HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-18 Common Council Meeting AgendaOFFICIAL NOTICE OF MEETING
A Regular meeting of the Common Council will be held on Wednesday, June 6, 2018, at
6:00 p.m. in the Common Council Chambers at City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca,
New York. Your attendance is requested.
AGENDA
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
2. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
3. PROCLAMATIONS/AWARDS:
4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
4.1 Presentation of Quarterly Employee Recognition Award
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
6. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
7. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR:
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
Superintendent of Public Works’ Office:
8.1 Ithaca Ale House Alcohol Permit Approval Request - Resolution
City Administration Committee:
8.2 Department of Public Works Water & Sewer Division - Amendment to Personnel
Roster - Resolution
8.3 Human Resources Department – Request to Amend Authorized Budget for a
Safety Grant - Resolution
8.4 Access Oversight Committee (AOC) Recommendations for 2019 Budget -
Resolution
8.5 Youth Bureau – Request for Authorization to Apply for a New York State
Consolidated Funding Application Grant for the Cass Park Rink Enclosure
Project - Resolution
9. CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
9.1 Engineering Department - Brindley Street Bridge Replacement Project -
Resolution
9.2 Engineering Department - South Cayuga Street Bridge Deck Replacement
Project - Resolution
9.3 Department of Public Works Amendment to Capital Project #777 for the Green
and Seneca Parking Garages - Resolution
9.4 City Attorney - Establishment of a Charitable Gifts Reserve Fund Pursuant to
General Municipal Law § 6-u. – Resolution
Common Council Meeting Agenda
June 6, 2018
Page 2
9. CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (CONTINUED):
9.5 A Local Law Entitled “Authorization for a Charitable Gifts Reserve Fund Tax
Credit Pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 980-a.”
9.6 A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of an Additional $1,032,000.00 Bonds of
the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to Pay Part of the Cost of the
Brindley Street Bridge Replacement, in and for said City
9.7 A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of an Additional $375,000.00 Bonds of the
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to Pay Part of the Cost of the
Reconstruction of and Construction of Improvements to the Dryden Road Parking
Garage, in and for Said City
9.8 A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $635,000.00 Bonds of the City of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to Pay the Cost of the Purchase and
Installation of Parking Meters and Related Equipment in and for Said City
9.9 A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of an Additional $210,000.00 Bonds of the
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to Pay Part of the Planning and
Design Costs for the South Cayuga Street Bridge Deck Replacement in and for
Said City
9.10 City Controller’s Report
10. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
10.1 Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as Part of Phase II of the City
of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Resolution (The link to the page with the plan
and the accompanying technical reports is http://www.cityofithaca.org/618/Parks-
Recreation-Master-Plan)
A. Declaration of Lead Agency – Resolution
B. Determination of Environmental Significance – Resolution
C. Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan - Resolution
10.2 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
entitled “Zoning,” Section 325-9 entitled “Standards for Special Conditions and
Special Permits”
A. Declaration of Lead Agency – Resolution
B. Determination of Environmental Significance – Resolution
C. Adoption of Ordinance
10.3 Local Landmark Designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue – Resolution (additional back-up information can be found at
http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/8492/-Former-Fire-Station-
No-9---Additional-Information)
10.4 Adoption of the City of Ithaca 2018 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Draft Action Plan Dated April 26, 2018, for Allocation of the City’s 2018 HUD
Entitlement Program Award – Resolution
Common Council Meeting Agenda
June 6, 2018
Page 3
11. REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES:
12. NEW BUSINESS:
13. INDIVIDUAL MEMBER – FILED RESOLUTIONS:
13.1 Alderperson Fleming – 2018 Gorge Safety Funding - Resolution
13.2 Alderperson Nguyen - Authorization for the Re-Opening of the Commons
Playground - Resolution
14. MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS:
14.1 Reappointments to Examining Board of Electricians – Resolution
14.2 Reappointments to Workforce Diversity Advisory Committee – Resolution
15. REPORTS OF COMMON COUNCIL LIAISONS:
16. REPORT OF CITY CLERK:
16.1 July Common Council Meeting Date: Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m.
17. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY:
18. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
18.1 Approval of the April 4, 2018 Common Council Meeting Minutes – Resolution
18.2 Approval of the May 2, 2018 Common Council Meeting Minutes – Resolution
18.3 Approval of the May 30, 2018 Special Common Council Meeting Minutes –
Resolution
18.4 Approval of the May 30, 2018 Common Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
Minutes – Resolution
19. ADJOURNMENT:
If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you
to fully participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 at least 48
hours before the meeting.
Out of consideration for the health of other individuals, please try to refrain from using
perfume/cologne and other scented personal care products at City of Ithaca meetings.
Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
______________________________
Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC
City Clerk
Date: May 31, 2018
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
Superintendent of Public Works’ Office:
8.1 Ithaca Ale House Alcohol Permit Approval Request - Resolution
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Ale House has requested permission to utilize certain areas
along North Aurora Street for outdoor dining; and
WHEREAS, this use of public property has been deemed proper and successful; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca wishes to promote diverse uses of the Primary and
Secondary Commons, including outdoor dining; and
WHEREAS, it is Common Council's responsibility to determine whether or not to allow
the serving and consumption of alcohol on the Primary and Secondary Commons; and
WHEREAS, Common Council has determined that the use of this public property for
outdoor dining at the Ithaca Ale House, including the responsible sale and consumption
of alcohol, is desirable; and
WHEREAS, Common Council has determined that any use of this or similar public
property involving the same and consumption of alcohol should be covered by a
minimum of $1,000,000 insurance under the Dram Shop Act; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, For the year 2018, Common Council hereby approves a revocable
Alcoholic Beverage Permit for the outdoor sale and consumption of alcohol for the
Ithaca Ale House that includes the sale of alcohol in accord with the terms and
conditions set forth in application therefore, including minimum Dram Shop coverage in
the amount of $1,000,000 and the approval of an outdoor dining permit.
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - CONTINUED:
City Administration Committee:
8.2 Department of Public Works Water & Sewer Division - Amendment to
Personnel Roster - Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Department of Public Works Water & Sewer Division has
need of a Senior Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Specialist; and
WHEREAS, the new job description and new position duties statement have been
approved by the City of Ithaca Human Resources Department and the Civil Service
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the total additional salary difference entailed in adding a Sr. GIS Specialist
and deleting a GIS Specialist is approximately $2,116.00; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Department of Public Works Water & Sewer Division has
the funds available in the 2018 Budget in the Administrative salary lines and will
incorporate the necessary funds in the 2019 and future budgets; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Personal Roster of the City of Ithaca Department of Public Works
Water & Sewer Division be amended as follows:
Delete: One (1) Geographic Information Systems Specialist (40 hours)
Add: One (1) Senior Geographic Information Systems Specialist (40 hours),
; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the position of Senior Geographic Information Systems Specialist
shall be assigned to the CSEA Administrative Unit Compensation Plan at salary grade
13; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That for the sole purpose of determining days worked reportable to the
New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System, the standard workday for
the Senior Geographic Information System Specialist position shall be established at
eight (8) hours per day (forty (40) hours per week).
8.3 Human Resources Department – Request to Amend Authorized Budget for
a Safety Grant - Resolution
WHEREAS, the City applied for and received an Occupational Safety and Health
Training Education Program Grant from the New York State Department of Labor in the
amount of $11,810.00; and
WHEREAS, the grant will run until July 31, 2018, and provide City staff with various
safety training, including, but not limited to: confined space, trenching, excavation,
lockout/tagout, hazard communications and work zone safety; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2018 Authorized Human
Resources Department Budget to account for the $11,810.00 Safety and Health
Training and Education Program Grant from New York State as follows:
Increase Revenue Account:
A1430-3489 NYS Aid Health $ 11,810.00
Increase Appropriations Account:
A1430-5435 Human Resources Contracts $ 11,810.00
8.4 Access Oversight Committee (AOC) Recommendations for 2019 Budget -
Resolution
WHEREAS, Section 15.12 of the Franchise Agreement between the City of Ithaca and
Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership (TWC) of January 2003,
and since assigned to Charter Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Spectrum Networks) after its
2016 acquisition of TWC, requires the participating municipalities (City of Ithaca, Town
of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights) to provide it with an annual budget for Public,
Educational and Governmental access operations (PEG) by June 30 of each calendar
year; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca's Ordinance #2003-17, Par 18-4-G, requires the Access
Oversight Committee (AOC) to provide the Participating Municipalities with a
recommended annual budget by May 31 of each calendar year; and
WHEREAS, in 2017 it was resolved not to use the 2018 Budget funds but have them
become part of the 2019 Budget; and
WHEREAS, the AOC has reviewed PEG’s current equipment and anticipates that only a
limited amount of new or replacement equipment will be needed; and
WHEREAS, the AOC anticipates the replacement of computers and the current
playback system in the next few years; and
WHEREAS, such purchases would exceed the available funds of one budget year; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 1, 2018 the AOC recommended
earmarking up to $5,000.00 as contingency to purchase equipment as needed for the
functioning of PEG operations, and to let the remaining 2018 and 2019 Budget funds
accumulate and become part of the 2020 Budget; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca accepts the AOC
recommended budget for 2019 such that the participating municipalities may meet their
obligation to provide Spectrum TV with an annual budget for Public, Educational and
Governmental access operations.
8.5 Youth Bureau – Request for Authorization to Apply for a New York State
Consolidated Funding Application Grant for the Cass Park Rink Enclosure Project
- Resolution
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau would like to apply for the Environmental
Protection Fund (EPF) Grant Program for Parks, Recreation, Preservation and Heritage,
Consolidated Funding Application (CFA) 2018, for the Cass Park Rink Enclosure
Project on behalf of the City of Ithaca; and
WHEREAS, The Cass Park Rink serves as the hub of all Cass Park facilities and
programs, serves thousands of Ithaca area residents on a year-round basis, and is
widely recognized as a valuable public asset; and
WHEREAS, the City has completed a series of Rink improvements as recommended in
structural and operational reports to complete Phase 1 and Phase 2; Year 1 of the
planned 3-phase renovation project; and
WHEREAS, The Friends of the Ithaca Youth Bureau (FOIYB) has been actively
fundraising in the community; and
WHEREAS, the grant funds would enable the City to move forward with the help of
FOIYB to complete Phase 2; Year 2 of the project, which will enclose Cass Park Rink as
recommended for optimal operations; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Director of the City of Ithaca Youth Bureau, is hereby authorized
to file an application for funds in an amount not to exceed $500,000.00 for the Cass
Park Rink Enclosure Project from the New York State CFA, and upon approval of said
request the Mayor, upon the advice of the City Attorney is hereby authorized, to enter
into and execute a project agreement with the State for such financial assistance to the
City of Ithaca for the Cass Park Rink Project; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca is authorized and directed to agree to the terms
and conditions of the Master Contract with OPRHP for such Cass Park Rink Enclosure
Project.
9. CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
9.1 Engineering Department - Brindley Street Bridge Replacement Project -
Resolution
WHEREAS, a Project for the Brindley Street Bridge Replacement over Cayuga Inlet ,
P.I.N. 375611 (the “Project”) is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code, as
amended, that calls for the apportionment of the costs for such program to be borne at
the ratio of 80% Federal funds and 20% non-Federal funds; and
WHEREAS, the project involves the construction of new a roadway and bridge on a
relocated horizontal alignment that will connect Taber Street with the West State/Martin
Luther King, Jr. Street/Taughnnock Boulevard intersection; and
WHEREAS, as part of the approved 2011 budget, the City of Ithaca established Capital
Project #764 in the amount of $205,000.00 to cover scoping and development phases
of the project; and
WHEREAS, as part of the approved 2015 budget, Common Council authorized an
additional $303,000.00 for the project; and
WHEREAS, as part of the approved 2017 budget, Common Council authorized an
additional $134,000.00 for the project; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2017, Common Council approved an increase of CP#764 by an
amount not to exceed $16,650.00 (80% Federal and 20% City Share) to cover the cost
of participation in the Right-of-Way Acquisition phase of the Project; and
WHEREAS, as part of the approved 2018 budget, Common Council authorized an
additional $2,788,000.00 (80% Federal and 20% City Share) to pay in the first instance
100% of the Federal and non-Federal share of the costs of Construction and
Construction Inspection; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works has decided to allocate $100,000.00 in
Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS) funds to cover
the project construction cost as a local match; and
WHEREAS, On May 15, 2018, an additional $570,000.00 Project funding was made
available by New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for Construction
and Construction Inspection Phases; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works is planning to repurpose the existing
bridge to serve as pedestrian bridge for a total cost of $202,000.00; and
WHEREAS, On November 28, 2017, as part of the project’s Site Plan Approval, the City
of Ithaca Planning and Development Board requested additional aesthetic and
landscaping improvements for a total cost of $160,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the amended project budget is projected to be $ 4,482,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the current and proposed project costs are outlined as follows:
Authorization Total
Project
Cost
City of
Ithaca
Share
Federal Highway
Administration
Share
NYSDOT
CHIPS Fund
Current $3,450,000 $1,370,000 $2,080,000 $0
Proposed $4,482,000 $1,679,600 $2,702,400 $100,000
Increase $1,032,000
$309,600 $622,400 $100,000
; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves an increase of Capital Project
#764 by an amount not to exceed $1,032,000.00, for a total project authorization of
$4,482,000.00; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this project be undertaken with the understanding that the final cost
of the Project to the City of Ithaca will be roughly 37.5% of said portion, currently
estimated at $1,679,600.00 of the $4,482,000.00 authorized for this portion of the
project, in monies and in-kind services as managed by the Superintendent of Public
Works and monitored by the City Controller; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That in the event the full federal and non-federal share costs of the project
exceed the amount appropriated above, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca shall
convene as soon as possible to appropriate said excess amount immediately upon the
notification by the NYSDOT thereof; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor of the City of Ithaca be and is hereby authorized to
execute all necessary Agreements on behalf of the City of Ithaca with the New York
State Department of Transportation in connection with the advancement or approval of
the Project and providing for the administration of the Project and the municipality’s first
instance funding of Project costs and permanent funding of the local share of federal-aid
and state-aid eligible Project costs and all Project costs within appropriations therefore
that are not so eligible; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the New York State
Commissioner of Transportation by attaching it to any necessary Agreement in
connection with the Project; and, be it further
RESOLVED, This Resolution shall take effect immediately; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Superintendent of Public Works be and is hereby authorized to
administer the above project; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That funds necessary for said project amendment shall be derived from
the issuance of Serial Bonds with later payment from Federal Aid.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Michael J. Thorne, P.E. Superintendent
Telephone: 607/274-6527 Fax: 607/274-6587
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Administration Committee
FROM: Addisu Gebre, Bridge Systems Engineer
Tim Logue, Director of Engineering Services
DATE: May 2, 2018
RE: Brindley Street Bridge Replacement Project, CP#764
Please find attached a resolution seeking Common Council authorization to pay in the first
instance 100% of the Federal and non-Federal share of the Construction and Construction
Inspection Share of the project.
Common Council already authorized $3,450,000 for the project as part of 2011, 2015, 2017, and
2018 capital budgets to fully cover design phase, Right-of-Way, construction phase and project
administration cost of the project. However, as our design has been finalized, we have seen our
engineer’s estimate grow, unfortunately. The factors contributing to the increased expected cost
included:
Poor soil conditions that have led to more expensive micro-piles;
Additional girder required to reduce beam depth due to limited freeboard;
Temporary sheeting to protect Auto Repair building due to modification to wingwall;
Additional drainage systems to accelerate embankment settlement and reduce overall
construction time;
Additional aesthetic treatments (top rail for bridge railing, supplemental cross bracing for
railing on old bridge, and railing painting) to the new bridge required by the Planning &
Development Board;
A significant landscaping plan throughout the project area as required by the Planning
Board; and
Additional costs for refurbishing the existing Brindley Street Bridge, particularly due to
construction schedules mandating that the closure to vehicular traffic be included as a
part of this project instead of the West MLK Jr. Street Corridor Enhancements project,
which will go to construction in 2018. The old Brindley Street Bridge can’t be closed
until the new one is open in 2019.
These additional costs increased our last engineer’s construction estimate, which was from
December 2017, by about a million dollars. Of course there are other project expenses related to
Page 2 of 3
additional design efforts, construction inspection, and project administration. In an effort to
reduce the financial exposure to the City, staff proposes a three pronged approach.
First, we have worked with the NYSDOT and the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation
Council (ITCTC) to shift monies from a lower priority project, the Elmira Road Paving and
Signals project, to the Brindley Street Bridge. In addition to this shift, we are able to budget
$100,000 of CHIPs funding toward this project without negatively affecting the 2018 paving
program. The Elmira Road project will remain on the ITCTC Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and be eligible for federal funding, but construction will be pushed from 2019 to
2021. We are currently in preliminary design for this project, but we will have to wait for a TIP
update to fund the construction phase again. This shift in monies will cover approximately two-
thirds of the additionally needed funds. As with all of our federal-aid transportation projects, the
City needs to borrow this funding in the first instance and seek reimbursement for at least 80% of
the project costs.
Second, to cover the rehabilitation of the existing Brindley Street Bridge and conversion into a
pedestrian/bicycle only bridge, we are asking for an additional $202,000, which would be 100%
City funds and not reimbursed. If Common Council is willing to fund this amount, the
rehabilitation will be included in the project. If Common Council does not want to allocate these
funds, the bridge will be closed entirely until we are able to do the rehabilitation at a later date.
This could be funded through a grant application or it might even be work that we can
accomplish in house, at a significantly lower cost, but would need to be applied for or
coordinated with current DPW workloads, meaning it might be a few years.
Third, to cover the budget shortfall due the requirements of the Planning Board’s site plan
review, we are requesting an additional $160,000, which would be 100% City funds and not
reimbursed. If Common Council is willing to fund this amount, the project will include the
additional aesthetic enhancements (a stainless steel handrail similar to the one on the Lake Street
bridge over Fall Creek, a modified bridge railing approach detail, and an extensive landscaping
plan for the project and the area between the two bridges on the south side of the creek. If
Common Council does not want to allocate these funds, they would be dropped out of the
project. The handrail is something that could be added at a future date. The bridge railing
approach could not easily be added at a later date. The landscaping could be done later and
would be a good candidate for a grant application, especially in conjunction with the old bridge
refurbishment, if neither is funded by Council at this time.
Two resolutions are attached for your consideration. Resolution #1 does not fund the additional
expenses noted above as the second and third points. However, because some of this money was
already included in the 2018 capital budget almost all ($662,400 of the $670,000 increase) of it
will be federal aid reimbursable. If this resolution is the choice of Common Council, staff will
Page 3 of 3
structure the bidding to include the second and third points as add alternates and these
components will only move forward if we get a lower than expected base bid. Our priorities
would be to fund the existing bridge rehabilitation first, and the aesthetic enhancements required
by the Planning Board second. Please note that the amount to be authorized by Common Council
in this resolution ($670,000) is a little less than the TIP adjustment. This is due to the fact that a
portion of the funds authorized by Council as part of the 2018 capital budget covers a portion of
the transferred federal aid. Resolution #2 approves funding for all three points. Point one is
funded, but points two and three would likely not be reimbursable (technically they are eligible,
but unless we receive a very low bid, we will exhaust our federal aid before accounting for these
expenses), and so would be funded 100% by City funds.
