HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-13 City Administration Committee Meeting AgendaCA Meeting
City Administration Committee
DATE: July 24, 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 Review and Approval of Minutes Yes meeting and adjust time if needed.
1.3 Statements From the Public No
1.4 Statements From Employees No
1.5 Council Response No
(6:10 pm)
2. Standing Sub-Committee and Staff Reports
2.1 Diversity Initiatives – Information Technology No Duane Twardokus, Director of IT 15 Min
3. City Administration, Human Resources, and Policy
3.1 Discussion on Community Gardens No Krin Flaherty, Asst. City Attorney 30 Min
3.2 Approval of NYSEG Easement Parcel Yes Krin Flaherty, Asst. City Attorney 5 Min
(7:00 p.m.)
4. Finance, Budget, and Appropriations
4.1 IURA - Restore NY3, Downtown Commons Yes Nels Bohn, Director of IURA 15 Min
Upper Story Housing, Assign Loan of Restore
NY funds to ItalThai LLC from the City of
Ithaca to the IURA
4.2 Transportation Enhancement Program Yes Tim Logue, Traffic Systems Eng. 10 Min
Application
4.3 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 146 of Yes Marc Albanese, Plumbing Inspector 10 Min
the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled
“Building Code Enforcement” Article 4, entitled
“Plumbing”, Section 146-30 entitled “Permits,
C. Fees”
4.4 Gateway Pedestrian Bridge - Authorization for Yes Tom West, Director of Engineering 5 Min
Allocation from Bridge Reserve Fund
(7:40 pm)
5. 2014 Budget Process
6. Committee Discussion Items
7. Meeting Wrap-up
7.1 Announcements No All 5 Min
7.2 Review Agenda Items for Next Meeting No
7.3 Adjourn Yes
(7:45 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 resource
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.
3.City Administration, Human Resources, and Policy
.1 Proposed Resolution – Attorney’s Office – Community Garden Agreement
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca/Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) executed a Purchase
Agreement with Building Links, Inc. in 1999 for approximately eight acres of undeveloped land
zoned I-1 located in Carpenter Business Park (CBP), which gave Building Links, Inc. an option
(the “Option”) to purchase Carpenter Business Park Tax Parcel 36-1-3.4, which Option was
subsequently defined in a 2002 agreement, and
WHEREAS, the City leased CBP Tax Parcel 36-1-3.4 to Project Growing Hope, Inc. for a
twenty-year term expiring on December 31, 2013 for use as a community garden, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca, in anticipation of future development invested over $500,000 to
build the infrastructure necessary for commercial development in the former Carpenter Business
Park, and
WHEREAS, included in the sale of Carpenter Business Park was a purchase option of the City
owned parcels leased by Project Growing Hope, Inc., which option could only be exercised
during the term of the lease with the approval of Project Growing Hope, Inc., and
WHEREAS, upon expiration of the lease, said option could be exercised if the Common Council
decided not to extend or renew the lease with Project Growing Hope, Inc., and
WHEREAS, Building Links, Inc., has approached the City requesting that the lease with Project
Growing Hope, Inc., not be extended beyond the December 31, 2013 expiration date, and
WHEREAS, Project Growing Hope, Inc. has approached the City requesting renewal of the
lease, and
WHEREAS, it is generally agreed that community gardening is a valuable public benefit for City
residents, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council, on September 19, 2012, directed the Mayor and City
Attorney to negotiate a new lease agreement with Project Growing Hope, Inc. for the Carpenter
Business Park community garden, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council resolved that the City’s new agreement with Project Growing
Hope Inc. would include the following conditions that, when all met, would allow early
termination of the lease:
•Final Site Plan approval by the City of Ithaca Planning Board for the development of the
lands comprising the Carpenter Business Park, of which the parcel leased to Project
Growing Hope, Inc. is included, and;
•A signed agreement with the developer for above-mentioned Site Plan that provides the
City with an easement for a future public roadway that would connect Cascadilla Street to
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
Third Street, through the proposed project site, in order to facilitate and safely manage
traffic impacts of additional development in the vicinity, and;
•Successful negotiations between the City and the developer for an agreed upon cost to be
paid by the developer and to be solely used by the City for relocation, construction, and
the establishment of a management framework for a substitute garden, and;
•If relevant, submission of written notice of optionee’s intent to exercise the option to
acquire the Community Garden parcel pursuant to the “Option to Purchase Real
Property” agreement between the City of Ithaca and Building Links, Inc., dated February
2002,
and
WHEREAS, the attached leasing agreement includes said terms in its section entitled
“ARTICLE THREE: EARLY TERMINATION,” and
WHEREAS, it is generally agreed upon that the Carpenter Business Park is an appropriate
location for economic development, and
WHEREAS, Building Links, Inc. provided notice and payment dated July 1, 2013 of its intent to
exercise the purchase option, said exercise effective only in the event that Project Growing Hope
is not in possession of an executed lease by December 31, 2013; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council approves of the attached lease agreement granting
Project Growing Hope, Inc. continued use of a portion of Carpenter Business Park as a
community garden, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute the
attached lease agreement with Project Growing Hope, Inc. for the Carpenter Business Park
community garden.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
M E M O R A N D U M
To: City Administration Committee
From: Ari Lavine, City Attorney
Date: July 10, 2013
Subject: Project Growing Hope Lease Renewal Pursuant to Council Resolution of Sep. 2012
_________________________________________________________________
On September 19, 2012, the Common Council directed the Mayor and City Attorney to
negotiate a renewed lease with Project Growing Hope, Inc. (PGH) for their continued use of the
parcel of land on which the Community Gardens now operates. In the resolution, Council
explicitly set out terms for the lease’s early termination in the event that a purchaser sought this
land for qualifying development in conjunction with the remainder of Carpenter Business Park.
The resolution did not specify further leasing details.
Since that time, Building Links, Inc. has provided the City with written notice of its intent
to exercise its option to purchase this land, along with the specified $5,000 payment
theretowards. However, as Building Links is aware, their attempt to exercise this option will fail
should the City execute prior to December 31, 2013 a lease for 2014 onward with PGH.
The City Attorney’s Office, with Mayoral guidance, has worked to negotiate the many
remaining details of this lease across extended correspondence and meetings with PGH. In the
process, this Office has sought to effectuate Council’s goals as expressed in the 2012 resolution,
address concerns expressed by PGH, model the renewed lease around the now-expiring lease,
and of course ultimately achieve a proposed lease intended to represent the City’s best interest.
Should the City Administration Committee differ in the judgment calls necessary to
execution of this lease, it can of course alter the proposed lease’s terms. This memorandum
identifies significant terms of the contract that were not specified in Council’s 2012 resolution,
and that Council may wish to adjust via the pending resolution.
As currently drafted, and at the request of PGH, the proposed lease lasts for 20 years at a
rent of $1 per year. (The City is of course legally permitted to charge more in rent, but not
legally compelled to do so because community gardening is recognized as a valid municipal
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-6590
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Aaron O. Lavine, City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504
Robert A. Sarachan, Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507
Krin Flaherty, Assistant City Attorney
Jared Pittman, Assistant City Attorney
Jody Andrew, Executive Assistant
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
CA Item 3.1
purpose in state law). The proposed lease does not address renewal 20 years hence, meaning that
PGH and the City would be free to discuss any further renewals of the lease at that time. The
proposed lease also does not provide PGH with a requested right of first refusal on any future
sale of this property because such a right would effectively conflict with the lease termination
provisions—and apparent policy choices underpinning the same—prescribed in Council’s 2012
resolution, which specified conditions under which the parcel would be sold to a third party; not
to PGH.
The proposed lease provides 90 days’ notice in the event of lease termination under
Council’s previously-specified conditions; because one of those conditions is an approved Site
Plan Review for a large project throughout Carpenter Business Park, the actual notice would
effectively be far longer than 90 days. The proposed lease includes insurance requirements in
concert with those required by the City for a broad variety of uses of City property. The proposed
lease also provides that the Mayor—at the time of a proposed development—shall negotiate and
execute an agreement for the developer contribution to garden relocation, as instructed by
Council’s 2012 resolution on the subject. PGH is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of
the land and any buildings on it during the term of the lease.
