HomeMy WebLinkAboutMn-B&A-1991-05-22 BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. MAY 22, 1991
MINUTES
PRESENT:
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Booth, Peterson, Cummings, Romanowski,
Golder
OTHER'S PRESENT:
City Controller - Cafferillo
Deputy Controller - Thayer
Acting Superintendent of Public Works/City Engineer - Gray
Deputy Planning Director - Sieverding
Personnel Administrator - Saul
Acting Building Commissioner - Eckstrom
BPW Commissioner - Berg
Members of the Media
1. Opening Comments
Chairperson Booth stated the following changes to the
agenda:
A. The addition of two additional items from the
Board of Public Works meeting held earlier.
B. The possible addition of a discussion with respect
to the taxable status of the City Hall Annex.
C. The tabling of a possible resolution on the Arts
Council Funding request until a future date.
D. A discussion on Common Council salaries.
Members of the public were asked to speak on any topics; no
member of the public spoke.
2 . Planning
A. Amendment to the Joint Facility Project
Deputy Director of Planning Sieverding addressed the
Committee regarding the current status of the Joint Transit
Facility Project.
Deputy Director Sieverding stated that recently the UMTA
Administrator decided to reduce UMTA's funding for the Joint
Transit Facility to $3, 150, 000. The City had requested
$4,489,847 for the project. The reduced funding has created
a $1, 339, 847 shortfall in funds for the Joint Transit
Facility project. Sieverding stated that the reasons for
the decreased funding are as follows:
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
A. UMTA had previously encumbered $3, 150, 000 for this
project from 1989-90 Section 3 funds.
B. The County submitted an application this year for
$4,489,847 in Section 3 funds.
C. Although the Section 3 budget for 1990-91 was
increased by $120 million, proposed projects for
the nation totalled three times the Section 3
budget.
D. Only two of eight projects for this region were
partially funded, at 33% and 50% respectively.
The Joint Transit Facility project received no
1990-91 Section 3 funds. However, the 1989-90
encumbered funds were maintained.
Deputy Director Sieverding stated that the Joint Design
Committee met to discuss possible alternatives to the
Transit project such as:
A. Reducing the scope of the project.
B. Locating alternate sources of funding.
C. Determining if certain partially funded projects
in this region will drop out allowing the
possibility of increased UMTA funding for this
project.
D. Increasing the local share.
The Architect for this project has noted that there are 15
possible areas for cost savings in the current project
design, with a total possible savings of $825, 000. The B&A
Committee wanted to be sure that if the project were scaled
back, the building would be designed for the possibility of
future expansion. Deputy Planning Director Sieverding
assured the Committee that the Facility would be built with
future expansion in mind.
Deputy Planning Director Sieverding gave the Committee
different scenarios relating to the possible City's total
contribution for the project. He stated that the City's
cash contribution could range from $110, 000 to $245, 000
based on the actual reductions in the project design. The
City is still contributing the value of the land at
$346, 000, and this contribution will make up a very large
portion of the City's share of this project.
Deputy Director Sieverding stated that the schedule for the
Joint Transit Facility project is as follows:
A. Meet with New York State DOT in June.
PAGE 2
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
B. Seek the final UMTA funding determination in
August.
C. Send out the actual bid proposal for the project
in September.
Deputy Director Sieverding stated that both the County and
Cornell are interested in the Joint Transit Facility project
despite the reductions in funding. He stated that Cornell
is more hesitant to go ahead with the project until they
determine what the annual cost of the project would be on
their budget.
It was the consensus of the Committee to bring the Joint
Transit Facility project, with alternatives, back to the B&A
Committee for approval in July, after firm numbers are
developed. No formal action was taken on this matter.
B. GIAC Pool Architectural Agreement
Deputy Planning Director Sieverding presented a request to
amend the architectural agreement between the City and HOLT
Architects for the GIAC Pool project.
Deputy Director Sieverding stated that the City would like
to amend the Architectural agreement to include the
following:
A. Provide Architectural services such as design
development, construction documents, bidding and
construction.
B. Extend the service from 12 months to 30 months.
C. Keep the same hourly rates in effect through
12/31/91.
D. Start construction by September 1991.
E. Set the architectural fee at $44, 390 plus
reimbursables for $4, 000.
It was noted that the GIAC project has been established as a
capital project for $450, 000. The client/budget committee
established for this project has stated that, as designed,
the pool project would cost approximately $515, 000.
