HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-15 City Administration Committee Meeting AgendaCA Meeting
City Administration Committee
DATE: April 15, 2015
TIME: 6:00 pm
LOCATION: 3rd Floor,
City Hall, Council Chambers
AGENDA ITEMS
Item Voting
Item?
Presenter(s) Time
Allotted
Chair, Deb Mohlenhoff
1. Call To Order * Note: We will review the number of 15 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.
Approval of March 2015 Minutes
1.3 Statements from the Public No
1.4 Statements from Employees No
1.5 Council Response No
2. City Administration, Human Resources, and Policy
2.1 Attorney - Cascadilla Boat Club License Yes Ari Lavine, City Attorney 45 Min
2.2 YB – Request to Amend 2015 Roster Yes Liz Vance, Youth Bureau Director 5 Min
2.3 YB – Request to Amend 2015 Budget Yes Liz Vance, Youth Bureau Director 5 Min
2.4 Planning – Replacement of Stone Sidewalk in Yes Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation 15 Min
East Hill Historic District – Material Distributed
under separate cover
3. Finance, Budget, and Appropriations
3.1 DPW – Request for Funding for Engineering Yes Erik Whitney, Asst. Supt. for W&S 15 min
Services Agreement for Enhanced Primary Feasibility
Study for WWTF
3.2 Attorney – Request for Funds for Litigation Yes Ari, Lavine, City Attorney and 5 Min
and Legal Services Steve Thayer, City Controller
3.3 DPW – Authorization to Fund Seasonal Position Yes Jeanne Grace, City Forester 10 Min
4. Performance Measures No Kevin Sutherland, Chief of Staff 5 Min
Nothing Submitted
5. Common Council
5.1 Mayor’s Office – Local Law to Implement Yes Kevin Sutherland, Chief of Staff 10 Min
Sustainable Energy Loan Program
5.2 Mayor’s Office – Authorization to Implement Yes Kevin Sutherland, Chief of Staff 10 Min
and Administer a Sustainable Energy Loan Program
6. Budget Process
6.1 Doodle Poll – Budget Schedule No Kevin Sutherland, Chief of Staff 10 Min
7. Meeting Wrap-up All 5 Min
7.1 Announcements No
7.2 Next Meeting Date: May 20th
7.3 Review Agenda Items for Next Meeting No
7.4 Adjourn Yes
(8:35 p.m.)
Committee Charge: The CA committee will:
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.
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.
2. City Administration, Human Resources, and Policy
.1 Attorney - Cascadilla Boat Club License
WHEREAS, the Cascadilla Boathouse (the “Boathouse”) has since 1978 hosted the Cascadilla
Boat Club (“CBC”), enabling CBC to provide rowing programs to area community members,
with a strong emphasis on area youth, and
WHEREAS, the substantial majority of CBC rowing participants are area youth, virtually all of
whom are Ithaca High School students for whom CBC provides their only opportunity to row,
and
WHEREAS, the licensing of the Boathouse by an organized boating program enables members
of the public wishing to row in Stewart Park to more fully enjoy the recreational and athletic
opportunities of the Park and its unique geography on the shores of Cayuga Lake, and
WHEREAS, a robust rowing program available to the public enjoying Stewart Park requires a
substantial investment in rowing equipment, organizational management, and Boathouse
administration, and
WHEREAS, such investment would likely prove out of reach for the City in light of financial
and staffing constraints, absent a public-private partnership of the sort undertaken in the license
authorized herein, and
WHEREAS, Section 2 of said license ensures that participation in CBC’s activities will be
available to all members of the public via membership application and payment of fees, which
may not be unreasonably large, said unreasonableness to be evaluated after accounting for
discounted or income-sensitive opportunities for participation in CBC’s activities, and
WHEREAS, Section 2 of said license requires CBC to file with the City Clerk an annual report
on (a) the then-current fee structure for membership and participation in CBC, (b) the
reasonableness of said fee structure, and (c) community participation opportunities and events
being offered by CBC, and
WHEREAS, said license provides CBC with non-exclusive use of the licensed premises insofar
as the exterior licensed areas, with the exception of some minor areas of equipment storage, are
for the non-exclusive use of CBC, and will under this license remain accessible to even those
members of the public who do not join CBC’s rowing activities, indeed enhancing those
members of the public’s use of the park insofar as they can also enjoy use of CBC-provided
docks, and
WHEREAS, said license permits CBC to securely store locked within the first floor of the
Boathouse the rowing shells and other equipment necessary to servicing the public’s enjoyment
of rowing in the surrounding park, and
WHEREAS, the license permits CBC to share the first floor with the Ithaca Youth Bureau in
satisfaction of that aspect of the City’s storage needs in the Boathouse, and
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
WHEREAS, the license does not at this time permit CBC any usage of the second story gym in
the Boathouse, and
WHEREAS, said license as proposed would provide the City with $12,727.14 annually in
license revenue, with upward adjustments in accord with the Consumer Price Index, and
WHEREAS, said license fee of $12,727.14 annually was arrived at based upon the Pomeroy
Associates appraisal employed by the City pursuant to Chapter 170 of the City Code, and based
upon the assessed value of Stewart Park, and
WHEREAS, said license is for a term of three years, and
WHEREAS, Section 6 of said license provides the City unfettered ability to revoke or modify
said license upon at least nine months’ written notice that the Common Council has so resolved,
and
WHEREAS, concurrent with this Resolution, the Common Council may consider a technical
amendment to the definition of “License” in Section 170-2 of the City Code permitting licenses
in excess of one year in term if revocable upon less than a year’s notice, thus eliminating that
provision’s inconsistency with Section 170-4(B), entitled "License (for up to one year, and/or
revocable upon less than a year's notice; subject to other conditions)"; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council finds, as facts precedent to this resolution’s
authorization to enter into the subject license, each and every declaration and assertion
contained in the Whereas clauses of this resolution; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council finds that the licensing of the Cascadilla Boathouse to
an organized boating program, and specifically to CBC, best enables the public to enjoy the
recreational and athletic boating opportunities offered by Stewart Park, and more particularly
the exceptional siting of the Boathouse on the water, and thereby fulfills a valid park purpose,
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council finds that the licensing of an exclusive, locked space
internal to the Boathouse and narrowly-tailored to the equipment-storage needs of CBC most
effectively serves the public in enjoying the recreational and athletic rowing opportunities
offered by the surrounding features of Stewart Park, and more particularly the exceptional siting
of the Boathouse on the water, and be it further
RESOLVED, That if any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this resolution or the
license herein authorized, or the application of any of the aforesaid to any person or
circumstance, shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
unenforceable, or otherwise contrary to applicable law, such judgment shall not affect, impair or
invalidate the remainder thereof, or the application thereof to any otherwise unimpacted person
or circumstance, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph,
section, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have
been rendered, it being the conclusion of the Common Council that all aspects of this resolution
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
and accompanying license fully comport with applicable law and it being the binding intent of
the Common Council to license to CBC, insofar as authorized herein, to the greatest extent
permitted by applicable law, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council authorizes the Mayor, upon the advice of the City
Attorney, to execute with CBC a license agreement for a term not in excess of three years
(absent renewal) and substantially similar to that included herewith.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
Requested information from the City Administration Committee meeting
This was the list of requested information compiled at the CA meeting on 2/28.
(1) Outreach and Diversity initiatives
(2) Oversight of Safety of boaters
(3) Have other boating uses been explored in the boathouse?
(4) CBC relationship with IYB
(5) CBC outreach to local schools
Here is the information from the IYB
(4) CBC relationship with IYB (CBC and Liz from IYB)
The YB has not had too much interaction with CBC. We do share space with them at the boat house. Canoes used in our
Outings program are stored in one area of the boat house. The relationship seems to be OK.
Years ago Stewart Park Day camp utilized the floating docks for their summer boating program before the dock was
built.
That is the extent of our relationship at this point.
Liz also noted that there has been some frustration with storage of equipment in the shared space and that sometimes
IYB equipment is blocked by CBC equipment.
Here is the information provided by the CBC
(1) Outreach and Diversity initiatives
Cascadilla Boat Club reaches out to the local community in a number of ways, but we do not conduct targeted
demographic recruiting. To make rowing more accessible to all, we offer a number of scholarships. This past year,
around 30% of our scholastic participants received a scholarship. Our outreach has evolved over the years, but the
following is our typical outreach schedule:
Boynton Middle School, Ithaca High School, and Dewitt Middle School
A combination of coaches and varsity rowers recruit in the spring f by attending gym classes, demonstrating indoor
rowing, and talking about on the water experience. In the past, with appropriate permissions, a demonstration boat was
put in the IHS pool. In addition, we use PTA listservs to let the community know about registration and season start
information.
National Learn to Row Day
CBC hosts an open house offering tours of the Boathouse, coached rows, and demonstrations of sculling shells. 2014
attendance was approximately 70.
This event is hosted by masters rowers with flyers advertising the event distributed throughout the city.
Ithaca Festival
The scholastic team puts together a float and walks in the parade passing out information about our programs.
The Club sponsors a table where we handout information on our programs and encourage people to come to National
Learn to Row Day or sign up for one of our learn to row classes for adults or youth.
Row for Humanity
This event has been held in various locations over the years, including the Mall at Ithaca, Stewart Park, and the Ithaca
Festival.
Rowers get sponsors and pledge a certain number of minutes or kilometers on the ergometer or indoor rowing machine.
Part of proceeds have been donated to local Habitat for Humanity.
Brochures and Flyers
We distribute flyers and brochures at many locations throughout Ithaca, including local schools, the Ithaca Youth
Bureau, and various locations on the Commons.
Other
This year, we distributed flyers at a Tompkins County Public Library event in support of their current exhibit on Cornell
Rowing and the book, Boys in the Boat.
We send out press releases to local press with season wrap ups and recruitment information.
(2) Safety of boaters
CBC follows US Rowing’s Guidelines. US Rowing is the governing body for rowing in the United States.
US Rowing’s most recent guidelines directly address cold water concerns: http://www.usrowing.org/News/15-03-
02/Safety_Guidelines_Cold-Water_Protocols_and_Best_Practices.aspx.
CBC’s safety guidelines were revised two years ago by CBC Safety Committee Chair, Dan Robinson, Head Men’s Rowing
Coach at Ithaca College.
CBC’s safety guidelines are posted on our website: http://www.cascadillaboatclub.org/index.php/rowing101/links
Overuse and repetitive strain injuries are the most typical type of injury in rowing.
Dan Robinson recently explained that in his 30 plus years rowing or coaching on Cayuga Inlet, he does not know of any
rower being hurt in an accident while being coached on the water.
U.S. Rowing reports no drownings anywhere in the U.S. during supervised rowing activities.
(3) Have other boating uses been explored in the boathouse?
Not to our knowledge.
CBC’s mission is to introduce, provide access, and coach sculling and sweep rowing. We do not have the expertise to run
a kayak or canoe concession. Puddledockers does an excellent job of getting people on the protected waters of the
Cayuga Inlet in kayaks and other small personal craft.
Use of both boat bays is essential to run our programs. This past year, we had 500+ registrations for our programs. To
get that many people on the water, we need a lot of boats. The north boat bay is filled with large scholastic team boats.
About 2/3rds of the south bay is used for club boats, oar and other storage. The remainder is used for private sculling
boat storage. The club sculling boats are used in the following programs: youth competitive programs, masters learn to
row, masters recreational programs, and for members who are qualified to row without a coach. We use the area to the
north of the building to store the boats used in our Learn to Row and modified (middle school) programs. The south bay
is also used for team workouts in inclement weather.
(4) CBC relationship with IYB
As far as I know, we do not have a formal relationship with the Ithaca Youth Bureau. IYB stores their canoes in the large
garage portion of the boathouse.
(5) CBC outreach to local schools
See our response to question one about outreach. While we are not affiliated with Ithaca High School, we have more
scholastic IHS athletes than any other IHS team with the possible exception of the track and field team. Over 90% of our
scholastic rowers are ICSD students.
Additional issues raised for clarification
Membership:
Anyone can sign up for our programs. We do not require membership to take classes. Most participants are not
members at all.
Membership allows the following privileges.
• Use of club boats for people who qualify to row without a coach.
• Vote in Board elections.
• Put your name on the waitlist for rack space rental.
Single Use Boat Rentals:
Some Common Council members have suggested that any member of the public should be able to rent a shell. Unlike a
kayak or a canoe, where an inexperienced person can hop in and have fun, rowing requires a certain amount of
instruction in order to be done safely. We offer a variety of opportunities to learn how to row. None of our programs
require membership to participate.
Rack Space Rental:
It has been suggested that CBC makes a profit from rental of rack space. We do not. In 2014, rental of rack space
provided CBC with about $3,500 in revenue. As a non-profit, these fees are used to offset the high costs of running a
rowing program. Program fees do not cover the costs.
Almost all rowing clubs rent rack space. For example, the West Side Rowing Club in Buffalo currently charges $300/year
for a single and the Saratoga Rowing Association currently charges $400/year (as a reference CBC’s approved rack rental
fee for 2015 is $200). Not only does having someone use their own boat free up club boats for other members, but boat
owners bring an invaluable level of consistency, commitment and knowledge to the club. Without our masters
members, CBC would not be able to run our scholastic programs.