The following drawings are also included for your information:
Preliminary Structure Plans (4 sheets)
Context Plan (1 sheet)
Plan, Sections and Bridge Elevation Displays (3 sheets)
Details of railings for new structure (2 sheets)
Details for railings for retrofitted pedestrian/bicycle structure (1 sheet)
Landscape rendering (1 sheet)
Planting Plan (1 sheet)
Plant List (1 sheet) and
Landscape Details (3 sheets)
If you have any questions, please call me @ 607-274-6530 or email me agebre@cityofithaca.org
9.2 Engineering Department - South Cayuga Street Bridge Deck Replacement
Project - Resolution
WHEREAS, a project for the rehabilitation of the South Cayuga Street Bridge over Six
Mile Creek, P.I.N. 375616 (“the Project”) is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code
as administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as amended, that calls
for the apportionment of the costs for such program to be borne at the ratio of 80%
Federal funds and 20% non-Federal funds; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca desires to advance the Project by making a commitment
of 100% of the non-Federal share of the costs of Scoping, Preliminary Design and
Detailed Design; and
WHEREAS, this project constitutes a reconstruction of a facility in-kind on the same site
as well as maintenance or repair involving no substantial change in an existing facility,
and is therefore a Type II action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Regulation and in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617 requiring no environmental
review; and
WHEREAS, As part of the approved 2018 budget, Common Council already authorized
$155,000.00 (80% Federal Share and 20% Local Share) to cover the cost of
participation in Scoping and Preliminary Design Phases and an additional $25,000.00
(100% Local Share) to cover project administration cost; and
WHEREAS, in October 2018 an additional $210,000.00 (80% Federal and 20% Local
Share) in funding for the project will be made available by the New York State
Department of Transportation to cover the cost of participation in Detailed Design; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby approves the above
subject project; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby authorizes the City of Ithaca to pay in
the first instance 100% of the Federal and non-Federal share of the cost of Scoping,
Preliminary Design and Detailed Design thereof; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby amends CP#848 to add
$210,000.00 for a total of $390,000.00; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That funds needed for said project shall be derived from the issuance of
Serial Bonds with the City’s estimated share of the project cost not to exceed 25.1% or
$98,000.00; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That in the event the full Federal and non-Federal share costs of the
project exceeds the amount appropriated above, Common Council of the City of Ithaca
shall convene as soon as possible to appropriate said excess amount immediately upon
the notification by New York State Department of Transportation thereof; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Mayor of the City of Ithaca of the County of Tompkins be and is
hereby authorized to sign all necessary Agreements with New York State Department of
Transportation to secure Federal Aid and Marchiselli Aid on behalf of the City of Ithaca
and the Superintendent of Public Works is authorized to sign all necessary construction
documents, contracts, certifications and reimbursement requests; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Superintendent of Public Works be and is hereby authorized to
administer the above project; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the New York State
Commissioner of Transportation by attaching it to any necessary Agreement in
connection with the Project; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Michael J. Thorne, P.E. Superintendent
Telephone: 607/274-6527 Fax: 607/274-6587
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Administration Committee
FROM: Addisu Gebre, Bridge Systems Engineer
DATE: May 2, 2018
RE: S Cayuga St Bridge Project, CP#848
Please find attached a resolution seeking Common Council authorization to amend project
budget for S Cayuga Street Bridge Deck Replacement Project (CP#848) to pay in the first
instance 100% of the Federal and non-Federal share of the next phase of the project, which is
detailed design.
As part of the approved 2018 budget, Common Council already authorized $155,000(80%
Federal Share and 20% Local Share) to cover the cost of participation in Scoping and
Preliminary Design Phases and additional $25,000 (100% Local Share) to cover project
administration cost. Additional $210,000 (80% Federal and 20% Local Share) project funding
for the project will be made available by the New York State Department of Transportation to
cover the cost of participation in Detailed Design, and this funding must be locally provided in
the first instance for the federal share and authorized for the local share.
I have also attached a copy of the South Cayuga St. Bridge Deck Replacement Project funding
details on the 2017-2021Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that was approved by
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council-Policy Committee.
The project will include removal of the existing steel beam/concrete deck slab superstructure and
replacement with new galvanized or painted steel beam and composite concrete deck slab.
Construction is scheduled for 2021 spring and a public information meeting will be scheduled
later this year.
If you have any questions, please call me @ 607-274-6530 or email me agebre@cityofithaca.org
cc: Tim Logue, Director of Engineering Services
9.3 Department of Public Works Amendment to Capital Project #777 for the
Green and Seneca Parking Garages - Resolution
WHEREAS, Capital Project #777 was established in 2012 and has been amended each
year for the purchase of parking related equipment; and
WHEREAS, the automated parking equipment at the Green and Seneca Street Parking
Garages is past its useful life, requiring frequent, expensive repairs using parts that are
no longer commercially available, and is unreliable to the point that exit gates need to
be raised after 11:00 p.m. to prevent vehicles from being stuck in the garages after
hours, representing a significant loss in revenue; and
WHEREAS, the lost revenue from raising the exit gates at Green and Seneca Garages
is estimated at $7,500.00 per month, and repair costs associated with the outdated
parking equipment were approximately $58,000.00 for 2017, for a total of nearly
$150,000.00; and
WHEREAS the replacement cost for newer, reliable equipment for the Green and
Seneca Street Parking Garages is estimated at $485,000.00, representing a payback
period of approximately 3.5 years; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends Capital Project #777 by an amount
not to exceed $485,000.00 for a total authorized project amount of $1,746,000.00 for
the replacement of automated parking equipment at the Green and Seneca Street
Parking Garages; and. be it further
RESOLVED, That funds necessary for said amendment shall be derived from the
issuance of Serial Bonds.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Michael J. Thorne, P.E., Superintendent
Telephone: 607/274-6531 Fax: 607/274-6587
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
TO: Svante Myrick, Mayor
Common Council
FROM: Michael J. Thorne, P.E.
Superintendent of Public Works
DATE: May 16, 2018
RE: Parking Equipment for Green and Seneca Garages
______________________________________________________________________________
In March of this year, I requested funding for new parking equipment for the Dryden Road
garage due to operational problems, revenue losses, and expensive repairs. The request was
approved, and the equipment is scheduled for installation in July. I also indicated that I would
like to replace the Green and Seneca garage equipment in 2019 for the same reasons. My
intention at the time was to not overload the 2018 Capital Project budget by spreading the
requests over two years. However, the City would be better served if we replaced equipment in
the remaining garages sooner rather than later.
Parking equipment in the Green and Seneca garages have the same issues as Dryden Road. The
equipment breaks down so frequently that we leave the parking gates up after 11 pm to prevent
parkers from being stuck in the garage after hours. Repair parts for the old equipment are
expensive and difficult to find. In 2017, equipment repair costs for Green garage were
approximately $25,000 and the revenue loss from raising the gates averaged $3700 per month.
The repair costs and monthly revenue losses for the Seneca garage were $33,000 and $3800 for
the same time period. The 2017 cost to the City due to old parking equipment at Green and
Seneca garages was nearly $150,000.
The budgeted cost for new equipment at Seneca garage is $210,000 and the cost at Green garage
is $275,000 for a total of $485,000. The payback period for the new equipment will be
approximately 3.5 years.
There are two other reasons that we should purchase the new equipment sooner rather than later.
First, the new Dryden garage equipment will have a modern parking accounting system, while
the other two garages will still operate under the tedious outdated system. This will create
additional work for the Chamberlains office, and operational issues for parking staff. Second,
the new parking accounting system will provide the City with detailed revenue and occupancy
reports that will be used to base future decisions on parking rates, policies, and programs. As
parking demand increases in the City due to new development, this accurate information will be
critical to optimize our parking operations.
9.4 City Attorney - Establishment of a Charitable Gifts Reserve Fund Pursuant
to General Municipal Law § 6-u. - Resolution
WHEREAS, on March 30, 2018, the New York State legislature passed the 2018-19
New York State Budget; and
WHEREAS, under the Budget, the State legislature added a new section 6-u to Article 2
of the New York State General Municipal Law that enables the Common Council of the
City of Ithaca to establish a reserve fund known as a charitable gifts reserve fund that
may receive unrestricted charitable monetary contributions to the City of Ithaca; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council finds it beneficial to establish such a charitable gifts
reserve fund for the potential benefit of the City and its taxpayers; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby establishes a charitable gifts reserve
fund under section 6-u of the New York State General Municipal Law; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby delegates to the City Controller the duty
to secure and invest money deposited into the charitable gifts reserve fund in conformity
with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 6-u and all other applicable
provisions of the General Municipal Law; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby establishes the following procedure for
contributions to the charitable gifts reserve fund: charitable gifts may be made into the
charitable gifts reserve fund by presenting such gifts to the City Chamberlain’s Office,
which Office shall provide in duplicate to the contributor a written acknowledgment of
the gift, all in accord with such additional procedures as the City Controller, in
consultation with the City Chamberlain, may establish; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the written acknowledgment of the gift shall, per Real Property Tax
Law §980-a(3)(a), be provided, in duplicate, on a form prescribed by the New York
State Commissioner of Taxation and Finance (the “Commissioner”) and shall specify
the amount of the contribution, the name and address of the donor, the date the
contribution was received, the authorized signature of a member of the Chamberlain’s
Office, and such other information as the Commissioner shall require.
9.5 A Local Law entitled “Authorization for a Charitable Gifts Reserve Fund Tax
Credit Pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 980-a.”
WHEREAS on March 30, 2018, the New York State legislature passed the 2018-19
New York State Budget; and
WHEREAS under the Budget, the State legislature added a new section 6-u to Article 2
of the New York State General Municipal Law that enables the Common Council of the
City of Ithaca to establish a reserve fund known as a charitable gifts reserve fund that
may receive unrestricted charitable monetary contributions to the City of Ithaca; and
WHEREAS under the Budget, the State legislature also added a new section 980-a to
Article 9 of the New York State Real Property Tax Law that authorizes real property tax
credits for contributions by real property taxpayers to a charitable gifts reserve fund;
now therefore
LOCAL LAW 2018-__
BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. Legislative Findings, Intent, and Purpose
The Common Council makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Common Council has established a charitable gifts reserve fund under General
Municipal Law § 6-u.
2. The Common Council seeks to extend a real property tax credit to real property
taxpayers in the City of Ithaca for their contributions to the charitable gifts reserve
fund provided for in Real Property Tax Law § 980-a.
Based upon the above findings of fact, the intent and purpose of this Local Law is to
authorize a tax credit pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 980-a to real property
taxpayers in the City of Ithaca for their contributions to the charitable gifts reserve fund.
Section 2. Authority
This Local Law is adopted pursuant to real property tax law § 980-a, which authorizes
municipal corporations to adopt a real property tax credit if it has established a
charitable gifts reserve fund.
Section 3. The Charitable Gifts Reserve Fund Tax Credit
a) Having previously established a charitable gifts reserve fund, the Common
Council hereby establishes a charitable gifts reserve fund tax credit for the City of
Ithaca.
b) Any owner of real property located within the City who makes an unrestricted
charitable monetary contribution to the City’s charitable gifts reserve fund shall be
issued a written acknowledgement of such contribution and may claim a credit against
their City real property tax equal to ninety-five percent (95%) of the charitable gifts
reserve fund donation.
c) The “associated credit year” for administration of the real property tax credit
authorized in this Local Law shall, per Real Property Tax Law § 980-a(2)(a), begin on
February 1st of each year and end on January 31st of the following year, except that in
the first instance it shall begin on such date as this local law takes effect and end on
January 31, 2019.
d) Upon presentation during any given associated credit year of a written
acknowledgement of contribution and credit claim form in compliance with Real
Property Tax Law § 980-a(3)(b) and such other procedures as may be established
pursuant to this Local Law, the City Chamberlain shall, to the extent authorized by Real
Property Tax Law § 980-a and this Local Law, grant the property owner a tax credit
towards the tax liability arising from the next-due tax installment specified in § C-42 of
the City Charter as to which the last day prescribed by law on which taxes may be paid
without interest or penalty has not yet expired.
e) The City Chamberlain shall administer the real property tax credit authorized in
this Local Law in conformance with such procedures as specified in Real Property Tax
Law § 980-a(3)(b) and (c), and such other procedures, not inconsistent therewith,
established by the City Controller, in consultation with the City Chamberlain.
Section 4. Severability
Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Local Law. If any
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Local Law is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Local Law.
Section 5. Effective Date
This Local Law take effect immediately upon the filing of the Local Law in the office of
the Secretary of State.
To: Common Council
From: Ari Lavine, City Attorney
Subject: Property Tax Credit Program for Charitable Gifts
Date: May 10, 2018
As you may be aware, when passing the 2018-19 budget, the State included amendments
to the General Municipal Law and the Real Property Tax Law permitting municipalities to
establish mechanisms by which people can donate to their municipality, and then get a credit
towards their ensuing property tax bill(s) for that donation. As you are likely aware, this state
legislation was enacted in response to the December 2017 federal tax reform that limited
people’s ability to take the state and local tax (SALT) deduction on their federal tax returns, but
did not similarly limit their ability to take charitable deductions. It is important to note that the
City is not in a position to offer any opinion as to whether charitable contributions under
this new program will be deductible for federal income tax purposes, as that is something
that must be determined by the Internal Revenue Service.
If Council chooses to participate in this new program, two pieces of legislation—both
included in this agenda—will be needed: a resolution creating a charitable gifts reserve fund, and
a local law establishing property tax credits for donations made into that fund. Per State law, the
maximum amount of the permitted credit is 95% of the amount donated, meaning that if
someone donates $1,000 to the City, the City can only grant them a $950 credit towards their
property taxes.
Council also has a few options if it chooses to participate in this new program:
(a) to set this percentage below 95%,
(b) to cap the dollar amount of such credit to be allowed for a single property owner
in any given fiscal year; and/or
(c) to process these credits as reductions in the tax liability reflected on upcoming
City tax bills, rather than billing the full amount and then accepting credits as
payment towards the billed amount (this is an administrative distinction only).
The draft legislation included in this agenda proposes neither of these optional restrictions on the
allowable credit (i.e., (a) and (b)), and also does not at this time propose adjusting tax bills per
(c), although—if this program proves durable—that may be an option worth further examination
for potential amendment at a later date.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Aaron O. Lavine, City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504
Robert A. Sarachan, Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507
Krin Flaherty, Assistant City Attorney
Kevin Levine, Assistant City Attorney
Jody Andrew, Executive Assistant
After discussions amongst the City Controller, the City Chamberlain, and the City
Attorney’s Office, this draft legislation proposes that public interactions with this program (i.e.,
donations accepted and credits applied) occur at the at Chamberlain’s Office counter, much as
with tax payments. If Council chooses to adopt this legislation at the June Council meeting, staff
anticipate being able to make the program operable by the last few days of June, but likely not
earlier in light of the procedural requirements—including public notice, a public hearing, and
filing with the Secretary of State—necessary before a local law can take effect.
Lastly, it is worth noting that accumulated donations in the charitable gifts reserve fund
may be transferred to the General Fund within 60 days of the close of the fiscal year.
9.6 A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of an Additional $1,032,000.00
Bonds of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to Pay Part of the Cost
of the Brindley Street Bridge Replacement, in and for said City
WHEREAS, the capital project hereinafter described, as proposed, has been
determined to be an Type II Action pursuant to the regulations of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, which it has been determined will not
have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to amend such bond resolution accordingly and
authorize the additional bonds for the financing thereof; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the total
voting strength of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County,
New York, as follows:
Section 1. For the specific object or purpose of paying part of the cost of the
replacement of the Brindley Street Bridge, including incidental improvements and
expenses, in and for the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, there are
hereby authorized to be issued an additional $1,032,000 bonds pursuant to the
provisions of the Local Finance Law. Said specific object or purpose is hereby
authorized at the new maximum estimated cost of $4,462,000.
Section 2. The plan for the financing of such $4,462,000 maximum estimated
cost is as follows:
a) By the issuance of the $205,000 bonds of said City heretofore authorized
to be issued therefor (as to Phase I) pursuant to a bond resolution dated
December 1, 2011;
b) By the issuance of the $303,000 bonds of said City heretofore authorized
to be issued therefor (as to Phase II) pursuant to a bond resolution dated
January 7, 2015;
c) By the issuance of the $134,000 bonds of said City heretofore authorized
to be issued therefor (as to Phase II) pursuant to a bond resolution dated
January 4, 2017;
d) By the issuance of the $2,788,000 bonds of said City heretofore
authorized to be issued therefor (as to Phase II) pursuant to a bond resolution
dated January 3, 2018;
e) By the issuance of the additional $1,032,000 bonds of said City herein
authorized for said specific object or purpose; and
f) Provided, however, that the amount of obligations ultimately to be issued
for said specific object or purpose will be reduced by any State and/or Federal
grants-in-aid to be received by said City for said purpose.
Section 3. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid specific object or purpose is 20 years, pursuant to subdivision 10 of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law, computed from February
19, 2015.
Section 4. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New
York, are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and
interest on such obligations as the same respectively become due and payable.
An annual appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal
of and interest on such obligations becoming due and payable in such year.
There shall annually be levied on all the taxable real property of said City, a tax
sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations as the same
become due and payable.
Section 5. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to
authorize the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the
issuance and sale of the bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such
notes, is hereby delegated to the City Controller, the chief fiscal officer. Such
notes shall be of such terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such
manner, as may be prescribed by said City Controller, consistent with the
provisions of the Local Finance Law.
Section 6. The powers and duties of advertising such bonds for sale,
conducting the sale and awarding the bonds, are hereby delegated to the City
Controller, who shall advertise such bonds for sale, conduct the sale, and award
the bonds in such manner as he shall deem best for the interests of the City;
provided, however, that in the exercise of these delegated powers, he shall
comply fully with the provisions of the Local Finance Law and any order or rule of
the State Comptroller applicable to the sale of municipal bonds. The receipt of
the City Controller shall be a full acquittance to the purchaser of such bonds, who
shall not be obliged to see to the application of the purchase money.
Section 7. All other matters, except as provided herein relating to such bonds,
including determining whether to issue such bonds having substantially level or
declining debt service and all matters related thereto, prescribing whether
manual or facsimile signatures shall appear on said bonds, prescribing the
method for the recording of ownership of said bonds, appointing the fiscal agent
or agents for said bonds, providing for the printing and delivery of said bonds
(and if said bonds are to be executed in the name of the City by the facsimile
signature of the City Controller, providing for the manual countersignature of a
fiscal agent or of a designated official of the City), the date, denominations,
maturities and interest payment dates, place or places of payment, and also
including the consolidation with other issues, shall be determined by the City
Controller. It is hereby determined that it is to the financial advantage of the City
not to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial bonds any
charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged by the
fiscal agent, and, accordingly, pursuant to paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the
Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent.
Such bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in
section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and
contain such recitals in addition to those required by section 52.00 of the Local
Finance Law, as the City Controller shall determine.
Section 8. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be
contested only if:
1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said
City is not authorized to expend money, or
2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of
publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with,
and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within
twenty days after the date of such publication, or
3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the
Constitution.
Section 9. This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for
purposes of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. Other than as specified in
this resolution, no monies are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved,
allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside with respect to the
permanent funding of the object or purpose described herein.
Section 10. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published
in full or summary form in the Ithaca Journal, the official newspaper, together
with a notice of the City Clerk in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00
of the Local Finance Law.
9.7 A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of an Additional $375,000.00 Bonds
of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to Pay Part of the Cost of the
Reconstruction of and Construction of Improvements to the Dryden Road Parking
Garage, in and for Said City
WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to the financing of the capital project hereinafter
described, including compliance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, have been performed; and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize additional bonds for the financing thereof,
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the total voting
strength of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as
follows:
Section 1. For the specific object or purpose of paying part of the cost of
reconstruction of and construction of improvements to the Dryden Road Parking
Garage, in and for the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, there are hereby
authorized to be issued an additional $375,000 bonds pursuant to the provisions of the
Local Finance Law. Said specific object or purpose is hereby authorized at the new
maximum estimated cost of $426,000.
Section 2. The plan for the financing of such $426,000 maximum estimated cost is as
follows:
a) By the issuance of the $51,000 bonds of said City heretofore authorized to be
issued therefor pursuant to a bond resolution dated January 4, 2017; and
b) By the issuance of the additional $375,000 bonds of said City herein authorized.
Section 3. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid specific object or purpose is 25 years, pursuant to subdivision 12(a)(1) of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law, computed from the date of the
first bond anticipation note issued therefor.
Section 4. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,
are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on such
obligations as the same respectively become due and payable. An annual
appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on
such obligations becoming due and payable in such year. There shall annually be
levied on all the taxable real property of said City, a tax sufficient to pay the principal of
and interest on such obligations as the same become due and payable.
Section 5. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize
the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and
sale of the bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes, is hereby
delegated to the City Controller, the chief fiscal officer. Such notes shall be of such
terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by
said City Controller, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law.
Section 6. Such bonds shall be in fully registered form and shall be signed in the
name of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, by the manual or facsimile
signature of the City Controller and a facsimile of its corporate seal shall be imprinted or
impressed thereon and may be attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the City
Clerk.
