Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2011-12-07COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. December 7, 2011 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Alderpersons (9) McGonigal, Rosario, Clairborne, McCollister, Zumoff, Rooker, Myrick, Cogan, Mohlenhoff OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk – Conley Holcomb City Attorney – Hoffman City Controller – Thayer Planning & Development Director – Cornish Superintendent of Public Works – Gray Fire Chief – Parsons Building Commissioner – Radke EXCUSED: Alderperson Dotson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: New Business: Mayor Peterson requested the addition of an Executive Session to Discuss Pending Legislation. No Common Council member objected. Alderperson Rosario requested that addition of two items under New Business – one for discussion of the date for the December Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting, and the other would be a discussion regarding the time for the Special Common Council meeting on January 1, 2012. No Common Council member objected. Alderperson Rosario further requested the deletion of Item 10.1 entitled “Cayuga Green Project, Approval of 3rd Amendment to Purchase and Sale Contract for Parcel ‘D’ – Resolution” due to the lack of advertisement of the public hearing that needed to go along with it. No Common Council member objected. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Presentation on Community Phone Survey Alderperson Mohlenhoff introduced Yasamin Miller of the Survey Research Institute of Cornell University, and provided a brief overview of the purpose of the community-wide phone survey. Ms. Miller provided information on the demographics and census data used in the survey, and the methodology used while conducting the survey. The survey used randomly generated telephone numbers including both landlines and cell phones. There were 360 interviews conducted; 53 respondents refused to participate in the survey. Ms. Miller noted that Cornell University donated the time for the development of the questions that were used in the survey. December 7, 2011 2 Pride of Ownership Awards – Presentation by Scott Whitham Ithaca Rotary Club Members, Scott Whitham, John Barradas, and Frost Travis presented the 2011 Pride of Ownership Awards for the following City of Ithaca properties: • Maguire Family Dealerships Building located at 370 Elmira Road • 522 East State Street owned by David and Suzy Kramer • 110 Delaware Avenue, owned by Steve Austin • The Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art Addition at Cornell University • K & H Redemption Center/Green Street Parking Garage graffiti art done by Roti, a French artist • Mia’s on the Commons owned by Lex Chutintaranondand and Flamina Cerves • The First Unitarian Society of Ithaca – Unitarian Church Pyramidal roof and tall steeple repair work, 306 N. Aurora Street. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: The following people addressed Common Council to express support for the proposed resolution on the agenda entitled “Consent in Concept for Cornell University to Install and Maintain Nets Under Certain City-Owned High Gorge Bridges – Resolution: Larry Roberts, Chair of the Disability Advisory Council. He further expressed his thanks for all the hard work, active collaborative and deliberative discussions that have taken place on this topic. Catherine Kim - she further encouraged increased mental health support for students, and thanked Common Council and Cornell University for their work on this issue. Mary Catalino, Advisor for Active Minds at Tompkins Cortland Community College. She further described Active Minds activities. John Mueller, City of Ithaca and undergraduate student at Cornell University. He stated that the student support for means restriction over city bridges is overwhelming. Joel Harlan, Town of Newfield Alison Nash William Rusen, CEO of Cayuga Addiction and Recovery Program Beverly Chin, Town of Lansing Laura Lewis, City of Ithaca, Crisis Manager at Cornell University Dr. Rob Mackenzie, President and CEO of Cayuga Medical Center Dr. Henry Gerson Catherine Holmes, from the Office of Dean of Students at Cornell University and a Crisis Counselor Melissa Lukasiewicz, on behalf of the Student Assembly at Cornell University Terry Plater, Chair of the Public Art Commission, addressed Common Council on behalf of the members of the Public Art Commission to extend their thanks to Mayor Peterson and members of Common Council for all of their dedication and hard work on public art in the City of Ithaca. James Lukasavage, City of Ithaca, addressed Common Council to submit a petition signed by residents of South Hill in support of proposal that would allow city residents to raise chickens and rabbits on their property for consumption. Josh Lower, City of Ithaca, addressed Common Council to thank the Mayor and Common Council for all the time and service they’ve dedicated to the City of Ithaca. Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, voiced her opposition for the proposed resolution entitled ”Consent in Concept for Cornell University to Install and Maintain Nets Under Certain City-Owned High Gorge Bridges – Resolution” because there are no cost estimates available nor have future costs to the city been discussed. She stated that the issue of students and alcohol should be addressed as student intoxication is a real problem. She further wished outgoing Common Council members well and thanked them for their work on behalf of the city. December 7, 2011 3 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR: Alderperson McGonigal announced that a West Hill community meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, December 15, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. at Lehman Alternative Community School to discuss safety improvements that can be made in light of the recent violent crimes committed at the Chestnut Hill Apartments. Alderperson Rosario recognized the passing of local businessman, Joseph Ciaschi, Sr. He noted that the Pride of Ownership awards tonight reminded him of all the wonderful improvements that Mr. Ciaschi made to buildings throughout the City of Ithaca. His legacy endures as the City strives to protect the past as it builds for the future. He also expressed his condolences to the Ciaschi family. Alderperson Clairborne thanked the speakers for their comments. He expressed his thanks to Alderperson McGonigal for organizing the West Hill neighborhood meeting next week. He further announced that the Chet Cashman Box Tournament Classic would be held at GIAC this weekend. Mayor Peterson reported that the CEO Roundtable sponsored by the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce produced an impressive list of development and housing projects that will be taking place throughout the county. She further reported that she was able to discuss hydrofracking concerns and raise awareness about hydrilla at the local government advisory EPA meeting. She noted that a NYSERDA Grant application is being developed that will provide funding for charging stations for re-chargeable vehicles; however, before she signs a letter of intent or commitment she has questions that will need to be answered. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: City Administration Committee: 8.1 Planning and Development – Request to Release Funds from Restricted Contingency for Henry St. John Local Historic District Nomination Grant – Resolution By Alderperson Zumoff: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario WHEREAS, as part of the 2011 Authorized Budget $3,000 was placed in Restricted Contingency to provide funds for the required cash match for the Reserve New York Grant Program of the Preservation League of New York State for funds to engage a consultant for survey and documentation pursuant to the preparation of New York State and National Registration nominations for the “Henry Saint John Survey Area,” and WHEREAS, the grant was applied for in April 2011 and recently approved; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves the transfer of an amount not to exceed $3,000 from Account A1990 Restricted Contingency to Account A8020-5435 Planning and Development Contracts for the purposes of providing the cash match for said Preserve New York Grant. Carried Unanimously 8.2 Fire Department – Request to Amend Authorized Roster – Resolution By Alderperson Zumoff: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario WHEREAS, the Fire Department has a reduction in staffing, thus creating an adjustment of assignments and responsibilities in the Fire Department, and WHEREAS, the elimination of a Deputy Fire Chief position has reduced management capacity within the Fire Department, and WHEREAS, the areas of responsibility and the workloads of the Fire Chief and remaining Deputy Fire Chief will need to be adjusted as needed to maintain the function of the Fire Department, and WHEREAS, the position of Fire Alarm Superintendent position is not funded in 2012 and the need for some of those responsibilities relating to fire protection system inspections to be transferred to persons in the Fire Department, and WHEREAS, the nature of code enforcement, the need for day-to-day guidance, and quality assurance are very time intensive, and December 7, 2011 4 WHEREAS, due to the resignation of a person working in a half-time position for Financial Clerk for the Fire Department, and WHEREAS, the Fire Department has proposed an adjustment to facilitate staffing changes; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, Common Council hereby authorizes the creation of an additional Fire Lieutenant position to serve as a supervisor in the Fire Prevention Bureau, thus allowing the Fire Chief to delegate certain responsibilities to that Fire Lieutenant, and be it further RESOLVED, The vacancy created by the promotion of a Fire Fighter to Lieutenant will be not be filled, and be it further RESOLVED, One Fire Fighter position will be eliminated from the Fire Department roster, and be it further RESOLVED, The position of half-time Financial Clerk will be eliminated from the roster, and be it further RESOLVED, The position of Fire Alarm