Experienced masters rowers who have their own boats store them at the boathouse as it is not practical to transport
and rig a sculling boat on a daily basis. Unlike other sports, most parents do not have experience with rowing and can
not step in as rowing is unlike any other water sport. These masters rowers are essential to the club; they provide
expertise and assistance with building and maintaining boats and docks, as well as coaching and mentoring scholastic
and beginning masters rowers. Without rack space rentals, we would lose our most experienced rowers.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
MEMORANDUM
To: Common Council
Cc: Board of Public Works, Parks Commission
From: Ari Lavine, City Attorney
Date: February 12, 2015
Re: Basics of Parkland Licensing Law and the Cascadilla Boathouse Proposed License
As the Common Council begins its deliberations, via the City Administration Committee,
upon a new proposed license of the Cascadilla Boathouse (the “Boathouse”) to the Cascadilla
Boat Club (“CBC”), I want to take this opportunity to provide you with a primer on the basics of
parkland licensing law, as applied to the proposed license.
The Public Trust Doctrine
Public parks in New York State are protected by something called the Public Trust
Doctrine, which is defined not by statute or regulation, but by the state courts across more than a
century of judicial decisions. This means that while the State’s executive branch—such as the
State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (“OPRHP”)—can read those judicial
decisions and provide guidance on how OPRHP believes the courts might rule on proposed
parkland uses, OPRHP has no binding authority to approve or disapprove of the legitimacy of
proposed uses under the public trust doctrine. Rather, OPRHP’s legal counsel can—much as the
City’s legal counsel can—read the caselaw and provide a reasoned analysis in support of an
advisory position, i.e., provide legal advice.1 The courts may ultimately disagree with OPRHP,
and as a matter of law would likely give no particular deference to OPRHP’s views on the matter.
•1 Whether OPRHP would in fact choose to issue an advisory opinion to the City, if asked,
and how many months or years that process would take in light of staff constraints and
priorities for both the City and OPRHP, are unknowns. Even if issued in a timely manner,
that advisory opinion might well disclaim the status of legal advice in any event.
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
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
So what is the public trust doctrine? In a sentence, it is the legal principle that public
parkland in New York must be preserved (not sold or leased) for public use (even if via private
operation) for park purposes (not other purposes, even if public). In legal terms, when parkland
is committed to use in violation of the public trust doctrine, it has been “alienated.” Alienation
can only be legally achieved by specific statutory dispensation from the state legislature.
Alienation occurs when parkland is sold or leased (but not licensed), or when it is committed to
non-park purposes (even via license) for an extended period of time. “Courts have given wide
leeway to park administrators to determine when an alienation is occurring. Courts have also
permitted a host of commercial facilities in parks so long as they genuinely serve park users.”2
This memorandum addresses first the distinction between leases and licenses, then turning to the
body of law speaking to park and non-park purposes, including the role of public-private
partnerships in serving park purposes.
Leasing vs. Licensing of Parkland
As stated by New York’s highest court just last year in a leading case on parkland
licensing:
A document is a lease “if it grants not merely a revocable right to be exercised over the
grantor's land without possessing any interest therein but the exclusive right to use and
occupy that land”. It is the conveyance of “absolute control and possession of property at
an agreed rental which differentiates a lease from other arrangements dealing with
property rights”. A license, on the other hand, is a revocable privilege given “to one,
without interest in the lands of another, to do one or more acts of a temporary nature upon
such lands[.]” [“Generally, contracts permitting a party to render services within an
enterprise conducted on premises owned or operated by another, who has supervisory
power over the method of rendition of the services, are construed to be licenses”]. That a
writing refers to itself as a license or lease is not determinative; rather, the true nature of
the transaction must be gleaned from the rights and obligations set forth therein. Finally, a
broad termination clause reserving to the grantor “the right to cancel whenever it decides
in good faith to do so” is strongly indicative of a license as opposed to a lease.3
In keeping with the requirements of a license, the proposed CBC license conveys no
interest in the lands; permits a predominantly-non-exclusive use of the City premises, and only
then for the specified use of operating a rowing program for public benefit; permits limited
instances of exclusivity only as deemed necessary by the City in order for CBC to service the
2 N.Y. Zoning Law & Practice Report, Five Innovative Ideas for Funding Parks and Open Space,
Vol. 13, No. 1 at 3, citing inter alia Williams v. Gallatin, 229 N.Y. 248, 252-53 (N.Y. 1920); 795
Fifth Ave. Corp. v. City of New York, 15 N.Y.2d 221, 205 N.E.2d 850 (1965).
3 Union Square Park Cmty. Coal., Inc. v. New York City Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 22 N.Y.3d
648, 656, 985 N.Y.S.2d 422 (2014) (internal citations omitted).
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
non-exclusive, public, park purposes to which the license is directed (a rowing program); is
subject to the City’s supervisory power in a number of respects directly bearing upon CBC’s
provision of rowing services; is for a term of only three years; and is subject to a broad right of
the City to terminate at will, on nine months’ notice.
Park and Non-Park Purposes, and the Legal Role of Public-Private Partnerships
In 1920, New York’s highest court set the benchmark for examining parkland uses,
stating that permissible uses of parkland are the “common incidents of a pleasure ground [that]
contribute to the use and enjoyment of the park,” “facilitate free public means of pleasure,
recreation, and amusement, and thus provide for the welfare of the community,” and “provide
means of innocent recreation and refreshment for the weary mind and body.”4
Since that time, a series of cases have confirmed as legitimate parkland purposes uses as
diverse as restaurants5; mini-golf courses6; bike-share programs7; and even a privately-operated,
for-profit, multipurpose concert amphitheater seating 19,500 people, occupying over nine acres
of parkland, and charging the public on average $30 for admission.8 A decision of just two years
ago regarding a parkland bike share stations is highly instructive to the proposed Boathouse
license, observing:
In the instant case, the court finds that the bike share station is a proper park
purpose for purposes of the public trust doctrine. As an initial matter, respondents have
provided evidence that bicycling is an important form of recreation that has had a proper
“park purpose” for many years demonstrated by the fact that the infrastructure to support
bicycling, such as bike paths, bicycle racks and rest stations are common incidents in
parks. Specifically, DPR installed a bicycle rack in Petrosino Park prior to the bike share
station's installment and it is still maintained there today. Further, a bike share station is
unlike those facilities found by courts to have improper park purposes, such as court
houses and school houses, as a bike share station has a direct connection to the important
park purpose of bicycle recreation and allows easy access to and further encourages the
use of parkland by the public.9
Each and every element of the above paragraph’s analysis applies equally to the proposed
Boathhouse license: rowing as an important form of recreation, a specific history of rowing in the
4 Williams v. Gallatin, 229 N.Y. 248, 254 (N.Y. 1920).
5 Union Square, 22 N.Y.3d 648 (2014).
6 Concerned Citizens of Valley Stream, Inc. v. Cahill, No. 12650/2001, 2002 WL 553820 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. Mar. 26, 2002.).
7 Friends of Petrosino Square ex rel. Fleischer v. Sadik-Khan, 42 Misc. 3d 226, 977 N.Y.S.2d
580 (Sup. Ct. 2013).
8 SFX Entm't, Inc. v. City of New York, 297 A.D.2d 555, 747 N.Y.S.2d 91 (2002).
9 Sadik-Khan, 42 Misc. 3d 226, 231-32.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
park, “the infrastructure to support” the same (i.e., the very Boathouse as to which this license
would pertain), and “a direct connection to the important park purpose of [rowing] recreation.”10
It is also permissible for the licensed use to require the public to pay fees for
participation. For example, the above-discussed decision notes “Petitioners' assertion that the
bike share station is an improper park use because the Program charges a fee is also unavailing.
Concessions with fees such as bike rentals, boat rentals, cafes and ice skating rinks are common
in parks and have consistently been upheld as proper by the courts.”11
In sum, public-private partnerships have become downright commonplace in parks
throughout New York, and were (again) approved as a park purpose—in the form of a 15-year
license of parkland to a for-profit restaurant—by New York’s highest court just last year. At the
extreme, entire parks are legally operated by private entities, including New York City’s Bryant
Park. This is possible because “it is the nature of the use rather than the nature of the user” that
determines the validity of a public-private partnership in a park.12 These are therefore
permissible, subject to appropriate requirements, where the private operation benefits public use
of the parkland. That question of public benefit is in the first instance a choice for the
municipality to make, balancing a license’s benefits to park use against that license’s impacts on
other park uses. A “mere difference of opinion” “as to the best way to use the park space” is “not
a demonstration of illegality.”13
Conclusions
The principles enunciated in the memorandum yield a few relatively simple conclusions
in the current context:
Boating, and in particular rowing, qualifies as an appropriate recreational
parkland use under New York’s public trust doctrine, and specifically in the
context of Stewart Park.
The proposed license is properly designated a license, not a lease.
It is for the Common Council to decide in its reasoned discretion whether
licensing a portion of the Boathouse to CBC is an effective means of
providing boating services to the public in Stewart Park, in fulfillment of a
park purpose.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 232.
12 Port Chester Yacht Club, Inc., v. Village of Port Chester, 507 N.Y.S.2d 465 (2d Dep’t 1986).
13 Union Square, 22 N.Y.3d 648, 655 (2014) quoting 795 Fifth Ave. Corp. v. City of New York,
15 N.Y.2d 221, 225, 205 N.E.2d 850 (1965).
AGREEMENT / REVOCABLE LICENSE FOR USE OF CITY REAL PROPERTY
THIS AGREEMENT, made this ___ day of ____________, 2015, by and between:
►The Cascadilla Boat Club, a domestic not-for-profit corporation with a mailing address at P.O. Box
4032, Ithaca, NY 14852, (hereinafter referred to as “LICENSEE”),
and
►The CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK, a municipal corporation having offices at 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca,
New York (hereafter referred to as "CITY"),
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, CITY is the owner of a parcel of land with improvements thereon in the City of Ithaca,
County of Tompkins, State of New York, commonly known and designated as the Stewart Park Boathouse, the
Stewart Park bank of Fall Creek, and as Tax Map Parcel No.2.-2-2; and
WHEREAS, LICENSEE wishes to use certain land in the City of Ithaca owned by CITY, for the purpose
of operating a rowing program that broadens public opportunity for rowing on the waters adjoining Stewart Park,
which CITY-owned land consists of approximately 2,810 square feet of space within the boathouse structure and
18,462 square feet of land surrounding the boathouse which use can be described as follows:
An area within the City-owned land known as Stewart Park and which is located at the
northwestern point of the park commencing at a point on the western shoulder of Stewart Park
Road located approximately 39 feet east of the southeastern corner of the boathouse extending
approximately 88.75 feet to the northwest and then southwest for a distance of 201.09 feet and
then southeast 30.00 feet to the western bank of Fall Creek and then following the bank of Fall
Creek southeast approximately 223.42 feet and then north 97.58 feet returning to the point or
place of beginning, which is shown on the drawing attached to this agreement labeled Exhibit A.
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the licensed area does not include the area constituting
the boathouse structure or its footprint, except as hereinafter provided.
The licensed area shall also include access to and use of the following areas totaling
2,810square feet within the structure located within the boundary described above, hereinafter
referred to as “the Cascadilla Boathouse”: 2,404 sq ft of boat storage rooms, 275 sq ft under and
around the base of the stair (but not including any permitted storage on stair landings or on the
stairs themselves), and 131 sq ft at the stairs leading from the boat bay. When and if the City
chooses to make the second floor gym available for use by the Licensee, the licensed area shall
also include 2,435 sq ft for the second floor gym, which shall at that time be factored into the
Annual Use Fee on a pro-rated basis so as to exclude that prospectively-estimated portion of the
year when the gym space is unavailable to CBC for use. Availability of the second floor gym
shall be a determination made by the Board of Public Works, on recommendation of the
Superintendent of Public Works, but only if and when all mandatory processes are satisfied,
including verification of code compliance of the use.
Any indoor area not specifically described in this license agreement is not included
within the licensed premises and is therefore excluded from the licensee’s permitted use under this
agreement. The licensed premises are to be used for launching and docking boats at the Stewart
Park bank of Fall Creek, and storage and use of boats, exercise equipment, and other club
equipment within the Stewart Park Boathouse; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 170 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca establishes the process and the
terms and conditions by which the CITY may license the use of its real property to a person or persons; and
WHEREAS, the CITY’s Common Council has authorized the Mayor to execute an agreement containing
a revocable license that allows the above-described use, subject to certain conditions;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained,
including receipt by CITY from LICENSEE of the fees described herein (either in full, or pursuant to an
installment payment agreement), the parties hereto, for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns, do hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1.By the License herein contained, LICENSEE shall have the right to lawfully use the City-owned land
described above, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, for the purpose of operating a rowing
program in a manner that serves and enhances the public’s recreational and/or athletic engagement with Stewart
Park via access to rowing on the waters adjoining Stewart Park (said access to meet the requirements specified in
Section 2 of this Agreement). The CITY reserves the right to enter upon the licensed premises upon reasonable
notice (or without notice in the event that the CITY, in its sole discretion, has determined that emergency entry is
required) for the purpose of inspection or to assess or remedy a dangerous or potentially dangerous condition.
2.The License herein contained does not grant LICENSEE sole and exclusive use of the CITY-owned
unimproved-land described above. Notwithstanding other provisions within this paragraph, LICENSEE shall have
sole and exclusive use of the licensed area within the Cascadilla Boathouse, as described above, excepting the
second floor gym, which if ever incorporated into this license, shall be open to community use on such terms and
conditions as the CITY may from time to time specify, in its sole discretion. Said exclusive use is granted for the
sole purpose of servicing (primarily via boat storage) the non-exclusive uses granted under this license.
