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