HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-NCI-2003 Page 1 of 3
NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE
MINUTES - UNAPPROVED
January 14, 2003
Committee Members Present: Peter Mack, Carolyn Peterson; Pat Pryor, Chair;
David Whitmore
Staff: Tim Logue, Neighborhood and Economic
Development Planner
1. Meeting called to order at 7:35 pm
2. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Peterson, seconded by Mack, the December 11, 2002 minutes of
the Neighborhood &1; Community Issues Committee were approved unanimously as
written.
3. Review Agenda
There were no changes to the agenda.
4. Public Comment
Paul Moore, a resident of the City of Ithaca, said he was confused about the
Northside agenda item and asked for more information in the future.
5. Responses to the Public by Committee members
Whitmore thanked Mr. Moore for attending and said he will work to improve
communications.
6. Announcements and Reports from Committee members
Logue announced that the next meeting of the Greater Southside Neighborhood-
based Planning Initiative would be on January 30th from 6:30pm to 8:30pm at the
Henry St. John Building. Peterson announced the weekend's celebrations of Martin
Luther King Jr. Day, including the lunch at GIAC on Monday.
7. Northside Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund Application
On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Mack, the application was approved
unanimously.
8. Support of the Coal Tar Advisory Committee Community Requirements
Document
Kathleen Foley, Jutta Dotterweich, and Susan Kuc joined the committee for
discussion. At 8:45pm, Dick Charsky of NYSEG joined the committee for
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community ISSIIes\Minutes\2003\01_14_03.doc
Page 2 of 3
discussion. The Committee took a recess from 9:07pm to 9:l 1pm. Whitmore made
two minor changes to the resolution and suggested two new "whereases" to reflect
`./ the support of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, State
Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, and the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory
Council. Discussion ensued. On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Mack, the
following resolution was approved unanimously to be sent to Common Council for
their meeting the following evening.
A Resolution in Support of Community Participation and Further
Communications on the Coal Tar Clean Up
WHEREAS, a manufactured gas plant was operated near the corner of West Court
and North Plain Streets in the City of Ithaca between 1853 and 1927, and
WHEREAS, when the plant closed, by-products of the industrial process were left
in the ground on the plant site and in a duct or ducts running under West Court
Street, and
WHEREAS, according to the remedial investigation report, by-products are known
to have leaked on the plant site and into surrounding residential blocks, and
WHEREAS, the site has been listed since 1988 on the New York State Inactive
Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Registry and categorized as a Class Two site posing
a "significant threat to the public health or environment- action required," and
WHEREAS, New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) is the responsible party as
designated by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
for the clean-up of the site and surrounding contamination, and
WHEREAS, the investigation and remediation of the site by NYSEG is being
overseen by the DEC and the New York State and Tompkins County Departments
of Health (DOH), and
WHEREAS, members of the impacted community are concerned with the scope of
the investigation, the degree and quality of public participation in the process, the
quality of data collected, the quality of data analysis, plans to protect the public
health during the cleanup, and the commitment of NYSEG, the DEC and the DOH
to complete a thorough, safe cleanup, and
WHEREAS, representatives of the community, defined as private and public
properties bounded by Buffalo, Meadow, Cascadilla and Albany Streets, have
assembled a document titled, "The Community's Requirements of Investigation and
Remediation, Former Court Street Manufactured Gas Plant, Ithaca, New York," also
known as the Community's Requirements Document, outlining their requirements
for the investigation and cleanup of contamination, and
WHEREAS, members of the community as defined in the previous "whereas" wish
to ensure full participation, a comprehensive investigation, a zero-emission
cleanup, and property value protection for both public and private owners, and
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\01_I4_03.doc
rs
Page 3 of 3
WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council and State
Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton have endorsed the Community Requirements
Document, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council has endorsed the first
three points of the Community Requirements Document, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that Common Council supports the efforts of the Coal Tar Advisory
Committee (CTAC) to assure adequate community participation in the investigation
and cleanup of the former Court Street Manufactured Gas Plant and all related
contamination throughout the community, and be it further
RESOLVED, that Common Council endorses a meeting between representatives of
NYSEG, the CTAC, and allied community organizations to discuss the concerns
around the four goals of the Community Requirements Document (full public
notification and participation, a comprehensive investigation, a zero-emission
cleanup, and property value protection for both public and private owners), and be
it further
RESOLVED, that CTAC and NYSEG representatives are invited to report back to
the Neighborhood &. Community Issues Committee at its February meeting on the
outcome of the abovementioned meeting.
9. On a motion by Whitmore, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15pm.
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\01_I4_03.doc
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE
MINUTES—UNAPPROVED
`.J February 11, 2003
Committee Members Present: Mayor Alan J. Cohen, Carolyn Peterson; Pat Pryor, chair;
David Whitmore
Staff: Leslie Chatterton,Neighborhood&Historic Preservation
Planner
1. Meeting called to order at 7:35.
2. Approval of Minutes
Whitmore suggested revision to the minutes to include the original resolution
concerning Community Participation and Further Communications on the Coal Tar
Clean-up in addition to the recorded revised resolution. He also wanted to add some
content of the discussion from the January 14 meeting. After some discussion
Committee members Whitmore agreed to confer with the City Attorney regarding the
appropriateness of his suggested revisions. Vote on Approval of the Minutes was
postponed.
3. Review Agenda
There were no changes to the agenda
4. Public Comment
Joel Harlan,Newfield,NY, addressed the Committee concerning downtown
development projects and personal watercraft regulations.
Larry Roberts,406 South Plain St, Ithaca, Chair of the Disability Advisory Council
and Program Director at the Finger Lakes Independence Center, addressed the
Committee concerning snow and ice removal. He stated that the failure of property
owners to remove snow and ice from sidewalks in a timely manner is an ongoing
seasonal hardship for people with disabilities. He suggested the problem be treated as
a civil rights issue and not the property maintenance issue as it is currently considered
in the Municipal Code.
Fay Gougakis,406 Utica St, Ithaca, addressed the Committee concerning the need for
city, town and county officials to better publicize local emergency evacuation
procedures. She also addressed the Committee concerning the regulation of personal
watercraft.
5. Response to the public by Committee members
Whitmore expressed appreciation to Roberts for his comment. Peterson suggested
that the comment also be shared with the Board of Public Works.
All Committee members responded to Gougakis' comments on disturbance caused by
personal watercraft, concluding with general agreement to look at implementing
regulations if appropriate. (Item#8)
6. Announcements and Reports from Committee Members
There were no announcements or reports
7. Joint Working Group on the Living Wage—Report and Update
The Chair changed the agenda's order to continue with the report and update of the
Joint Working Group on the Living Wage. Whitmore, Co-Chair of the Working
Group and Martha Armstrong from TCAD presented the report. Whitmore stated
that the Working Group has deviated from its set schedule for preparing
recommendations concerning local Development Principles to spend more time on
living wage issues. Armstrong was asked by the Working Group to analyze the
relationship between income levels and access to public benefits using several
hypothetical household configurations. A summary of her findings was presented to
the Committee and submitted in a written memorandum addressed to the Common
Council dated February 11, 2003. The repo resents a rationa a roac the atic �
question of what constitutes a livable wage. Whitmore stated that the report will `S
serve as a foundation on which to build local policy. Committee members expressed
appreciation to Armstrong for her work. In closing it was noted that making a real
difference in the standard of living for low wage workers will require action by the
New York State legislature to raise the minimum wage.
8. Personal Watercraft Regulations at the Southern End of Cayuga Lake-
Discussion
Committee members reviewed materials, including a bill passed by the New York
State Assembly authorizing creation of personal water craft regulation zones; a map
of the southern end of Cayuga Lake; A Checklist for Establishing Personal Watercraft
and Specialty Prop-craft Regulation Zones by Local Law. After discussion the
Committee agreed to the following course of action:
Peterson volunteered to chair a subcommittee with the Mayor to follow-up on
questions and comments raised in the discussion, such as:.
Can the City ban personal watercraft or only regulate use?
Can the City establish a zone exceeding the 1500' limit specified in existing
regulations?
The City will want to collaborate with Tompkins County and to touch base with the
Tompkins County Water Resource Council.
What are the impacts of personal watercraft on waterfowl, now or in the future?
Alan will follow up on legal (jurisdictional) issues with the City Attorney and
with colleagues at NYCOM.
It was agreed that this item would be revisited at the March meeting.
9. Adjournment
Before adjourning the Chair noted that the Commons Advisory Board has referred
to the Common Council consideration of reversing the current regulation banning
dogs on the Commons. The issue has been prompted by the pending opening of a
dog grooming business on the Commons. This item will be placed on the March
Neighborhood and Community Issues agenda.
On a motion by Peterson the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Page 1 of 5
NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE
MINUTES - UNAPPROVED
March 12, 2003
Committee Members Present: Alderpersons Mack, Peterson, Pryor (Chair),
Whitmore
Committee Members Absent: Alderperson Sams, Mayor Cohen
Staff: Tim Logue, Neighborhood and Economic
Development Planner
1. Meeting called to order at 7:36 pm
2. Approval of Minutes
Postponed until later in the meeting.
3. Review Agenda
Peterson: requested that Living Wage Proposal be on next month's agenda.
Logue: requested addition of Neighborhood Improvement Fund application.
4. Public Comment
Officer Moore, Ithaca Police Department: dogs on Commons, report of survey and
comments.
Pete Meyers, City of Ithaca resident and representative of Living Wage Coalition:
support of Living Wage proposal.
Ben Nichols, former Mayor of Ithaca, Cayuga County resident, representing
Working Families Party: support of Living Wage proposal.
David Breeden, City of Ithaca resident, representative of Tompkins County Green
Party: support of Living Wage proposal.
Theresa Alt, City of Ithaca resident: support of Living Wage proposal.
Terrance Foster, City of Ithaca resident: support of Living Wage proposal.
Brian Goodell, City of Ithaca resident, representative of 1300 members of UAW
Local 2300: support of Living Wage proposal.
John Bernstein, Town of Ithaca: support of trial period for dogs on Commons with
rules.
Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield: robbery concerns during summer months and
comments on ineffectiveness of Living Wage proposal.
QAPLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\03 12 03.doc
{ I Page 2 of 5
Peter Parkes, Commons business owner: opposed to dogs on Commons.
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca resident: opposition to dog store and dogs on
Commons.
Karl Pillemer, City of Ithaca resident: keep ban on dogs on Commons.
Guy Gerard, City of Ithaca resident: allow trial period for dogs on Commons.
Pryor noted that three letters had been submitted to the Committee in reference to
the dogs on the Commons agenda item: one from the Ithaca Downtown
Partnership, one from owner of Mail Boxes, Etc., and one from Benchwarmers
Sports Bar 8s Restaurant.
5. Responses to the Public by Committee members
Whitmore: update on Joint Working Group with County on development principles;
focus is on living wage.
Peterson: requested Living Wage proposal be added to April NCI agenda.
Mack: dogs on Commons; evaluate options and avoid selective enforcement.
Pryor: agreed to add Living Wage proposal to April NCI agenda; stated that she was
not involved in opening of dog grooming salon
6. Announcements and Reports from Committee members
Whitmore: co-sponsoring a Second Ward community meeting about the Cayuga
Green development on Thursday, March 13th at 7pm in the Henry St. John
building.
Peterson: Collegetown Neighborhood Council's next meeting is on Thursday, March
13th at 4pm at St. Luke's church on Oak Street
7. Dogs on the Commons
Pryor summarized the existing ordinances related to dogs on the Commons. Julie
Holcomb, City Clerk, and Gary Ferguson, Executive Director of the Ithaca
Downtown Partnership,joined the committee for discussion. Discussion touched
on the following issues: selective enforcement of existing laws, staffing reductions
at the Ithaca Police Department, research compiled by the IDP about other
pedestrian malls and how they deal with dogs, maintenance and cleanup, staffing
reductions in the Department of Public Works, tethering of dogs, safety concerns,
the children's playground on the Commons, liability to the City, permitting options,
responsibilities of dog owners, the Farmer's Market's policy towards dogs, health
code issues for eateries, and trial periods. No action was taken and the item was
tabled for next month's agenda. Peterson stepped out from 9:12pm until 9:15pm.
QAPLANN[NG\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Mlnutes\2003\03 12 03.doe
Page 3 of 5
S. Northside Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund Request
Application from Paul Moore: moved by Whitmore; seconded by Peterson;
approved unanimously.
9. Personal Watercraft Issue Update
Peterson reported that she is researching other communities and working on
sample resolutions. She is gathering information about environmental impacts,
safety, noise, and the different kinds of personal watercrafts. Cogan raised
concerns that he heard from one of his constituents who would oppose a ban.
10. Approval of Minutes
February 11, 2003: moved by Whitmore; seconded by Peterson; approved
unanimously with correction to Joint Working Group on Living Wage report and
update.
January 14 2003: moved by Mack; seconded by Whitmore; movement to amend by
Whitmore; seconded by Mack as follows (underlined text is additions, bracketed
text is deletions, plain text is original):
"8. Support of the Coal Tar Advisory Committee Community Requirements
Document
Alderperson Whitmore presented the following resolution for the committee's
consideration.
Resolution in Support of the Coal Tar Advisory Committee Community
Requirements Document
WHEREAS, a manufactured gas plant was operated near the corner of West Court
and North Plain Streets in the City of Ithaca between 1853 and 1927, and
WHEREAS, when the plant closed, by-products of the industrial process were left
in the ground on the plant site and in a duct or ducts running under West Court
Street, and
WHEREAS, according to the remedial investigation report, by-products are known
to have leaked on the plant site and into surrounding residential blocks, and
WHEREAS, the site has been listed since 1988 on the New York State Inactive
Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Registry and categorized as a Class Two site posing
a"significant threat to the public health or environment- action required," and
WHEREAS, New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) is the responsible party as
designated by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
for the clean-up of the site and surrounding contamination, and
QAPLANNING\GROUMNeighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\03 12 03.doc
Page 4 of 5
WHEREAS, the investigation and remediation of the site by NYSEG is being
overseen by the DEC and the New York State and Tompkins County Departments
`./ of Health (DOH), and
WHEREAS, limited investigations of soil and groundwater conditions have been
completed on the plant site and in the surrounding neighborhood to date, and
WHEREAS, members of the impacted community are concerned with the scope of
the investigation, the degree and quality of pubhc participation in the process, the
quality of data collected, the quality of data analysis, plans to protect the public
health during the cleanup, and the commitment of NYSEG, the DEC and the DOH
to complete a thorough, safe cleanup, and
WHEREAS, representatives of the community, defined as private and public
properties bounded by Buffalo, Meadow, Cascadilla and Albany Streets, have
assembled a document titled, "The Community's Requirements of Investigation and
Remediation Former Court Street Manufactured Gas Plant Ithaca New York," also
known as the Community's Requirements Document, outlining their requirements
for the investigation and cleanup of contamination, and
WHEREAS, the community wishes to ensure full participation, a comprehensive
investigation, a zero-emission cleanup, and property value protection for both
public and private owners, and
WHEREAS, the community's requirements as listed in the Community's
Requirements Document are reasonable and fair given the documented threat to
the public health or environment, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca may be affected by the contamination cleanup given
its ownership of properties in the impacted zone, including the Greater Ithaca
Activities Center, a public pool, public ball fields, public streets, public sidewalks,
and public utilities, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca's tax-based revenues may be affected if property
values are negatively affected as a result of the contamination cleanup, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is concerned for the health and safety of community
residents, children who attend Beverly J. Martin Elementary and Immaculate
Conception Elementary Schools, who participate in the programs of the Greater
Ithaca Activities Center, and who study as the Ithaca Ballet Academy, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is concerned for the health and safety of its
employees working in the community's public facilities and private businesses,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca supports the Community
Requirements Document for the investigation and cleanup of the former Court
Street Manufactured Gas Plant and all related contamination throughout the
community, and be it further,
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\03_12_03.doc
Page 5 of 5
RESOLVED, Common Council considers the document a strong statement of the
issues that merit serious consideration by NYSEG, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that Common Council endorses a meeting between Ralph R. Tedisco,
President and COO of NYSEG, Wesley W. von Schack, CEO of Energy East, and/or
other appropriate decision makers and representatives of the Coal Tar Advisory
Committee and allied community organizations to discuss the requirements in the
Community Requirements Document within 14 days of this document's
submission, and be it further
RESOLVED, that Common Council establishes a Common Council subcommittee
consisting of the two area alderpersons and two representatives of city employees
in the affected area to report back to CC to discuss possible future actions.