LICENSEE’s use of Stewart Park shall in no way infringe or restrict the general public’s use of the Park grounds
or the Stewart Park bank of Fall Creek. When not in active use by LICENSEE, any improvements to the Stewart
Park bank of Fall Creek shall be open to and useable by the general public. Participation in LICENSEE’s
activities, including any and all rights granted to individuals for boat storage within the Boathouse, shall be
available to all members of the public via membership application (which may contain reasonable rules and
criteria for membership) and payment of a recurring membership fee, which shall not be unreasonably large, said
unreasonableness to be evaluated after accounting for discounted or income-sensitive opportunities for
participation in LICENSEE’S activities. LICENSEE shall, not later than the due date of the annual license fee
payment under this agreement, file with the City Clerk a report on (a) the then-current fee structure for
membership and participation in LICENSEE, (b) the reasonableness of said fee structure, and (c) community
participation opportunities and events being offered by LICENSEE.
3.The use by LICENSEE of the above-described property of the CITY does not constitute and shall
never ripen into or become a right to use any portion of such property without the consent of the CITY, but is and
shall continue to be only a use by sufferance of said property of the CITY, as evidenced by a duly executed and
current License/Agreement.
4.Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 5, below, the term of the License contained herein shall be for
the period commencing April 1, 2015 (or on the date by which all application and use fees and any required forms
described herein are received by CITY, whichever date is later) and expiring on March 31, 2018. This License
shall, subject to the limitations in the next sentence, renew automatically on the annually-recurring anniversary of
the commencement date, for three-year terms that shall supersede the unexpired two-year remainder of any
previously-executed license between the parties. Such automatic renewals shall, unless otherwise agreed in a
properly-executed writing, be on the same terms and conditions as this license (except that the amount of the Use
Fee may be revised annually, per the provisions of Paragraph 7, below), and shall be effective only if (i)
LICENSEE has submitted to CITY any required renewal forms, proof of insurance and the full and proper fee for
the renewal period, before the commencement of such new term (i.e., before April 1st), and (ii) the CITY has not
notified LICENSEE, by March 1st, of the CITY’s intention not to renew the license.
5.Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, the License contained herein may be terminated by
LICENSEE, for any reason, upon at least 30 days’ written notice to the CITY. In the event of such early
2
termination, LICENSEE shall be entitled to a pro-rated refund of the use fee, for the unused portion of the term,
provided that LICENSEE is in compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 9, below. Such early termination
shall not relieve LICENSEE of its duty to restore and deliver up the licensed premises as described below.
6.Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, the License contained herein may be revoked or modified
by CITY (a) upon such notice as is practical, in the event of an emergency that threatens property or the public
safety or welfare, or (b) upon at least one month’s written notice to the Licensee that the Superintendent of Public
Works, in an oversight capacity to LICENSEE’S use of CITY Parkland, has determined that LICENSEE has
failed to comply with any substantive term herein, and that LICENSEE has not cured such breach within the
notice period, or (c) upon at least nine months’ written notice to LICENSEE that the CITY’s Superintendent of
Public Works has determined that the licensed premises is required for a public purpose, or that the Common
Council has resolved to so terminate this license. LICENSEE may appeal a non-emergency revocation or
modification (other than by final vote of the Common Council) to the CITY’s Board of Public Works, but must do
so in writing within 15 days of the receipt of the revocation notice. In the event of such early termination (or
modification that affects the amount of land that is licensed), LICENSEE shall be entitled to a pro-rated refund of
the use fee, for the unused portion of the term (or in proportion to the reduced area), provided that LICENSEE is
in compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 9, below.
7.This Agreement/License shall not take effect until fully executed and until the use fees set forth below
have been received by the City.
Annual Use Fee: The Use Fee for the initial year of this license is $12,727.14.1
A check in this amount, payable to the City of Ithaca, must be submitted to the City Chamberlain’s office by April
1 of the license year. This Use Fee represents the estimated fair rental value of the City land in question for the
initial year, and is based upon a report by Pomeroy Appraisal Associates (copy available in the City Clerk’s office)
and pro-rated portion of the assessed value of Stewart Park.
The unimproved City land in question was deemed to be in the “Marine Commercial” category, and to
consist of approximately 18,462 square feet. The fair rental value of such land was deemed to be $0.43 per square
foot; to recover the cost of the appraisal process (over a 5-year period), the CITY has added 10% to the fair rental
value of all licenses and permits for use of City land, making your total rate $0.47 per square foot.
The licensed premises within the City-owned boathouse is licensed land with improvements, consisting of
approximately 2,810 square feet. The fair rental value of such land with improvements was deemed to be $1.44
per square foot, based on the assessed value of the park.
The Use Fee for subsequent years may be adjusted by CITY by an amount up to the rate of any increase in
the consumer price index since the previous year. The Use Fee may be adjusted to correspond with information
from an updated appraisal report (expected to occur every 5 years); however, if the CITY intends such adjustment
based on an updated appraisal report, LICENSEE shall be so notified by February 1st prior to such adjustment.
The Use Fee may be adjusted at such time as the second floor gym is available for use and shall be pro-rated to
exclude time when the space is unavailable for use.
Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, the CITY hereby reserves the right to correct the amount of
the Use Fee at any time, if the square footage of land occupied by LICENSEE is found to be different from the
amount stated above. In that event, the CITY shall send a Notice of Correction to LICENSEE, and any additional
fee owed (or refund due) as a result of the correction shall be effective and pro-rated as of the date of such Notice.
Likewise, in the event that the licensed premises are reclassified by Tompkins County as taxable, the full amount
of assessed taxes shall be incorporated into a corrected Use Fee, as of the date such taxes become due.
Subject to prior written approval of the Superintendent of Public Works upon completion of all
appropriate and necessary approval processes, which approval shall be granted or withheld in the City’s sole
discretion, the Licensee may seek to provide improvements to the building or land, and may seek a credit against
the subsequent year’s Use Fee in that dollar amount approved in the sole discretion of the Board of Public Works,
based primarily upon amounts paid out of pocket by the LICENSEE or value of work performed or materials
1 Total assessed value of park ($11,250,000) divided by the square footage of park (7,805,516.4) multiplied by square
footage of leased boathouse area (2,810) = $4,050. When added to $8,677.14 for land area (based on Pomeroy
Associates appraisal), $12,727.14 total is achieved.
3
supplied by the LICENSEE, as to the valuation of which the Board may require LICENSEE to submit an
independent estimate, to provide improvements to the building or land, but only insofar as said improvements are
deemed, by a vote of the Board of Public Works, to better the building or land in a manner consistent with the
City’s long-term interest in the building and land, and not merely to the contemporaneous benefit of the Licensee.
The Licensee shall submit proposed improvements in writing to the City.
Utility Fees: LICENSEE hereby agrees to pay an additional $920 per year, representing the estimated
Stewart Park Boathouse utilities. Said $920 is comprised of an estimated $650 for electricity and an estimated
$810 for water, of which CBC is responsible for an estimated one-third of said water charge, or $270, subject to
adjustment of the water charge component in the Superintendent of Public Works' sole discretion if temporary
metering installed at the City's option indicates an alternative estimated proportion of usage based on hours of
usage measured. LICENSEE’s failure to pay this estimated utility charge shall constitute a failure to comply with
a substantive term of this license and shall be grounds for the CITY to revoke or modify the license.
8.LICENSEE hereby agrees to maintain the licensed premises in a safe, sound, clean and serviceable
condition, in accordance with all applicable ordinances of the CITY and such that no hazard is posed to the public
from the public’s use of or proximity to said premises, and to repair or remove any unsafe or improper structure or
thing thereupon, placed, constructed or caused by the Licensee, as directed by the CITY. In the event of
LICENSEE’s failure to effect such repair or removal, after notice from CITY to do so, CITY may carry out the
same and charge LICENSEE and its benefited property for such cost (plus a 25% administrative charge).
Notwithstanding other provisions of this paragraph, LICENSEE shall not be responsible for lawn mowing or
repairs to the City owned structures, namely the Cascadilla boathouse, except for broken windows adjoining the
licensed area, as to which causation of the breakage shall be irrelevant to this provision, and as to which
LICENSEE shall pay the City’s full cost, including labor and materials, of repair or replacement at the City’s
option, plus a 25% markup for overhead, provided, however, that the City shall endeavor to provide ten days’
opportunity to the LICENSEE during which LICENSEE may at its own expense directly execute the required
repair so long as LICENSEE has within 24 hours of provision of notice boarded up any openings in the broken
window.
LICENSEE agrees not to store boats or other equipment on land outside the boathouse, except that
licensee may store boats in current use on storage racks and trailers in current use in those locations identified in
Exhibit C hereto. In the event of LICENSEE’s failure to follow this provision, the CITY may, without notice,
remove LICENSEE’s property, effect necessary repairs, and charge the LICENSEE for such cost plus a 25%
administrative charge.
With respect to trash and refuse removal, including but not limited to any plastic bottles, cups, towels,
socks or other clothing, left on the grounds of the licensed premises, LICENSEE's failure to remove all trash or
refuse and keep the licensed premises in a tidy and clean condition shall be a violation of LICENSEE's obligations
under this paragraph. LICENSEE shall be liable for a penalty of $40 for the first violation at the licensed premises
within a twelve-month period, $60 for a second violation within a twelve-month period, and $100 for a third or
subsequent violation within a twelve-month period. Such penalties shall be added to any charges imposed by the
CITY for costs of removal plus the 25% administrative charge.
Within three months of the annually-recurring anniversary of the commencement date, LICENSEE and
the CITY agree to conduct a joint walk-through of the boathouse, together documenting the building condition as
the parties mutually see fit.
9.LICENSEE hereby agrees that it is LICENSEE’s duty, at the end of the term (in the absence of timely
renewal thereof) or in the event of other termination of the License, to deliver up the licensed premises in as good
order and condition as they were at the commencement of the License (reasonable use and wear excepted), unless
the CITY agrees in writing to accept the premises in a different condition. Unless otherwise agreed to by the
CITY, such delivery shall include removal of any debris and any structures installed by LICENSEE. Any damage
to the premises or any debris remaining thereupon at such time shall be presumed to have been caused by
LICENSEE. In the event of the failure of LICENSEE to effect the required restoration, within ten (10) days of the
date of written notice from the CITY, or the end of the term, whichever is later, the CITY may thereafter cause the
restoration to occur and may subtract the cost thereof from any pro-rated refund due to LICENSEE and/or may
assess the cost thereof (plus 25%) against LICENSEE and its benefited property.
4
10.LICENSEE hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the City and its officers and employees harmless
from any loss, injury or damage arising out of the occupancy or use of the Licensed property, by LICENSEE or its
servant or agent, or—with respect to internal portions of the building licensed to Licensee—by any member of the
public, or from any negligence or fault of said LICENSEE or its servants or agents in connection with the
maintenance of the afore-mentioned Licensed property, or the failure to maintain the same in good repair and safe
condition, including attorneys fees and court costs, provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall apply to
loss, injury or damage arising directly and proximately from actions or omissions of the Ithaca Youth Bureau or its
servants or agents insofar as they are serving a purpose of the Ithaca Youth Bureau. LICENSEE acknowledges
that it will likewise hold the City harmless from any costs the City may incur, including legal fees, due to any
claims which may arise out of LICENSEE’s obstructing, encumbering or occupying any portion of the public area
of any adjacent street, including the sidewalk.
11.LICENSEE hereby agrees to keep the licensed premises insured at all times, in the amount of at least
$1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury liability and $5,000,000 in excess
general liability, to list the City as an additional insured under said insurance policy, and to provide written proof
of such insurance from the insurer, at the time of execution of this agreement, by the time of the annual
anniversary of said original execution if this License is to be renewed, and as may be otherwise required by the
City.
12.In the event of the expiration and non-renewal, or termination, of this License, failure of the
LICENSEE to vacate the formerly licensed premises at that time may result in substantial penalties, pursuant to the
Municipal Code of the CITY.
13.The LICENSEE may not assign, transfer, or sublicense this License. The LICENSEE accepts
responsibility for, and hereby commits to observe and enforce, all mandatorily-applicable safety regulations
pertaining to LICENSEE’S activities on the licensed premises.
14.Licensee shall not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment, contractor or
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, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, or weight.
15.Licensee hereby agrees that if any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this license or its
authorizing resolution, or the application of any of the aforesaid to any person or circumstance, shall be adjudged
by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unenforceable, or otherwise contrary to applicable law, such
judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, or the application thereof to any otherwise
unimpacted person or circumstance, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph,
section, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered, it
being the intent of LICENSEE and CITY to preserve the terms of this license to the greatest extent permitted by
applicable law.
16.All notices provided for herein shall be sent to CITY at the address set forth above (in care of the
City Chamberlain), or to LICENSEE (or any subsequent owner or person, as described above) at the address set
forth above, or at any other address provided in writing to CITY by LICENSEE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year
first above written.
5
CASCADILLA BOATCLUB
By: _________________________________
Name:
Title:
CITY OF ITHACA
By: _________________________________
Svante L. Myrick, Mayor
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) ss:
On this _____ day of ____________, 2014, 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/he executed the same in her/his capacity, and that by her/his signature on the instrument, the individual, or
person on behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument.