Section 7. All other matters, except as provided herein relating to such bonds,
including determining whether to issue such bonds having substantially level or
declining debt service and all matters related thereto, prescribing whether manual or
facsimile signatures shall appear on said bonds, prescribing the method for the
recording of ownership of said bonds, appointing the fiscal agent or agents for said
bonds, providing for the printing and delivery of said bonds (and if said bonds are to be
executed in the name of the City by the facsimile signature of the City Controller,
providing for the manual countersignature of a fiscal agent or of a designated official of
the City), the date, denominations, maturities and interest payment dates, place or
places of payment, and also including the consolidation with other issues, shall be
determined by the City Controller. It is hereby determined that it is to the financial
advantage of the City not to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial
bonds any charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged
by the fiscal agent, and, accordingly, pursuant to paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the
Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent. Such
bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in section
52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and contain such
recitals in addition to those required by section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law, as the
City Controller shall determine.
Section 8. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested
only if:
1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said City is not
authorized to expend money, or
2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of
this resolution are not substantially complied with,
and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty
days after the date of such publication, or
3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution.
Section 9. This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for purposes of
Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. Other than as specified in this resolution, no
monies are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis,
or otherwise set aside with respect to the permanent funding of the object or purpose
described herein.
Section 10. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published in
summary form in the official newspaper, together with a notice of the City Clerk in
substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law.
9.8 A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $635,000.00 Bonds of the City of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to Pay the Cost of the Purchase and
Installation of Parking Meters and Related Equipment in and for Said City
WHEREAS, the capital project hereinafter described, as proposed, has been
determined to be a Type II Action pursuant to the regulations of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, which regulations state that Type II
Actions will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize bonds for the financing thereof; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the total
voting strength of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County,
New York, as follows:
Section 1. For the class of objects or purposes of paying the cost of the
purchase and installation of parking meters, gates, ticket spitters, pay stations,
software, and other related equipment (Phases II and III), in and for the City of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, including incidental expenses in connection
therewith, there are hereby authorized to be issued $635,000 bonds pursuant to
the provisions of the Local Finance Law.
Section 2. It is hereby determined that the maximum estimated of the
aforesaid class of objects or purposes is hereby determined to be $635,000,
which class of objects or purposes is hereby authorized at said maximum
estimated cost, and the plan for the financing thereof is by the issuance of the
$635,000 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond
resolution.
Section 3. It is hereby further determined that the period of probable
usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is five years, pursuant to
subdivision 50 of paragraph (a) of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law.
Section 4. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New
York, are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and
interest on such obligations as the same respectively become due and payable.
An annual appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal
of and interest on such obligations becoming due and payable in such year.
There shall annually be levied on all the taxable real property of said City, a tax
sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations as the same
become due and payable.
Section 5. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to
authorize the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the
issuance and sale of the bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such
notes, is hereby delegated to the City Controller, the chief fiscal officer. Such
notes shall be of such terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such
manner, as may be prescribed by said City Controller, consistent with the
provisions of the Local Finance Law.
Section 6. The powers and duties of advertising such bonds for sale,
conducting the sale and awarding the bonds, are hereby delegated to the City
Controller, who shall advertise such bonds for sale, conduct the sale, and award
the bonds in such manner as he shall deem best for the interests of the City;
provided, however, that in the exercise of these delegated powers, he shall
comply fully with the provisions of the Local Finance Law and any order or rule of
the State Comptroller applicable to the sale of municipal bonds. The receipt of
the City Controller shall be a full acquittance to the purchaser of such bonds, who
shall not be obliged to see to the application of the purchase money.
Section 7. All other matters, except as provided herein relating to such bonds,
including determining whether to issue such bonds having substantially level or
declining debt service and all matters related thereto, prescribing whether
manual or facsimile signatures shall appear on said bonds, prescribing the
method for the recording of ownership of said bonds, appointing the fiscal agent
or agents for said bonds, providing for the printing and delivery of said bonds
(and if said bonds are to be executed in the name of the City by the facsimile
signature of the City Controller, providing for the manual countersignature of a
fiscal agent or of a designated official of the City), the date, denominations,
maturities and interest payment dates, place or places of payment, and also
including the consolidation with other issues, shall be determined by the City
Controller. It is hereby determined that it is to the financial advantage of the City
not to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial bonds any
charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged by the
fiscal agent, and, accordingly, pursuant to paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the
Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent.
Such bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in
section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and
contain such recitals in addition to those required by section 52.00 of the Local
Finance Law, as the City Controller shall determine.
Section 8. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be
contested only if:
1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which
said City is not authorized to expend money, or
2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of
publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with,
and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced
within twenty days after the date of such publication, or
3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the
Constitution.
Section 9. This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for
purposes of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. Other than as specified in
this resolution, no monies are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved,
allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside with respect to the
permanent funding of the object or purpose described herein.
Section 10. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published
in full or summary form in the Ithaca Journal, the official newspaper, together
with a notice of the City Clerk in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00
of the Local Finance Law.
9.9 A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of an Additional $210,000.00 Bonds
of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to Pay Part of the Planning and
Design Costs for the South Cayuga Street Bridge Deck Replacement in and for
Said City
WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to the financing of the capital project hereinafter
described, including compliance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, have been performed; and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize additional bonds for the financing thereof ;
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the total voting
strength of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as
follows:
Section 1. For the specific object or purpose of paying part of the cost of planning
and design costs for the South Cayuga Street Bridge Deck Replacement over Six Mile
Creek, in and for the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, there are hereby
authorized to be issued an additional $210,000 bonds pursuant to the provisions of the
Local Finance Law. Said specific object or purpose is hereby authorized at the new
maximum estimated cost of $390,000.
Section 2. The plan for the financing of such $390,000 maximum estimated cost is as
follows:
a) By the issuance of the $180,000 bonds of said City heretofore authorized to be
issued therefor pursuant to a bond resolution dated January 3, 2018; and
b) By the issuance of the additional $210,000 bonds of said City herein authorized;
provided, however, that the amount of obligations ultimately to be issued will be reduced
by any State and/or Federal grants-in-aid to be received by said City for said purpose.
Section 3. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the
aforesaid specific object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 62(2nd) of
paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law, computed from the date of the
first bond anticipation note issued therefor.
Section 4. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,
are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on such
obligations as the same respectively become due and payable. An annual
appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on
such obligations becoming due and payable in such year. There shall annually be
levied on all the taxable real property of said City, a tax sufficient to pay the principal of
and interest on such obligations as the same become due and payable.
Section 5. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize
the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and
sale of the bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes, is hereby
delegated to the City Controller, the chief fiscal officer. Such notes shall be of such
terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by
said City Controller, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law.
Section 6. Such bonds shall be in fully registered form and shall be signed in the
name of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, by the manual or facsimile
signature of the City Controller and a facsimile of its corporate seal shall be imprinted or
impressed thereon and may be attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the City
Clerk.
Section 7. All other matters, except as provided herein relating to such bonds,
including determining whether to issue such bonds having substantially level or
declining debt service and all matters related thereto, prescribing whether manual or
facsimile signatures shall appear on said bonds, prescribing the method for the
recording of ownership of said bonds, appointing the fiscal agent or agents for said
bonds, providing for the printing and delivery of said bonds (and if said bonds are to be
executed in the name of the City by the facsimile signature of the City Controller,
providing for the manual countersignature of a fiscal agent or of a designated official of
the City), the date, denominations, maturities and interest payment dates, place or
places of payment, and also including the consolidation with other issues, shall be
determined by the City Controller. It is hereby determined that it is to the financial
advantage of the City not to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial
bonds any charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged
by the fiscal agent, and, accordingly, pursuant to paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the
Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent. Such
bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in section
52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and contain such
recitals in addition to those required by section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law, as the
City Controller shall determine.
Section 8. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested
only if:
1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said City is not
authorized to expend money, or
2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of
this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding
contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of such
publication, or
3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution.
Section 9. This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for purposes of
Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. Other than as specified in this resolution, no
monies are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis,
or otherwise set aside with respect to the permanent funding of the object or purpose
described herein.
Section 10. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published in
summary form in the official newspaper, together with a notice of the City Clerk in
substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law.
10. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
10.1 Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as Part of Phase II of the
City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan - Resolution
A. Declaration of Lead Agency – Resolution
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency
be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local
and state environmental law; and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action; and
WHEREAS, the proposed adoption of an amendment to the comprehensive plan is a
“Type I” Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review;
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead
agency for the environmental review of the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan as part of Phase II of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.
B. Determination of Environmental Significance – Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering the adoption of the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan as part of Phase II of the City’s Comprehensive Plan ; and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the
preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated December 4,
2017; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and Tompkins County
Department of Planning and Sustainability have been given the opportunity to comment
on the proposed plan, and no comments have been submitted to date; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a “Type I” Action under the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has
reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its
own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth in the Full Environmental
Assessment Form, dated December 4, 2017; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines
that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment,
and that further environmental review is unnecessary; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that
the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any
attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as
required by law.
10.1 Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as Part of Phase II of the
City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan - Resolution
WHEREAS, the City is pursuing a two-phased approach to its Comprehensive Plan,
where Phase I entailed the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals
and principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II includes
the preparation of specific neighborhood and thematic plans; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted Plan Ithaca as Phase I of its Comprehensive Plan in
2015, and Plan Ithaca recommends the preparation of a plan for the City’s park system
as part of Phase II; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council funded a parks and recreation master plan as part of
the City’s 2016 budget, and the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County funded various
aspects of the proposed plan; and
WHEREAS, PROS Consulting was selected as the project consultant and began work
on the draft plan in the fall of 2016; and
WHEREAS, the public was involved throughout the planning process through
stakeholder interviews, focus groups, surveys, and community events; and
WHEREAS, the consultant team gathered information through data collection, site
assessments, community input, staff observations and local and national trends and
used this information to prepare the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, a draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan was presented in early
November and was then circulated for further public comment; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State
General City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for
recommending a comprehensive plan to the Common Council for adoption; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board reviewed the draft plan at its
December 19, 2017 and January 30, 2018 meetings and recommended adoption of the
plan with several modifications; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the adoption of the proposed plan was held at the
January 10, 2018 Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting, and many
written comments were submitted by community members and City staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Economic Development Committee voted to adopt the
draft plan at its March 2018 meeting, but the draft was later revised again to incorporate
additional submitted comments; and
WHEREAS, the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan was submitted for review by
the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability pursuant to §239-l-m of
the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500
feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by
the County Planning Department, and was also distributed for review by the City of
Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as part of Phase II
of the Comprehensive Plan is a Type I action, and the Common Council, as lead
agency, has completed environmental review and determined that the action will not
have a significant impact on the environment; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby adopts the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, dated April 2018 as amended at the May 9, 2018 Planning & Economic
Development Committee meeting, as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan; and,
be it further
RESOLVED, That this Comprehensive Plan shall serve as a guide for future decisions
made by Common Council, City boards and commissions, and City staff; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That Common Council shall establish regular reviews and updates of the
Comprehensive Plan every five years.
To: Common Council
From: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
Date: May 22, 2018
Re: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
At the May 9, 2018 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting, the Committee
approved an amendment to the wording on page 54 of the draft plan. The amendment clarifies that the
plan is recommending that the City consider alienation of several parks as one possible way to address
parkland that is underutilized and presents maintenance challenges. To help avoid confusion, staff has
not prepared a revised draft with this amendment, but the attached excerpt from the plan does reflect
the revised language approved by the PEDC. The full draft plan and the accompanying technical
reports remain available at http://www.cityofithaca.org/618/Parks-Recreation-Master-Plan
If you have any questions about the amendment or the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan in
general, please feel free to contact me at 274-6560 or mwilson@cityofithaca.org.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
54
1) The parks are located in less than ideal locations to efficiently undertake operations and maintenance
activities;
2) Due to the parks’ location, there is little public visitation and there are often challenges with flooding or
surface erosion;
3) There are no park amenities found on-site.
Given the concerns with these parks as they currently exist and the anticipated level of investment required to
improve their current level of service, it is recommended to “alienate” that the City consider alienating these parks
for alternative uses; however, the State of New York is very explicit in the procedure to alienate any municipal
parkland. In fact, in order to convey parkland away, or to use parkland for another purpose, a municipality must
receive prior authorization from the State in the form of legislation enacted by the New York State Legislature and
approved by the Governor. The bill by which the Legislature grants its authorization is commonly referred to as a
parkland alienation bill. However, if a municipality accepts State funding for the acquisition or improvement of
parkland or recreational facilities, certain other restrictions must be considered when requesting alienation
approval. Common examples of parkland use by a municipality for a non-park purpose include, but are not limited
to:
•Laying out streets and highways;
•Museums;
•Landfills and composting centers;
•Public works facilities and storage space;
•Parking for municipal vehicles;
•Housing (public and private).
It should be noted, however, that the form municipalities complete and submit to the New York State Legislature
specifically asks about existing site features, uses, and amenities along with if other parkland will be dedicated for
park purposes to replace the land being alienated. As mentioned in Chapter 6, it is the intent of the equity maps and
Level of Service (LOS) to provide the municipality with direction for acquiring and positioning parkland and amenities
within the system. Any alienation of parkland will only occur if other identified land (of equal fair market value) is
located and sought to provide recreational opportunities for City of Ithaca residents as required by law.
In order for parkland to be alienated, the following steps must occur:
1) Determine if State or Federal funding has been allocated to the park;
2) Complete the Parkland Alienation Municipal Information Form;
3) Contact your local State Legislative sponsors and draft legislation;
4) Conduct a review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
5) Pass a Municipal Home Rule Request
The environmental review process provides important opportunities for public participation, which may include
public notice, comment periods, and hearings.
The following recommendations are provided for addressing underutilized parkland:
SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
It is recommended that the City of Ithaca consider alienating Columbia Street, Dryden Road, Hillview, and Maple
Grove Parks. According to State law, new parkland (of equal fair market value) and at least equaling 1.54 acres should
be used in lieu of the various smaller neighborhood parks. The substitute parkland could be one larger park parcel
or more than one smaller parks. By alienating one or more of these parks and providing substitute parkland, it may
AMENDMENT APPROVED AT
5/9/18 PEDC MEETING
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)
PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION
(prepared by project sponsor/applicant)
NOTE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether proposed action may have a significant
effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form: Parts A through E. Answers to these questions
will be considered part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public
review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is
expected that completion of the FEAF will depend on information currently available and will not involve
new studies, research, or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so
indicate and specify each instance.
Name of Action: Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Location of Action: City of Ithaca
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: City of Ithaca
Address: 108 E. Green Street
City/Town/Village: Ithaca State: NY ZIP: 14845
Business Phone: (607) 274-6550 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org
Name of Owner (if different from applicant/sponsor):
Address:
City/Town/Village: State: ZIP:
Business Phone: E-Mail:
Description of Action: The proposed action is the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as
part of the City’s comprehensive plan. The plan is a guide for the future of the City’s parkland and
recreation programming. The plan provides a system-wide approach to managing and operating the
City’s parkland and addresses all City parks, with special attention to Stewart and Cass Parks as
regional destinations. It details recommendations for governance and operations; finance; recreation
programming; and land and facilities.
1
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present Land Use: Urban Industrial Commercial Public Forest
Agricultural Other: _________________________
2. Total area of project area: 300 acres _____ square feet. (Chosen units also apply to following section.)
Approximate Area (Units in Question 2 above apply to this section.) Currently After Completion
2a. Meadow or Brushland (non-agricultural)
2b. Forested
2c. Agricultural
2d. Wetland [as per Article 24 of Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)] 14 14
2e. Water Surface Area
2f. Public 246 246
2g. Unvegetated (i.e., rock, earth, or fill)
2h. Roads, Buildings, & Other Paved Surfaces 40 40
2i. Other (indicate type): ___________________
3a. What is the predominant soil type(s) on project site (e.g., HdB, silty loam, etc.): HsD3, Gn, Ws, Em, BtF,
Unknown
3b. Soil Drainage: Well-Drained: 2% of Site – Parks: Auburn, Brindley, Bryant, Conway,
Conley, DeWitt, Dryden, Thompson, Titus Triangle, Van Horn, Washington
Moderately Well-Drained: 95% of Site – Parks: Cass, Stewart, Strawberry
Fields, Maplewood, Baker, Columbia Street
Poorly Drained: 3% of Site – Parks: Hillview, Wood Street, McDaniels
4a. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Yes No N/A
4b. What is depth of bedrock? variable
4c. What is depth to the water table? 0’ to unknown (feet) Some parks at lake level
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site
with slopes:
0-10% 97% 10-15% 2%
15% or greater 1%
6a. Is project substantially contiguous to, or does it
contain, a building, site, or district listed on or
eligible for the National or State Register of
Historic Places?
Yes No N/A
DeWitt Park Historic District; Cascadilla Boathouse
6b. Or a designated local landmark or located in a
local landmark district?
Yes No N/A
DeWitt Park Historic District
— PLEASE COMPLETE EVERY QUESTION. INDICATE “N/A,” IF NOT APPLICABLE. —
2
7. Do hunting and/or fishing opportunities currently
exist in the project area? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” identify each
species: Brown Trout; Brook Trout; Smallmouth
Bass
3
A. SITE DESCRIPTION (concluded)
8. Does project site contain any species of plant
and/or animal life identified as threatened or
endangered?
Yes No N/A
According to: _____________________________
Identify each species: _______________________
9. Are there any unique or unusual landforms on
project site (i.e., cliffs, other geological
formations)?
Yes No N/A
Describe: Fall Creek gorge
10. Is project site currently used by community or
neighborhood as an open space or recreation
area?
Yes No N/A
If yes, explain: The study area for the plan is all
City parkland.
11. Does present site offer or include scenic views
known to be important to the community? Yes No N/A
Describe: views of Cayuga Lake, Ithaca Falls, open
space, hillsides
12. Is project within or contiguous to a site
designated a Unique Natural Area (UNA) or
critical environmental area by a local or state
agency?
Yes No N/A
Describe: UNA-98 (Hog Hole); UNA-99 (Biological
Station); UNA-100 (Stewart Park Woods); UNA-
134 (Fall Creek Gorge); UNA-137 (Octopus
Cliffs); UNA-153 (Negundo Woods)
13. Stream(s) within or contiguous to project area:
a. Names of stream(s) or river(s) to which it is a
tributary: Cayuga Inlet, Flood Control Channel,
Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Fall Creek
14. Lakes, ponds, or wetland areas within or
contiguous to project area:
a. Name(s): Cayuga Lake
b. Size(s) in acres: ___________
15. Has site been used for land disposal of solid
and/or hazardous wastes? Yes No N/A
Describe: __________________________________
16. Is site served by existing public utilities?
a. If “Yes,” does sufficient capacity exist to
allow connection?
b. If “Yes,” will improvements be necessary to
allow connection?
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
4
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate): All City-owned parkland is
included in the plan
1a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor either in acres: 300 or square feet: _______
1b. Project acreage developed: 40 Acres, initially 40 Acres, ultimately park buildings, roads, walkways,
and other amenities
1c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: NA
1d. Length of project in miles (if appropriate): NA
1e. If project is an expansion, indicate percentage change proposed: NA
1f. Number of existing off-street parking spaces NA Proposed: NA
1g. Maximum vehicular trips generated (on completion of project) per day: NA Per hour: NA
1h. Height of tallest proposed structure in feet: NA
1i. Linear feet of frontage along a public street or thoroughfare that the project will occupy: NA
2. Specify what type(s) of natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the
site: NA Or added to the site: NA
3. Specify what type(s) of vegetation (e.g., trees, shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed from
the site: Acres: NA Type(s) of Vegetation: NA
4. Will any mature trees or other locally important vegetation be removed for this project?
Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain: ________________________________________________
5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace vegetation removed during construction? NA
6. If single-phase project, anticipated period of construction: NA months (including demolition)
7. If multi-phase project, anticipated period of construction: NA months (including demolition)
7a. Total number of phases anticipated: NA
7b. Anticipated date of commencement for first phase NA month NA year (including demolition)
7c. Approximate completion date of final phase: NA month NA year.
7d. Is phase one financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes No N/A
8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain: _______________
____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Number of jobs generated during construction: NA After project is completed: NA
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project: NA Explain:
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain:
___________________________________________________________________________________
5
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (concluded)
12a. Is surface or sub-surface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes No N/A If yes, explain:
12b. If #12a. is “Yes,” indicate type of waste (e.g., sewage, industrial, etc.): __________________
12c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged? _____________________
13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased
by proposal? Yes No N/A If yes, explain: _____________________________
14a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100-year
flood plain? Yes No N/A Several parks are within the 100-year flood plain.
