Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2017-11-27 Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board Monday,November 27, 2017 1. Continue discussion regarding the draft legislation of owner occupancy requirements for new two-family units and new accessory dwelling units and the establishment of a Rental Operating Permit Program 2. Discuss and consider authorizing the Supervisor to sign the Rec Partnership Agreement 3. Discuss and consider authorizing the Supervisor to sign the Hector Street Complete Street Project Design Intermunicipal Agreement/MOU 4. Discuss and consider authorization to award commercial cleaning contract for Town buildings 5. Committee Reports a. Planning Committee b. Public Works Committee c. Budget d. Codes & Ordinances e. Personnel and Organization f. Sidewalk Committee g. Short Term Rental Committee 6. Consent Agenda a. Town Board minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract 7. Adjourn Study Session of the Ithaca Town Board Monday,November 27, 2017 Board Members Present: Bill Goodman,Rod Howe, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, Tee-Ann Hunter, Pamela Bleiwas, Pat Leary (via video) Staff Present: Susan Ritter,Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent; Judy Drake,Director of Human Resources; Mike Solvig, Director of Finance; Debra DeAugistine,Deputy Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Goodman called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Item 1: Continue Discussion Regarding the Draft Legislation of Owner Occupancy Requirements for New Two-family Units and New Accessory Dwelling Units and the Establishment of a Rental Operating Permit Program Operating Permits Mr. Bates is working on the list to be inserted in 2.13. of the law. At this time, it's the same list included at last meeting. Ms. Brock said she looked at what a couple other municipalities have done. One spelled out each item on the list in the law, and the other spelled out the laws you have to be compliant with. Because a little bit later in the law, something says that you can't get your operating permit if you have a violation of the property maintenance law, she recommended adding property maintenance to the list. She said we'll have to include the list in a way that's enforceable. Other municipalities she looked at have the standards in the law. She thinks the standards should be in the law and not standalone as a resolution. Mr. DePaolo asked if having the standards in the law meant including metrics, such as railing height and stair width. He thought that would make the law very obtuse. In 2D,there was a question of applying for the operating permit prior to rental or prior to occupancy. Ms. Brock said it should be prior to the rental term. Mr. DePaolo said 2D is saying that if you have a unit that is currently rented, you have to apply before October 31st next year, but if you don't, you have to apply prior to rental. He thinks it's not giving people a lot of opportunity to come to terms with the change. He asked if the purpose of this was to stagger the applications so they don't overwhelm the department. Ms. Ritter responded that for people currently renting, you're giving them until November 1st of next year; if you have an empty unit and then you start renting it, you have to apply immediately. She pointed out that we don't have the form yet, so we need to get up and running. Mr. Bates said we can start with a basic form and change it later. Mr. DePaolo asked how many units are vacant or planned to be built in the next month, as soon as the law takes effect. There might be a potential hardship for the owners of those units. 1 Ms. Hunter said that in a college town, a lot of units flip July 15th, August 15th, for the new semester. She suggested the permitting start after that. Mr. Goodman said that for the spring semester, there might be some starting January 1st. Mr. DePaolo pointed out that those units are already occupied. This doesn't say the turnover of tenancy triggers the need for an application; it says if it's already rented, not who is renting. Discussion returned to the list for 2B Ms. Brock said we should keep it very simple. She didn't know if we could just make reference to the building code. It's a standard we already have; we're not making up new standards. Ms. Hunter pointed out that the code requirements are different, depending on the date. Mr. Bates agreed, saying that if it's an older unit, we're going to use the code that was in effect at the time,not the new code. Ms. Brock suggested that instead of specifying specific sections, it should be more of a generic reference. Mr. Goodman said that the reason we're putting a list in the law is mainly to let people know that we're not looking at everything in all of our code; we're just focusing on certain things: mostly items related to health and safety. He wants to keep the law as short and simple as possible; then if we want more detail to give people a sense of what Ms. Hunter is asking, make a separate document for the details to educate people. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Mr. DePaolo asked how an owner proves the ADU already exists: by history of building permits?What if there is no history of building permits and you have an ADU you want to come clean with? Is it possible that the burden of proof be on the owner, and if they don't have a record of building permits, maybe they have other documentation, such as a lease, that predates the law. Mr. Bates said it's possible, but it's up to interpretation. Mr. Goodman said this determines whether or not the owners have to live there. If the ADU didn't exist, the owners have to live there; if it did exist, the owner can rent out both units. So we have to be really clear on how we determine this. Mr. DePaolo said that any existing, non-owner-occupied, two-family house is going to be allowed to continue as such; any two-family house that's created after the law goes into effect will have an owner occupancy requirement. Mr. Bates said there's the question of whether it's legally existing or just existing. Mr. Goodman said that's the question: how are you going to interpret this as existing?Maybe we should flip it and say the owner-occupancy requirement only applies to newly constructed ADUs after this law. 2 Mr. DePaolo added that that way, any new building permit would trip the requirement. Ms. Hunter stressed that this is why an outreach might have