____________________________________
Notary Public
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) ss:
On this _____ day of _____________, 2014, 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 who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides at
Ithaca, New York, and that he is the Mayor of the City of Ithaca, the municipal corporation described in and which
executed the above instrument; and that he signed his name thereto upon authorization of the Board of Public
Works of such corporation.
____________________________________
Notary Public
Approved as to form and content:
______________________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney Date
6
Exhibit A
Boathouse Area: Hatched area depicts approximate licensed premises under this agreement.2,810 sq
ft (includes boat storage rooms, stair areas
Land Area: Shaded area depicts approximate licensed premises under this agreement.
18,462 sq ft = (22,759– 4,297, square footage of building footprint)
7
8
City Lease/License Overview
Organization Location Lease/License? Amount pd to city? Other Notes
Hangar Theatre Hangar Theater
(North of Cass Pk)
Lease. ~$34,500 (or equivalent via in-
kind improvements to premises).
Ithaca Children’s Garden Cass Park South Lease. No money paid, but in-kind
improvements provided by ICG.
By State dispensation per
approved legislation.
Dragon Boats Cass Park Dock License. $411.31 per dock face, +$50.
Southside Community Ctr 305 S Plain St Lease. ~$1. The City finances ~$150,000
of Southside’s operation
each year.
Ithaca Farmer’s Market 545 3rd St Lease. ~$30,000. Lease is via IURA.
Cascadilla Boat Club
1. What is Cascadilla Boat Club (CBC)?
CBC is a non-profit rowing club. We provide the opportunity to row for anyone interested
in rowing from grade 7 on up. Our programs include youth and adult learn to row,
scholastic competitive teams, and masters memberships. In addition, members can pay
a rack fee to keep their boat in the sculling bay. All fees are used to provide safe
facilities, quality rowing equipment, and excellent coaching.
2. What is rowing?
Rowing is one of the original Olympic sports of the modern games. Crews of between
one and eight rowers compete in a variety of events, with the large eight boats drawing
the largest crowds.
3. Who can row?
Anyone can row! Rowing is a lifelong sport and can be learned at any age. Any member
of the community is welcome to sign up for one of our sessions. Scholastic age rowers
typically don’t begin rowing until 9th grade. Adults can begin rowing (and competing) at
any age. Our masters range from former competitive high school/collegiate rowers to
parents of former CBC scholastic rowers.
● For juniors, we offer learn to row camps, middle school (modified) recreational
teams, high school novice (first year) and varsity competitive teams. Our
scholastic rowers look forward to racing and enjoy competing. Competition helps
provide structure and focus to training. CBC has a no cut policy, and all junior
rowers can participate in some capacity.
● For adults (masters), we offer learn to row and coached recreational rowing.
Many of our members compete, have competed, or train daily as if they were
planning on competing. Others row in singles for fitness. Club boats are
available at no cost for adult members who qualify to sign out and row on their
own.
4. Is rowing a team sport?
Rowing is a regarded by many as the ultimate team sport. While there are individual
events, the vast majority of rowers, especially at the junior level, row in large team boats.
Teamwork is critical for a large boat’s success. Rowers must row together with the
same timing and power to each stroke. A rower who stands out will make the boat
slower and more difficult to steer. A crew is composed of individuals who sacrifice their
personal goals for the team. Winning teammates successfully match their desire, talent
and bladework with one another. It’s no accident that inspirational posters for teamwork
often feature images of rowers.
5. Can I try rowing sometime?
Absolutely! We offer opportunities on National Learn to Row Day for any member of the
community to stop by, take a tour, and row a boat. Adult and youth interested in learning
more can sign up for one of our many learn to row classes.
CBC is committed to advancing the sport of rowing in Ithaca.
6. Why do rowers work out so much?
Rowing is one of the the most physically demanding sports as it requires a unique
combination of power and endurance. Training plans must incorporate a wide variety of
exercises ranging from short intense strength building to long low intensity steady state
workouts that can last upwards of 90 minutes. Due to the high physical demands of the
sport, competitive rowers train year round to build stamina, strength and flexibility. CBC
offers scholastic teams programs year round, including off water winter conditioning
sessions.
7. Do adults have to buy boats to row?
No. CBC has club boats that qualified members can row. Part of our membership and
rack fees go to maintaining a modest fleet of boats for our masters members. For
beginners, we offer coached sessions on club boats.
8. What else does rowing foster?
Character. Rowing builds endurance, courage, strength, and fosters an appreciation for
the value of teamwork. On the individual level, rowing builds character, not only through
the physical demands of the sport, but through off-water responsibilities for themselves,
their equipment and their team. They learn to love and appreciate being out on the water
and come to care deeply about the environment.
Parents frequently describe their child’s experience rowing as transformational. It’s not
uncommon for rowers to start as typical teenagers and after a year or two become
focused, dedicated and responsible. Rowing teaches a lot about discipline, goal setting
and our ability to push through perceived physical and mental barriers.
Scholastic rowers learn to manage their time. With 6:00 a.m. practices, rowers can not
sleep in. If a rower is late or absent, it impacts the entire team. Boats need everyone on
the team to be there or they can’t go out.
Finally, rowers have many off water responsibilities. They disassemble the boats, load
them on the boat trailer, and reassemble them when the team travels to and from
regattas. Loading the trailer is labor intensive and time consuming, and it takes
everyone on the team. No matter how exhausted the rowers are from racing, they know
that they have to take care of the equipment.
9. Does CBC win races?
Yes! Three Olympians have rowed with CBC as junior rowers. The junior teams
typically do well. Some have medaled at prestigious races like the Head of the Charles
in Boston and the Royal Canadian Henley in St. Catherines, Ontario, and qualified for
the National Championships. At the masters level, several of our adult rowers are top-
ranked and win medals at national and international championships. Ithaca has a strong
tradition of rowing dating back to the 1800’s, and we are fortunate to have a good deal of
expertise in our boat club.
10. Is rowing expensive?
Yes. Rowing is an expensive sport with costs similar to those of horseback riding, skiing,
and ice hockey. Equipment and coaching costs are high. For example, the large eight
boats, which are the most common boat for juniors, cost upwards of $30,000. Given the
high interest in rowing at CBC, we need a lot of boats and launches to get as many
people on the water as possible. Costs are incurred for regattas with fees charged for
rowers that include: hotel, food, transportation, entrance fees, and coaching. CBC offers
scholarships for the scholastic programs to make the sport as accessible as possible,
but it is an expensive sport.
11. Does CBC make money?
We are a non-profit organization. As a rowing club, we incur a lot of expenses,
particularly for our juniors programs. Our program fees do not cover costs fully. We
conduct fundraising throughout the year to cover additional costs such as scholarships,
coaching, insurance, and equipment.
12. The Boathouse looks so old, is it historic?
Rowing has a long history in Ithaca with Cornell being one of the first schools to offer
rowing as an interscholastic sport. In fact, rowing was the first interscholastic sport in the
United States.
The Boathouse was built as a boathouse by Cascadilla School. It’s one of the few
buildings that is being used for its original purpose. The City of Ithaca owns the
boathouse, which is on the National Register of Historic Buildings. CBC has a licensing
agreement with the city and has been housed in the Boathouse for the last 38 years.
We love sharing our passion for rowing and welcome the public to visit the Boathouse
during one of our learn to row days.
13. Are your juniors programs part of Ithaca CIty School District?
No. As members of the Ithaca community, the Ithaca City School District allows us to
use their multipurpose room for meetings and recognizes IHS students who win the New
York State Rowing Association’s Athlete-Scholar Award. We have no affiliation with the
district and are open to any high school athlete who can make our practices. Rowers
come from as far away as Corning and Whitney Point.
Rowing competitions are divided into scholastic teams, which are wholly part of a school
district, and club teams, which welcome rowers from a variety of school districts. CBC is
a club team and can not compete as a club at Scholastic National Championships.
14. What does CBC bring to the Ithaca community?
CBC promotes the sport of rowing in the Ithaca community. Rowing provides many
benefits to the community beyond outreach. In part, below are some benefits to Ithaca.
● Opportunity: CBC provides many opportunities for community members of all
ages and skill levels to learn a new sport. We are not simply a youth sports
league. In 2014, we had more than 80 members of the public show up to row at
National Learn to Row Day. For adult learn to row, we had 57 registrations. For
our youth camps, we had 80. Our middle school or modified program is
extremely popular and frequently sells out.
● College: Rowing is an intercollegiate sport. At a minimum, colleges look
favorably on rowing as an extracurricular activity. CBC rowers often are recruited
for rowing.
● Intergenerational: Rowing is one of the few sports that is intergenerational.
Masters members range from high school graduates to well into their eighties.
Masters are excellent role models and mentor scholastic rowers and scholastic
coaches, helping on and off the water. The club would not exist without our
dedicated masters, some of whom learned to row after witnessing their teens
row. This represents a unique benefit to the community. It keeps older people
involved and active with a scholastic program long after their kids are grown.
● Safety: CBC provides a presence in a relatively isolated area of Stewart Park.
During the summer months, there is almost always someone at the boathouse
making the area feel safer and more secure.
● Revenue: CBC brings revenue and tourists to the city of Ithaca. Our spring
regatta brings 204 rowers and their families from all over central New York to
Cass Park to watch the races on the Inlet. These families shop in Ithaca, eat in
Ithaca, and often stay overnight in Ithaca. Invariably, these families talk about
how Ithaca is their favorite place for a regatta because they can make a weekend
of it.
15. Someone told me that rowing was dangerous, is that true?
No. Rowing is very safe compared to most other sports. However, like all sports, rowing
has some inherent risks. Due to the high physical demands of the sport, overuse
injuries are the main concern with rowing. Through the use of proper technique and
treating injuries promptly, these injuries can be either avoided or overcome with no
lasting impact in most cases.
US Rowing, the sport’s governing body in this country, has extensive guidelines that all
member clubs, including CBC, must follow to ensure that rowing is a safe and enjoyable
sport. Guidelines include swim test requirements, coaching training, minimum
equipment requirements, and much more. US Rowing does not have any instance
where a junior rower anywhere in the United States has died rowing. Rowing is enjoyed
on waterways throughout the United States.
Our safety plans were designed by well-known collegiate coaches and approved by
CBC’s Board. Our board includes collegiate coaches and experienced and competitive
masters with many years experience at a variety of boat clubs internationally. We run
background checks on our coaches before we hire them, and they receive CPR and
First Aid training at the club’s expense. In addition, they are trained each season by Dan
Robinson, Head Men’s Coach at Ithaca College, who has been on the Inlet for 40 years
and understands the unique challenges it presents.
16. Who is on CBC’s Board?
The CBC Board is composed of a mix of coaches, rowers, and parents. Combined we have
nearly 100 years of rowing experience.
● Beth La Londe - parent of former CBC rower and master rower
● Dan Robinson - Head Men’s Rowing Coach at Ithaca College
● Elizabeth Ellis - parent of current CBC rower and competitive master’s rower
● Emily Rockett - former CBC assistant coach, former rower at Williams College
and Oxford University, and competitive master’s rower
● John Tauzel - former Cornell rower and competitive master’s rower
● Liz Dennison - Staley Head Coach of Rowing at Cornell University and former
collegiate and high school rower
● Kevin Brew - parent of former CBC rower
● Marty Van Der Heide - former Cornell rower, former head coach of CBC, and
competitive master’s rower
● Pam Hanna - parent of former CBC rower and master rower
17. What’s it like to go to a regatta?
Catch the excitement as two of our scholastic rowers win gold at the Royal Canadian Henley.
(They competed against teams from as far away as British Columbia and South America.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7XcMbC45PU&authuser=0
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
MEMORANDUM
To: Common Council
Cc: Board of Public Works, Parks Commission
From: Ari Lavine, City Attorney
Date: April 13, 2015
Re: State Grants and the Cascadilla Boathouse Proposed License
As the Common Council continues its deliberations, via the City Administration
Committee, upon a new proposed license of the Cascadilla Boathouse (the “Boathouse”) to the
Cascadilla Boat Club (“CBC”), I want to take this opportunity to thank Alderperson Brock for
her recent concern and engagement regarding contractual obligations to the State that the City
has taken on in the course of accepting grant funding for the Boathouse over the years.
As City Attorney, I take very seriously the need to abide the legal mandates of the public
trust doctrine by maintaining our parkland for public park purposes. That is why I have so
diligently crafted a legally-compliant proposed license for CBC's continued operation out of the
Cascadilla Boathouse (the "Boathouse").
As Alderperson Brock has brought to Council’s (and the State’s) attention, the City has
taken on contractual obligations to the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
("OPRHP") over the years—in the 1990's, and again in 2013—in the course of contracting for
various grants provided by the State (via OPRHP) to the City for improvement of the Boathouse.
In substance, those contractual obligations impose little beyond the requirement already imposed
by the public trust doctrine: namely, that parkland be used for public park purposes, as
determined by the courts of New York State.1 That, of course, has been the bedrock principle
guiding the analysis and discussion of this topic throughout.
1 Indeed, the City’s contractual obligations to OPRHP likely end short of parkland doctrines such as the public trust
doctrine, because OPRHP’s grants were issued as historic preservation grants, not parkland improvement grants.
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
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
Nor need Council rely merely upon my analysis of the situation. Rather, I have taken the
opportunity to discuss the matter with OPRHP, and they have confirmed:
a. that the City’s licensing determinations for the Boathouse are not subject to
OPRHP approval;
b. that OPRHP has long been aware of CBC’s presence in the Boathouse; and
c. that OPRHP supports the goal of maintaining CBC’s activities in the Boathouse.
