Tompkins County Board of Health approves enforcement action over Asteri building after public testimony

The Tompkins County Board of Health voted unanimously at a special meeting to approve an enforcement action addressing health and safety problems at the Asteri residential and conference center after public testimony from downtown stakeholders and a request from the property operator for a performance‑tied penalty.

Suzanne Smith Jablonsky, executive director of the downtown Ithaca Local Development Corporation, told the board the conference center and adjacent housing were conceived as part of a single Green Street redevelopment and that “the issues identified in the resolution before you are a direct threat to the integrity of the entire project.” She said the LDC and the Ithaca Asteri Condominium Association have taken legal action against “Msino Group” to compel management and oversight and cited repeated reports of health and safety violations, compromised egress stairwells and frequent emergency responses.

Kathy Taylor, speaking for the Ithaca downtown conference center, said the facility opened July 1, 2024 as a fully electric conference center and has hosted more than 120 events since March. Taylor described operational and financial impacts from neighboring building conditions, including added pest control and security costs, sewage intrusions and an April 6 clog that allowed odors into public areas. She said the building’s operating permit was revoked on Jan. 12 because of fire‑code violations and “serious biohazards” found in shared spaces, and that the LDC has spent “approximately $100,000” on remediation services.

Nam Ror, identified in the meeting as CEO of the Downtown Ithaca Alliance, said the addition of 181 housing units downtown has increased strain on shared infrastructure and that poor management at Asteri has produced litter, pet waste and trash pushed into shared alleys and neighboring dumpsters. He said the property owner repeatedly declined to coordinate with neighboring property managers and city crews, leaving others to absorb cleanup costs and security burdens.

Michael Frenic, representing the building operator (recorded in the transcript as representing the “stereo group”), acknowledged the January and February findings and described “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in emergency cleaning, hotel placements, temporary staffing and operational restructuring. Frenic asked the board to consider an alternative to an immediate $40,000 penalty, proposing instead a stepped penalty tied to measurable, verifiable inspections so that portions of the penalty could be reduced or waived upon demonstrated compliance: “We’re not asking to avoid accountability. We’re asking for a structure that aligns the penalty with the public health outcomes we all want.”

After public comment, the board took up the enforcement action packet and a motion “to approve as written” was made (first from Melissa; second from Samara). A board member noted the county health department has pursued a measured, step‑based engagement with the property over the past 18 months. The board then voted; the chair announced the vote was unanimous and the special meeting was adjourned.

The enforcement action approved at the meeting remains as presented in the board packet; the transcript does not record a revised penalty structure or specific follow‑up deadlines beyond the packet language. The board did not record a roll‑call tally of individual votes in the transcript.