HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-13 City Administration Committee AgendaCA Meeting
City Administration Committee
DATE: January 23, 2013
TIME: 6:00 pm
LOCATION: 3rd Floor,
City Hall Council Chambers
AGENDA ITEMS
Item Voting
Item?
Presenter(s) Time
Allotted
Chair, Chris Proulx
1. Call To Order * Note: We will review the number of 10 Min*
1.1 Agenda Review No cards received at the beginning of each
1.2 Statements From the Public No meeting and adjust time if needed.
1.3 Statements From Employees No
1.4 Council Response No
1.5 Review and Approval of Minutes Yes (6:10 pm)
2. Standing Sub-Committee and Staff Reports
2.1 Workforce Diversity Committee No
2.3 Others as Needed No
3. City Administration, Human Resources, and Policy
3.1 DPW – W&S – Amendment to Personnel Yes Erik Whitney, Asst Supt W&S 5 Min
Roster
3.2 Establishment of Standard Workday Yes Schelley Michell-Nunn, Director of HR 5 Min
3.3 Various Changes in Workweek Yes Schelley Michell-Nunn, Director of HR 5 Min
3.4 City-IURA Agreement Governing Admini- Yes Nels Bohn, Director of IURA 10 Min
stration of HUD Entitlement Funds Awarded
to City of Ithaca
3.5 Creation of Director of Parking Position Yes Debra Parsons, City Chamberlain 10 Min
3.6 Approval of Extension of Exemption from Yes Aaron Lavine, City Attorney 5 Min
Real Property Taxes and Provision for In-Lieu
Payments
3.7 Contract for Sustainable Strategies No JoAnn Cornish/Phyllisa DeSarno 10 Min
3.8 Common Council – Approval of Grievance No All 5 Min
Panel
(7:10 pm)
4. Finance, Budget, and Appropriations
4.1 Fire Department – Central Fire Station Roof Yes Tom Parsons, Fire Chief 5 Min
Replacement
4.2 Board of Fire Commissioners – Funds Yes Tom Parsons, Fire Chief 5 Min
Received from Formerly Active Volunteer
Fire Companies
4.3 Finance/Controller – Request Funds for City Yes Steve Thayer, City Controller 5 Min
Hall Server Room Air Conditioning System
Replacement
(7:20 pm)
5. Committee Discussion Items
5.1 Preview of Strategic Planning event and input No All 10 Min
into CA 2013 work plan
5.2 Short list of potential Major work items for CA No All 20 Min
committee in 2013
5.3 Process for Budget Process change No All 25 Min
5.4 Wood smoke exploratory discussion No All 20 Min
(8:35 pm)
If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully participate in
the meeting, please contact the City Controller’s Office at 607-274-6576 at least 48 hours before the meeting.
CA Meeting
City Administration Committee
DATE: January 23, 2013
TIME: 6:00 pm
AGENDA – PAGE 2
6. Meeting Wrap-up
6.1 Announcements No All 5 Min
6.2 Review Agenda Items for Next Meeting No
6.3 Adjourn Yes
(8:40 pm)
Committee Charge: The CA committee will:
(1) Review financial and administrative issues pertaining to the City, along with items relating to the City of Ithaca workforce environment,
intergovernmental relations and human resources.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2013\1-23 CA Agenda.doc 1/23/13
3.City Administration, Human Resources, and Policy
.1 DPW – Water and Sewer – Amendment to Personnel Roster
WHEREAS, under Item 8.4 on the Common Council Agenda for the September 5, 2012
meeting, one Financial Management Assistant in the Water and Sewer Division of the
Department of Public Works requested and received a temporary reduction in her workweek
from forty (40) hours/week to thirty (30) hours/week to allow her to address family needs, and
WHEREAS, this employee has since retired in December 2012, and the temporary adjustment to
thirty (30) hours/week was originally set to carry from October 1, 2012 until March 31, 2013,
and
WHEREAS, we have advertised, interviewed and selected a new employee to fill the position of
one Financial Management Assistant in the Water and Sewer Division and now have need of the
return to the forty (40) hours/week workweek, and
WHEREAS, this position funded for forty (40) hours/week in the Water and Sewer Division
2013 budget; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2013 authorized Personnel Roster for
Water and Sewer as follows, that the workweek of this one Financial Management Assistant
position in the Water and Sewer Division of the Department of Public Works be and hereby is
restored to forty (40) hours/week, and be it further
RESOLVED, That this roster amendment shall take effect January 9, 2013.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2013\1-23 CA Agenda.doc 1/23/13
3.2 Establishment of Standard Workday
WHEREAS, the New York State Retirement System requires that the standard workday be
established for all positions in City government for the purpose of determining reportable days
worked, and
WHEREAS, the workweek for the position of Director of Information Technology was reduced
to thirty-two (32) hours per week effective January 1, 2013, and
WHEREAS, the workweek for the position of Director of Economic Development was reduced
to thirty-five (35) hours per week effective January 1, 2013, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Retirement System recognizes workweeks of thirty (30) or
more hours as full-time workweeks for the purpose of determining retirement service credit;
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby establishes the following standard workdays
for the sole purpose of determining days worked reportable to the New York State and Local
Employees’ Retirement System:
Six and four-tenths (6.4) hour workday; Thirty-two (32) hour workweek:
Director of Information Technology
Seven (7) hour workday; Thirty-five (35) hour workweek:
Deputy Director of Economic Development
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2013\1-23 CA Agenda.doc 1/23/13
3.3 Various Changes in Workweek
WHEREAS, the New York State Retirement System requires that the standard workday be
established for all positions in City government for the purpose of determining reportable days
worked, and
WHEREAS, the 2013 authorized budget resulted in the adjustment of several employee
workweek schedules; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2013 Authorized Roster and
establishes the following standard workdays for the sole purpose of determining days worked
reportable to the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System for the following
positions:
Increase in Hours:
Youth Program Assistant (GIAC) from 17.5 to 25 hour workweek; five (5) hour work day
Executive Assistant (GIAC) from 35 to 40 hour workweek; eight (8) hour work day
Receptionist (Building Department) 20 to 40 hour workweek; eight (8) hour work day
Decrease in Hours:
Youth Program Leader (Youth Bureau) from 30 to 35 hour workweek; seven (7) hour work day
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2013\1-23 CA Agenda.doc 1/23/13
3.4 City-IURA Agreement Governing Administration of HUD Entitlement Funds
Awarded to City of Ithaca
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2012, the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
requested an agreement be executed between the City of Ithaca (City) and the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency (IURA) to clarify roles and responsibilities for administering Community
Planning and Development (CPD) Formula Grants awarded to the City, including CDBG and
HOME grants, and
WHEREAS, HUD correspondence clarified that the request for an agreement between the City
and the IURA does not result from any performance deficiency, and
WHEREAS, the IURA prepared a proposed agreement to memorialize current roles and
responsibilities of the IURA in administration of the CDBG and HOME grants awarded to the
City, and
WHEREAS, as requested by HUD, the IURA has transferred grant accounts from the IURA to
the City so that new grant funds received will be deposited into the City’s bank account and
transferred to the IURA bank account upon approval of voucher requests to meet CPD grant
obligations, and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2012 the IURA reviewed and approved the Agreement Governing
Administration of HUD Entitlement Funds Awarded to the City of Ithaca, dated 12/12/12; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Mayor,
upon the advice of the City Attorney, to execute the attached Agreement Governing
Administration of HUD Entitlement Funds Awarded to City of Ithaca, dated 12/12/12.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2013\1-23 CA Agenda.doc 1/23/13
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
4
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
4
Page 1 of 10
12/12/12
AGREEMENT
GOVERNING ADMINISTRATION OF HUD ENTITLEMENT FUNDS AWARDED TO CITY OF ITHACA
Made this _____ day of ___________, 2013 by and between The CITY OF ITHACA, a municipal corporation with
offices at 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, hereinafter called the “City”, and the ITHACA URBAN
RENEWAL AGENCY, an urban renewal agency formed pursuant to the provisions of General Municipal Law,
having its principal office at 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850, hereinafter called “IURA”,
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is a recipient of certain Entitlement Grants (“CPD Formula Grant
Funds”) through the Community Planning and Development (hereinafter “CPD”) program office of the U.S.