These latter two points are also amply borne out by the grant history between the City and
OPRHP, which I believe can prove quite informative on the topic at hand.
The 1993 Grant Agreement
Alderperson Brock’s correspondence with the State has focused in particular on the
grants received by the City under the Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1986 (the "EQBA").
I'd like to take a moment to share some of the details contained in the City's contract of August 6,
1993 with OPRHP, dispensing EQBA funding to the City.
That contract—as executed by a Deputy Commissioner at OPRHP and approved as to
form by the Attorney General—specified that the City had to spend the grant funds in accordance
with the project description contained in Schedule A, which reads as follows: “The Cascadilla
Boat House was built in 1895 and is located in Stewart Park. The City of Ithaca will use this
grant to undertake the structural stabilization of the building … This well known landmark is
located in a public park and is home to the Cascadilla Boat Club.” (emphasis added).
The 1992 Application for that Grant
Moreover, the City's March 31, 1992 application for these same EQBA grant funds—
upon which OPRHP undoubtedly relied when entering into the 1993 grant agreement—contained
the following within its Project Summary:
The structure is currently occupied by the Cascadilla Boat Club…, caretaker for Stewart Park, with
some areas used by the city for storage.
Although in poor condition, the Boathouse retains sufficient integrity to represent its historical function, its
association with the evolution of the sport rowing and the influence of educational institutions on Ithaca's
development.
....
The major spaces of the boathouse are…:
The boat rooms, located on the western part of the first floor. These rooms are leased from the City by
the Cascadilla Boat Club.
....
As discussed above the ground floor spaces of the boathouse are used relatively intensely, by the
Cascadilla Boat Club and for City storage of the heavy maintenance equipment for the park.
….
The City is currently negotiating a shared use agreement with the Cascadilla Boat Club. The Boat
Club is a not-for-profit organization of approximately 300 members, organized in 1977 to make
rowing available to all city residents. The Boat Club also sponsors programs for Ithaca High School,
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
Cornell University (non-varsity) and Ithaca College. When long term lease agreement is reached, the
Boat Club the plans to initiate a fundraising campaign to contribute to future repair, rehabilitation,
maintenance and possible expansion of the facility.
(emphasis added).
The 2013 Grant Agreement with OPRHP
In August 2013, two decades after the above-discussed 1993 agreement, the City again
contracted with OPRHP for grant funding for the Boathouse, this time targeted at enabling access
to the second floor gym. The City's contract with OPRHP explicitly states under the heading
"Public Access":
the interior of the SUBJECT PROPERTY is not generally accessible to the public. Therefore, the
CONTRACTOR agrees that the SUBJECT PROPERTY will be open to the public at reasonably spaced
intervals a minimum of 12 times a year (i.e., once a month; six weekends during the summer; etc.) for a
minimum of 20 years from the date of the recording of this instrument. A public notice shall be placed in an
appropriate local paper or a sign placed on the site in public view on[e] week prior to and on the day of
public access."
Appendix E, Section VI (emphasis added).
I have verified with OPRHP that the intent behind this clause is to ensure periodic public
access to the second floor gym once the improvements funded by this contract enable safe use of
the gym. This intent is further supported by the fact that the same contract states, under the
heading "Project Narrative":
The project will complete the first phase of rehabilitation for the Boathouse to include limited access to the
second floor for use as a gymnasium, land training by the Cascadilla Boat Club and community fitness
classes, such as yoga or tai chi classes. The proposed project has also been identified as a critical step in
preventing further deterioration of the building.
Appendix D, Section I (emphasis added).
Conclusions
As detailed in this memorandum, my analysis, my discussion with OPRHP, and the
history of grant funding agreements between the City and the State, via OPRHP, yield succinct
and inexorable conclusions in the current context:
OPRHP has long been aware of CBC’s presence in the Boathouse, has
explicitly identified CBC’s presence in OPRHP-executed grant agreements for
the Boathouse, and supports CBC’s continued presence in the Boathouse.
OPRHP is also aware of the necessity of keeping the Boathouse locked
except when under appropriate supervision.
The City’s licensing determinations for the Boathouse are not subject to
OPRHP approval.
It is for the Common Council to decide in its reasoned discretion whether
licensing a portion of the Boathouse to CBC is an effective means of
providing boating services to the public in Stewart Park, in fulfillment of a
park purpose.
Board of Public Works
April 13, 2015
RESOLUTION – Support for Licensing of Cascadilla Boathouse
By Commissioner Darling: Seconded by Commissioner Warden
WHEREAS, the Cascadilla Boathouse (the “Boathouse”) has long facilitated access to the
waters surrounding Stewart Park, and
WHEREAS, the public will benefit from multiple initiatives intended to expand public access to
said waters, particularly in non-motorized boats and watercraft, and
WHEREAS, authority to license parkland is vested in the Common Council, a committee of
which is currently considering a draft license agreement permitting the Cascadilla Boat Club
(“CBC”), continued use of the Boathouse (the “Draft License”), and
WHEREAS, the Boathouse has since 1978 hosted CBC, enabling CBC to provide rowing
programs to area community members, with a strong emphasis on area youth, and
WHEREAS, the Draft License permits CBC to share the first floor of the Boathouse with the
Ithaca Youth Bureau (“IYB”) in support of IYB expanding public youth access to the water, and
WHEREAS, the Draft License as proposed would provide the City with $12,727.14 annually in
license revenue, with upward adjustments in accord with the Consumer Price Index, and
WHEREAS, said license should be for a term of three years, and
WHEREAS, Section 6 of said license provides the City unfettered ability to revoke or modify
said license upon at least nine months’ written notice that the Common Council has so
resolved, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works supports the Common Council to pursue the
licensing of the Boathouse to CBC via a three year Draft License as one possible means of
providing the public to enjoy the recreational and athletic boating opportunities offered at
Stewart Park, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Board additionally supports the Common Council to create a working
group made up of Board, staff, and community members to guide the City in developing other
complementary uses of the Boathouse or the grounds or other facilities of Stewart Park so as
to offer the public non-motorized boating opportunities beyond, but in concert with, the rowing
opportunities offered by CBC, and be it further
RESOLVED, That in support of the preceding Resolved, the Board supports the pursuit of
substantial flexibility in the Draft License, particularly in terms of revocability, so as to maximize
the City’s ability to develop other complementary uses of the Boathouse or surrounding
grounds that might coexist with CBC.
Carried Unanimously
City of Ithaca Parks Commission
Adopted Resolution
April 14, 2015
RESOLUTION – Support for Licensing of Cascadilla Boathouse
WHEREAS, the Cascadilla Boathouse (the “Boathouse”) has long facilitated access to the waters
surrounding Stewart Park, and
WHEREAS, the public will benefit from multiple initiatives intended to expand public access to
said waters, particularly in non-motorized boats and watercraft, and
WHEREAS, authority to license parkland is vested in the Common Council, a committee of
which is currently considering a draft license agreement permitting the Cascadilla Boat Club
(“CBC”), continued use of the Boathouse (the “Draft License”), and
WHEREAS, the Boathouse has since 1978 hosted CBC, enabling CBC to provide rowing
programs to area community members, with a strong emphasis on area youth, and
WHEREAS, the Draft License permits CBC to share the first floor of the Boathouse with the
Ithaca Youth Bureau (“IYB”) in support of IYB expanding public youth access to the water, and
WHEREAS, the Draft License as proposed would provide the City with $12,727.14 annually in
license revenue, with upward adjustments in accord with the Consumer Price Index, and
WHEREAS, said license should be for a term of three years, and
WHEREAS, Section 6 of said license provides the City unfettered ability to revoke or modify
said license upon at least nine months’ written notice that the Common Council has so resolved,
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Parks Commission supports the Common Council’s
pursuit of the licensing of the Boathouse to CBC via a three year the Draft License as one
possible means of providing recreational and athletic boating opportunities at Stewart Park, and
be it further
RESOLVED, That the Commission additionally urges the Common Council to create a working
group made up of Board of Public Works, Parks Commission, staff, and community members to
guide the City in developing other complementary uses of the Boathouse or the grounds or other
facilities of Stewart Park so as to offer the public recreational opportunities beyond, but in
concert with, the rowing opportunities offered by CBC, and be it further
RESOLVED, That in support of the preceding Resolved, the Commission supports the pursuit
of substantial flexibility in the Draft License, particularly in terms of revocability, so as to
maximize the City’s ability to develop other complementary uses of the Boathouse or
surrounding grounds that might coexist with CBC.
Moved by: D. Krall
Seconded by: L. Fabbroni, Jr.
In Favor: L. Fabbroni, Jr., M. Hobbie, D. Krall, E. Leventry, R. Moudry
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Schmidt
Vacancies: 1
2. City Administration, Human Resources, and Policy
.2 Youth Bureau – Request to Amend 2015 Roster
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau has proposed to add a fulltime (40 hours) Recreation
Program Administrator to the roster, and
WHEREAS, this position will be an opportunity for internal promotion for qualifying
Recreation Program Coordinators and provide supervision of the Recreation Division at the
Youth Bureau, and
WHEREAS, no additional funds are being requested for this position, and
WHEREAS, the Youth Bureau has worked closely with the Human Resources Department to
develop this proposal and anticipates formal adoption for the position by the Civil Services
Commission in April; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Personnel Roster of the Youth Bureau shall be amended as follows:
Add: One (1) Recreation Program Administrator (40 hours)
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the position of Recreation Program Administrator shall be assigned to the
City Executive Association at Grade A, 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)."
RESOLVED, That said roster amendment will be made within existing funds of the 2015
authorized Youth Bureau budget.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
Ithaca Youth Bureau
1 James L. Gibbs Drive
Ithaca, New York 14850
Phone: (607) 273-8364
Fax: (607) 273-2817
“Building a foundation for a lifetime.”
To: City Administration Committee
From: Liz Vance, Director
Re: 2015 Roster amendment
Date: 4/15/15
The Youth Bureau is requesting permission to add a full time (40 hours) Recreation
Program Administrator position to the 2015 roster. This position will be an internal
promotional opportunity for qualifying Recreation Program Coordinators and supervise
the Recreation Division at the Youth Bureau.
The proposed amendment will be made within existing funds of the approved 2015
Youth Bureau budget.
We have worked closely with the Human Resources Department to develop this
position. We anticipate a formal adoption by the Civil Service Commission after their
review at the April meeting.
2. City Administration, Human Resources, and Policy
.3 Youth Bureau – Request to Amend 2015 Budget
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau would like to amend the 2015 budget, and
WHEREAS, the Youth Bureau will be doing staffing for the Friends of the Ithaca Youth
Bureau, and
WHEREAS, the Friends of the Ithaca Youth Bureau has approved staffing assistance and will
reimburse the Youth Bureau for said staffing, and
WHEREAS, the Big Brother Big Sister Program received donations to provide weekly
programming during the 2015 school year; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Youth Bureau 2015 budget shall be amended as follows:
Increase Expenses
A7310- 5120–1400 Part-time/seasonal Salaries $5,500
A7310-9030 FICA/Medicare $ 421
A7310-9040 Workers’ Compensation $ 479
A7310-5120-1206 Part-time/Salaries $1,550
A7310-9030 FICA/Medicare $ 120
A7310-9040 Workers’ Compensation $ 133
$8,203
Increase Revenue
A7310 - 2070 – 1400 Administration $6,400
A7310-2070-1206 Big Brothers Big Sister $1,803
$8,203
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
Ithaca Youth Bureau
1 James L. Gibbs Drive
Ithaca, New York 14850
Phone: (607) 273-8364
Fax: (607) 273-2817
“Building a foundation for a lifetime.”
To: City Administration Committee
From: Liz Vance, Director, Ithaca Youth Bureau
RE: Amend 2015 budget
Date: 4/15/15
The Youth Bureau is requesting permission to amend the 2015 Youth Bureau to provide Big
Brother Big Sister programming and Friends of the Ithaca Youth Bureau staffing.
The YB will be doing some staffing for the Friends of the Ithaca Youth Bureau. The Friends of
the Ithaca Youth Bureau has approved the hiring of an assistant for 4 – 8 hours a week for the
remainder of the year.
With the help of donations the Big Brothers Big Sisters program (BBBS) will be providing
programming based at the Ithaca Housing Authority Northside Community Center. This
programming will meet once a week on Saturdays and run through the end of the school year.