Deputy Planning Director Sieverding gave the Committee the
project timeline as follows:
A. Bid project in August 1991
B. Start construction in September 1991
PAGE 3
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
C. Complete project in May 1992
Alderperson Cummings and the remainder of the Committee
stated that the project should be done as close to the
established budget amount of $450, 000 as possible. However,
it was noted that the budget for this capital project was
developed and established in 1988-1989.
The Committee requested that Deputy Planning Director
Sieverding return next month with a list of possible
reductions in the GIAC Pool project. After a brief
discussion, the following motion was made:
WHEREAS, the Client Committee for the GIAC Pool construction
program has selected the architectural firm of Hoffman,
O'Brien, Look and Taube, P.C. to provide basic services,
including design development, construction documents,
bidding and construction, in connection with said project;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Mayor be authorized to execute an
agreement with the firm of Hoffman, O'Brien, Look and Taube,
P.C. for an amount not to exceed $44,390, plus reimbursable
expenses of $4,000 for such purpose.
The Committee also requested that the Planning Department
negotiate the costs of this contract further with the
architect and report the results of these negotiations to
the May Committee of the Whole meeting.
The motion passed 5-0.
3 . DPW
A. Request to Sign Professional Services Contract for
Green Street Garage Reconstruction Project
Acting Superintendent of Public Works/City Engineer Gray
presented a request to contract with the engineering firm of
Novelli and Company for professional engineering services in
relation to the reconstruction of the Green Street Parking
Facility project.
Acting Superintendent Gray stated that he has talked with
Peter Novelli regarding this project and has asked him to
submit a proposal for engineering services regarding the
reconstruction of the Green Street Parking Facility project.
The reason Peter Novelli was asked to do this project is
because he has prior experience with this project.
Therefore, he can do the work quickly and will give the City
the best price.
Acting Superintendent Gray explained that the Board of
Public Works has not approved this contract yet because they
PAGE 4
F
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
did not have all the necessary information regarding the
contract. He stated that next week the BPW will act on this
contract, and if the B&A Committee approves it at this
meeting, contingent on the BPW approval, then the contract
can go to Common Council in June.
The cost for these services will not exceed $20, 000. Acting
Superintendent Gray stated the City would usually perform
this project in house; however, because of limited staff and
time, the project must be performed by an outside firm. The
project should be completed by the summer of 1992 . After a
brief discussion, the following motion was made:
WHEREAS, Capital Project #224 for the reconstruction of the
Green Street Parking Facility was established in 1989, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works wishes to contract
with the engineering firm of Novelli and Co. for the
provision of professional services to complete construction
documents and supervise construction; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Mayor be authorized to execute an
agreement with Novelli and Co. for an amount not to exceed
$20,000.00 for the provision of said services.
The motion passed 5-0. The motion is contingent on the
BPW' s approval at their next meeting.
B. Request to Sign Professional Services Contract for
Water Treatment Plant Renovations Project
Acting Superintendent of Public Works/City Engineer Gray
presented a request to contract with the firm of Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc. to provide construction documents and
construction supervision relating to the Water Treatment
Plant renovations project.
Acting Superintendent Gray stated that a capital project for
Water Treatment Plant renovations in the amount of
$1, 000, 000 was established in 1988 to perform major
renovations to the Water Treatment Plant. He stated he
would like to do five items relating to this renovation
project that can not be put off any longer. A study then
can be performed to determine the long-term renovations that
need to be done. The major item that needs to be corrected
is the chlorine problem the water plant is having currently.
Acting Superintendent Gray stated that because Malcolm
Pirnie performed the original study for the Water Treatment
Plant, they were selected to oversee these new renovations.
This contract is expected not to exceed $66, 000. Funding
for this project would be derived from an advance of water
fund money with the later issuance of BANs.
PAGE 5
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
Acting Superintendent Gray again stated that if this
contract is approved by B&A, it would be contingent on the
BPW action at their next meeting. After a brief discussion,
the following motion was made:
WHEREAS, Capital project #502 for the reconstruction of the
City's Water Treatment Facility was established in 1988, and
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works wishes to contract
with the firm of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. , consulting
Environmental Engineers, to provide construction documents
and construction supervision in connection with said
project; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Mayor be authorized to execute an
agreement with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. for an amount not to
exceed $66,000.00 for the provision of said services, and be
it further
RESOLVED, that the City Controller be authorized to advance
$66,000.00 from the available water fund moneys to Capital
Project #502 Water Treatment Facility Reconstruction pending
the issuance of Bond Anticipation Notes for said purpose.
