Can the Ithaca Common Council enact a local law changing the terms of office of members of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, which was created by a State legislative special act?

Plain-English summary

The Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency was established by a State legislative special act (General Municipal Law § 608). The Agency is a five-member body corporate and politic; appointments are made by the mayor with majority council approval, and members "serve at the pleasure of the mayor." Ithaca's Corporation Counsel asked whether the Common Council could pass a local law changing the terms of office of the Agency's members.

The AG said no.

The structural problem: urban renewal agencies are public benefit corporations, legally separate from their host municipalities. Home rule authority under Article IX of the State Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 reaches a municipality's own property, affairs, and government, and certain enumerated subjects related to its own officers and employees. It does not reach independent entities created by State legislative special act, even when those entities serve a single municipality.

The Corporation Counsel had suggested that General Municipal Law § 553(1) might be a source of authority. That subdivision requires the mayor to file a certificate listing the Agency members and their terms of office. The AG read § 553(1) as a reporting requirement, not as a grant of authority to set or change terms. The State Legislature, in establishing specific urban renewal agencies, has set varying terms for members; § 605 contains examples. Section 553(1) recognizes the variation; it does not authorize local change.

§ 553(2) provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by special act of the Legislature . . . members . . . shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority." The opening "[e]xcept as otherwise provided" makes clear that the State Legislature controls; special acts can vary the default, and local laws cannot.

The conclusion: any change to Agency member terms requires a State legislative amendment. The Common Council has no power to do it by local law.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Why doesn't home rule reach the Urban Renewal Agency?

Because the Agency is a separate legal entity, not the city itself. Home rule covers a municipality's property, affairs, and government, and the powers and duties of its own officers and employees. Urban renewal agency members are not officers of the city; they are members of a separate public benefit corporation. Home rule does not extend across the line.

Could the city replace the Urban Renewal Agency with a city department?

The opinion does not address that, but the answer is structural: the Urban Renewal Agency exists as a creature of State law. Disestablishing the Agency would itself require State action. The city could perhaps cease to use the Agency in practice, but the entity's legal existence is not within local control.

Could the city push the mayor to remove members at pleasure?

The "serve at the pleasure of the mayor" clause is the existing flexibility built into the special act. The mayor can remove members at will. The Common Council's role is limited to advising and consenting to appointments. The Council cannot direct the mayor's removal decisions; it cannot change term length.

What about the city's contribution of funding or staff to the Agency?

The opinion did not address that. Funding and staffing decisions on the city's side are within home rule authority (the city's property and finances). The internal governance of the Agency itself is not.

What if the State Legislature amends General Municipal Law to authorize local term changes?

If the Legislature delegated that authority to local governments by general or special amendment, then local laws would be valid in that scope. As of 1998, no such delegation existed.

What did the Common Council probably want to accomplish?

The opinion does not say, but typical reasons for changing terms include extending board continuity, aligning terms with the mayoral election cycle, or shortening terms to allow more frequent turnover. Whatever the policy goal, the route is State legislative amendment.

Background and statutory framework

Article 15-A of the General Municipal Law (sections 550 et seq.) is the New York urban renewal framework. § 553 sets out the general structure of urban renewal agencies; § 553(2) governs membership; § 553(1) covers the certificate filing. § 605 contains the substantive urban renewal powers. § 608 contains the special act establishing the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency.

Article IX of the State Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 are the standard home rule authorities. They authorize local laws on property, affairs, government, and enumerated subjects.

The 1998 opinion is a routine application of the home rule limit: home rule does not reach independent State-created entities. Other AG opinions have applied the same principle to industrial development agencies, housing authorities, and similar public benefit corporations.

Citations

• N.Y. Const. art. IX (home rule).
• General Municipal Law Art 15-A (urban renewal agencies).
• General Municipal Law § 553 (general structure of urban renewal agencies).
• General Municipal Law § 553(1) (certificate filing requirement).
• General Municipal Law § 553(2) (membership; "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by special act").
• General Municipal Law § 605 (substantive urban renewal powers; varying terms).
• General Municipal Law § 608 (Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency special act).
• Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (home rule authority).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_98-21_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

NY CONST, ART IX; GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, ART 15-A, §§ 553, 605,
608; MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW § 10.
The Ithaca common council is without authority to change the
terms of members of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency as
established by special act of the State Legislature.

May 19, 1998

Mariette Geldenhuys, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850-5690

Informal Opinion
No. 98-21

Dear Ms. Geldenhuys:
You have asked whether the city's legislative body may enact
a local law modifying terms of office for the members of the
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency.
The Agency was established by special act of the State
Legislature. General Municipal Law § 608. It is a "body
corporate and politic" consisting of five members, including the
mayor. Id. Appointments to the Agency are made by the mayor
with the approval of a majority of the members of the common
council and "they shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor". Id.
Members are to continue to hold office until their successors are
appointed and have qualified. Id.
Once established by special acts, urban renewal agencies are
governed by General Municipal Law Article 15-A. Under those
provisions, an agency is designated as a "corporate governmental
agency, constituting a public benefit corporation". Id.,
§ 553(2).
Except as otherwise provided by special act
of the Legislature, an agency consists of not
less than three nor more than five members
who shall be appointed by the mayor of a city
or village . . . [to] serve at the pleasure
of the appointing authority. A member shall
continue to hold office until his successor
is appointed and has qualified. Id.

2
You have indicated that it has been suggested that section
553(1) of the General Municipal Law empowers the legislative body
to change the terms of members of the Agency. Under that
provision, the mayor is required to file in the offices of the
Commissioner of Housing and Community Renewal and Secretary of
State a certificate providing specific information which includes
the names of the members of the Agency and their terms of office.

Preliminarily, we do not view the above provisions of
section 553(1) of the General Municipal Law as authority for a
local law modifying the terms of members of an urban renewal
agency. It is clear that the State Legislature, in establishing
specific urban renewal agencies, may set varying terms of office
for members. You have given examples in your letter. See,
General Municipal Law § 605. Section 553(1) recognizes that
special acts establish varying terms of office.
In our view, a municipality, without specific State
legislative authorization, lacks authority to enact a local law
changing the terms of members of its urban renewal agency.
Generally, home rule provides extensive authority for a
municipality to enact local laws regarding its property, affairs
or government and other specific subjects affecting that
municipality. NY Const, Art IX; Municipal Home Rule Law § 10.
Urban renewal agencies, however, are public benefit corporations
legally separate from municipalities that can only be established
by act of the State Legislature. Home rule powers do not apply
to these independent entities. An amendment to State law would
be necessary to change the term of members of the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency or to authorize the city's legislative body to
establish a different term. The General Municipal Law recognizes
this limitation in providing:
[e]xcept as otherwise provided by special act
of the Legislature . . . members . . . shall
serve at the pleasure of the appointing
authority. Id., § 553(2).
We conclude that the Ithaca common council is without
authority to change the terms of members of the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency, as established by special act of the State
Legislature.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to
officers and departments of State government. This perforce is

3
an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this
office.
Very truly yours,

JAMES D. COLE
Assistant Attorney General
In Charge of Opinions