Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2013-12-04COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. December 4, 2013 PRESENT: Mayor Myrick Alderpersons (8) Brock, Dotson, Murtagh, Clairborne, McCollister, Fleming, Kerslick, Proulx OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk – Conley Holcomb City Attorney – Lavine City Controller – Thayer EXCUSED: Alderpersons Smith and Mohlenhoff PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Myrick led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: New Business: Mayor Myrick requested the addition of Item 15.7 under Mayor’s Appointments: “Appointment to Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit Board – Resolution” No Council member objected. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 4.1 Pride of Ownership Presentation – Scott Whitham Mr. Whitham announced the winners of the 16th Annual Pride of Ownership Awards and gave a brief explanation and photo presentation of why each of the properties was selected:  409 West Buffalo Street – Exterior Renovation Including Porch Replacement. Owners: Michael and Michelle Cannon  Neighborhood Pride Grocery Store, 210-212 Hancock Street – Complete interior and exterior renovation that included not only the building but the adjacent abandoned Lake Avenue between Hancock Street and Adams Streets so that the creek side pedestrian/bicycle path could be extended along the side of the store. Owners: Tony and John Petito  420 East State Street – Exterior and Interior Renovation. Owners: Dave and Teresa Halpert/Eric Rosario and Neha Khanna  225 South Fulton Street - Public Art Mural. Artists: Jay Potter and Alice Pasquini  Cascadilla Glen Trail Gate – complete rehabilitation of the trail including the addition of an exquisite iron gate to close the trail during the winter months Owners: Cornell Plantations  Commons Adopt-An-Art-Panel Program – various area businesses, restaurants, service groups, schools, and individual artists, using various techniques and illustrations to decorate 250 8’x4’ plywood panels on the Commons during its reconstruction. Sponsored by the Downtown Ithaca Alliance PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: The following people addressed Common Council: Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, voiced concern that the request to add two police officers to the 2014 budget was not approved by Common Council. She reiterated her belief that Cornell University should increase its contribution to the City. Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield, expressed his support for increased contributions from Cornell University to the City, and distributed information regarding community gardens. December 4, 2013 2 Dan Hoffman, City of Ithaca and representing the Natural Areas Commission, expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to discuss the needs of the City’s volunteer boards and committees, including improved communications, with GPA Committee members. He further expressed concern that the Natural Areas Commission was not consulted in any way regarding the potential sale of City Property on Five Mile Drive since as it is in close proximity to a natural area of the city. He expressed his belief that an environmental review should have been conducted prior to the request for bids and stated that the Natural Areas Commission would like to be an involved agency on this proposal. Carolyn Peterson, City of Ithaca, expressed thanks to Alderpersons Proulx and Dotson for their service to the City. She further encouraged Common Council to adopt the City of Ithaca Energy Plan. Mayor Myrick announced that Deputy Director of Community Development Sue Kittel, has accepted a position with the Park Foundation. He expressed his gratitude for all her hard work on behalf of the city, and wished her well in her future endeavors. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR: Alderperson McCollister responded to comments made about the 2014 budget, and noted that the decision regarding adding two police officers was complicated and difficult. Mayor Myrick and Alderperson Clairborne expressed their congratulations to the Petito’s for their Pride of Ownership Award for the Neighborhood Pride Grocery Store. They highlighted the many contributions that the Petitio’s have made to the City of Ithaca through the years and encouraged everyone to support the store. Alderperson Proulx apologized for not including the Natural Areas Commission in the discussion regarding the proposal to sell city property near Five Mile Drive. He stressed the importance of setting up formal communication protocols with the city’s boards and committees. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: City Clerk’s Office: 8.1 Request of Downtown Ithaca Alliance to Permit Wine, Beer, and Hard Cider Tasting and Sale of Bottled Wine, Beer, and Hard Cider at the 2013 “Ithaca Ice Wars” – Resolution By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne WHEREAS, the Downtown Ithaca Alliance has requested permission for wine, beer, and hard cider tasting and sales as part of the 2013 “Ithaca Ice Wars”; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Downtown Ithaca Alliance be authorized to arrange for wine, beer, and hard cider tasting and sale of bottled wine, beer, and hard cider at booths during the “Ithaca Ice Wars” on the Ithaca Commons on December 13 2013, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Downtown Ithaca Alliance and participating wineries shall comply with all applicable state and local laws and ordinances, and shall enter into an agreement providing that it will hold the City harmless and indemnify the City on account of any claims made as the result of the sale or tasting of wine and hard cider on the Ithaca Commons, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Downtown Ithaca Alliance or the participating winery or cider company shall agree to maintain liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.00 and Dram Shop Act coverage in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 naming the City of Ithaca as an additional insured, and shall provide evidence of such insurance to the City Clerk prior to the event. Carried Unanimously (8-0) December 4, 2013 3 8.2 Dewitt Park Sidewalk Assessment Reimbursement - Resolution By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne WHEREAS, on September 4, 2013, the Common Council approved Local Law No. 3 - 2013, which created new Sidewalk Improvement Districts in which the owner of each tax parcel in each District is assessed based upon a formula reflecting the proportional benefits and enhanced value flowing to each property due to the installation and repair of sidewalk in its associated Sidewalk Improvement District, and WHEREAS, the Mayor signed the Local Law on October 2, 2013, and WHEREAS, the First Presbyterian Church is the owner of DeWitt Park, Tax Parcel No. 61.-2-11, and would be responsible for the assessments to that parcel under the Local Law, and WHEREAS, pursuant to an Agreement between the Church and the Village of Ithaca dated April 25, 1856, the City has “full care, charge, control and government” of the public square, and has the responsibility to “keep the walks in good and proper condition,” WHEREAS, the pervasively public nature of DeWitt Park leads the Common Council to conclude that under the Agreement, the City is the appropriate party to pay for Sidewalk Improvement District assessments resulting from ownership of the Park; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That in connection with the Agreement dated April 25, 1856, the City shall reimburse the Church each year for the assessments levied against the DeWitt Park tax parcel, No. 61.-2-11, and paid by the Church, under Local Law No. 3-2013, after the Church submits to the City Chamberlain proof of such payment to the City. Carried Unanimously (8-0) 8.3 Fire Department - Request to Establish Capital Project for Technical and Urban Search Rescue - Resolution By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Fire Department (IFD) was awarded $141,108 under the FY2012 Technical Rescue and Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Grant Program and; WHEREAS, the funding for this initiative is provided by the federal Department of Homeland Security's State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), and administered by the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services and; WHEREAS, the award provides reimbursement for the purchase of swift/flood water rescue equipment, technical rescue equipment, and the personnel costs for technical rescue training; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the Controller’s Office to establish Capital Project # 792 IFD Technical and Urban Search and Rescue in the amount not to exceed $141,108.00 with all funds issuing from the FY2012 Technical Rescue and Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Grant Program. Carried Unanimously (8-0) 8.4 Controller – Request to Amend Budget to Account for Various Unanticipated Revenue - Resolution By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne WHEREAS, during 2013, City of Ithaca departments have received revenue from various unanticipated sources including reimbursement, grants, donations, and sale of material, that need to be accounted for in the 2013 budget, and WHEREAS, the reimbursements total $38,540 as follows: Tompkins County Celebration Grants $13,250 Insurance Recovery 15,369 Donations 5,698 Sale of Scrap/Equipment 4,223 now, therefore be it December 4, 2013 4 RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2013 authorized budget as follows to account for said receipts and expenditures of funds: Increase Revenue Accounts: A1012-2379 Community Celebrations $13,250 A3120-2705 Police – Donations 5,000 A3120-2680 Insurance Recovery 11,444 A3620-2680 Building Dept. Ins. Recovery 3,925 A5132-2655 Garage Minor Sales 1,143 A5111-2655 Maintenance of Roads Minor Sales 1,080 A5411-2655 Commons Minor Sales 2,000 A7111-2705 Parks & Forestry – Donations 698 Totals $38,540 Increase Appropriation Accounts: A1012-5435 Celebrations Contracts $13,250 A5132-5481 Garage Small Tools 1,143 A7111-5485 Parks & Forestry – Trees 698 A3120-5477-5022 Police Equipment Parts 5,000 A3120-5476-5000 Police Equipment Maintenance 1,000 A3120-5476-5001 Police Equipment Maintenance 10,444 A5111-5483 Maintenance of Roads 1,080 A5111-5475 Commons Property Maintenance 2,000 A3620-5476 Building Equipment Maintenance 3,925 Totals $38,540 Carried Unanimously (8-0) 8.5 Controller - Authorization to Cover Red Accounts - Resolution By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne RESOLVED, That the City Controller be empowered to make transfers within the 2013 Budget appropriations, as needed, for the remainder of the 2013 Fiscal Year. Carried Unanimously (8-0) GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE: No items were submitted for the agenda CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: 10.1 IURA - City Divestiture of Surplus Property, 3-acre subparcel of 31.-2-6, 617 Five Mile Drive - Resolution By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca owns parcel #31.-2-6 located at 617 Five Mile Drive along Route 13A in the Town of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, parcel #31.-2-6 is approximately 25 acres in size with 22 acres located to the east of the railroad tracks designated as park land in the Southwest Natural Area and an undesignated 3 acre subparcel located to the west of the railroad tracks, and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2013,New Earth Living LLC inquired about the possibility of purchasing the 3-acre subparcel that is located adjacent to land they own at 619 Five Mile Drive where they intend to develop a cooperative housing community, and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2013, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works determined that the 3-acre subparcel is not needed for City of Ithaca public works purposes and recommended that the Common Council consider sale of the subparcel, subject to retention of an vehicular and pedestrian access easement, and WHEREAS, pursuant to §695 of General Municipal Law, the City may dispose of real property at the highest marketable price at public auction or by sealed bid, and WHEREAS, sale of the 3-acre subparcel will require subdivision of the parcel, which subdivision must comply with zoning requirements, therefore the purchaser must consolidate the 3-acre subparcel with an existing parcel; now, therefore, be it December 4, 2013 5 RESOLVED, the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby authorizes a competitive sealed bid process to receive bids to purchase the City-owned 3-acre subparcel of parcel #31.