Department of Housing & Urban Development (“HUD”), including the Community Development Block Grant
(“CDBG”) program and the Housing Investment Partnership Program (“HOME”); and
WHEREAS, to access CPD Formula Grant Funds the City must prepare and submit to HUD each year
either a Consolidated Plan or an Action Plan (the section of the Consolidated Plan that is updated each year)
prepared in accordance with applicable regulations and comply with reporting and accomplishment
requirements; and
WHEREAS, by annual resolution, the City of Ithaca has duly authorized the IURA to administer its
CDBG and HOME programs each year since the City was designated as a CPD formula grant recipient in
2004; and
WHEREAS, the IURA has been administering the City’s CDBG program continuously since 1975; and
WHEREAS, HUD correspondence dated August 27, 2012, requests that an agreement between the
City and the IURA be executed clarifying the roles and responsibilities for administering CPD Formula Grants
awarded as the City is the legal applicant and recipient under applicable HUD rules; and
WHEREAS, HUD correspondence acknowledges the existing operational structure has allowed the
City to successfully administer and implement CPD Formula Grants and that the request for an agreement
between the City and the IURA does not result from any performance deficiency; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto
do mutually agree as follows:
Section 1. Definitions
Unless specifically provided otherwise or the context otherwise requires, when used in this Agreement:
“CAPER” means Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, an annual document
reporting on how CPD Formula Grant Funds have been used to carry out the community’s housing
and community development strategies, projects and activities, including a summary of
CA Item 3.4
Page 2 of 10
accomplishments.
“CDBG” means Community Development Block Grant, a program of the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
“CPD” means the Community Planning and Development program office of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development that oversees CDBG and HOME programs.
“HOME” means HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a grant program of the Unites States
Department of Housing and Urban Development designed to help communities expand the supply
of decent and affordable rental and ownership housing for low‐income families.
“HUD” means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
“Program Income” means gross income received by IURA from its use of CPD Formula Grant Funds
and shall further have the meaning defined at 24 CFR 570.500(a) for income generated from the
use of CDBG funds, and 24 CFR 570.92.2 for income generated from the use of HOME funds.
Section 2. Overall Roles and Responsibilities
2.1 IURA shall act as the City’s lead agency to plan, administer, implement and monitor CPD formula
grants awarded to the City in accordance with all program requirements, including but not limited
to the following regulations:
•24 CFR 570.200 ‐ 570.309 – CDBG Eligible Activities and Entitlement Grants;
•24 CFR 570.500‐513 – CDBG Grant Administration;
•24 CRF 570.600‐614 – Crosscutting Program Requirements;
•24 CFR Part 91 – Consolidated Submissions for Community Planning and Development
Programs; and
•24 CFR Part 92 – HOME Regulations.
2.2 City retains overall responsibility for ensuring that CPD formula funds are used in accordance with
all program requirements.
2.3 City is responsible for determining the adequacy of performance by the IURA of its duties pursuant
to this Agreement.
2.4 City is responsible to adopt the Consolidated Plan, the Annual Action Plan, the Citizen Participation
Plan, including any significant amendment to the above documents, and execute the CAPER.
2.5 IURA shall submit adopted plans to HUD to access CPD Formula Grant funds.
Section 3. Statement of Work
Action Plans
3.1 IURA shall prepare and submit to the City the following required recipient submissions to HUD to
access CPD Formula Grant Funds:
(a) Consolidated Plan – A 5‐year strategic community development plan that identifies community
needs, resources, and priorities, and establishes goals and objectives for use of CPD formula
CA Item 3.4
Page 3 of 10
funds to address priority community needs.
(b) Annual Action Plan – A one‐year plan that provides a description and budget of the activities
the City will undertake to address specific local objectives and priority needs that will be
addressed using CPD formula grant funds and program income.
(c) CAPER – An annual document reporting on progress made in carrying out the Consolidated Plan
and the Annual Action Plan.
(d) Citizen Participation Plan – This plan sets forth the City’s policies and procedures for citizen
participation in the development, and any amendment of, the Consolidated Plan, the Annual
Action Plan, the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, and establishes a
procedure to receive complaints.
3.2 IURA shall make its best effort to implement eligible activities included in City‐Adopted Action Plans
in accordance with applicable regulations through loan and or grant agreements, procurement
contracts, through the City or other public agencies, or by the IURA’s employees and/or
contractors.
Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund
3.3 IURA shall make its best effort to implement the Community Development Revolving Loan Program
and the Priority Business Loan Program (collectively known as the “ED Revolving Loan Program”) by
using CDBG Funds to make loans consistent with the goals and objectives of the ED Revolving Loan
Program as set forth in the “IURA Economic Development Financing Policy Guidelines and
Operating Plan” and any subsequent revisions thereto, such plan being incorporated by reference
and made a part hereof.
3.4 In implementing the ED Revolving Loan Program, the IURA shall be responsible for the following
activities as appropriate:
(a) Documentation of CDBG underwriting process consistent with the regulations at 24 CFR
570.209 and Appendix A to 24 CFR 570” Guidelines and Objectives for Evaluating Project Costs
and Financial Requirements”;
(b) Performance of a written credit analysis and presentation of loan applications to the IURA;
(c) Maintenance of relevant information regarding the loan review;
(d) All actions necessary to effect ED Loan Program loan closings including, but not limit to, the
preparation of loan agreements, security agreements, promissory notes, guarantees, and other
legal documents as appropriate and in a form consistent with standard commercial lending
practices and with applicable rules, regulations, and policies of the CDBG program;
(e) Performance of all administrative activities required pursuant to the use of CDBG funds
including, but not limited to, environmental review requirements, maintenance of book of
account, procurement and maintenance of statistical information including job
creation/retention; and
(f) Monitoring loan repayment and borrower’s compliance with loan terms, and enforcing security
agreements and guarantees.
Housing Revolving Loan Fund
3.5 IURA shall administer and monitor program income derived from CPD Formula Grant Funds in
possession of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (“INHS”) in the Housing Revolving Loan
Fund for compliance with applicable regulations.
CA Item 3.4
Page 4 of 10
Environmental Review
3.6 With respect to environmental review requirements, the parties hereto acknowledge that City shall
retain the ultimate responsibility for compliance, but that IURA shall cooperate with City in
conducting environmental reviews and preparing proposed environmental determinations, notices
and requests in compliance with environmental responsibilities described at 24 CFR 570.604 and 24
CFR 92.352.
General
3.7 All activities undertaken by IURA with CPD Formula Grant Funds pursuant to this agreement shall be
eligible activities pursuant to the regulations at 24 CFR Part 570 and 24 CFR Part 92.
3.8 IURA shall make its best efforts to accomplish its duties in an expeditious manner pursuant to this
Agreement.
Section 4. Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS)
IDIS is a web‐based system that provides financial disbursement, tracking, and reporting activities for CPD
Formula Grant Fund programs. Information about each activity funded with CPD Formula Grant funds,
including the estimated budget, expected accomplishments and beneficiaries is uploaded into the IDIS.
4.1 IURA is responsible for completing all IDIS grantee functions and submissions except for drawdown
approval authority, which is retained by the City. IURA responsibilities include set up of the
adopted Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan, set up of projects, set up of activities to implement
projects, activity funding, prepare drawdown vouchers and accomplishment reporting.
4.2 City is responsible for approving drawdown vouchers.
Section 5. Disbursements and Management of CPD Formula Grant Funds
5.1 IURA is responsible for disbursing and managing CPD Formula Grant Funds to make grants,
forgivable loans, deferred loans and amortizing loans and other third party costs incurred by the
IURA to carry out eligible activities included in an adopted Action Plan in accordance with policies
governing such financial assistance pursuant to the regulations at 24 CFR Part 570 and 24 CFR Part
92.
5.2 IURA may use CPD Formula Grant Funds to pay for its reasonable and eligible planning and
administrative costs pursuant to the regulations at 24 CFR 570.205 and 506.206 and 24 CFR 92.207.
No more than 20% of the sum of any CDBG grant awarded plus program income shall be expended
for planning and administrative costs. Not more than 10% of the sum of any HOME funds awarded
plus program income shall be expended for reasonable administrative and planning costs.
5.3 IURA may use CPD Formula Grant Funds for reasonable staff and overhead costs directly involved in
carrying out eligible CDBG activities included in an adopted Action Plan referred to as “activity
delivery costs”, which are eligible as part of such activities.
5.4 The IURA shall document general administrative, program delivery and revolving loan program
CA Item 3.4
Page 5 of 10
costs of CPD Formula Grant Funds as follows:
(a) Direct costs of IURA shall be documented by timesheets, invoices, or other appropriate
information to evidence the nature and reasonableness of the cost. Such costs may include,
but are not limited to employee salaries, benefits, and other compensation at rates not to
exceed those paid by IURA for work not provided pursuant to this Agreement; and actual costs
of materials, equipment, bonding, insurance and services incurred by IURA;
(b) Indirect costs of IURA shall be reimbursed only where a written plan for the charging of such
costs has been approved by HUD. Such costs are those which are charged as a percentage of
direct costs and may include occupancy and equipment costs (including depreciation),
maintenance, repair, and similar costs which are charged on a prorated basis; and
(c) All costs charged by IURA pursuant to this section shall be consistent with the provisions of
OMB Circular A‐87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments”.