Kathleen Foley, Jutta Dotterweich, and Susan Kuc, members of the Coal Tar
Advisory Committee CTAC,joined the committee for discussion. Ms. Foley, Ms.
Dotterweich and Ms. Kuc expressed the significance of support from Common
Council for the Community Requirements Document in order to strengthen
negotiations with NYSEG regarding further investigation and remediation of the
Court Street Former MGP site. At 8:45pm, Dick Charsky of NYSEG joined the
committee for discussion. Mr. Charsky expressed concerns about the necessity of
the resolution as presented. The Committee took a recess from 9:07pm to 9:11 pm.
Whitmore made two minor changes to the resolution and suggested two new
"whereases" to reflect the support of the Tompkins County Environmental
Management Council, State Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, and the City of Ithaca
Conservation Advisory Council. [Discussion ensued.] Whitmore expressed the
significance of full support of the Community Requirements Document and the
resolution as proposed. Pryor expressed concerns about the possible negative
impacts of taking sides with CTAC against NYSEG. Whitmore said that supporting
CTAC and the Community Requirements Document was not synonymous with
Common Council taking sides against NYSEG. Pryor proposed the following
substitute resolution."
Discussion on this amendment noted various discussions with the City Attorney
about her December memo on guidelines for City meeting minutes, the more open
discussions that usually take place at committees (as compared to full Council
meetings), and the possibility of making formal motions before having discussions
at the committee level for the public record.
The vote on the amendment failed with Whitmore and Peterson voting for and Pryor
and Mack voting against.
The vote on the original minutes also failed with Pryor and Mack voting for and
Whitmore and Peterson voting against. No further action was taken.
11. On a motion by Mack, the meeting was adjourned at 9:56pm.
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS',Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\03 12 03.doe
t Page 1 of 3
NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE
MINUTES - UNAPPROVED
April 9, 2003
Committee Members Present: Mayor Cohen, Alderpersons Mack, Peterson, Pryor
(Chair), and Whitmore
Committee Members Absent: Alderperson Sams
Other Council Members Present: Alderpersons Cogan and Manos
Staff: Tim Logue, Neighborhood and Economic
Development Planner
1. Meeting called to order at 7:36 pm
2. Approval of Minutes
Postponed until later in the meeting.
3. Review Agenda
Pryor: add TCAT proposal after Response to Public
4. Public Comment
Guy Gerard, City of Ithaca resident: allow trial period for dogs on Commons.
Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield: warned of wolves and questioned efficacy of Living
Wage proposal.
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca resident: opposition to dog store and dogs on
Commons.
Pete Meyers, City of Ithaca resident and representative of Living Wage Coalition:
support of Living Wage proposal.
Carl Feuer, City of Ithaca resident: support of Living Wage proposal.
Howard Botwinick, City of Ithaca resident and labor economist: support Living
Wage proposal.
Barbara Shpack, City of Ithaca resident: support Living Wage proposal.
Brian Goodell, City of Ithaca resident, President of UAW Local 2300: support of
Living Wage proposal.
Sunshine Bannister, City of Ithaca resident: submitted petition and spoke in
support Living Wage proposal.
QAPLANNING\GROUMNeighborhood&Community lssues\Minutes\2003\04_09_03.doc
Page 2 of 3
Ben Nichols, former Mayor of Ithaca, Town of Ulysses resident: support of Living
`./ Wage proposal.
Theresa Alt, City of Ithaca resident: support of Living Wage proposal.
Gary Ferguson, Executive Director of Ithaca Downtown Partnership, stated that the
IDP Board is inconclusive on the Living Wage proposal and continues to work on a
response.
Laurie Linn, Chairperson of the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Board of
Directors: read a statement of concerns about the Living Wage proposal and
suggested tabling the item to get more information and feedback.
Jean McPheeters, President of the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce: read
and submitted a statement approved by the Chamber's Executive Committee
regarding concerns with the Living Wage proposal.
Dennis Rioux, a City of Ithaca resident: minimum wage should be $10, dogs
should be allowed on the Commons, and dog owners should be responsible.
S. Responses to the Public by Committee members
Cohen: reserved comments on Living Wage for later discussion.
6. TCAT Proposal for Parking Shuttle Services
Tracy Farrell and Barbara Blanchard of the TCAT Board of Directors joined the
committee and presented a proposal to run a park and ride shuttle during
construction of the Cayuga Street garage. Blanchard outlined the service, cost and
revenue estimates, and noted that questions should be directed to Bill Wendt.
Farrell noted that TCAT could provide advertising, too. Cohen noted three details
that should be modified for comparison: 1) City vs. non-City ridership should be
about 50/50; 2) non-City users should not pay for the service; and 3) what the cost
would be to run two buses at a time in order to achieve 10 minute headways. To
Manos'question, it was stated that drivers would be City-hired employees. No
action was taken.
Mack and Manos left at 9:47pm.
7. Announcements and Reports from Committee members
There were no announcements or reports.
8. Living Wage Policy
Peterson and Pryor provided some background history, noting previous committee
agenda items and the City/County joint working group. Some of the issues noted
during discussion include: City's internal review and action on wages for City
employees; AFCU definition for living wage is for individual not households; dollar
QAPLANNTNG\GROUMNeighborhood&Community issues\Minutes\2003\04_09_03.doc
Page 3 of 3
thresholds for City contracts to trigger living wage policy; impacts on contracts
with non-profit organizations; rules attached to federal funds; resolutions to pay
`./ City employees a living wage; symbolism versus real effect of living wage policy;
living wage as criterion in competitive bidding or consultant selection; workings
and products of joint working committee; and a living wage ordinance.
Cohen stepped out from 9:28pm to 9:32pm.
Peterson asked where the County stands on this policy and asked that the item be
put on the next meeting agenda. No action was taken.
The Committee took a recess from 9:35pm to 9:46pm. Cogan left at 9:40pm.
9. Dogs on the Commons
Cohen presented a concept for permitting businesses and their customers to bring
dogs on the commons in order to access the business. Discussion touched on
many points, including: possible City commitment to cleaning, maintenance, and
enforcement; the limiting effect of the City budget on making this commitment;
making the permit revocable; possibility of issuing tickets for lack of maintenance
by business owners; current fine for bringing a dog on the Commons.
On a motion by Peterson, seconded by Whitmore the concept of amending the
existing permitting system to allow dogs on the Commons was passed on to
Common Council unanimously. The concept would allow businesses that require
the presence of dogs in order to do business to apply for a permit. The permit
would be for the business and its customers. Dog owners and their dogs would be
allowed to approach/enter the business from the closest Commons entrance only.
The business owner would be responsible for cleaning any dog feces or urine within
the permit area. The permit would be a one year, renewable permit.
10. Update on the West Spencer Street Widening
Logue presented the alternatives selected by the Board of Public Works for the
intersection of West Spencer Street/South Albany Street/Old Elmira Road/Spencer
Road/Park Street and for the mainline of West Spencer Street. He noted that the
BPW would like to consider two options outside of the resolution passed by
Common Council: a 10-12 space parking lot at 402 South Cayuga Street, and,
depending on negotiations with affected property owners, the possibility of short
parking lane on the east or uphill side of the street towards the northern end of the
project.
At 10:34pm Fay Gougakis entered the Council chambers, grabbed the microphone,
and disrupted the meeting. She did not respond to Pryor's request to leave the
meeting room. No action was taken on the West Spencer Street item.
11. On a motion by Cohen, the meeting was adjourned at 10:37pm.
QAPLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\04_09_03.doc
Sarah . yers 05_14 03.doc m Page 9
Page 1 of 4
NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE
MINUTES - UNAPPROVED
May 14, 2003
Committee Members Present: Mayor Cohen, Alderpersons Mack, Peterson, Pryor
(Chair), and Whitmore
Committee Members Absent: Alderperson Sams
Staff: Tim Logue, Neighborhood and Economic
Development Planner
1. Meeting called to order at 7:33 pm
2. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Mack, the April 9, 2003 minutes of the
Neighborhood & Community Issues Committee were approved unanimously as
written.
3. Review Agenda
No changes to the agenda.
4. Public Comment
Ellen Maranca, City of Ithaca resident: supported Living Wage resolution
Debbie Minnick, City of Ithaca resident and President of the Paraprofessionals
Association: supported Living Wage resolution
Theresa Alt, City of Ithaca resident: supported Living Wage resolution
Fred Bonn,Village of Trumansburg resident and Director of Public Relations for
the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce: submitted letter from Chamber and
suggested changes to Living Wage resolution
Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield resident: encouraged elected officials to visit soup
kitchens and crack houses and to support Living Wage resolution
Pete Meyers, City of Ithaca resident: supported Living Wage resolution
Wendy Wallitt, City of Ithaca resident: supported Living Wage resolution
Shaianne Osterveich, City of Ithaca resident and Ithaca College professor of
Economics: supported Living Wage resolution and questioned the benefits of profit
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca resident: expressed her outrage at the permit system
for the Doggie Style business and called it premeditative action
QAPLANNING\GROUPSWeighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\05_14_03.doc
Sara ers 05 14 03.doc
Page 2
Page 2 of 4
Larry Roberts,City of Ithaca resident and Chair of the Disability Advisory Council: supported
Human Rights ordinance update and revisions,especially updates to protected classes, and
noted need to address accessible, affordable housing
Frances Billker, Town of Ithaca resident and Chairperson of the IthaQueer Board
of Directors: supported updates to the Human Rights ordinance
5. Responses to the Public by Committee members
Cohen: recounted conversation with Joe Swartz of the Ithaca Journal comparing
Commons dog permit amendments to changes in the adult use zoning category
Mack: stated that he was personally offended to hear a member of the public say
that his colleagues had hidden agendas and that he values dogs and animals as
members of the community
Peterson: thanked members of the public for speaking about the Living Wage
resolution
6. Announcements and Reports by Committee Members
Peterson reported on a meeting she attended about jet ski/personal watercraft
controls, including five suggested areas for legislation. Topics included speed
within certain distances of the shoreline, hours of operation, minimum age for
unsupervised usage, and mooring. The meeting was with representatives of the
Towns of Ithaca, Ulysses, and Lansing; there is interest in working on this at the
local level instead of the County.
7. Living Wage - Resolution
Cohen suggested a number of changes to the proposed resolution, including new
"resolveds."
Pryor made a number of comments about the proposed resolution and circulated a
set of possible changes. She noted that the minimum wage should be raised at the
federal and state levels and that the "living wage" as defined by Alternatives
Federal Credit Union was still too low to be adequate or equitable. She also spoke
about the City's work to raise its wages and her preference to see wage increases
due to labor organization and collective bargaining, citing the paraprofessional
movement in the school district as an example.
There was considerable discussion about a number of topics, including:
nonprofits, businesses with tipped employees, minimum contract amounts,
emergency situations, competitive bidding, certified payroll statements, timeframe
for livable wages, and the logistics of implementing a living wage policy. After some
discussion Whitmore made the following motion and Peterson seconded it:
WHEREAS, it is the belief of the Common Council that it is the responsibility of
the City of Ithaca to pay its employees the equivalent of a living wage, as defined
QAPLANNING\GROUMNeighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\05_14_03.doc
Sarah r� ers -'05 14 03.doc Pale 3
Page 3 of 4
by the Alternatives Federal Credit Union, including health
benefits, and
WHEREAS, in demonstration of the aforementioned belief, the City of Ithaca has
engaged in compensation studies to identify positions for which compensation is
less than the equivalent of a living wage, and
WHEREAS, the City has moved to improve compensation where compensation
has been identified as less than the equivalent of a living wage, and
WHEREAS, it is the belief of the Common Council that it is the responsibility of
the City of Ithaca to establish an economic development policy based on the
creation and retention of jobs that lead to self-sufficiency, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca awards many contracts to private firms to provide
services to the public and to Ithaca City government, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca also provides or participates in grants and loans
through the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency that are intended to benefit the
community by the creation or maintenance of a wide variety of employment
opportunities, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca believes that decisions
regarding contracting and economic development that involve the expenditure of
public funds should support the creation and retention of jobs with the
equivalent of a living wage and equitable wages, and
WHEREAS, our State and Federal governments have failed to keep the minimum
wage at a level necessary to maintain self-sufficiency, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that it shall be the policy of the City of Ithaca, when awarding
service contracts or grants, loans, tax incentives or abatements, and other such
forms of assistance, that one of the criteria used shall be that those receiving
assistance from or doing business with the City of Ithaca, pay their employees
the equivalent of a living wage, as defined by the Alternatives Federal Credit
Union, including health benefits, for the life of the contract, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca urges our
representatives in State and Federal government to support a significant
increase in the minimum wage, and be it further
RESOLVED, that it shall be the policy of the City of Ithaca, subject to
agreements with employee bargaining units, to continue to pay its employees the
equivalent of a living wage, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca strongly encourages all employers to make a
good faith effort to pay all employees the equivalent of a living wage.
After some discussion about competitive bidding and conversations with the City
Attorney, Cohen moved that the phrase "excepting those contracts for which
competitive bidding requirements preclude application of the aforementioned
policy" be added in the first resolved after"such forms of assistance." It was
seconded by Whitmore and approved unanimously, 4-0.