Included in this agenda packet, you will find the following materials to assist in your
consideration of this issue:
•A proposed resolution authorizing execution of the proposed lease
•The proposed lease
•Recent correspondence expressing Building Links’ intent to exercise its option
•The 2002 Option Agreement, and a 2002 memorandum on that topic
•Common Council’s 2012 resolution on this matter
Should you have any further questions, the City Attorney’s Office is glad to assist.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
CA Item 3.1
LEASE AGREEMENT FOR ITHACA COMMUNITY GARDENS
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, made this ____ day of _______ of 2013, by and between
the CITY OF ITHACA, a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with offices at 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY
14850, hereinafter referred to as "LESSOR," and PROJECT GROWING HOPE, INC., a not-for-
profit corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
New York, with an address at Post Office Box 606, Ithaca, NY 14851, hereinafter referred to as
“LESSEE;”
WITNESSETH THAT the parties hereto agree as follows:
ARTICLE ONE: LEASED PREMISES
LESSOR shall lease to LESSEE the premises more particularly described in Schedule
“A,” hereinafter referred to as the “Leased Premises”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, together with all the rights, privileges, easements and appurtenances thereunto
belonging or attaching, subject to the provisions, conditions and covenants contained in this
Lease Agreement.
ARTICLE TWO: TERM OF LEASE
LESSOR hereby leases to LESSEE the premises described in Schedule A attached hereto for a
term commencing on January 1, 2014, and ending on December 31, 2033.
ARTICLE THREE: EARLY TERMINATION
Early Termination By LESSOR:
Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, LESSEE’s right to occupy the subject
premises may be terminated by LESSOR, prior to the end of the demised term of this Lease
Agreement, on ninety (90) days notice in writing to LESSEE, served as provided for in Article
10 hereof, under any one of the following conditions:
1
CA Item 3.1
a)If LESSEE shall, at any time during the demised term, fail in the performance or permit
the violation of any of the covenants, conditions, terms or provisions of this lease, which, on the
part of LESSEE, are or ought to be observed, performed, fulfilled, and, except where a specific
time is herein provided for the performance of any covenant or condition, when such default is
not cured within ninety (90) days after notice and demand have been given pursuant to the
provisions of Article 6 hereto (except that the City may impose a reasonably shorter period for
failures or violations related to life safety matters); or
b)If, during the demised term, LESSEE shall be adjudicated a bankrupt or make a general
assignment for the benefit of creditors, or shall take the benefit of any insolvency act, or if a
temporary or permanent receiver or trustee in bankruptcy is appointed for LESSEE’s property
and such appointment for a temporary receiver is not vacated and set aside within ninety (90)
days from the date of such appointment, or in the event of any attempted transfer or other
devolution of the interest (or any part thereof) of LESSEE, to any other person or corporation, by
reason of the acts and things hereinabove last enumerated; or
c)If pursuant to the LESSOR’s 2002 agreement with Building Links, Inc. (attached as
Schedule B), the option as described in paragraph 3 of such agreement is exercised as described
in paragraph 6 of such agreement by Building Links, Inc. or its successor or assign (hereinafter,
“Optionee”) and all conditions specified in paragraph (d) immediately below are met; or
d)If, in the sole judgment of the Mayor of the City, all of the following conditions are met:
1)The Planning and Development Board of the City of Ithaca approves a final
site plan for the lands substantially comprising the Carpenter Business Park, of which the Leased
Premises is a part.
2)The prospective developer of the property must have entered into a signed
agreement to provide the City of Ithaca with an easement for a future public roadway that would
connect Cascadilla Street to Third Street, through the project site.
3)LESSOR must have a legally-binding commitment from the prospective
developer to pay LESSOR a sum of money satisfactory to LESSOR in LESSOR’s sole discretion
prior to the termination of this lease, which sum shall be used by the City for relocation,
construction, and establishment of a management framework for a substitute garden in such
2
CA Item 3.1
proportions and such manner as determined at the sole discretion of the City.
Effect of Early Termination By LESSOR
If terminated by LESSOR under this Article III, the Lease herein and the term thereof
shall automatically cease and terminate at the expiration of the ninety (90) day notice period; and
it shall be lawful for LESSOR, at its option, to enter the demised premises or any part thereof
and to have, hold, repossess and enjoy the said premises, and LESSOR shall have the right to
recover the said premises and to remove all persons therefrom by summary proceedings or by
any other legal action or proceedings.
Early Termination By LESSEE:
LESSEE may terminate this Lease Agreement at any time by giving 30 days written
notice to LESSOR.
ARTICLE FOUR: RENT
For and in consideration of the leasing aforesaid, LESSEE hereby covenants and agrees
to pay to LESSOR, as and for rent for the leased premises, the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) per
year, which sum is hereby acknowledged by LESSOR to have been paid in advance at the time
of execution of this Lease Agreement. As and for additional consideration, the substantial value
of which is acknowledged by LESSOR, LESSEE agrees to provide, at its cost, a public
community garden program for the City of Ithaca and its residents, for the term of this Lease,
utilizing the leased premises.
ARTICLE FIVE: USE OF PREMISES.
a)LESSOR affirms the public benefit provided to residents of the City of Ithaca by the
existence of the Community Gardens at the leased premises. The LESSEE covenants and agrees
that it will, during the period of this lease, reasonably use said premises and any buildings and
improvements situated thereon for public community gardens in a manner similar to its current
3
CA Item 3.1
and past use of the premises, as a benefit for the City of Ithaca and open to the general public, as
defined by the current certificate of incorporation and bylaws of LESSEE, including outreach to
and accessibility for low income gardeners. In addition, the premises will be available for other
uses as deemed appropriate by LESSOR, provided such uses do not conflict with the Community
Garden uses of LESSEE, including but not limited to use by the general public for passive
recreation or other purposes. As deemed appropriate by LESSOR, LESSEE shall be afforded the
opportunity to review and comment on potential joint uses of the leased premises but LESSOR
shall retain the sole authority to determine such uses and whether they conflict with the
Community Gardens use by LESSEE.
b)LESSEE further covenants and agrees that at all times during the demised term:
1.the premises including the buildings and improvements situated thereon or
connected therewith and all appurtenances thereto and equipment thereof shall be
kept by LESSEE at its own expense in good repair and in a clean and safe
condition and in conformity with the requirements of all municipal, county, state
and federal laws, rules and regulations;
2.that all health, police, zoning, fire, building, subdivision, and other regulations
shall, in all respects and at all times, be fully complied with by LESSEE and, in
particular, that at the end of the growing season the site will be appropriately
cleaned and winterized;
3.that LESSEE will not at any time remove or permit to be removed any existing
building or improvement from the demised premises except as provided for in this
Lease;
ARTICLE SIX: IMPROVEMENTS.
It is understood and agreed that in the event that LESSEE shall construct buildings and
structures or landscaping upon the demised premises during the term of this Lease Agreement, or
any extension thereof, such buildings shall be used solely for the purposes set forth in ARTICLE
4
CA Item 3.1
FIVE hereof. Any such improvements shall be subject to City of Ithaca site plan review, if
applicable.
ARTICLE SEVEN: WATER, SEWERAGE, AND PARKING.
LESSEE shall be responsible for construction and maintenance of any water or sewer
lines between the existing City systems and the leased premises, for use by LESSEE, in
accordance with LESSOR's engineering specifications. In particular, LESSEE shall be
responsible for the installation, maintenance and testing of the backflow protection device; the
winterization of all such water and sewer lines and appurtenances; and for the scheduling of
seasonal turn on and shut off of water. LESSEE shall be responsible for payment for all utilities
used on the leased premises. LESSOR shall have no responsibility for developing additional
parking areas for use by LESSEE.
ARTICLE EIGHT: INSURANCE.
LESSEE shall keep the improvements insured against liability and fire or other hazards
and shall save LESSOR harmless and indemnified at all times against any loss, damage,
penalties, costs and expenses, judgments and decrees, by reason of a failure so to do in any
respect or by reason of any violation of any of the law, rules or regulations above referred to, or
by reason of any accident, loss, wrong, injury, or damage to person, life or property in or about
said demised premises, including but not limited to for any negligence of LESSEE in the making
of any improvements to the premises, or by reason of any use which may be made of the
demised premises or the buildings and improvements thereon, or by reason of any act or thing
done or omitted to be done or by reason of anything happening in connection with or upon the
demised premises or in any building situated thereon or improvement connected therewith, or by
reason of the failure of LESSEE in any respect fully to carry out and perform any of the
covenants, agreements, provisions or undertakings in this lease on its part to be performed.
Proof of insurance and the inclusion of LESSOR as an additional insured in all such policies of
insurance shall be provided in writing to LESSOR.
LESSEE shall maintain liability insurance coverage upon the lease premises, in the
5
CA Item 3.1
initial, minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 in the aggregate and
$5,000,000 as umbrella coverage, and shall ensure that the City of Ithaca is named as an
additional insured on such policy. The minimum amount of required coverage shall be subject to
reasonable, periodic adjustment by the City, upon prior written notice to LESSEE of at least 6
months.
LESSEE shall provide written documentation to City that required coverage is in place, at
the time of execution of this lease agreement, at least annually thereafter, by January 31st, or at
other time upon request.