5.5 IURA may retain and use CDBG program income on hand that is deposited in a separate Revolving
Fund in accordance with regulations contained at 24 CFR 570.504 for the purpose of carrying out
specific eligible activities, such as making certain loans to small businesses, which, in turn, generate
payments to the fund for use in carrying out the same activities. IURA may use CDBG program
income to make loans and to pay program delivery and general administrative costs consistent with
the goals and objectives of the ED Revolving Loan Program as described in Section 3.3 of this
Agreement.
5.6 To access CPD Formula Grant Funds awarded to the City, IURA shall submit a City voucher to the
City Controller for eligible costs to accomplish the Statement of Work, along with supporting cost
documentation.
5.7 IURA shall prepare a web‐based IDIS voucher, pursuant to the City voucher, to draw CPD Formula
Grant Funds awarded to the City.
5.8 Upon City Controller approval of the City voucher, an authorized City employee shall timely approve
the IDIS voucher to draw CPD Formula Grant Funds into the City’s grant account.
5.9 City shall timely transfer CPD formula Grant Funds received in the City’s grant account to the IURA
account upon receipt of CPD Formula Grant Funds.
5.10 All cash balances of CPD Formula Grant Funds shall be maintained by IURA in an interest bearing
account pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFR 570.500(b) and 24 CFR 92.502(c). Consistent with the
provisions of 24 CFR 85.21(i), any bank interest paid on such account shall be paid to HUD no less
than annually.
Section 6. Financial Management and Administrative Requirements
6.1 IURA shall maintain a financial management system of CPD Formula Grant funds in accordance with
24 CFR 85.20 to ensure a financial system is in place that provides effective control over and
accountability for all CPD Formula Grant Funds, property, and other assets, and includes a
comparison of financial information reported on IDIS with financial records of actual assets and
CA Item 3.4
Page 6 of 10
liabilities.
6.2 Parties hereto acknowledge that the IURA will maintain financial records to comply with audit
requirements of OMB Circular A‐133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non‐Profit
Organizations” and City will integrate IURA finances into the City’s annual audit.
6.3 IURA shall comply with OMB Circular A‐110 “Standards for Financial Management Systems”,
Attachment F, subparagraphs 2a. through 2d., 2f. and 2g.
6.4 Where costs incurred by IURA are to paid with CPD Formula Grant Funds, such costs shall be
charged in conformance to OMB Circular A‐87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal
Governments”.
6.5 IURA shall comply with administrative requirements of 24 CFR Part 85 that are set forth at 24 CFR
570.502(a).
Section 7. Monitoring
7.1 IURA agrees to monitor all activities carried out with CPD Formula Grant Funds to ensure long‐term
compliance with program requirements and to timely gather information required for reporting to
HUD.
Section 8. Reports and Information
8.1 In addition to items identified is section 3.1, IURA agrees to submit the following information to the
City Controller:
(a) Bi‐weekly
•City voucher and IDIS voucher including an expense report detailing requested funds to be
drawn down from the City’s line of credit with HUD
(b) Monthly
•A CPD Formula Grant Summary including budgeted amounts for each activity contained in
current adopted Action Plans and the unexpended amounts remaining
•A Loan Repayment Report on loans issued with CPD Formula Grant Funds that tracks
repayment status and reports loan balances
(c) Quarterly
•The Federal Financial Report that details receipts and disbursements of CPD Formula Grant
Funds, program income, and beginning and ending cash on hand
•IDIS entries to recognize disbursements of program income for eligible expenses such as
disbursement of loan funds and administrative and delivery expenses incurred
•IDIS entries to recognize receipt of program income such as loan repayments
(d) Annually
•Balance sheet and income and expense statement of IURA finances
•Year end audit work papers prepared to meet City auditor requirements for preparation of
the City’s annual financial audit
CA Item 3.4
Page 7 of 10
Section 9. Records to be Maintained
9.1 IURA shall establish and maintain records required at 24 CFR 570.506 and 24 CFR 92.508 to
demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements for CPD Formula Grant Funds, which
includes the following information for each activity assisted:
(a) A full description, including its location;
(b) Eligibility pursuant to applicable provisions of 24 CFR 570 and 24 CFR 92;
(c) Amount of CPD Formula Funds budgeted, obligated and expended;
(d) Cost documentation for disbursement of CPD Formula Funds;
(e) Project beneficiary income eligibility and demographic characteristics; and
(f) Match funding.
9.2 IURA shall retain all records pertinent to this Agreement for six (6) years after completion of each
activity.
Section 10. Inspection of Records
10.1 At any time during normal business hours and as often as City may deem necessary, IURA shall
make available to City or its agent all of its HUD records with respect to matters covered by this
Agreement, and IURA shall permit City or its agent to audit, examine and make excerpts or
transcripts from such records, and to perform audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, reports of
personnel, conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this
Agreement.
Section 11. Program Income
11.1 City and IURA acknowledge and agree that the following CPD Formula Grant assets were in
possession of IURA as of October 30, 2012 and shall be used by IURA in implementing the Economic
Development Revolving Loan Program as set forth in Section 2.4 of this Agreement or otherwise
used in accordance with an adopted Action Plan:
(a) CDBG Formula Grant Funds in the form of Program Income cash‐on‐hand in the amount of
$442,299.12; and
(b) CPD Formula Grant Funds in the form of Program Income notes receivable, payable to and in
possession of IURA, and all program income derived therefrom, as identified in Schedule A
attached herein. Following is the total amount of principal balance outstanding of all such
Program Income as of October 30, 2012:
CDBG: $1,449,541.15
HOME: $397,358.08
Total: $1,846,899.23
11.2 Future Program Income generated from use of CDBG funds shall be used by IURA in implementing
the Economic Development Revolving Loan Program or other CDBG projects contained in an Action
Plan. Future Program Income generated from use of HOME funds and received by IURA shall be
used for additional HOME projects contained in an Action Plan.
CA Item 3.4
Page 8 of 10
Section 12. Term of Agreement
12.1 This Agreement shall become effective as of the date first above written and shall remain in effect
until terminated pursuant to the terms of this section.
12.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time without cause to be effected by
written notification of such termination. Such termination shall become effective 180 days after
delivery of such notice.
12.3 This Agreement may be terminated by City for cause upon IURA’s failure to comply with any
provision of this Agreement. City shall effect such termination in the following manner:
(a) City shall provide written notice to IURA stating the specific instance(s) of noncompliance. Such
notice shall specify a date that is not less than thirty (30) days after the date of delivery of such
notice (the “Response Date”) by which INHS may cure, mitigate, or otherwise address the
instance(s) of noncompliance.
(b) Upon IURA’s failure to cure, mitigate, or otherwise address the instance(s) of noncompliance to
the satisfaction of City by the Response Date, City may, at its option, provide written notice to
IURA effecting termination immediately upon the delivery of such notice.
12.4 Upon a termination of this Agreement, IURA shall not obligate or expend CPD Formula Grant Funds.
12.5 Upon a termination of this Agreement, City shall be obligated to pay from CPD Formula Grant Funds
costs resulting from any obligations of CPD Formula Grant Funds made by IURA pursuant to this
Agreement where such obligations were made prior to the date of termination and in a manner
consistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Section 13. Reversion of Assets
13.1 Upon termination of this Agreement, and in accordance with the provisions at 24 CFR
570.503(b)(8), IURA shall transfer to City any CPD Formula Grant Funds on hand and any notes and
accounts receivable attributable to the use of CPD Formula Grant Funds. Such transfer of CPD
Formula Grant Funds, notes and accounts receivable shall be made no later than thirty (30) business
days after the termination date. Any real property under IURA's control that was acquired or
improved in whole or in part with HUD CDBG Funds in excess of $25,000 shall be either:
(a) Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 until at least five years after the
expiration of this Agreement; or
(b) If the use of the property ceases to conform to the provisions of Section 13.1(a) of this
Agreement prior to the expiration of the five‐year period, IURA shall pay to City an amount
equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to
expenditures of non‐CDBG Funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. Such
payment shall be made in full no later than one hundred eighty (180) calendar days after the
date that the use of the property ceases to conform to the provisions of Section 13.1(a) of this
Agreement.
CA Item 3.4
Page 9 of 10
13.2 Upon termination of this Agreement, IURA shall transfer to City any furnishings, fixtures, and
equipment purchased in whole with CPD Formula Grant Funds. Such transfer shall be made no
later than five (5) business days after the termination date and shall be made at City’s expense in a
manner prescribed by City. For furnishings, fixtures, and equipment purchased in part with CPD
Formula Grant Funds, IURA shall either:
(a) Pay to City an amount equal to the fair market value, as determined by mutual agreement, of
such furnishings, fixtures, and equipment at the time of termination, less any portion of the
value attributable to expenditures of non‐CPD Formula Grant Funds for acquisition of such
assets, such payment to be made by IURA no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the
termination date; or
(b) Transfer such furnishings, fixtures, and equipment to City no later than five (5) business days
after the termination date.
