Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-B&A-1995-12-20 BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING 7 :30 P.M. DECEMBER 20, 1995 MINUTES Present: Committee Members: Booth, Shenk, Thorpe, Johnson Others Present: Deputy Controller Thayer Superintendent of Public Works Gray BPW Vice Chairperson Reeves City Attorney Guttman Assistant City Attorney Kennedy Mayor-Elect Cohen Alderperson-elect Blumenthal Alderperson-elect Marcham BPW Member Ehrhardt Ithaca Activities Coordinator Deming Youth Bureau Recreation Coordinator Green Members of the media 1 . Opening Comments: Chairperson Booth stated that the following change was made: 1 . Additional executive session item dealing with Wal- Mart litigation. Members of the public were asked to speak; no members spoke. 2 . Committee to Proceed into Executive Session The Committee voted, 4-0, to move into executive session to discuss possible Wal-Mart litigation. 3 . Report from Executive Session After the Committee voted, 4-0, to move back into regular session, Chairperson Booth reported that the following action was taken during executive session: A. Request to Hire Legal Counsel for Wal-Mart Litigation Chairperson Booth reported that the Committee discussed Wal-Mart litigation with the City Attorney, and the following action was taken: 1 s BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1995 RESOLVED, That the City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement not to exceed $3, 600 with Attorney Giacalone to prepare a legal brief in defense of the Wal-Mart litigation, and be it further RESOLVED, That an amount not to exceed $3, 600 be transferred from Account A1990 Unrestricted Contingency to Account A1420- 435 Contracts for the funding of said purpose. The motion passed 4-0 . Chairperson Booth stated that he voted for the resolution because he felt the City should aggressively defend City' s boards and commissions. He also stated, as an alderperson, he does not agree with the Planning Board' s decision on the Wal-Mart issue. He felt the decision was misguided. 4. Attorney - Residency Requirements for City Employees Chairperson Booth stated that the Committee has been considering a proposed local law amending the City Charter with regard to residency of certain City employees who are public officers . The Committee discussed the most recent draft of the proposed residency requirements as it relates to police officers. The following people spoke regarding this issue: Mike Gray, President of the PBA, stated that he was concerned over the residency requirements for police officers . He posed three questions to the Committee: 1 . What does Council hope to achieve by imposing such a requirement? 2 . Is Council aware of what City -police officers do for the community on their own time (i.e. : volunteering hours to the community and taking young children on recreational adventures) ? 3. Has Council considered the impacts that the draft proposal will have on existing police officers who might be considered for promotion? He urged Council to exempt police officers from the city' s residency requirements, and to vote against the current draft of the law. Mike Gray read a letter from Donald Berich, Police Officer, which stated that a police officer is not more caring respecting to the community because he/she lives 2 i BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1995 in the city. He stated that if officers had to move into the city, it would place economic hardship on police officers ' families . He urged Council not to support this draft. Mike Gray stated that the PBA has not seen the draft that is being discussed by the Committee. He would like to see the draft to review the details. He stated that the PBA feels the proposed requirement is unfair, and the PBA is ready to address any problems that Council hopes to solve by imposing this requirement. Alderperson Thorpe stated that the current draft of the requirement does not state that officers currently on the police force would have to move into: the city. ' The draft is dealing with new hires and possibly promotions. Randy Haus, Police Department Captain stated he was afraid of the proposal from a managers point of view because it will stop the professional development of police officers. He explained that he would not be able to reward excellent performance using promotions and assignments if the law were in place. Glen Sharshon, Police Department Lieutenant, stated that he is not a city resident, and he endorsed the previous comments. He stated that police officers are currently leaving the Ithaca Police Department, and if the law is approved, more officers will leave. He stated that the Police Department needs to maintain its experienced officers. He urged Council to vote this proposed law down. Police Chief McEwen stated that he opposes the proposed residency requirement proposal because it will only have negative effects on the Police Department. He stated that the Police Department feels they are being targeted by this requirement because the police officers represent the majority of employees who would be affected by this draft law. He recommended that this draft be tabled. Kathy Torres, Police Officer, stated that she lived in the city for two years, and she found it difficult because she was basically on call 24 hours a day with the neighborhood she lived in. Torres explained that her neighbors expected her assistance even when she was off duty. She stated that police officers who live outside the city are not less committed to their community than those officers who live inside the city. 3 BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1995 