LESSEE shall keep the premises insured as provided for herein and the amount of
insurance coverage shall be as reasonably approved by the LESSOR, and proof of insurance and
the inclusion of LESSOR as an additional insured in all such policies of insurance shall be
provided in writing to LESSOR. It is mutually covenanted and agreed by and between the
parties hereto that the proceeds of any and all policies of fire insurance covering any building or
buildings at any time situated upon the demised premises shall be used as a trust fund towards
the repair, reconstruction, building or rebuilding of such building or buildings, unless the parties
agree otherwise in writing.
ARTICLE NINE: DEFAULT
If LESSEE shall, at any time during the demised term fail in the performance of or permit
the violation of any of the covenants, conditions, terms or provisions of this Lease Agreement,
which, on the part of LESSEE, are or ought to be observed, performed and fulfilled and, except
where a specific time is herein provided for the performance of any covenant or condition, when
such default shall not be made good within ninety (90) days after notice and demand given
pursuant to the provisions of ARTICLE TEN hereof, then, in any of the events enumerated
hereto, LESSOR may, at its, option, and upon ninety (90) days notice in writing, served as
provided in ARTICLE TEN hereof, terminate this lease, and this lease and the term thereof shall
automatically cease and terminate at the expiration of said ninety (90) day period; and it shall be
lawful for LESSOR, at its option, to enter the demised premises or any part thereof and to have,
6
CA Item 3.1
hold, repossess and enjoy the said premises, and the LESSOR shall have the right to recover the
said premises and to remove all persons therefrom by summary proceedings or by any action or
proceedings. Such defaults allowing lease termination are as follows:
a)In the event that LESSEE shall fail to use said premises for the purposes hereinbefore
described in ARTICLE FIVE for one full year during the term of this lease, as provided in
ARTICLE TWO, then LESSOR may, at its option, notify LESSEE of its election to terminate
this lease.
b)In the event that, at any time during the term of this Lease, LESSEE or its assignee shall
cease to be a not-for-profit corporation, this lease shall cease and terminate at the option of
LESSOR.
c)If, during the demised term, LESSEE shall be adjudicated a bankrupt or make a general
assignment for the benefit of creditors or take the benefit of any insolvency act, or a temporary or
permanent receiver or trustee in bankruptcy is appointed for LESSEE's property and such
appointment for a temporary receiver is not vacated and set aside within ninety (90) days from
the date of such appointment, or in the event of any attempted transfer or other devolution of the
interest of any part thereof of LESSEE to any other person or corporation by reason of the acts
and things hereinabove enumerated.
d)If, during the term of this Lease, the tax assessor of Tompkins County determines that the
subject parcel is not tax exempt, this lease shall be deemed void, unless LESSEE agrees to pay -
and in fact does timely pay - any taxes levied upon the premises. In the event that this Lease is
deemed void for that reason, the parties shall attempt in good faith to re-negotiate the Lease
terms.
ARTICLE TEN: NOTICES.
Any notice which may be required under the terms of this lease shall be given in writing,
personally to:
For LESSOR: Mayor
7
CA Item 3.1
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
and
Attorney for the City
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York l4850
and
For LESSEE: Project Growing Hope, Inc.
P.O. Box 606
Ithaca, New York 14851
ARTICLE ELEVEN: ASSIGNMENT
It is hereby covenanted and agreed by and between the parties hereto that LESSEE may
not sell, convey or assign its interest in the demised premises and in any structures or
improvements thereon without the written consent of LESSOR. The approval of one assignment
by LESSOR shall not constitute approval for any subsequent assignment.
ARTICLE TWELVE: SURRENDER OF PREMISES; DISPOSITION
OF IMPROVEMENTS
Upon the termination of this lease, as a result of default (per ARTICLE NINE) or early
termination, or upon its expiration (or the expiration of a renewed term, per ARTICLE
SIXTEEN, if applicable), LESSEE covenants and agrees to surrender the demised premises,
8
CA Item 3.1
peaceably and at once, and to deliver up the same to LESSOR, subject to the remaining
provisions of this Article. LESSEE shall be entitled - but not required - to remove from the
demised premises any improvements LESSEE has made to said premises, including but not
necessarily limited to any structures (e.g., sheds, fencing, gazebo) and the topsoil from the
gardens (defined as the top eight inches of soil), provided that a relocation site requires topsoil.
Any such removal must occur prior to said termination date, must be complete (i.e., without
leaving debris, hazards, or holes in the ground) and shall be at LESSEE’s sole cost.
ARTICLE THIRTEEN: CONDEMNATION
If any person or corporation, municipal, public, private or otherwise, shall, at any time
during the term of this lease, lawfully condemn and acquire title to the demised premises or any
portion thereof, or to any building or the appurtenances now or hereafter erected thereon, or to
any easement therein, in or by condemnation proceedings pursuant to any law, general, special or
otherwise, then, in that case, LESSOR shall be entitled to and shall receive the entire award or
payment therefor; and LESSEE shall assign and does hereby assign and transfer to LESSOR
such award or payment as may be made therefor. LESSOR, in any event, shall be entitled to
receive any and all awards or payments made for any buildings and the appurtenances which
shall be so taken or for any damages thereto, free, clear and discharged of every claim of every
kind whatsoever by or on the part of LESSEE, except as hereinafter specifically provided, and
such award or payment is hereby transferred and assigned to LESSOR by LESSEE; and LESSEE
hereby further agrees that for the purpose of obtaining such award or payment, and for all other
purposes, all the buildings and improvements now standing upon the demised premises are the
sole and absolute property of LESSOR and that in no event and under no circumstances shall
LESSEE be entitled to receive or retain any award or payment or any part thereof except as
hereinafter specifically provided. Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained to the
contrary, if LESSEE shall have commenced or completed the erection of a new building or
buildings or other improvements and such condemnation takes place after the commencement or
completion of the said new building or buildings, then LESSOR agrees to pay LESSEE out of
the condemnation award or payment when paid, a sum equal to the amount awarded or paid in
9
CA Item 3.1
condemnation as the value of such building or improvements. If, in the condemnation
proceeding, the value of the land and of the buildings and other improvements are not separately
determined, then the value of the building or other improvements shall be determined by
arbitration. LESSOR agrees to give LESSEE notice of any condemnation proceedings
immediately upon knowledge of such proceedings.
ARTICLE FOURTEEN: NON-DISCRIMINATION
It is mutually understood and agreed that LESSEE, in the employment of its agents,
contractors and/or employees, shall not discriminate against any employee, applicant for
employment, subcontractor, supplier of materials or services or program participant because of
actual or perceived age; creed; color; disability; ethnicity; familial status; gender; height;
immigration or citizenship status; marital status; national origin; race; religion; sex; sexual
orientation; socioeconomic status; or weight; and any construction contract entered into by
LESSEE shall contain such a nondiscriminatory clause.
ARTICLE FIFTEEN: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
a)Waivers of Lien.
LESSEE covenants and agrees that LESSEE will not make any contract or agreement,
either verbal or written, for labor, services, materials or supplies in connection with any
improvements at any time situated upon the demised land without securing in such contract or
agreement a waiver or waivers of lien against LESSOR's interest in the demised premises; and it
is expressly understood and agreed, and notice is hereby given, that no persons, firms, or
corporations furnishing labor, materials or services for the construction, reconstruction, alteration
or addition to any building at any time during the term hereof situated upon the demised
premises shall have any lien upon LESSOR's interest in the demised premises and that any and
all liens upon LESSEE's estate and interest in the demised land and the buildings and
10
CA Item 3.1
improvements situated thereon shall be subject to the prior rights of LESSOR under the terms
and provisions of this Lease Agreement, and no authority is given by this Lease to LESSEE,
expressly or impliedly, to bind LESSOR for the payment of any money in connection with the
construction, repairing, alterations, additions or reconstruction work on the demised premises,
nor is there any authority given LESSEE by this lease, directly or indirectly, to permit any
mechanic’s lien, materialman's lien, or contractor’s lien to arise against LESSOR's interest in the
demised land or the buildings or improvements thereon, and LESSEE expressly agrees that it
will keep and save the demised premises, and LESSOR, harmless from all costs and damages
arising from any such liens or lien of any character created through any act or anything done by
LESSEE.
b)Title.
LESSOR represents and warrants that it is the owner in fee of the demised premises, as
described in Schedule “A,” attached hereto, free of all liens and encumbrances.
c)Severability.
In the event that any term, condition, clause or provision of this agreement shall be deemed null
and void, the remaining terms, conditions, clauses and provisions of this lease agreement shall
remain in full force and effect, unless the rights of either party are materially affected by the
deletion of such term, condition, clause or provision, in which case either party may elect within
90 days after the date of the notification to declare said lease null and void in its entirety.
ARTICLE SIXTEEN: RIGHT TO INSPECT
LESSOR shall have the right to inspect any part of the premises without notice at any
time.
THIS AGREEMENT shall be binding upon the parties and their successors in title.