14b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to:
Cayuga Inlet Fall Creek Cascadilla Creek Cayuga Lake Six Mile Creek
Silver Creek? (Check all that apply.)
14c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as
described in Article 24 of the ECL? Yes No N/A
14d. If #14a., b., or c. is “Yes,” explain: Several parks are adjacent to waterways within the city. There
are wetlands located in Stewart Park.
15a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes No N/A
15b. If #15a. is “Yes,” will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes No N/A
15c. If #15b. is “Yes,” give name of disposal facility: and location:
____________
15d. Will there be any wastes that will not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain: ___________________________________
15e. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes No N/A
If “Yes,” explain: ___________________________________________________________________
16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” specify: ____________
17. Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic
Places, or a local landmark, or in a landmark district? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain:
DeWitt Park (located in the DeWitt Park Historic District) and the Cascadilla Boathouse are in the
study area of the plan but the plan does not recommend any actions that would negatively impact
these two resources. Any actions to implement the plan will be subject to their own environmental
review.
18. Will project produce odors? Yes No N/A If yes, explain: ________________________
19. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise-level during construction?
Yes No N/A After construction? Yes No N/A
20. Will project result in an increase of energy use? Yes No N/A If yes, indicate type(s):
21. Total anticipated water usage per day in gals./day: NA Source of water: NA
6
C. ZONING & PLANNING INFORMATION
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Yes No N/A
If yes, indicate the decision(s) required:
Zoning Amendment Zoning Variance New/Revision of Master Plan Subdivision
Site Plan Review Special Use Permit Resource Management Plan
Other: ____________________
2. What is the current zoning classification of site? P-1; MU-2
3. If site is developed as permitted by current zoning, what is the maximum potential development?
NA
4. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes No N/A
5. If #4 is “No,” indicate desired zoning: _________________________
6. If site is developed by proposed zoning, what is the maximum potential development of the site?
NA
7. Is proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans?
Yes No N/A If “No,” explain: _____________________________________________
8. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a ¼-mile radius of the project?
(e.g., R-1a, R-1b) Most City zoning districts are within a ¼ mile radius of a city park.
9. Is proposed action compatible with adjacent land uses? Yes No N/A Explain: _________
___________________________________________________________________________________
10a. If proposed action is the Subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? NA
10b. What is the minimum lot size proposed? NA
11. Will proposed action create demand for any community-provided services? (e.g., recreation, education,
police, fire protection, etc.)? Yes No N/A Explain: _____________________
If “Yes,” is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes No N/A
Explain: _____________________________
12. Will proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?
Yes No N/A
If yes, is existing road network adequate to handle additional traffic?
Yes No N/A Explain: __________________________________________
7
D. APPROVALS
1. Approvals: Adoption by Common Council
2a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes No N/A Specify: _________________
2b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes No N/A
If “Yes,” specify: ______________________________________
2c. Local and Regional Approvals:
Agency Yes No Type of
Approval Required
Submittal
Date
Approval
Date
Common Council Adoption
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Planning & Development Board Recommendation
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC)
Board of Public Works (BPW)
Fire Department
Police Department
Director of Code Enforcement
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(IURA)
Other: _____________________
8
E. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS
Attach any additional information that may be needed to clarify your project. If there are, or may be, any
adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you
propose to mitigate or avoid them.
F. VERIFICATION
I certify the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name: City of Ithaca
Signature:
Title/Role: Senior Planner
***************** END OF PART 1 *****************
9
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physic al change to project site? Yes No
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per
100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project
exceeds 10%.
Yes No
Construction on land where depth to the water table is less
than 3 feet. Yes No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally
within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
more than one phase or stage. Yes No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in designated floodway. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges,
geological formations, etc.)? Yes No
Specific land forms (if any):
Yes No
10
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of
Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No
Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel
of protected stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected
water body. Yes No
Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No
A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of
water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that
exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek,
Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
11
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No
Project will require discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a
public water supply system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which
do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of
20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an
obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Yes No
Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
12
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts (if any
Yes No
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour
period per day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of
refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs.
per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million
BTUs per hour.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
13
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No
Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list,
using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife
habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year
other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
Yes No
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any
resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of
mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
14
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or
community? Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components
obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible to
users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or
significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of
that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening
of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological
importance? Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the
National or State Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site. Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a
landmark district.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
15
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or
recreational opportunities? Yes No
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational
opportunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated
as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state
agency? Yes No
Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the
resource. Yes No
Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjo yment of the
resource. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
16
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods. Yes No
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No
Other impacts:
Yes No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in an y
form of energy used in municipality. Yes No
Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single-
or two-family residences.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
17
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during
construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other
sensitive facility? Yes No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as
noise screen. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No
Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or
there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission.
Yes No
Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in
any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive,
irritating, infectious, etc.)
Yes No
Proposed action may result in excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of
solid or hazardous wastes.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or
hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that
are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases).
Yes No
18
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.)
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control
of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any
residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of
30,000 square feet.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No
The population of the city in which the proposed action is
located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human
population.
Yes No
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating
services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of
this proposed action.
Yes No
Proposed action will conflict with officiall y adopted plans or
goals. Yes No
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land
use. Yes No
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No
Development will create demand for additional community
services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future
actions. Yes No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or
more businesses. Yes No
19
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.)
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown
— If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact,
or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3 —
20
PROPOSED ACTION: Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan
DATE: December 4, 2017
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed action is the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as part of Phase II
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The plan will serve as a guide for the operation and funding of
the City’s parkland and recreation programming over the next 15 years. It provides a system-wide
approach to managing and operating more than 300 acres of parkland and more than three miles
of publicly-accessible waterfront. The plan addresses all City parks, with special attention to
Stewart and Cass Parks as regional destinations on the waterfront.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is based on information gathered through data collection,
site assessments, community input, staff observations and local and national trends. The planning
processes examined community needs and evaluated the City’s current parks, recreational
facilities, and recreational programs in relation to those identified needs. The plan then provides
goals and recommendations for four key topic areas: (1) Land and Facilities; (2) Recreation
Programming; (3) Governance and Operations; and (4) Finance. While some recommendations
can be implemented as resources allow, others will require further analysis and planning before
moving forward.
Land and Facilities
In terms of parks and facilities, a level of service analysis identified several unmet needs,
including neighborhood parks, trail mileage, picnic shelters, basketball courts, and interactive
water features. In addition, it was noted that many existing facilities, while often sufficient in
number, are in poor condition and are not meeting current needs due to insufficient
maintenance and critical upgrades that have not been implemented. Lastly, equity mapping, a
geographic analysis of gaps in services, identified areas throughout the city where residents do
not have adequate access to a park or a particular amenity.
Recreation Programming
This study informed recommendations for future changes to programs the City offers. While
some recommendations focus on the types of programs that are offered, the majority of the
action steps concentrate on program management opportunities such as improved cost
recovery, volunteer coordination, and marketing.
Governance and Operations
The plan examines how the City’s parks are currently operated and suggests ways to improve
governance, including collaboration with Tompkins County and the Town of Ithaca. The
primary recommendation is to consider Cass Park, Stewart Park (including Newman Golf
Course), and the Cayuga Waterfront Trail as a waterfront park district and establish an inter-
municipal park commission that would fund and manage the district. The commission would
include representation from the City, Town, and County. Ultimately, the commission could
work with an independent, non-profit conservancy that would gradually assume responsibility
for some aspects of operations. A conservancy would be able to supplement municipal
resources through fundraising.
21
PROPOSED ACTION: Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan
DATE: December 4, 2017
Finance
The plan notes that the City trails far behind other New York State and regional communities
(as well as the U.S. as whole) in per capita funding for parks and recreation. The City spends
approximately $31.82 per capita annually on parks and recreation, compared to a median of
$54 per capita for other New York communities and a national average of $77 per capita. The
plan suggests incorporating one or more new revenue sources and identifies several options
for consideration. Another recommendation is to address underutilized parks, and five
neighborhood parks are noted for consideration. It may benefit the City and residents to
provide parkland at different locations that are easier to access and maintain while also filling
identified gaps in services and amenities. A Capital Improvement Plan is included to guide
investment, and it divides improvements into three categories – Critical, Sustainable, and
Visionary – based on the need for the project.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
DeWitt Park is located within the DeWitt Park Historic District, which is a locally designated
historic district and is also on the National and State Register of Historic Places. The Cascadilla
Boathouse, in Stewart Park, is listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places. Neither
the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan nor the implementation of any of the plan’s
recommendations will have a negative impact on these historic resources.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Parks, recreational facilities, and recreation programming are the focus of the plan, and the
implementation of the plan will improve the quality and possibly increase the quantity of these
spaces and recreational opportunities. Any proposal for significant changes to City parks and
recreational facilities will be subject to its own environmental review to assess any potential
impacts.
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
Several designated unique natural areas are located on City parkland. Neither the adoption of the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan nor the implementation of any of the plan’s recommendations
will have a negative impact on the unique natural areas.
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
The adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan will not affect the character of the existing
community, but some recommendations, if implemented, could have impacts on the character of
the community or neighborhood. The creation of an inter-municipal Park Commission would
establish a new way to fund and manage parks in the community, which could be an important
precedent for future actions. In addition, the implementation of some recommendations could
result in the replacement of existing recreational facilities and/or the substitution of existing
parkland. Any of these actions will be subject to its own environmental review to assess any
potential impacts.
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
Several residents have submitted comments expressing their concerns over the recommendation
to consider declassification of neighborhood parks near their homes. It is important to note that,
if this recommendation is implemented, parkland would not be eliminated and substitute parkland
22
PROPOSED ACTION: Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan
DATE: December 4, 2017
must be provided to serve the community. The plan emphasizes providing neighborhood parks in
locations that best serve the community, and analysis demonstrated that there are geographic gaps
in service for both parkland and park amenities. At the same, several parks have been identified
as underutilized. This is not necessarily due to a lack of neighborhood interest in the park but
rather is often related to issues of poor drainage, topography, and access. These same issues
present serious maintenance challenges for City staff, and limited maintenance then adds to the
difficulty of using the parks. It may be possible to substitute parkland at a different location that
would offer more useable open space and additional amenities. This is a recommendation that
needs further consideration before moving forward. Any substitution of parkland would be subject
to a separate environmental review to assess any potential impacts.
23
January 30, 2018
Adopted Planning and Development Board Recommendation to
Common Council Regarding the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan
WHEREAS: the City is pursuing a two-phased approach to its Comprehensive Plan, where
Phase I entailed the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals and principles
to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II includes the preparation of
specific neighborhood and thematic plans, and
WHEREAS: the City adopted Plan Ithaca as Phase I of its comprehensive plan in 2015, and Plan
Ithaca recommends the preparation of a plan for the City’s park system as part of Phase II, and
WHEREAS: the Common Council funded a Parks and Recreation Master Plan as part of the
City’s 2016 budget, and the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County funded various aspects of the
proposed plan, and
WHEREAS: PROS Consulting was selected as the project consultant and began work on the
draft plan in the fall of 2016, and
WHEREAS: the public was involved throughout the planning process through stakeholder
interviews, focus groups, surveys and community events, and
WHEREAS: the consultant team gathered information through data collection, site assessments,
community input, staff observations and local and national trends and used this information to
prepare the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and
WHEREAS: the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan, dated November 2017, was presented
in early November and was then circulated for further public comment, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State General
City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for recommending a
comprehensive plan to the Common Council for adoption, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, having reviewed the draft Plan at its
December 19, 2017 and January 30, 2018 meetings, and having received and considered multiple
public comments concerning it, is now recommending several modifications to the November
2017 draft; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby recommends a
modified Parks and Recreation Master Plan for review and adoption by the Common Council as
part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan, with this modified version incorporating the
following revisions:
The Planning and Development Board Recommends That the November 2017 Draft Of the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Be Revised As Follows Prior to Its Review and
Adoption by Common Council:
A. The ecological value of parkland to the community and the environment should be
prominently discussed and analyzed in the revised Plan. As one Planning Board member
wrote:
This master plan is for a part of the city’s infrastructure: its green infrastructure. It
is not just about grassy areas with a few benches. I see a lot of effort has been put
into the human demographics but there is no mention of the biophysical
conditions of the various sites. Nothing on steep sites, geo/biological qualities
unique to Ithaca. It seems to me to be too technical; too managerial. There is no
vision statement.
Ithaca’s parks could be part of a strategy to maximize the ecological services such
as reducing heat island effects, lessening stormwater surges and improving the
flow of wildlife through the city through interconnected corridors. Using native
plantings and some creative design, 21st century open space planning can
integrate the demands of parking, water management, and energy demands within
pedestrian-oriented development by responding to our innate biophyllic
predilections for green space […] Urban wilding initiatives are springing up
everywhere, such as Toronto, Oslo, Melbourne, cities widely regarded as being
the most desirable places to live.
This master plan should be part of a livable cities initiative, to introduce nature
into the places where most of the people live. Not only do these types of spaces
improve the urban condition, if properly designed, they are less expensive to
maintain while improving urban resiliency, in the face of the challenges of
climate change. How is the city planning to respond to drought, to storm events,
to invasive species? I believe this report is thorough within the boundaries it has
set for itself but I find the boundaries too restrictive. Ithaca can do better than this.
In my opinion, it has to.
B. The section regarding declassification (i.e., removal from park status) of certain City parks
should be substantially revised by providing:
(1) A specific justification (for each such park) setting forth that park’s challenges, and
stating why that park should be considered for declassification.
(2) A listing of the further studies that would be necessary before any park is
declassified, including — for example — analyses of each such park’s ecological
value, historical significance, urban planning attributes, current usage, proposed
future non-park use, etc. (This also affects “Strategy 4.6” in the chart on Page 79).
(3) An explanation as to why four neighborhood parks in the eastern third of the City are
being suggested for declassification, when “Figure 28 - Neighborhood Parks Equity
Map” on Page 47 shows low equity for neighborhood parks in this very same area of
Ithaca (the only substantial such park there being Strawberry Fields). As the Plan
itself states, “In terms of park land, the neighborhood parks have a gap in the eastern
side of the City limits…” (“Equity Mapping ‘Gaps’ and Conclusions” section, Page
46).
(4) A statement that specific appropriate substitute parkland should be identified before a
final decision is made to declassify a park.
(5) A summary of the exact process required to remove park status and to find substitute
parkland, including opportunities for public input.
C. The inconsistency in the recommendation for Strawberry Fields — between the text of the
plan and the action plan at the end of the document — should be resolved.
(1) The text discusses this park becoming a “school park” or a Cornell “teaching
preserve” (Page 66), while the action plan includes the possibility of it being “sold /
swapped for different parkland” (“Strategy 4.3,” Page 79).
(2) Again, if Strawberry Fields is declassified without adding nearby substitute
neighborhood park land, the already-existing inequity in neighborhood parks in the
eastern third of the City would be greatly exacerbated. Additionally, as Page 44
states, “Although the City of Ithaca meets the standards for total park acres, there is a
deficit for neighborhood park acreage.”
(3) Note that, according to the “Chapter Three – Community Needs Assessment,” “small
neighborhood parks” are ranked very high (#8 out of 28) in the “Facility Priority
Rankings” (Figure 13, Page 18), while “Sell or lease small under-utilized parks” has
only 14 percent support as a source of parks revenue in Figure 14 on Page 19.
D. Some inappropriate criteria in the “Land Acquisition Strategies” section on Pages 66-67
should be revised as follows:
(1) One listed criterion for parkland acquisition — “Major Arterial Access” — is not
appropriate for Ithaca. More appropriate would be “Excellent Pedestrian and Bicycle
Access.”
(2) The criterion “Population (5, 10, 15 minute drive time)” should be revised to the more
appropriate “Population (5, 10, 15 minute walk time)” [emphasis added]. Plan Ithaca
emphasizes that pedestrians should come first in the City’s hierarchy of transportation
modes.
E. One conclusion of the equity mapping section (bottom of Page 46) is that, though Ithaca
has many paved trails, “connectivity throughout the system that connects the entire system
is lacking.” Somewhere the Plan should mention the idea of reviving the Circle Greenway,
a former continuous walking loop around the City’s periphery that — if reestablished —
would link multiple otherwise unconnected current paved trails.
F. Add language stating that three of the many “Funding and Revenue Strategies” options —
specifically, “License Back,” “Corporate Naming Rights” and “Advertising Sales” —
could be problematic if not used within reasonable limits and with great care. (See also
“Strategy 2.2,” Page 77).
(1) “License Back” is described on Page 72 as:
… a source of capital funding in which a private sector entity such as a
development company buys the park land site or licenses the park land and
develops a facility such as a park, recreation attraction, recreation center,
pool, or sports complex; and leases the facility back to the municipality to
pay off the capital costs over a 20 to 30-year period.
While there may be limited instances where some form of this may be a valid
approach, it is nevertheless a technique that, in other cities, has been used as a thinly-
disguised method of privatizing public resources for private gain. Hence, this
approach should only be employed with caution.
(2) The need to avoid inappropriate use of “Corporate Naming Rights” and “Advertising
Sales” strategies should be obvious, but nevertheless should be stated in the Plan. To
mention an extreme example, the notion of renaming “Stewart Park” as “Google
Park” in order to secure a big check from the latter corporation would likely not sit
well with the vast majority of Ithacans.
G. Provide a geographic analysis of park access and income as part of the level of service
mapping.
H. Include a description of the City’s existing Adopt-a-Park program and information on how
neighborhood residents can apply to adopt a park. Note that the program could be a good
way to involve residents in park maintenance and upkeep before considering
declassification of a park.
I. Clarify how the Parks and Recreation Master Plan relates to the City’s designated natural
areas:
(1) The list of “Parks and Park Facilities” extending from Page 5 to Page 7, for example,
includes the “Ithaca Falls Natural Area” and the “Southwest Natural Area / Negundo
Woods.” Additionally, the Plan shows “Greenspace & natural area” at #3 out of 28 in
the “Facility Priority Rankings” chart on Page 18.
(2) But the Plan then rarely refers to these or other natural areas again. Do the
recommendations in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan apply to these natural
areas, or not? If not, are they to receive their own separate master plan at some point
in the future? All this should be clarified within the Plan itself.
(3) Not all parks are intended for active uses; some are intended for preservation or quiet
contemplation. For such parks, or portions of parks, usage figures are beside the
point. The Plan should acknowledge this.
Moved by: Schroeder
Seconded by: Jones-Rounds
In Favor: Blalock, Elliot, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
10.2 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
entitled “Zoning,” Section 325-9 entitled “Standards for Special Conditions and
Special Permits”
A. Declaration of Lead Agency – Resolution
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency
be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local
and state environmental law; and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an “Unlisted Action” pursuant to the
City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental
review; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself
lead agency for the environmental review of the adoption of the zoning amendment to
authorize the Planning and Development Board to approve the granting of Special
Permits.
B. Determination of Environmental Significance – Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to authorize the Planning and
Development Board to approve the granting of special permits where currently the Board of
Zoning Appeals has this authority; and
WHEREAS, review of Special Permit requests by the Board of Zoning Appeals considers
additional regulations and conditions which apply to certain land uses and activities which are
incongruous or sufficiently unique in terms of their nature, location and effect on the surrounding
environment and the quality of the community to warrant evaluation of each individual case; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board, when reviewing site plans, uses much the
same criteria as is used by the Board of Zoning Appeals to evaluate special permits, such as
potential impacts a project may have on the immediate neighbors, the neighborhood, and the
greater community; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board may be the more appropriate body to review
applications for special permits since the review criteria is very similar to the site plan and
environmental review criteria; and
WHEREAS, this zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning
Department Pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted Action” under the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted for this action including the
preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF); and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed
the SEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its
own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment
Form for the action authorizing the Planning and Development Board to approve the granting of
Special Permits; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that
the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that
further environmental review is unnecessary; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City
Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City
Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law.
C. Adoption of Ordinance
An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled
“Zoning,” Section 325-9 entitled “Standards for Special Conditions and Special
Permits”
ORDINANCE 2018 - __
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that
Chapter 325-9 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 1: §325-9 Standards for special conditions and special permits.
A. Intent. The intent of this section is to set forth additional regulations and
conditions which shall apply to certain land uses and activities which are incongruous or
sufficiently unique in terms of their nature, location and effect on the surrounding
environment and the quality of the community to warrant special evaluation of each
individual case.