The motion passed 5-0. The motion is contingent on the
BPW's approval at their next meeting.
C. Request to Sign Professional Services Contract for
North Cayuga Street at Cascadilla Creek Bridge
Acting Superintendent of Public Works Gray stated that he
would like to enter into an agreement to contract for
Engineering Services relating to- the Cascadilla Creek Bridge
on North Cayuga Street. However, at this time he has not
established the contract amount or identified the
engineering firm that will do this contract.
Acting Superintendent Gray stated that he wanted to move
this project along because it involved a large grant from
New York State.
The consensus of the Committee was to have Bill Gray put
together the necessary information for Common Council 's
Committee of the Whole meeting next week.
D. Status Report - 1991 Capital Project Schedule
Acting Superintendent of Public Works/City Engineer Gray
gave the Committee a Status Report on the 1991 Capital
Projects. The following represents the status of the 1991
Capital Projects:
1. Capital Project #242 City Court Facility - This
project has a current budget of $2, 600, 000. The project is
PAGE 6
f
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
proceeding at this time with the initial design phase of the
project started. The project is expected to be out to bid
late this year.
2 . Capital Project #243 Commons Improvements - This
project has a current budget of $163 ,780. The project has
been broken out into two phases. The first phase will be
the concrete brickwork, which will be performed out of house
this summer. The second phase will consist of signage and
the playground. The playground, based on the information
from the suggestion box, will be basically the same as it
was prior to its destruction.
3 . Capital Project #244 Youth Bureau Acoustics - This
project has a current budget of $82, 800. Former City
Engineer Carlos Laquette was involved with this project.
Because he has left the City, this project will not see any
attention from the City Engineer's office until this fall.
4. Capital Project #245 DPW Consolidation Study -
This project has a current budget of $65, 000. This project
is proceeding very slowly. The DPW is waiting to fill some
of its open positions before a lot of work is put into this
project.
5. Capital Project #247 City Hall HUAC - This project
has a current budget of $155,270. No work is currently
being done on this project in the City Engineer's office.
6. Capital Project #248 GIAC Renovations - This
project has a current budget of $25, 000. This project is
currently being handled by the City Planning Department. It
was noted that this project was moving slowly. The City
Building Department has performed a code review on this
project.
7 . Capital Project #249 DPW Sidewalk Program - This
project has a current budget of $93 , 170. This project has
been advertised and is going out to bid soon. This project,
which is normally performed through the operation budget,
was moved to the Capital Project program in 1991. The total
program cost has been increased from $60, 000 in prior years
to $90, 000 this year due to the fact that several retaining
walls have been included this year.
8. Capital Project #251 Clinton Street Bridge - This
project has a current budget of $30, 000. The contracts for
this project have been signed and a preconstruction meeting
has been set, with construction to begin at the end of June.
The project should be completed by the end of July.
9. Capital Project #252 DPW Equipment Purchase - This
project has a current budget of $92, 000. This equipment
purchase represents a purchase of a street sweeper for the
PAGE 7
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
DPW. The item is currently out to bid, and it is expected
to be purchased by July.
10. Capital Project #603 Sewer Collection S stem
Renovations - This project has a current budget of
$124, 200. This project represents many smaller projects to
upgrade sewer systems within the City. These types of
projects are performed annually by the City. City Engineer
Gray stated that not all of this money will be spent this
year because of the lack of manpower and the slow
negotiation process with the Town of Ithaca regarding their
participation in paying for the City's sewer system. City
Engineer Gray stated that a sewer program needs to be
developed before the actual sewer upgrade is started.
11. Capital Project #604 Sewer Cleaner Equipment -
This project has a current budget of $131, 120. This project
represents a purchase of a large sewer cleaner machine that
will replace the City's current sewer cleaner machine that
is 25 years old. Currently the City is looking at
manufacturers for this type of machine, and the bid for this
equipment should be going out within the next two weeks.
12 . 1990 Capitol Projects and Other Minor Projects
A. Capital Project #240 E. State Street Culvert
Repair - This project has a current budget of
$300, 000. This project is in its final stages with paving
of the street expected within the next two weeks. The total
cost of the project will be within the $300, 000 approved
budget.