11
CA Item 3.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have placed their hands and seals as of the
date(s) set forth below.
CITY OF ITHACA
Date: _____________________________ By: ______________________________
Svante Myrick, Mayor
PROJECT GROWING HOPE, Inc.
Date: __________________________ By: ______________________________
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )ss.:
On this day of _________, 2013, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for said State, personally appeared SVANTE L. MYRICK, personally known to me 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 he executed the same in his capacity, and
that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person of which the individual
acted, executed the instrument.
Notary Public
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )ss.:
On this day of ____________, 2013, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for said State, personally appeared ______________, personally known to me 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 of which the individual acted,
executed the instrument.
Notary Public
SCHEDULE A
The premises leased to Project Growing Hope, Inc., by the City of Ithaca, pursuant to a
12
CA Item 3.1
Lease Agreement executed in 2013 between said parties, consist of the following:
ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND, situate in the City of Ithaca, County of
Tompkins and State of New York, shown as “Parcel A” and “Parcel B” (both of which are also
denoted as “Community Gardens”) on a survey map entitled “Survey Map - Carpenter Business
Park, Third Street and New York State Route 13, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,”
dated 6/1/2001 and as revised on 2/15/02, more particularly bounded and described as follows:
PARCEL A: Commencing at a pin set in the southeasterly boundary of lands reputedly
of the Norfolk Southern Railroad, where said boundary intersects with a northeasterly line of
premises conveyed by Building Links, Inc., to Templar, LLC, by deed dated February 20, 2002,
which deed was recorded on February 22, 2002, in the Tompkins County Clerk’s Office in Liber
CD2504 of deeds at page 965, said point of beginning being located 474.10 feet southwesterly
from a pin set in the southerly line of Third Street Extension; running thence North 34 degrees
41 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 419.10 feet to a point in said boundary of lands of the
Norfolk Southern Railroad; running thence on a curve to the left, an arc distance of 65.8 feet,
with a chord running South 15 degrees 39 minutes 21.6 seconds West for a chord distance of
65.6 feet, along the westerly line of a roadway known as Carpenter Circle; running thence South
7 degrees 27 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 85.8 feet along said line; running thence on
a curve to the right, an arc distance of 97.9 feet, with a chord running South 27 degrees 29
minutes 4.7 seconds West for a chord distance of 95.9 feet, along said line; running thence South
47 degrees 30 minutes 52.4 seconds West a distance of 203.2 feet to a point marked by a pin set
in said line; running thence North 44 degrees 38 minutes West a distance of 113.7 feet to the
point or place of beginning.
PARCEL B: Commencing at a point at the corner of a chain link fence dividing “Parcel
B” from New York State Route 13, which point is located South 33 degrees 47 minutes 32
second West a distance of 247 feet, along a chain link fence, from the intersection of New York
State Route 13 with a southeasterly boundary of land reputedly of Benjamin; running thence
South 45 degrees 22 minutes West a distance of 228.3 feet to a point marked by an iron pin;
running thence North 56 degrees 11 minutes 5 seconds West a distance of 196.9 feet to a point
marked by an iron pin set in the easterly line of a roadway known as Carpenter Circle; running
thence North 35 degrees 56 minutes 24 seconds East along said line for a distance of 201.0 feet
to a point; running thence on a curve to the left, an arc distance of 139.8 feet along said line,
with a chord running North 15 degrees 54 minutes 37 seconds East for a chord distance of 137
feet, to a point marked with an iron pin; running thence South 30 degrees 54 minutes 28 seconds
East a distance of 264.8 feet to the point or place of beginning.
Being a portion of the premises conveyed to the City of Ithaca by deed from the New
13
CA Item 3.1
York State Electric and Gas Corporation dated February 21, 1986 which deed was recorded in
the Tompkins County Clerk’s Office on March 13, 1986 in Liber 615 of Deeds at page 797.
TOGETHER WITH the right of access to and along the street commonly known as
Carpenter Circle, for the purpose of providing access (from Third Street) by the public to the
premises leased from the City of Ithaca by Project Growing Hope, Inc., which right was retained
when said street was conveyed by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency to Building Links, Inc.
SUBJECT TO rights retained by the New York State Electric and Gas Corporation in the
aforesaid deed for permanent easement and rights of way upon, over, across and under the above
described premises as more particularly set forth in the aforementioned deed from the New York
State Electric & Gas Corporation to the City of Ithaca.
14
CA Item 3.1
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
1
1.2 Future use of City-owned Land at the Former Carpenter Business Park –
Resolution
By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Murtagh
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca/Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) executed a
Purchase Agreement with Building Links, Inc. in 1999 for approximately eight acres of
undeveloped land zoned I-1 located in Carpenter Business Park (CBP), which gave
Building Links, Inc. an option (the “Option”) to purchase Carpenter Business Park Tax
Parcel 36-1-3.4, which Option was subsequently defined in a 2002 agreement, and
WHEREAS, the City leased CBP Tax Parcel 36-1-3.4 to Project Growing Hope, Inc. for
a twenty-year term expiring on December 31, 2013 for use as a community garden, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca, in anticipation of future development invested over
$500,000 to build the infrastructure necessary for commercial development in the
former Carpenter Business Park; and
WHEREAS, included in the sale of Carpenter Business Park was a purchase option of
the City owned parcels leased by Project Growing Hope, Inc., which option could only
be exercised during the term of the lease with the approval of Project Growing Hope,
Inc.; and
WHEREAS, upon expiration of the lease, said option could be exercised if the Common
Council decided not to extend or renew the lease with Project Growing Hope, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, Building Links, Inc., has approached the City requesting that the lease with
Project Growing Hope, Inc., not be extended beyond the December 31, 2013 expiration
date; and
WHEREAS, Project Growing Hope, Inc. has approached the City requesting renewal of
the lease, and
WHEREAS, it is generally agreed that community gardening is a valuable public benefit
for City residents; and
WHEREAS, the City has not yet begun an analysis of the physical, legal, and financial
feasibility of other community gardening sites within the City limits; and
WHEREAS, relocation and construction of community gardens would be most
appropriately located on land that is publicly owned and not intended for future
development, and
WHEREAS, it is generally agreed upon that the Carpenter Business Park is an
appropriate location for economic development; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council directs the Mayor and City Attorney to enter
into lease negotiations with Project Growing Hope, Inc. in order to renew the lease, for a
CA Item 3.1
mutually agreed-upon term for the current site at the Carpenter Business Park; and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the lease terms commit the City to early termination if and when all
the following conditions are met:
•Final Site Plan approval by the City of Ithaca Planning Board for the development
of the lands comprising the Carpenter Business Park, of which the parcel leased to
Project Growing Hope, Inc. is included, and;
•A signed agreement with the developer for above-mentioned Site Plan that
provides the City with an easement for a future public roadway that would connect
Cascadilla Street to Third Street, through the proposed project site, in order to facilitate
and safely manage traffic impacts of additional development in the vicinity, and;
•Successful negotiations between the City and the developer for an agreed upon
cost to be paid by the developer and to be solely used by the City for relocation,
construction, and the establishment of a management framework for a substitute
garden, and;
•And, if relevant, submission of written notice of optionee’s intent to exercise the
option to acquire the Community Garden parcel pursuant to the “Option to Purchase
Real Property” agreement between the City of Ithaca and Building Links, Inc., dated
February 2002; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City provide, upon request, an owner’s authorization letter to any
developer interested in applying for site plan approval for all of the Community Garden
site as part of a proposal to develop the lands of the Carpenter Business Park ; and be
it further
RESOLVED, That a final lease agreement is subject to Common Council approval; said
approval to be sought by the Mayor and City Attorney not earlier than July 1, 2013.
Ayes (9) Dotson, Clairborne, Murtagh, McCollister, Fleming, Smith, Kerslick, Proulx,
Mohlenhoff
Nays (1) Brock
Carried (9-1)
CA Item 3.1
TO: Chris Proulx, Chair, City Administration Committee
FROM: Sheryl Swink, on behalf of the Board of Directors, Project Growing Hope, Inc. (PGH)
DATE: July 12, 2013
RE: Negotiations for New City/Project Growing Hope Lease for Ithaca Community Gardens
As you know, the current, 20-year lease between the City of Ithaca and Project Growing Hope (PGH) for the
site known as the Ithaca Community Gardens, expires at the end of 2013. This is a summarized update, for the
City Administration Committee, from the perspective of PGH, on the negotiations for a new lease, which the
Common Council directed to happen in a resolution it passed in September 2012. For the reasons explained
below, PGH believes that more discussion is urgently needed on this lease.
1.The Negotiation Process, to date.
- PGH had asked to start early lease discussion and negotiations in the Spring of 2012; that didn’t
happen and instead the topic was pre-empted by Building Links and Aeon’s insistence that the
Gardens lease (of 2.25 acres) was preventing development of the adjacent, privately-owned land
(at least 8 acres, purchased from the City in 2002).