Section 14. Amendments
14.1 This Agreement may be amended only by the mutual written consent of City and IURA.
Section 15. Notices
15.1 Any notice, or request taken, given, or made by the City Mayor (or such other person or persons as
City may, by written notice to IURA designate for such purpose) to IURA shall be deemed to be duly
and properly given or made if mailed, postage prepaid, to: IURA Executive Director, 108 East Green
Street, Ithaca, New York 14850, or delivered personally to IURA offices. Any notice, or request
taken, given, or made by the Chairperson of IURA (or such other person or persons as IURA may, by
written notice to City, designate for such purpose) to City hereunder shall be deemed to be duly
and properly given or made if mailed, postage prepaid, to: Mayor, City of Ithaca, 108 East Green
Street, Ithaca, NY 14850, or delivered personally to the City of Ithaca Mayor’s office.
(Intentionally left blank)
CA Item 3.4
Page 10 of 10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed and delivered
by their proper and duly authorized offices as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ITHACA
By: ______________________________________________
Svante L. Myrick, Mayor
ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY
By: ______________________________________________
Svante L. Myrick, Chairperson
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATORY
State of New York )
County of Tompkins )
On the day of in the year 2013 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
state, personally appeared Svante L. Myrick, to me known or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be
the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the
same in her capacity, and that by her signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which
the individual acted, executed the instrument.
_____________________________
Signature of Notary Public
(Seal)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATORY
State of New York )
County of Tompkins )
On the day of in the year 2013 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
state, personally appeared Svante L. Myrick, to me known or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be
the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she/he executed the
same in her/his capacity, and that by her/his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of
which the individual acted, executed the instrument.
_____________________________
Signature of Notary Public
(Seal)
j:\community development\policy\policy\city‐iura agreement\city‐iura agree draft #3 12‐12‐12 clean mg edit.doc
CA Item 3.4
SCHEDULE A
NOTES RECEIVABLE TO IURA
CDP FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM INCOME
October 2012
)
Org
ina
l Lo
a
n
Ye
a
r
Final Du
e
Da
te
Int
e
re
s
t Ra
te (%
)
M
o
n
th
y
Py
m
t
Loa
n Balanc
e
CDBG
Alternatives Federal Credit Union 213,863$ 2003 2014 Prime +.25%due end of term 213,863.00$
Alternatives Federal Credit Union 36,137$ 2003 2014 Prime +.25%due end of term 36,137.00$
Diane's Auto Repair and Body Shop, Inc.80,000$ 2006 2026 4 449.85$ 56,239.19$
Mama Goose, LLC 70,000$ 2008 2015 2.5 911.86$ 30,734.25$
SUBTOTAL CDBG LOANS 400,000$ 1,361.71 336,973.44$
HOME
Cedar Creek Housing, LLC(HOME Funds Only)90,000$ 2008 2038 5 N/A 105,199.00$
Breckenridge on Seneca, LLC‐part. disb.(HOME 400,000$ 2012 2053 3 N/A 292,159.08$
SUBTOTAL ENTITLEMENT LOANS 490,000$ N/A 397,358.08$
CD‐RLF
Ian Shapiro (Taitem Engineering) 13,200$ 2003 2013 4.75 138.40$ 938.90$
Drop‐In Center, Inc.20,000$ 2005 2017 2 156.34$ 9,762.99$
Wildfire Restaurant, Inc.95,000$ 2009 2016 3 1,271.01$ 56,248.78$
Mama Goose, LLC (Mimi's Attic)40,000$ 2010 2016 3 720.11$ 26,073.57$
e2e Materials, Inc.100,000$ 2010 2015 9 750.00$ 100,000.00$
Mia Noodle Bar and Restaurant, Inc.100,000$ 2011 2018 3.5 1,262.63$ 83,251.49$
D. Brockman & J. Hjortshoj d/b/a Petrune 35,000$ 2011 2016 3.5 636.71$ 27,926.92$
Unity Inn, LLC 100,000$ 2011 2030 4 333.34$ 100,000.00$
The Art and Found, LLC 15,000$ 2012 2017 4 42.62$ 15,000.00$
SUBTOTAL CD‐RLF LOANS 518,200$ 5,311.16$ 419,202.65$
CD‐RLF Downtown Priority Business
State Theatre of Ithaca, Inc.458,500$ 2009 2019*3 1,741.96$ 429,656.96$
Cayuga Green, LLC 100,000$ 2009 2019 3 958.37$ 74,078.43$
Bandwagon Brewery, LLC 40,000$ 2010 2015 3 720.50$ 26,102.54$
Finger Lakes Wine Center, Inc.100,000$ 2010 2021 1 83.33$ 100,000.00$
JG McGuire, Inc. (Lot 10)64,500$ 2012 2017 4 211.76$ 63,527.13$
SUBTOTAL CD‐RLF PRIORITY BUSINESS 763,000$ 3,715.92$ 693,365.06$
TOTAL 2,171,200$ 10,388.79$ 1,846,899.23$
TOTAL HOME LOANS 397,358.08$
TOTAL CDBG LOANS 1,449,541.15$
1,846,899.23$
Notes:
*Note: State Theatre's loan has a balloon payment due in 2019
**Note: Cedar Creek's first Interest Only payt. due 1/1/11 - yearly payt. subject to available cash flow
J:\Community Development\Policy\Policy\City-IURA agreement\Schedule A - Notes receivable
CA Item 3.4
Schedule B
Links to Regulations and OMB Circulars Governing CPD Grant Programs
Regulations:
Directions to find regulations by citation (example: 24 CFR 570.206):
1.Go to the website for the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) : www.ecfr.gov
2.Select Title # in “browse” box (for example, select “title 24” for CDBG regulations.
3.Select requested “Part” in blue text (for example, select “500‐599” for CDBG regulations)
4.Select requested “Table of Contents” in blue text that includes regulation reference (for
example select “570.1 to 570.913” for CDBG regulations)
5.Scroll down the list of regulations and click on the blue text of the regulations citation
sought (for example, clicking on “570.201” displays regulations for eligible CDBG activities).
Quick Links:
Link to CDBG regulations
Title 24: Housing and Urban Development
Part 570: Community Development Block Grants
24 CFR 570.1 – 570.913 plus appendix:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐bin/text‐
idx?c=ecfr&sid=d60d662bd91f849ee36d0e524aac0781&rgn=div5&view=text&n
ode=24:3.1.1.3.4&idno=24
Link to HOME regulations
Title 24: Housing and Urban Development
Part 92: Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐bin/text‐
idx?c=ecfr&SID=719ed0c17acfc98c6b093c7395019f49&rgn=div5&view=text&no
de=24:1.1.1.1.41&idno=24
Link to Part 85 regulations
Title 24: Housing and Urban Development
Part 85: Administrative Requirements for Grants to Local Governments
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐bin/text‐
idx?c=ecfr&SID=c3cb9b0cd55cb8cc78305fbb5eb6e0fe&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title24
/24cfr85_main_02.tpl
OMB Circulars:
OMB Circulars are instructions and guidance issued by the Executive Branch’s Office of Management &
Budget (OMB) of the U.S. Government to Federal Agencies. Federal Agencies often require grantees to
comply with OMB Circulars. Directions to find OMB Circulars:
CA Item 3.4
1.Go to the “Office of Management and Budget circulars” webpage (or do an internet search
for “OMB circular”):
1.http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_default/
2.Circulars are indexed in numeric order. Click on requested circular displayed in blue text.
Quick Links:
A‐87 Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/agencyinformation
_circulars_pdf/a87_2004.pdf
A‐110 Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institution of
Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non‐Profit Organizations
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a110/
A‐133 Audits of States, Local Governments and Non‐Profit Organizations
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/a133/a133_revised
_2007.pdf
END
12/12/12
j:\community development\policy\policy\city‐iura agreement\schedule b ‐ referenced regulations.doc
CA Item 3.4
3.5 Creation of Director of Parking
WHERESAS, as part of the 2013 approved budget, the position of Director of Parking was
established, and
RESOLVED, That the Personnel Roster of the Department of Public Works shall be amended as
follows:
Add: Director of Parking (40 hours)
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the position of Director of Parking shall be assigned to the Managerial
Compensation Plan at salary Grade 3, and be it further
RESOLVED, That for the sole purpose of determining days worked reportable to the New York
State and Local Employees’ Retirement System, the standard workday for this position shall be
established at eight (8) hours per day (forty (40) hours per week).
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2013\1-23 CA Agenda.doc 1/23/13
To: City Administration Committee
From: Debra Parsons, City Chamberlain
Re: Director of Parking
Date: January 10, 2013
The Ad Hoc Parking Committee requests the creation of a Director of Parking, to report to the
Superintendent of Public Works.
I have included here a list of issues whose resolution might best be addressed by the Parking Director, a job
description, current and proposed organizational structure, and the original analysis.