B. Seneca Street at State Street - City Engineer
Gray stated that he is currently working with the State to
improve some of the rough spots on Seneca Street,
specifically at the end of State Street. He stated he was
hopeful that the State would improve some of the bad areas,
but at this time the State would not pave the street
completely.
C. Handicapped Ramp at Tioga Street and Seneca
Street - Alderperson Golder stated that he
had many complaints regarding the steep grade of the
handicapped ramp at this intersection. City Engineer Gray
stated that he is trying to obtain a permit from the State
to reduce the grade for that ramp. However, the permit may
take two months to obtain.
4 . Building Department
A. Request to Purchase Copy Machine
Acting Building Commissioner Eckstrom presented a request to
purchase a copy machine at a cost of $5,479 . He stated that
PAGE 8
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
their current machine, which was purchased in 1984, is
currently insufficient for their use at this time.
In the originally proposed 1991 Budget, the request from the
Building Department was for an $8, 000 copy machine.
However, because of the tight budget, that amount was
reduced to $3, 000 for the lease of an $8, 000 machine. It
has been determined that the $8, 000 copier would be too
large for the Building Department's needs. They only need a
$5, 500 machine. Funding for the machine would be derived
from $3, 000 in the 1991 Budget plus a $2, 500 transfer from
Unrestricted Contingency.
Acting Building Commissioner Eckstrom stated that the old
copier would be transferred to the Mayor's office. The
Mayor's office and the City Attorney's office currently use
the Building Department' s copier. After a brief discussion,
the following motion was made:
RESOLVED, that the authorized equipment list for the
Building Department be amended to include a Copy Machine to
be acquired at a cost not to exceed $5,500. , and be it
further
RESOLVED, that $3,000 be transferred from Account A3620-470,
Equipment Rental, and $2,500 transferred from Account A1990
Unrestricted Contingency, to Account A3620-210, Office
Equipment, for such purpose.
The motion passed 5-0.
B. Request to hire a Plan Review Officer - Public
Session
Chairperson Booth explained to the Committee that in
executive session the Committee needs to discuss hiring a
particular individual at step four for the Plan Review
Officer position. If the position were recommended to be
filled at a step one position, it would not need to come
before this Committee. The public session question should
address whether the Plan Review Officer position should be
approved.
Acting Building Commissioner Eckstrom stated that the
Building Department needs to improve its public orientation
process. He explained that currently only 12 hours during
the week are available for the public to come into the
office and apply for building permits. He stated that the
hours available for permit applications to be filed must be
increased.
Acting Commissioner Eckstrom stated that this new position
corresponds to the Cornell University building boom.
Cornell is currently doing more work with renovations to
PAGE 9
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
older buildings than they are doing work in building new
buildings.
The Building Department' s history of positions is as
follows:
1980 8 positions
1987 9 positions
1990 11 positions
1991 12 positions
Alderpersons Peterson and Golder stated that they were in
favor of filling the Plan Review Officer position. Both
felt that this position will improve public relations and
the organization structure of the Building Department.
Chairperson Booth and Alderperson Cummings stated they are
against filling this position. Both felt the position is
not needed and that the Department needs to improve public
relations within the current staff levels.
Alderperson Romanowski stated that at this time he was
undecided as to whether this position needs to be filled.
The following motion was made:
RESOLVED, that the Plan Review Officer position in the
Building Department should be filled.
voting results on the motion were as follows:
Ayes (2) Peterson, Golder
Nays (2) Booth, Cummings
Abstain (1) Romanowski
The motion will go to the Common Council 's Committee of the
Whole meeting next week.
C. Committee to Proceed into Executive Session
The Committee voted, 5-0, to move into executive session to
discuss the hiring of a particular individual for the Plan
Review Officer position at step 4 .
D. Report From Executive Session
Chairperson Booth stated that the Committee voted on the
hiring of a Plan Review Officer at step 4 . He stated the
vote was positive on both the individual and the salary
recommended, subject to Council 's decision whether or not to
fill the position.
PAGE 10
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
5. City Attorney - Request for Additional Funds for
Central Processing Facility
Deputy City Controller Thayer presented a request from the
City Attorney's office for additional funding to pay the
final bill for litigation regarding the Central Processing
Facility. He stated that to date $32, 141 had been allocated
by Common Council for the litigation and appeal process. To
date $35, 088 had been paid and incurred for the litigation
and appeal process. Because $1,749 of the $32, 141
authorized for this project was never encumbered it will
need to be re-allocated to pay the remaining portion of the
bill.