been a good idea when we fust started talking about this; now we're up against it. Mr. Goodman said we'll get to that. Mr. DePaolo asked again for the standard that will be used to make the determination: is what exists in the town's database or the county assessment database? It's easy to figure out if it exists in either of those two databases; otherwise, the onus is on the owner to produce some sort of proof. Owner-occupancy is hanging in the balance of the determination. Mr. Levine suggested another way: he doesn't like the fact that there's a bunch of secret and under-the-radar accessory dwelling units, and he's inclined to say that if you have an accessory dwelling unit and you would like it to be exempt from the owner occupancy requirement,register it with the town by a certain date. You've either registered it or you haven't, and if you want to continue keeping it secret,then it is no longer grandfathered in. Ms. Hunter agreed, saying that this would give people a grace period and encourage people to come in and register. Mr. DePaolo argued that he's saying the same thing,but what he's proposing is giving anyone the opportunity to come forward when they need to come forward for a permit, for example. If they can prove it's preexisting to the effective date, it doesn't have to happen by x date to retain the exemption. Mr. Goodman was fine with not setting a date. If they've been operating under the radar now, they might not come in for a long time, until something changes like they go to sell the property. Ms. Hunter stated that that means we're requiring that people get a permit and get an inspection, but if they've been flying under the radar for four years and then they want to sell their property, all they need to do is come in and, as proof,hand in their taxes showing they've deducted this as a rental. They've been in violation for four years. Are we punishing them? You're going to inspect the unit and find that for four years,they haven't had smoke detectors. Is there a problem or not? Mr. Goodman said if they prove that it existed four years ago,they'll need to get an operating permit to continue. Mr. Bates agreed with Ms. Hunter that it's a loophole people can get around, but down the road, we're going to catch it. Maybe this person got away with it, but the next person will not. They're jeopardizing it because a new person might say they don't want to buy the property because it doesn't have an operating permit. In the long run, it will get on our records. If they're a good landlord and they take care of everything,we might not hear about it because the tenant won't complain. The tenant is generally not the issue; they're happy to let us come in and inspect to make sure it's all okay. The idea is to get the database going and slowly get them on record. 3 Mr. Goodman said he doesn't think we can retroactively go back the four years and charge them with a violation. Ms. Hunter asked why not. Why do they get to fly free when the person who comes in prior to May 1st and registers, goes through the process of paying the permit, having the inspection ...? The other person gets away with it for five years, and you just say, okay, you proved to me you have this, so it's all fine. Mr. Bates said he doesn't think we'll have that many because a person will think: If I'm getting a permit, why isn't my neighbor? They're going to call us. Mr. Goodman said we could conceivably go after that as a failure to come in for a permit, because that's a violation. Mr. DePaolo said only if we can prove it's rented after the date of the law. This is just asking for proof that the actual facility exists. Mr. Bates suggested you could put in something to the effect that ADUs discovered five years after the effective date pay double. Mr. Goodman said it's just easier to do what Mr. Levine suggested and set a deadline: if you have one flying under the radar, you have to come in within a year or two of this law if you want to keep the non-owner-occupancy benefit. If you don't, you're out of luck when you sell it. Mr. DePaolo pointed out that Ms. Ritter's summary sheet says the permit will be available for tenants to see. How? If we're going to make them available online, then it's easy to see whether someone has a valid operating permit. Do you envision that will be something a prospective tenant would have to acquire or would they have the ability to see it online? Mr. Bates said Cornell wants the students to be able to call to check if a unit has an operating permit. Mr. Goodman said that eventually, all of it will be online with Laserfiche, but not at the start of this law. He asked how people wanted to deal with the non-owner-occupancy issue: leave it wide open or set a date by which people can come in and take advantage of the non-owner-occupancy benefit? Mr. Levine thinks we should do what we can to get people to come clean. There are people whose properties are underassessed, who are probably not reporting the income on their income taxes, and are doing it year after year and making it more expensive and unsafe for the rest of us. Let's get them in here. Ms. Hunter and Mr. Howe agreed. Mr. Goodman said a timeframe of one or two years would give us plenty of time to get processes in place. This is for the non-owner-occupancy benefit. May 1st is to get the application in for the ADU permit and November 1st for the single-family and other permits. Building is going to be busy with all these permits, and that's why giving people who want to prove that their ADUs 4 exist until after we've gotten through all these permits makes sense. If they're currently rented, they'll get the permit. Ms. Hunter asked why it's different for them. We're creating a category of the non-compliers, saying: You don't have to come; we'll deal with you later. Ms. Ritter asked whether there's way to word it so we're giving a concession to people who've been operating under the radar. Mr. Levine said quit date is good for everybody, because you don't have to prove anything, like that it exists. If you go two years out,then they have to prove it existed two years ago. Ms. Ritter said then they could register it after the law goes into effect and still get the benefit. You'd still have to have an existing unit as of the date of the law. Mr. DePaolo suggested January 1, 2019 as the date they'll have to prove a unit is previously existing. Mr. Goodman agreed that that would give us a chance to process the applications for all