______________________________________________________________________
Increase Expenses
A7310- 5120 – 1400 Part-time/seasonal
Salaries - $5,500
Fringe - $ 900
A7310-5120-1206 Part-time/seasonal
Salaries - $1,550
Fringe - $ 253
Total - $8,203
Increase Revenue
A7310 - 2070 – 1400 Administration $6,400
A7310-2070-1206 Big Brothers Big Sister $1,803
Total - $8,203
2. City Administration, Human Resources, and Policy
.4 Planning – Replacement of Stone Sidewalk in East Hill Historic District
WHEREAS, 218 and 220 Eddy Street are located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New
York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and
WHEREAS, 218 and 220 Eddy Street are fronted by stone sidewalks, also referred to as flags,
flagging or slate, which have been recognized as a character-defining feature of Ithaca’s historic
districts in The City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines, and
WHEREAS, sidewalks are considered a city-owned improvement under the City of Ithaca
Sidewalk Program, and
WHEREAS, any changes to city-owned improvements within an historic district are subject to
the provisions of the City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance under Section 228-12A,
and
WHEREAS, The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission(ILPC) received an application for
a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated February 2, 2015, from Eric Hathaway, on behalf of the
City of Ithaca, for the replacement of the above noted stone sidewalks with concrete, and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing for the purposes of considering the proposal on March 10,
2015, the ILPC determined at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 14, 2015, that the
proposal would result in the significant loss of distinctive historic materials and features that
characterize 218 and 220 Eddy Street and the East Hill Historic District, and would have a
substantial adverse impact on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of these
properties and this district, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC denied the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness on April 14,
2015 and determined that replacement in-kind (with stone) could be approved, and
WHEREAS, if the cost of an action required by the ILPC would exceed by 20% or more the cost
of the action if not regulated by the ILPC, the Common Council reserves the right to determine
whether compliance with the ILPC requirements are prudent and feasible in light of competing
public interests under Section 228-12B of the Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, the upfront cost of replacing the stone sidewalks fronting 218 and 220 Eddy Street
in-kind is 20% more than replacing the same section with concrete; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council has considered the following competing public
interests:
The preservation of historic, aesthetic and cultural resources. The stone sidewalks
fronting 218 and 220 Eddy Street are character defining features of these properties and
the East Hill Historic District and are, therefore, protected under the Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance.
The responsible allocation of the city’s financial resources. The cost to replace the section
of sidewalk fronting the properties in question with concrete is $4,897.50; the cost of
replacement with stone is $17,250. The allocation of $17,250 of the Sidewalk Program’s
budget to replace this section of sidewalk would result in fewer sections of sidewalk
being replaced in Sidewalk District 2 during this fiscal year.
The accessibility of city-owned improvements for individuals with disabilities. The
existing sidewalk is not ADA compliant.
RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Common Council determines that the proposal (meets/does not
meet) criteria for review under Section 228-12B of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, That, based on the considerations set forth above, the proposal to replace the stone
sidewalks fronting 218 and 220 Eddy Street with concrete (is/is not) considered prudent and
feasible, and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Common Council (approves/denies) the replacement of the stone
sidewalks fronting 218 and 220 Eddy Street with concrete as proposed in the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness under Section 228-12B of the Municipal Code.
Eddy Street Sidewalks
https://mail.cityofithaca.org/...C7W%2bMKQBLRRpBj5tK%2b%2f3nZAABDA9ZtAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1429109396406_867796576[4/15/2015 10:51:15 AM]
Eddy Street Sidewalks
Bryan McCracken
Sent:Monday, April 06, 2015 1:20 PMTo:Ellen McCollisterCc:JoAnn CornishAttachments:218 and 220 Eddy St. - App~1.pdf (6 MB)
Ellen,
At the last ILPC meeting on March 10th, the City's Sidewalk Program Coordinator, Eric Hathaway, presented an application to
replace approximately 100 linear feet of stone sidewalk fronting 218 and 220 Eddy Street in the East Hill Historic District with
concrete. Stone sidewalks are identified in the City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines as a character defining
feature and are protected under the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. This particular section is nearly continuous and one of the
longest sections left in an historic district. I've attached a copy of Eric's application for your reference. The sidewalks in this location
exhibit varied deterioration. The two slabs crossing the driveway into 220 Eddy Street are severely deteriorated and need to be
replaced with concrete (the ILPC has approved replacing sections of stone sidewalk crossing driveways with concrete because they
recognize that stone is not as durable as concrete in these areas). The other slabs are in relatively good condition but do have
defects that are not ADA compliant--raised and depressed slabs that create a lip greater than 1/4", uneven surfaces, gaps between
slabs that are greater than 1/4". Eric would like to replace the slabs with concrete to make the entire section of sidewalk ADA
compliant. However, there are some exceptions in the ADA for Historic Preservation and Tony Opalka at the State Historic
Preservation Office agrees that these exception could apply to this section of sidewalk. Eric also considered replacing the stone
sidewalks in-kind but decided against it because of the substantial cost difference. Lifting and resetting the slabs was not generally
considered because he felt the slab would not withstand this treatment.
After a lengthy discussion about this proposal and past applications to replace stone sidewalks in the city, the application was tabled
until the May meeting to allow Eric and me more time to research alternatives to total replacement. It is my belief that the proposal
will be denied at the April meeting. If this is the case, Eric will have the opportunity to appeal the decision to the Common Council
under Section 228-12: City-owned Improvements of the Landmarks Ordinance, which states that " if the cost of an action required
by the ILPC would exceed by 20% or more the cost of the action if not regulated by the ILPC, the Common Council reserves the
right to determine if compliance... [is] prudent and feasible in light of competing public interests." Under the new Sidewalk
Programs, sidewalks are considered City-owned improvements.
Here are the reasons I think the slate should either be repaired or replaced in-kind:
1. The cost of replacing the sidewalks with concrete is $4,897.60 and the cost of replacing with stone is $17,250, but this does not
consider the life expectancy of the two materials. Many of the stone sidewalks in use today have been in place for ~120 years. A
concrete section of sidewalk lasts approximately 30 -35 years. If the concrete sidewalks are replaced every 30 years, this section of
sidewalk would be replaced 4 times during the average life span of a stone sidewalk. The cost for this work would be approximately
$19,590.40 or 13% higher than if the section was replaced with stone. Inflation would make this percentage even higher. If the
concrete sidewalks are replaced every 40 year, five years over their average life expectancy and probably closer to what will actually
happen, this section of sidewalk will be replaced 3 times during the average life span of stone. The cost of this work
is $14,692.80, only 17% less than replacing this section with stone. If the life span of the materials are factored into the calculation,
this project does not qualify for Common Council review under Section 228-12.
2. The property owner of 220 Eddy Street applied for a C of A for the replacement of the stone sidewalks fronting the property a
year and a half ago, and it was denied. At the same meeting, the property owner across the street at 219 Eddy Street was required
to replace a set of tree lawn stone steps in-kind. I believe the approval of this project by the Common would demonstrate that City
government is not required to adhere to the ordinance it imposes on private property owners.
3. The approval of the proposal by the Common Council would set a negative precedent that would result in the loss of all the
stone sidewalks in the historic districts and throughout the city.
4. I believe the stone slabs are not beyond repair, and the documented issues could be addressed by lifting and resetting the slabs.
While Eric believes this is not possible, I learned from a colleague in NYC that bluestone contractors regularly lift and reset stone
sidewalks to address similar issues to those listed above.
If the ILPC votes to deny the application at its meeting on April 14th, Eric would like the Common Council to vote on the matter
at their May 6 meeting. The plan is to bring the matter the City Administration Committee meeting on April 15 so it can be
forwarded to full Council in May. Given that schedule, the Planning Committee would not have an opportunity to review or discuss
proposal unit the Common Council meeting unless it is raised at this week's meeting. I am hoping you can start the conversation.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Eddy Street Sidewalks
https://mail.cityofithaca.org/...C7W%2bMKQBLRRpBj5tK%2b%2f3nZAABDA9ZtAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1429109396406_867796576[4/15/2015 10:51:15 AM]
Bryan McCracken
Historic Preservation Planner
City of Ithaca, Planning Division
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
ILPC Meeting – 04/14/2015
Resolution – RH
1
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 218 Eddy Street and 220 Eddy Street are located in the East Hill Historic
District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
in 1988, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic
Places in 1986, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness, dated February 2, 2015, was submitted for review
to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Eric Hathaway on
behalf of the City of Ithaca Engineering Department including the following: (1)
two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a map of existing stone sidewalks; (3) cost estimates
from ACP Masonry and Reilly Masonry; (4) four photographs documenting the
condition of the existing bluestone sidewalks; (5) a sidewalk evaluation diagram;
and (6) an aerial photograph of the project location, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory
Form for 218 Eddy Street and 220 Eddy Street and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill
Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s) the project involves
replacing approximately 525 sq ft or approximately 100 linear feet of stone
sidewalk with concrete, and
WHEREAS, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the
stone sidewalk fronting 220 Eddy Street with concrete, submitted by the
property owner Jonathan O’Connor, was considered and denied by the ILPC at
their regularly scheduled meeting on September 10, 2013. The ILPC determined
that the documented and observed condition of the stone sidewalk at 220 Eddy
Street did not necessitate its wholesale replacement, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC notes that stone sidewalk in the City of New York’s designated historic
districts are regularly lifted and reset, a process that could be used to address
some of the condition issues exhibited in the section of sidewalk in question.
The ILPC also notes that the Americans with Disabilities Act provides for
exceptions for the purpose of historic preservation under Section 36.405. The
retention of designated historic features that do not meet ADA requirements is
allowed if the alteration of these features to meet the standards will threaten or
destroy the historic significance of the features.
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is
required, and
ILPC Meeting – 04/14/2015
Resolution – RH
2
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC
meeting on March 10, 2015, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property
and the proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary
Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill
Historic District is 1830-1932.
As indicated in the New York Building Structure Inventory Form, 218 Eddy
Street and 220 Eddy Street were both constructed between 1882 and 1883 during
the East Hill Historic District’s period of significance. 218 Eddy Street is
considered a Colonial Revival residence; 220 Eddy Street is considered a Queen-
Ann Style residence.
The proposal in question concerns the stone sidewalk in front of 218 Eddy
Street and 220 Eddy Street. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the most
commonly used material for public sidewalks in the City of Ithaca was native
bluestone. Since that time, concrete has become the material of choice for
public sidewalks, and many of the city’s original stone sidewalks have been
replaced with this material. As documented in the “Inventory of Flagstone
(Slate) Sidewalks in Ithaca’s Historic Districts” prepared Mary Raddant Tomlan
and dated March 2000, relatively few sections of stone sidewalk remain within
the East Historic District and the sections fronting 218 Eddy Street and 220
Eddy Street represent one of the longest, almost-continuous runs of stone
sidewalk in the district.
Stone sidewalks, also referred to as flags, flagging or slate, have been recognized
as a character-defining feature of Ithaca’s historic districts in The City of Ithaca
Historic District and Landmark Design Guideline. Constructed within the
period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and possessing a high
level of material integrity, the stone sidewalks fronting 218 Eddy Street and 220
Eddy Street are contributing elements of the East Hill Historic District.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine
that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect
on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either
the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the
neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural
and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed
ILPC Meeting – 04/14/2015
Resolution – RH
3
change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the
architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section
228-6 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the
Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the
Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-6C, and by the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case
specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and
contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as
little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both
the historic character of the individual property and the character of the
district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and
preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features
and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be
preserved.
Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than
replaced. When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color,
texture, and other visual qualities, and where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary,
physical, or pictorial evidence.
As noted above, stone sidewalks represent a distinctive construction technique
and type of craftsmanship that characterize Ithaca’s historic districts. They also
provide insight into the history and development of these areas. Therefore, with
respect to Principle #2, Standard #2 and Standard #5, the replacement of the
existing stone sidewalk fronting 218 Eddy Street and 220 Eddy Street in its
entirety with concrete will remove distinctive materials and features, and will alter
spaces that characterize these properties and the East Hill Historic District. As
with other proposals that involve removing historic elements, the ILPC
recommends that the removed slabs be retained as property of the City of Ithaca
and stored for future reuse.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as in shown in the photographs
provided by the applicant, the severity of the deterioration of the stone slabs
comprising the sidewalk fronting 218 Eddy Street and 220 Eddy Streets do
require their replacement due to the lack of functional integrity and deferred
maintenance. The proposed new work will not match the old in design, color,
texture, material and other visual qualities. The ILPC recognizes that stone slabs
ILPC Meeting – 04/14/2015
Resolution – RH
4
typically cannot support regular vehicular traffic without breaking and will,
therefore, allow the replacement of severely deteriorated stone slabs at driveway
crossings with concrete, as noted in the City of Ithaca Historic District and
Landmark Design Guidelines.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of 218
Eddy Street and 220 Eddy Street and the East Hill Historic District, as set forth
in Section 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the
proposal does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the
Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: M. McGandy
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, K. Olsen, J. Minner, D. Kramer, M. McGrandy
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner’s representative to bring to the
attention of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans, including but not
limited to changes required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen
circumstances as construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building
Department of a stop work order or revocation of the building permit.
