with other projects.
Alderperson Manos stated that she believes that the City should
start looking for places to save money given the status of the
budget.
Alderperson Blumenthal stated that the arts are an investment in
the community and they bring many benefits in addition to the
cultural, to the community. The arts are a component of economic
development and so to some extent produce more revenues for the
City.
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (9) - Manos, Vaughan, Mack, Cogan, Whitmore, Peterson
Pryor, Sams, Blumenthal
Nays (1) Hershey
Carried
NEW BUSINESS:
13.1 Request for Support of an Exemption from Article 4, Section
45-A of General City Law
By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Manos
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby requests that Assemblyman
Martin Luster and Senator James Seward introduce and support the
passage of the proposed legislation that would exempt the City of
Ithaca from the provisions of Section 45-A of Article 4 of the
General City Law that relates to Plumbing and Drainage.
Mayor Cohen stated that this issue was presented during a
City/Cornell meeting.
March 6, 2002
32
City Attorney Schwab stated that this provision came into effect
in the early 1900’s. It was determined that there should be a
nexus between the ownership of a plumbing firm, and the people
actually doing the plumbing work. The person who holds a Master
Plumbers license should also be a majority owner of the business.
In this age there are huge conglomerates with hundreds of people
working in publicly traded corporations that do plumbing work.
Nobody who has a majority ownership of the corporation is a
Master Plumber. Several municipalities have been exempted from
this law by special legislation. Cornell University has large
firms doing its plumbing included in mechanical work, like air
conditioning. Currently work on air conditioning and heating
systems are not regulated. Cities need to conduct their own
regulation of plumbing work within the city, and there needs to
be a nexus between ownership and the actual skilled plumbers to
protect public health.
Cornell University is concerned because they have several large
building initiatives they are prepared to start, and they cannot
accomplish them relying solely on the licensed Master Plumbers
within the City of Ithaca.
City Attorney Schwab stated that it is her understanding that the
City would only be exempted from that particular section of the
law, and that all the other provisions of Article 4, of the
General Law would still apply.
Alderperson Whitmore questioned whether this law applied only to
large organizations, or if landlords were affected as well.
City Attorney Schwab stated that it applies to all plumbing
businesses.
Mayor Cohen stated that Cornell is further limited in the
companies that they do business with, because they’re a union
shop.
Discussion followed on the floor regarding the term of the
exemption as it relates to sunset clauses.
Mayor Cohen stated that he spoke with City Plumbing Inspector
Marc Albanese, who also works with the Examining Board of
Plumbers. He stated that he is supportive of this exemption,
however he is concerned about what, if any, impact this could
have on smaller projects. Mr. Albanese will discuss this topic
with the Examining Board of Plumbers, and they will report back
any recommendations for the City to address on a local level.
Alderperson Manos inquired whether local plumbers have been
contacted to gather their input on how this legislation would
affect their businesses.
Mayor Cohen stated that the Examining Board of Plumbers has been
contacted, but not the plumbers union specifically.
Alderperson Vaughan stated that this is not just a Cornell issue
as it will relate to all large construction projects undertaken
within the City.
March 6, 2002
33
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (9) Pryor, Sams, Blumenthal, Mack, Whitmore, Vaughan,
Peterson, Cogan, Hershey
Nays (1) Manos
Abstentions (0)
Carried
13.2 Motion to Enter into Executive Session to Discuss Possible
Property Acquisition
This item was tabled until the Special Meeting on March 13, 2002.
13.2 Search Processes:
Mayor Cohen stated that the City would be conducting two searches
in the upcoming months to fill the Chief of Police and Youth
Bureau Director positions. He explained the search process as it
is mandated by the City Charter. Three members of Common Council
are required to be appointed to each search committee, by Common
Council.
Alderperson Manos stated that she would like to be considered by
Council to serve on the Chief of Police search. Alderperson
Pryor stated that she is interested in serving on that search
committee as well. She further stated that she is interested in
a process that would allow for public input as to what they would
like to see in the successful Police Chief candidate.
Alderperson Peterson voiced her interest in participating on the
Police Chief search committee.
Alderperson Whitmore stated that he would like to be appointed to
the Youth Bureau Director search committee, and Alderperson
Hershey stated that he would like to serve on that committee as
well.
Common Council agreed to fill the remaining seat on the Youth
Bureau Director search committee at the Special Common Council
meeting.
MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS:
Board of Public Works
Mayor Cohen stated that he will not put forth William Korherr for
re-appointment to the Board of Public Works. Alderperson Cogan
was correct that make-up of that Board was out of balance
pursuant to the City Charter. There are currently three
democrats and three independents serving on the Board.
Independents are not counted in the political party delineation,
as they are not registered members of a party. Mr. Korherr has
been notified of the situation.
Alderperson Vaughan stated that she is concerned about the re-
appointment of Julie Conley Holcomb to the Commons Advisory Board
as Council deferred an appointment to the Board of Fire
Commissioners for Robin Korherr because of her status as a City
employee. To be equitable Alderperson Vaughan noted that Ms.
Holcomb’s re-appointment should be deferred as well until Common
Council has resolved the issue of City employees serving on City
boards and committees.
March 6, 2002
34
Mayor Cohen stated that he will defer that re-appointment. He put
it forward as he saw it as a different situation as Ms. Holcomb
is an incumbent on that committee.
Alderperson Pryor spoke to the vital role that Ms. Holcomb plays
on the Commons Advisory Board. She agreed with Alderperson
Vaughan’s desire for consistency, but stated that she believes
that City employees are also individuals and community residents
with expertise in various areas and she would like to see them be
able to serve their community in a different role.