-2-6, located at 617 Five Mile Drive, subject to the following terms: Minimum Price: Fair Market Value to be determined by appraisal to be conducted after receipt of bids. Compliance with Subdivision & Zoning Regulations: Purchaser must identify how conveyance of the 3-acre subparcel will comply with Town of Ithaca subdivision and zoning regulations. As the subparcel lacks street frontage, it appears that consolidation with an existing adjoining parcel will be required. Future Use: Open space, agricultural and/or residential use. Easement: Sale will be subject to retention of a public easement across the subparcel for access by vehicles and pedestrians to the City-owned Southwest Natural Area located east of the railroad tracks. Additional Purchaser Expenses: Appraisal and lot consolidation expenses. Disclaimer: City reserves the right to reject any and all bids. And be it further RESOLVED, that the Mayor, subject to review by the City Attorney, is authorized to issue an Invitation For Bids to implement this resolution, and be it further RESOLVED, that award of a bid is subject to environmental review and approval by the Common Council in satisfaction of the requirements of Section c-36(40) of the City Charter. Alderperson Brock stated that she would like to place restrictions on the sale of the property and questioned what the process would be. City Attorney Lavine stated that covenants could be included with the property sale; however, it would most likely lower the sale price of the property. He further stated that this Resolution is only authorizing the solicitation of bids. An appraisal will be conducted once a plausible bid is received. He further noted that a map was distributed earlier that shows what parcels within the area had been designated as substitute park land – this parcel has not been designated as park land. He further noted that railroad tracks buffer this parcel from the natural area. Further discussion followed regarding the lack of communication with the Natural Areas Commission. Alderperson Brock asked Common Council what they wanted to do as any restrictions placed on the use of the property should be put into place now. Mayor Myrick stated that the surplus property process had been followed and the Board of Public Works determined that the parcel was not needed for any public works purposes; however, he offered to run a parallel process that would allow the City to accept bids while sending the information out to all involved committees for comment (including the Town of Ithaca and the Comprehensive Plan Committee). Alderpersons McCollister, Fleming, Murtagh, and Clairborne noted that they would like to vote on this Resolution and not discuss future property use possibilities tonight. Amending Resolution: By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne RESOLVED, That the Last Resolved Clause be amended to read as follows: “RESOLVED, that award of a bid is subject to environmental review including the advice of the Natural Areas Commission and approval by the Common Council in satisfaction of the requirements of Section c-36(40) of the City Charter.” Carried Unanimously (8-0) December 4, 2013 6 Amending Resolution: By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Brock RESOLVED, That the second “Term” listed under the first Resolved clause be titled as follows: “Compliance with Subdivision, Zoning, and Park Land Regulations”, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the text of the second “Term” be amended to read as follows: “Purchaser must identify how conveyance of the 3-acre subparcel will comply with Town of Ithaca subdivision and zoning regulations. As the subparcel lacks street frontage, it appears that consolidation with an existing adjoining parcel will be required. The City will confirm that this parcel is not designated as park land.” Ayes (2) Brock, Dotson Nays (6) Clairborne, Murtagh, McCollister, Fleming, Kerslick, Proulx Failed Main Motion: A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously (8-0) 10.2 Adoption of the City of Ithaca Energy Action Plan 2012 – 2016 - Resolution By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council has demonstrated its desire and commitment to protect the environment by passing the following resolutions to: · Join the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (2001) · Endorse the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement (2005) · Adopt the Climate Smart Communities Pledge (2009), and WHEREAS, the above resolutions pledged that the City of Ithaca will take local action to achieve sustainability, energy conservation, and climate protection goals, and WHEREAS, in order to guide City actions and decision-making to achieve these goals, a Local Action Plan: to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for City of Ithaca Government Operations (“Local Action Plan”) was developed and adopted by Common Council in July 2006, and WHEREAS, the Local Action Plan included a baseline inventory of City government greenhouse gas emissions, a 10-year reduction target, and a number of recommended measures the City of Ithaca could take to accomplish such reductions, and WHEREAS, many of these measures have been implemented, or continue to be implemented by the City since the adoption of the Local Action Plan, however, no formal monitoring of the implementation measures have been done, and WHEREAS, the above resolutions and Local Action Plan commit to a continuous and evolving process, which monitors progress and reports results, updates plans and policies as needed, and considers new ideas and opportunities, and WHEREAS, the new Energy Action Plan 2012-2016 which contains an updated greenhouse gas emissions inventory (2010) for government operations and a baseline inventory for community-wide emissions, monitors implemented measures, recommends further steps the City of Ithaca can take to achieve its carbon reduction goals, and specifically adds a new Appendix E- Implementation Guide, is both a result and a crucial part of such evolving process, and WHEREAS, the information and strategies outlined in the new Energy Action Plan 2012-2016 will further advance the City’s ongoing efforts of environmental stewardship using methods that are economically feasible and socially equitable, and WHEREAS, the Energy Action Plan 2012-2016 must have the support of the City of Ithaca at all levels of government to be successfully implemented, and December 4, 2013 7 WHEREAS, this support can be demonstrated at first by the City of Ithaca Common Council through the adoption of the Energy Action Plan 2012-2016, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code §176-5 (26) “adoption of regulations, policies, procedures and local legislative decisions in connection with any action on this list”, this action does not require a City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR); now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby adopts the Energy Action Plan 2012-2016, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Mayor will work with department heads and city staff, members of appropriate advisory boards and committees, businesses, community groups, academic institutions, organizations, and other local governments to implement the plan and advance the City’s environmental goals. Alderperson Proulx thanked the group that has been working on this plan for months, including Denise Bellmaker, Carolyn Peterson, Kent Johnson, Sue Kittel, Jennifer Dotson, Tom Shelley, and Jesse Hill. He voiced his support for the plan and noted that he is looking forward to putting this in place to set the benchmark for Ithaca and other governments. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously (8-0) 10.3 A Resolution Authorizing Implementation and Funding in the First Instance 100% of the Federal Aid-Eligible Costs and State “Marchiselli” Program-Aid Eligible Costs, of a Transportation Federal-Aid Project, and Appropriating Funds Therefore – Traffic Signal Upgrade – Phase II By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick WHEREAS, a Project for the Traffic Signal Upgrade Phase II, P.I.N. 375464 (the “Project”) is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended, that calls for the apportionment of the costs of such program to be borne at the ratio of 80% Federal funds and 20% non-federal funds, and WHEREAS, the Project proposes to upgrade the traffic signals at five intersections, namely, 1) State/MLK Jr. Street and Cayuga Street; 2) State/MLK Jr. Street and Aurora Street; 3) Court Street and Cayuga Street; 4) Court Street and Tioga Street; and 5) Court Street and Aurora Street, and WHEREAS, the Traffic Signal Upgrade Project Phase II includes City traffic signal upgrades to intersections; Court Street and Aurora Street, Court Street and Tioga Street, Court Street and Cayuga Street, State/MLK Street and Cayuga Street, and State/MLK and Aurora Street, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca desires to advance the Project by making a commitment of 100% of the non-federal share of the costs of Preliminary Engineering and Design, and Construction and Construction Inspection; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 2011, Common Council approved funding in the first instance for the preliminary engineering and design phases in an amount of $174,000, with the understanding that the cost to the City would be 20% or $34,800, and WHEREAS, as part of the approved 2012 budget, Common Council authorized funding in the first instance in the amount of $764,000 for construction and construction inspection, with the understanding that the cost to the City would be 20% or $152,800 (for a total project cost of $938,000 and a total cost to the City of 20% or $187,600), and WHEREAS, during final design, cost estimates were updated and shown to be higher than anticipated, but additional federal and state aid ($132,000 and $25,950, respectively), have been made available for the project, so that the additional cost to the City for the total project will be $7,050), December 4, 2013 8 WHEREAS, under SEQR and CEQR, the replacement and upgrade of traffic control devices are exempt from further environmental review as Type II actions; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby approves the above-subject project; and it is hereby further RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby authorizes the City of Ithaca to pay in the first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal share of the cost of Preliminary Engineering, Design, Construction and Construction Inspection work for the Project or portions thereof, and it is further RESOLVED, That the sum of $165,000 is hereby appropriated from the issuance of serial bonds and made available to cover the cost of participation in the above phase of the Project, and it is further RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends Capital Project # 765, Traffic Signal Upgrade Phase II, to include the Project costs of $165,000 and it is further RESOLVED, That this project be undertaken with the understanding that the final cost of the Project to the City of Ithaca will be roughly 18% of said portion, currently estimated at $194,650 of the $1,103,000 authorized for this portion of the project, in monies and in-kind services as managed by the Superintendent of Public Works and monitored by the City Controller, and be it further RESOLVED, That in the event the full federal and non-federal share costs of the project exceeds the amount appropriated above, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca shall convene as soon as possible to appropriate said excess amount immediately upon the notification by the NYSDOT thereof, and it is further RESOLVED, That the Mayor of the City of Ithaca be and is hereby authorized to execute all necessary Agreements, certifications or reimbursement requests for Federal Aid on behalf of the City of Ithaca with the New York State Department of Transportation in connection with the advancement or approval of the Project and providing for the administration of the Project and the municipality’s first instance funding of Project costs and permanent funding of the local share of federal-aid and state-aid eligible Project costs and all Project costs within appropriations therefore that are not so eligible, and it is further RESOLVED, That a certified copy of this resolution be filed with the New York State Commissioner of Transportation by attaching it to any necessary Agreement in connection with the Project, and it is further RESOLVED, This Resolution shall take effect immediately. Carried Unanimously (8-0) 10.4 Authorization for the Mayor to Enter into Agreements for Project Funding for the Commons Repair & Upgrade Project - Resolution By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick WHEREAS, as a part of the 