.3 Finance, Budget, and Appropriations
.1 DPW - Request for Funding for Engineering Services Agreement for Enhanced
Primary Feasibility Study for WWTF
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWWTF) requires constant
upgrading to meet the rigorous water quality and clean energy standards embodied in its long
range planning goals, and
WHEREAS, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)
funded a long term pilot of a new enhanced primary treatment technology developed in New
York State by Clear Cove Systems, and
WHEREAS, in order to understand the facility improvements and preliminary cost estimates for
implementing a full scale system and improvements to ancillary systems, and
WHEREAS, GHD Consulting Services, Inc. has submitted an engineering proposal for
performing the study for an amount not to exceed $128,650, and
WHEREAS, the funding for this proposed study will be derived from existing funds in Capital
Reserve J1 and/or the issuance of bonds, and
WHEREAS, the Special Joint Committee (SJC) of the Wastewater Treatment Facility approved
the project at its regular meeting of March 11, 2015; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby recommends that Capital Project 420J
Enhanced Primary Treatment Feasibility be established in the amount not to exceed $128,650 to
fund the proposed agreement with GHD Engineers set to expire December 31, 2015, and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the approval and funding be contingent upon action by all wastewater
partners and their respective attorneys committing their percentage of reimbursement shares to
the Joint Activity Fund allocated per the Joint Sewer Agreement as follows:
Municipality Percentage Project Cost
City of Ithaca 57.14 $73,510.61
Town of Ithaca 40.88 52,592.12
Town of Dryden 1.98 2,547.27
$128,650.00
and be it further
RESOLVED, That funding necessary for said project shall be derived by existing funds in
Capital Reserve J1 and/or the issuance of bonds.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
Schedule A
Enhanced Primary Feasibility Study
City of Ithaca, New York
N:\US\Cazenovia\Projects\Groups\Administration\WP\DLR\BGM\Proposals\2015\Ithaca Area WWTP.docx
GHD Consulting Services Inc. One Remington Park Drive Cazenovia NY 13035 USA
T 315 679 5800 F 315 679 5801 E cazmail@ghd.com W www.ghd.com
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant (IAWWTP) was originally constructed in the 1960’s and was
upgraded to its current layout in the mid 1980’s. The plant was designed as a 10 MGD secondary
treatment facility with anaerobic digestion for biosolids treatment. The plant also included one of the first
cogeneration facilities constructed at a wastewater treatment plant in New York State. The cogeneration
system utilized digester gas produced in the anaerobic digesters for combustion in two internal
combustion engines to produce electrical energy. Heat recovered from the engines was used to heat the
digester feed and also to heat onsite buildings. This system was successful in recovering energy from the
biosolids and reducing cost for operations by offsetting electrical and heating costs.
Since the initial construction, the plant has been rerated to a permitted flow of 13.0 MGD and upgraded
with the addition of a high rate “Actiflo” phosphorus removal system in 2003 to meet new total phosphorus
effluent limits.
Recent upgrades to the digester mixing systems, biogas utilization systems and septage unloading
systems at the IAWWTP have helped move the plant towards net energy neutrality. The addition of the
new food waste receiving station has further advanced the potential to produce energy and better serve
Ithaca area customers. Each of these upgrades helped to improve the efficiency of the system involved
and will result in energy production to offset the large energy usage associated with the plant. The
IAWWTP was recently referenced as one of the top 10 energy efficient facilities in the United States in a
recent Water Environment Federation webcast entitled “Net Zero Energy Solutions for Water Resource
Recovery Facilities”. The IAWWTP staff and Special Joint Committee (SJC) would like to continue to
progress towards energy neutrality. Two of the remaining opportunities for the IAWWTP to achieve the
goal of energy neutrality include optimization of primary treatment and optimization of the anaerobic
digestion process.
Optimization of Primary Treatment
The existing primary treatment process at the plant includes traditional gravity settling which typically
provides 30%-35% BOD removal and 50%-60% TSS removal. The enhanced primary treatment
technology (EPTT) developed by Clear Cove Systems (CCS) improves the solids removal during primary
settling, providing benefits to the secondary wastewater and biosolids treatment processes. Successful
pilot scale testing at the IAWWTP has demonstrated the following removal efficiencies:
• BOD 60-70%
• TSS 80-90%
• TP 70-80%
These removal efficiencies will provide the following treatment improvements and energy benefits:
1. Reduction of loading to secondary treatment.
2. Decrease in secondary aeration energy requirements.
3. Increase in primary solids loading to anaerobic digestion.
4. Increase in digester gas production and energy recovery.
5. Reduction in phosphorus loading to secondary and “Actiflo” treatment systems.
N:\US\Cazenovia\Projects\Groups\Administration\WP\DLR\BGM\Proposals\2015\Ithaca Area WWTP.docx 2
Optimization of Anaerobic Digestion
The existing anaerobic digestion system can be optimized to decrease energy requirements, increase
digester gas production and energy recovery, increase revenue from outside waste disposal and by the
production of Class A biosolids. This optimization can be accomplished though the following
improvements:
1. Mechanical thickening of digester feed to decrease heating (energy) requirements and increase
digester capacity.
2. Conversion of the existing gravity thickener to a blended sludge feed tank for constant mixing of
digester feed stock.
3. Conversion of existing “PhoStrip” tanks to additional anaerobic digesters for increased capacity and
increased digester gas/energy production.
4. Operation of converted PhoStrip tanks to thermophilic digesters for production of Class A biosolids
and beneficial reuse.
5. Construction of digester gas conversion to a Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) system for vehicle use.
Prior to initiating a full scale construction project, a feasibility study is needed to consider the overall
impact that the EPTT installation and anaerobic digester improvements will have on the many integrated
systems which make up the overall treatment process. As a minimum, the following questions need to be
considered as part of the feasibility study:
Primary Settling
• What size should the new EPTT be?
• Where should the new EPTT tankage/equipment be located?
• What are the hydraulic requirements for directing flow through the EPTT?
• What recycle streams should be directed to the EPTT influent?
• How will the system accommodate high and low flow events?
Aeration System
• What are the expected reductions in aeration energy use?
• What will be the anticipated operation of tanks/blowers in service?
Actiflo System
• What will the secondary effluent total phosphorus concentration be?
• What is the impact to operation of the Actiflo?
Sludge Handling System
• How can mechanical sludge thickening be incorporated?
• What modifications to the existing sludge thickeners are needed?
• What new pumps will be needed for sludge thickening?
N:\US\Cazenovia\Projects\Groups\Administration\WP\DLR\BGM\Proposals\2015\Ithaca Area WWTP.docx 3
Digester System
• How much capacity is there in the existing digester system?
• What is required to convert the PhoStrip tanks to anaerobic digesters?
• Is thermophilic or mesophilic digestion more advantageous?
Biogas Utilization System
• How much additional biogas might be produced?
• How much biogas can the existing cleaning system and micro-turbines process?
• What is required for treatment/conversion to LNG?
In the following scope of services, specific tasks have been developed to address each of the questions.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The proposed Scope of Services for completion of engineering evaluation for the resource recovery
enhancements at the IAWWTP include the following:
Task 1 - Kick-Off Meeting and Review of Existing Data
GHD will meet with representatives of the IAWWTP and two Enhanced Primary Treatment Technology
(EPTT) vendors to review the scope of work, information needs, schedule of deliverables and lines of
communication. Relevant plant operating data, utility bills, report correspondence and drawings will be
collected, reviewed and summarized. Meeting minutes will be prepared and distributed. We will request
equipment layout details (based on selected final location), including system performance guarantee (%
removal for pollutants) and operational costs (including pumping costs and chemical dosing information)
from each of the EPTT vendors.
Task 2 – Biowin Modeling
Preparation of “Biowin” process model for the overall wastewater treatment process, with mass solids
balance, including:
1. Analysis of two years of available plant data including influent flows and loads, primary effluent flows
and loads, final effluent flows and loads, primary and waste sludge flows and loads (pre and post
thickening), secondary treatment operations data, recycle flow data, digester operations data, sludge
dewatering data, and chemical feed data.
2. Development of a plant-wide steady-state process simulation model for the IAWWTP based on using
BioWin® Version 4.0 developed by EnviroSim.
3. Use of the calibrated model to analyze process impacts of full-scale implementation of the four
scenarios identified below.
• Scenario 1 - Analysis of process impacts of full-scale implementation of the EPTT based on
performance results observed during the pilot study conducted at the IAWWTP.
N:\US\Cazenovia\Projects\Groups\Administration\WP\DLR\BGM\Proposals\2015\Ithaca Area WWTP.docx 4
• Scenario 2 - Analysis of process impacts of improved sludge thickening.
• Scenario 3 - Analysis of process impacts of increased anaerobic digestion volume (converted
PhoStrip tanks).
• Scenario 4 - Analysis of process impacts of all three proposed improvements implemented
together.
4. Based on these model runs, the following will be identified:
• Projected changes to primary effluent and final effluent quality.
• Projected changes to solids concentration and solids retention times in secondary treatment
process.
• Projected changes to solids concentration and solids retention times in anaerobic digestion
process.
• Projected changes to biosolids production quantities.
• Projected changes to biogas production quantities.
• Projected changes in secondary treatment aeration demand.
• Projected changes in chemical feed rates to maintain current process performance.
Task 3 - Integration of an Enhanced Primary Treatment Technology
GHD will evaluate two EPTT alternatives for integration into the IAWWTP. Each EPTT will be evaluated
for providing enhanced primary treatment for the average dry weather flow in parallel to the existing
primary settling tanks. Primary influent flow will be diverted either by pumping or by gravity flow to each
EPTT system. Wet weather flows in excess of the capacity of each EPTT will be treated through the
existing primary settling tanks as the plant is operated currently. Filtrate from each EPTT will be pumped,
or flow by gravity, to the existing aeration tanks for secondary treatment. Solids collected from each
EPTT will be processed through Sludge Classifier Presses (SCPs) to remove large inert materials.
Screenings will be disposed to landfill. Screened solids will be pumped to the existing sludge treatment
system for anaerobic digestion, dewatering and disposal.
The evaluation of each EPTT will consider:
1. A review of potential tank locations to minimize impact on existing impacted soils and proximity to
primary and secondary treatment trains and geotechnical foundation requirements.
2. Identification of a location for SCPs and associated sludge pumping to digesters and pressed
screenings and grit disposal.
3. A review of hydraulic flow through each EPTT to the existing secondary treatment process and solids
flow to the SCPs and to the existing sludge treatment system.
N:\US\Cazenovia\Projects\Groups\Administration\WP\DLR\BGM\Proposals\2015\Ithaca Area WWTP.docx 5
4. The Biowin model results, recommended improvements, site plan, schematic diagram, total estimated
project costs and operation and maintenance costs for each of the two EPTTs will be included in a
technical memorandum.
Task 4 - Digester Expansion and Improvements
GHD will evaluate the following enhancements to the existing solids treatment facilities:
1. Mechanical thickening of digester feed.
2. Conversion of one existing gravity thickener to a mixed, blended sludge holding and feed tank.
3. Conversion of two (2) existing PhoStrip tanks to mixed and heated anaerobic digesters:
a. Mesophilic anaerobic digesters
b. Thermophilic anaerobic digesters
The evaluation will include estimates of:
1. Increased solids treatment capacity.
2. Increased digester gas production.
3. Digester recycle flows and loads.
Recommendations will be provided for digester loading, mixing, heating and pumping equipment, and
piping required. Total project costs and operation and maintenance costs of recommended improvements
will be developed. Site plan and schematic diagram of improvements will also be developed.
Task 5 - Digester Gas Compression, Storage and Dispensing for Vehicle Use
GHD will develop recommendations for equipment required for digester gas conversion to LNG including:
cleaning, compression, storage and dispensing for vehicle use. LNG sizing will be developed on the
estimated total potential digester gas production from new and existing digesters minus digester gas use
in existing microturbines. Recommendations will include:
1. Additional LNG cleaning equipment required.
2. Equipment sizing and selection for LNG compression, storage and vehicle dispensing systems.
3. Total project costs.
4. Operation and maintenance costs.
5. Site plan.
6. Schematic diagram.
Task 6 - Beneficial Reuse of Biosolids
GHD will complete an evaluation of the potential reuse of Class A biosolids and Class B biosolids from
the IAWWTP. The evaluation will include a sensitivity cost analysis which considers a range of disposal
costs for both Class A and Class B biosolids disposal. Biosolids quantity estimates will also consider a
range from the current amount to the estimated design capacity of recommended improvements.
N:\US\Cazenovia\Projects\Groups\Administration\WP\DLR\BGM\Proposals\2015\Ithaca Area WWTP.docx 6
Task 7 - Meetings and Report Preparation
GHD will meet with representatives of the IAWWTP during the study to review preliminary findings and
recommendations. The scope is based upon three meetings as follows:
1. Progress Meeting No 1 to review two EPTT recommendations.
2. Progress Meeting No. 2 to review preliminary sludge thickening and digester recommendations.
3. Progress Meeting No 3 to review the draft report.
GHD will prepare a draft report which summarizes the findings, recommendations, capital costs and O&M
costs of the resource recovery enhancements. Site plans and layouts will be provided of recommended
improvements. Potential funding opportunities will be described.
Draft copies of the report will be distributed for comments. Following receipt of comments, the final report
will be prepared for distribution.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
The Scope of Services as outlined above will be completed within six months of authorization.