the operating permits. We'll put a cover letter on the summary sheets Ms. Ritter wrote for each of the laws and mail it out by the end of the week. We'll reach out to the media as well. Ms. Ritter added that as soon as the law is done,we'll put it on our web site. We don't want to mail out the laws, so we'll refer people to our web site. Mr. Goodman said that some of the complaints we heard at the public hearing regarded the effect this will have on housing prices and residents' ability to earn income to pay their taxes. He thinks people just don't realize that these fees won't be that large. We've been talking about $150 per unit for a five-year permit. We should mention that to qualm some of the fear that's motivating people. Asked about inspection fees,Mr. Bates said that the fee for three to five units is currently $100 per building for a three-year permit; the inspection fee is $50 for the first hour and $30 for additional hours. So if we have to keep going back to reinspect, it can be costly. He suggested we could exempt the fust inspection and charge for subsequent follow-up inspections. Item 2: Discuss and Consider Authorizing the Supervisor to Sign the Recreation Partnership Agreement TB Resolution 2017-136: Authorization for the Town Supervisor to Sign the Recreation Partnership Agreement Resolved that the Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign the proposed agreement with the Recreation Partnership on behalf of the Town Board. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas Vote 5 Ayes: Goodman, Howe, Levine, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Bleiwas Item 3: Discuss and Consider Authorizing the Supervisor to Sign the Hector Street Complete Street Project Design Intermunicipal Agreement/MOU Ms. Brock said she talked to the city attorney's office, and they were fine with doing this agreement just for the design phase; the town's local share won't exceed $8000, unless agreed upon by both parties. TB Resolution 2017-137: Authorization for the Town Supervisor to Sign the Hector Street Complete Street Project Design Intermunicipal Agreement/ Memorandum of Understanding Resolved that the Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign the proposed Hector Street Complete Street Project Design Intermunicipal Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the Town Board. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Eric Levine Vote Ayes: Goodman, Howe, Levine, Leary, DePaolo, Hunter, Bleiwas Item 4: Discuss and Consider Authorization to Award Commercial Cleaning Contract for Town Buildings Mr. Goodman stated that the Personnel and Organization committee recommended we go with R&M cleaning. We haven't been satisfied with Challenge. Mr. Levine noted that their price is higher than what Challenge charged, so he wondered why we're going with the higher bid. Do you think you'll be getting better service or was the service not satisfactory? Ms. Drake responded that at Public Works, they're basically doing the cleaning themselves. Also, the dollar amount in Challenge's bid is less than what we're currently paying them because they wanted us to retain them, but in the last two months, even knowing that it was going out to bid,they have not improved their service. We have experience with R&M because they clean Bolton Point. Ms. Brock said that under general municipal law, you have to award to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for contracts over a certain dollar amount, so you'll have to make a formal finding on why you're not awarding it to Challenge. You don't have to do competitive procurement for professional services, but janitorial services don't fall under that category. TB Resolution 2017-138: Authorization to Award Commercial Cleaning Contract for Town Hall and Public Works Facility 6 Whereas,the Town has received 3 proposals for commercial cleaning of the Town Hall and 3 proposals for cleaning of Public Works; and Whereas,the Personnel& Organization Committee have reviewed the proposals and recommend R&M Cleaning as the commercial cleaner for both Town Hall and Public Works; and Whereas,the Town Board has reviewed the said proposals and has determined that R&M Cleaning is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder;now,therefore,be it Resolved,the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve awarding the commercial cleaning contract to R&M Cleaning effective January 1,2018; and be it further Resolved,the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to enter into a contract with R&M Cleaning with expenses to be expended from account numbers A1620.442 and A5132.442. Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas Vote Ayes: Goodman,Levine,Leary,DePaolo,Hunter,Bleiwas Abstentions: Howe Item 5: Committee Reports a. Public Works Committee: Mr. Howe said it was pointed out to us how many folks were crowded into that room. There's going to be an architectural study to see how to do an addition. b. Personnel and Organization: Ms. Bleiwas said the NYS Family Leave Act goes into effect soon and that, as a government,we're exempt, but we can review and opt in if we choose to in the future. Item 6: Consider Consent Agenda TB Resolution No.2017-139: Town of Ithaca Abstract Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board;now therefore be it Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 1477- 1547 General Fund Townwide 64,422.72 General Fund Part-Town 7,265.52 Highway Fund Part-Town 83,245.74 Highway Reserves Account Water Fund 16,677.07 Sewer Fund 1,938.06 Gateway Trail—H8 Trumansburg Water Tank Repl—H9 7 Park Lane Water Main Improv—HI l Sapsucker Woods Water Main—H12 Christopher Circle Water Main—H13 Han shaw Road Walkway—H4 Risk Retention Fund Fire Protection Fund 255,000.00 Forest Home Lighting District 180.27 Glenside Lighting District 66.69 Renwick Heights Lighting District 76.57 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 169.63 Clover Lane Lighting District 19.69 Winner's Circle Lighting District 65.65 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 66.95 West Haven Road Lighting District 203.06 Coddi ngton Road Lighting District 121.05 Trust and Agency Expendable Trust—Inlet Cemetery Debt Service TOTAL 429,518.67 Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Eric Levine Vote Ayes: Goodman, Leary, Howe, Levine, DePaolo, Hunter, Bleiwas The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Submitted by ebra DeAugisti a,Deputy To C 8