Alderperson Shenk stated that it is not a question of a lack of commitment from the police officers . She explained that the goal is to have more police officers live in the city, and this law is not the way to do it. She stated that incentives for officers to live in the city need to be developed. She stated she wanted to take the police officers out of the proposed residency law. Chairperson Booth recommended to the Committee that all references to police officers should be removed from the proposed draft. He stated that the residency law for the Police Department' s top management should be discussed early in 1996, and recommended that the Committee forward this current residency draft to Council without reference to police officers. Mayor-elect Cohen stated that police officers should be exempt from the residence law, and the Police Chief and Deputy Chief should live in the city. Alderperson Thorpe stated that she does not question the police officers, commitment to the community. She stated that having police officers live in the city is a value to the city. She still feels that having the police officers, when hired, live in the city for three years is important to building a good relationship with the community. The Committee made the motion to move the residency requirement forward to Council, deleting all reference to police officers, including the Police Chief and the Deputy Chief. The motion passed 4-0. 5 . Open Public Hearing on Animals on The Commons The Committee voted, 4-0, to open the Public Hearing to take comments regarding animals on the Commons. The following people spoke on the issue: Steve Carriddi, who has an office on the Commons, read a letter from Janis Kelly (see letter attached to minutes) . Carriddi stated that he supports a permit process for animals on the Commons . He stated that signs should be put up on the Commons stating "No animals on Commons without permit, $100 fine. " He stated the City needs to regulate before they prohibit. Police Chief McEwen stated the he is not in favor of allowing dogs on the Commons via a permit process because the police officers will have a difficult time enforcing 4 BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1995 such a policy. In his opinion the City should either allow animals on the Commons, or not allow animals on the Commons . Joe Whitmore, member of the Commons Advisory Board, stated that some of the people who walk their dogs on the Commons have a legitimate need to do so. He explained that the CAB has no mechanism or criteria to issue permits . The new draft includes the criteria necessary to issue permits . Steve Ehrhardt, BPW member, stated that the Board approved the "No Animals on the Commons" in August. The BPW did not want the police officers to have problems enforcing the "Animals on the Commons" , so the BPW voted to prohibit animals on the Commons, except for dogs used by handicapped persons. Jean Deming, Ithaca Activities Coordinator, stated that the CAB has never been allowed to issue a permit; only the Superintendent of Public Works can issue permits. Jeff Fisher, DII Secretary, stated that only people living or working on the Commons without a back door would need a permit to walk their dog the short distance on the Commons. He stated about five to ten people would need the permit. 6 . Closing of Public Hearing After the Committee voted, 4-0, to close the Public Hearing, the following remarks were made regarding the public hearing: Alderpersons Shenk and Thorpe stated they support a permit process for animals on the Commons. Alderperson Thorpe stated that the City should increase the signage on the Commons to reflect the animals-on-the-Commons permit process. Carol Reeves, BPW Vice Chairperson, stated that animals on the Commons is more of a cleanliness issue. She stated that the BPW receives many complaints relating to animals on the Commons. Alderperson Johnson stated that the police officers do not need the permit enforcement problems . 5 BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1995 Chairperson Booth stated that any proposed changes to the code language need to clarify the criteria used and mechanism required to get permit. He also stated that this language needs to be brought back to Council for approval. A discussion regarding the Charter change followed. City Attorney Guttman stated that the following items need to be addressed: - What body will authorize permits; - Who will issue permits; - Who are "residents" ; - Does Council establish guidelines or give directions to CAB? The Committee agreed that a Charter change proposal will be made by Shenk and Thorpe, and it will be sent to the January COW meeting. 7 . DPW A. Request to Approve 1996 Off-street Parking Rates BPW Vice Chairperson Reeves stated that the BPW reluctantly accepted Common Council and staffs proposed parking rates for City garages and ramps for 1996 at its meeting today. Deputy Controller Thayer noted that at the December Council meeting, the 1996 Budget was adopted with off- street hourly parking rates approved by Council and a 2% increase in permit rates for the garages to be developed by the Controllers Office and the Superintendent of Public Works . It was noted that the Controllers Office and the Superintendent proposed permit rates which the BPW accepted today. The B & A Committee agreed that they would approve the BPW' s acceptance of the parking rates, and forward this to Council. Alderperson Johnson stated that in future years Council needs to work with the BPW to establish parking rates and revenues. After a discussion regarding rates, the following motion was made: WHEREAS, at