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\05_14_03.doc
y(E!rs—05 14 03.doc
Page 4 of
The following changes were suggested by Pryor and accepted as friendly
amendments: 1) adding"among other benefits" to the sixth whereas after"benefit
the community by"; 2) deleting the words "bond financing" from the first resolved;
3) considering removing the words "tax incentives" from the first resolved; 4)
replacing the phrase "that one of the criteria used shall be" with the phrase "that
in reaching a determination regarding such benefit, one of the criteria, among
others to be considered, shall be" in the first resolved.
After further discussion, Whitmore moved to call the question and the committee
unanimously agreed. The vote on the motion, as amended, passed unanimously.
The committee took a recess from 1 0:00pin to 10:1 Opm
8. Human Rights Ordinance - Resolution
Khandikile Sokoni, Associate City Attorney,joined the committee for discussion.
Pryor thanked Sokoni and Leslie Chatterton of the Department of Planning&
Development for their work on these resolutions. Shawn Martel Moore, the
Director of the Tompkins County Human Rights Commission joined the committee
for discussion, as did Frances Billker of IthaQueer.
Some discussion ensued, touching on the education and age discrimination
components of the ordinances. On a motion by Peterson, seconded by Pryor, the
committee unanimously passed Article I: Antidiscrimination of Chapter 215:
Human Rights Protection on to Common Council for approval. On a motion by
Whitmore, seconded by Mack, the committee unanimously passed Article V: Bias
Motivated Crimes of Chapter 215: Human Rights Protection on to Common
Council for approval, agreeing that it could be put on the consent agenda. On a
motion by Whitmore, seconded by Mack, the committee unanimously passed
Article III: Equal Access of Chapter 215: Human Rights Protection on to Common
Council for approval.
9. On a motion by Whitmore, the meeting was adjourned at 10:47pm.
QAPLANNINGGROUMNeighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\05_14-03.dGc
Page 1 of 4
NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE
u MINUTES - UNAPPROVED
June 11, 2003
Committee Members Present: Alderpersons Mack, Peterson, Pryor (Chair), Sams,
and Whitmore
Committee Members Absent: Mayor Cohen
Staff: Tim Logue, Neighborhood and Economic
Development Planner; Khandikile Sokoni, Associate
City Attorney; Thys Van Cort, Director of Planning &
Development
1. Meeting called to order at 7:37 pm
2. Approval.of Minutes
Postponed until later in agenda.
3. Review Agenda
Logue requested that an application to the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive
`•/ Fund be added to the agenda. The Committee agreed unanimously.
4. Public Comment
Jean McPheeters, Town of Caroline resident and President of the Tompkins County
Chamber of Commerce: questioned methodology of proposed Benefit Assessment
District (BAD)
Larry Roberts, City of Ithaca resident and Chair of the Disability Advisory Council
(DAC): recounted the DAC's discussions about the definition of disability .
Dick Flaville, City of Ithaca resident: spoke against the BAD
Ted Grant, resident of Bonita Springs, Florida: owns property on Cecil A. Malone,
spoke against the BAD
Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca resident: said the Mayor should be accountable for
being in the Ukraine during budget season, dog ordinance should be advertised,
and the basketball hoop at the deep end of the Cass Park pool doesn't belong there.
Ray Schlather, City of Ithaca resident and representing Elmira Road merchants:
spoke against the BAD on legal grounds
QAPLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community[ssues\Minutes\2003\06_11_03.doc
F .
Page 2 of 4
After Mr. Schlather's time expired, there was some discussion about letting him
finish his comments. Peterson made a motion to allow him the time, seconded by
Sams. Pryor said she would not recognize the motion during public comment.
Rob Cutting, Town of Lansing resident: owns property on Elmira Road and spoke
against the BAD
Tom Pendell, Town of Dryden resident representing Bill Cooke Imports: spoke
against the BAD
Will Cooke, Town of Ithaca resident representing Bill Cooke Imports: spoke against
the BAD and recounted his decision to expand his business in the City
S. Responses to the Public by Committee members
Mack stated that though he is not a parliamentarian and felt that no business
should be kept from the committee, he did not think that public comment was the
time to make motions. Also, he noted that he was hearing mixed messages about
the BAD from merchants in the area.
Whitmore made a motion to allow Mr. Schlather five minutes to finish his
comments. Pryor ruled from the chair to not allow the motion. Whitmore asked if
she would recognize Mr. Schlather at any point in Lhe meeting, to which Pryor
responded that she would not.
Whitmore made a motion to recess the meeting; Sams seconded the motion. Pryor
said that she would consider a recessed meeting adjourned. Peterson offered a
friendly amendment to recess until the Council meeting rules could be read.
Whitmore and Sams accepted the amendment. The motion failed upon voting (3-2)
with Peterson, Sams, and Whitmore voting for the motion and Mack and Pryor
voting against.
Peterson responded to Ms. Gougakis'comments about the dog ordinance by saying
that she had spoken to the owner of Doggie Style/Paws and that he would be
willing to distribute copies of the ordinance to his clientele.
6. Announcements and Reports by Committee Members
Peterson reported on the jet ski/personal watercraft item that she has been
following. Some of the towns working on it are considering small changes and she
has been receiving comments from constituents asking for stronger rules.
Mack clarified why he voted against the motion to recess. Whitmore said he felt
paralyzed to act within the committee because motions were ruled out of order. It
was agreed to add an item to the agenda to discuss committee procedures.
7. Human Rights Ordinance
Khandikile Sokoni, Associate City Attorney, and Shawn Martel Moore, Director of
the Tompkins County Human Rights Commission,joined the committee for
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\06_11_03.doc
Page 3 of 4
discussion. After a lengthy discussion, Whitmore made a motion to move the
matter on to Council with a recommendation to adopt the ordinance and with three
points to be clarified or added by the Attorney's Office: 1) the definition of
disability; 2) enforcement and penalties (including how the Human Rights
Commission participates); 3) new language that would not exempt discrimination
by religious based organizations that receive funding from the City of Ithaca. Mack
seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously (5-0).
S. Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund
On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Mack, an application from Eric Rosario on
behalf of the Henry St. John Neighborhood Association was approved unanimously
(5-0).
The Committee then took a recess from 9:55pm to 10:02pm.
9. Benefit Assessment District (BAD)
Van Cort joined the committee for discussion and explained an additional
resolution about the Taughannock Boulevard Extension. Discussion touched on a
number of topics including: the history, background and reasons for these
projects, traffic management, neighborhood preservation, methodology and
determinations in the Proposed BAD, financing, and scheduling. Committee
members requested a legal counsel session, to which all Council members would
be invited, before the next Council meeting.
L On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Sams, the committee moved the BAD
(including resolutions declaring lead agency, declaring no environmental
significance, and making certain determinations in relation to and approving the
establishment of the BAD �attac�h�edn on to Council without a
recommendation. The vote waeterson voting against.
On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Mack, the committee moved the following
resolution about the Taughannock Boulevard Extension on to Council with a
recommendation to approve. The vote was 4-1 with Sams voting against.
A Resolution Directing City Departments in Regard to the Benefit Assessment
District for the Southwest Area of the City of Ithaca
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council approved and amended the Six Point Traffic
Plan to the City's Comprehensive Plan in December 2001, and
WHEREAS, the Meadow Street and Taughannock Boulevard projects, two of the projects in
the Six Point Traffic Plan, are being considered by Common Council for inclusion in a
benefit assessment district, and
WHEREAS, the Meadow Street project involves the widening and redesign of an existing
roadway and bridge and the Taughannock Boulevard Extension project involves the design
and construction of a new transportation corridor, including the establishment of a right-
of-way for pedestrians, bicyclist, and motor vehicles and the consideration of complex
planning and engineering issues, and
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community IssuesUNlinutes\2003\06_11_03.doc
Page 4 of 4
WHEREAS, Capital Project #450 was previously established by Common Council in the
amount of$9,280,250.00 to fund the design and construction of the Meadow Street
widening ($1,767,000.00 budgeted) and Taughannock Boulevard Extension ($7,513,250.00
budgeted), and
WHEREAS, the planning and design of the Meadow Street widening project is nearing
completion and will soon be put out to bid for construction, and
WHEREAS, these two projects entail vastly different scopes of work, staff effort, and
financial costs, and
WHEREAS, Common Council wishes to exercise additional oversight on the Taughannock
Boulevard Extension project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that Common Council directs that no'additional funds be expended on the
Taughannock Boulevard Extension without the further direction and approval of Common
Council, and be it further
RESOLVED, that as additional information becomes available this Benefit Assessment
District may be modified by subsequent action of Common Council.
10. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Mack, the minutes from the May 14, 2003
meeting of the Neighborhood 8s Community Issues committee were approved
unanimously (5-0) as written.
11. Update on Traffic Calming
Logue gave a short update on the current status of traffic calming projects on
South Plain Street and South of Six Mile Creek. Sams requested that the
neighborhood be given some update, perhaps through flyering.
12. On a motion by Whitmore, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05pm.
�.1
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\06_11_03.doc
r
Page I of 2
NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE
MINUTES - UNAPPROVED
July k7, 2003
Committee Members Present: Alderpersons Peterson, Pryor (Chair), and Whitmore
Committee Members Absent: Mayor Cohen, Alderpersons Mack and Sams
Staff: Tim Logue, Neighborhood and Economic
Development Planner; Patricia Dunn, Assistant City
Attorney
1. Meeting called to order at 7:31 pm
2. Review of Agenda
Logue asked the committee if they would like to review the June 11 minutes. It was
agreed to look at them at the end of the meeting, time permitting.
3. Public Comment
There was no public comment.
4. Responses to the Public by Committee members
There was no response to the public by committee members.
5. Announcements and Reports by Committee Members
Peterson reported that jet ski/personal watercraft working group is still meeting
and that they are reviewing a draft local ordinance prepared by the Town of
Lansing.
Whitmore announced that the Northside neighborhood is holding a meeting on
July 23rd at 7pm in the Sciencenter to review a draft of the Northside neighborhood
plan.
Pryor announced that there would be a special meeting of Common Council on
July 17th at 5pm in Common Council chambers to consider rescinding sales tax for
certain periods as the County has done. The deadline set by the state for this
action is July 18th.
Fay Gougakis, a resident of the City of Ithaca, asked to be recognized because she
missed the period for public comment. She spoke about her concerns and
problems with the fountain on the Commons and asked for proof that the Mayor
asked the state Department of Transportation for funds to widen Meadow Street.
QAPLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\07_16_03.doc
r`
V
♦„"�
V
a
r
Page 2 of 2
Pryor noted that she had checked on some issues raised by Rob Cutting in regard
to the proposed Benefit Assessment District. The names listed on the assessment
are from the County Assessment office, which, though not legally important, have
been updated to be more accurate.
6. Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund
On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Peterson, an application from the
Washington Park Civic Association was approved unanimously (3-0). The
committee requested that future applications to fund newsletters be submitted
with a copy of the newsletter, if printed already.
On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Peterson, an application from the
Cleveland Avenue Neighbors - Diversity Overall (CAN-DO) was approved
unanimously (3-0).
7. Report on Video Cameras for Traffic Control at Signalized Intersections
Pryor reported on her conversations with various city staff about the possibilities of
installing video cameras on traffic signals. She said that New York City can ticket
the owner of the car, but that other cities can only ticket the driver. Chief Loo is
currently investigating the costs and options and will report later. Whitmore stated
that it is important to balance the usefulness of cameras to enforce the law with
the civil liberties of the citizenry.
8. Human Rights Ordinance
Patricia Dunn joined the committee for discussion, which touched on the following
issues: the definition of disability, enforcement and penalties, alternatives to
incarceration, crime victims'restitution, and who should receive awarded fines.
Pryor and Whitmore agreed to meet with Dunn and Shawn Martel-Moore, the
Director of the Tompkins County Human Rights Commission, to resolve some of
the issues. They agreed to notify Peterson of the meeting time.
9. Approval of Minutes
Logue passed out draft minutes from the June 11th meeting. It was noted that
approved or considered resolutions should be reflected in the minutes. Questions
were raised about how to reference an ordinance or a specific iteration of other
documents in the minutes. Logue and Pryor agreed to consult with the Attorney's
Office.
10. On a motion by Whitmore, the meeting was adjourned at 8:26pm.
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community IssuesWinutes\2003\07_16_03.doc
r
• Page 1 of 2
NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE
MINUTES - UNAPPROVED
September 10, 2003
Committee Members Present: Alderpersons Pryor (Chair), Mack, and Whitmore
Committee Members Absent: Alderpersons Peterson and Sams
Staff and Others Present: Mayor Cohen; Tim Logue, Neighborhood and
Economic Development Planner
1. Meeting called to order at 7:36 pm
2. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Mack, the August 13, 2003 minutes of the
Neighborhood and Community Issues Committee were approved unanimously (3-0)
as written.
3. Review Agenda
There were no changes to the agenda.
4. Public Comment
Fay Gougakis, a resident of the City of Ithaca, stated that the City should set a
precedent on a jet ski ordinance and that her ward representatives were not
publicizing the dog ordinance.
Joel Harlin, a resident of the Town of Newfield, suggested that Council members
get down in the streets so that when there is crime in their district, they can find
out why.
S. Response to Public Comment
Mayor Cohen stated that crime does exist in Ithaca, but that it is relatively minor
and low. He said that good community attitudes, strengthened through the
neighborhood planning process, and the good work of the Police Department make
a real difference, much of which is done behind the scenes. Whitmore noted the
importance of the neighborhood planning in the budget process. Pryor stated that
Council members come from a variety of backgrounds and have the pulse of the
community. Upon an outburst by Ms. Gougakis, the meeting was recessed for
three minutes at 7:55pm.
T:\Community Issues Committee\2003 Agendas\09_10_03.doe
Page 2 of 2
6. Announcements and Reports from Committee Members
Pryor passed out a permit application form to walk an animal on the Commons.
The permit combines the previous permit for residents and employees on the
Commons with the recently approved permit for businesses that require the
presence of animals to perform the function of the business. The permit is available
in the Clerk's Office.
Pryor reported on the personal watercraft regulations issue, stating that the City is
working with the County, which is interested in a comprehensive policy, and the
Water Resources Council.
Mack reported that he is working with the Police Department on a temporary
solution to the impact that rotating shifts are having on the Collegetown area.
7. Proposed Revisions to the Neighborhood Improvement Fund Procedures
Pryor reviewed a revised form for the Fund. After some discussion, the
committee unanimously agreed upon the changes.
8. Report from Community Police Board
Whitmore stated that the work of the Community Police Board is truly impressive,
mediating between the Police Department and the community and supporting the
department.
Mack asked if an undergraduate could serve on the Board. Cohen noted that there
is a two-year minimum residency requirement.