B. Special conditions. The Director of Planning and Development or designee shall
approve the following uses only when the special conditions specified in this subsection
have been met:
(1) Development in R-3 Districts which abut R-1 Districts. The development of any
permitted use in the R-3a or R-3b Zoning Districts, except a one-family dwelling or a
two-family dwelling, shall be subject to the following special conditions if the land on
which the development occurs directly abuts land in either the R-1a or R-1b Zoning
District.
(a) Minimum lot size (area in square feet): The required area in square feet needed
to satisfy the minimum lot size requirement shall be 150% of the requirement shown on
the District Regulations Chart for the R-3a or R-3b District.
(b) Maximum building height: The maximum building height requirement shall be the
same as the requirement on the abutting R-1a of R-1b District.
(c) Maximum percent of lot coverage by buildings: The maximum percent of lot
coverage by buildings shall be 75% of the requirement shown on the District
Regulations Chart for the R-3a or R-3b District.
(d) Yard dimensions, side or rear yards: The minimum required side or rear yard
requirement shall be 150% of the requirement shown on the District Regulations Chart
for the R-3a or R-3b District if the side or rear yard abuts land in the R-1a or R-1b
District.
C. Special permits.
(1) Applicability. The uses listed under the district regulations in §325-8 which
require a special permit from the Planning and Development Board [Board of
Appeals] are as follows:
(a) Cemeteries in all districts.
(b) Public utility facilities in all residential districts.
(c) Private schools in all residential districts.
(d) Nursery schools or child day-care centers in R-2 and R-U Districts.
(e) Neighborhood retail or service commercial facilities in R-2 and R-3 Districts.
(f) Hospitals or sanatoriums in R-3 Districts.
(g) In P-1 Districts, within 200 feet of adjoining residential districts, any use other
than public recreation, classrooms or living accommodations. In such P-1 Districts,
living accommodations within 200 feet of adjoining residential districts shall conform to
the use and area regulations applying to the strictest of such adjoining residential
districts.
(h) Signs in all districts, as provided in the Sign Ordinance.
(i) Home occupations in all Residential Zoning Districts require a temporary special
permit unless the home occupation meets all the following criteria:
[1] The occupation does not carry a stock of merchandise or store materials for
resale or use in the occupation, except a reasonable supply of office supplies
customarily incidental to a small office.
[2] The occupation does not create traffic or need for parking beyond that which is
customarily incidental to the residential use of the property. Factors that are not to be
considered incidental to residential use are regularly scheduled events such as
deliveries, client or customer visits or similar events.
[3] The occupation requires or performs no exterior alterations and maintains no
exterior display visible from outside the residence (including vehicles with signage
parked outside of the buildings) except a nameplate as permitted by Municipal Code
Chapter 272, Signs.
[4] The occupation does not create any noise, vibration, smoke, dust or
objectionable effects not customarily incidental and accessory to the residential use of
the property.
(j) In any district, towers or structures for the transmission or receipt of radio or
other electronic communications signals, except towers or structures subject to Article
V-A of this chapter, entitled "Telecommunications Facilities and Services," unless:
[1] The towers or structures are antennas or satellite dishes with a maximum
dimension of six feet or less;
[2] Such antennas or satellite dishes are not in a front yard;
[3] The maximum height (top to bottom) of such antenna or satellite dish, when
combined with attached mounting supports, is 10 feet or less; and
[4] Such antennas or satellite dishes, if they are to be located where they would
ordinarily be visible from a public way adjoining the property, are subject to the following
conditions:
[a] If in a residential zone or on a lot abutting or across a street or waterway from a
residential zone, they shall be screened from such view.
[b] In all other locations, they shall be screened from such view or be of a color
and/or in a location that will minimize their visual impact.
(k) Towers or structures intended for use in the generation of electricity for the
premises on which such tower is located in any district.
(l) Community or neighborhood gardens in all districts.
(m) (Reserved)
(n) Group adult day-care facilities in R-2 Districts.
(o) Any use not permitted as of right in the I-1 Zoning District.
(p) Redemption centers in B-2 Districts.
(q) Bed-and-breakfast homes and bed-and-breakfast inns.
(r) Neighborhood parking in any district where such parking is permitted.
(2) Required plan.
(a) A plan for the proposed development of a site shall be submitted with an
application for a special permit. The plan shall generally conform to the requirements for
presentation of plans set forth in Ch. 290, Subdivision of Land. It shall show parking
areas, traffic areas, landscaping, building arrangement, the height and number of
stories of the buildings, topography and other pertinent information that may be required
by the Board of Appeals.
(b) In addition to the plan requirements set forth in Subsection C(2)(a) above, an
applicant for a special permit for a school or related use must provide the following
information:
[1] Information on the nature of the proposed uses to be conducted or facilities to be
located on the premises, including but not limited to the courses of study and subjects to
be offered, the size and composition of the student body to be accommodated, the size
of the faculty and staff required, the daily hours of operation and annual periods of
operation and the type and location of support facilities required.
[2] Information concerning the type and number of living accommodations which
may be required to serve any increase in the institution's enrollment resulting from the
proposed action, including the location and availability of those accommodations.
[3] Documentation of the evaluation of suitable alternative sites for the proposed
activity, together with reasoning supporting its preference for the site for which a special
permit is sought.
[4] Detailed information on the occupant load, night operation and the use of
chemical, biological or radioactive agents expected in connection with the proposed
activity.
(3) Standards applicable to all uses requiring special permits. No special permit shall
be [recommended] granted by the Planning and Development Board [or granted by
the Board of Appeals] unless the proposed use or activity meets the following
requirements:
(a) The location and size of the use, the size of the site in relation to it and the
location of the site with respect to the existing or future streets giving access to it shall
be such that it will be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
neighborhood and will not discourage the appropriate development of adjacent land and
buildings or impair the enjoyment or value thereof.
(b) Operations in connection with any special use shall not be more objectionable to
nearby property by reason of noise, fumes, increased vehicular traffic or parking
demand, vibration or flashing lights than would be the operations of any use permitted
without a special permit.
(4) Specific standards applicable to certain uses requiring special permits. Certain
uses listed in the district regulations in § 325-8 as requiring a special permit must
conform to the applicable conditions set forth in this subsection.
(a) Neighborhood retail or service commercial facilities in R-2 and R-3 Districts:
[1] The applicant must furnish information as to the specific goods or services
offered and the nature, size and hours of operation of the facility proposed in sufficient
detail to enable the Planning and Development Board [Board of Appeals] to
determine whether the use conforms to the limitations specified in the definition of this
category. (See § 325-3.)
[2] The response of those notified by the applicant [appellant] as required in the
procedures set forth in § 325-40, as well as that expressed at the public hearing, should
be a principal factor in the Board's decision to grant the special permit.
(b) Towers or structures for the transmission or receipt of electronic communications
signals in connection with any commercial or business enterprise in any zone except
towers or structures subject to Article V-A of this chapter, entitled "Telecommunications
Facilities and Services:"
[1] Applicants must furnish information on the nature of the business requiring such
means of communication, including reasons why such tower or structure must be
located on the premises in question.
[2] Applicants shall furnish the [Board of Zoning Appeals] Planning and
Development Board with scale drawings of the proposal, including, as a minimum, a
plot plan of the premises involved showing lot lines and the accurate locations of all
buildings or structures on the premises and on each adjacent lot, as well as the
locations of the proposed tower and all guy wires, poles or anchors, and a sketch
elevation of the premises accurately depicting the proposed tower and its relationship to
structures on the premises and to the nearest structures on adjacent lots.
[3] Applicants shall provide sufficient information, including manufacturer's
specifications or engineering data, to assure the Board that the proposed tower or
structure will not unnecessarily obstruct the view from neighboring properties, that the
tower support system meets manufacturer's specifications or engineering requirements
and that the tower and its supports will be adequately safeguarded against structural
damage by persons or vehicles and against unauthorized climbing.
[4] The response of those notified by the applicant [appellant] as required in the
procedures set forth in § 325-40, as well as that expressed at the public hearing, should
be a principal factor in the Board's decision to grant the special permit.
(c) Towers or structures for use in the generation of electricity for use on the
premises where such tower or structure is located in any district:
[1] Same as Subsection C(4)(b)[2] for radio towers above.
[2] Same as Subsection C(4)(b)[3] for radio towers above.
[3] Applicants shall furnish the Planning and Development Board with sufficient
information, including manufacturer's specifications or engineering data, on the
mechanical devices and the materials in the generating structure to indicate that
excessive or annoying noise will not be produced during prolonged operation of the
generating machinery and that failure of moving parts during operations will not present
a safety hazard to adjoining properties due to flying debris.
[4] Same as Subsection C(4)(b)[4] for radio towers.
(d) Specific standards applicable to schools and related buildings in all residential
districts [R-1 (R-1a and R-1b), R-2 (R-2a, R-2b and R-2c), R-3 (R-3a and R-3b) and R-
U]. Notwithstanding the criteria set forth in Subsection C(3) above, which criteria shall
not apply hereto, no special permit shall be granted by the Planning and Development
Board [Board of Appeals] unless the proposed use or activity meets the following
requirements:
[1] If the proposed use is the expansion of an educational use, then the applicant
must show a need to expand into the residential area rather than into a less-restrictive
area. No special permit shall be granted by the Planning and Development Board
[Board of Appeals] unless the applicant can demonstrate that there is no reasonable
alternative to location or expansion on the site proposed.
[2] The location and size of the use, the size of the site in relation to it, the
operations in connection with the use and the parking and traffic related to the
operations shall not be such as to create a significant hazard to the safety or general
welfare of the surrounding area.
[3] The proposed use or operation shall not produce or present substantial danger of
excessive noise, noxious odors, noxious or harmful discharge, fire or explosion,
radiation, chemical or toxic release or other conditions injurious to the health or general
welfare of occupants of nearby properties.
[4] The size and use of the facility or the concentration with similar facilities in the
neighborhood shall not be so substantially out of proportion to the character of the
neighborhood as to jeopardize the continued use of the neighborhood for residential
purposes.
(e) Community or neighborhood gardens in all districts:
[1] Applicants shall provide evidence of approval for such use from the owner of the
property on which the gardens are to be located.
[2] Applications shall provide evidence that the area to be used will at all times b e
operated in a responsible manner so as not to present a nuisance to or interfere with
the use and enjoyment of neighboring private or public property. Such evidence shall
designate at least one responsible adult, who shall be a participant in the gardening, a
representative of the sponsoring organization or the owner of the subject property, to
administer or coordinate the operation and to act as a contact person therefor.
[3] Applications shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning,
[Building] and Development and shall include:
[a] The name, address and phone number(s) of the contact person.
[b] A description of the refuse disposal procedure to be followed and of the intended
use of organic materials, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
[c] A site plan showing the proposed locations of all features of the site, including
access point(s) and any of the required parking spaces that may be located on adjacent
property.
[4] Applicants, or the administrator/coordinator of the garden area, shall ensure the
following:
[a] That the gardening activity on individual plots is confined to the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m., except that power machinery shall not be operated before 8:00 a.m.
or after 8:00 p.m.
[b] All organic refuse and trash from the gardening operations is promptly and
properly disposed of on at least a weekly basis and that, pending disposition, it is stored
neatly in such a way that it does not produce offensive odors or attract dogs, raccoons
or vermin.
[c] That power or motorized machinery used in preparing and maintaining individual
plots is no larger than that normally used in connection with home gardening, e.g., a
typical walk-behind rototiller.
[d] That farm tractors or other heavy machinery is not employed on the site except
for initial site development and for annual spring preparation and fall cleanup, if
necessary; and in those instances it shall be operated only between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. weekdays.
[e] That mulch, compost or organic fertilizer employed in the gardening is confined
to the site in a neat and orderly manner and that no fresh manure shall be used or
composted.
[f] That noxious fertilizers or noxious chemicals employed in the gardening are used
only with the knowledge and consent of all gardeners using the site, all adjoining
property owners and, in the event that adjoining properties are rental residential
properties, with the knowledge and consent of the head of each tenant household.
[g] That no flammable liquids will be stored on the site.
[h] That noise and odors produced in connection with the gardening activity will be
no greater than those normally associated with home gardening.
[i] That City residents of the area nearest the site will be given an opportunity to
obtain plots in the allocation of plots on a first priority basis.
[j] Other City residents will be given an opportunity to obtain plots in the allocation
of plots on a second priority basis.
[k] That unused portions of the site will be maintained in a neat and orderly manner
at all times.
[l] That, at the end of each gardening season or within 30 days of revocation of a
permit, whichever occurs first, the entire site will be cleaned and left with a neat
appearance.
[5] In addition, the applicable portions of § 325-15A and C shall be observed.
[6] In consideration of the fact that such gardens may be of an interim nature, may
occupy only a portion of a parcel and may be located on property unsuited for other
uses permitted under this chapter, the district regulations specified for permitted uses
under § 325-8 of this chapter shall be superseded, where applicable, by the following
regulations for community or neighborhood gardens:
[a] Minimum lot size: none.
[b] Width in feet at the street line: none required; however, sites lacking street
frontage shall be accessible to vehicles and pedestrians via a right-of-way of at least
eight feet in width.
[c] Structures permitted: No structures for human habitation or occupancy shall be
permitted except for a weather shelter for gardeners, which may have a maximum floor
area of 64 square feet. A light accessory structure for storage of gardening equipment
and materials for plant propagation, with a maximum floor area of 64 square feet, may
be erected separately or attached to the weather shelter. If necessary, a well-housing
structure for the production of water for garden use may be erected with permission of
the owner of the site.
[d] Parking and loading space: At least one off-street space on or immediately
adjacent to the site shall be provided for the use of the gardeners for each 15 individual
garden plots on the site or portion thereof.
[e] Yard setbacks shall not be required, except that the provisions of §§ 325-17B
and C and 325-25 of this chapter shall apply to any plantings, fences or accessory
structures on the site.
[7] The response of those notified by the applicant [appellant] as required in the
procedures set forth in § 325-40, together with any other written comment received by
the Planning and Development Board before the hearing, as well as that comment
expressed at the public hearing, with primary consideration given the wishes of
residents living within 200 feet of the property, should be a principal factor in the
Planning and Development Board's decision to grant or deny the special permit.
[8] In granting a special permit for community or neighborhood gardens, the
Planning and Development Board may prescribe any conditions that it deems
necessary or desirable, including but not limited to additional off-street parking spaces,
so that the spirit of this chapter shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured
and substantial justice done.
[9] Special permits for neighborhood and community gardens shall be reviewed by
the Director of Planning and Development or designee at least annually for compliance
with this section and with any conditions established by the Planning and
Development Board. If, following such review or investigation of any complaint, the
Director of Planning and Development or designee determines that a substantial
violation exists, notice of such violation shall be mailed to the contact person designated
in accordance with Subsection C(4)(e)[2] above, requiring that such violation be
corrected within 15 days. If satisfactory correction is not made, the permit may be
revoked by the Director of Planning and Development or designee. Appeals to such
revocation shall be made to the Planning and Development Board as provided in §
325-41 of this chapter.
[10] Special permits for neighborhood and community gardens shall be revoked
automatically if the site is not used as a community or neighborhood garden, as that
term is defined in § 325-3, for one complete garden season.
(f) Group adult day-care facilities in R-2 Districts: Applicants shall furnish
information sufficient to describe the scope of the proposed activity, including the size of
the building, the number of clientele, the operating hours, off-street parking availability,
the number of employees and the proximity to other group adult day-care facilities in the
neighborhood. Prior to granting any special permit for such use, the Planning and
Development Board [Board of Zoning Appeals] must find that the activity is compatible
with the character and quality of the neighborhood in which it is to be located.
(g) Bed-and-breakfast homes and bed-and-breakfast inns:
[1] The Planning and Development Board [Board of Zoning Appeals] shall only
grant a special permit for a bed-and-breakfast home or a bed-and-breakfast inn (in
those districts allowing such uses) if the following special conditions are met and
adhered to during the period the bed-and-breakfast use is in operation:
[a] Each such use before it commences must obtain a certificate of occupancy from
the Director of Planning and Development or designee.
[b] A bed-and-breakfast home must be owner-occupied and owner-managed. A bed-
and-breakfast inn must be owner-managed.
[i] An owner-occupant is an individual who owns at least a 1/2 interest in the real
estate on which the bed-and-breakfast home is located and also owns at least a 1/2
interest in the business of running the bed-and-breakfast home and who primarily
resides in and lives in the bed-and-breakfast home for at least 80% of the days (in each
calendar year) when the bed-and-breakfast home is open for business as a bed-and-
breakfast home.
[ii] An owner-manager is an individual who owns at least a 1/2 ownership interest in
the real estate on which the bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-breakfast inn is
located and also owns at least a 1/2 interest in the business of the bed-and-breakfast
home or bed-and-breakfast inn and who is primarily responsible for the management of
the bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-breakfast inn and is physically present in the
bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and breakfast inn at least once per day for 80% of the
days (in each calendar year) when the bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-breakfast
inn is open for business.
[c] Bed-and-breakfast homes or inns in residential zones must be compatible with
the surrounding residential neighborhood. No alterations to the exterior of the house for
the purpose of establishing or expanding bed-and-breakfast operations shall be
permitted except for routine maintenance, alterations not requiring a building permit,
restoration or requirements related to safety or handicapped accessibility. There shall
be no exterior indication of a business, except the one permitted sign as indicated below
and required parking. Drawings illustrating any proposed exterior modifications must be
submitted with the special permit application.
[d] Drawings illustrating any major proposed interior modifications (excluding
plumbing, wiring or other utility work) directly related to establishing or continuing the
bed-and-breakfast use must be submitted with the special permit application. Examples
of major interior modifications are the removal, replacement or installation of staircases
or partitioning walls.
[e] No cooking facilities are permitted in the individual guest rooms.
[f] Food service shall only be provided to guests taking lodging in the bed-and-
breakfast home or inn.
[g] In R-2 Zones, no bed-and-breakfast home may be located on a lot closer than
500 feet to any other lot containing a bed-and-breakfast home, with only one such
establishment permitted per block face.
[h] There shall be no more than one sign. Such sign shall not be self-illuminated and
shall not exceed five square feet in area. Additional requirements described in Chapter
272, entitled "Signs," of this Code shall be met.
[2] The response of those notified by the appellant as required in the procedures set
forth in § 325-40, as well as that expressed at the public hearing, should be a principal
factor in the Planning and Development Board's decision to grant or deny the special
permit.
[3] A special permit granted for a bed-and-breakfast home located in an R-2 Zone
shall expire after a period of five years. All the requirements pertaining to the application
for and granting of a first-time special permit for a bed-and-breakfast home shall also
apply to the application for and granting of a renewed special permit for a bed-and-
breakfast home located in an R-2 Zone, including the notification procedures set forth in
§ 325-40 and the expiration of such renewed special permit after five years.
(h) Temporary special permits for home occupations.
[1] Spaces in which home occupations are conducted must comply with the New
York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.
[2] A home occupation temporary special permit shall be issued for a three-year
period.
[3] The response of those notified by the appellant as required in the procedures set
forth in § 325-40, as well as that expressed at the public hearing, should be a principal
factor in the Planning and Development Board's decision to grant the temporary home
occupation special permit.
[4] Renewals. The renewal of temporary home occupation special permits for
additional three-year periods shall be granted by the Director of Planning and
Development or designee following inspection of the premises by the Department of
Planning[, Building] and Development, submission of a renewal application form issued
by the Department of Planning[, Building] and Development and an affidavit stating that
the conditions as originally set forth to the Planning and Development Board [Board
of Zoning Appeals] have not changed in any way. It is the responsibility of permit
holders to renew their temporary special permits. The Director of Planning and
Development or designee shall determine that the premises still meet the standards of
the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and that the original
qualifying conditions still exist. The Director of Planning and Development or designe e
is authorized to charge a fee of $30 for each renewal inspection conducted.
[5] Revocation. The Director of Planning and Development or designee [Building
Commissioner] shall revoke any special permit issued hereunder, should the applicant
or the applicant's tenant violate any provision of this chapter or any condition imposed
upon the issuance of the special permit.
[6] Periodic review. The Department of Planning[, Building] and Development shall
review the effects of this section at least every five years to determine the long-term
effect on the residential character of the neighborhoods.
[(i) Parking in the Waterfront Zone. Parking areas will be permitted as a primary use
in the Waterfront Zone WF-1 and WF-2 districts by special permit and only if they are
open to the public or if they are intended to serve the needs of multiple businesses.]