PROPOSED FEE
GHD propose to complete the Scope of Services as outlined above on a lump sum basis as follows:
• Task 1 - Kick-Off Meeting and Review of Existing Data.............................................................. $3,500
• Task 2 - Biowin Modeling .......................................................................................................... $55,000
• Task 3 - Integration of two Enhanced Primary Treatment Technologies .................................. $26,480
• Task 4 - Digester Expansion and Improvement ........................................................................ $15,140
• Task 5 - Digester Gas Compression, Storage and Dispensing for Vehicle Use ......................... $7,060
• Task 6 - Beneficial Reuse of Biosolids ........................................................................................ $2,970
• Task 7 - Meetings and Report Preparation ............................................................................... $18,500
Total Proposed Fee ................................................................................................. $128,650
.3 Finance, Budget, and Appropriations
.2 Attorney - Request for Funds for Litigation and Legal Services
WHEREAS, as part of the authorized 2015 Budget, $130,000 was placed in Restricted
Contingency for the purpose of future litigation and legal services, and
WHEREAS, the City will be expending funds on litigation and legal services in the coming
months; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, Common Council hereby transfers an amount not to exceed $130,000 from
Account A1990 Restricted Contingency to Account A1420-5435 Attorney Contracts $30.000
and Account A1930-5000 Judgments and Claims $100,000 for the purposes of funding future
litigation and legal services.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
.3 Finance, Budget, and Appropriations
.3 DPW – Authorization to Fund Seasonal Position
WHERAS, The Forestry Technician position has not been funded for several years, and
WHEREAS, the main duties of this position are to the maintenance of the city tree inventory
and support Citizen Pruners Volunteer Program and these duties are vital to the regular
operations of the Parks and Forestry Division, and
WHEREAS, the previous funding source used to hire a seasonal intern to fulfill these duties is
not available this year, and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Forestry Division has been challenged with other demands on the
funds for seasonal labor including, general continuous reduction in funds compared to the
previous year, required changes in allocation of funds to cover reduction in full-time employee
funding and policy requirements to provide a higher living wage for longer term seasonal
workers, therefore funds cannot be reallocated from the existing Parks and Forestry budget to
cover the full cost of an intern without reducing the quality of service the city residents have
come to expect from the Parks and Forestry Division; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby authorizes the allocation of $6,600 from
Account A1990 Unrestricted Contingency to Parks and Forestry Hourly Part-time Account
A7111-5120 to be used to fund a seasonal intern position.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
CITY OF ITHACA
245 Pier Rd., Ithaca, New York 14850
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, STREETS & FACILITIES
Telephone: 607/272-1718 Fax: 607/272-4374
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Administration Committee
FROM: Jeanne Grace, City Forester
DATE: 4/8/2015
RE: Request to increase Parks and Forestry seasonal budget account # A7111-5120
I am requesting an increase in the Parks and Forestry seasonal labor account (#A7111-5120) of
$6,600 to allow the hiring of a seasonal forestry technician.
For many years the city had a forester and a forestry technician. The primary duty of the
technician was to maintain the tree inventory and manage the Citizen Pruner volunteer group as
well as help with administrative duties. Our city tree inventory is set up in such a way that we
have the city trees on a 4 year rotation for safety inspection and data update.
For the 5 years I have been employed with the city I have been trying to do both jobs because
one or the other position was not funded. As a stop gap measure I have hired a summer intern
from Cornell for the past three summers. There is an internship funding program through Cornell
in which we hired a federal work study (FWS) student and the university paid 90% of the wages.
Since the opportunity is limited to current students (no May grads are eligible) and FWS aid
grantees, I have never gotten a large applicant pool. Despite my efforts to spread the word about
this internship to multiple departments at Cornell my luck has run out this year and I did not get
any eligible candidates to apply.
If I had a fully funded seasonal forestry tech position (15 wks x 40hr x $11= $6,600) to advertize
I think I would get many applications and have a diverse applicant pool to choose from. I plan to
ask for that in my 2016 budget but I need a fix for this summer. Not filling this position
eliminates the regular inspection of trees and makes our program reactive rather than proactive.
We would rely on resident complaints more than setting our own agenda for tree maintenance.
Ithaca is nationally known for having a very strong and progressive urban forestry program, but
it has gotten to the point where I fear I can not keep up with all the demands, both administrative
and field aspects without some help. I plan on campaigning for the re-funding of the forestry tech
position in coming years.
I feel I am unable to reallocate my existing budget for seasonal labor to cover the cost of an
intern. My seasonal budget has been reduced 7% from last year. I am already looking at hiring
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
one less seasonal laborer this year to make up for the reduction. In addition, the overtime budget
for weekend duty for full time staff at Stewart Park was eliminated in the 2015 budget so I now
have to spend a larger portion of my seasonal labor budget filling that duty. A further pinching is
felt by the “living wage” requirement. As a result of this policy the seasonal laborers that I have
returning from previous seasons are taking a larger proportion of the budget. I am not against this
in principle but coupled with the reduction in seasonal budgets year after year, the situation sends
a mixed message to staff trying to manage the work. We need to pay our employees more, hire
fewer of them and get the same (or more) work done.
All of these factors have reduced our summer work force while the amount we are expected to
care for has increased (ie extensions of Water Front Trails), and now the inability to use the
Cornell funded intern program this year has been the braking point motivating me to make a
direct request for a funding increase.
Thank you for your consideration.
CC: Mike Thorne, Superintendent
Ray Benjamin, Assistant Superintendent of Public Works
5. Common Council
.1 A Local Law to Establish a Sustainable Energy Loan Program in the City of Ithaca
LOCAL LAW NO. – 2015
BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca follows:
Section 1. Chapter 4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Administration of
Government” is hereby amended by adding and Article VII entitled “Energize NY Benefit
Financing Program,” to read as follows:
ARTICLE VII
§4-33. Legislative findings, intent and purpose, authority.
A. It is the policy of both the City of Ithaca (hereinafter, “City”) and the State of New York to
achieve energy efficiency and renewable energy goals, reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
mitigate the effect of global climate change, and advance a clean energy economy. The City
finds that it can fulfill this policy by providing property assessed clean energy financing to
property owners for the installation of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency
measures. This chapter establishes a program that will allow the Energy Improvement
Corporation (“EIC”), a local development corporation, acting on behalf of the City, to make
funds available to qualified property owners that will be repaid by such property owners
through charges on the real properties benefited by such funds, thereby fulfilling the
purposes of this chapter and fulfilling an important public purpose.
B. The City is authorized to implement this Energize NY Benefit Financing Program pursuant
to Article 5-L of the New York General Municipal Law.
C. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Energize NY Benefit Financing
Program Law of the City of Ithaca”.
§4-34. Definitions
For purposes of this Article, and unless otherwise expressly stated or unless the context
requires, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
Authority – The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, as defined by
subdivision two of section eighteen hundred fifty-one of the public authorities law, or its
successor.
EIC – the Energy Improvement Corporation, a local development corporation, duly organized
under section fourteen hundred eleven of the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, authorized
hereby on behalf of the City to implement the Energize NY Benefit Financing Program by
providing funds to qualified property owners (as defined in this chapter) and providing for
repayment of such funds from monies collected by the City tax collector as a charge to be levied
on the real property and collected in the same manner and same form as the City taxes.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
Energy Audit – A formal evaluation or “assessment” of the energy consumption of a
permanent building or structural improvement to real property, conducted by a contractor
certified by the Authority, or certified by a certifying entity approved by the Authority, for the
purpose of identifying appropriate energy efficiency improvements that could be made to the
property.
Energy Efficiency Improvement – Any renovation or retrofitting of a building to reduce
energy consumption, such as window and door replacement, lighting, caulking, weather
stripping, air sealing, insulation, and heating and cooling system upgrades, and similar
improvements, determined to be cost-effective pursuant to criteria established by the Authority,
not including lighting measures or household appliances that are not permanently fixed to real
property.
Qualified Property Owner – An owner of residential or commercial real property located
within the boundaries of the City that is determined to be eligible to participate in the Energize
NY Benefit Financing Program under the procedures for eligibility set forth under this chapter.
Renewable Energy System – An energy generating system for the generation of electric or
thermal energy, to be used primarily at such property, by means of solar thermal, solar
photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, anaerobic digester gas-to-electricity systems, fuel cell
technologies, or other renewable energy technology approved by the Authority not including the
combustion or pyrolysis of solid waste.
Renewable Energy System Feasibility Study – A written study, conducted by a contractor
certified by the Authority, or certified by a certifying entity approved by the Authority, for the
purpose of determining the feasibility of installing a renewable energy system.
§4-35. Establishment of an Energize NY Benefit Financing Program
A. An Energize NY Benefit Financing Program is hereby established by the City, whereby EIC
acting on its behalf, may provide funds to Qualified Property Owners in accordance with the
procedures set forth under this chapter, to finance the acquisition, construction and
installation of Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements and the
verification of the installation of such systems and improvements.
B. The funds provided shall not exceed the lesser of ten percent of the appraised value of the
real property where the Renewable Energy Systems and/or Energy Efficiency Improvements
will be located, or the actual cost of installing the Renewable Energy Systems and/or Energy
Efficiency Improvements, including the costs of necessary equipment, materials, and labor
and the cost of verification of such systems and improvements.
§4-36. Procedures for eligibility
A. Any property owner in the City may submit application to EIC on such forms as have been
prepared by EIC and made available to property owners on the website of EIC and at the
City offices.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
B. Every application submitted by a property owner shall be reviewed by EIC acting on behalf
of the City, which shall make a positive or negative determination on such application based
upon the criteria for making a financing enumerated in subsection A of section 5 of this
chapter. EIC may also request further information from the property owner where necessary
to aid in its determination.
C. If a positive determination on an application is made by EIC acting on behalf of the City, the
property owner shall be deemed a Qualified Property Owner and shall be eligible to
participate in the Energize NY Benefit Financing Program in accordance with the procedure
set forth under section 6 of this chapter; provided that in no case shall a property owner that
has received funds from another municipal corporation for the acquisition, construction and
installation of Energy Efficiency Improvements and/or Renewable Energy Systems be
deemed a Qualified Property Owner.
§4-37. Application criteria
A. Upon the submission of an application, EIC acting on behalf of the City, shall make a
positive or negative determination on such application based upon the following criteria for
the making of a financing:
1. The proposed Energy Efficiency Improvements and/or Renewable Energy Systems are
determined to be cost effective by the Authority;
2. The proposed Energy Efficiency Improvements and/or Renewable Energy Systems will
generate an estimated annual cost savings greater than the annual charge payments;
3. Sufficient funds are available to provide to the property owner;
4. The property owner is current in payments on any existing mortgage;
5. The property owner is current in payments on any existing real property taxes and has
been current on real property taxes for the previous three years; and
6. Such additional criteria, not inconsistent with the criteria set forth above, as the City, or
EIC acting on its behalf, may set from time to time.
§4-38. Opt-in, Energize Finance Agreement
A. A Qualified Property Owner may participate in the Energize NY Benefit Financing Program
through the execution of an Energize Finance Agreement made by and between the
Qualified Property Owner and EIC, acting on the behalf of the City.
B. Upon execution of the Energize Finance Agreement, the Qualified Property Owner shall be
eligible to receive funds from EIC acting on behalf of the City, for the acquisition,
construction, and installation of qualifying Renewable Energy Systems and Energy
Efficiency Improvements; provided the requirements of section 7 of this chapter have been
met.
C. The Energize Finance Agreement shall include the terms and conditions of repayment set
forth under section 8 of this chapter.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
§4-39. Energy audit, renewable energy system feasibility study
A. No funds shall be made available for Energy Efficiency Improvements unless determined to
be appropriate through an Energy Audit as defined in Section 2.
B. No funds shall be made available for a Renewable Energy System unless determined to be
feasible through a Renewable Energy System Feasibility Study as defined in Section 2.
C. The cost of such Energy Audit and/or Renewable Energy System Feasibility Study shall be
borne solely by the property owner but may be included in the financed amount if the work
is approved.
§4-40. Terms and conditions of repayment
The Energize Finance Agreement between the Qualified Property Owner and EIC acting on
behalf of the City, shall set forth the terms and conditions of repayment in accordance with the
following:
A. The principal amount of the funds paid to the Qualified Property Owner hereunder, together
with the interest thereon, shall be paid by the property owner as a charge on its City tax bill
and shall be levied and collected at the same time and in the same manner as City property
taxes, provided that such charge shall be separately listed on the tax bill. The City shall
make payment to EIC or its designee in the amount of all such separately listed charges
within 30 days of the City tax due date.
B. The term of such repayment shall be determined at the time the Energize Finance
Agreement is executed by the property owner and EIC, provided that in no case shall the
term exceed the weighted average of the useful life of the systems and improvements as
determined by EIC acting on behalf of the City .
C. The rate of interest for the charge shall be fixed by EIC acting on behalf of the City at the
time the Energize Finance Agreement is executed by the property owner and EIC.
D. The charge shall constitute a lien upon the real property benefited by the Energize NY
Benefit Financing Program and shall run with the land. A transferee of title to the benefited
real property shall be required to pay any future installments, including interest thereon.
§4-41. Verification and report
A. EIC shall be responsible for verifying and reporting to the City on the installation and
performance of Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements financed
by such program.
B. The City shall verify and report on the installation and performance of Renewable Energy
Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements financed by the Energize NY Benefit
Financing Program in such form and manner as the Authority may establish.
Section 2. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law
shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the
clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in
which such judgment shall have been rendered.
Section 3.This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15
5. Common Council
.2 Authorization of a Municipal Agreement Between the City of Ithaca and the Energy
Improvement Corporation to Implement and Administer a Sustainable Energy Loan
Program in the City of Ithaca
WHEREAS, by Local Law No. __ of 2015, the City of Ithaca created the Energize NY Benefit
Financing Program within the city that utilizes the Energy Investment Corporation (EIC), a
local development corporation acting on behalf of the City, to provide property assessed clean
energy (PACE) financing to assist qualified property owners undertake energy-efficiency
measures and install renewable-energy systems, and
WHEREAS, a Municipal Agreement is required to establish the roles, responsibilities, and
obligations of the EIC and the City in the administration of the Energize NY Benefit Financing
Program; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Mayor, upon review of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to enter
into a Municipal Agreement with the Energy Improvement Corporation that shall set forth the
duties and obligations of each party in connection with the City’s participation in the Energize
NY Benefit Financing Program.
J:\DRedsicker\AGENDAS\City Admin Comm\2015\4-15 - Agenda.docx 4/15/15