RESOLVED, that the Personnel Roster of the Department of Public Works shall be amended as follows:
Add: Director of Parking (40 hours)
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the position of Director of Parking shall be assigned to the Managerial Compensation
Plan at salary grade 3, and be it further
RESOLVED, that for the sole purpose of determining days worked reportable to the New York
State and Local Employees’ Retirement System, the standard workday for this position shall be
established at eight (8) hours per day (forty (40) hours per week).
Issues for the Parking Director
City of Ithaca
Office of the Chamberlain
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Ph: 607 274-6580 Fax: 607 272-7348
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CA Item 3.5
Installation of Paystations
The City authorized $50,000 in 2012 and $200,000 in 2013 for the purchase of paystations to
replace and/or supplement the current single space parking meters. No purchases were made in 2012.
Installation of paystations requires thought, expertise, and follow-up. Where should the stations be located
to be the most effective? Small surface lots, such as the West State Street lot by Family Medicine?
Heavily parked streets such as Cayuga Street? Collegetown, where dynamic pricing has been
recommended to manage the utilization of on-street parking, not just during the regular daytime hours, but
hours extended into the evening? Who will work with users and merchants to make sure the paystations
are marketed correctly? Where should signs be placed? Who is going to service the machines and collect
money? While certainly there is current staff that could direct the installation and make these decisions,
those with the greatest knowledge of the factors that go into making these decisions do not supervise the
parking lot attendants, DPW work crews or the CSO’s.
In 2011 we installed paystations in the Green Street surface lot. Prior to their installation, we were
collecting $186.07 per month per space. After their installation, we were collecting $280.10 per month per
space. In 2012 we collected $357.47 per month per space. In comparison, in 2010 we isolated the parking
meter collections for Collegetown for the month of October. We collected $72.97 per month per space.
First, we would expect a parking manager to look at these numbers on a routine and regular basis. (The
isolation of the revenues collected from the various areas was done at the direction of the City Chamberlain
in preparation for the Rich study.) Second, why is there such a great discrepancy in the per space revenues
between the Green Street surface lot and Collegetown? Third, if we used the industry average increase in
revenues after installation of paystations of 20%, we could expect an increase of $26,280 per year for the
meters in Collegetown. If we use our experience and the difference between 2010 and 2011 for the Green
Street surface lot, we could expect an increase of $67,000 per year. If the City were to collect $280.10 per
month per space in Collegetown, the increase in annual revenue would be $372,000. This is just on-street
parking in Collegetown.
It has pretty much become the consensus of city staff that parking pay stations should replace on-
street meters and meters in parking lots throughout the City. They provide flexibility for payment, revenue
control, reporting, and pricing. The pay back period on these machines seems to be a year or two and so
there is little reason not to roll them out across the City, not just for enhanced parking revenue, but also to
provide a greater convenience to the public (credit card or cash purchase instead of quarters). The
flexibility to set prices based on demand by different seasons, days of the week or even times of day make
them the future of on-street paid parking. However, as noted above, there are a host of questions to answer
as we roll out the machines. Without the leadership of dedicated staff, the effort is likely to have significant
setbacks.
Coordination of Enforcement
The Community Service Officers (CSO’s) report to the Police Department, as shown on the
attached current organizational chart. If the enforcement personnel reported to the same person as the other
parking personnel, greater coordination of efforts would occur. For instance, looking at the current and
proposed organizational charts, there are eight parking lot attendants and five Community Service Officers.
Four lot attendants might not be needed if automated equipment were to be installed in the Dryden Road
Garage. Two of those positions could then be dedicated to enforcement of extended on-street hours in
Collegetown, with a net savings of two positions for the City. This type of coordination will never happen
unless all parking related personnel report to one person.
Recently, it was discovered by the Parking Operations Supervisor that an individual was routinely
parking in the Green Street surface lot without paying the appropriate fees. He spoke to the Sr. Community
Service Officer, who told him that ten tickets need to be issued to the vehicle in order to boot it, and there
was nothing he could do. There was no discussion about how often the vehicle could be ticketed, how
many tickets had been issued to the vehicle, or even if the pay receipts that were present in the vehicle were
valid (they often are not, according to the Parking Operations Supervisor). This is a perfect example of
how a better outcome would occur if both individuals reported to the same person.
CA Item 3.5
Coordination of On-Street and Off-Street Public Parking
On-street parking is for the most part controlled by the Engineering Office, with Streets &
Facilities support for implementation. Off-street parking is for the most part controlled by Streets and
Facilities, except for capital projects for repair or construction, which are run out of the Engineering Office.
Neither division of Public Works is particularly trained or focused on managing parking as a business, but
rather as a part of our infrastructure. There is no coordination of pricing or staffing for the two related
parking activities, except as it occurs through a committee that meets once a month.
Parking management theory says that on-street parking should be priced such that 15% of spaces
are available at any given time, reducing congestion caused by vehicles circling to find a space, and off-
street parking should be priced in such a way as to remove long term parkers from the equation.
Anecdotally, we believe that parkers in Collegetown move their vehicles from off-street parking spaces
utilized during the day to on-street parking spaces in the evening. On-street parking is consequently
underutilized during the day hours, and unavailable in the evening hours. Why? What could be done so
that the asset is managed in such a way as to provide 15% of the spaces available during the day and
evening, increasing revenues during the day and increasing spaces (again, thereby decreasing traffic
congestion) in the evening? Who is currently on staff that has the time, the knowledge, and the authority to
make the changes to implement a corrective policy?
Staff was tasked with making recommendations to the Board of Public Works for parking prices
for 2013. We discussed the permit pricing in the Dryden Road Garage in light of recent downward trends
in permit sales for the garage. We believed we might have priced ourselves out of the market, but if so, by
how much? Or are potential permit holders using free on-street parking instead? Have our patrons found a
method to get around paying for parking in the garage but still parking there? These are questions that
Public Works as it is structured is not particularly well positioned to answer. A Parking Director would be
able to work directly to answer them.
Elimination of Parking Requirements
As Common Council considers the possibility of amending the zoning ordinance to eliminate
minimum parking requirements, one concern raised already is about the possibility of spillover parking in
nearby neighborhoods or other unintended consequences. A Parking Director would be well positioned to
track impacts, complaints, and collect data about the impacts of eliminating parking requirements.
Additionally, where paid parking is proximate, the parking director can make adjustments to pricing of
City-owned parking to react to changes in on-street parking dynamics. Without a Parking Director, there
will be no one person focused on parking patterns, data collection, and pricing and the City will have a
weaker capacity to track changes related to parking requirements and the impacts on streets, garages, and
neighborhoods.
Parking Equipment Purchases
In addition to the pay stations noted above, the City of Ithaca must occasionally make large scale
purchases on parking access and revenue control equipment (PARC), including gates, spitter ticket
machines, prox card readers, credit card machines, cash registers, and software packages and
communications equipment for DPW and the Finance Office. The last time the City purchased equipment,
we did not spend much effort on developing a set of goals and objectives for the purchase and from that
information developing a set of specifications for what we wanted the equipment to do. Due to staff
inexperience and the lack of a coordinated approach, we have been struggling now for years to make our
equipment do what it should. The Seneca St garage and Dryden Rd garage equipment is about 8 years old
and the Green St garage equipment is about 5 years old. We can expect that PARC equipment will not last
more than 10 years before needing replacement at a cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The
Cayuga St garage is right now going through the process of buying new PARC equipment. It would be very
CA Item 3.5
wise of the City to have a dedicated person to focus on procuring the best equipment for the City and avoid
the problems of the past decade.
Though no real direction has formed, there has also been some discussion in City Hall about the
possibility of running our garages without parking attendants. Garage users would pull a ticket upon
entering and carry their ticket with them. When preparing the leave, the person would stop by a machine
located conveniently near the pedestrian entrance to the garage, pay by cash or charge, and then have a set
amount of time (15 min, say) to drive out of the garage. This arrangement for attendant-less garages is
becoming more and more common in cities. In Ithaca, it may allow us to reduce our workforce a bit, but
also, perhaps, to reassign attendants into other roles, whether it is routine garage maintenance or into
additional enforcement for extended hours at pay stations. A Parking Director would be critical to lead
changes such as these.
Parking Agreements with Businesses
The City has numerous agreements with businesses and governmental agencies downtown. Some
of the agreements are very complicated and not necessarily beneficial from an operational perspective.
Staff expects that as downtown construction continues, more parking agreements will be requested and
made with new hotels, businesses, apartments, and others. In order to get functional agreements that protect
the interests of the City of Ithaca and its taxpayers, it would be wise to have a Parking Director to propose
or review such agreements (or to take the lead on proposing modifications to existing agreements). As it
stands, there is not a coordinated leadership position in the City to focus on the terms and details of parking
agreements.