9. On a motion by Whitmore, the meeting was adjourned at 8:22pm.
T:\Community Issues Committee\2003 Agendas\09_10_03.doe
w' 'e
Page 1 of 3
NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE
MINUTES - UNAPPROVED
August 13, 2003
Committee Members Present: Alderpersons Peterson, Pryor (Chair), Sams, and
Whitmore
Committee Members Absent: Alderperson Mack
Staff: Tim Logue, Neighborhood and Economic
Development Planner; Patricia Dunn, Assistant City
Attorney
1. Meeting called to order at 7:34 pm
2. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Peterson, seconded by Sams, the June 11, 2003 minutes of the
Neighborhood and Community Issues Committee were approved unanimously (4-0)
as written.
After a motion by Whitmore and second by Peterson, the July 16, 2003 minutes of
the Neighborhood and Community Issues Committee were tabled on a motion by
Whitmore, supported unanimously, so that Assistant City Attorney Dunn could
look up the meaning of ex officio.
3. Review Agenda
There were no changes to the agenda.
4. Public Comment
Mary Schelly, a resident of the City of Ithaca and a member of the Tompkins
County Water Resources Council, spoke in favor of the personal watercraft
regulations and suggested that the buffer distance be increased to 500 feet.
5. Response to Public Comment
There was no response to the public.
6. Announcements and Reports from Committee Members
Peterson reported on the personal watercraft regulations issue, noting that the
Tompkins County Water Resources Council had not yet made a recommendation
and that the Town of Lansing had a draft resolution under consideration. Terrance
McGuinness, a resident of the City of Ithaca,joined the committee to answer
questions about personal watercraft. Nancy Schuler, a County Legislator, said that
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\08_13_03.doc
Page 2 of 3
the County seen this as an intermunicipal cooperation issue. Pryor asked how
navigable waterways would fit into the regulations. No action was taken.
7. Human Rights Ordinance - Revisions
Assistant City Attorney Dunn joined the Committee for discussion. Pryor reported
on a meeting with Whitmore, Dunn, and Shawn Martel-Moore, the Director of the
Tompkins County Human Rights Commission to review changes to the Human
Rights Ordinance on the definition of disability and on penalties. On a motion by
Whitmore, seconded by Peterson, the following changes to the ordinance were sent
to Council unanimously (4-0).
An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 215, entitled "Human Rights Protection"
of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code.
Section 1: Section 215-2 (5) shall be amended as follows:
5. The term "disability" means any physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits a major life activity or any record of such an impairment or
being regarded by others as having such an impairment. Examples of physical,
or mental impairments include, but are not limited to such contagious and non-
contagious diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing
impairments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; muscular dystrophy; multiple sclerosis;
cancer; heart disease; diabetes; HIV disease (whether symptomatic or
asymtomatic); tuberculosis; drug addiction; alcoholism; mental retardation;
organic brain syndrome; emotional illness and specific learning disabilities.
> ,
uccvxixxixvaa acxxv, av not picYcixc the cvxixpa}RaBA }'e}}}we}'e}'}}}}ng }}} cc
r-PAS9rxccviR }3 ^cuiixcrt hR ARtiVitie$�'irJXAJ;Xed the .,L, or- eeeupatien sought
held
Section 2: Section 215-4 entitled "Enforcement; penalties for offenses" shall be
amended as follows:
§215-4. Additional Enforcement. Any individual or group who is aggrieved and
alleging unlawful discrimination, by any nlam4 u' diserimin *^r " etiees may,
in addition to the remedies provided by this Ordinance, have a cause of action
against the violator for the money damages and any other remedy available by
law.
Complaints and Any individual or group aggrieved and alleging
unlawful discrimination may also lodge a complaint with the Tompkins County
Human Rights Commission, the New York State Division of Human Rights, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development. The Tompkins County Human Rights
Commission will investigate any alleged violation of the provisions of the New
York State Human Rights Law.
Section 3: The remaining part of Section 215-3 shall become Section 215-5 as
follows:
§215-5. Penalties for offenses.
QAPLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&CommunityIssues\Minutes\2003\08_13_03.doc
Page 3 of 3
Any individual who violates any of the provisions of this article shall, upon
conviction, be punished by a fine not to exceed $500 or imprisonment of not
more than 15 days, or both such fine and imprisonment.
Section 4: Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City
Charter.
8. Minutes revisited
The July 16, 2003 minutes were unanimously taken off the table. After some
discussion and a reading of passage in Robert's Rules of Order by Assistant City
Attorney Dunn, it was decided to remove Mayor Cohen from the list of members
absent. The minutes were then approved unanimously (4-0).
9. Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund
On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Sams, applications for Neighborhood
Improvement Incentive Funds from the Titus Towers Tenants Council and the IHA
Family Sites Tenant Council were approved unanimously (4-0).
10. Trolley Study
Peterson reported on a trolley study group, asking the committee if the City should
help fund the study. She said the City share could be $5,000 of a $20,000 study.
No action was taken.
11. On a motion by Whitmore, the meeting was adjourned at 8:34pm.
Q:\PLANNIN&GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\08_13_03.doc
REPORT OF THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE
ON THE SELECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF A
25 MILE-PER-HOUR SPEED LIMIT
NOVEMBER 2003
Prepared by:
Leslie A. Chatterton, Neighborhood Planner
For the Mayor's Task Force for the Selective
Implementation of a 25 MPH Speed Limit
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
John Beach Jennifer Dotson Patricia Pryor, Chair
Margot Brinn Wendy Skinner Leslie Chatterton, Staff
Ron Chapman Dorothy Rollins
Gossa Tsegaye
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Annotated List of Recommended Streets
Appendices
Sample Evaluation Form, (Criteria)
Area Maps with Destinations
Cornell Heights
Downtown
East Hill
Greater South Side
South Hill
Southside
West Hill
Map Showing Population Density by Census Block
Map Showing Density of 5-9 Year-olds by Census Block
Map Showing Density of 10 — 14 Year-olds by Census Block
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 200311
Executive Summary
Neighborhood organizations and residents have long expressed interest in reducing the City of
Ithaca's speed limit. Neighborhoods assert that the slower speeds will have an obvious impact
on safety, but also point to an improved quality of life as an equally important objective.
Slower traffic means less noise, greater safety and security for neighborhood kids and an
enhanced experience for pedestrians and bicyclists. All these benefits strengthen the broader
goal of attracting potential homeowners to Ithaca's neighborhoods -- especially downtown
neighborhoods.
In January of 2003 Mayor Alan Cohen appointed a Task Force to work on approaches to the
selective implementation of a 25 mile-per-hour speed limit in the City of Ithaca. At the Mayor's
request, Alderwoman Pat Pryor agreed to serve as the Task Force Chair. Task Force members
were recruited with an eye toward achieving diversity, both in terms of demographics and
geography. Task Force members were asked to represented their own and adjacent
neighborhoods and were advised to solicit input from other residents in formulating
recommendations. For areas or neighborhoods for which representatives were not found,
Alderpersons provided suggestions for appropriate streets or suggested residents willing to
participate in telephone interviews.
MISSION
Mayor Cohen outlined a three-fold mission for the Task Force with the goal of improving
pedestrian and driver safety and enhancing neighborhood quality of life as follows:
• Recommend streets or street segments within the city for 25 mile-per-hour speed limits—
(short term goal)
• Report on the possibility of creating 15 mile-per-hour zones around daycare centers,
similar to those permitted in school zones. (2nd goal)
• Report on the feasibility of petitioning New York State for home rule legislation allowing
local implementation of a city-wide 25 mph speed limit. (long term goal)
METHODOLOGY
The work of the Task Force began with the Mayor's directive that New York State law will
permits reduction of a speed limit from 30 to 25 miles per hour by municipalities on selected
streets where a strong rationale for speed reduction can be demonstrated.
Initially, the Task Force brainstormed candidate streets on the basis of personal and collective
neighborhood experience, a process that carried over several meetings. Added to the mix were
streets suggested to Task Force members by various neighborhood residents or civic groups.
To evaluate nominated streets the Task Force spent several meetings developing and refining
criteria for determining the relative need and feasibility of implementation of a 25 mph limit on
the "nominated" streets. The criteria—which included physical features, what is known about
speeding behaviors and accident counts, existing traffic calming devices, and population density
—was applied to nominated streets and used to select a final list, (see Appendix xx). It is
important to qualify, however, that while the criteria guided the selection and elimination of
nominated streets, there was no pass-fail score. Neighborhood perceptions and the experience of
the Task Force and other residents were also taken into account. The New York State
Department of Transportation verified that all city streets except for Route 13 and the Seneca-and
Green Street one-way pair are under local control, including other numbered state routes.
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 2003
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. 25 MPH STREETS
The task force was unanimous in their recommendation that 25 mile-per-hour speed
limits on selected streets will improve pedestrian safety and quality of life in the
neighborhoods. The Task Force also agreed that the streets listed below should be
considered a "first round" of eligible streets and that additional streets can be added in
future rounds. In further discussion, the Task Force also agreed that it will be less
confusing for motorists if the reduced speed is applied to the entire length of selected
streets. Finally there was comment that without widespread compliance and effective
enforcement, lowered speed limits will have little effect. In addition there was a sense by
some residents, as reported by Task Force members, that selective implementation should
occur in conjunction with and not instead of the City's on-going traffic calming program
Streets recommended for implementation of a 25 mph speed limit
Albany St Cornell St Old Elmira Rd
Aurora St Eddy St Plain St Spencer St E
`./ Cayuga St Giles St Spencer Rd
Cliff St Hancock/Tompkins Sts Spencer St W
Clinton St Hector St State St E
College Ave Hudson St State St W
Columbia St Ithaca Rd Stewart Ave
Corn St Mitchell St Tioga St
University Ave
2. BLANKET 25 MPH SPEED LIMIT
Task Force members supported a recommendation for a blanket 25 mph enforced on all
city streets. This action would involve petitioning the New York State legislature for
home rule legislation.
3. 15 MPH SPEED LIMITS NEAR DAYCARE CENTERS
The Task Force agreed that establishing 15 mile-per-hour zones around daycare centers is
worthy of investigation, but that a more thorough study would be needed to address
issues such as how day care centers are classified, (private vs. licensed); number of
attendees, etc.
1
Sreets Recommended for
25 MPH Speed Limit
City of Ithaca NY
2003
Z
�
U I SITY ITY
VE-
IPA
—EOKI IS 8T
z z!
0
> 0. 9
U)
z
>
2'
Z.
Cn'
------ W STATS ST
16)
cn� Jul
w
-A>
z
6A t
t6/ A- '7IES ST
A
Length of Streets
City: approx. 72 miles
25 MPH Streets: 21.8 miles
N
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
LData Source- Mavor's Task Force for Selected Implementation of 25 MPH Speed Limit,City
of Ithaca NY,November 2003
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 2003
Annotated Listing of Streets recommended by the Mayor's Task Force for a
25 mph speed limit
Albany Street-Classified as an urban minor arterial, Albany Street presents a gateway to the
city from the south. The street traverses three residential neighborhoods: South of the Creek,
Henry St John, and the northern edge of Washington Park. There are several vehicular,
pedestrian and child-centered traffic destinations/generators including The Reconstruction
Home, Beverly J. Martin Elementary School, the Greater Ithaca Activities Center and the Alex
Haley Municipal Pool. There is a 15 mph speed limit in the vicinity of the school. High
accident rates are recorded at many of the street's intersections. From the southern terminus to
Green Street, traffic volumes are especially high. This segment was selected as a pilot site for
the city's traffic calming program, but physical constraints and use by buses and emergency
vehicles have eliminated use of the most effective devices. Implementation of the Six Point
Traffic Plan, specifically the proposals to reconfigure the Albany Street and Spencer Road
intersection and widen Spencer Road, should divert some traffic bound for downtown and East
Hill onto West Spencer Street. The block bounded by Albany, Buffalo, Plain and Court Streets
is included in the Washington Park pilot traffic-calming program. Proposed devices include
raised intersections at the Buffalo and Court Street intersections. The street is generally straight
and wide with long sight lines, a condition that encourages higher speeds.
Key factors in selecting Albany Street for the 25 mph speed limit
• Gateway and a prevalent route from the south
High traffic volume at southern end
• Relatively high accident rates at several intersections
• Numerous vehicular,pedestrian and child-centered destinations/generators such
as Beverly J. Martin Elementary School, Greater Ithaca Activities Center,Alex
Haley Municipal Pool
Aurora Street—Classified as a rural minor arterial from the southern terminus at the city line,
to Clinton Street, the classification changes to urban minor arterial north of Clinton. The south
end of Aurora Street is a gateway to the city from the south. The speed limit shifts from 40 mph
on NYS Route 96B to 30 mph at the city line. Once across the city line the street descends South
Hill with increasing steepness as it approaches downtown. During the approach the street passes
the South Hill Elementary School. There is no 15 mph limit on Aurora Street in the vicinity of
the school. The Aurora Prospect Street intersection has a very high accident rate. This segment
of the street was recommended and selected as a pilot site for the city's traffic calming program,
but was dropped because the width was insufficient for effective traffic calming devices. Instead
a bicycle lanes will be painted on the west side of the street. Shortly after the Prospect Street
intersection the street reaches the bottom of South Hill and the intersection with East State Street
and The Commons. A mix of downtown businesses, bars and restaurants generating high
pedestrian traffic volumes characterizes this intersection, at the east end of The Commons
pedestrian mall. The downtown commercial character of Aurora Street continues north to Court
Street and this segment is designated one-way, northbound. Across Cascadilla Creek, Aurora
Street is flat and wide with no visual obstructions. Here the street traverses the Fall Creek
`./ residential neighborhood, characterized by the substantial pedestrian traffic of neighborhood
residents and their children. Opportunities for pedestrian vehicular conflict increase at near the
2
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 2003
pedestrian and child-centered destination of the Fall Creek Elementary School at Aurora between
�../ King and Queen Streets. There is a 15 mph speed limit posted in the vicinity of the school.
Although there are intermittent stop signs and traffic lights, the width of the road and its long
sight lines encourage travel above the speed limit.
Key factors in selecting Aurora Street for the 25 mph speed limit
• Gateway and a prevalent route from the south
• High accident rate at the Prospect Street intersection
• Numerous vehicular, pedestrian and child-centered designations and generators
including South Hill and Fall Creek Elementary Schools, Boynton Middle School
and Ithaca High School.
• Insufficient width for effective traffic calming devices on South Hill
• Ample street width and long sight lines in the "flats" encourage higher speeds
Cayuga Street - The north end of Cayuga Street is a gateway to the city for traffic from the
north. Cayuga Street traverses the "flats" and the downtown center. Classified as an urban
minor arterial, Cayuga Street carries a high vehicular traffic volume, especially between
Cascadilla and Clinton Streets. A high pedestrian traffic volume, including shoppers, library
users, young people hanging out and downtown employees walking to and from work, also
characterizes this segment. Despite the one-way designation southbound between Green and
Court Streets, this segment shows relatively high rate of accidents. It is anticipated that retail
development in the southwest part of the city, already underway, will substantially increase
traffic volumes on Cayuga Street south of downtown. North of downtown, Cayuga Street
traverses the residential neighborhoods of Northside, Fall Creek and South of the Creek. The
Ithaca High School and Boynton Middle School are major vehicular, pedestrian and child-
centered designations/generators with Cayuga Street serving as a prevalent route. Although
there are traffic lights and stop signs, the width and flatness of the road and its long sightlines
encourage higher speeds.