the December 6, 1995 regular meeting, Common Council approved as part of the 1996 Budget an estimated off- street parking revenue amount of $735, 000, and 6 BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1995 WHEREAS, this revenue amount was to be achieved by increases in off-street hourly parking rates and monthly permit rates at all of the downtown and collegetown lots and garages, and WHEREAS, staff has recommended several changes in permit parking rates in order to better match permit demand to available spaces and avoid implementing a lottery system or monthly sell out of a fixed number of permits, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has reviewed Council and staff ' s proposed parking rate increases and reluctantly accepts those recommendations, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works will review off-street parking rates, data collection, revenues and expenditures in 1996 and make recommendations to Council based on information collected; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council approves the following off- street parking rates, effective January 1, 1996, including permits sold after December 21, 1995: Newly Previously Authorized GaracfeZLot Existing Rates Details Green Street Hourly $ 0.35 $ 0.40 Covered $47 .00 $50.00 Level 2 Uncovered $25.00 $30 .00 Level 3 Seneca Street Hourly $ 0. 35 $ 0 .40 Covered $47 .00 $50 .00 Limit to Levels 51 6 & 7 Uncovered $25.00 $30.00 Levels 8 & 9 Dryden Road Hourly $ 0 . 65 $ 0.75 Monthly Day $50.00 $60 . 00 Monthly Night $40 .00 $44 .00 State Street (Lot F) Uncovered $22 .00 $28.00 Limit to 20 Permits 7 BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1995 Woolworth' s (Lot D) Hourly $ 0. 35 $ 0.40 Limit to south of standing Covered $36 .00 $40. 00 1 i g h t i n g adjacent to Clinton Street. Don't sell more t h a n 5 0 . Desired level is 25 and be it further RESOLVED, That the limitations of covered permits in the Seneca Street Garage to levels 5, 6 & 7 become effective until the approved security improvements are in place and operating. The motion passed 4-0 . B. SuPRorting Modification of NYS General MuniciRal Law to Allow the Creation of a Public-Private Partnership---for the Provision of Transit Services in Tompkins County Chairperson Booth stated that wording changes are needed to modify New York State General Municipal Law to allow the establishment of a public-private partnership for the provision of transit services in Tompkins County. Booth stated that the resolution would request assistance and support from Senators Seward and Kuhl to modify the law. Booth stated that he did not have the exact wording changes, but that they were minor in nature. The committee voted, 4-0, to move this forward to Council with a recommendation of support from the Committee. 9 . Youth Bureau - Request to Establish Trust Fund Account Youth Bureau Recreation Coordinator Green presented a request to establish a trust fund in the amount of $30, 000. Green explained that the Youth Bureau has received a donation of $30,000 from an anonymous donor. The donor and .the Youth Bureau staff discussed possible uses for the funds and the following list of criteria were developed to make the funds available: A. These funds will be used for expenditures not normally covered by the Youth Bureau operating budget; B. Usages would include scholarships, special programs, and creation and improvements of child/youth environments; 8 BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1995 C. The funds will be used to improve the lives of young children; D. The Youth Bureau Director, Youth Bureau staff, City Attorney, City Controller and the Executive Committee of the Youth Bureau Board will decide on usage. Green stated that the trust fund would not replace normal funding. The Committee thanked the anonymous donor for the donation. After a brief discussion, the following motion was made: WHEREAS, the Ithaca Youth Bureau recently received an anonymous donation in the amount of $30, 000 to establish a trust fund for use by the Youth Bureau, and WHEREAS, the Youth Bureau Director, donor of the fund, Youth Bureau staff and Youth Bureau Board have recommended uses for the donated funds; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City establishes a trust fund account in the amount of $30,000 with the designated account name of Every Child Has Opportunities (ECHO) , and be it further RESOLVED, That these funds be available and expended under the following criteria upon the approval of the Youth Bureau Director, the City Controller and the City Attorney: 1 . Expenditures not normally covered by the Youth Bureau operating budget; 2 . Expenditures would include scholarships, special programs, and creation and improvements of child/youth environments; 3. The funds will be used to take advantage of opportunities that arise that would improve the lives of young children; 4 . All expenditures should be for the direct benefit of young children; 5. Further donations can be made to this trust account; 6. All decisions for this trust fund account use will be set by the Youth Bureau Director with advice of the Executive Committee of the Youth Bureau Board and staff, City Attorney, and City Controller; 7 . That these funds would not replace in any way normal Youth Bureau operating funds, and be it further 9 BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1995 RESOLVED, That the City Chamberlain with signatures by the Youth Bureau Director and City Controller will be authorized to make withdrawals from this trust fund account, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Youth Bureau and Common Council would like to give a heartfelt thanks to the donor of said funds . The motion passed 4-0. 