2008 City of Ithaca budget, the Common Council established Capital Project #724, Commons Upgrade & Repair, in the amount of $250,000 in order to begin the re-design of the Ithaca Commons, and WHEREAS, in November of 2010, Common Council amended the capital project to add an additional $800,000, for a total of $1,050,000 to fund the full design and the preparation of construction documents for the reconstruction of the Commons, and WHEREAS, in March of 2012, the Common Council passed a resolution authorizing staff to apply for federal grant funds to reconstruct the Ithaca Commons and committing the City to a local match of $3,500,000, and December 4, 2013 9 WHEREAS, in 2012, the City was notified that it was being awarded $1,800,000 from the New York State Consolidated Funding Application for the Commons reconstruction project, and WHEREAS, in 2012, the City was notified that it was being awarded $4,500,000, through the Federal Transit Agency State of Good Repair Grant program, and WHEREAS, as a part of the 2013 City of Ithaca budget, the Common Council amended CP 724 to add $9,000,000 from the General Fund, $573,000 from the Water Fund, and $860,000 from the Sewer Fund, for a total project amount of $11,483,000, in order to fund the reconstruction of the Ithaca Commons in the first instance with the understanding that the NYS CFA and FTA funds would reimburse the City $6,300,000 and the Downtown Ithaca Alliance would contribute $500,000 over a 10 year period, and WHEREAS, in order to be reimbursed from the NYS Consolidated Funding Application program and from the FTA, the City needs to enter into agreements with New York State and Tompkins County, respectively, (Tompkins County is the only agency in the county that is eligible to be a recipient of FTA funds, but they are allowed to sub- contract with other agencies to deliver projects), now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council does hereby authorize the Mayor of the City of Ithaca to enter into agreements with New York State and Tompkins County in order to progress the Commons Upgrade & Repair project and to receive reimbursements for grant awards. Carried Unanimously (8-0) 10.5 A Bond Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $6,553,310 Bonds of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to Pay the Cost of Certain Capital Improvements in and for said City By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to the financing of the capital projects hereinafter described, including compliance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, have been performed; and WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize the financing of such capital projects; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the total voting strength of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as follows: Section 1. For the object or purpose of paying the cost of certain capital improvements in and for the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, there are hereby authorized to be issued $6,553,310 bonds of said City pursuant to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, apportioned among such capital improvements in accordance with the maximum estimated cost of each. The capital improvements to be financed pursuant to this bond resolution, the maximum estimated cost of each, the amount of bonds to be authorized therefore, the period of probable usefulness of each, and whether said capital improvements are each a specific object or purpose or a class of objects or purposes, including in each case incidental improvements, equipment, machinery, apparatus, appurtenances, furnishings and/or expenses in connection therewith, are as follows: a) To pay the costs of improvements to the Cayuga Waterfront Trail (Phase IV), in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $1,052,400. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $1,052,400 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that to the extent that any Federal or State grants-in-aid are received for such specific object or purpose, the amount of bonds to be issued pursuant to this resolution shall be reduced dollar for dollar. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid December 4, 2013 10 specific object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 19(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; b) To pay the additional costs of the construction of bulb-outs extensions of curbs and sidewalks at the intersections of West Green and West Seneca Streets, in and for said City, at a revised maximum estimated cost of $279,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $12,000 of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution in addition to the aggregate $267,000 previously authorized by bond resolutions dated and duly adopted on July 6, 2011 and December 7, 2011; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that to the extent that any Federal or State grants-in- aid are received for such specific object or purpose, the amount of bonds to be issued pursuant to this resolution shall be reduced dollar for dollar. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 10 years, pursuant to subdivision 24 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law, calculated from August 5, 2011, the date of the first obligations issued for said specific object or purpose; c) Purchase of a mass transit bus and related transit equipment improvements, for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $114,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $114,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 29 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; d) Reconstruction of and construction of improvements to the Seneca Street parking garage (Phase 3), in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $1,080,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $1,080,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 25 years, pursuant to subdivision 12(a)(1) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; e) Construction of sidewalks and pedestrian improvements to Route 13 at Dey Street and at Third Street, in and for said City, including sidewalks, curbs, ramps, gutters, drainage, landscaping, grading, railroad crossing improvements and guide rails, at a maximum estimated cost of $538,498. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $538,598 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that to the extent that any Federal or State grants-in-aid are received for such specific object or purpose, the amount of bonds to be issued pursuant to this resolution shall be reduced dollar for dollar. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 10 years, pursuant to subdivision 24 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; f) The purchase of various vehicles and equipment items, at an aggregate maximum estimated cost of $576,500, allocated as follows: (i) Purchase of snow removal trucks, for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $220,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $220,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; (ii) Purchase of police cars to replace those in service for one year or more, for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $81,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of December 4, 2013 11 $81,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 3 years, pursuant to subdivision 77(1st) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; (iii) Purchase of passenger vans, for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $59,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $59,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 29 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; (iv) Purchase of an aerial lift vehicle for the Department of Public Works, for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $216,500. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $216,500 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; g) Reconstruction of storm sewers throughout and in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $44,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $44,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 40 years, pursuant to subdivision 4 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; h) Dredging of Six Mile Creek for flood hazard prevention, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $50,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $50,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 22 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; i) Replacement and upgrade of storage and related elements of the computer data network, in and for said City, including installation of hardware and software, at a maximum estimated cost of $73,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $73,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 32 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; j) Improvements to the swimming pool at the Greater Ithaca Activities Center, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $46,500. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $46,500 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 61 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; k) Improvement study for the Spencer Street/Quarry Street Intersection, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $41,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $41,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 62(2nd) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; December 4, 2013 12 l) Improvements to the Columbia Street Park, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $81,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $81,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 19(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; m) Replacement of underground liquid fuel tanks and related equipment at the Department of Public Works fuel facility, in and for said City, including removal of existing tanks and related equipment, at a maximum estimated cost of $488,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $488,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 10 years, pursuant to subdivision 90, based upon subdivisions 35 and 88(b), each of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; n) Replacement of roofs at facilities at Stewart Park, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $255,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $255,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 19(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; o) Reconstruction of the Skate Park, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $18,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $18,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 19(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; p) Design costs for Cass Park Rink Renovation, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $66,500. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $66,500 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 62(2nd) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; q) Purchase and installation of parking pay stations, parking equipment and electronic meter heads (Phase 3), in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $100,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $100,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 50 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; r) Purchase and installation of emergency power generators at water and sewer facilities at 510 and 600 First Street and at the Vinegar Hall Pump Station, in and for said City, including related construction work, at a maximum estimated cost of $135,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $135,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 40 years, pursuant to subdivision 102, based upon subdivisions 1 and 4, of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; December 4, 2013 13 s) Construction of water main extension on various roads, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $72,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $72,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 40 years, pursuant to subdivision 1 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; t) Reconstruction of and improvements to the 510 and 600 First Street water and sewer facilities, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $110,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $110,000 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 40 years, pursuant to subdivision 102, based upon subdivisions 1 and 4, of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; u) Reconstruction of and construction of improvements to various fire stations, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $63,662. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $63,662 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 25 years, pursuant to subdivision 12(a)(1) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; v) To pay the additional costs of the acquisition of a replacement computer email system, for said City, at a revised maximum estimated cost of $155,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $72,000 of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution in addition to the $83,000 previously authorized by a bond resolution dated and duly adopted on December 5, 2012. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 32 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law, calculated from the date of the first obligations issued for said specific object or purpose; w) Reconstruction of the Lake Street over the Fall Creek Bridge, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $1,464,250. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $1,464,250 bonds of the $6,553,310 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that to the extent that any Federal or State grants-in-aid are received for such specific object or purpose, the amount of bonds to be issued pursuant to this resolution shall be reduced dollar for dollar. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 20 years, pursuant to subdivision 10 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law. Section 2. The aggregate maximum estimated cost of the aforesaid objects or purposes is $6,553,310, and the plan for the financing thereof is by the issuance of the $6,553,310 serial bonds authorized by Section 1 hereof, allocated to each of the objects or purposes in accordance Section 1 hereof. Section 3. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on such obligations as the same respectively become due and payable. An annual appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations becoming due and payable in such year. There shall annually be levied on all the taxable real property of said City, a tax sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations as the same become due and payable. Section 4. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and December 4, 2013 14 sale of the bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes is hereby delegated to the City Controller, the chief fiscal officer. such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by said City Controller, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law. Section 5. All other matters, except as provided herein relating to such bonds, including determining whether to issue such bonds having substantially level or declining debt service and all matters related thereto, prescribing whether manual or facsimile signatures shall appear on said bonds, prescribing the method for the recording of ownership of said bonds, appointing the fiscal agent or agents for said bonds, providing for the printing and delivery of said bonds (and if said bonds are to be executed in the name of the City by the facsimile signature of the City Controller, providing for the manual countersignature of a fiscal agent or of a designated official of the City), the date, denominations, maturities and interest payment dates, place or places of payment, and also including the consolidation with other issues, shall be determined by the City Controller. It is hereby determined that it is to the financial advantage of the City not to impose and collect from registered owners of such serial bonds any charges for mailing, shipping and insuring bonds transferred or exchanged by the fiscal agent, and, accordingly, pursuant to paragraph c of Section 70.00 of the Local Finance Law, no such charges shall be so collected by the fiscal agent. Such bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and contain such recitals in addition to those required by section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law, as the City Controller shall determine. Section 6. The powers and duties of advertising such bonds for sale, conducting the sale and awarding the bonds, are hereby delegated to the City Controller, who shall advertise such bonds for sale, conduct the sale, and award the bonds in such manner as he shall deem best for the interests of the City; provided, however, that in the exercise of these delegated powers, he shall comply fully with the provisions of the Local Finance Law and any order or rule of the State Treasurer applicable to the sale of municipal bonds. The receipt of the City Controller shall be a full acquittance to the purchaser of such bonds, who shall not be obliged to see to the application of the purchase money. Section 7. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested only if: 1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said City is not authorized to expend money, or 2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of such publication, or 3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Section 8. This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for purposes of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. Other than as specified in this resolution, no monies are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long term basis, or otherwise set aside with respect to the permanent funding of the object or purpose described herein. Section 9. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published in summary form in the Ithaca Journal, the official newspaper, together with a notice of the City Clerk in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law. A Roll Call Vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Alderperson Brock – Aye Alderperson Dotson - Aye Alderperson Clairborne – Aye Alderperson Murtagh - Aye Alderperson McCollister – Aye Alderperson Fleming - Aye Alderperson Smith – Excused Alderperson Kerslick - Aye Alderperson Mohlenhoff – Excused Alderperson Proulx - Aye Carried Unanimously (8-0) December 4, 2013 15 10.6 City Controller’s Report City Controller Thayer reported to Common Council on the following items:  $300,000 was appropriated from the Reserved Fund for the 2013 budget, he should know soon how much was actually needed  The 2012 audit is underway  Increases in liability and property insurance activity and workers’ compensation claims, has resulted in increased premiums. The City is shopping for coverage; however, insurance companies are taking a close look at the city’s dams, and it is impacting premium rates.  The $5.5 million pension payment is due - if made by December 15th, the City will receive a $50,000 discount. This should be the largest pension bill due. Payments will start to decrease in 2015.  2013 Activity: sales tax revenues are fluctuating. At this point the City is 2.1% over 2012 activity with six more payments due.  Overtime: $960,000 was budgeted; $878,000 has been collected  Building Permit Revenues: $819,000 was budgeted; $461,000 has been collected  Parking Revenues: $2.59 million budgeted; $1.744 million collected Alderperson Proulx announced that the December City Administration Committee meeting has been rescheduled to Monday, December 16, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in light of the upcoming holidays. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: 11.1 Ordinances to Amend Chapter 73 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and Chapter 228 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, entitled “Landmarks Preservation” A. Declaration of Lead Agency – Resolution By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment of Chapter 73, “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation”, is an “Unlisted” Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review of the amendment of Chapter 73, “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and the amendment of Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation”. Carried Unanimously (8-0) B. Determination of Environmental Significance – Resolution By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to the Municipal Code in order to amend Chapter 73 “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and to amend Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation,” and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated October 15, 2013, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of a county or state facility, including December 4, 2013 16 county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning Department, and has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the SEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, dated October 15, 2013, and be it further RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Carried Unanimously (8-0) C. Adoption of Ordinances 1. An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca to Amend Chapter 73, Entitled “Landmarks Preservation Commission” By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister WHEREAS, Chapter 73 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Landmarks Preservation Commission, was first enacted in 1975 and was amended in 1984 and 2012, and WHEREAS, amendments to Chapter 73 have been proposed, now, therefore Ordinance 2013- BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, as follows: Section 1. Chapter 73, Landmarks Preservation Commission, of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended, to read §73-1 Establishment. To effectuate the goals of Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, there is hereby established in and for the City of Ithaca a Commission to be known as the "Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission." §73-2 Membership, Appointment, and Compensation. A. Membership. The Commission shall consist of seven members plus two alternates, all of whom shall possess a demonstrated significant interest in and commitment to the field of historic preservation as evidenced by involvement in a local, state, or national historic preservation group; employment; education; or volunteer activity in furtherance of historic preservation. B. Appointment. Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the Common Council. Three members shall be selected, each of whom shall possess professional qualifications evidencing expertise in historic preservation, architecture, city planning or building construction. The four remaining members shall be selected from the community at large. In filling two of these four at-large seats, preference will be given to individuals December 4, 2013 17 who possess demonstrated expertise in commercial or business activity, including, but not limited to, banking or real estate. C. Terms. The original appointments of the members of the Commission shall be three for one year, two for two years and two for three years from January following the year of such appointment, or until their successor is named to serve out the unexpired portion of their term of appointment, or until their successor is appointed to serve for the term of three years. D. Vacancies. Vacancies occurring in the Commission other than by expiration of term of office shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor, but such appointment shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the member replaced. E. Reappointment. Members may serve for more than one term, and each member shall serve until the appointment of a successor. F. Method of selection to fill vacancies. Vacancies shall be filled by the Mayor according to the original selection as aforesaid. G. Compensation. Members shall serve without compensation. H. Quorum. A majority of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. §73-3 Organization. A. Officers. The Landmarks Preservation Commission shall elect from its membership a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson whose terms of office shall be fixed by the Commission. The Chairperson shall preside over the Commission and shall have the right to vote. The Vice Chairperson shall, in cases of absence or disability of the Chairperson, perform the duties of the Chairperson. B. Alternates. The Chairperson, or in their absence, the Vice- chairperson, shall designate an alternate to serve when a regular member is faced with a conflict of interest. When so designated, the alternate shall possess all the powers and responsibilities of the regular member. Alternates shall be designated at the time of their appointment as “Alternate 1” and “Alternate 2”, and shall be call upon to serve on a rotating basis. [B]C. Secretary. The Director of Planning and Development or his/her designee shall serve as the Secretary to the Commission. The Secretary shall keep a record of all resolutions, proceedings, and actions of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, and shall have the