Key factors in selecting Cayuga Street for the 25 mph speed limit:
• Gateway from the north
• High vehicular and pedestrian traffic volumes
• Relatively high accident rate at some intersections
• Numerous vehicular,pedestrian and child-centered destinations/generators
including downtown and Boynton Middle and Ithaca High Schools
• Ample street width and long sight lines encourage higher speeds
Cliff Street — Classified as a rural minor arterial, Cliff Street, also NYS Route 96, is a
gateway to the city from the west. The speed limit on NYS Route 96 before the city line is 40.
East of the city line the street descends with increasing steepness to its terminus at the Buffalo
Street bridge. Although the street is residential, neighborhood quality of life is highly
compromised by high volume traffic. There are no sidewalks on the street's south side.
Segments on the north side lack any tree lawns that can effectively separate pedestrians from
vehicular traffic. The street is a pedestrian route to the bus stop located at the base of the hill.
The West Hill neighborhood has an above average density of school age children and young
adults and the street is used by school children walking and bicycling to the West Hill's
Alternative Community School. Cliff Street was selected as a candidate pilot site for the city's
traffic calming program, but the street's narrow width and its use by emergency vehicles limit
use of devices that could effectively calm traffic.
3
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 2003
Key factors in selecting Cliff Street for the 25 mph speed limit:
• Gateway and prevalent route from the west
• High vehicular traffic volumes
• No sidewalk on east side threatens pedestrian safety and sense of security
• Narrow width prevents installation of effective traffic calming devices
• The ascending/descending grade encourages higher speeds
Clinton Street—Clinton Street, also NYS Route 79, is classified as an urban minor arterial.
From the eastern terminus at Prospect Street, it traverses two residential neighborhoods, Henry
St. John and Southside. The street carries a high volume of traffic moving between downtown
and NYS Route 13, which has a detrimental impact on neighborhood quality of life. At the
eastern segment of the street, traffic lights at South Cayuga and South Aurora Streets help
moderate traffic speeds, but within the four-block segment from Aurora to NYS Route 13 there
are no speed controls. Clinton Street experiences a relatively high level of pedestrian and bicycle
traffic and is used by children in the neighborhood. Pedestrian destinations/generators include
the Henry St. John apartments and offices, the Reconstruction Home and Clinton Plaza West.
Key factors in selecting Clinton Street for the 25 mph speed limit
• High vehicular traffic volumes
• Numerous pedestrian destinations/generators
College Avenue —The northern segment of College Avenue, from the Catherine Street
intersection to the terminus at Oak Avenue, is a major route to the Cornell University campus,
and carries an extraordinarily high pedestrian traffic volume. This segment is also in the center
of high-density student housing. Here the pedestrian traffic in part moderates vehicular speed
along with a series of neck downs installed as part of a 1980s Collegetown streetscape
improvement program. Several intersections on this street segment show relatively high accident
rates. In contrast, the southern segment, from Catherine to the State Street terminus, is wide,
with unbroken sight lines. This segment is characterized by smaller scale residential uses and
there are no traffic controls or other impediments to speed.
Key factors in selecting College Avenue for the 25 mph speed limit
Key factors in selecting College Avenue for the 25 mph speed limit
• High pedestrian traffic volumes
• Relatively high accident rates at northern intersections
• Ample street width and long sight lines encourage higher speeds at the southern end
Columbia Street — Columbia Street traverses the South Hill neighborhood. The street is
classified as an urban collector and is residential in character. It is used by some as a cut-through
between Giles and South Aurora Streets. Pedestrian use is high as the eastern terminus is the
pedestrian bridge to East Hill and the Cornell University campus.
Key factors in selecting Columbia Street for the 25 mph speed limit.
• Cut-through from Giles to Aurora Street, (also NYS Route 96B)
• Pedestrian bridge at east end is traffic generator
• The ascending/descending grade encourages higher speeds
4
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 2003
Corn Street — Residential in character and classified as a local road, Corn Street traverses the
Southside and part of the Washington Park neighborhoods. Five blocks long, the street is wide
and flat and has long sight lines with few speed impediments. When compared with other local
roads the street carries a relatively high volume of traffic and is used as a cut through for traffic
traveling north/south seeking to avoid NYS Route 13. Washington Park is a popular pedestrian
and child-centered destination/generator. Curb extensions are proposed for the Buffalo Street
intersection
Key factors in recommending Corn Street for the 25 mph speed limit
• Cut-through for vehicles seeking to avoid traffic and traffic controls on NYS Route
13
• Pedestrian,bicycle and child-centered destination/generator—Washington Park
• Ample street width and long sight lines encourage higher speeds
Cornell Street— Cornell Street is located on East Hill and traverses the Belle Sherman
neighborhood. The street is entirely residential in character except where it passes between the
Belle Sherman Elementary School and the Belle Sherman Wilson Annex. Classified as an urban
collector,it has been observed that vehicles use the street as a straight shot across East Hill to
Giles Street and South Hill. Although there are traffic lights at the northern terminus and a stop
sign at the Mitchell Street intersection, once past these impediments vehicles travel in a southerly
direction is uninterrupted by additional speed controls. The street is wide with long sightlines.
The descent/ascent on southerly segment of the street, toward the terminus at East State Street,
provides a further inducement to higher speeds.
Key factors in recommending Cornell Street for the 25 mph speed limit
`./ • Cut-through between Cornell campus and South Hill
• Vehicular,pedestrian and child-centered traffic destination and generator- Belle
Sherman Elementary School
• The ascending/descending grade encourages higher speeds
• Ample street width and long sight lines encourage higher speeds
Eddy Street —The north end of Eddy Street is in the midst of the Collegetown neighborhood
with its densely mix of residential and commercial uses. Collegetown has a dense student
population and from the northern terminus to Catherine Street carries heavy pedestrian traffic to
and from Cornell University. The restaurants and bars in this segment also attract numerous
pedestrians and the intersection with Dryden Road is often clogged with people, a condition that
increases the chance of conflicts with vehicles. Although the concentration of pedestrians is not
as high south of Catherine Street, this segment is still heavily used by Cornell students and
faculty. Here the street is wide and straight with long sightlines, conditions that encourage
speeding. There are no speed controls south of Catherine Street.
Key factors in recommending Eddy Street for the 25 mph speed limit
• Mix of pedestrian traffic destinations/generators including business, restaurants and
the Cornell campus
• High volume pedestrian traffic
• Ample street width and long sight lines encourage higher speeds
L
5
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 2003
Giles Street —Giles Street connects with Cornell Avenue, linking East and South Hills.
Development of the eastern segment of the street is sparse and exhibits a rural character on most
of the segment between Water Street and Columbia Street. These conditions encourage travel at
higher speeds approaching or leaving the Columbia Street intersection. The Mulholland
Wildflower Preserve is a vehicular and pedestrian traffic generator on this street segment where
there is no sidewalk. The rural character abruptly ends at Columbia Street with denser student
housing on Charles and James Streets and an increasingly dense mix of single family and student
rental houses to the Hudson Street intersection. The stop sign at Columbia Street is the only
speed control on Giles Street.
Key factors in recommending Giles Street for the 25 mph speed limit
• Cut- through between East Hill and South Hills
• Rural character on eastern segment encourages higher vehicle speed
• Pedestrian and vehicular traffic generator—The Mulholland Wildflower Preserve
• Lack of sidewalk threatens pedestrian safety and sense of security
Hector Street— The north end of Hector Street, also NYS Route 79,is a gateway to the city
from the west. The speed limit reduces abruptly at the city line from 55 to 30 mph. East of the
city line the street descends with increasing steepness to its terminus at the State Street bridge.
The street is residential in character and the high volume and excessive traffic speeds have an
adverse affect on neighborhood quality of life. There are no sidewalks on the south side of the
street. Although sidewalks on the north side have tree lawns they are not wide enough to give
pedestrians a sense of security. The street is a pedestrian route to the bus stop at the base of the
hill. The West Hill neighborhood has an above average density of children between five and
fourteen years old, and the Alternative Community School is a pedestrian and child-centered
destination. New development west of the city line at Linderman Creek increases traffic volume
on Hector Street. Selected as a candidate pilot site for the city's traffic calming program, the
street's narrow width and its use by emergency vehicles prohibit use of the most effective
devices.
Key factors in recommending Hector Street for the 25 mph speed limit
• Gateway and prevalent route from the west
• Abrupt speed limit change from 55 to 30 mph crossing the city line.
• Lack of sidewalk and insufficient separation between sidewalk and street threatens
pedestrian safety and sense of security
• Pedestrian and child-centered destinations/generators including The Alternative
Community School and the TCAT bus stop.
• High concentration of children between five and fourteen years old
• Narrow width prevents installation of effective traffic calming devices.
• The ascending/descending grade encourages higher speeds
6
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 2003
Hudson Street —Hudson Street traverses the entire South Hill neighborhood in a
southerly/northerly direction. Classified as an urban collector the southern segment of the street
receives traffic from large rental complexes at Hudson Place and Grandview Ave, Place and
Courts. The midsection of the street passes by the Oak Hill Manor, a residential facility for
senior citizens, and the South Hill Elementary School where there is a designated 15 mph zone.
From Hillview Place the street descends to the downtown commercial center through a densely
developed area of two and three story frame residential buildings inhabited by a mix of single
families and student renters. . The four way stop at Columbia Street is the only speed control on
the length of the street and the Hudson is used by traffic entering and leaving the city seeking to
avoid congestion and traffic lights on South Aurora Street.
Key factors in recommending Hudson Street for the 25 mph speed limit
• Vehicular,pedestrian and child-centered traffic destination/generators—such as the
South Hill Elementary School
• Four way stop at Columbia Street is the only traffic control
• The ascending/descending grade encourages higher speeds
Ithaca Road —Located between Mitchell Street and Maple Avenue, Ithaca Road serves as a
connector from downtown and South Hill to the Cornell campus and Route 366. Classified as an
urban arterial, it carries significant volumes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic much of it
generated by the campus.. The street is residential in character and passes by Bryant Park that
along with the Belle Sherman Elementary School is another pedestrian and child-centered
destination/generator. Ithaca Road is wide with long sightlines and descends from the
intersection with Maple Street down to Mitchell Street with no speed controls, all conditions that
encourage higher speeds.
• High vehicular and pedestrian traffic volumes
• Pedestrian and child-centered destinations/generators
• Ample width and long sightlines encourage higher speeds
• The ascending/descending grad encourages higher speeds
Mitchell Street— Conditions on Mitchell Street are comparable to Ithaca Road, although
Mitchell Street carries higher volumes of traffic. Classified as an urban collector the street
serves as a connector from downtown and South Hill to the Cornell campus and Route 366.
From East State Street to Ithaca Road, Mitchell is a designated route for trucks over five tons and
this segment carries high vehicular traffic volumes, adversely affecting the neighborhood quality
of life. Mitchell Street is a gateway and prevalent route from the east, connecting with Ellis
Hollow Road in the Town of Ithaca. Vehicles traveling from the east often continue travel at
speeds over 30 mph after crossing the city line. On reaching the Belle Sherman Elementary
School, the 15 mph speed zone slows vehicles. A curb extension at the intersection with Ithaca
Road also inhibits speed. Traveling east toward Ellis Hollow, once past the school there are no
further speed controls. Excessive speeds on this segment compromise safety and neighborhood
quality of life.
Key factors in selecting Mitchell Street for the 25 mph speed limit.
• Prevalent route for entering and leaving the city
• High vehicular traffic volume between East State and Ithaca Road intersections
• Vehicular, pedestrian and child-centered traffic destination and generator- Belle
Sherman Elementary School
7
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 2003
Old Elmira Road —The south end of old Elmira Road is a gateway to the city and presents a
transition from five lane traffic of NYS Route 13 and adjacent automobile-oriented retail
businesses to the city's smaller scaled downtown and surrounding downtown residential
neighborhoods. Classified as an urban minor arterial, the street carries a high volume of traffic.
The visual character of the street reflects the transition, with the automobile oriented Ithaca
Plaza, (Ithaca's first shopping center) at the street's south end, a lack of continuous sidewalk
south of Plain Street and the residential character at the north end. This south end of Albany
Street, where it meets with Elmira Road, carries the highest traffic volumes of any neighborhood
street. After the traffic light at the southern terminus of old Elmira Road there are no
impediments to speeding. Traveling northerly, many motorists are not aware that they are
approaching a residential neighborhood.
Key factors in selecting Old Emira Road for the 25 mph speed limit
• Gateway and prevalent route from the south
• High volume traffic
• Transition from five lane commercial corridor to residential neighborhood
• Intermittent sidewalks threaten pedestrian safety and sense of security
• No speed controls
• Ample street width and long sight lines encourage higher speeds
Plain Street- Plain Street traverses the "flats"in a north and south direction, passing through
the downtown residential neighborhoods of South of the Creek, Southside and Washington Park.
Designated as an urban minor arterial, the street carries relatively low volume traffic that
increases some at the mid-segment west of downtown. The street passes by the pedestrian
`./ destinations/generators of the Ithaca Housing Authority's complexes, Titus Towers, occupied by
low-income seniors and Southview, which has a dense population of children and young people
between the ages of 5 and 14. Other pedestrian generators include the Southside Community
Center and nearby Washington Park. Within the neighborhoods Plain Street is used by
pedestrians, bicyclists and children, traveling to and from other downtown
destinations/generators. The recently completed Plain Street bridge draws motorists seeking to
avoid traffic and traffic controls on the Fulton and Meadow Street one-way pair. Stop signs on
either side of the Plain Street bridge, a mini traffic circle at Center Street, and soon-to-be-
constructed raised crosswalks to the Southside Center all serve as impediments to speeding on
the south end of the street. The neighborhood has called for a traffic light at the Clinton Street
intersection. Speed tables are proposed at the Buffalo and Court Street intersections as speed
control measures. Plain Street is wide and straight, with long sight lines, conditions that
encourage higher speeds.
Key factors in selecting Plain Street for the 25 mph speed limit:
• Numerous vehicular, and pedestrian and child-centered traffic
destinations/generators including Titus Towers, Southside Community Center and
Southview
• Cut-through for vehicles seeking to avoid traffic volume and traffic controls on NYS
Route 13
• High concentration of children between five and fourteen years old.
• Ample street width and long sight lines encourage higher speeds
8
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 2003
Spencer Street East —Classified as a local road, East Spencer Street is a relatively short and
exceptionally narrow segment, as little as 16 feet in spots. The perception of the narrow width is
heightened by the steep rise in grade on the east side, by on-street parking on the west side, and
by the closely spaced housing with little or no setback from the sidewalk and no tree lawn.