(5) In the I-1 Zone and the Cherry Street District, uses other than those permitted
under § 325-8 may be permitted by special permit upon a finding by the [Board of
Zoning Appeals] Planning and Development Board and concurrence by the Common
Council that such use shall have no negative impact by reason of noise, fumes, odors,
vibration, noxious or toxic releases or other conditions injurious to the health or general
welfare.
D. The Planning and Development Board shall deny a special permit in all
instances where it finds that a proposed use would have a significant negative impact
on traffic, congestion, property values, municipal services, character of the surrounding
neighborhood, or the general plan for the development of the community. The granting
of a special permit may be conditioned on the effect the use would have on traffic,
congestion, property values, municipal services or the general plan for the development
of the community. The applicant may be required by the Planning and Development
Board to submit plans for the site and for parking facilities and to disclose other features
of the applicant's proposed use so as to afford the Planning and Development Board
an opportunity to weigh the proposed use in relation to neighboring land uses and to
cushion any adverse effects by imposing conditions designed to mitigate them. If the
Planning and Development Board finds that the adverse effects cannot be sufficiently
mitigated, then the Planning and Development Board shall deny the special permit.
Section 2. Severability clause.
Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this 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.
Section 3. Effective date.
This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon
publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
10.3 Local Landmark Designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue – Resolution
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) is responsible for recommending to Common Council
the designation of identified structures or resources as individual landmarks and historic
districts within the city; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the ILPC conducted a public hearing for the
purpose of considering a proposal to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311
College Avenue as a local landmark; and
WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type II action under the NYS
Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
and as such requires no further environmental review; and
WHEREAS, the ILPC found that the proposal meets criteria 1, 2, 4 and 5 defining a
“Local Landmark,” under Section 228-3B of the Municipal Code and on February 13,
2018, voted to recommend the designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311
College Avenue; this recommendation was amended and affirmed at the Commission’s
regular meeting on March 13, 2018; and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board
filed a report with Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the
comprehensive plan, the zoning law, projected public improvements and any plans for
the renewal of the site or area involved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board's report and recommendation for approval of the
designation, adopted by resolution at the meeting held on February 27, 2018, has been
reviewed by the Common Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code states that the Council shall within
ninety days of said recommendation of designation, approve, disapprove or refer back
to the ILPC for modification of same; and
WHEREAS, the ILPC’s recommendation was reviewed by the Planning and Economic
Development Committee (PEDC) of Common Council at their regular March 14, 2018
meeting, and after careful consideration, the PEDC referred the proposed designation
back to the ILPC for modification, citing concerns about the architectural integrity of the
original 1894-95 fire station and its ability to reflect its historic significance; and
WHEREAS, the ILPC reviewed the PEDC’s referral at their regularly scheduled
meeting on April 10, 2018 and conducted a properly noticed special site visit on April
24, 2018 to evaluate the architectural integrity of the 1894-95 portion of the fire station;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering modifying the ILPC’s
recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue was
conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on May 8, 2018; and
WHEREAS, in a resolution dated May 8, 2018, the ILPC modified its recommendation
to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue to reflect the
following classification of the resource: the 1894-95 wood-frame portion is a non-
contributing resource; and the 1907-08 brick and stucco-clad portion is the contributing
resource; now, therefore be
RESOLVED, That Common Council finds that the proposed designation, as modified by
the ILPC on May 8, 2018, [is/is not] compatible with and [will/will not] conflict with the
comprehensive plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any plans for
renewal of the site and area involved; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue, [meets/does
not meet] criteria for local designation, as set forth in the Municipal Code, as follows:
1. it possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or
value as part of the cultural, political, economic, or social history
of the locality, region, state, or nation; or
2. is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
4. is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced
and age; or
5. represents an established and familiar visual feature of the
community by virtue of its unique location or singular physical
characteristics, and be it further
; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council approves the designation, as modified by the ILPC
on May 8, 2018, of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue, identified as
tax parcel #64.-10-18, as a local landmark.
OR
RESOLVED, That Common Council disapproves the designation of the Former No. 9
Fire Station at 311 College Avenue, identified as tax parcel #64.-10-18.
TO: Members of Common Council and Mayor, Svante Myrick
FROM: Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Local Landmark Designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue
DATE: May 29, 2018
Since the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) originally recommended that Common
Council designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue an individual local landmark in
February 2018, the proposal has been reviewed by the ILPC, Planning and Development Board, and
Planning and Economic Development Committee several times. The purpose of this memo is to outline
the review process and request Common Council’s action on the proposed designation.
At their regular monthly meeting on February 13, 2018, the ILPC conducted a properly noticed public
hearing to consider a proposal to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station an individual local landmark.
Built in two distinct phases, the former fire station consists of an 1894-95, wood-frame structure (rear
half of the building) and a 1907-08, three-story, brick- and stucco-clad addition fronting College Avenue.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the ILPC adopted a resolution recommending that Common Council
proceed with the designation of the entire former fire station. This recommendation was amended and
affirmed at the ILPC’s regular March meeting. The ILPC found that the Former No. 9 Station at 311
College Avenue is eligible for local designation based on criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5 as set forth in Section
228-3 of the Municipal Code and their findings are summarized in the attached resolution dated March
13, 2018. Also attached are the Historic Resource Inventory Form fully documenting the historic and
architectural significance of the Former No. 9 Fire Station, and written public comments and letters
received regarding the proposed designation before or at the February public hearing.
The Planning and Economic Development Committee (PEDC) reviewed this recommendation at their
March 14, 2018 meeting, and voted to refer the proposed local landmark designation back the ILPC for
modification, citing concerns about the architectural integrity of the 1894-95 wood-frame fire station and
its ability to reflect its historic significance. In their review of the proposed designation, the members of
the PEDC noted that many of the character defining features of the 1894-95 wood-frame fire station,
including the integral rooftop bell tower and engine bay opening, are no longer extant. From the exterior,
this portion of the building can no longer be identified as a neighborhood fire station and does not
visually represent the significant role it played in the development of the City, Collegetown and Cornell
University. In response, the PEDC referred the proposed designation back to the Commission for
modification.
The ILPC reviewed the PEDC’s referral at their regular monthly meeting on April 10, 2018 and
conducted a special site visit to evaluate the architectural integrity of the structure on April 24, 2018. At
their regularly scheduled meeting on May 8, 2018, the ILPC conducted a second properly noticed public
hearing to consider modifying their recommendation to designate the former fire station. The
modification under consideration was the classification of the original 1894-95 wood-frame portion of
the building as a non-contributing resource due to its apparent lack of architectural integrity. The 1907-
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 2
08 brick and stucco-clad addition would be classified as the contributing resource on the parcel. The
ILPC agreed with the PEDC’s assessment of the architectural integrity of the wood-frame portion, and at
the conclusion of the public hearing, voted to recommend that Common Council proceed with the
designation of this historic resource as modified above. Copies of the May 8, 2018 ILPC resolution
modifying their original recommendation and written public comments received as part of the public
hearing are included in this packet.
As set forth in the Municipal Code, the original and modified proposals to designate the Former No. 9
Fire Station were reviewed by the Planning and Development Board. As required by the Landmarks
Ordinance, the Planning Board prepared a report for Common Council on the relation of the proposed
designation to the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements, and any plans
for the renewal of the site or area involved. Dated February 27, 2018, their report states that the proposed
designation is consistent with and supported by the Collegetown Plan, compatible with existing zoning,
and does not conflict with any plans for public improvement in the area. They also noted the public
value of the building’s front open space. The Planning and Development Board reviewed the ILPC’s
modified recommendation on May 22, 2018 and upheld their original report; a copy of this report is
attached. Also included are the sections of the Collegetown Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines and
Collegetown Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual Buildings,
Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features referenced in the report.
Common Council is now requested to act on the ILPC’s modified recommendation to designate the
Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue. Possible actions include approving or disapproving
the modified designation. These options are included in the draft resolution attached to this packet.
ILPC Meeting – 03/13/18
Resolution - RC
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of the historic record and the facts presented at the public
hearing on February 13, 2017 and at the regular Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission meeting on March 13, 2018, the Commission voted to amend the below
resolution recommending the local designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311
College Avenue to include criteria 2 and 5 defining a Local Landmark, as set forth in
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, the reasons for including criteria 2 and 5 in their recommendation to designate the
Former No. 9 Fire Station are enumerated in the amended resolution below.
RESOLVED, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission affirms the amended recommendation
made by resolution on February 13, 2018 to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at
311 College Avenue.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: M. Megan McDonald
In favor: M. Megan McDonald, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 1
RE: Local Historic Landmark Designation of the former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue
AMENDED RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC) may recommend the designation of historic landmarks and
districts of historic and cultural significance, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing held on Tuesday, February 13, 2018, for the purpose of considering a
proposal to designate the former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue as a City of
Ithaca landmark has been concluded, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form
dated February 13, 2018, including the Narrative Description of Property and the Narrative
Description of Significance prepared by Katelin Olson, and
WHEREAS, the designation of historic landmarks is a "Type II Action" under the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act (Sec. 617.5(C)(30) and an "Unlisted Action" under
the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, (CEQR Sec. 176-2) for which no
further environmental review is required, and
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, March 13, 2018
No. 9 Fire Station
2
WHEREAS, consideration of the former No. 9 Fire Station as an historic resource was introduced
in a report prepared by Mary Tomlan and John Schroeder on June 14, 2009 entitled
Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown,
Individual Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features, and
WHEREAS, the Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, endorsed by Common Council
in August, 2009, recommends that “historically significant resources within the entire
Collegetown Planning Area which merit designation as local landmarks, but which
currently have no such protection, should be identified by the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission and designated by Common Council,” and
WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code defines the criteria for designation of an
individual landmark as follows:
1. Possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of the
cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state, or nation; or
2. Is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
3. Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style; or
4. Is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced an age; or
5. Represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community by virtue of
its unique location or singular physical characteristics.
RESOLVED, that the Commission adopts as its own, the documentation and information more
fully set forth in the expanded New York State Building Structure Inventory Form
dated February 13, 2018, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the
proposed designation.
As described in the Narrative Description of Significance portion of the New York State
Historic Resource Inventory Form prepared by Katelin Olson and dated February
13, 2018, the former No. 9 Fire Station (1894-95) and its 1907-08 addition are
structures deemed worthy of preservation by reason of their value to the city as
enumerated below:
Per criterion 1, the former No. 9 Fire Station possesses special historical and
aesthetic interest as a part of the development, heritage and cultural
characteristics of the City of Ithaca for its facilitation of the growth of Cornell
University and the upper East Hill community that would become Collegetown, its
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, March 13, 2018
No. 9 Fire Station
3
role in the history of firefighting services in the City of Ithaca and on East Hill in
particular, and its representation of the City and university’s collaborative
relationship during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, and
As described in the Narrative Description of Significance, East Hill experienced a
surge in real estate development at the end of 19th century, courtesy of the
growing presence of Cornell University and the resulting demands for new
residential and commercial spaces. Expanded and improved transportation
options also spurred development. The increased urban density, coupled
with the diverse and dangerous range of lighting, heating, and cooking
methods, raised fire insurance concerns among area residents, property
owners, and members of the university community. In 1894, a group
representing these concerned parties organized, with the permission of the
City’s Common Council, and formed the W.H. Sage Fire Company No. 9
(later the Neriton Hose Company No. 9). In support of the new company,
the City equipped it with an existing hose cart and a firehouse facility, the
No. 9 Fire Station, on Dryden Road near the intersection of College Avenue
(then Heustis Street). Through public subscription and a substantial donation
from the university, the company acquired the City’s first chemical fire
engine for this fire station.
Within a decade of its completion in 1895, the wood-framed fire station was
deemed too small to adequately serve the continuously and rapidly
developing area. The building was moved to its current location on College
Avenue in 1905—a process that took significantly longer than scheduled due
to the miscalculation of the weight of the building--and a large, three-story
brick and stucco addition was constructed in front of it in 1907-1908,
providing space for an additional fire engine and expanded dormitories.
The presence of this station on East Hill dramatically decreased the amount
of time needed for firefighting personnel to respond to fires and safeguarded
the university’s and private developers’ investments in the area against fire.
East Hill’s steep terrain made it challenging for existing fire companies to
respond to fires on the hill with the necessary water and equipment.
Response times were on average 20-30 minutes, which could be catastrophic
for a neighborhood filled with wood-frame structures. The formation of the
City’s ninth fire company and construction of the No. 9 Fire Station ensured
this area’s continued development. Of approximately thirteen (13) fire
stations constructed in the City during the 19th and early-20th centuries, only
three survive: the No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue, No. 5 Fire
Station at 136 West State Street, and No. 7 Fire Station at 1012 North Tioga
Street.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, March 13, 2018
No. 9 Fire Station
4
The No. 9 Fire Station was developed through a collaborative relationship
between Cornell University and the City. As noted above, the university was
a driving force behind the formation of the firefighting company and
contributed financially to the outfit of the No. 9 Fire Station. This
collaborative relationship became a characteristic of the operations and
staffing of the No. 9 Fire Station throughout the first-half of the 20th century.
In exchange for room and board, university students staffed the fire station.
Per criterion 2, the former No. 9 Fire Station is identified with historically
significant person(s) or event(s), Henry W. Sage.
Henry W. Sage, a successful businessman and important Cornell University
Trustee and benefactor, is well recognized for his donations to the
University, including the Sage College for Women, Sage Chapel and the
University Library building (Uris Library) and its initial endowment. Sage
realized the need to protect the rapidly expanding university and the
neighborhood that would become Collegetown from fire, and used his
influential position as the president of the University’s Board of Trustee to
lobby for the establishment of a fire company on East Hill. With a loan of
approximately $1,500, Sage financed the construction of the 1894-95 fire
station facility. This loan represents Sage’s long-term commitment to
address fire safety concerns on East Hill. The fire company was originally
named for his son, William H. Sage, also a prominent citizen and an
important benefactor of Cornell University.
Per criterion 4, the former No. 9 Fire Station is the work of a designer whose
work has significantly influenced an age. As noted in the nomination, the fire
station is significant for its close association with three locally prominent architects:
Clinton L. Vivian, Arthur N. Gibb, and Ornan H. Waltz.
The 1894-95 fire station was designed by the architecture firm of Vivian and
Gibb. After working in the office of the William H. Miller, Clinton L. Vivian
and Arthur W. Gibb established their firm in 1892. Although this partnership
was relatively short lived, lasting only eight years, they secured several
important commissions that shaped the character of Ithaca’s built
environment. Their designs for the Cascadilla Boathouse and the main
pavilion complex at Stewart (then Renwick) Park are some of the best
examples of Shingle-Style architecture in the city and continue to define the
character of that section of the Cayuga Lake waterfront. The Shingle Style
elements they successfully implemented in these designs, including integrated
roof-top, bell-shaped towers and classical detailing, were also incorporated into
their donated design for the No. 9 Fire Station.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, March 13, 2018
No. 9 Fire Station
5
The 1907-08 addition to the fire station was designed by the firm of Gibb and
Waltz. After the dissolution of his partnership with Vivian in 1900, Gibb
partnered with Ornan H. Waltz to form the firm of Gibb and Waltz in 1906.
Again, this firm’s works have contributed significantly to the character of
Ithaca’s built environment. Among their notable works were the YMCA
building, Rand Hall on the Cornell University campus, and Ithaca City
Hospital. The firm also designed the Ithaca Masonic Temple (1925), which is
one of only two Egyptian-Revival Style buildings in Ithaca and an excellent
regional example of the style.
Per Criterion 5, the Former No. 9 Fire Station, and its deep setback from College
Avenue in particular, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the
community by virtue of its unique location or singular physical characteristics.
As noted in the Narrative Description of the Property, the Former No. 9 Fire Station
has a “characteristically deep setback” that was used historically for staging and
maneuvering firefighting equipment. As illustrated in Sanborn Fire Insurance
Company maps from the late-19th and early-20th centuries, most of the
buildings along College Avenue were constructed with relatively shallow
setbacks during this time period. The fire station’s generous front yard
deviated from this development pattern due the historic use of the property
and is historically significant for this reason. Additionally, as the neighborhood
urbanized throughout the 20th and early-21st centuries, this unique feature, and
the open space it provides, has become increasingly more important to the
character and livability of Collegetown and is a unique visual feature of the
neighborhood and of the 300 block of College Avenue, specifically.
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, determines that based on the
findings set forth above, the former No. 9 Fire Station meets criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5
defining a Local Landmark as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code,
Landmarks Preservation, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby recommends the designation of the former No. 9 Fire
Station at 311 College Avenue, and the adjacent areas identified as tax parcel #64.-10-
18, as a City of Ithaca landmark.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: M. Megan McDonald
In favor: M. Megan McDonald, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 1
ILPC Meeting – 05/08/18
Resolution - RD
Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue – Modified Recommendation
to Designate as an Individual Local Landmark
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 13, 2018, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission recommended to Common Council the designation of the Former
No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue as an individual local landmark after the
conclusion of a properly noticed Public Hearing, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC voted to affirm their recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire
Station at their regular meeting on March 13, 2018, providing supplemental
information to support their recommendation to designate the property, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC’s recommendation was reviewed by the Planning and Economic
Development Committee (PEDC) of Common Council at their regular March 14,
2018 meeting, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration, the PEDC referred the proposed designation back to
the ILPC for modification, citing concerns about the architectural integrity of the
original 1894-95 fire station and its ability to reflect its historic significance, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC reviewed the PEDC’s referral at their regularly scheduled meeting on
April 10, 2018 and conducted a properly noticed special site visit on April 24,
2018 to evaluate the architectural integrity of the 1894-95 portion of the fire
station, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering modifying the ILPC’s
recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on May 8, 2018,
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following finding of fact concerning the architectural
integrity of the 1894-95 portion of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue:
As noted in the Historic Resource Inventory Form, the original wood-frame
portion of the building was constructed in 1894-95 near the corner of Dryden Rd
and College Avenue (then Heustis Street) and was the first fire station in the area
of East Hill that would become known as Collegetown. This fire station was
moved to 311 College Avenue in 1905 and the brick- and stucco-clad addition
that fronts the street was constructed in 1907-08.
The relocation resulted in the loss of this historic resource’s setting.
ILPC Meeting – 05/08/18
Resolution - RD
A 1905 photograph attached to the Historic Resource Inventory Form for the
Former No. 9 Fire Station shows the character defining features of this early
neighborhood fire station: the Roman Doric pilasters and engine bay opening on
the primary façade, and the bell-shaped, integral rooftop bell tower. These
elements are characteristic of the Shingle Style and clearly reflect the design
aesthetic of the locally prominent architecture firm that designed the building,
Vivian & Gibb.
These primary character defining features, including the rooftop, bell-shaped
tower and the primary façade’s architectural details, were removed after its
relocation in 1905.
To evaluate the impact of these alterations on the architectural integrity of
the Former No. 9 Fire Station, the ILPC considered the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the
following Standards:
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and
preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and
spaces that characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have
acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and
preserved.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall
be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential
form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
The removal of the fire station’s Roman Doric pilasters, fire engine bay, and the
rooftop tower violated the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 2, 9, and 10, and
while these alterations may have gained significance in their own right, they
clearly prevent the public from identifying the resource as a neighborhood fire
station. Furthermore, the 1907-08 addition cannot be removed without further
impairing the integrity of the original fire station and would also result in the loss
of this identified resource that has gained significance in its own right, a violation
of Standard 4.
ILPC Meeting – 05/08/18
Resolution - RD
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission determines that the original 1894-95 portion of the Former No. 9
Fire Station does not possess sufficient architectural integrity to represent the
building’s historic significance, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC identifies the original 1894-95 wood-frame portion of the building
as a non-contributing resource and the 1907-08 addition as the contributing
resource on the parcel, and be it further resolved
RESOLVED, that the ILPC amends their recommendation to Common Council to designate the
Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue to reflect this distinction, and be
it further
RESOLVED, that the classification of these resources will be documented in the New York
State Historic Structure Inventory Form for the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311
College Avenue.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: M.M. McDonald, D. Kramer, S. Stein, E. Finegan, S. Gibian
Against: K. Olson
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 1
HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY FORM
NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION OFFICE USE ONLY
USN:
& HISTORIC PRESERVATION
P.O. BOX 189, WATERFORD, NY 12188
(518) 237-8643
IDENTIFICATION
Property name(if any)
Address or Street Location
County Town/City Village/Hamlet:
Owner Address
Original use Current use
Architect/Builder, if known Date of construction, if known
DESCRIPTION
Materials -- please check those materials that are visible
Exterior Walls: wood clapboard wood shingle vertical boards plywood
stone brick poured concrete concrete block
vinyl siding aluminum siding cement-asbestos other:
Roof: asphalt, shingle asphalt, roll wood shingle metal slate
Foundation: stone brick poured concrete concrete block
Other materials and their location:
Alterations, if known: Date:
Condition: excellent good fair deteriorated
Photos
Provide several clear, original photographs of the property proposed for nomination. Submitted views should represent the property as a
whole. For buildings or structures, this includes exterior and interior views, general setting, outbuildings and landscape features. Color
prints are acceptable for initial submissions.
