Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County health officials move toward penalties at large apartment complex; board discusses developer standards
Summary
Tompkins County public‑health staff told the board they are pursuing enforcement under the sanitary code after inspections found the complex did not follow a solid‑waste management plan. A hearing officer recommended penalties the county described as approximately $40,000–$49,000; officials also flagged a potential $2,000 per‑violation‑per‑day enforcement for ongoing failures. Members discussed resident supports, building security, and drafting recommendations for future large affordable‑housing projects.
Jenny Sliff provided a county and Whole Health update focused on a large private apartment complex where inspectors found deficiencies in a required solid‑waste management plan.
Sliff said she issued commissioner’s orders in January related to a solid‑waste management plan developed by a consulting firm; inspectors later found the plan had not been followed. Following a closed hearing, a hearing officer issued a recommendation and the county is moving forward with enforcement action. Sliff said the penalty figure in the board materials was not final but was either "$40,000 or $49,000," and that the county would consider continued enforcement set at $2,000 per violation per day if problems persist.
The plan the county reviewed included 24/7 security, an e‑bike roster for battery safety, visitor logs, routine trash cleanups and biohazard protocols, and was intended to define what living in a “clean and safe” building would look like, Sliff said. County sanitarians will monitor compliance going forward.
Board members raised multiple concerns: the scale of the building (staff said it has 181 units and roughly 200 residents at one point), how the building was filled (some units were intended for supportive housing and others for general affordable tenants), and the challenges of ensuring adequate case management and services for residents who need additional supports.
One participant urged the board to capture lessons for future developments and draft suggested questions for planning and development bodies (for example, how a developer plans to provide case management, accessibility features, and coordination with care teams). Board members agreed to form a small drafting group to prepare a letter of recommendations for future affordable‑housing projects and to consider countywide guidance.
Because the apartment’s commonly used name was inconsistent in the meeting record, the county update and this article use the phrase “the apartment complex” or “the building” when the transcript did not provide a definitive, consistently spelled property name. Staff said private‑landlord authority limits the county to enforcement under the sanitary code for building conditions rather than requiring provider services; county staff continue coordinating with state, city and nonprofit partners to identify housing alternatives for displaced residents.
No formal vote to adopt policy or impose the recommended penalty was recorded at the meeting; staff said the board of health would make the final determination and that the county would continue monitoring.
