Loading...
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