- The Council resolution of September 2012 indicated that the Council would not consider a proposed,
new lease prior to July 2013.
- PGH found two attorneys (Jake McNamara and Dan Hoffman) who offered pro bono
representation. An informal, preliminary meeting, in late March, was arranged between
the PGH negotiating team and Mayor Myrick and an Assistant City Attorney. The City
Attorney then asked PGH to prepare a proposed, new lease, which was submitted to the City
in advance of the first actual negotiating session, which occurred on May 22, 2013.
- At the meeting on May 22nd, negotiators from the City (the City Attorney and an Assistant Attorney)
and from PGH agreed on most terms of a proposed new lease, but there was not agreement on
several key issues. Following this meeting, on June 18th, the City Attorney sent to PGH the
lease draft he said he intended to present to the City Administration Committee, including his
language for the terms that were not agreed upon.
- No further negotiation sessions have been scheduled.
- PGH believes that given the serious implications of the lease terms, further, direct discussion and
negotiation are needed.
2.The September 2012 Common Council Resolution on a New Lease for the Gardens.
- The resolution was put together and acted upon under great pressure (and misinformation) from
Building Links, and without appropriate consideration of the importance of the Gardens and the
implications of its being forced from its current site, with no plan for relocation.
- PGH and Gardens supporters had little opportunity to make the case to legislators for continuation of
this popular 40-year program and its 30-year site.
- For over 30 years, City administrations have attempted to support the community gardening concept
and to ensure that a large, accessible garden site is available and protected. Even the no-cost
option given to Building Links required the consent of PGH before the site could be sold.
- When Council acted on its resolution, last year, there was an unrealistic impression that relocation of
the Gardens, to a number of smaller, convenient sites, was feasible.
- PGH has made it clear that it supports development of the privately-owned land adjacent to the
Gardens site, and, during lease negotiations, offered a set of concessions intended to facilitate
such development in the context of a continued Gardens presence.
CA Item 3.1
3.Remaining Issue #1: Early Termination of Lease, as a Concept.
- PGH continues to believe that it would be best for the community if the Gardens had the security of a
new, long-term lease without the threat of early termination by the City.
•Both the City and the gardeners have invested in this site and its soil, for 30 years.
•Experience and research show that larger community gardens tend to be more successful;
multiple, small sites are less efficient to operate, and lack the spirit, camaraderie and
sharing that happen at larger ones. This is especially important for the immigrant, low-
income and disabled constituencies PGH seeks to involve and benefit.
•Despite the efforts of a City-assisted working group, no potential, large site for relocation of
the Gardens has been identified, nor have feasible small sites been found. Available,
open land in the City, appropriate for gardens, is extremely scarce and expensive.
•Other, progressive communities (for example, Portland, Oregon) are recognizing that
community gardens are a critical component of a commitment to sustainability, urban
agriculture and food security. Municipalities are developing local food policies that
ensure the protection and expansion of community gardens and other initiatives
promoting local and regional self-sufficiency, healthy food for all, etc.
•As noted above, PGH has proposed that, instead of an early termination option, the new lease
require PGH to take steps to facilitate the development of the adjacent, privately-owned
property - for example, by vacating the site temporarily to accommodate burial of the
NYSEG power lines, or by “trading” a portion of the leased land for land of the
adjacent owner, if site reconfiguration would enhance development options.
4.Remaining Issue #2: Timeframe and Process for Any Early Termination.
- If Council continues to view commercial development of the Gardens site as its preferred use, and
insists upon an early termination provision, it should give reasonable, adequate notice.
- PGH is asking for 3 years (or 3 garden seasons), from the time City conditions are met (rather than 90
days, as the City Attorney has proposed). 90 days does not necessarily even allow gardeners to
complete a growing season (something PGH promises they can do, when they rent a plot).
- PGH is asking for official notification of each step along the way to potential early termination. (I
recently learned, through a completely chance encounter with a City official, that Building
Links has apparently notified the City of its intention to exercise its option to purchase the
Gardens site. PGH has not received any official notification of this.)
- Determination, re: satisfaction of City conditions: PGH asks that the lease ensure this is a transparent
process, with a decision to be made openly, by Common Council (rather than by the Mayor, on
his own).
5.Remaining Issue #3: Mitigation for Any Early Termination.
- If the City wants a community gardens program to continue, notwithstanding a potential early
termination of the new lease, it must ensure a mechanism that will enable a viable new site (or
sites) to be found and secured, before the current site is lost.
- PGH wants to be “at the table” for any search, evaluation and decision-making process for a new site
or sites, and for consideration of what amount of funding will be needed to ensure continuation
of a comparable program, in the event that relocation is required.
6.Remaining Issue #4: Insurance Coverage.
- PGH notes that its operations at the leased site are relatively low-risk.
- New levels of coverage requested by the City will impose a financial burden on PGH and gardeners,
the majority being low to very-low income residents of the City.
- Coverage initially proposed by the City is greater than what is required of the Children’s Garden.
- The City Attorney has indicated that there might be some flexibility on this, on the City’s part.
CA Item 3.1
3.City Administration, Human Resources, and Policy
.2 Approval of NYSEG Easement through Parcel 55.-1-1 on Slaterville Road
July 24, 2013
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca owns a parcel of land, 55.-1-1, bordering Route 79 (Slaterville
Road), which houses a water intake plant integral to the City’s plan to increase the capacity of its
water treatment facilities, and
WHEREAS, the water intake plant requires a connection to the electrical system operated by
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG), and
WHEREAS, NYSEG, in order to supply the plant with power, must expand its infrastructure by
installing a transformer on the City’s property, and
WHEREAS, NYSEG has submitted to the City an agreement that would grant it a permanent
easement and right of way to install and maintain said transformer and its fifteen (15) feet by
fifteen (15) feet square concrete base on the City’s land, to be located approximately 1200 feet
south of Route 79, and
WHEREAS, installation of the transformer will cost $1880, which has been included in the
Council-approved budget for the water system expansion, be it therefore
RESOLVED, That Common Council grants the permanent easement requested by NYSEG so
that the City may continue with the expansion of its water system, and authorizes and directs the
Mayor to sign the necessary documents.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
M E M O R A N D U M
To: City Administration Committee
From: Krin Flaherty, Assistant City Attorney
Noah Black, Legal Intern
Date: July 15, 2013
Subject: NYSEG easement across City-owned land
________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 170-5(C) of the City Code states that Common Council must approve permanent
easements across City-owned land. Water and Sewer requested that the City Attorney’s Office
review the attached proposed easement across City-owned land.
This easement is submitted as part of the water plant upgrades. The City requested that NYSEG
connect the water intake facility on Slaterville Road to NYSEG electric. The agreement grants
NYSEG a 15 by 15 foot square of land, approximately 1200 feet south of Slaterville Road, along
Six Mile Creek Vineyard Road. NYSEG expects the installation to cost $1,880. This cost has
been included in the budget for the water system. After installation, NYSEG continues to hold
the right to use the City’s land to maintain the transformer and attached power lines.
Upon review and consultation with Water and Sewer, the City Attorney’s Office submits the
proposed easement to Common Council to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached
easement agreement.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Aaron O. Lavine, City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504
Robert A. Sarachan, Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507
Krin Flaherty, Assistant City Attorney
Jared Pittman, Assistant City Attorney
Jody Andrew, Executive Assistant
CA Item 3.2
CA Item 3.2
CA Item 3.2
CA
I
t
e
m
3
.
2
CA Item 3.2
CA Item 3.2
CA Item 3.2
4.Finance, Budget, and Appropriations
.1 Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency - Restore NY3, Downtown Commons Upper Story
Housing, Assign Loan of Restore NY funds to ItalThai LLC from the City of Ithaca to the
IURA
WHEREAS, ItalThai LLC, the owner of the Mia restaurant building (AKA the Plantation
Building) requests that the City assign its $900,000 Restore NY loan to IthalThai LLC to the
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2013, the IURA recommended that the City assign its Restore NY loan
to ItalThai LLC to the IURA to administer, and
WHEREAS, in 2009 the City of Ithaca (City) received a grant award of $1.15 million from the
Empire State Development Corporation through the Restore NY program to complete upper
story redevelopment of the Plantation Building and the Petrune building (located at 126-128 and
130-132 E. MLK/E. State Street), located within the urban renewal project boundary area.