Used as a cut-through between Old Elmira and Clinton Street for traffic seeking to avoid
additional speed controls. A curb extension constructed at the north end of East Spencer Street
has been modified, a change that has reduced its effectiveness as a speed control measure. The
street is currently posted with a recommended speed limit of 20 mph. The task force
recommends a mandatory 25 mph speed limit.
Key factors in selecting East Spencer Street for the 25 mph speed limit:
• Cut-through for vehicles traveling south
• Residences at edge of sidewalk; inadequate separation between sidewalk and street
• Unusually narrow street
Spencer Street West—West Spencer Street is currently designated one-way in the southerly
direction and is used by many commuters to exit the city onto Old Elmira Road and NYS Route
13. The city's approved Six Point Traffic Plan proposes to widen the street and lift the one-way
designation with the objective of providing an alternate route to and from downtown, Old Elmira
Road and Route 13. The proposal is a response to the potential for a dramatic increase in traffic
volume due to "big box" retail growth in the southwest area of the city, already underway.
Motorists currently use South Albany Street, which, as a result, carries the highest traffic
volumes of any city neighborhood street. The steep grade on the east side of the street has
hampered development and there is no sidewalk. A row of large student rental properties line
the west side separated from the street by a sidewalk and tree lawn.
Key factors in selecting West Spencer Street for the 25 mph speed limit:
• Anticipated high volume traffic on completion of road widening,currently
underway, and lifting of the existing one-way designation.
Spencer Road —Flanked by commercial development on Elmira Road and Route 13 on the
west and South Hill on the east, Spencer Road is a designated local road located at the southern
fringe of the city's residential development. Featuring wooded house lots with varying set backs,
Spencer Road has a rural character that distinguishes it from other city streets. The street is
currently designated one-way in a southerly direction from the Albany Street, Elmira Road and
Plain Street intersection to the intersection with South Meadow Street and many motorist use it
as an alternative to the busy traffic and traffic lights on Route 13. A traffic island has been
constructed at this intersection. Many of the homes are single-family owner-occupied and many
of the families have younger children. There are no sidewalks and pedestrians and children are
forced to use the roadway.
Key factors in selecting Spencer Road for 25 mph speed limit:
• Rural character encourages increase speeds
• Cut-through for vehicles seeking to avoid traffic volume and traffic controls on NYS
Route 13
• Lack of sidewalks threatens pedestrian safety and sense of security
9
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 2003
State Street, East - Classified as an urban minor arterial, East State Street, also NYS Route
79, is a gateway and prevalent route for motorists traveling from the east. East State Street is
also a designated route for trucks over 5 tons. The street traverses three residential
neighborhoods, Belle Sherman, Collegetown, and lower East Hill. The speed limit changes from
45 to 30 mph at the city line and the approach to downtown Ithaca is a continuous descent that
becomes increasingly steep. The street traverses East Hill adjacent to Collegetown and College
Avenue, a gateway to Cornell University for student and employee motorists, and pedestrians.
As a result this area carries high traffic volumes and experiences high accident rates.
Key factors in selecting East State Street for a 25 mph speed limit:
• Gateway and prevalent route from the east
• High vehicular and considerable pedestrian traffic volumes
• High accident rates at some intersections
• The ascending/descending grade encourages higher speeds
State Street, West—West and East State Streets are separated by The Commons, Ithaca's
two-block pedestrian mall. The West State Street Corridor provides a prevalent connection to
between NYS Route 13, downtown and The Commons, a connection will likely become more
vital as development progresses in the West End and Inlet Island. Classified an urban collector,
the street is commercial with a variety of services, shopping and restaurant destinations,
generating vehicular and pedestrian traffic and at busy times, complicated by vehicles parking or
entering into the traffic stream. The city's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan recommends bike lanes
for the entire length of the street. West State Street is also designated route for trucks over 5
tons. The street width is ample with long sight lines, two characteristics, which encourage
increased speeds.
Key factors in selecting West State Street for a 25 mph speed limit:
• Prevalent route between Route 13,The Commons and downtown
• Numerous vehicular and pedestrian destinations/generators
• Ample street width and long sight lines encourage higher speeds
Stewart Avenue —Stewart Avenue traverses the western edge of Collegetown, a mixed
residential and commercial neighborhood south of the Cornell University campus. Designated
an urban collector, the street is a major pedestrian and vehicular route to and through the campus.
The southern end is predominantly student rental housing. The two blocks just south of
Cascadilla Creek are mixed commercial and student rental. The segment north of Cascadilla
Creek traverses Cornell's "west campus". The street receives a relatively high level of vehicular
and pedestrian traffic. In the residential section south of Cascadilla Creek only parked cars
separate pedestrians from motorists. While there are stop signs at the Seneca and Buffalo Street
intersections, visibility east and west at these intersections is often impaired by parked cars.
North of the creek the street widens and sight lines are long, two conditions that encourage
higher speeds. Here numerous pedestrians cross between the west campus dormitories, Noyes
student center and"libe slope", most using designated crosswalks.
Key factors in selecting Stewart Avenue for a 25 mph speed limit
• Prevalent student and commuter route to the Cornell campus
• High vehicular and pedestrian traffic volumes
• Visibility is impaired at the Seneca and Buffalo Street intersections
• Ample street width and long sight lines at the campus segment of Stewart Avenue
encourage higher speeds
10
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 2003
Tioga Street - Classified as an urban collector, most of North Tioga Street lies within the Fall
�./ Creek residential neighborhood. The blocks closer to The Commons, from Seneca Street to
Cascadilla Creek include a concentration of retail and office uses, which generate considerable
pedestrian traffic. The Fall Creek neighborhood is characterized by considerable pedestrian
traffic, including neighborhood residents and their children who walk to Fall Creek Elementary
School, to Boynton Middle School and to Ithaca High School further north. Although there are
intermittent stop signs and traffic lights, the width of the road and its long sight lines encourage
travel at higher speeds. .
Key factors in selecting Tioga Street for the 25 mph speed limit:
• Numerous pedestrian destinations/generators at the south end,near The Commons
• Use by school age children of Fall Creel routes, including Tioga Street
• Ample street width and long sight lines encourage higher speeds
Tompkins/Hancock Streets —From the eastern terminus at Linn Street, Tompkins Street, ,
traverses the Fall Creek neighborhood. Classified as an urban collector, traffic volumes at this
segment are moderate. The Fall Creek neighborhood is characterized by considerable pedestrian
traffic, including neighborhood residents and their children who walk to Fall Creek Elementary
School, to Boynton Middle School and to Ithaca High School further north. Neighborhood
residents also use the street to walk to and from downtown or to the commercial uses on
Hancock Street. Although there are stop signs at North Aurora and North Tioga Streets and a
traffic light at the North Cayuga Street intersection, the street is wide and straight with long
sightlines that encourage higher speeds. Parked cars at the intersections obstruct the view of
vehicles traveling north and south and increase chances of pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle
conflicts. At Auburn Street, and the tip of Auburn Park, there is a confusing five-way
intersection that was a pilot site in the city's traffic calming program. Disagreement among
neighbors concerning an effective treatment has delayed further consideration of a device at this
location and in the short term no change is planned.
Across the bridge over Cascadilla Creek,Tompkins becomes Hancock Street. Like the
Tompkins segment, Hancock Street is a classified as an urban collector and is a designated route
for trucks over 5 tons between NYS Route 13 and Dey Street. Traffic volumes on Hancock are
higher than on Tompkins Street. The first three blocks are a mix of residential and commercial
uses, including the pedestrian destination/generator of the P & C grocery store and Hancock
Plaza. Neighbors have long requested a stop sign to control traffic at First Street. From
Madison Street traveling west, Hancock Street traverses the Northside complex of the Ithaca
Housing Authority, subsidized housing populated with families and a high concentration of
children between the ages of five to fourteen. Children walk and bike in the neighborhood, to
downtown and neighborhood commercial uses and to the nearby schools. Although there are is a
four way stop at the Third Street intersection this segment of the street is wide and straight with
long sightlines that encourage higher speeds.
Key factors in selecting Tompkins/Hancock Streets for the 25 mph speed limit:
• Numerous pedestrian destinations/generators including the P&C Shopping Plaza,
Hancock Street Plaza, Conway Park and the Northside housing complex
• Poor visibility at some intersections
• High concentration of children between five and fourteen years old
• Ample street width and long sight lines encourage higher speeds
11
Report of the Mayor's Task Force For the Selective
Implementation of a 25 miles-per-hour Speed limit
November 2003
University Avenue, (to the intersection with Lake Street) —University Avenue, classified
`./ an urban minor arterial, is a major route to the Cornell campus from downtown and Fall Creek.
The easterly side of the street is adjacent to the city cemetery at the southerly end and adjacent to
"west campus" from Cornell Street to the intersection with Lake Street. A string of residences
comprise the westerly side with a mix of owner-occupants and student renters. Many of the
houses are set back, and down grade from the road and a motorist can travel University Avenue
unaware that it is a residential neighborhood. There are no sidewalks on the easterly side of the
street. There is considerable pedestrian traffic as students arrive and depart from campus. The
increasing ascent traveling north and the decent traveling down University and the absence of
speed controls from Lynn to Lake Streets encourage higher speeds.
Key factors in selecting University Avenue for the 25 mph speed limit:
• The street is a prevalent vehicular route to the Cornell campus
• Relatively high pedestrian traffic volume
• Lack of sidewalks threatens pedestrian safety and sense of security
• No speed controls for the length between Lynn and Lake Streets
• The ascending/descending grade encourages higher speeds
12
I
CITY OF ITHACA
V= 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
f°non
� OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
..... Norma W. Schwab, City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504
Patricia Dunn,Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507
Robert A. Sarachan,Assistant City Attorney
Khandikile M.Sokoni,Associate Attorney
Dawn M.L.Tordel,Legal Assistant
MEMORANDUM
To: Neighborhood & Community Issues Committee
From: Khandikile M. Sokoni, Associate Attorney
Date: November 6, 2003
Subject: Nuisance Laws
The Mayor provided us with a copy of the Nuisance Laws from East Lansing,Michigan, for
review and to see whether there are any provisions therein that would be helpful to the City of Ithaca
in addressing quality-of-life issues that commonly occur in a community with a large college
population like ours. In addressing such issues it is always helpful to take a look at creative ways
in which other municipalities facing similar conditions have addressed these issues. While the City
Code does not have a consolidated Chapter containing nuisance provisions, such provisions exist
in various places in the Code. Therefore, what is being proposed is that we identify those areas
where amendments may be desirable.
The following areas, so far, have been identified as areas where changes may be helpful:
• Increasing the penalties for noise ordinance violations;
• Reviewing aggravating circumstances surrounding nuisance violations which should
trigger a higher penalty;
• Enacting provisions that address problem parties in residential neighborhoods; and
1
An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �a
• Enacting provisions that specifically address loud music emanating from motor vehicles.
The intent of this concept memo is to present these ideas to this Committee in order to get
feed back on whether this Committee would like us to pursue them. I would like to point out,
however, that what may be permitted under Michigan State laws may not necessarily be permitted
under New York law, and therefore, in identifying what provisions to adopt that is something that
we would need to look into.
For those who may be interested in looking at full text of the Nuisance Chapter from East
Lansing, MI, a copy is available in the City Attorney's Office.
2
Page 1 of 2
NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE
MINUTES - UNAPPROVED
November 12, 2003
Committee Members Present: Alderpersons Peterson, Pryor (Chair), Mack (8pm),
and Whitmore
Committee Members Absent: Alderpersons Sams (excused)
Staff and Others Present: Mayor Alan Cohen; Tim Logue, Neighborhood and
Economic Development Planner
1. Meeting called to order at 7:32 pm
2. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Pryor, the September 10, 2003 minutes of
the Neighborhood and Community Issues Committee were approved unanimously
as written (3-0, Mack was not in attendance yet). There were no minutes from
October because the meeting was cancelled.
3. Review Agenda
Pryor added to the agenda a Report on 25MPH speed limits and Recommendations
from the Tompkins County Water Resources Council.
4. Public Comment
Francis Weissman, a resident of the City of Ithaca, listed reasons why enforcement
is needed for an effective noise ordinance.
Fay Gougakis, a resident of the City of Ithaca, stated her concern about the
absence of Newscenter 10, announced that the tape of the MOU with Cornell will
run again, expressed her disappointment with the BPW meeting about 25MPH
speed limits, criticized the flags on the Commons, stated that the items she
brought to the B&A committee were never taken up, and supported a ban on
personal watercraft from the lake.
Joel Harlin, a resident of the Town of Newfield, announced his idea to employ
people in the streets by recycling old materials like stereos and bicycles. He said
that the City needs some top-notch entertainment, that he knows what makes this
town tick, and that Cornell has much, much power.
John Graves, a resident of the City, said that the City should figure out how to
support the noise ordinance by giving tickets and that it is noisy on South Hill
from l 1pm to 4am.
Q:',PLANNING`•GROUPS Neighborhood&Community Issues`Minutes`2003`•11 12 03.doe
Page 2 of 2
Kris Bennett, a resident of the City and the President of the West Hill Civic
Association, noted concerns about Warren Place: speeding traffic, lack of
sidewalks, downhill from Route 79, lots of kids, and fast buses (TCAT and school).
5. Response to Public Comment
Peterson noted that in going door to door, she met many people on Warren Place
who were concerned about speeding traffic. Also, she suggested that it might be
time to revisit the noise ordinance and that she heard in public comment that
enforcement works better than higher fines. Pryor remarked that the Prosecutor's
office and the Police Department are working with her on the noise ordinance.
6. Announcements and Reports from Committee Members
There were no announcements.
7. Concept Memo Regarding Nuisance Provisions
Mayor Cohen gave some background information about the East Lansing,
MI ordinance and how it addresses such things as noise from college
parties. After some discussion, there was general interest in having the
committee pursue the item. Pryor said she would report at the December
meeting, perhaps bringing some proposed language. Mack arrived at Bpm.
8. Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund Applications
After some discussion about the signatures on the Latino Civic Association's
application, Whitmore made a motion to approve it, seconded by Peterson, and
unanimously approved (4-0).
On a motion by Peterson, seconded by Whitmore, the Utica/Marshall Street
Neighborhood Association's application was approved unanimously (4-0).
9. Report of the Mayor's Task Force on the Selective Enforcement of a 25 Mile-
Per-Hour Speed Limit
Pryor circulated a section of the Report, explaining the Task Force's methodology.
She said that the Board of Public Works has discussed it twice and that it is
somewhat controversial; the Attorney is looking at whether the BPW can act on
this or if Council must. There was some discussion, touching on jurisdiction,
enforcement, school zones, and the culture of the Police Department. No action
was taken.