Deputy Controller Thayer stated that the final bill for the
appeal process was $4, 466. To pay for this final bill,
money needs to be derived from Unrestricted Contingency.
Funds Allocated by Common Council:
1989 $12, 141 Original Litigation
July 1990 3 , 000 Original Litigation
Aug. 1990 7, 000 Original Litigation
Sept 1990 10, 000 Appeal
$32, 141 Total Funds Allocated to Date
Expenditures Paid and Services Incurred:
6/13/90 $ 4,468.79 Original Litigation
6/19/90 7, 672 .21 Original Litigation
9/19/90 10, 230. 02 Original Litigation
12/27/90 8, 250. 60 Appeal
2/25/91 4,466.27 Appeal Services Incurred
$35, 087.89 Total Expenditures
$ 2 , 946.89 Amount Paid and Incurred
to date over the Original
Allocation Amount
Summary by Activity:
Funds Allocated for Litigation $22, 141. 00
Litigation Payments Made to Date ( 22, 371. 02)
( 230. 02
Funds Allocated for Appeal $10, 000. 00
Appeal Payments Made to Date ( 8,250. 60)
$ 1,749 . 40
Total Remaining Portion of
Funds Allocated (never
encumbered) $ 1, 519. 38
PAGE 11
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
Amount of current bill outstanding $ 4,466. 27
After a brief discussion, the following motion was made:
WHEREAS, the City has received the final bill regarding the
appeal of the Central Processing Facility lawsuit decision,
and
WHEREAS, the final bill is greater than the original amount
estimated for the appeal process; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that $4,500 be transferred from Account A1990,
Unrestricted Contingency, to Account A1420-435, City
Attorney Contractual Services, to pay the final bill
relative to the Central Processing Facility lawsuit appeal.
The motion passed 4-1. Alderperson Peterson voted against
the motion on the basis that she was against the litigation.
6. Department Roster Review Process
The Committee discussed the timeline for departments to
review their personnel costs and alternatives for reducing
those costs. The consensus of the Committee was that this
review process was not moving along quickly enough.
The Committee stated that by July 1, 1991 the departments
need to- submit initial plans for possible personnel cuts in
the remainder of 1991 and through 1992 . It was noted that
the NYS Budget has not yet passed and that as soon as it
does, the City will be in a better position to determine how
bad off the City will be in terms of State Aid for the
remainder of 1991. The Committee stressed that just initial
plans are due by July lst. After a brief discussion, the
following motion was made:
RESOLVED, that each Department shall prepare and transmit to
the Mayor on or before July 1, 1991, an initial plan, with
appropriate alternatives, for adjustments and .reductions to
department personnel rosters in the interest of reducing the
total budgetary cost for personnel.
The motion passed 5-0.
7 . Finance Department
A. Chamberlain - Authorize Bank Agreement for Use of
Facsimile Signatures
City Controller Cafferillo presented a request to authorize
a bank agreement for the use of facsimile signatures.
This agreement is suggested by the Trust Company to fulfill
legal requirements. The agreement authorizes the use of the
PAGE 12
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
facsimile signature of the City Chamberlain, Debra Parsons,
to be used as a genuine and authorized instrument in the
process of City business. The City has been using facsimile
signature for a number of years. After a brief discussion,
the following motion was made:
RESOLVED, that the Tompkins County Trust Company be, and it
hereby is, authorized and directed to honor as genuine and
authorized instruments of the City of Ithaca and Ithaca Area
Waste Water Treatment Plant Joint Activity, and and all
checks, drafts and/or other orders for the payment of money
drawn in the name of the City of Ithaca and Ithaca Area
Waste Water Treatment Plant Joint Activity and signed with
the facsimile signature of Debra A. Parsons as City
Chamberlain, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca is authorized to and
hereby does assume full responsibility for any and all
payments made by said Tompkins County Trust Company in
reliance upon the facsimile signature of the City
Chamberlain and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
said Tompkins County Trust Company against any and all loss,
cost, damage or expense suffered or incurred by said
Tompkins County Trust Company arising out of the misuse or
unlawful or unauthorized use by any person of such facsimile
signature, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Chamberlain of the City of Ithaca be and
she hereby is authorized and directed to deliver to the said
Tompkins County Trust Company specimens of the facsimile
signature.