CA Item 3.5
Parking Management in the City of Ithaca
The Business Case
In 2011, the City of Ithaca parking system (including all parking garages and meters) generated over $2 million
in revenue, with greater expenses. Parking is a business in the City. We manage it as infrastructure. At least
four departments are regularly involved in the management of parking leading to duplication of effort and no
clear path to reach desired outcomes. Each involved department approaches parking from a different
perspective, with different goals: those that maintain the parking meters aim for consistency in pricing across
the City for efficiency’s sake, while other departments explore and advocate for dynamic pricing; a payment to
a vendor was withheld by the Chamberlain’s office for perceived poor performance after another department
had negotiated a resolution; an agreement to provide the Hilton Hotel patrons with parking paid by the Hotel,
without careful consideration of the operational issues, has caused problems of putting the agreement into action
for the City and for the Hotel.
There is a disconnect between construction and operational issues, such as the City’s ongoing management of
the trash receptacles under the Green Street garage, taken over during the reconstruction but never transferred to
private management as was originally intended, or the failure to fix the cable barriers in Green Street garage, a
product of poor design during construction but an operational headache now.
Parking is a field of expertise. Managing parking as infrastructure ignores issues of pricing, promotion, and the
relationship of on-street to off-street parking. The office that is most concerned with revenue control doesn’t
supervise those that collect the money, and since appropriate revenue control often conflicts with operational
ease, enforcement of the controls is problematic. The police department enforces parking regulations, but often
enforcement doesn’t follow parking policy, such as 24 hour enforcement of the Green Street surface lot.
The Ad-Hoc Parking Committee believes the City needs to improve the way it manages parking, to maximize
revenues and further the City’s transportation and land-use goals.
The Options
Status Quo- make some variation of the Ad Hoc Committee permanent
Mayor Peterson appointed an Ad Hoc Parking Committee in 2010. As has been previously reported, the
committee looked at developing a parking mission statement, developed a checklist to use when making
changes to parking regulations or rates, and researched and reviewed methods of parking management. The
committee expects it will continue, at least until or unless another method of parking management is put in
place.
PROS
•No increase to current cost of operations, other than the time cost of meeting
•Path of least resistance
CA Item 3.5
•Avoids the uncertainty of change
CONS
•Parking remains the “eighth priority” for the five departments most involved in parking operations
(Public Works, Planning, Controller, Chamberlain, and Police)
•No additional revenues (the City can change rates or hours of operation, but no one is fully
responsible for understanding the business dynamics of parking)
•Continued loss of revenues due to outdated or broken hardware
•No improvements to the City’s interface with the parking public (customer service, appearance, etc.)
•Continued deferment of routine maintenance (sweeping, washing, etc.)
•Duplication of effort, such as the work of DPW installing pay stations as Planning investigates their
use
•Work at cross purposes, such as the recent efforts to manage the Ber-National contract
•No one management level person to make and implement decisions, such as expanding enforcement
of Green Street surface lot
City contracts for private management of parking operations
The committee asked All-Pro Parking, the operator of the Cayuga Garage, to provide the committee with a draft
proposal for management of the City’s parking garages and parking meters. We asked them to show us what
the City might expect to spend and to realize in revenues if we contracted with an outside firm to manage our
parking resources.
All-Pro provided three different scenarios to manage parking garages; management using current City staff,
management using All-Pro staff, and management as an agent of the City, which allows us to keep off-street
parking sales tax exempt but requires that the City to grant the operator authority to legally commit the credit of
the City in order to make exempt purchases on the City’s behalf. They did provide an estimated monthly fee to
manage parking meters, although the document did not detail what the fee would cover. In all three cases, they
estimated an increase in revenues of 8%, or approximately $95,000 per year using 2010 revenues. Using City
staff, they estimated a decrease in annual garage losses of $22,000. Using All-Pro staff, the decrease in annual
losses was $122,000, and using All-Pro staff, operating as an agent of the City, the estimated decrease in losses
was $183,000, the difference being the projected avoided sales-tax on revenues when All-Pro is acting as an
agent of the City. All-Pro estimates non-supervisory salaries at half the City’s actual, and health insurance at a
tenth of the City’s apportioned cost. Supervisory salaries are estimated at about one-third more than the City
attributes to the parking garages. Management fees ranged from about $45,000 per year to $80,000.
PROS
•Hiring expertise, with prior training and track record; “professionals” in the parking business
•Depending on construct, may be outside of City benefit and wage constraints, retirement
liabilities
•Parking doesn’t end up sacrificed as the lowest priority in multiple departments’ work schedule
and budget
CA Item 3.5
•Framework for promotion of parking already in place
•Framework for customer service training already in place
•If All-Pro is chosen from RFP or bid documents, may see financial efficiencies for all garages
•Professionals may have more credibility when recommending changes to pricing, hours, etc.
•More clout with hardware vendors
CONS
•Cost. Expenses at Cayuga Garage are proportionally more
•Since much of the savings is the cost of health insurance, effect of Health Care Reform Act on future
expenses unknown
•Reluctance to privatize, process of transferring management of City personnel to private company,
or negotiation to privatize
•Still need someone to manage contract, audit operations
City contracts with consultant to train our staff to manage garages
All-Pro also drafted a proposal to provide City staff with training to better manage its off-street parking assets.
For about $80,000, they would provide 40 hours of on-site consulting per month for the first year, and 10 hours
per month for year two and year three. They would assess the City’s current status, recommend improvements
and train City staff in relation to general operations, financial and administrative considerations, marketing,
human resources, repair and maintenance, and long-term planning.
PROS
•Hiring expertise, with prior training and track record; “professionals” in the parking business
•Train City staff to perpetuate improvements
•Framework for promotion of parking already in place
•Framework for customer service training already in place
•More clout with hardware vendors
•Similar opportunity of increased revenues to other provided scenarios
•Short-term cost, without major changes to City staffing structure. Easy to change direction
CONS
•Cost
•Parking still ends up sacrificed as the lowest priority in multiple departments’ work schedule and
budget
•Serving in advisory capacity. In order to get maximum benefit, City personnel must act on and
retain training; buy-in
•Consultant would be training us to be their competitors in parking management
CA Item 3.5
Create Division of Parking in DPW; hire a Director of Parking
Under this option, existing City staff, including those in the garages, parking meter maintenance staff, and
enforcement personnel would be consolidated into one division, under the supervision of a new Director of
Parking or Assistant Superintendent. The intent would be to hire a parking professional to manage on and off
street parking.
PROS
•Four departments reduce their time commitment to parking, freeing time for other activities and to
strengthen their roll as advisors to as opposed to participant in parking management
•Manage regular maintenance schedule
•Manage vendor contracts related to parking garages and lots
•Manage parking attendants
•Manage on-street parking systems and enforcement, to align goals
•Greater focus on appearance of garages, booths and grounds
•More efficient management of garages could produce more revenues; using All-Pro’s numbers,
$95,000 in garage revenues, $57,000 in meter revenues
•Hiring expertise; manage parking as a business
•May be able to avoid ongoing consultant expenses, such as the City’s current Rich and Associates
$50,000 contract
CONS
•Cost of additional staff – Assistant Superintendent or step below
•Possible need for support staff
•Additional budget lines for office expenses, contracts, etc.
•Office space – City Hall, a garage
•Enlarging government- long term impact on retirement, insurance liabilities
•Success depends on finding good applicants; making good candidate choice
The Committee’s recommendation
The committee recommends the creation of a Division of Parking within the Department of Public Works, to be
hired for a conditional period. If, as we believe, the reorganization and change to management improves
revenues to the extent the committee believes is possible, the position will pay for itself. If it does not, we can
revert to the current organizational structure, with the exception that enforcement personnel would remain
within Public Works, and re-evaluate our options at that time.
CA Item 3.5
Hiring a parking director will solve many of our ongoing issues. It will make parking the 1st priority of a
manager level position. We can hire expertise in the business of parking. By consolidating parking operations
within one division, it allows us to align goals and expected outcomes by using resources in one department.
We can expect improvement in the public face of our parking, so that customer service becomes a priority. We
expect an increase in revenues. And the Superintendent will be supervising a City employee, with easier
recourse if performance does not meet expectations.
The financial implications of this move are expected to be positive for the City. Based on feedback from a
private sector parking management company, it is expected that the City could increase revenues from its
parking structures on the order of $100,000 per year. With additional focus on the on-street parking systems
(meters and, soon, pay stations), it is expected that an additional $60,000, approximately, could be raised.
Lastly, the City does spend money on consultants and parking studies; most of these are capital expenses, so the
annualized cost of this work is probably not more than a few thousand dollars per year.
On the cost side, it is expected than a Director of Parking type title would command a salary in the $60,000 to
$80,000 range. Benefit packages for such an employee would cost about an additional 40%. There would also
be a normal, additional office cost, say $2,000 per year. Lastly, because the City wants this person to stay on top
of current technologies and management practices, it would be very wise to allow for a travel/training budget, at
least for the first few years, on the order of $4,000 per year. There may be some one-time costs to furnish an
office space or for reorganizing existing work areas as other working groups (namely, garage attendants and
Community Service Officers) are moved around.