authority to act as provided for in §228-[7]6C of the City Municipal Code. §73-4 Powers and Duties. The powers of the Commission shall include: A. Adoption of criteria for the identification of significant historic, architectural, and cultural landmarks and for the delineation of historic districts; B. Conduct of surveys of significant historic, architectural, and cultural landmarks and historic districts within the city; C. Recommending designation by Common Council of identified structures or resources as landmarks and historic districts; D. Adoption of criteria for the evaluation of applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness; E. Approval or disapproval of proposals for exterior change resulting in applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to §228-4 and §228-[6]5 of the City Municipal Code; F. Approval or disapproval of applications for a Finding of Economic Hardship pursuant to §228-[9]10 and §228-[10]11 of the City Municipal Code; G. Making recommendations to the City concerning the acquisition of preservation easements or other interests in real property as necessary to carry out the purposes of §228-2 of the City Municipal Code; December 4, 2013 18 H. Increasing public awareness of the value of historic, cultural, and architectural preservation by developing and participating in public education programs; I. Making recommendations to the City concerning the utilization of state, federal, or private funds to promote the preservation of landmarks and historic districts within the city; J. Recommending acquisition of a landmark structure by the City where its preservation is essential to the purposes of §228-2 of the City Municipal Code and where private preservation is not feasible; K. Preparing a report or recommendation to other City boards and committees regarding plans and proposals that could have an impact on designated individual landmarks and/or historic districts; L. Delegation of work to staff and professional consultants as necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission, within the budget provided therefore by the City of Ithaca. §73-5 Promulgation of Rules; Meetings. The Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of its business, which shall provide for the time and place of holding regular meetings. Regular meetings shall be held at least once each month. The Commission’s rules shall provide for the calling of special meetings by the Chairperson or by at least three members of the Commission. All regular or special meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public, and any person shall be entitled to appear and be heard on a matter before the Commission before it reaches its decision. §73-6 Records and Annual Report. The Commission shall keep a record, which shall be open to the public view, of its resolutions, proceedings and actions. The vote or failure to vote of each member shall be recorded. The concurring affirmative vote of a majority of those members present shall constitute approval of plans before it for review or for the adoption of any resolution, motion or other action of the Commission. The Commission shall submit an annual report of its activities to the Mayor and Common Council and make such recommendations to the Common Council as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter and Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation. §73-7 Committees. The Landmarks Preservation Commission may, by rule, establish permanent or ad hoc committees consisting of no less than three current members of the ILPC for assignments delegated by the full Commission. §73-8 Cooperation of City Departments. As an aid toward cooperation in matters which concern the integrity of the designated landmarks and historic districts, all City departments shall, upon request, furnish to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, within a reasonable time, the available maps, plans, reports and statistical or other information the Commission may require for its work. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Carried Unanimously (8-0) December 4, 2013 19 2. An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 228 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Entitled “Landmarks Preservation” By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister WHEREAS, Chapter 228 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, Landmarks Preservation, was first enacted in 1975, has since been periodically amended, and was repealed and replaced in 2012, and WHEREAS, additional amendments are now proposed; now, therefore ORDINANCE NO. 2013- BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, as follows: Section 1. Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows: § 228-1. Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance.” § 228-2. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Promote the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of buildings, structures, landscape features, archeological sites, and districts of historic and cultural significance. B. Safeguard the city’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as reflected in such buildings, structures, landscape features, archeological sites, and districts. C. Protect the value of historic properties and their owners’ investment in them, and stabilize historic neighborhoods. D. Foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and achievements of the past. E. Protect and enhance the city’s attractiveness to tourists and visitors and the support and stimulus to the economy thereby provided. F. Strengthen the economy of the city. G. Promote the use of buildings, structures, landscape features, archeological sites, and districts of historic and cultural significance as sites for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the city. H. Insure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth and development of the city. § 228-3. Designation of Individual Landmarks or Historic Districts. A. As set forth in §73-4, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission is responsible for recommending to Common Council the designation of identified structures or resources as individual landmarks and historic districts within the city. B. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may recommend such designation of an individual property as an individual landmark if it: 1. Possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state, or nation; or 2. Is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or 3. Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style; or 4. Is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced an age; or 5. Represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community by virtue of its unique location or singular physical characteristics. C. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may recommend such December 4, 2013 20 designation of a group of properties as an historic district if the group: 1. Contains primarily properties which meet one or more of the criteria for designation as an individual landmark; and 2. Constitutes a distinct section of the city by reason of possessing those qualities that would satisfy such criteria. D. Notice of a proposed designation shall be sent to the owner or owners of the property or properties proposed for designation, describing the property proposed, or if in a district, the proposed district boundary, and announcing a public hearing by the Commission to consider the designation. Where the proposed designation involves so many owners that the Commission deems individual notice to be infeasible, notice may instead be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least 15 days prior to the date of the public hearing. E. Once the Commission has issued official notice of a proposed designation, no building permits or demolition permits shall be issued by the [Building Commissioner] Director of Planning and Development or the Director of Code Enforcement [as long as the proposed designation is under active consideration by the Commission and until the Commission has made its decision, but in any event no longer than 60 days after completion of the public hearing] until said proposed designation has been acted upon by Common Council, but in any event no longer than 90 days after completion of the public hearing required by § 228-3 F, unless: 1. The permit is for work that is of an emergency nature, as determined by the Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement or Fire Chief, or 2. The property owner voluntarily complies with the Certificate of Appropriateness review process. [E]F. The Commission shall hold a public hearing prior to designation of any individual landmark or historic district. Notice of the public hearing shall be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least 15 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The notice shall specify the time and place of the public hearing, a brief description of the proposed designation, and the location where the proposal may be reviewed prior the hearing. The Commission, property owners, and any interested parties may present testimony or documentary evidence at the hearing which will become part of a record regarding the historic, architectural, or cultural importance of the proposed individual landmark or historic district. The record may also contain staff reports, public comments, expert testimony, or other evidence offered outside of the hearing. [F] G. Within seven days after it has recommended designation of an individual landmark or historic district, the Commission shall file a copy of such recommended designation with the Planning and Development Board and with Common Council. [G]H. Within 60 days of the Commission recommending designation, the Planning and Development Board shall file a report with Common council with respect to the relation of such proposed designation to the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements, and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved. The Council shall, within 90 days of said recommendation of designation, approve, disapprove, or refer the proposed designation back to the Commission for modification. [H]I. Any designation approved by the Council shall be in effect on and after the date of approval by Council. The Commission shall forward notice of each property designated as an individual landmark and the boundaries of each designated historic district to the [Building Commissioner] Director of Planning and Development or the Director of Code Enforcement, and the City Clerk for recordation. December 4, 2013 21 § 228-4. Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration, Demolition, or New Construction Affecting Individual Landmarks or Historic Districts. As set forth in §73-4, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission is responsible for the approval or disapproval of proposals for exterior changes to a designated historic property. No person shall carry out any exterior alteration, restoration, reconstruction, demolition, new construction, or moving of an individual landmark or property within an historic district, nor shall any person make any change in the exterior appearance of such property, its site, its light fixtures, signs, sidewalks, fences, steps, paving, or other exterior elements, without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness or Finding of Economic Hardship from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, or obtaining approval by the Commission’s Secretary pursuant to §228-[6]7C, or upon order of the Director of Planning and Development, or Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief pursuant to §228-13. Any exterior alteration made in the absence of such required approvals must be reviewed retroactively by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, applying the criteria for approval set forth in §228-6 and §228-10 as though the work had not yet been completed. All changes to City-owned property affecting an individual landmark or within an historic district shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance. §228-5 Temporary Improvements. No Certificate of Appropriateness is required for temporary improvements. Temporary improvements are those that will be in place for no more than 180 consecutive days and result in no permanent physical alteration of the structure or site. §228-[5]6. Criteria for Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. A. The Commission shall approve the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness only if it determines that the proposed work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the individual landmark, or if the proposed work is within an historic district, of the neighboring properties in such district. B. In making this determination, the Commission will be guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and by the following principles: 1. The historic features of an individual landmark shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with the historic character of the landmark. 