WHEREAS, $900,000 of assistance was earmarked to ItalThai, LLC (managing member Sunit
“Lex” Chutintaranond) in the form of a grant to fill a financial gap in a proposed $2.5 million
redevelopment of the Plantation building at 130-132 E. MLK Street, and
WHEREAS, the City authorized the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to administer and
implement the Restore NY3 grant, and
WHEREAS, a City/ItalThai LLC Restore NY pass through grant agreement was developed to
provide for payment of a $900,000 grant to ItalThai LLC upon completion of the project, which
agreement was executed by the City on January 10, 2011, and
WHEREAS, in 2011 specialized tax credit legal counsel, Cannon, Heyman & Weiss, informed
ItalThai LLC that injecting Restore NY3 funding from the City into the project as a grant would
reduce the eligible tax basis of the project thereby decreasing the amount of tax credits available
to investors and resulting in a financial gap for the project, and
WHEREAS, a critical component of the financing plan for the $2.5 million project was to
leverage federal and state historic tax credits generated by the project into investor equity of over
$550,000, and
WHEREAS, injecting Restore NY3 financial assistance into the project in the form of a loan
does not reduce the eligible tax basis, and
WHEREAS, as the project financing relied on attracting at least $550,000 in equity through
historic tax credits, ItalThai LLC did not execute the Restore NY pass through grant agreement
and requested that Restore NY funding from the City be provided in the form of a $900,000 loan
at 0% interest with no payments due until the end of a 30-year loan term as a means to maximize
equity attracted through historic tax credits, and
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2011 the City and ItalThai LLC executed an agreement to loan
$900,000 in grant funds awarded to the City of Ithaca to ItalThai LLC, which loan is secured by
a mortgage on the project property, and
WHEREAS, at that time, ItalThai LLC indicated they intended to seek City approval in the
future to forgive this loan upon satisfactory completion of the project in recognition of the
project’s public benefits and that the City had originally agreed to provide Restore NY3 funds in
the form of a grant to the developer, and
WHEREAS, the mixed-use project has been successfully completed with a new ground floor
restaurant, 16 FTE new living wage jobs created, 1,100 SF of office space, and 8 new housing
units created of which two are occupied by low-and moderate-income households at affordable
rents, and
WHEREAS, both the Restore NY and federal and state historic tax credit programs have
minimum 5-year compliance periods and the Restore NY program includes a “clawback”
provision requiring repayment of grant funds to NYS in the event the project property is sold in
the first 5 years, and
WHEREAS, total project debt on the Plantation Building is approximately $1.7 million as of
2013, which exceeds the appraised value of the finished project, thereby impeding ItalThai’s
capacity to refinance and consolidate existing debt or take out new line-of-credit or term debt,
and
WHEREAS, the Restore NY loan, as currently structured, creates a significant obstacle to the
ItalThai LLC financing repairs and building improvements during the 30-year term of the
Restore NY3 loan, and
WHEREAS, the IURA developed the Restore NY3 funding application, administered the
Restore NY3 funds, loaned additional funds to the project to close financing gaps, regularly
monitors the project and manages a loan portfolio of over $4 million, and
WHEREAS, the IURA is better positioned than the City to administer the Restore NY3 loan and
analyze future requests to subordinate the mortgage to new financing, modify collateral
requirements and possibly forgive the loan to financially stabilize the project and facilitate future
reinvestment in the property while ensuring that not more than a reasonable financial return is
earned on the owner’s equity investment, and
WHEREAS, any assignment of the loan would transfer liability for compliance with regulatory
requirements, including the “clawback” provisions of the Restore NY3 program, to the IURA,
and
WHEREAS, Section 503-a of GML authorizes assignment of the Restore NY3 loan from the
City to the IURA, now, therefore, be it
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca assign to the IURA the $900,000 Restore NY3 loan to
ItalThai LLC, for the Plantation Building project located at 130-132 E. MLK Jr./E. State Street,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, subject to review by the City Attorney, is authorized to execute
any agreement to assign the loan to the IURA, and be it further
RESOLVED, That such assignment agreement with the IURA require the IURA to pay over to
the City any net proceeds received from the loan, and be it further
RESOLVED, That any out-of-pocket costs of the City to assign this loan shall be paid by
ItalThai LLC.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
April 2, 2013
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter to explain the current financial situation of the Plantation
Building Project as I was asked to clarify the reasons why this project ran over
budget. It is my intention to explain the financial losses the project faced and I am
attaching a chart to help visualize the break down of the sources of uses of funds for
the Plantation Building.
I am going to detail five major points that will help explain the financial difficulties
that weighed down the project.
1.The Plantation Building applied for a $1,100,000 Restore NY Grant as it was
needed for the project, but it only received $900,000. Confident that the
project was a good long‐term investment, we decided to go ahead and
increase our personally financial involvement by absorbing the $200,000
difference in needed funds.
2.$377,000 increase in construction cost, as it is indicated in the chart. This
increase in construction cost was due to the poor structural stability of the
building, which required further work than expected. Unfortunately some of
the structural problems became evident only during demolition and could
have not been foreseen in the planning phase. Furthermore the
Environmental Rehabilitation cost increased due to the fact that more
asbestos were found in the building and needed to be removed at an
additional expense. Lastly, the work required by SHIPO (State Historical
Preservation) was a lot more costly than anticipated.
3.$228,000 increase in Soft Costs. This increase was mostly due to the cost
involved with the State and Federal Historical Tax credit. One of the most
salient points pertaining to the tax credit is the fact that the law surrounding
the State tax credit was changed after the project had already started.
Originally, the State tax credit could have been sold nationally, but with the
new law the State credit could only be sold within the State. This decreased
the purchasing market by a great deal, making it for a much more difficult
and less competitive sale. Furthermore, this problem delayed the completion
of the project, with all the added financial strains that a delayed project
entails. Frankly, I underestimated the cost that this tax credit sale involved.
Although I availed myself of legal, consulting, and accounting advice
everyone involved still came short in the estimate of this part of the project.
4.$110,000 additional post‐closing project expenses. $20,000 of which are
additional accounting fees for cost certification, $60,000 of which are to be
CA Item 4.1
CA
I
t
e
m
4
.
1
13
0
-
1
3
2
E
.
M
L
K
J
r
.
/
E
.
S
t
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
I
t
h
a
c
a
N
Y
4/5/2013
So
u
r
c
e
s
&
U
s
e
s
o
f
F
u
n
d
s
-
R
e
s
t
o
r
e
N
Y
3
,
P
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
I
t
a
l
T
h
a
i
L
L
C
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
V
s
.
A
c
t
u
a
l
Post-Comp.Assessed
So
u
r
c
e
s
(
$
)
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
Ac
t
u
a
l
Re
p
a
y
a
b
l
e
AppraisedValue
4/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
9/
3
0
/
2
0
1
1
Ch
a
n
g
e
%
De
b
t
Value - 20092013
1s
t
M
t
g
-
2
0
y
r
a
m
o
r
t
.
@
6
.
1
9
%
39
1
,
5
0
0
39
1
,
5
0
0
0
0%
39
1
,
5
0
0
1,000,0001,100,000
2n
d
M
t
g
-
2
0
y
r
a
m
o
r
t
.
@
2
.
0
%
80
,
0
0
0
30
0
,
0
0
0
22
0
,
0
0
0
27
5
%
30
0
,
0
0
0
Eq
u
i
t
y
M
e
m
b
e
r
-
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
T
a
x
C
r
e
d
i
t
s
36
9
,
9
6
4
44
8
,
3
5
0
78
,
3
8
6
21
%
Eq
u
i
t
y
M
e
m
b
e
r
-
N
Y
S
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
T
a
x
C
r
e
d
i
t
s
65
,
4
2
5
28
0
,
2
9
1
21
4
,
8
6
6
32
8
%
Eq
u
i
t
y
-
M
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
M
e
m
b
e
r
34
6
,
9
9
7
53
1
,
0
9
2
18
4
,
0
9
5
53
%
Re
s
t
o
r
e
N
Y
G
r
a
n
t
1,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
90
0
,
0
0
0
-2
0
0
,
0
0
0
-1
8
%
90
0
,
0
0
0
IU
R
A
l
o
a
n
#
1
-
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
(
H
O
D
A
G
)
-
80
,
0
0
0
80
,
0
0
0
80
,
0
0
0
IU
R
A
l
o
a
n
#
2
-
c
o
s
t
o
v
e
r
r
u
n
(
N
H
I
)
-
30
,
0
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
De
f
e
r
r
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
F
e
e
(
s
e
e
n
o
t
e
#
2
)
18
5
,
1
6
4
46
7
,
0
3
2
28
1
,
8
6
8
15
2
%
Loan-To-Value (LTV) Ratio
To
t
a
l
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
2,
5
3
9
,
0
5
0
3,
4
2
8
,
2
6
5
88
9
,
2
1
5
35
%
1,
7
0
1
,
5
0
0
170%155%
Us
e
s
(
$
)
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
Ac
t
u
a
l
4/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
9/
3
0
/
2
0
1
1
Ch
a
n
g
e
%
La
n
d
&
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
43
5
,
0
0
0
43
5
,
0
0
0
0
0%
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
,
S
i
t
e
P
r
e
p
.