The motion passed 5-0.
B. Bond Resolution City Court Facility Project
City Controller Cafferillo stated that at last month's
meeting the City Court Facility project was increased by
$600, 000. A Bond Resolution authorizing the issuance of an
additional $570, 0090 in serial bonds and an additional
$30, 000 from Capital Reserve Fund monies will be brought to
the next Common Council meeting. It was noted that no
action was needed at this meeting.
C. Update Report on Landfill Costs
City Controller Cafferillo presented a report updating the
Committee on the status of landfill fees as of April 30,
1991. The following is the status of the landfill fees:
PAGE 13
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
Landfill fees incurred to date: $98, 000
Tipping Fees paid to date $63, 435
Tipping Fees encumbered to date: $26, 196
These amounts are on target as far as the budget is
concerned. The budgeted expenditure is $320, 000. At the
current pace we would spend $322, 000 for landfill costs.
The cost of the tags appears to be sufficient to offset the
cost of the landfill fees.
A discussion on a possible DPW scavenger weekend took place.
The Committee wanted to be sure sufficient advertising was
done for the scavenger weekend. No action was taken.
D. Taxable Status of City Hall Annex
City Controller Cafferillo stated that the City has received
two notifications from the County Assessment Department
regarding two City-owned properties, that heretofore were
tax exempt and that have been moved to the taxable portion
of the tax roll .
The first property is the Route 13 Industrial Park. The
County Assessment Department moved the property from tax
exempt to taxable status with a assessed value of $965, 000.
The City argued that it should be tax exempt because the
title was transferred to the IURA. The County, based on our
grievance, will be changing this property back to the tax
exempt status until the property is leased or sold.
The second property is the City Hall Annex. Because the
City has declared the Annex surplus, the County, based on
Real Property Tax Law, moved this property to a taxable
status.
The City Attorney felt that the City should file a grievance
to change this property back to tax exempt status. The
reasons for the grievance are as follows:
A. The purchase offer on the building has fallen
through.
B. The City is using the property for necessary
storage and as an employee lounge.
C. The City feels the property is still being used
for a public purpose.
The questions the B&A Committee must decide on are:
A. Should the City's legal department pursue the
grievance?
PAGE 14
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
B. Should the City transfer the property to the IURA?
(This would avoid the problem of taxable status in
future years. )
The Attorney' s office felt that if the legal department
pursued the grievance it would take approximately 20 - 30
hours of staff time. A discussion on the transfer to the
IURA followed. It was noted that title did not pass when
the IURA was given the authority to take proposals to sell
the Annex. The taxes for the City Hall Annex in 1991 would
cost approximately $5, 500. After a brief discussion, the
following motion was made:
WHEREAS, on October 3, 1990 the City of Ithaca transferred
authority to sell the City Hall Annex to the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 50C of the General
Municipal Law, the actual transfer of title of the City Hall
Annex property, Tax Map No. 70-50-24, 123 South Cayuga
Street, will insure the tax exempt status of such parcel
pending the sale or lease thereof; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Mayor is directed, upon advice of the
City Attorney, to effectuate the transfer of ownership of
the City Hall Annex property to the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency.
The motion passed 5-0.
The Committee directed the City Attorney to pursue the
grievance relating to the taxable status of the City Hall
Annex.
8 . Common Council Salaries
Alderperson Cummings added this discussion to the meeting.
Alderperson Cummings stated that the Council salary levels
should he increased to encotira.ge greater participation and a
greater number of individuals running for office.
A brief discussion followed on Common Council salaries.
Council salaries have not been increased since 1987 . No
proposals were made at this meeting. This item will be put
on the next B&A agenda. No action was taken.
9 . Committee to Proceed into Executive Session
Chairperson Booth stated that the Committee voted 5-0 to
move into executive session to discuss a possible litigation
matter.
PAGE 15
BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION MEETING MINUTES - 5/22/91
10. Report From Executive Session
Chairperson Booth reported that the Committee discussed a
matter dealing with the City Court Facility Project. No
action was taken.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
NOTE: In many cases the actual texts of the resolutions
presented in these minutes were prepared following the
Committee's deliberations and decisions on the matters
involved. The resolutions presented here are in complete
accord with decisions made by the Committee.
PAGE 16