Mayor Cohen explained that this issue was raised at the Human
Resources Committee and various questions were raised as to what
perspective it should be addressed from, a comprehensive
administrative perspective, or en employee based Human Resources
perspective. It was decided that this is an administrative item
that should be discussed by the Budget & Administration
Committee.
Reappointments:
Affirmative Action Advisory Committee:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That Marcia Fort, Diann Sams, and Tom West be
reappointed to the Affirmative Action Advisory Committee with a
term to expire December 31, 2003; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Lauren Signer and Satomi Hill be reappointed to
the Affirmative Action Advisory Committee with a term to expire
December 31, 2004.
Carried Unanimously
Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That Jennifer Dotson and Andy Ruina be reappointed to
the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Council with a term to expire
December 31, 2004; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Joseph Leonardo be reappointed as the Board of
Public Works liaison to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee
with a term to expire December 31, 2003.
Carried Unanimously
Building Code Board of Appeals:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That Charlie Wilson be reappointed to the Building Code
Board of Appeals with a term to expire December 31, 2002, and, be
it further
RESOLVED, That Mick LoPinto be reappointed to the Building Code
Board of Appeals with a term to expire December 31, 2004.
Carried Unanimously
Board of Zoning Appeals:
RESOLVED, that Kenneth Reardon and William Olney be reappointed
to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a term to expire December 31,
2004, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Constance Thomas be reappointed as an alternate
member to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a term to expire
December 31, 2002.
March 6, 2002
35
Carried Unanimously
Commons Advisory Board:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That Gary Ferguson be reappointed to the Commons
Advisory Board with a term to expire December 31, 2003.
Carried Unanimously
Conservation Advisory Council:
RESOLVED, That Daniel Hoffman and Gregory Thomas be reappointed
to the Conservation Advisory Committee with a term to expire
December 31, 2003, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Jack Elliott be appointed to the Conservation
Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2003, and
be it further
RESOLVED, That Joanna Garrard be appointed to the Conservation
Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2002.
Carried Unanimously
Disability Advisory Council:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That John Ives and David McElrath be reappointed to the
Disability Advisory Committee with a term to expire June 30,
2004.
Carried Unanimously
Examining Board of Plumbers:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, that Jack Bacon and Rick Albanese be reappointed to the
Examining Board of Plumbers with a term to expire December 31,
2004.
Carried Unanimously
Housing Board of Review:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That John Barradas be reappointed to the Housing Board
of Review with a term to expire December 31, 2004.
Carried Unanimously
Ithaca Housing Authority:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That Ann Bantuvanis be reappointed to the Ithaca
Housing Authority with a term to expire October 17, 2006.
Carried Unanimously
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That David Beer and Byron Suber be reappointed to the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee with a term to expire
December 31, 2004.
Carried Unanimously
Natural Areas Commission:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
March 6, 2002
36
RESOLVED, That Harry Littell, Dr. Nancy Ostman and Sarah
Steuteville be reappointed to the Natural Areas Commission with a
term to expire December 31, 2004, and be it further
RESOLVED, That Carolyn Peterson be appointed as the Common
Council liaison to the Natural Areas Commission with a term to
expire December 31, 2004.
Carried Unanimously
Parks Commission:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That Rick Manning be reappointed to the Parks
Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2004.
Carried Unanimously
Planning Board:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That Jane Marcham and Ellen McCollister be reappointed
to the Planning Board with a term to expire December 31, 2004,
and, be it futher
RESOLVED, That Robert Boothroyd be appointed to the Planning and
Development Board with a term to expire December 31, 2004.
Carried Unanimously
Rental Housing Advisory Commission:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That Joyce Muchan be reappointed to the Rental Housing
Advisory Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2004, and,
be it further
RESOLVED, That Kathy Young-McGriff, and Gossa Tsegaye be
appointed to the Rental Housing Advisory Committee with a term to
expire December 31, 2004.
Carried Unanimously
Shade Tree Advisory Committee:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That Marvin Adleman, Kathleen Sprague, and Monica Roth
be reappointed to the Shade Tree Advisory Committee with a term
to expire December 31, 2004, and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Margaret (Peg) Engasser be appointed to the Shade
Tree Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2003.
Carried Unanimously
Youth Bureau Board:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Whitmore
RESOLVED, That Bill Murphy and David Delchamps be reappointed to
the Youth Bureau Board with a term to expire December 31, 2004.
Carried Unanimously
Housing Initiative Committee:
By Mayor Cohen: Seconded by Alderperson Pryor
RESOLVED, That Nels Bohn, Allan Warshawsky, Tracy Farrel, and
Daniel Cogan be appointed to the Housing Initiatives Committee.
Carried Unanimously
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMON COUNCIL:
Alderperson Hershey stated that on Sunday, March 10, 2002, Ithaca
Falls will be the subject of a six-hour community workshop
sponsored by the Natural Areas Commission to investigate how to
preserve the falls during and after the perspective clean-up.
March 6, 2002
37
The workshop will run from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the
Tompkins County Museum.
Alderperson Cogan stated that on Saturday, March 9, 2002, from
2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. there will be a site visit to the Ithaca
Falls and there will be people there who have knowledge of the
area, and a representative of the Department of Environmental
Conservation to discuss the clean-up.
Mayor Cohen stated that he will be out of town this weekend, but
is waiting for information from the EPA regarding the clean up
plans.
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 12:15 A.M.
________________________ _______________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Alan J. Cohen,
City Clerk Mayor