&
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
.
R
e
m
e
d
.
1,
6
7
8
,
1
3
6
2,
0
5
5
,
2
4
3
37
7
,
1
0
7
22
%
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
/
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
16
5
,
0
0
0
19
1
,
4
7
7
26
,
4
7
7
16
%
So
f
t
C
o
s
t
s
(s
e
e
n
o
t
e
#
1
)
50
,
7
5
0
27
9
,
5
1
3
22
8
,
7
6
3
45
1
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
F
e
e
s
18
5
,
1
6
4
46
7
,
0
3
2
28
1
,
8
6
8
15
2
%
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
s
-
0
0
Re
s
e
r
v
e
s
&
L
e
a
s
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
s
25
,
0
0
0
0
-2
5
,
0
0
0
-1
0
0
%
To
t
a
l
U
s
e
s
2,
5
3
9
,
0
5
0
3,
4
2
8
,
2
6
5
88
9
,
2
1
5
35
%
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
o
s
t
-
C
l
o
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
Ac
t
u
a
l
Ch
a
n
g
e
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
T
a
x
C
r
e
d
i
t
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
f
e
e
0
20
,
0
0
0
TC
A
D
f
e
e
-
C
I
I
P
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
0
30
,
0
0
0
Ta
x
C
r
e
d
i
t
I
n
v
e
s
t
o
r
f
e
e
0
80
,
0
0
0
13
0
,
0
0
0
13
0
,
0
0
0
No
t
e
s
1.
"
S
o
f
t
C
o
s
t
s
"
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
,
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
,
l
e
g
a
l
&
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
,
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
,
a
p
p
r
a
i
s
a
l
,
t
a
x
e
s
&
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
.
2.
"
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
F
e
e
"
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
f
o
r
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
a
x
b
a
s
i
s
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
R
T
C
e
q
u
i
t
y
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
.
"
D
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
F
e
e
"
w
a
s
n
o
t
p
a
i
d
o
u
t
d
u
e
t
o
c
o
s
t
o
v
e
r
r
u
n
s
.
3.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
s
t
o
v
e
r
r
u
n
a
f
t
e
r
s
u
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
v
s
.
a
c
t
u
a
l
"
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
f
e
e
s
"
i
s
$
6
0
7
,
3
4
7
(
$
8
8
9
,
2
1
5
-
$
2
8
1
,
8
6
8
)
4.
I
U
R
A
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
u
n
d
e
r
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
L
o
a
n
-
T
o
-
V
a
l
u
e
n
o
t
t
o
e
x
c
e
e
d
8
0
%
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
-
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
4
/
3
0
/
0
9
,
P
o
r
t
C
i
t
y
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
L
L
C
,
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
e
d
b
y
S
.
C
h
u
t
i
n
t
a
r
a
n
o
n
d
,
I
t
a
l
T
h
a
i
L
L
C
,
4
/
2
/
1
3
Ac
t
u
a
l
-
Re
z
n
i
c
k
G
r
o
u
p
,
P
.
C
.
,
1
0
/
2
4
/
1
1
,
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
e
d
b
y
S
.
C
h
u
t
i
n
t
a
r
a
n
o
n
d
,
I
t
a
l
T
h
a
i
L
L
C
,
4
/
2
/
1
3
Prepared by N. Bohn
CA
I
t
e
m
4
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
4
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
4
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
4
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
4
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
4
.
1
CA
I
t
e
m
4
.
1
paid to the tax credit investor, spanned into a five‐year period. The
remainder is the fee that TCAD charged me for tax abatement.
5.The last point that I would like to explain is the difficulties that I am facing
because the original grant of $900.000 that I was awarded was converted to
loan and is now being administered by the City of Ithaca. The presence of this
loan, even without any repayment requirements, has stifled our capacity to
borrow. We are unable to borrow funds for operations or even for repairs to
the property.
Finally I would like to add a statement about the location of Mia restaurant, housed
in the Plantations Building. Originally we were confident that the location of Mia
restaurant would have been a plus for the Commons as it was bringing new life and
pedestrian traffic to an area that was not being as popular as other areas on the
Commons. I am afraid that I overestimated the location, pedestrian traffic has not
increased very much as a lot of people are still not making it to the middle of the
Commons looking for a restaurant, most diners seem to stay within Aurora Street,
commonly known as Restaurant Row. Parking is also another problem, as many
diners are still not taking full advantage of the Green Street garage.
As I mentioned, the location of the restaurant is not ideal. I am very confident that it
is only matter of time when the middle of the Commons will start picking up and
become as vibrant as other parts of it. However, the upcoming renovation of the
Commons is going to put a strain on my restaurant. Access to Mia will be diminished,
and this construction will undoubtedly keep diners away. I am very concerned
about the financial outcome that this endeavor will put on the survival of my
business.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Regards,
Sunit “Lex” Chutintaranond
Member, IthalThai LLC
CA Item 4.1
4.Finance, Budget, and Appropriations
.2 Authorization of Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP) Application
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation has noticed the availability of the
federal Transportation Enhancement Program, and
WHEREAS, on June 2013 the Board of Public Works considered various projects that would be
eligible for such funding and recommended a project for the West Martin Luther King Jr./West
State Street corridor between Floral Avenue and Taughannock Boulevard, which is eligible for
funding under Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended and
WHEREAS, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle accommodations in this corridor would help
connect the West Hill and West End neighborhoods to the rest of the City’s commercial,
recreational, natural, educational, and residential destinations, and
WHEREAS, corridor enhancements would also help connect the rest of the City to the
burgeoning non-motorized circulation system in and among the city’s various waterfront districts
for residents and visitors alike, including the recent Floral Avenue trail, the Cayuga Waterfront
Trail, and the Black Diamond Trail, and
WHEREAS, Common Council is interested in applying for a Transportation Enhancement
Program grant in order to design and construct enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities in this
corridor; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Mayor of the City of Ithaca, is hereby authorized and directed to submit
an application for funding to the New York State Department of Transportation in accordance
with the provisions of the Transportation Enhancement Program, in a amount not to exceed
$750,000, and upon approval of said request to enter into and execute a project agreement with
the State for such financial assistance to the City of Ithaca for design, right-of-way acquisition,
construction and construction inspection of a project to enhance pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations in the West Martin Luther King Jr./West State Street corridor from Floral
Avenue to Taughannock Boulevard, and be it further
RESOLVED, That contingent upon award of the Transportation Enhancement Program funds,
the Common Council hereby authorizes the establishment of Capital Project #790 to pay in the
first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal share of the cost of all work for the Project;
and be it further
RESOLVED, That contingent upon award of the TEP funds, the sum not to exceed $750,000 is
hereby appropriated from serial bonds and made available to cover the cost of participation in the
above Project in the first instance; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the total project cost shall not exceed $750,000 with the understanding that
the breakdown of funds to be approximately $600,000 in federal Transportation Enhancement
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
Program funds, and $150,000 in City of Ithaca serial bond financing, to be administered by the
Superintendent of Public Works, and be it further
RESOLVED, That in the event the full federal and non-federal share costs of the project
exceeds the amount appropriated above, the City of Ithaca Common Council shall convene as
soon as possible to appropriate said excess amount immediately upon the notification by the
NYSDOT thereof; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor of the City of Ithaca be and is hereby authorized to execute all
necessary Agreements, and that the Superintendent of Public Works is hereby authorized to
execute all certifications or reimbursement requests for Federal Aid and/or Multi-Modal Program
Funding on behalf of the City of Ithaca with NYSDOT in connection with the advancement or
approval of the Project and providing for the administration of the Project and the municipality's
first instance funding of project costs and permanent funding of the local share of federal-aid and
all Project costs that are not so eligible; and be it further
RESOLVED, That a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the New York State
Commissioner of Transportation by attaching it to any necessary Agreement in connection with
the Project; and be it further
RESOLVED, That this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
CA Item 4.2
CA Item 4.2
CA Item 4.2
4.Finance, Budget, and Appropriations
.3 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 146 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled
“Building Code Enforcement” Article 4, entitled “Plumbing”, Section 146-30 entitled
“Permits, C. Fees”
WHEREAS, Plumbing Permit Fees are a necessary and reasonable cost to the public for the local
administration and enforcement of public health and sanitation laws required by State
regulations, and
WHEREAS, it is a necessary function of government to assess public service activities from time
to time to determine the actual cost to the community and to establish reasonable fees for the
proper discharge of said public services, and
WHEREAS, the current Plumbing Permit Fee structure for the City of Ithaca is significantly
lower than the surrounding area, owing mostly to the fact that these fees have not been changed
in over 40 years, and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to have a more actuate cost sharing of plumbing review and
inspection services in the form of Plumbing Permit Fees for end users who are the primary
recipient of those services than to rely on rate payer revenues, now therefore be it
ORDINANCE 2013-___
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1:
Chapter 146, Building Code Enforcement, Article 4, Plumbing, Section 146-30 Permits, C. Fees
shall be amended by adding enumeration (1) as follows:
(1) City of Ithaca Plumbing Permit Fee Schedule
New construction
•Single Family Residences: $50 application fee plus $5 per fixture
•Multiple Residences 2-10 units: $100 application fee plus $ 5 per fixture
•Multiple Residences 11-20 units: $250 application fee plus $5 per fixture
•Multiple Residences 21 units or more: $500 application fee plus $5 per fixture
•Commercial or Other Plumbing work under $25,000: $100 application fee plus $10 per
fixture.