10. Recommendation from the Tompkins County Water Resources Council
It was unanimously decided to table this item until the December meeting.
11. On a motion by Whitmore, unanimously supported (4-0), the meeting was
adjourned at 8:37pm.
Q: PLANNINGGROUPS'Neiohborhood&Community Issues`Minutes,2003`111_12_03.doc
J.0 CITY OF ITHACA
G� #� 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
�q0�� Norma W. Schwab, City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504
Patricia Dunn,Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507
Robert A. Sarachan,Assistant City Attorney
Khandikile M.Sokoni,Associate Attorney
Dawn M.L.Tordel,Legal Assistant
MEMORANDUM
To: Neighborhood and Community Issues Committee
From: Robert A. Sarachan, Assistant City Attorney �l
Khandikile M. Sokoni, Associate Attorney
Date: December 4, 2003
Subject: Nuisance Law Revisions
Please find attached three proposed laws for your consideration:
1. A local law amending the City's general penalties section(Article 1-1 of the City Code);
2. An ordinance amending the Open Container Ordinance(Chapter 128 of the City Code);
and
3. An ordinance amending the Noise Ordinance (Chapter 240 of the City Code).
Penalties Provisions.
It is proposed that the"General Penalties" Section 1-1 of the City Code, be amended adding
100 hours of community service as a maximum penalty for those who might otherwise get a large
fine and ask for community service instead. Such defendants presently typically receive only 25
hours of community service.
Open Container Ordinance.
In the Open Container chapter(Chapter 128 of the Code),proposed changes include adding
two presumptions to make prosecuting these cases easier: (a) a presumption that labeled containers
contain what they state, and(b) that beer and wine are alcohol (to avoid the "near-beer" defense).
It is also being proposed that the penalty provision in that chapter be amended to make it
consistent with the community service changes outlined above.
A further proposal is to repeal the provision that gives underage drinkers a smaller
maximum fine.
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\NCI Memo2.doc 1
An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." c�
LOCAL LAW NO. OF 200_.
WHEREAS Common Council would like to set a reasonable range for
community service for those defendants who might otherwise be subject to a high fine
but ask for community service instead, and
WHEREAS the general penalties provision in the City Code provides a minimum
of 25 hours of community service as a possible default penalty, but that provision does
not set a maximum number of community service hours,
BE IT NOW ENACTED that Article 1, Section 1-1 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:-
ARTICLE I, Penalties
§ 1-1. Penalties for offenses.
A. Unless a different penalty is specified, violations of the provisions of this Code
shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $250 or imprisonment for a term of not
more than 15 days, or not more than 100 hours of community service and not less than
$100 or 25 hours of community service. For the purpose of determining the appropriate
fine, each day on which the violation continues to exist shall be considered a separate
offense unless otherwise specified. In no case shall a term of imprisonment exceeding 15
days be imposed as a penalty for violations of this Code, no matter how many days of
violation are charged, unless, by separate Code section, the violation has been classified
as a misdemeanor.
B. Notwithstanding the penalty provisions of the preceding subsection or other
penalties specified in subsequent sections of this Code, the penalties for violation of the
Code sections listed below shall be: not more than $40 nor less than $20 for a first
offense at the same property; not more than $60 nor less than $30 for a second offense at
the same property; and not more than $100 nor less than $50 for a third offense at the
same property, if a conviction for such offense occurs within the same twelve-month
Proposed new language is underlined;language to be deleted is stmeleagk
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Penalties amdts Local Law.doc
period. Each day on which the condition exists may be charged and shall be considered as
a separate offense.
Code Section
196-5 (Uncollected garbage)
210-35(Open areas)
210-36C (Accessory structures)
210-38(Garbage and refuse)
272-41) (Mobile signs)
272-4E(Banners and pennants)
285-5 (Sidewalks)
325-20C(1)(j) (Front yard parking)
325-20D (Front yard parking)
325-23B(1) (Yard maintenance)
C. Notwithstanding any contrary Code provision, appearance tickets may be issued
by the Building Commissioner and/or Commissioner's designee(s) charging violations of
any of the above sections whenever there is probable cause to believe that said violations
have occurred. Any rights to administrative appeals to any board or commission of the
City of Ithaca mentioned in any subsequent section of this Code shall not apply as a
condition precedent to issuing an appearance ticket charging a violation of any of the
above-listed Code sections. Any right to an administrative appeal from a decision or
determination of the Building Commissioner or other city official with regard to the
above Code sections shall apply only in cases in which the city intends to correct the
violation and seek to charge the property owner or other responsible party for the costs of
correction.
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE: Severability is intended throughout and within the
provisions of the Local Law. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this Local Law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
Proposed new language is underlined;language to be deleted is stfuek&eug
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Penalties amdts Local Law.doc
this Local Law.
EFFECTIVE DATE.
This law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State of the State
of New York.
Proposed new language is underlined;language to be deleted is sem# oug13
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Penalties amdts Local Law.doc
Noise Ordinance.
Proposed changes to the Noise Ordinance(i.e Chapter 240 of the City Code) include:
• Making it a separate offense for any noise violation that is repeated or recurs more than one-
half hour from the time of inception;
• Holding landlords responsible by making it an additional civil offense for a landlord when
noise violations occur at their premises;
• Making anyone to whom a keg is registered an additional defendant for a 240-7 offense;
• Conforming the community service penalty; and
• Adding a new section called"Aggravated Noise". This new section makes any violation of
sections 240-4, 240-6, or 240-7 subject to a stiffer penalty when such violation is accompanied by
two or more "aggravating circumstances" which are listed. These aggravating circumstances
include: a common source of alcohol, like a keg; live band or disk jockey; amplified sound directed
outside the building; cover charge; public urination; littering or trash as a result of the gathering;
more than 25 people; underage possession or consumption of alcohol.
Additional Future Proposed changes.
It is also proposed that this Committee in the near future consider some changes to the
Housing Code and the Exterior Property Ordinance to provide, among other things, that no
certificate of compliance shall be issued for properties for which there are outstanding warrants (or
tickets). However, these will be presented at a future date.
Encl.
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\NCI Memo2.doc 2
ORDINANCE NO. OF 2004
WHEREAS the Common Council of the City of Ithaca has reviewed the various
nuisance provisions in the City Code and finds that some provisions in the respective laws
require amendment in order to enhance the welfare and safety of city residents and to grant city
residents better quality of life,
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED that Chapter 128 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code entitled "Alcoholic Beverages" is hereby amended as follows:-
§ 128-1. Findings and purpose.
A. The Common Council finds that the unrestricted consumption of alcoholic beverages in
certain public places often leads to disorders and related problems as well as the littering of such
public place and the development of unsanitary conditions and is disturbing to the public and
threatens peace and good order.
B. The purpose of this article is to prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages in certain
public places in order to prevent disorderly behavior, the development of unsanitary conditions
and the littering of public places and to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to
promote the public good.
C. The Legislature of the State of New York has determined that, since the New York State
drinking age is 21, underage persons should be held responsible for their conduct and be
prohibited from possessing alcoholic beverages in public. The consumption of alcoholic
beverages in public places by persons under the legal drinking age is an aggravating factor.
§ 128-2. Definitions.
For the purpose of this article, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them. All
other words shall have the meanings normally ascribed to them in regular usage.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE -- Includes alcohol, spirits, liquor, wine, beer and every liquid or
solid,patented or not, containing alcohol, spirits, wine or beer and capable of being consumed by
a human being.
CONTAINER-- Any bottle, can, glass or other receptacle suitable for or used to hold any liquid.
Proposed new language is underlined;language to be deleted is struelgl� 1
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Open Container Law-amdts.doc
PUBLIC PLACE -- Any public highway, pedestrian mall, street, sidewalk, park, playground,
parking area, municipal parking ramp and the Six Mile Creek watershed area.
§ 128-3. Public consumption prohibited.
No person shall, within the City of Ithaca, drink or otherwise consume liquor, wine, beer or
other alcoholic beverages while such person is in or upon any public place as defined herein.
§ 128-4. Possession of open containers; presumption.
A. No person shall carry or have in his/her possession within or upon any public place in the
City of Ithaca any open container containing liquor, wine,beer or other alcoholic beverage with
the intent of the possessor or another to consume the same in any public place defined herein.
B. The possession of an open container unwrapped or with the top exposed in a public place
as herein defined shall be presumptive evidence that the contents of such open container are
intended to be consumed in a public place as herein defined.
C. For the purposes of this chapter, any container labeled as a container of an alcoholic
beverage, such as a can of beer or a bottle of wine, shall be presumed to contain at least some
amount of the alcoholic beverage_specified.
D. For the purposes of this chapter, all beer and all wine, regardless of alcoholic content,
shall be presumed to be alcoholic beverages.
§ 128-5. Exceptions.
A. The provisions of this article shall not apply within the boundaries of Cass Park or
Stewart Park, which areas shall be regulated by the Board of Public Works, nor shall such
prohibition apply to or within the boundaries of Treman Marina.
B. The provisions of this article shall not apply to any activity sponsored by an organization
having proper license to dispense alcoholic beverages in or upon any public place within the city,
said license having been issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board of Tompkins County
and such organization having obtained permission from the Mayor. This exception shall apply
only to the public place in the city in or upon which the alcoholic beverages are dispensed.
Proposed new language is underlined;language to be deleted is stfurakthroug 2
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Open Container Law-amdts.doc
§ 128-6. Penalties for offenses.
A. The violation of any of the provisions of this article shall be punishable by a fine not
greater than $250 and/or not more than 15 days in jail and not less than $100 or 25 hours of
community service; provided, however, that a person who violates this article after having been
convicted of a violation of this article within the preceding three years shall be punishable by a
fine not greater than $500 and/or not more than 15 days in jail and not less than $100 or 25 hours
of community service; and further provided that a person who violates this article after having
been convicted two or more times of a violation of this article within the preceding three years
shall be punishable by a fine not greater than $750 and/or not more than 15 days in jail, and not
less than $100 or 25 hours of community service.
B. Thevielatien ef any of the. f this a#iele by a per-son who is under-the age e
21 years of age shall be rtmishable by., fine not greater-than $150 and,4e-not more than 15 days
in jail; > >
thm the violation of any of the provisions of this ai4iele by a per-son
under-the age of 21 years whe has been eenvieted of a violation of any provision of this aAielee
within the pr-eeeding dwee year-s shall be ptmishable by a fine not te emeeed $200 anEt4er-net merve
than 15 days : ail; and ftH4 er-provided that the violation of an),of the pr-e isiefis „f this .,,.f;,.ie
this aAiele twe er-more times within the pr-eeeding flffee years shall be punishable by a fine net.
te exeeed $250 and/or-not more than 15 days in-jai4-.
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of
the ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Proposed new language is underlined;language to be deleted is Doug 3
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Open Container Law-amdts.doc
EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law
upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Proposed new language is underlined;language to be deleted is stmsltreugk 4
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Open Container Law-amdts.doc
ORDINANCE NO. OF 2004
WHEREAS the Common Council of the City of Ithaca has reviewed the various
nuisance provisions in the City Code and finds that some provisions in the respective
laws require amendment in order to promote the harmonious coexistence of all city
residents in a manner which is mutually respectful of the interests, rights and obligations
of all persons
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED that Chapter 240 of the City of
Ithaca Municipal Code entitled"Noise" is hereby amended as follows:-
Article I. General Provisions.
§240-1. Title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "City of Ithaca Noise Ordinance."
§ 240-2. Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to preserve the public health, peace, welfare and good
order by suppressing the making, creation or maintenance of excessive, unnecessary,
unnatural or unusually loud noises which are prolonged, unusual and unnatural in their
time,place and use and which are detrimental to the environment. It is also the purpose of
this chapter to allow all residents of the city to coexist harmoniously in a manner which is
mutually respectful of the interests, rights and obligations of all persons.
§240-3. Definitions.
Unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, the words and phrases used in this chapter
are defined as follows:
DAYTIME HOURS --The hours between 7:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., local time, on any
day.
EMERGENCY WORK -- Work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition
following a public calamity or work necessary to protect persons or property from an
imminent exposure to danger.
IMPULSIVE SOUND -- A sound of short duration, usually less than one second, and of
high intensity, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.
KAOrdinancesNuisance Law RevisionsNoise Ordinance-amdts.doc 1
MOTOR VEHICLES -- Includes but is not limited to automobiles, trucks, buses, mopeds,
minibikes and any other vehicles as defined by the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State
of New York, as it may be amended from time to time.
NIGHTTIME HOURS -- The hours between 10:00 p.m., local time, on any day and 7:30
a.m. on the following day.
NOISE -- A level of sound that is injurious or annoying or disturbing to be heard.
PERSON--Includes the singular and plural and also any individual; any property owner
and/or lessee; any firm; a corporation; a political subdivision; a government agency,
including any agency of the City of Ithaca; an association or an organization, including
but not limited to officers, directors, employees, agents and/or independent contractors
thereof; or any legal entity whatsoever.
SOUND-AMPLIFYING EQUIPMENT -- Any machine or device for the amplification of
the human voice, instrumental music or any other sound. "Sound-amplifying equipment"
shall not include standard automobile radios or tape recorders when used and heard only
by the occupants of the vehicle in which such automobile radio or tape recorder is
installed. As used in this chapter, "sound-amplifying equipment" shall not include
warning devices on authorized emergency vehicles or horns or other warning devices on
any vehicle used only for traffic safety purposes or authorized fire horns or other
authorized emergency alarms.
§240-4. Unreasonable noise prohibited.
A. No person shall intentionally cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or
recklessly create a risk thereof by making unreasonable noise or by causing unreasonable
noise to be made.
B. For the purpose of implementing and enforcing the standard set forth in
Subsection A of this section, "unreasonable noise" shall mean any sound created or
caused to be created by any person which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the
comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of the public or which causes injury to animal life
or damages to property or business. Factors to be considered in determining whether
unreasonable noise exists in a given situation include but are not limited to any or all of
the following:
(1) The intensity of the noise.
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Noise Ordinance-amdts.doc 2
(2) Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual.
(3) Whether the origin of the noise is associated with nature or human-made activity.
(4) The intensity of the background noise, if any.
(5) The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities.
(6) The nature and the zoning district of the area within which the noise emanates and
of the area within 500 feet of the source of the sound.
(7) The time of the day or night the noise occurs.
(8) The time duration of the noise.
(9) Whether the sound source is temporary.
(10) Whether the noise is continuous or impulsive.
(11) The volume of the noise.
(12) The existence of complaints concerning the noise from persons living or working
in different places or premises who are affected by the noise.
C. This section shall not be interpreted to prevent the issuance of permits pursuant to
§ 240-14 that will authorize particular sound sources.
ARTICLE II, Special Noise Sources
§ 240-5. Purpose of Article.
The provisions of this Article II complement and supplement the other provisions of this
chapter and shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with and in addition to and not
in lieu of those other provisions. The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted to
prevent the issuance of permits pursuant to § 240-14 that will authorize particular sound
sources.