10. Committee to Proceed into Executive Session The Committee voted, 4-0, to move into executive session to discuss a personnel item related to the Youth Bureau. 11. Report from Executive Session After the Committee voted, 4-0, to move back into regular session, Chairperson Booth reported that the Committee took the following action in executive session: A. Youth Bureau - Request to Amend 1996 Authorized Personnel Roster and Budget Chairperson Booth reported that the Committee discussed a personnel item with the Youth Bureau Recreation Coordinator and the following motion was made: RESOLVED, That based on a request initiated by the employee involved, the 1996 authorized Personnel Roster of the Youth Bureau is hereby temporarily amended by reducing the full-time position of the Youth Program Coordinator of the Paul Schreurs Memorial Program from 35 hours to 25 hours per week from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996, and be it further RESOLVED, That an amount not to exceed $6, 909 be transferred from Account A7310-110-1201 Full-time Salaries to Account A7310-1201201 Part-time Salaries for the purpose of hiring part-time temporary help for said personnel roster amendment. The motion passed 4-0. 12 . City Attorney - Amended Sales Tax Agreement with the County City Attorney Guttman updated the Committee on the current status of the City/County Sales Tax Agreement. Guttman stated that the agreement incorporates what services will be made by the City for the $860,000 reimbursement from the County. He explained that the 10 BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1995 services include areas such as Human Services, Youth Development, and Transportation. The Committee discussed the mechanism for payment, payment term and other items related to the sales tax agreement. Guttman stated that the term will be two or three years. Guttman stated that the final changes are being made to the agreement, and the contract will go to Council in February. 13 . Bond Resolution Deputy Controller Thayer explained to the Committee that at the January Council meeting a Bond Resolution for $2,723,719 will be presented. Thayer explained to the Committee that the bond resolution will include the authorization to issue debt for all of the 1996 approved capital projects, plus various other projects that were previously approved. A discussion regarding the bond followed. No formal action was necessary or taken. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. NOTE: In many cases the actual texts of the resolutions presented in these minutes were prepared following the Committees deliberations and decisions on the matters involved. The resolutions presented here are in complete accord with decisions made by the Committee. 11 r � i i FLASH CORP, �.. (6p7) 272-2227 141 The Commons, Ithaca, New York 14850 19 December 1995 Mr. Richard Booth Budget and Administration .Committee City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Booth: This letter is in regard to the issue of permits for Commons business owners to transport pets to their offices. I understand from Ms. Jean Deming that she has asked your committee to update the regulation on this matter. I expect to be out of town on Dec. 20, so I hope you will accept this letter instead of an in-person appearance, I ask that your committee adopt the 9/8/95 draft regulation proposed by the Commons Advisory Board. This would permit Commons business people such as myself, who have access only to the Commons itself, to obtain a permit allowing us to bring a pet "by the shortest possible route" to our building. Since 1983 I have owned a small business (Flash Corporation) with offices above the Home Dairy Cafeteria at 141 The Commons. Our specialty business is medical communications, and my work often requires very late night or early morning hours due to collaborative projects and teleconferences with researchers in Europe, the West Coast, and Asia. My main reason for wanting permission to bring my sturdy (and obedience schooled! ) labrador retriever to the office is that I feel much safer at 1:00am traversing the alley to the parking lot with dog than without. This is particularly true for the next stage of getting home at that hour, which requires climbing two flights of dimly lit steps to the upper level of the Green Street ramp (the elevator stops running at 10: 30pm) . Although I think the city does a fairly good job on Commons security, I have more than once been hassled by kids hanging out in the alley, on the steps, or in the parking lot itself. A large dog has a wonderfully tonic effect on these folks. Ms. Deming's objections, as she explained them to me, seem 2 primarily to involve a hypothetical increase in dog poop on the Commons. As a responsible dog owner, I never walk my dog on the Commons, and I am always armed with a plastic bag for prompt clean-up, as required by City Code 164-9, section C. Fortunately, there are many places within a block or two of the Commons for the dog's daily constitutional, so the question of messes on the Commons has really never arisen. Insofar as a pooch poop problem exists, it is due to loose dogs running around or to irresponsible people bringing their dogs along while strolling through the Commons. Permits for people such as myself to transport a dog from car to office would have no impact on that situation. I hope you will see your wayclear to updating the regulations and providing for this type of permit. This restriction does make the Commons a less attractive office location. Best wishes, Janis Kel y