•Commercial or Other Plumbing work between $25,000 to $100,000: $250 application fee
plus $10 per fixture.
•Commercial or Other Plumbing work between $100,000 to $500,000: $500 application fee
plus $10 per fixture.
•Commercial or Other Plumbing work over $500,000: $750 application fee plus $10 per
fixture.
Renovations and Additions:
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
• Single Family Residences: $25 application fee plus $5 per fixture
• Multiple Residences: $100 application fee plus $ 5 per fixture
• Commercial or Other Plumbing work: $100 application fee plus $10 per fixture.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
Partial Service Users
All permit fees for work conducted on premises not connected both to City water and City sewer
service or not anticipated to be connected both to City water and City sewer service once
connected to any water or sewer service shall be based on the City of Ithaca Plumbing Permit
Fee Schedule for Commercial or Other Plumbing work plus 15 percent of the total therein
specified.
______________________________________
Legislative Intent
The revenues collected by the City through the regular issuances of water and sewer bills
establish the budget and spending allowances of the Water and Sewer Division. The office of the
Plumbing Inspector is an expenditure within that Division. Although plumbing permit fees do
contribute to the Water and Sewer revenues, 95% of the expenditures required for plumbing
services are now covered by rate payer revenues. It is the intension of this legislation to shift
more of that cost onto the primary user of the service, specifically, the permit holder in the form
of plumbing permit fees that more accurately reflect the actual cost to the City to provide
plumbing review, inspection and enforcement.
This proposed Plumbing Permit Fee structure will bring our rates in line with the rates of other
jurisdictions in our area while providing a more equitable cost sharing solution between the rate
payers and permit holders. A planned “phase-in” of all rates seems impractical and
counterproductive due to the historically low existing rates.
Sliding Scale.
The fee schedule keeps the Single Family Residential permits at a reasonable cost at somewhere
in the $30-$40 range for most work while providing a "sliding scale" for all other types of
construction. The increases in the fees are proportional to the amount of review that is
associated with more complicated or compound plumbing construction (multiple types, high
rises, mixed uses). The issues that necessitate a higher degree of plan review such as: fire flows,
large meter sizing, valve placements, equipment locations, backflow requirements, grease trap
sizing, utility service sizing and entrance coordination, storm water regulations, sanitary
discharge requirements and others, qualify the higher fees.
Within the "sliding scale" fees there are two general categories of Multiple Residence and
Commercial. In the Multiple Residence fees, the application cost increase with the number of
units and reflects the increased administrative effort needed to approve plans and specifications,
coordinate with department personnel and resources, and to execute the requirements for issuing
the permit. The fixture fees are universal for multiple residence applications and represent the
costs associated with inspections and the administration of the actual construction phase.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
Commercial and Other
The Commercial or Other (Academic, Industrial, etc) application fees are similar to the Multiple
Residences fees accept that, instead of units, the fee is based on the dollar value of the plumbing
work (Actual Total of Labor and Material). Our Building Department uses a similar method of
total construction cost to determine the Building Permit fee. The actual formulas may vary but
the concept and premise are the same. The dollar value is used to represent the amount of
plumbing work or equipment being installed. The greater the dollar value, the greater the
administrative review. Fixture fees are higher but universal within the category and represent the
costs associated with inspections and the administration of the actual construction phase. The
higher fixture costs associated with commercial plumbing equipment is justified in that there can
be found in these types of fixtures more specialized and unique installation requirements than
standard household plumbing. Here the gamut extends beyond bathrooms and kitchens to
plumbing items designed for other Industries. Examples are: cooling towers and chillers, steam
and hot water boilers, commercial dishwashers, chemical rinse dispensers, sterilizers, surgery
tables, dental aspirator, medical vacuum/water systems, fume hoods, lab sinks, wok stoves,
landscape irrigation systems, grease and sediment interceptors, sewage ejectors, water filtration
systems, make-up water for fan/coil systems, etc... Commercial plumbing fixtures will therefore
require more effort and knowledge of code and manufacturers requirements than fixtures
associated with Multiple Residences.
Plumbing Permit Fees for partial service users within the City of Ithaca
Water and Sewer revenues make up the largest funding source for plumbing inspection services.
This revenue stream is generated by quarterly billings for water usage (metered water) and sewer
charges based on water consumption. However, not all properties within the City take both
water and sewer from the City. These customers are identified herein as “partial” service users
since the City bills them for water only or for sewer only and, as such, they contribute less to the
Water and Sewer revenue budget for similar service.
This proposal adds a “cost recovery” fee for properties identified as partial service users of 15%
added to the total cost of the Plumbing Permit. It is intended to help defray costs that full rate
payers subsidize now and create a more equitable end user fee that more accurately reflects the
true costs of providing plumbing review and inspection services for each user type.
Cost Justification
The old black leather-bound ledger found in the Vault at the Water and Sewer Division held the
historical record of plumbing permits issued in the City of Ithaca. The first entry, dated October
31, 1973 was issued to a plumbing contractor by the name of Albanese. The permit was for a
new house to be built at 253 Westwood Knoll and included the installation of 14 plumbing
fixtures at $1 per fixture and an application fee of $5 as a single family residence…total $19. If
Mr. Albanese were to apply today for the same permit (40 years later) it would be issued at the
cost of…$19! Let this be submitted as cost justification #1.
A cost comparison of Plumbing permit Fees among other jurisdictions in our area was done in
2012 and reported in an e-mail to the Superintendent of Public Works and to the Assistant
Superintendent, Water and Sewer Division attached. The proposed fee structure is well within
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
the ranges being charged in areas such as: Cortland, Elmira, Auburn, and the Bolton Point Water
Authority (Town of Ithaca, Lansing, Dryden….)
The actual cost vs. revenues for the City is represented in the bar chart below. The proposed fees
will not exceed the cost of supply plumbing inspection services. It is evident that water and
sewer rate payers will continue to be the major funding source for plumbing services even after
shifting more of the costs to the permit holders.
2012 Plumbing Permits:
Actual Plumbing Permit Fees
collected in 2012
$5,138.00
Proposed Plumbing Permit
Fees
$36,135.00
$110,000
100,000
90,000
(Plumbing Inspection Expenditures)
Salary 80,000
Overhead (200-400 accounts)
Inspection Services Contract 70,000
Staff assistance
60,000
Plumbing Permit Fees Collected in 2012
50,000
Proposed Plumbing Permit Fees
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
An analysis of 2012 Plumbing Permits for the City of Ithaca shows:
Number of permits………………………117
Total revenue from permits….…..…$5,136
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
Expenditures:
Inspector’s salary……………………$64,493
Salary overhead (40%)…………… $25,797
Contractual services……………… $12,000
Office overhead and staff support....$ 8,000
Total budgeted expenditures…...($110,290)
Revenues from Proposed Fees………………$36,135
Section 8. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this
local law. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this local law is held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion.
Section 9. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with
law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS \City Admin Comm\2013\7-24 CA Agenda.docx 7/24/13
4.Finance Budget, and Appropriations
.4 Gateway Pedestrian Bridge - Authorization for Allocation from Bridge Reserve Fund
WHEREAS, the City constructed the Gateway Pedestrian Bridge over Elmira Road in 2001 and
WHEREAS, a portion of the pedestrian bridge occupies state-owned property, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation granted permit 33669 to the City
of Ithaca to build, occupy and maintain the pedestrian bridge on state-owned property, and
WHEREAS, a provision of the permit from the New York State Department of Transportation
requires that the City provide and pay for periodic inspection of the bridge, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation has requested that the City
conduct such an inspection, and
WHEREAS, engineering staff estimates that the cost of such an inspection will not exceed
$15,000, and
WHEREAS, the City has a bridge reserve Capital Reserve #4 Bridges, in place with a current
balance of $92,000; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby allocates an amount not to exceed $15,000 from
the Bridge Reserve Fund for the purpose of engaging a licensed engineer to conduct the required
inspection of the Gateway Pedestrian Bridge.
CA Items 4.4
CA Items 4.4
CA Items 4.4
CA Items 4.4
CA Items 4.4