With these expected costs and benefits, it is expected that the City of Ithaca would see an annual net positive
revenue of approximately $59,000. This is shown below.
Cost Type Cost Benefit Type Benefit
Parking Director Salary $70,000 Additional Garage Revenue $100,000
Benefits $28,000 Add’l On-street Revenue $60,000
Office & Training $6,000 Capitalized studies forgone $3,000
TOTAL $104,000 TOTAL $163,000
Next steps
If the Board and Common Council agree, we will need to:
•Assign a staff person to “own” the process of setting up this department
•Write job specs and set a salary
•Determine an organizational structure
•Determine which employees would be moved to the new division
•Determine which job duties within other departments will be transferred to the new division
•Complete the hiring process
CA Item 3.5
3.6 Approval of Extension of Exemption from Real Property Taxes and Provision for In-Lieu
Payments, with Regard to City of Ithaca Tax Parcel Numbers 41.-1-3.1, 41.-1-3.2, 44. -3-3, 44.-
4-1, 44.-5-3, 44.-8-1, 51.-2-15, 80.-3-10 and 103.-3-1 Pursuant to Section 52 of the Public
Housing Law of the State of New York.
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Housing Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “IHA”) is a municipal
housing authority created and established by virtue of _429 of the Pubic Housing Law and is the
current owner of the lands and premises in the City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New
York know as 412 Hector Street (T.P # 41.-1-3.1), 412 Hector Street (T.P # 41.-1-3.2), 520 Hancock
Street (T.P # 44. -3-3), Hancock Street (T.P # 44.-4-1), 111 Morris Avenue T.P # 44.-5-3), 625
Hancock Street (T.P # 44.-8-1), 312 Esty Street (T.P # 51.-2-15), 414 - 422 South Plain Street (T.P
# 80.-3-10), 319 Wood Street (T.P # 103.-3-1) and 800 South Plain Street (Titus Towers) (T.P #
104.-1-2) (hereinafter referred to as the “Properties”) which properties are used for the provision of
affordable rental housing to qualified persons or families of low income; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to _52(3) of the Public Housing Law of the State of New York, as a municipal
housing authority the IHA is entitled to and has enjoyed an exemption from local real property taxes
subject to certain required payments in lieu of such taxes; and;
WHEREAS, pursuant to _52(5) of the Public Housing Law of the State of New York tax exemptions
from real property taxes for municipal housing authorities shall not operate for a period of more than
fifty years, commencing in each instance from the date on which the benefits of such exemption first
became available and effective (hereinafter referred to as the “Effective Date”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to _52(6) of the Public Housing Law of the State of New York, the IHA, as a
municipal housing authority, may upon the expiration of the initial tax exemption period (hereinafter
referred to as “Expiration Date”), be granted an additional tax exemption period of up to fifty years;
WHEREAS, there is an incomplete record of the effective date of the first initial tax exemption
period for all of the IHA properties. The effective date of the initial tax exemption period on the
Hancock Street properties (T.P # 44. -3-3, T.P # 44.-4-1 and T.P # 44.-8-1) was March 1, 1973 and
granted for a forty (40) year period. The effective date of the initial tax exemption period on 800
South Plain Street (Titus Towers) (T.P # 104.-1-2) was granted on or about March 1, 1974 also for a
forty (40) year period. There are no accurate records of the effective date for the remaining
properties; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the expiration of the exemption for the Hancock Street properties and to
ensure the accuracy of the effective date of the exemption date for the remaining properties (other than
Titus Towers) and pursuant to _52(5) of the Public Housing Law of the State of New York the IHA now
seeks an extension of the effective date for an extension of the tax exemption period for an additional
forty (40) year period to commence March 1, 2013 for the following properties; 412 Hector Street (T.P
# 41.-1-3.1), 412 Hector Street (T.P # 41.-1-3.2), 520 Hancock Street (T.P # 44. -3-3), Hancock Street
(T.P # 44.-4-1), 111 Morris Avenue T.P # 44.-5-3), 625 Hancock Street (T.P # 44.-8-1), 312 Esty Street
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2013\1-23 CA Agenda.doc 1/23/13
(T.P # 51.-2-15), 414 - 422 South Plain Street (T.P # 80.-3-10) and 319 Wood Street (T.P # 103.-3-1);
and
WHEREAS, the expiration date for 800 South Plain Street (Titus Towers) (T.P # 104.-1-2) is not until
March 1, 2014, the IHA will not seek an extension of the exemption period for that property until that
time, and
WHEREAS, that pursuant to _52 of the Public Housing Law of the State of New York and since the
inception of the initial tax abatement period, the IHA has annually remitted to the City of Ithaca
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (hereinafter referred to as “Pilot”) pursuant to a Pilot Agreement between the
IHA and the City of Ithaca; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has determined that the continued provision of affordable rental housing
to qualified persons or families of low income by the IHA is beneficial to and in the long term best
interests of the public; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca pursuant to_52(5) of the Public Housing
Law of the State of New York hereby grants to the following properties, 412 Hector Street (T.P # 41.-1-
3.1), 412 Hector Street (T.P # 41.-1-3.2), 520 Hancock Street (T.P # 44. -3-3), Hancock Street (T.P #
44.-4-1), 111 Morris Avenue T.P # 44.-5-3), 625 Hancock Street (T.P # 44.-8-1), 312 Esty Street (T.P #
51.-2-15), 414 - 422 South Plain Street (T.P # 80.-3-10) and 319 Wood Street (T.P # 103.-3-1) a tax
exemption from real property taxes levied by the City of Ithaca and other local taxing authorities for an
additional forty (40) years period upon the condition that commencing on said new effective date the
IHA make annual payments in lieu of taxes to the City of Ithaca and shall continue to make such annual
payments for the duration of the exemption period; and it is further
RESOLVED, That the effective date for the foregoing tax exemption period shall be March 1, 2013 and
the expiration date shall be March 1, 2053; and it is further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor upon the advice of the City Attorney and the City Controller and on
behalf of the City of Ithaca is hereby authorized and requested to execute and deliver to any pertinent
party an agreement between the City of Ithaca and the IHA setting forth as necessary the details of the
payments in lieu of taxes, and to take any and all action necessary and/or required to effectuate or verify
such payments or tax exemption.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2013\1-23 CA Agenda.doc 1/23/13
TO: City of Ithaca Common Council
FROM: JoAnn Cornish
DATE: December 13, 2012
RE: Information Regarding Sustainable Strategies
As part of the 2013 City Budget, adopted by Common Council on November 7, 2012,
$60,500.00 was included in the Planning Department budget for Sustainable Strategies,
a consulting firm that prepares grant applications and also acts as lobbyist in
Washington to help secure funding. We have been working with Sustainable Strategies
for over a year and they were instrumental in the successful award of $4.5 million in
federal transportation funds to the city that will allow us to begin the Commons rebuild.
I am attaching the scope of work proposed by Sustainable Strategies so that you will
have a better idea of what they will be doing for the city while under contract. Over the
next few weeks, members of the Planning Department and the Attorney’s Office will be
working to draft and execute a contract so that we can begin as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions, please let me know so that I may
incorporate them into the contract.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
CA Item #12.1XXXXXXXXX
CA Item #3.7
SCOPE OF WORK
Ithaca’s success in obtaining resources will involve strategic thinking, clear grant writing and
strong advocacy. Sustainable Strategies DC (S2) proposes to continue working with Ithaca to
secure federal, state, philanthropic, private sector, and other funding for your community
priorities by:
Building a Federal Agenda for Ithaca Advocacy: Helping the Mayor’s office and City
develop the specific gameplan for approaching the New York congressional delegation
and the next Executive Branch leadership in the White House and federal agencies to
promote Ithaca’s plans for revitalization, infrastructure upgrades, and community
improvements. This federal agenda will identify 5-10 key community priorities that S2
and the City will work together on to secure federal, state, foundation, and other support
for.
Identify Funding Opportunities: Keeping Ithaca informed of funding opportunities that
would support your identified community priorities.
Building Ithaca’s Competitive Advantages: Providing strategic advice to make Ithaca
more competitive for specific grant opportunities (e.g., what types of projects does the
federal agency really want to fund, how projects should be shaped to be most eligible and
competitive, what types of partnerships would be most effective, what results does the
federal agency hope to see, what’s the likelihood of success, what are the local matching
or other resource requirements).