2. The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. 3. New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible with the historic character of the district within which it is located. C. In applying the principle of compatibility set forth above, the Commission shall consider the following factors: 1. the general design and character of the proposed alteration or new construction relative to existing features of the property; 2. the scale and visual compatibility of the proposed alteration or new construction in relation to the property itself, surrounding properties, and the neighborhood; 3. texture, materials, and color, and their relation to similar features of the property and other properties in the neighborhood; 4. visual compatibility with surrounding properties, including the December 4, 2013 22 proportions of the property’s façade; proportions and arrangement of windows, doors, and other openings; roof shape; and rhythm of spacing of properties along the street, including set-backs; and 5. the importance of historic, physical, and visual features to the significance of the property. D. In passing upon an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Landmarks Preservation Commission shall not consider changes to interior spaces or to exterior paint colors. E. In cases of a retroactive review of completed work, the Commission may approve any portion of the completed project that is found to meet the criteria for approval enumerated in this §228 while referring to the Office of the City Attorney for potential prosecution any portion of the project that does not meet such criteria for approval. §228-[6]7. Certificate of Appropriateness Application Procedure. A. Prior to the commencement of any work requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness, the owner shall file an application for a building permit with the Building [Department] Division and an application for such Certificate with the Commission. The application, available on the City’s website and through the Department of Planning & Development, shall contain: 1. Building permit application number, as assigned by the Building [Department] Division 2. Name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant; 3. Location and photographs of the property; 4. Elevation drawings of proposed changes, if available; 5. Perspective drawings, including relationship to adjacent properties, if available; 6. Samples of building materials to be used, including their proposed color; 7. Where the proposal includes signs or lettering, a scale drawing showing the type of lettering to be used, all dimensions and colors, a description of materials to be used, method of illumination, and a plan showing the sign’s location on the property; and 8. Any other information that the Commission may deem necessary in order to visualize the proposed work. B. No building permit shall be issued for the proposed work until a Certificate of Appropriateness has first been issued by the Commission. The Certificate of Appropriateness required by this chapter shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any building or other permit that may be required by any other ordinance of the City of Ithaca. C. The Commission may delegate to the Commission’s Secretary the authority to: 1. Determine whether proposed work constitutes ordinary maintenance and repair for which a Certificate of Appropriateness is not required; 2. Approve work that is considered replacement-in-kind; 3. Approve work that is of any other type that has been previously determined by the Commission to be appropriate for delegation to staff, as reflected in the City of Ithaca Landmark and Historic District Design Guidelines. On at least a quarterly basis, the Commission shall review the Certificates of Appropriateness, if any, issued by the Commission’s Secretary, to determine whether or not the delegated review responsibilities should continue or their scope be modified. D. Upon application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, a public notice of the proposal shall be posted by the owner or owner’s representative on the property for a minimum of 10 days. This notice must remain in place December 4, 2013 23 until a decision to approve or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness has been made. The notice shall specify the proposed work, the time and place of the public hearing, and to whom and by when any public comments are to be communicated. The notice must be placed at or near the property line in the front yard so that it will be plainly visible from the street, and, in cases where a property has frontage on more than one street, an additional sign must be placed at or near the property line on any additional street frontage so that the sign will be plainly visible from the street on which it has such additional frontage. E. The Commission shall hold a public hearing prior to rendering a decision on any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Notice of the public hearing shall be published at least once in the City’s official newspaper at least 5 days prior to the public hearing. The notice shall specify the time and place of the public hearing, a brief description of the proposal, and the location where the proposal may be reviewed prior to the hearing. The property owner and any interested party may present testimony or documentary evidence regarding the proposal at the hearing, which will become a part of the record. The record may also contain staff reports, public comments, and other evidence offered outside of the hearing. F. The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions or modifications the Certificate of Appropriateness within 45 days from the completion of the public hearing, except as noted below. The failure of the Commission to act within 45 days from the completion of the public hearing, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon in writing by the applicant and the Commission, shall be deemed to constitute approval. 1. In the event, however, that the Commission shall make a finding of fact that the circumstances of a particular application require further time for additional study and information than can be obtained within the aforesaid 45-day period, then the Commission shall have a period of up to 90 days within which to act upon such an application. 2. In the event, however, that environmental review of an application is required, the Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions or modifications the Certificate of Appropriateness within 65 days from the completion of environmental review. The failure of the Commission to act within 65 days from the completion of the environmental review, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon in writing by the applicant and the Commission, shall be deemed to constitute approval. G. All decisions of the Commission shall be in writing. A copy shall be sent to the applicant by mail, and a copy filed with the [Building Commissioner]Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement, and City Clerk for public inspection, within 10 days of the date of the decision. The Commission’s decisions shall state the reasons for denying or modifying any application. §228-[7]8. Expiration of Approval; Extension of Approval If the construction of a project approved for a Certificate of Appropriateness has not commenced within twenty-four (24) months of the date of the approval, such approval shall expire, unless an extension has been granted by the Landmarks Preservation Commission following a written request by the applicant. An application for an extension of Certificate of Appropriateness approval shall not be considered a new Certificate of Appropriateness application. §228-[8]9. Early Design Guidance. A. Large projects that could potentially have a significant impact on an December 4, 2013 24 individual landmark or historic district are required to participate in the Early Design Guidance process. The purpose of this process is to provide input from the Commission on the design of the project as it relates to criteria for the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness at a time when such input may readily be incorporated into the design without adversely affecting design costs or the project schedule. B. For the purposes of this chapter, large projects are defined as: 1. New construction in an historic district of any primary structure, or 2. New construction of any accessory structure with a gross square footage of 800 square feet or more in an historic district, or new construction of any accessory structure with a gross square footage of 800 square feet or more on the same tax parcel as an individual landmark when that tax parcel is less than five acres in size, or new construction of any accessory structure with a gross square footage of 800 square feet or more on the same tax parcel as an individual landmark when that tax parcel is more than five acres in size and when the proposed accessory structure will be located within 150 feet of the individual landmark, or 3. New additions that will increase the existing footprint of an individual landmark or a structure located within an historic district by 50% or more, or 4. Any renovation or reconstruction (excluding projects that involve only the replacement of roof coverings) that will affect 50% or more of the exterior envelope of an individual landmarks or a structure located within an historic district. C. Applicants subject to Early Design Guidance shall submit materials for review by the Commission as soon as the design has reached a stage of development that would allow the Commission to understand the basic proposal and its significant details. D. Based on the limited information provided, the Commission will provide general feedback and non-binding recommendations and comments that might help the applicant further refine the project prior to submitting an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. §228-[9]10. Criteria for a Finding of Economic Hardship. A. An applicant whose Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed alteration has been denied may apply for relief on the ground of economic hardship. In order to prove the existence of economic hardship related to a proposed alteration, the applicant shall establish that the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the owner from earning a reasonable return on investment, regardless of whether that return represents the most profitable return possible. In the case of non-profit ownership, the applicant shall establish that the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness will seriously interfere with, or prevent, the owner from carrying out its chartered purpose. In either case the applicant shall establish that the alleged hardship has not been created by the previous actions or inactions of any person having an ownership or management interest in the property after the effective date of local designation. B. Demolition of an individual landmark, or of a structure located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district, shall be allowed only in cases of economic hardship, [unless the Building Department, upon due deliberation, has made an express finding that the structure presents an imminent threat to the public health, safety, and welfare] except as provided for in §228-14. In order to prove the existence of economic hardship sufficient to justify demolition, the applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of the Commission that: 1. The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the owner from earning a reasonable return on investment, regardless of whether that return represents the most December 4, 2013 25 profitable return possible; and 2. The property cannot be adapted for any other use, whether by the current owner or by a purchaser, which would result in a reasonable return on investment; [and] 3. Diligent efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring the property and preserving it have failed; and 4. The alleged hardship has not been created by the previous actions or inactions of any person having an ownership or management interest in the property after the effective date of local designation. Or, in the case of non-profit ownership that: 1. The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness will either physically or financially prevent, or seriously interfere with, the non-profit owner carrying out its chartered purpose; [and] 2. The property cannot be adapted