Please staple one photograph providing a complete view of the structure or property to the front of this sheet. Additional views should be
submitted in a separate envelope or stapled to a continuation sheet.
Maps
Attach a printed or drawn locational map indicating the location of the property in relationship to streets, intersections or other widely
recognized features so that the property can be accurately positioned. Show a north arrow. Include a scale or estimate distances where
possible.
Prepared by: address
Telephone:email Date
(See Reverse)
No. 9 Fire Station
311 College Avenue
Tompkins Ithaca
SK 311, LLC 311 College Avenue
Fire Station Restaurant
Vivian & Gibb;Gibb & Waltz 1894-95;1907-08
stucco
see continuation sheet
Katelin Olson 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850
607-274-6555 bmccracken@cityofithaca.org February 13, 2018
PLEASEPROVIDETHEFOLLOWINGINFORMATION
IF YOU ARE PREPARING A NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION, PLEASE REFER TO THE ATTACHED INSTRUCTIONS
Narrative Description of Property: Briefly describe the property and its setting. Include a verbal description of the location (e.g., north side of NY 17,
west of Jones Road); a general description of the building, structure or feature including such items as architectural style (if known), number of stories,
type and shape of roof (flat, gabled, mansard, shed or other), materials and landscape features. Identify and describe any associated buildings,
structures or features on the property, such as garages, silos, privies, pools, gravesites. Identify any known exterior and interior alterations such as
additions, replacement windows, aluminum or vinyl siding or changes in plan. Include dates of construction and alteration, if known. Attach additional
sheets as needed.
Narrative Description of Significance: Briefly describe those characteristics by which this property may be considered historically significant.
Significance may include, but is not limited to, a structure being an intact representative of an architectural or engineering type or style (e.g., Gothic
Revival style cottage, Pratt through-truss bridge); association with historic events or broad patterns of local, state or national history (e.g., a cotton mill
from a period of growth in local industry, a seaside cottage representing a locale's history as a resort community, a structure associated with activities of
the "underground railroad."); or by association with persons or organizations significant at a local, state or national level. Simply put, why is this property
important to you and the community. Attach additional sheets as needed.
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency
See continuation sheet
See continuation sheet
Narrative Description of Property:
No. 9 Fire Station, 311 College Avenue, Ithaca, NY
The No. 9 Fire Station is a 2-story, Shingle Style wood-frame fire station (1894-95) with a 3-
story, commercial-style, brick- and stucco-clad addition that fronts College Avenue. The
original building is on the eastern, rear portion of the parcel and was designed by Vivian &
Gibb as a civic donation. After this building was moved to its present location in 1905, the
Gibb & Waltz designed addition was constructed in front of the earlier station in 1907-08.
These conjoined structures remain as one of only three historic fire stations extant in
Ithaca and the only example of turn-of-the-20th century civic architecture in the Collegtown
neighborhood.
Located on the east side of College Avenue between Dryden Road and Bool Street, the No. 9
Fire Station at 311 College Avenue is a good example of a turn-of-the-20th century neighborhood
fire station. The three-story, brick- and stucco-clad College Avenue façade is an early-20th
century addition to a late-19th century two-story, wood-frame fire station that remains at the rear
(eastern) portion of the parcel. The building is sited on a relatively small urban lot,
approximately 32’ by 142’, with a characteristically deep setback, which was historically used
for staging and maneuvering firefighting equipment. A modernist, brick and concrete fire station
(1968) sits immediately to the south of the building at 309 College Avenue.1
1 When the new fire station at 309 College Avenue opened on September 7, 1968, it absorbed all of the functions of
the previous building. Subsequently, the City decommissioned the turn-of-the-20th century fire station and sold it at
auction in 1971.
Designed by the firm of Vivian & Gibb and built in 1894-95, the original No. 9 Fire Station is a
two-story wood-framed building with a hipped roof. Only three of the structure’s original
exterior walls are visible, as the 1907-1908 addition was attached directly to the fourth (west)
side, obscuring the entire façade. Novelty board siding clads the first story of the building and
cut wood shingles clad the second The building’s trim is simple and refined, reflecting the
characteristics of the Shingle Style. The base of second-story wall flares slightly where it meets
the wide trim board capping the first story; rafter tails line the open eaves of the hipped roof; and
simple, flat trim boards accent the corners of the first story, and the window and door openings,
which are evenly spaced on all elevations. The north and south elevations have two windows on
the first story and four windows on the second, and the first and second stories of the east
elevation both have a door and a window. Window openings are filled with wood, double-hung
sashes with a one-over-one lite configuration; door openings have been infilled with non-historic
materials. The distinctive cupola that once capped the fire station was removed presumably
when the addition was constructed in 1907-08. A 1905 photograph showing the cupola as well
as the building’s original west façade is appended to this document. Pressed metal shingles now
clad the entire roof.
The symmetrical, two-bay, three-story addition that fronts College Avenue was designed by the
firm of Gibb and Waltz and was constructed in 1907-08. The two upper stories of the main
block are clad in stucco with red brick quoins accenting the corners of the building. Each bay of
the second and third stories contains three, one-over-one, double-hung, wood-sash windows. A
cornice adorned with small brackets denotes the base of the building’s parapet wall, which has
the same cladding and corner detail as the upper stories. A two-bay, brick projection extends
from the first story and contains two fire engine door openings. This projection is capped by a
simple, non-historic railing. A slightly recessed, two-story, brick-clad projection on the north
side of the building contains the original pedestrian entrance to the fire station. The north and
south elevations of the addition are brick-clad and have few window openings. A photograph of
the addition from between 1908 and 1918 is appended to this document. Note the original fire
engine bay doors and wood railing.
Despite its adaptive reuse as a restaurant and years of the deferred maintenance, the No. 9 Fire
Station has not been significantly altered and possesses a high level of material integrity. Non-
historic infill has been added to the historic fire engine door openings: The northern opening has
been filled with a door and window, and the southern bay contains two windows. The wood
siding materials on the 1894-95 fire station exhibits signs of moderate deterioration resulting
from decades of water infiltration and rodent/insect activity.
Narrative Description of Significance
No. 9 Fire Station, 311 College Avenue, Ithaca, NY
The No. 9 Fire Station is architecturally significant as a nearly intact example of a turn-of-
the-20th century neighborhood fire station built in response to pressing fire safety needs on
Ithaca’s East Hill. Although the original firehouse (1894-95) is not visible from College
Avenue and has experienced deterioration due to deferred maintenance, it largely retains
its essential form and is a noteworthy example of an architect-designed Shingle Style civic
building in Ithaca.
The No. 9 Firehouse derives additional significance from its close association with the
growth and development of Cornell University and the Collegetown neighborhood. The
presence of these structures enabled tremendous growth on both the university campus and
the residential and commercial portions of East Hill. Its origin and institutional support
over the late-19th and early-20th centuries reflect a true town-gown partnership.
The No. 9 Fire Station is also significant for its close association with three locally
prominent architects: Clinton L. Vivian, Arthur N. Gibb, and Ornan H. Waltz. Well
known in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, these prominent designers profoundly
shaped the architectural character of the City of Ithaca and other local communities
through their significant and substantial residential, civic, commercial, recreational and
institutional commissions.
Since 1895, the No. 9 Fire Station has played a unique role in life of Collegetown, especially
in its location at 311 College Avenue. It is a physical, social and residential connector
between Cornell University and the mixed-use neighborhood on East Hill. Its myriad of
concurrent uses - as a student dormitory, a social hall, a family home, an epicenter of first-
responder services, and ultimately an iconic Ithaca restaurant in its post-civic life - speak to
its deep historical significance in Ithaca’s urban development.
_________
Ithaca Fire Company History
In the 1800s, fire safety largely relied on the time and talents of volunteers, and companies were
formed to solve particular geographic or functional problems associated with fire management.
Ithaca’s first fire company was formed in 1823, followed by a second in 1828. When the hand
pump arrived for the newest company, it was so superior to the first company’s pump that the
most seasoned group lobbied village leaders to have it for themselves. Since it already had
“Rescue Company Two” painted on its side, the oldest group thereafter became known as No. 2,
and the second company formed became No. 1.2
Fire companies needed buildings to store their equipment, and the first building of this type was
a shed constructed near 409 North Tioga Street (not extant) c. 1823. The formation of a second
fire company and the purchase of accompanying equipment necessitated more space. Company
No. 2 (Rescue Steamer Co.) relocated into a new building located at 115 South Tioga Street (not
extant) c. 1828, and Company No. 1 (Cayuga Steamer Co.) moved into the newly vacant shed.3
2 Bob Robinson, Ithaca Fire Department (date unknown): 4, accessed January 16, 2018 <
https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/5042>.
3 Robinson, 4.
Chimney and roof fires proved to be especially difficult for the fire companies to handle. In
February 1831, local businessmen organized to purchase a truck with ladders long enough to
reach beyond one story, and thus Company No. 3 (Tornado Hook and Ladder Co.) was formed.
The new company joined Company No. 2 at the South Tioga Street building. In 1838, Ithaca
appointed its first, unpaid fire chief.4
Company No. 4 (Eureka Hose Co.) formed in 1841 and moved into the North Tioga Street shed,
about four blocks away from the South Tioga building. Village officials were unhappy with this
arrangement, deciding that Ithaca’s size necessitated the consolidation of the fire companies
under a single roof in order to improve communication and coordination. Construction began on
Fireman’s Hall on the northeast corner of Tioga and Seneca Streets (currently the Seneca Street
parking garage) c. 1845. In the meantime, a fifth fire company (Torrent Hose Co.) had been
established to be responsible for brigades, and a wagon with 100-bucket hooks was subsequently
commissioned. With the Fireman’s Hall already under construction and insufficient in size to
house the new bucket truck, the Village purchased a parcel at 308 East Seneca for a station and
tower.5
By 1853, the western portions of the Ithaca had grown sufficiently for area businessmen to have
their own company. The village’s sixth company, Hercules Engine Company, was formed and a
building constructed at State and Fulton Streets. (Not extant.) The seventh company (Cataract
Co.) was organized on December 31, 1863 at the north end of the village. For two years they
stored their equipment in a small station on Lake Street across from the Lincoln Street
intersection, but soon moved into a new station at 207 Queen Street. (Not extant.)
By 1868, fire management necessitated a team capable of stretching ropes and managing the
crowds of people who would gather to watch the firemen battle a blaze. Company No. 8
(Protective Police) was formed for this explicit purpose, and appears to have moved into
Firemen’s Hall. Over the next century, Ithaca constructed additional buildings to house their fire
companies. These include an engine house to the east of St. John’s Episcopal c. 1871 for
Companies No. 1 and 2, around the same time that Company No. 6 was reorganized as the
Sprague Steamer Company and installed in a building on West State Street near the current
station. (Not extant.) By 1882, Company No. 5 had outgrown the East Seneca Street location,
so the village hired Alvah B. (Buckbee) Wood, a locally prominent architect,6 to design a new
station at 136 West State Street (extant). Finally, after a fire burned down their headquarters on
Queen Street, Company No. 7 moved into a new station, again, designed by A.B. Wood at 1012
North Tioga Street (extant) in 1885.7
4 Robinson, 5.
5 Robinson, 6-7.
6 Kurtz, D. Morris. Ithaca and Its Resources. (Ithaca, NY: Journal Association Book and Job Print, 1883) 85. A.B.
Wood designed several residences in Ithaca, the Ithaca High School, and some of the buildings in the Morse Chain
Works complex. He also designed Lehigh Valley Railroad depots in Ithaca (1898), Geneva (1892) and Wilkes-
Barre, Pennsylvania. He is also credited with the design of the 1896 Immaculate Conception Church in Ithaca.
7 Robinson, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20.
The Formation of Fire Company No. 9
As the 19th century drew to a close, Ithaca’s East Hill experienced a surge in real estate
development, courtesy of the growing presence of Cornell University and the resulting demands
for new residential and commercial space. Furthermore, Ithaca had obtained a new charter as a
City in 1888, and moved its municipal boundary up East Hill from Eddy Street. Street railway
service began up East State and Eddy Streets in 1893, serving the university and the adjacent
neighborhood. The increased urban density, coupled with a diverse and dangerous range of
lighting, heating and cooking methods, raised fire insurance concerns among the expanding
population. East Hill’s steep terrain made it challenging for the existing fire companies to
respond with the necessary water and equipment. For a neighborhood disproportionally filled
with wood-frame structures, the average 20-30 minute response time could be catastrophic for
the entire developing area. Neighborhood residents, in the vicinity of the region now known as
Collegetown, and Cornell University officials intensified calls for the construction of a new fire
station on East Hill and improvements to municipal water pressure and volume. 8 These calls
were summarized in a letter form Henry W. Sage to the Ithaca Journal in 1889, in which he
stated:
East Hill, which is increasing in population and residence property faster than
any other part of the city, should have a fire engine with suitable house for it and
needful equipment for efficient dealing with fire. That part of the city is
positively helpless in the event of fire, and neglect to provide for such
contingency is not unwise only, it is criminal.9
The Cornell community played a significant role in the establishment of the No. 9 firehouse,
reflecting university leaders’ concerns that the city was incapable of adequately protecting the
campus or Collegetown in the event of a sizable conflagration. In August 1894, around 100
residents, businessmen and Cornell faculty members gathered to discuss the establishment of a
new fire company. They lobbied Mayor Clinton D. Bouton and the Aldermen accordingly, and
the local officials took heed.10 On September 19, 1894, the W.H. Sage Fire Company No. 9
officially formed and soon forty-seven men pledged their services to fight fires in Collegetown.
They organized with the permission of the Common Council, who approved the public provision
of an existing hose cart and appropriate firehouse facilities.11 Volunteer subscriptions among
members of the Cornell community and the residents of East Hill raised $987, enabling the
8 Mary Raddant Tomlan, “Firehouse speaks of East Hill change,” The Ithaca Journal (September 18, 2004): 1B,
2B; Charley Githler, “A look back at…before The Nines,” Tompkins Weekly (October 2, 2017), accessed November
17, 2017 < http://tompkinsweekly.com/news/2017/10/02/look-back-nines/>.
9 Ithaca Daily Journal, Mar. 7, 1895.
10 Robinson, 24-25.
11 Tomlan; David Allen Rash, The Works of Clinton L. Vivian, Architect, of Ithaca, I , thesis (Cornell University:
2014): 274.
nascent company to purchase a Holloway Chemical Engine for approximately $1,200 in 1895, of
which Cornell paid $600.12 This was Ithaca’s first chemical fire engine.13
When Fire Company No. 9 organized in 1894, it was named after William H. Sage, an Ithaca
resident and an important trustee and benefactor of Cornell University.14 However, after only a
year of operating as the W.H. Sage Fire Company No. 9, William H. Sage requested that the
company change its name. In response, Company Treasurer B.I. Wheeler, a Cornell professor of
classics, recommended Neriton, inspired by a famous forest in Homer’s Odyssey.15 The new
name officially established was the Neriton Hose Company.16 In addition to deriving its original
name from the Sage family, the construction of the fire station facility was financed through a
loan of approximately $1,500 from Henry W. Sage, William H. Sage’s father, city resident, and
important university benefactor.17 The loan represents a long-term commitment by H.W. Sage to
address fire safety concerns on East Hill, an issue he highlighted in his 1889 letter to the Ithaca
Daily Journal and championed from his position on the Cornell Board of Trustees.
Firehouse No. 9
The Neriton Hose Company No. 9 was originally housed in a modest, wood-frame station
designed by the firm of Vivian & Gibb, a donation to the City of Ithaca. Although their
partnership was short lived, Clinton L. Vivian and Arthur N. Gibb became regionally well-
known and received several prominent commissions, including the Cascadilla Boathouse, the
main pavilion complex at Stewart (then Renwick) Park, and the Charles E. Treman House.18
Vivian arrived in Ithaca in 1882 to apprentice with William H. Miller, Ithaca’s most famous
architect, and would go on to have a notable career nearly up to his death in 1930. His body of
work reflected an interest in interpreting modern architectural forms though a lens that was
sympathetic to America’s colonial heritage.19
After a decade of service, Vivian left Miller’s practice around May 1892 to begin his own in
partnership with Arthur W. Gibb, another former Miller employee and an 1890 graduate of
Cornell University’s architecture program.20 Gibb practiced architecture in Ithaca for nearly 60
years, both in partnerships (notably with Vivian and Ornan H. Waltz) and solely, and also served
as an alderman and mayor. He was responsible, either in partnership or as sole architect, for the
design of three of Ithaca's four significant fraternal organization buildings: the Elks Club, the
12 Pete Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” The Ithaca Journal (March 1, 1971): 18; Robinson, 24-25. The exact cost
of the chemical fire engine is disputed in the records: some list it at $1,100 and others at $1,200.
13 Tomlan; Robinson, 24-25.
14 For information on the significant contributions of William H. Sage to Cornell University and the City of Ithaca,
see “William H. Sage Dies,” Cornell Alumni News XXVII, no. 6 (October 30, 1924): 73. For information on Henry
W. Sage and his contributions to the university and city, see “Death of Henry W. Sage,” New York Times (Sept. 19,
1897): 13.
15 Notes on a postscript to an article published in the September 18, 2004 Ithaca Journal, found in research
compilation available through the City of Ithaca.
16 Pete Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” (March 1, 1971).
17 Ithaca Daily Journal, Feb.6 and Mar. 6, 1895.
18 “National Register of Historic Places: Cascadilla Boathouse, Ithaca, NY”: Section 8, page 11.
19 Rash, lxii.
20 Rash, 117.
Eagles Building and the Masonic Temple, as well as for the Odd Fellows Home and Orphanage
in the Town of Ithaca. Gibb (1899) and Vivian (1900) were the first two Ithacan architects to
join the American Institute of Architects.21 Their partnership lasted from 1892 to 1900,
dissolving while the two were working on the Charles E. Treman house.22 Afterwards, Vivian
would go on to design his most acclaimed residential design, the Roger B. Williams House at
306 N. Cayuga Street, an excellent example of the American Renaissance Style in Ithaca.
Vivian & Gibb’s design for No. 9 Fire Station incorporated many of the characteristics found in
their early collaborative designs, including Shingle Style detailing and integrated bell-shaped,
roof-top tower. The first story was clad in novelty board siding and the second in wood shingle.
Roman Doric pilasters were installed at the corners of the building and used to frame the engine
bay doors.23
The firm’s donation of the plans for No. 9 Fire Station likely stemmed from Vivian’s deep ties to
the local volunteer fire community. In addition to providing vital civic services, such groups
served as important fraternal organizations for cultivating both professional and personal
relationships. A few years into his Ithaca residency, Vivian joined the Tornado Hook and
Ladder Co. No. 3 in 1886 and remained an active member until his retirement in 1902, serving in
a number of important leadership positions that culminated with the title of Director (1901-02).
Such an affiliation extended far beyond smoking and playing cards, although these were
quintessential fire company activities. More importantly, Vivian acquired many of his clients
from within the Tornado Hook and Ladder Co., and as architectural historian David Allen Rash
persuasively argues, Vivian’s link to the fire community was influential in his “locally
pioneering interest in fire-resistant construction techniques.”24 These, however, were not present
in the modest, wood-frame and wood-clad fire station on East Hill.
On October 22, 1894, Mayor Bouton, acting for the City, signed an agreement with William
Murray to lease property on the south side of Dryden Road a short distance west of Huestis
Street (renamed College Avenue in 1908), measuring twenty-five by seventy feet, with the
privilege of buying the parcel at any time during the ensuing five years. Included in the
agreement was an eight-foot-wide right-of-way to the rear of the site from Huestis Street. Bids
for the construction of the station were called for and awarded in November, with contractor
Arthur Merrill completing the Vivian & Gibb scheme in early 1895. Murray sold the property to
Edwin C. Stewart in 1896 with the same City agreements in place, and in June 1897 the City
purchased the site as its own. 25
21 Rash, 14.
22 Carol Sisler, Margaret Hobbie, and Jane Marsh Dieckmann, eds. Ithaca's Neighborhoods: the Rhine, the Hill, and
the Goose Pasture (Ithaca, NY: De Witt Historical Society, 1988).