Grant Writing Assistance and Support: Providing comprehensive analysis of grant
opportunities, strategic and political advice on grant applications, substantial review and
analysis of non-S2 drafted grant proposals, as well as grant writing on 4-6 important
grants (federal, state and foundation). Specifically, S2 will work with the City at the
beginning of the contract to identify those grants that S2 will take the lead in drafting,
with significant input and support from the City. In addition, S2 will play a significant
role in helping Ithaca compete effectively for resources in the State of New York
Consolidated Funding Application process, which is the primary route for State funding
under the Cuomo Administration. Our work on NY CFA for Ithaca will involve all of the
steps identified in this scope of work (i.e., building a strategic agenda, identifying the best
funding sources and Ithaca’s competitive advantages, grant writing support, stakeholder
support, and advocacy). This CFA effort can involve grant writing by S2 as well,
depending on the number of projects and grants identified in this process.
Stakeholder Support: Working with Ithaca to identify and gather stakeholder support for
funding projects from the right local, regional, state and national stakeholders.
Connecting Ithaca to National Organizations and Opportunities: Our firm will help
Ithaca “build its brand” by identifying opportunities for Ithaca leadership to participate in
CA Item #12.1XXXXXXXXX
CA Item #3.7
national organizations and speak on a national platform about the importance of Ithaca’s
progress. For instance, we have helped local officials in other cities secure opportunities
to testify before Congress, participate in White House events, represent before Cabinet
secretaries, deliver keynote addresses at national events such as the National Brownfields
Conference and Smart Growth America events, obtain awards, be featured in
publications, and be part of national pilot demonstration initiatives.
Advocacy: To support Ithaca’s funding and other goals, our firm will help the City
connect with appropriate federal officials to advocate for your community priorities.
This will involve at least once annual trips to Washington, DC to meet with your
congressional delegation, White House officials, key federal agency leaders who direct
important funding programs, and other critical stakeholders.
Post-Grant Support: In addition, S2 will work with the City to help overcome any grant
administration challenges with federal or state agencies after grant award.
CA Item #12.1XXXXXXXXXX
CA Items 3.7
4.Finance, Budget, and Appropriations
.1 Fire Department – Central Fire Station Roof Replacement
WHEREAS, during the fall and winter of 2012, the roof on the City-owned Central Fire Station has
developed leaks over the apparatus room, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineering Department with the assistance of a third party design
professional has determined that the roof on the Central Fire Station has reached its end of life and is
in need of replacement, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has entered into a contract with Liberty Solar Inc to install
photovoltaic panels on the roof no later than July 1, 2013, and
WHEREAS, the life expectancy of a new roof will be in excess of 40 years and the useful life
expectancy of the solar panels will be in excess of 15 years, and
WHEREAS, City staff has estimated the cost for roof replacement at $360,000; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby establishes Capital Project #784 Central Station Roof
Replacement in an amount not to exceed $360,000, and be it further
RESOLVED, That funding for said project shall be derived from the advance of funds from the General
Fund with later repayment from the issuance of serial bonds, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the establishment of this Capital Project shall be contingent on the approval by the
Town of Ithaca.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2013\1-23 CA Agenda.doc 1/23/13
4.2 Board of Fire Commissioners - Funds Received from Formerly Active Volunteer Fire
Companies
WHEREAS, the City Chamberlain has requested that each of the former active volunteer companies in
the Ithaca Fire Department (Company 1, Company 2, Company 3, Company 4, Company 5, Company 6,
and Company 7), forward any funds held by the previously active company, as a volunteer fire service
organization, to the City Chamberlain's Office, and,
WHEREAS, the funds held by these formerly active volunteer companies can be classified as either 2%
funds or non-2% funds, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Fire Commissioners, the former active volunteers who served in these
companies, the Common Council, and the community at large have an interest in seeing that any such
funds surrendered by these formerly active companies, be used in a manner that appropriately
recognizes the intent for which these funds where provided to or generated by the membership of these
companies, and
WHEREAS, 2% funds can lawfully be distributed to the Ithaca Veteran Volunteer Firemen Association
(IVVFA) and the remaining active volunteer company- Neriton, Company 9, and
WHEREAS, the non-2% funds, where acquired by each of the formerly active companies through
various activities and sources and,
WHEREAS, the legacy and history of the Volunteer Companies in the Ithaca Fire Department will be
best preserved by a strong and active Ithaca Veteran Volunteer Firemen’s Association, now therefore be
it
RESOLVED, That Common Council approves of all funds received from the formerly active
companies that are identified as 2% funds be distributed 50% to the IVVFA and 50% to Neriton,
Company 9, and be it further
RESOLVED, That all non 2% funds, be distributed 100% to the Ithaca Veteran Volunteer Firemen
Association.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2013\1-23 CA Agenda.doc 1/23/13
4.3 Finance/Controller – Request Funds for City Hall Server Room Air Conditioning System
Replacement
WHEREAS, the existing air conditioning system unit in the City Hall server room is in need of
replacement, and
WHEREAS, City Staff has received quotes for replacement and installation of a new unit in the
amount of $4,710, and
WHEREAS, funds are not available in the current 2013 authorized budget to replace this unit, and
WHEREAS, the 2013 Unrestricted Contingency account has $120,000 available for unanticipated
expenses; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes an amount not to exceed $4,710 be
transferred from Account A1990 Unrestricted Contingency to A1320-5225 IT Other Equipment for
the purpose of said server room air conditioning system replacement.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2013\1-23 CA Agenda.doc 1/23/13
CA Item 4.3
ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT
4 Attachment 1
City of Ithaca
Budget Process Checklist
[Added 6-4-1997 by L.L. No. 6-1997]
Steps in the Budget Process Specified Due Date
(latest = no later than)
Latest Possible Calendar
Day Due in Any Year
Budget Checklist distributed (§ 4-12)Latest: March 31 March 31
Capital projects (§ 4-6)
Department, etc., proposals Latest: April 15**April 15
Capital Program Committee Recommendations
to Capital Improvements Review Committee
(CIRC)
Latest: May 15 May 15
CIRC recommendations to the Common
Council Budget and Administration (B&A)
Committee
Latest: July 1 July 1
B&A recommendations and findings to the
Council
First meeting of
Council in August August 7
Common Council guidelines to Mayor Latest: September 15 September 15
Department, etc., estimated budgets (§ C-40)Latest: August 1*August 1
Mayor's executive budget (Mayor to Controller)
(§ 4-10)Latest: October 1 October 1
Mayor's executive budget (Controller to Council)
(§ 4-10)3 days after receipt from MayorOctober 4
Council's report (Council to Controller) (§ 4-10)Latest: October 26 October 26
Notice of public hearing before Council (§ 4-11)Latest: November 2 November 2
Public hearing before Council
(§ 4-11)
Not less than 5 days after the
notice; regular November
meeting
November 7
Council's revision and adoption (Council to Clerk)
(§ 4-12)Hearing date November 7
Council's revision and adoption (Clerk to Mayor)
(§ 4-12)
2 business days after passage by
Council November 9
Mayor's response (Mayor to Clerk)
(§ 4-12)
3 business days after receipt
from Clerk November 15
Mayor's response (Clerk to Council) (§ 4-12)2 business days after receipt
from Mayor November 19
Council's response to Mayor's response (§ 4-12)Latest: November 20 November 20
Council adopts tax levy (§ C-41)Latest: first regular meeting in
December December 7
NOTES:
* Not earlier than the first day of July.
** The Mayor may set an earlier deadline.
Shaded items indicate the default adoption of a budget without action.
4 Attachment 1:1 01 - 01 - 2012
CA Item 5.3
To: City Administration Committee members From: Chris Proulx Re: Discussion about wood smoke Date: January 16, 2013 As you know, there has been an ongoing discussion about the role of wood smoke as a contributor to air quality in several neighborhoods in the City. We will hold an initial discussion at our next meeting to bring all members up to speed on the current issues, our current ordinance, the County’s legislation, and explore what role the City could take on this issue. Please find the following links to additional resources: Relevant City of Ithaca ordinance:
http://ecode360.com/8390032?highlight=smoke,wood#8390032
Relevant Tompkins County law:
(§ S-9.01. General provisions.
a.This article is supplemental to applicable rules and regulations of the New Y rk
State o
Department of Environmental Conservation.
b.No person shall discharge into the outdoor air any contaminants, smoke or
other material
that may cause:
1)Nuisance or annoyance to or disturb the comfort or repose of any considerable
number of persons or the public; or
2)Injury to or endanger the health and safety of any person; or
3)Substantial injury or damage to business or property.
Such discharges shall be controlled using all available technology) Model ordinances and other examples from the U.S. and Canada: Bay Area, CA: http://bit.ly/10xTfIF Fort Collins, CO:
http://www.fcgov.com/airquality/wood-burning.php
US/Canada examples: http://bit.ly/13BbhYz Other resources: Survey from Fort Collins: http://www.fcgov.com/airquality/pdf/2007aqsurvey.pdf Tompkins CCE Wood Burning Site: http://www.cce.cornell.edu/Environment/Pages/HeatingwithWood.aspx
CA Item 5.4