for any other use that would result in the non-profit owner being able to carry out its chartered purpose[.]; and 3. The alleged hardship has not been created by the previous actions or inactions of any person having an ownership or management interest in the property after the effective date of local designation. §228-[10]11. Finding of Economic Hardship Application Procedure. A. After the Landmarks Preservation Commission has denied a Certificate of Appropriateness, an applicant may commence the economic hardship process. Consideration of an application for a Finding of Economic Hardship may occur at the same meeting as consideration of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. No building permit or demolition permit shall be issued unless the Commission determines that an economic hardship exists and issues a Finding of Economic Hardship, except in cases where the Building [Department] Division, upon due deliberation, has made an express finding that the structure presents an imminent threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. B. The Commission may hold a public hearing on the hardship application at which an opportunity will be provided for proponents and opponents of the application to present their views. C. The applicant shall consult in good faith with the Commission, local preservation groups, and interested parties in a diligent effort to seek an alternative that will result in appropriate preservation of the property. D. All decisions of the Commission shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for granting or denying the requested Finding of Economic Hardship. A copy shall be sent to the applicant by mail and a copy filed with the [Building Commissioner] Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement and City Clerk for public inspection within 10 days of the date of the decision. E. If a Finding of Economic Hardship is issued, the Commission shall approve only such work as is necessary to alleviate the hardship. §228-12 City-owned Improvements A. All changes to City-owned property affecting an individual landmark or within an historic district shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance, with the exception of §228-10 and §228-11. B. If the cost of an action required by the Commission would exceed by 20% or more the cost of the action if not regulated by the Commission, the Common Council reserves the right to determine whether compliance with the Commission’s requirements for that action are prudent and feasible in light of potentially competing public interests. Should Common Council determine, upon due deliberation, that such compliance December 4, 2013 26 would not be prudent and feasible, the action may proceed as though it were not regulated by the Commission. §228-13 Exceptions for Reasons of Public Safety A. When in the judgment of the Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief there exists an emergency condition that poses an imminent threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, the Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief may order the property owner to immediately undertake temporary work to correct the defect while a permanent solution is sought that will satisfy the requirements of Section 228-6. B. Such temporary work shall remain in place no longer than 180 days. Such 180 day period may only be extended by, and in the sole discretion of, the Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement. During that time, the owner shall diligently work to identify and propose to the ILPC, Director of Planning and Development, Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, and Fire Chief a permanent solution to adequately address the public safety concern while satisfying the requirements of Section 228-6. Potential solutions identified during this period will be subject to the provisions of Section 228-10 and 228-11. C. If, at the end of the 180 day period, or authorized extension of this period, the Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement has determined that no reasonable solution exists that will achieve the public safety goal and the ILPC has determined that no reasonable solution exists that will satisfy either the criteria of Section 228-6 or Section 228-11, the Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement may order permanent work to be undertaken by the owner that will protect the public health, safety, or welfare without the issuance of either a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Finding of Economic Hardship. D. When, in the judgment of the Superintendent of Public Works, there exists on City property, on City-possessed easements, or in the City Right of Way a substantial hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare, the Superintendent of Public Works may pursue those remedies, improvements, and infrastructures that he or she deems appropriate; provided, however, that before doing so, the Superintendent of Public Works shall be required, if practicable, to consult with the Director of Planning and Development, or his or her designee. Where said consultation is not practicable, the Superintendent of Public Works shall be required to consult with the Director of Planning and Development, or his or her designee, within a 30 day period after pursuing any such remedies, improvements, and infrastructures. Any remedies, improvements, or infrastructures undertaken on order or authorization of the Superintendent of Public Works under the first sentence of this paragraph shall not be subject to §228-6, to §228-7 or §228-10. The requirements of this paragraph shall apply only to the extent that remedies, improvements, and infrastructures are pursued within an historic district or an individual landmark. §228-[11]14. Maintenance and Repair Required. A. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance and repair of any exterior architectural feature of an individual landmark or property within a historic district that does not involve a change in design, building materials, color, or outward December 4, 2013 27 appearance; however, the Commission’s Secretary shall determine whether proposed work constitutes ordinary maintenance and repair or requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. B. No owner or person with an interest in real property designated as an individual landmark or included within an historic district shall permit the property to fall into a serious state of disrepair. Maintenance shall be required, consistent with the provisions of the Property Maintenance Code of New York State and all other applicable regulations. §228-[12]15. Enforcement and Violations A. All work performed pursuant to a Certificate of Appropriateness issued under this chapter shall conform to the requirements included therein. It shall be the duty of the [Building Commissioner] Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement to inspect periodically any such work to assure compliance. In the event work is found that is not being performed in accordance with the Certificate of Appropriateness the [Building Commissioner] Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement shall issue a stop work order and all work shall immediately cease. No further work shall be undertaken on the project as long as a stop work order is in effect. B. Any owner or person in charge of a property who demolishes or alters a property in the absence of a Certificate of Appropriateness, a Finding of Economic Hardship, [or] approval by the Secretary of the Commission pursuant to §228-[6]7C of the City Municipal Code, or upon order of the Director of Planning and Development, Director of Code Enforcement, Superintendent of Public Works, or Fire Chief pursuant to §228-13 may be required to restore the property and its site to its appearance prior to the violation. In the event distinctive historic features have been removed or otherwise irreversibly altered, such removal or alteration shall constitute a separate violation under this ordinance. C. If, in the judgment of the Commission, a violation of §228-[11]14 exists that will result in a detrimental effect upon the life and character of a designated historic property or on the character of a historic district as a whole, the Commission shall notify the [Building Commissioner] Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement. If, upon investigation, the [Building Commissioner] Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement finds non-compliance with the requirements of the Property Maintenance Code of New York State, or any other applicable regulation, the Director of Planning and Development or Director of Code Enforcement shall order such remedies as are necessary and consistent with this Chapter and shall provide written notice thereof to the Secretary of the Commission. D. Any violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed an offense and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code, General Provisions, Article I, Penalties. Each day’s continued breach shall constitute a separate additional violation. In addition, the City shall have such other remedies as are provided by law to enforce the provision of this chapter. §228-[13]16. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any decision by the Commission may apply to the Supreme Court in the State of New York for review under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules within 30 days of publication of the decision. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent December 4, 2013 28 jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Carried Unanimously (8-0) Common Council members expressed their thanks to Historic Planner Lynne Truame for all her work on these two pieces of legislation. 11.2 A Local Law entitled the “City of Ithaca Local Law Concerning Foreclosure of Unsafe Structures By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne Local Law No. ____-2013 WHEREAS the City has established a goal of returning unsafe structures within the City of Ithaca back to productive use in a timely manner, and WHEREAS ineffective control of unsafe buildings runs counter to the City’s exercise of its power to maintain the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of its citizens granted by New York General City Law § 20(13), and WHEREAS the City has the ability, granted by Real Property Tax Law Article 11 § 1184, to both agree to and refuse to enter into installment agreements for unpaid taxes owed on property, and WHEREAS in an effort to return unsafe structures to productive use in a timely manner, the City hereby establishes that a property owner of an unsafe structure in tax foreclosure proceedings may not enter into an installment agreement for payment of back taxes without first bringing the unsafe structure into compliance with the orders of the City of Ithaca Building Division. BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Legislative Findings, Intent, and Purpose. Pursuant to Real Property Tax Law Article 11 § 1184, the City of Ithaca is authorized to adopt a local law authorizing the installment payment of delinquent taxes. Under the City’s current laws, owners of unsafe properties may enter into installment payment plans. Where the costs of repairs are greater than installment payments or there is otherwise little incentive for property owners to bring unsafe structures into compliance with Building Division orders, this policy allows properties to fall into greater disrepair. The Common Council desires to return these unsafe structures to safe and productive use, and finds that exempting unsafe structures from installment plans is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this goal. Section 2. Charter Amendments. Section C-44(B) of the Ithaca City Charter is hereby amended as follows: (1) The City of Ithaca hereby authorizes the City Chamberlain to enter into installment agreements with property owners of eligible properties providing for the payment of eligible delinquent taxes in installments according to the provisions of Article 11 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, as amended. Within forty-five (45) days of the return of unpaid taxes, the City Chamberlain, by first-class mail, shall notify all owners of eligible properties with delinquent taxes that they are eligible to pay their delinquent taxes in installments according to the provisions of Article 11 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, as amended. The City shall add one dollar ($1.00) to the amount of the tax lien to pay for such postage. The owner of such parcel must accept the installment offer after thirty (30) days of the mailing of such notice by signing an installment payment agreement with the City Chamberlain. The City Chamberlain shall not include parcels accepting the offer and making timely payments pursuant to the installment plan on the filing of the list of properties for foreclosure proceedings with the court. Any property within the City shall be an eligible property so long as: (a) that property is a property as to which Real Property Tax December 4, 2013 29 Law §1184 authorizes and empowers the City to make available to the owner thereof an installment agreement, and (b) no primary building or structure located on the property is found to be unsafe pursuant to City Code § 146-9 unless abated by repair or demolition in satisfaction of Chapter 146 of the City Code or otherwise addressed in full compliance with said Chapter. Section 3. Severability Clause. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Local Law. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Local Law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Local Law. Section 4. Effective and Operative Date. This Local Law shall become operative immediately and shall take effect upon its filing in the office of the Secretary of State. A Roll Call Vote on the Local Law resulted as follows: Alderperson Brock – Aye Alderperson Dotson - Aye Alderperson Clairborne – Aye Alderperson Murtagh - Aye Alderperson McCollister – Aye Alderperson Fleming - Aye Alderperson Smith – Excused Alderperson Kerslick - Aye Alderperson Mohlenhoff – Excused Alderperson Proulx - Aye Carried Unanimously (8-0) Appreciation was expressed to the Unsafe Properties Working Group, which included Assistant City Attorney Krin Flaherty, City Chamberlain Debra Parsons, Deputy Director of Community Development Sue Kittel, Alderpersons Murtagh, Clairborne, and Kerslick for their hard work on this legislation. This is step 1 of a multi-step plan to address unsafe housing in the City. Alderperson Brock noted that the city-owned Van Atta Pump Station on Giles Street is a derelict property that needs attention as well. 11.3 Amendment to 2013 City of Ithaca Action Plan to Award $52,776.00 to the Learning Web’s Supported Employment Program – Resolution By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick WHEREAS, The Learning Web has requested funding for a supported employment program, and WHEREAS, if funded, the Program will use CDBG funds to employ a program coordinator who will support young people with limited employment experience in jobs at Cayuga Medical Center, and elsewhere, in order to increase their chances of successfully maintaining permanent, unsubsidized employment, and WHEREAS, the 2013 Action Plan identifies unallocated CDBG funds in the amount of $96,458.00, and WHEREAS, the Learning Web has requested $52,776, and WHEREAS, this project is classified as an eligible public service activity consistent with the goals of the City’s Consolidated Plan by providing job placement for under- employed and un-employed young people who have limited job skills or successful past work experience, and WHEREAS, this project can be fully funded at the level requested without exceeding the 15% public services spending cap, and WHEREAS, this proposed activity is listed as Exempt from environmental review by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and is not subject to the City Environmental Quality Review regulations, and December 4, 2013 30 WHEREAS, a funding allocation of more than $25,000 occurring during the program year constitutes a substantial program amendment to the adopted Action Plan requiring a public hearing and an action of the Common Council for approval, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency reviewed this proposal on October 24, 2013 and recommend the following contingent on Common Council approval, and WHEREAS, a public hearing regarding this proposed substantial amendment to the 2013 Action Plan was held at the November 13, 2013 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of $52,776.00 be awarded to The Learning Web for the Supported Employment Program as 2013 Project #22, and be it further RESOLVED, That these funds be derived from the 2013 Entitlement Grant, and be it further RESOLVED, That the IURA Chairperson, upon advice of the IURA Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute all necessary and appropriate documents to implement this resolution. Carried Unanimously (8-0) 11.4 Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mural Installation within West Stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson Kerslick WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display of public art in the City’s public spaces, and WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street art, including the walls of the Seneca Street Parking Garage, by resolution on May 19, 2010, and WHEREAS, local artist Jim Garmhausen submitted his proposal for a mural depicting a vertical group of people as part of the PAC’s Mural and Street Art Program, and WHEREAS, the PAC discussed Mr. Garmhausen’s mural proposal at its meeting on September 25, 2013 and, upon review of the potential mural sites pre-approved by the Board of Public Works, agreed that the west stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage would be an appropriate location for the proposed mural, and WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the proposal and recommended location at its meeting on October 23, 2013 to gather input on the proposed installation, and WHEREAS, PAC members have also sought input from adjacent property owners and City staff, and the responses to the proposal have been mostly positive, and WHEREAS, the artist will provide funding for the mural, and the proposed installation will be budget-neutral to the City, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on October 23, 2013, the Public Art Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the Common Council select the mural proposal submitted by Jim Garmhausen to be installed within the west stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage; now, therefore, be it December 4, 2013 31 RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council selects Jim Garmhausen’s mural, as recommended by the Public Art Commission, featuring a vertical group of people to be installed within the west stairwell of the Seneca Street Parking Garage and to be added to the City of Ithaca’s public art collection; and be it further RESOLVED, That the selected artist may proceed with the installation of his mural upon the execution of an agreement with the City (as reviewed by the City Attorney). Carried Unanimously (8-0) 11.5 Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mosaic Mural Installation at the Department of Public Works Facility on First Street By Alderperson Murtagh: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display of public art in the City’s public spaces, and WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street art, including the Department of Public Works facilities across from the Sciencenter, by resolution on May 19, 2010, and WHEREAS, local artists Margaret Corbit, Wes Blauvelt, Annemarie Zwack, Carla Stetson, Leslie Carrere, and Caitlin Chan submitted their proposal for the 1st Street Mosaic Project, a community mosaic mural featuring a “plants as food” theme, as part of the PAC’s Mural and Street Art Program, and WHEREAS, the PAC discussed the 1st Street Mosaic Project at its meeting on October 10, 2012 and, upon review of the potential mural sites pre-approved by the Board of Public Works, recommended the Department of Public Works facility on First Street as an appropriate location for the proposed installation, and WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the proposal and recommended location at its meeting on October 23, 2013 to gather input on the proposed installation, and WHEREAS, the PAC has also sought input from adjacent property owners and business owners as well as City staff, and the responses to the proposal have been overwhelmingly positive, and WHEREAS, the installation will be funded through donations and will be budget-neutral to the City, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on October 23, 2013, the Public Art Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the Common Council select 1st Street Mosaic Project to be installed at the Department of Public Works facility on First Street; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the 1st Street Mosaic Project, as recommended by the Public Art Commission, to be installed at the Department of Public Works facility on First Street and to be added to the City of Ithaca’s public art collection; and be it further RESOLVED, That the selected artists may proceed with the installation of their mural upon the execution of an agreement with the City (as reviewed by the City Attorney). Carried Unanimously (8-0) Alderperson Murtagh announced that a Public Information Session regarding the Collegetown Plan has been scheduled for December 11, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. in Common December 4, 2013 32 Council Chambers – just prior to the Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting. MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS: 15.1 Appointment of the Superintendent of Public Works - Resolution By Alderperson Proulx: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson RESOLVED, That Michael Thorne, P.E. be and hereby is appointed Superintendent of Public Works, effective January 6, 2014 at an annual salary of $94,733. Carried Unanimously (8-0) 15.2 Reappointments to Various City Board/Committees – Resolution Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission – Resolution By Alderperson McCollister: Seconded by Alderperson Proulx Landmarks Preservation Commission: RESOLVED, That Stephen B. Gibian be reappointed to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further RESOLVED, That David Kramer be reappointed to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further RESOLVED, That Michael J. McGandy be reappointed to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further Planning and Development Board: RESOLVED, That Garrick Blalock be reappointed to the Planning and Development Board with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further Natural Areas Commission: RESOLVED, That Anna M. Stalter be reappointed to the Natural Areas Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further Rental Housing Advisory Commission: RESOLVED, That Richard Cowan be reappointed to the Rental Housing Advisory Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further RESOLVED, That Sean Hillson be appointed to the Rental Housing Advisory Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and be it further Shade Tree Advisory Committee: RESOLVED, That Pamela Markham be reappointed to the Shade Tree Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2016, and, be it further Appointment to Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit Board: RESOLVED, That Common Council recommends that Jennifer Dotson be re-elected as a director of the Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit Board with a term to expire December 31, 2016. Carried Unanimously (8-0) REPORTS OF COMMON COUNCIL LIAISONS: Alderperson Brock reported that recently 100 gallons of a solvent type liquid had been dumped into the City’s sewer system which killed the living bacteria at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The situation is improving and the Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation are assisting in the investigation. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY: City Attorney Lavine reported that the City is currently in litigation with a landlord who illegally constructed a backyard parking lot. The City has accepted a guilty plea for multiple counts of failing to obtain a building permit and failing to obtain a certificate of compliance. The fine payment of $18,750 is due to the City by December 31, 2013. December 4, 2013 33 MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS: 19.1 Approval of the October 2013 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes on the Mayor’s Proposed 2014 Budget – Resolution By Alderperson Kerslick: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister RESOLVED, That the minutes of the October 2013 Committee of the Whole Meetings be approved with noted corrections. Carried Unanimously (8-0) 19.2 Approval of the November 6, 2013 and the November 12, 2013 Common Council Meeting Minutes – Resolution The approval of the November 6, 2013 Common Council meeting and November 12, 2013 Special Common Council meeting minutes was postponed until the January 8, 2014 Common Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. ______________________________ _______________________________ Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Svante L. Myrick City Clerk Mayor