23 Tomlan; Rash, 276.
24 Rash, 9-10.
25 For the lease of the site, see Tompkins County Deeds, Book 141, p. 640; Ithaca Daily Journal, Oct. 23,
1894. For the street name, see Carol Kammen, ed., Place Names of Tompkins County (Ithaca, NY: Office
of the Tompkins County Historian, 2004), 65. For the construction of the station, see Ithaca Daily
Journal, Nov. 16 and Nov. 28, 1894; Cornell Daily Sun, Jan. 19, 1895; Ithaca Daily Journal, Mar. 7,
Given the growth of the university and, consequently, of the residential and commercial
neighborhood to the south, the need for improved fire protection became increasingly evident. In
July 1904, John J. Gainey, the owner of a substantial brick commercial-residential block at the
corner of Huestis Street and Dryden Road, immediately to the east of the Neriton Company’s fire
station, presented City officials with an offer that would provide a site capable of
accommodating additional fire-fighting apparatus. Gainey had purchased a vacant parcel on the
opposite or east side of Huestis Street on July 6, and within a few days proposed to trade a
portion of that site to the City in exchange for its current site, while paying to have the frame
firehouse moved to the new location. In May 1905, the deed was executed for the City to
acquire a parcel thirty-two feet wide and nearly twice as deep as the existing station site, with an
eight-foot right-of-way to the north on a portion of Gainey’s remaining land.
The No. 9 Fire Station was moved off its foundation in July 1905. Inaccuracies in the calculation
of the building’s weight and mechanical failures with the moving equipment resulted in a 3-week
delay, during which part of the building straddled the adjoining sidewalk. When it was finally
installed at 311 Huestis, it was placed at the rear of the lot, as the city and Commissioners of the
Ithaca Fire Department intended the building to ultimately be replaced with a larger structure. In
its 1905 annual report, the Commissioners “strongly urg[ed] that a brick building be erected on
said lot in addition to the small building now there, and that additional fire apparatus be secured
at the earliest moment possible.”26 On January 1, 1906, the Common Council’s Committee of
Public Buildings reported that “the new location [will be] providing adequate room for an
additional structure and the ultimate extension and improvement of the department in that
locality.”27
Budgetary limitations dimmed the prospects for a complete new building, so a brick and stucco
addition was connected to the wooden Vivian & Gibb design. The city hired architects Arthur N.
Gibb and Ornan H. Waltz of Gibb & Waltz. Ornan Waltz came to Ithaca from Elmira in 1901 to
work in William H. Miller's office. The firm of Gibb & Waltz was formed in 1906 and dissolved
in 1926. Among their other notable designs were the YMCA Building, Rand Hall on the Cornell
University campus, the Ithaca City Hospital, and the Ithaca Masonic Temple.28
The new addition, constructed in 1907-08 of fire-resistant materials, resulted in the original
building “being related to a subordinate role behind the new No. 9 firehouse, a role it still plays
at the rear of The Nines on College Avenue.”29 (Around 1908, the Roman Doric pilasters and
1895; Rash, 276; Tomlan. For the 1896 and 1897 property transfers, see Tompkins County Deeds, Book
146, p. 399, and Book 149, p.330.
26 For Gainey’s offer, see Ithaca Daily Journal, July 12 and Aug. 9, 1904. For purchase of the Huestis Street parcel
from Mary Anne Snaith, see Tompkins County Deeds, Book 161, p. 323. This property, identified in the deed as
313 Huestis Street, had been vacant since a January 1900 fire destroyed the Delta Chi fraternity house on the site;
Cornell Daily Sun, Jan. 29, 1900. Robinson, 24-25; Fifth Annual Report of the Commissioners of the Ithaca Fire
Department for the Year Ending December 15, 1905 (Ithaca, NY: 1905): 6.
27 Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” March 1, 1971.
28 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, “Memorandum: Proposed Redevelopment of the Old No. 9 Fire
Station at 311 College Avenue,” Division of Planning and Economic Development (August 15, 2017).
29 Robinson, 24-25; Tomlan.
cupola of the original building were removed or covered.30) The renovated station, which cost
approximately $4,700, was officially opened for use on April 16, 1908. A decade later, the
horse-drawn ladder truck was converted into a motor-powered vehicle, thereby substantially
changing the use of the property and negating the need for maintaining equine facilities. 31
Cornellians were an important part of the No. 9 volunteer fire crew, and students appear to have
begun rooming in the No. 9 Fire Station’s dormitories soon after its remodeling. In 1970, Fire
Chief Charles M. Weaver was interviewed about his family’s connection to No. 9, and he relayed
that his father came to Ithaca around 1908 to attend Cornell University and bunked at the fire
station. Chief Weaver continued the tradition, moving into the dormitories in 1936 as a Cornell
freshman. “Two or three things I learned there, perhaps not very well, were to play poker and
shoot pool…I remember one of the students’ jobs was to carry out the coal ashes once a week.”
Chief Weaver credited this living arrangement to his exposure to firefighting as a profession.32
At the time, the fire station served as a type of “community center,” with a number of social
events, many of which were designed to raise money for the station. “Back then the fire
companies got nothing from the city and they used to have turkey raffles and the like to raise
money,” Chief Weaver noted. It also served as a polling place, a tradition that continues in many
communities today, as well as a venue for well-known weekly poker games that attracted several
prominent East Hill merchants.33
The apparatus rooms that stored the firefighting equipment were located on the ground floor,
with dormitories and common space on the second floor. From around 1916 to 1950, the third
floor apartment was occupied by Ned Witter, who was responsible for driving the horses and
then, often, the trucks. (In the days before motorized engines, the horses were used during the
day to haul garbage.) Witter lived in the building with his family, and one of his daughters was
even born there. A fireman’s pole connected his apartment to the second floor, and a second
pole connected the second floor to the apparatus room on the 1st floor.34
Decommissioned Station and Adaptive Reuse
As part of an effort to modernize and improve the City’s firefighting facilities, a modernist, brick
and concrete fire station was constructed at 309 College Avenue to replace the functionally
inefficient one at 311 College Avenue in 1968. Located next door to the older No. 9 Fire
Station, the new building absorbed all of the functions of the previous building and reflected a
physical transition from volunteer fire fighting to a more professional field. The old fire station
was stripped of its heating and plumbing apparatuses and was sold at auction by the Ithaca
Common Council in 1971.35 Twelve people attended the auction, where a minimum bid of
$40,000 was set. Big Flats attorney Walter Zebrowski bid $40,000 on behalf of Michael
30 Rash, 276.
31 Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” March 1, 1971.
32 Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” March 1, 1971.
33 Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” March 1, 1 971.
34 Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” March 1, 1971.
35 Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” March 1, 1971.
Turback and a group of unspecified investors. With no other bids offered, the investment team
acquired it for that price.36
In August 1972, Turback, a Cornellian, opened a restaurant, the Old No. 9, decorated in a turn-
of-the-century fire station motif.37 In 1980, Mark Kielmann and Harold Schultz acquired the
property and opened The Nines, a popular restaurant known for its signature deep-dish pizza, in
the engine room of the 1908 brick and stucco addition.38 The original 1895 wood-frame fire
station is used for storage.
36 Pete Walsh, “Turback buys old No. 9s,” Ithaca Journal (March 2, 1971): 3.
37 Linda Corwin, “’Old No. 9’ becomes restaurant,” Ithaca Journal (August 3, 1972), located in Scrapbook S147a,
pg. 74. (The History Center in Tompkins County)
38 Sarah Mearhoff, “The Nines faces demolition under Collegetown apartment proposal,” Ithaca Journal (September
11, 2017), accessed December 16, 2017 <http://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/local/2017/09/11/nines-faces-
demolition-under-collegetown-apartment-proposal/653464001/>.
Fig 1: Vivian and Gibb designed 1894-95 No. 9Fire Station, 1905.
(The History Century in Tompkins County)
Fig. 2: Gibb and Waltz designed 1907-08 addition, between 1908 and 1918.
(The History Center in Tompkins County)
10.4 Adoption of the City of Ithaca 2018 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Draft Action Plan Dated April 26, 2018, for Allocation of the City’s 2018 HUD
Entitlement Program Award - Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca (City) is eligible to receive an annual formula allocation of
funds to address community development needs through the U.S. Department of
Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Entitlement program from the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the Home Investment Partnerships
(HOME) program funding sources; and
WHERAS, the City has contracted with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to
administer, implement and monitor the City’s HUD Entitlement program in compliance
with all applicable regulations; and
WHEREAS, on an annual basis an Action Plan must be submitted to HUD to access
HUD Entitlement program funding allocated to the City; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Action Plan identifies a specific list of budgeted community
development activities to be funded from the 2018 HUD Entitlement program allocation
and associated funds administered by the IURA; and
WHEREAS, funding available to be allocated through the 2018 Action Plan funding
process is anticipated to include the following:
$ 634,000.00 CDBG 2018 allocation
$ 160,000.00 CDBG 2018 projected program income
$ 38,760.72 CDBG recaptured/unallocated funds
$ 261,000.00 HOME 2018 allocation
$ 133,793.78 HOME recaptured/unallocated funds
$ 100,000.00 Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) Misc. Revenues
$1,327,554.50 Total
; and
WHEREAS, the IURA utilized an open and competitive project selection process for
development of the 2018 Action Plan in accordance with the City of Ithaca Citizen
Participation Plan; and
WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2018 meeting, the IURA adopted a draft 2018 Action Plan;
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby adopts the attached
draft action plan dated April 26, 2018, for allocation of the City’s 2018 HUD Entitlement
Program award along with associated funds listed above; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That if the actual amount of CDBG funds received is more than the
anticipated amount, any additional funding shall be allocated to the Economic
Development Loan activity for loans that create employment opportunities for low-and
moderate-income persons; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That if the actual amount of HOME funds received is more than the
anticipated amount, any additional funding shall be allocated to the Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO) set-aside reserve activity for affordable housing
projects; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That should the actual amount of CDBG and/or HOME funds received be
less than the anticipated amount, the IURA will develop recommended revisions to the
draft Action Plan for consideration by the Common Council; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Urban Renewal Plan shall be amended to include activities
funded in the adopted 2018 Action Plan.
IURA Draft 2018 Action Plan, City of Ithaca, NY
#2018 CDBG CDBG (R/U)2018 HOME HOME (R/U)2018 CDBG PI UDAG TOTAL
$634,000 $38,760.72 $261,000 $133,793.78 $160,000 $100,000 $1,327,554.50
HOUSING
1 Neighbor to Neighbor Home
Rehabilitation Love Knows No Bounds 50,000 0 50,000 $40,000.00 $40,000.00
2 Chartwell House Tompkins Community Action 213,921 0 213,921 $75,000.00 $125,000.00 $200,000.00
3 402 S. Cayuga St.*Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services, Inc. (INHS)150,000 907,327 1,057,327 $150,000.00 $150,000.00
4 Housing Scholarship Program The Learning Web, Inc.65,592 72,000 137,592 $65,592.00 $65,592.00
5 Security Deposit Assistance Catholic Charities of
Tompkins/Tioga Counties 48,250 18,511 66,761 $18,250.00 $30,000.00 $48,250.00
6 Security Deposit Inspections TCAction (contract)2,500 0 2,500 $1,058.00 $1,442.00 $2,500.00
7 Scattered Site Phase 2: New
Construction*
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services, Inc. (INHS)100,000 15,940,431 16,040,431 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
8 Ramp Loan Program Finger Lakes Independence
Center (FLIC)25,000 14,780 39,780 $21,758.00 $2,260.00 $24,018.00
9 Mini-Repair Program Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services, Inc. (INHS)32,500 59,564 92,064 $32,500.00 $32,500.00
10 CHDO Reserve To be determined $2,351.78 $2,351.78
687,763 17,012,613 17,700,376 169,258.00$ -$ 234,900.00$ 133,793.78$ 127,260.00$ -$ $665,211.78
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
11 Hospitality Employment Training
Program (HETP)
Greater Ithaca Activities Center,
Inc. (GIAC)125,000 63,350 188,350 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
12 Ithaca ReUse Center Expansion Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc.100,000 10,421,412 10,521,412 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
13 Volunteer Worker & Job Skills
Training Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc.114,000 51,000 165,000 $40,300.00 $31,500.00 $71,800.00
14 Work Preserve Job Training: Job
Placements Historic Ithaca, Inc.67,500 97,806 185,306 $66,760.00 $740.00 $67,500.00
15 Food Entrepreneurship Program
2.0
Cornell Cooperative Extension of
Tompkins Co.40,548 92,311 132,859 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
447,048 10,725,879 11,192,927 232,060.00$ -$ -$ -$ 32,240.00$ 100,000.00$ $364,300.00
PUBLIC FACILITIES
16 Targeted Urban Bus Stop
Upgrades TCAT 27,000 78,339 105,339 $13,500.00 $13,500.00
17 Final Phase Compliance for
Heating & Roofing
Downtown Ithaca Children's
Center (DICC)29,300 0 29,300 $29,300.00 $29,300.00
18 Domestic Violence Shelter
Renovation Advocacy Center 9,960 112,944 122,904 $9,460.72 $500.00 $9,960.72
66,260 191,283 257,543 13,500.00$ 38,760.72$ -$ -$ 500.00$ -$ $52,760.72
PUBLIC SERVICES
19 Immigrant Services Program Catholic Charities of
Tompkins/Tioga Counties 30,000 52,900 82,900 $30,000.00 $30,000.00
20 Work Preserve Job Training: Job
Readiness Historic Ithaca, Inc.20,000 (see #12 above)(see #12 above)$20,000.00 $20,000.00
21 2-1-1 Information & Referral
Service Human Services Coalition (HSC)20,000 222,070 242,070 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
22 Housing for School Success:
Year #3 Ithaca City School District (ICSD)27,005 0 27,005 $20,300.00 $20,300.00
97,005 274,970 269,075 90,300.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $90,300.00
ADMINISTRATION
23 CDBG Administration IURA 128,882 0 128,882 $ 128,882.00 $128,882.00
24 HOME Administration IURA 26,100 0 26,100 26,100.00$ $26,100.00
25 Economic Development Loan
Fund IURA 0 0 0 $0.00
154,982 0 154,982 128,882.00$ -$ 26,100.00$ -$ -$ -$ $154,982.00
1,453,058 28,204,745 29,574,903 $ 634,000.00 38,760.72$ $ 261,000.00 133,793.78$ 160,000.00$ $100,000.00 $ 1,327,554.50
Minimum Required Set-Aside of HOME Funds for CHDO Activities (15%):$39,150 *2018 CHDO Set-Aside Eligible Projects: #3 and #7 Acronyms:
CDBG (R/U):
HOME (R/U):
LMI = Low & Moderate Income (80% or less of AMI)
R/U = Recaptured/Unallocated (from prior years)
AMI = Area Median Income (Tompkins County)
PI = Program Income
PUBLIC FACILITIES SUBTOTAL:
PUBLIC SERVICES SUBTOTAL:
ADMINISTRATION SUBTOTAL:
TOTALS:
$19,977.80 (2017 unallocated) + $80,000 (2017 #3 402 S. Cayuga St.) + $33,815.98 (2016 #1 Housing for School Success)
$50,000 (2017 #8 Ithaca ReUse Center Expansion) + $2,260.72 (2016 #3 LKNB Homeowner Rehab)
Adopted by IURA April 26,2018
ANTICIPATED FUNDING AVAILABLE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBTOTAL:
HOUSING SUBTOTAL:
Funding
RequestSponsorProject Total Project
Cost
Matching
Funds
13. INDIVIDUAL MEMBER – FILED RESOLUTIONS:
13.1 Alderperson Fleming – 2018 Gorge Safety Funding - Resolution
WHEREAS, as part of the 2018 Authorized City Budget, Common Council placed
$15,000 in Restricted Contingency for the purpose of funding a 2018 gorge safety
program; and
WHEREAS, a Gorge Safety Task Force held a series of meetings in 2016 and 2017 to
develop recommendations for promoting safety in the gorges; and
WHEREAS, among these recommendations was for the City Forester to install signs
designating No Trespass zones in the gorge natural areas and for the gorge rangers to
be authorized to issue parking tickets; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca set aside $7,500 in their 2018 budget to fund gorge
safety efforts; and
WHEREAS, for 2018 it is recommended to hire a 3-month seasonal Community Service
Officer (CSO) who will work evenings and weekends to write parking tickets in no
parking areas near the gorges in both the City and the Town of Ithaca; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended to install signage clearly indicating where parking is
allowed near the natural areas and where it is prohibited, and to install additional no
trespass signage as needed; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby transfers an amount not to exceed $15,000
from account A1990 Restricted Contingency to account A5651-5120 Parking Systems
Hourly P/T for the purpose of funding the Gorge Safety Program.
13.2 Alderperson Nguyen - Authorization for the Re-Opening of the Commons
Playground - Resolution
WHEREAS, the Commons playground has been closed for a number of months due to
the ongoing construction of the Harold Square development site; and
WHEREAS, the Commons playground is a valued public asset, creating a social
meeting place for parents of young children in the core of our community; and
WHEREAS, the playground also creates tremendous economic value throughout
downtown, drawing families downtown to dine and shop, including at child-themed
businesses in close proximity to the playground; and
WHEREAS, building regulations require that an overhead protection zone be
established in the area that is most likely to be impacted in the unlikely event that an
object is dropped during active construction from activities overhead; and
WHEREAS, that overhead protection zone includes none of the main playground
structure, and only a small portion of the west edge of the playground, approximately
ending at the silver sphere; and
WHEREAS, Consumer Product Safety Commission guidelines 5.3.9-10 in the Public
Playground Safety Handbook recommend, but do not require, an access zone around
playground equipment, which zone (as applied to the main playground structure) may
overlap with the overhead protection zone by a small amount, and may therefore, in the
discretion of staff, be kept open to the public, which decision would require the
installation of a single piece of staging to provide overhead protection in this small area;
and
WHEREAS, the majority of the construction process of the Harold Square development
should pose no risk of harm to children playing on the adjacent playground, outside the
code-specified overhead-protection zone, examples of such portions of the process
including working in the ground, working on the rear tower section and not on the front,
or working within the interior of the building while the façade is mostly enclosed; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Superintendent of Public Works, the Director of Planning, the
Director of Engineering, and the Director of Code Enforcement, are hereby directed to
take all necessary actions—including revocation or amendment of permits necessary to
the same—to effectuate no later than June 15, 2018 the reopening of, at a minimum,
that portion of the playground not encompassed by the required overhead protection
zone, subject to the remainder of this Resolution and not inconsistent with legal or
regulatory requirements; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the entire playground may be or remain closed by the developer or
its contractors or agents, pursuant to appropriate permitting, only on such day(s) as one
of or more of the following types of work is being actively performed on each such day.
1. Erection of the structural frame on the Commons façade.
2. Substantial exterior work to close in the Commons façade.
3. Substantial exterior work to install finishes on the Commons façade.
; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That for purposes of this resolution, substantial exterior work shall be
defined as work performed from the exterior of the building involving personnel or
material lifts with a minimum duration of four hours during any one work day; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That such days of closure shall not include any weekends or holidays
unless the scheduling of said work on a weekend or holiday is, in addition to satisfying
the above criteria, approved by the Director of Code Enforcement as reasonably
necessary to progressing the development of the Harold Square project site.
14. MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS:
14.1 Reappointments to Examining Board of Electricians – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Robert Sparks be reappointed to the Examining Board of Electricians
with a term to expire December 31, 2019; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Thomas Blecher be reappointed to the Examining Board of
Electricians with a term to expire December 31, 2010.
14.2 Reappointments to Workforce Diversity Advisory Committee – Resolution
RESOLVED, That Elizabeth Klohmann be reappointed to the Workforce Diversity
Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2018; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Sue Kittel be reappointed to the Workforce Diversity Advisory
Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2018; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Nancy K. Bereano be reappointed to the Workforce Diversity
Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2018; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Audrey Cooper be reappointed to the Workforce Diversity Advisory
Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2019; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Raymond Benjamin be reappointed to the Workforce Diversity
Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2019.