§ 240-6. Radios, television sets and similar sound-amplifying devices.
It shall be unlawful for any person anywhere in the city to use or to operate any radio or
receiving set, musical instrument,phonograph, television set, any other machine or
device for the producing or reproducing of sound or any other sound-amplifying
equipment in a loud, annoying or offensive manner such that noise from the device
interferes with the comfort, repose, health or safety or members of the public within any
building or, outside of a building, at a distance of 25 feet or more from the source of such
sound or interferes with the conversation of members of the public who are 25 feet or
more from the source of such sound.
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Noise Ordinance-amdts.doc 3
§240-7. Parties and other social events.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person in charge of a party or other social event that
occurs on any private or public property to allow that party or event to produce noise in a
loud, annoying or offensive manner such that noise from the party interferes with the
comfort, repose, health or safety of members of the public within any building or, outside
of a building, at a distance of 25 feet or more from the source of such sound.
B. For the purposes of this section, a "person in charge of a party or other social
event":
(1) That occurs on any public property shall include the person or persons who
obtained permission to utilize that property for that event.
(2) That occurs on private property shall include the per-son who ewas the pr-efRises
invelved-and any adult person who lives in or on the premises involved in such party or
social event. In addition, if the owner of the property does not reside in or on the
premises, the owner shall be responsible for a civil offense which will be processed and
punishable in the same manner as a violation of section 178-10 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code.
(3) Shall include the person who is listed on a permit granted pursuant to Article III
of this chapter with respect to such event.
C. For any violation of this section where beer is being served from a keg on the
premises, the person to whom the kegis s registered shall be presumed to be res onsible
for the violation, in addition to any person designated in parts A or B above.
§ 240-8. Hawkers and peddlers.
It shall be unlawful for any person to advertise, promote or sell anything by outcry
within any area of the city zoned for residential uses. The provisions of this section shall
not be construed to prohibit the selling by outcry of merchandise, food and beverages at
licensed sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses and other similar licensed public
entertainment events.
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Noise Ordinance-amdts.doc 4
§240-9. Machinery.
It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or repair any machinery, motor vehicle,
construction equipment or other equipment, pump, fan, air-conditioning apparatus or
similar mechanical device or to engage in any commercial or industrial activity in any
manner so as to create unreasonable noise as defined in § 240-4 of this chapter. In
making such determination with respect to the matters governed by this subsection,
additional factors to be considered shall include:
A. The necessity of the work being done.
B. The ability of the creator of the noise to minimize or reduce the amount of noise
created or to otherwise minimize its adverse effects.
§240-10. Construction during nighttime hours.
A. Except for the purposes specified in Subsection B, during nighttime hours it shall
be unlawful for any person within a residential zone or within 500 feet of a residential
zone to operate construction equipment (including but not limited to any pile driver,
steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick or steam or electric hoist) or perform any
outside construction or repair work so as to create noise. Any designated official of the
City of Ithaca shall give a verbal warning that the violation exists and of the penalties that
may result if the violation continues.
B. This section shall not be deemed to prohibit:
(1) Work of an emergency nature.
(2) Work of a domestic nature on buildings, structures or projects being undertaken
by a person(s) residing in such premises; provided that, if any domestic power tool,
including but not limited to mechanically powered saws, sanders, grinders and lawn and
garden tools used outdoors, is operated during the nighttime hours, no person shall
operate such machinery so as to cause noise within a residential building or across a
residential real property boundary where such noise interferes with the comfort, repose,
health or safety of members of the public within any building or, outside of a building, at
25 feet or more from the source of the sound.
§ 240-11. Applicability of Article.
This article shall be applied in addition to § 240-4.
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Noise Ordinance-amdts.doc 5
§ 240-12. Continuing noise; Construction.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to make or continue or cause to be made or
continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise or sound that shall continue for
more than three cumulative minutes in any sixty-minute period and which shall
exceed the permitted noise levels specified in this chapter. Any designated official of
the City of Ithaca may issue a verbal warning that the violation exists and of the
penalties that may ensue.
B. For the purposes of this Chapter, each act which is a violation of any part of this
section which either continues or is repeated more than one-half hour beyond its
inception shall be considered, and may be prosecuted, as a separate violation.
§240-13. Horns and alarms.
This chapter shall not apply to fire horns or other alarms authorized by the Fire
Department or Police Department and operated in accord with that authorization.
ARTICLE III, Other Provisions
§240-14. Permit procedures for certain activities.
A. Where a sound source is planned, installed or intended to be installed or modified
by any person in a manner that such source will create or is likely to create unreasonable
noise or otherwise fail to comply with the provisions of this chapter, such person must
secure a permit pursuant to this section.
B. Where any person uses or plans to use any sound-amplifying equipment in such a
way that such equipment is or will be heard outside of any building between 9:00 p.m. of
any day and 7:30 a.m. to the next day, such person must secure a permit under this
section.
C. Where any person uses or plans to use a public-address system that will make
sound outside of a building, such person must secure a permit under this section.
D. The application for the permit shall provide the following information:
(1) The reasons for such usage, including a demonstration why it is desirable or
necessary that the sound source involved be authorized by a permit pursuant to this
section.
(2) Plans and specifications of the use.
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Noise Ordinance-amdts.doc 6
(3) Noise-abatement and -control methods to be used with respect to the sound source
involved.
(4) The period of time during which the permit shall apply.
(5) The name of the person(s) who is responsible for ensuring that the activity
complies with any permit issued for it pursuant to this section.
(6) When the activity for which the permit is being sought is not a community-wide
or public event, that notification of the application for the permit has been given to each
person reasonably expected to be affected by the noise, the content of such notification
and the manner in which such notification has been given. The notification shall state to
whom the application is being made and that any person objecting to the granting of such
permit may contact the individual to whom the application is being made to express
his/her opposition to the granting of the permit.
(7) That a copy of the application for the permit has been provided to the Chief of
Police.
E. The application shall be made to the Superintendent of Public Works in
connection with construction work on public rights-of-way or in parks; to the Building
Commissioner for all other construction projects; and to the Mayor for any other events.
The issuance of permits shall be discretionary and shall be issued only where the
responsible official determines that such permit is reasonable and necessary and will
allow an activity that is consistent with the general purposes of this chapter, as stated in §
240-2, provided that no permit shall be issued pursuant to this section for any sound
source that will operate between 12:00 midnight and 8:00 a.m. of any day. Any permit
granted shall state that the permit only applies to this chapter, that § 240.20, Subdivision
2, of the Penal Law of the State of New York, Disorderly Conduct, provides that "a
person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience,
annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk thereof, ... he makes unreasonable
noise."
F. In order to further the purposes of this chapter and to facilitate its implementation
and enforcement, the Superintendent of Public Works, the Building Commissioner and
the Mayor shall have authority to impose such conditions as they determine are
reasonable and necessary on permits they issue pursuant to this section. Such conditions
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Noise Ordinance-amdts.doc 7
may govern factors which include but are not limited to the time and location the
involved sound source may be utilized.
G. The Superintendent of Public Works, the Building Commissioner and the Mayor
shall provide the Chief of Police with a copy of any permit issued pursuant to this
section.
§ 240-15. Penalties for offenses; Presumptions.
A. Any person who shall violate any provision of this chapter shall be punishable by a
fine not to exceed $250 or imprisonment of not more than 15 days, or 100 hours of
community service or , any combination of such fine
and imprisonment and not less than $100 or 25 hours of community service;
provided, however, that a person who shall violate any provision of this chapter after
having been convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter within the
preceding three years shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 or by
imprisonment of not more than 15 days, or both such fine and imprisonment, and not
less than $100 or 25 hours of community service; and further provided that any
person who shall violate any provision of this chapter after having been convicted
two or more times of a violation of any provision of this chapter within the preceding
three years shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $750 or by imprisonment of
not more than 15 days, or both such fine and imprisonment, and not less than $100 or
25 hours of community service. For any penalties of community service, the court
may accppt community service from people other than the defendant whom the court
deems appropriate, such as other residents of the premises or others who choose to
accept responsibility for the violation.
B. For purposes of this chapter, for any offense that takes place on private property, if
the person or persons directly responsible for the activity which violates any
provision of this chapter cannot be determined, then all residents of the property on
which the activity takes place shall be presumed to be responsible for the violation.
§240-16. Aggravated Noise Offenses.
A. The presence of any two or more of the following shall be deemed ag agr vating
circumstances for the purposes of this chapter:
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Noise Ordinance-amdts.doc 8
a common source of alcohol used to serve the guests, such as a keg;
b) a live band or disc jockey or other live entertainment;
C) gmplified sound emanating from speakers placed or directed outside of the
building;
d) a charge to gain entrance into the premises or to consume alcohol;
e) a violation of section 250-8 of this code on the premises;
f? the unlawful deposit of trash or litter on the premises, trash and litter as
defined in sections 178 and 331-4 of this code;
g) more than 25 guests on the premises, guests being defined for the purposes of
this section as any people who do not reside at the premises;
h) any underage person or persons possessing or consuming alcohol on the
premises, each underage person constituting a separate ag arg vating
circumstance.
B. The elements of an Aggravated Noise Offense shall be the elements as
specified in section 240-4 or 240-6 or 240-7 and two or more of the
factors specified in 240-16-A.
C. Penalties. Any "aggravated" violation in this chapter shall be punishable
by a fine not to exceed $1000 or imprisonment of not more than 15 days,
or both such fine and imprisonment, or not more than 200 hours of
community service and not less than $250 or 50 hours of community
service, provided, however, that a person who shall violate any provision
of this chapter after having been convicted of a violation of any provision
of this chapter within the precedingthree years shall be punishable by a
fine not to exceed $1,500 or by imprisonment of not more than 15 days,
both such fine and imprisonment, and not less than $500 or 100 hours of
community service; and further provided that any person who shall violate
any provision of this chapter after having been convicted two or more
times of a violation of any provision of this chapter within the preceding
three years shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $2,000 or by
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Noise Ordinance-amdts.doc 9
imprisonment of not more than 15 days, or both such fine and
imprisonment, and not less than $750 or 150 hours of community service.
For any penalties of community service, the court may accept community
services from people other than the defendant whom the court deems
appropriate, such as other residents of the premises or others who choose
to accept responsible for the violation.
240-17 Civil Offense for Permitting Noise Violation on Private Property For Non-
Resident Owner.
A. It shall be a civil offense Noise Violation for a non-resident property owner to
permit a violation of section 240-7 or 240-16 to occur on such premises.
B. Permitting a violation of section 240-7 or 240-16 is defined by a the entry of
guiltyplea at anytime or a finding of guilt after trial for a violation of section 240-
7 or 240-16 on premises for which a person or entity is the owner on the date of
the offense.
C. Civil Penalty. A violation of this section constitutes a civil noise offense. The
procedures for this offense shall be the same as for a violation of section 178 of
this code. A violation of this section shall punishable under the civil penalties
section 178-10-B(1).
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Severability is intended throughout and within the
provisions of the ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance
with law upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
K:\Ordinances\Nuisance Law Revisions\Noise Ordinance-amdts.doc 10
Page 1 of 2
NEIGHBORHOOD & COMMUNITY ISSUES COMMITTEE
MINUTES - UNAPPROVED
December 10, 2003
Committee Members Present: Alderpersons Pryor (Chair), Mack, and Whitmore
Committee Members Absent: Alderpersons Peterson and Sams
Staff and Others Present: Leslie Chatterton, Historic Preservation and
Neighborhood Planner; Mayor Alan J. Cohen; Tim
Logue, Neighborhood and Economic Development
Planner; Robert Sarachan, Assistant City Attorney
1. Meeting called to order at 7:09 pm
2. Review Agenda
There were no changes to the agenda.
3. Public Comment
Joel Harlan, a resident of the Town of Newfield, stated that the City of Ithaca
should get a super Wal-Mart, like Cortland, Watkins Glen, Elmira, and Big Flats.
He said that it's better than Aldi's.
Fay Gougakis, a resident of the City of Ithaca, noted times that a tape of the
Council meeting concerning the Cornell University MOU would be televised. She
spoke in favor of the proposed 25 mph zones and spoke against having students on
Common Council.
4. Response to Public Comment
Mack said that not allowing students on Council would alienate them and that
saying that students don't deserve representation is wrong and against democracy.
Pryor expressed her gladness to work with two students on Common Council.
S. Announcements and Reports from Committee Members
There were no announcements.
6. DAC Bicycle Language
After Pryor gave some background information, Whitmore made a motion to
send the revisions to Common Council for approval. Mack seconded the
motion. Whitmore noted that the City Code needs regular revisions. The
motion was approved unanimously (3-0).
QAPLANNING\GROUMNeighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\12_10_03.doc
Page 2 of 2
7. Nuisance Ordinance Language - Status Report
�./ Robert Sarachan, Assistant City Attorney, presented proposed revisions to Article
1-1 of the City Code (general penalties), the Open Container Ordinance (Chapter
128 of the Code), and the Noise Ordinance (Chapter 240 of the Code), detailed in a
memo submitted to the Committee. Pryor noted that the proposals came out of a
meeting with David Whitmore, Carolyn Peterson, Chief Loo, a police officer,
Khandikile Sokoni, Mr. Sarachan, and herself. A long discussion ensued, dwelling
on the community service provisions of Section 240-15 (A) and (B), the
responsibility of non-resident property owners in Section 240-17, and the terms of
an aggravated noise offense in Section 240-16. There was agreement to add a ninth
possible condition of aggravated noise offense in Section 240-16 (A): excessive
noise after 12am on Friday or Saturday night or after 10pm on other nights of the
week. Mack expressed his concern that a small party could be considered an
aggravating offense. In the end, the item was tabled for the next Council.
8. 25 Mile-Per-Hour Speed Limit recommendations
Leslie Chatterton, Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Planner joined the
Committee for discussion. Pryor noted that the Board of Public Works had been
discussing this issue and recently tabled it. Based on a memo from the City
Attorney, the Mayor's Task Force for the Selective Implementation of a 25 MPH
Speed Limit reduced the number of streets included in their recommendations and
reduced some full street lengths to segments of streets. Mack stated that there is
not enough enforcement to make changing the speed limit in certain areas
effective. After discussion about the Task Force's criteria, signage, possible
selective enforcement from the Police Department, Whitmore asked that the Task
Force evaluate Cascadilla Street, too. Pryor noted that the City's engineers have
recommended against this proposal. After further discussion, no action was taken.
9. Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Whitmore, seconded by Mack, the November 12, 2003 minutes of
the Neighborhood & Community Issues Committee were approved unanimously (3-
0) as written.
10. On a motion by Whitmore, unanimously supported (3-0), the meeting was
adjourned at 9:43pm.
Q:\PLANNING\GROUPS\Neighborhood&Community Issues\Minutes\2003\12_10_03.doe