Superintendent will be eliminated from the Fire Department roster, and be it further RESOLVED, That the funding for the new position of Fire Lieutenant will be derived from the existing authorized Fire Department budget, and be it further RESOLVED, That this action is contingent on the approval of the Town of Ithaca. Carried Unanimously 8.3 Finance/Controller’s Office – Request Authorization to Cover Red Accounts – Resolution By Alderperson Zumoff: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario RESOLVED, That the City Controller be empowered to make transfers within the 2011 Budget appropriations, as needed, for the remainder of the 2011 Fiscal Year. Carried Unanimously 8.4 Finance/Controller’s Office – Request to Transfer Funds from Reserved Fund Balance to Cover Civil Servant Employee Association (CSEA) Compensation Plan Salary and Benefit Increases – Resolution By Alderperson Zumoff: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario WHEREAS, as part of the authorized City budgets for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, a total of $325,000 was set aside to help fund the initial phase of the CSEA Compensation Plan, and WHEREAS, the Plan was implemented in 2011 with Phase I costs for salaries and benefits expended throughout the year; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby directs the City Controller to make all necessary transfers to various accounts to help cover the costs of salary and benefits for the first phase of the Plan in an amount not to exceed $325,000 from the City’s Reserved Fund Balance for the CSEA Compensation Plan, and be it further RESOLVED, That future funding of Phase II –V of the CSEA Compensation Study will be made part of future City Budgets 2012-2015 as appropriate. Carried Unanimously CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: 9.1 Consent in Concept for Cornell University to Install and Maintain Nets Under Certain City-Owned High Gorge Bridges – Resolution By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff (1) WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca owns three high gorge bridges on East Hill adjacent to or connecting within the Cornell University campus, namely, the Stewart Avenue Bridge over Cascadilla Creek, the Thurston Avenue Bridge over Fall Creek, and the Stewart Avenue Bridge over Fall Creek; and December 7, 2011 5 (2) WHEREAS, Cornell University owns four high gorge bridges on East Hill adjacent to or connecting within the Cornell campus, namely, the Trolley Bridge over Cascadilla Creek, the College Avenue Bridge over Cascadilla Creek, the Beebe Dam Bridge over Fall Creek, and the Suspension Bridge over Fall Creek; and (3) WHEREAS, in the late winter of 2010 three young people enrolled at Cornell died by suicide in jumps from high gorge bridges or their abutments and edge approaches; and (4) WHEREAS, on March 26, 2010, at Cornell’s request, the Mayor of the City of Ithaca declared a public health emergency and permitted Cornell to erect and attach to City and Cornell bridges temporary galvanized chain-link fences as an interim form of “means restriction” advocated by the University; and (5) WHEREAS, “means restriction” refers to a suicide prevention strategy whereby access is restricted or impaired to the means by which a person could die or attempt to die by suicide, such as locking up hazardous chemicals, dispensing medicines in small quantities, removing guns from premises, or installing barriers or nets at high places that could be used for fatal jumps; and (6) WHEREAS, Cornell thereafter requested of the City the opportunity to study and possibly propose plans for long-term means restriction at the seven high gorge bridges, during which study period Cornell offered to replace the temporary galvanized chain link fences with temporary and less visible black coated rectilinear fences on the bridges and abutments; and (7) WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council responded to Cornell’s request by resolution approved on August 4, 2010, which extended the public health emergency and allowed Cornell to erect the replacement temporary black coated rectilinear fences on the bridges on certain conditions, including the condition that Cornell file applications for site plan review of its proposed, long-term design solutions not later than May 31, 2011; and (8) WHEREAS, thereafter, in furtherance of said resolution, Cornell and the City signed a Memorandum of Understanding dated May 24, 2011; and (9) WHEREAS, the City appointed representatives to (a) consult with Cornell on the selection of an architectural firm to undertake the designs and (b) consult with Cornell representatives as the design process and interactions with the architects and City constituencies and campus constituencies developed, which consultation group, augmented by representatives drawn from the Cornell community, became known as the City-Cornell Means Restriction Working Group (“Working Group”); and (10) WHEREAS, as various designs were explored and developed by Cornell they were presented and discussed with the Working Group, with campus and city constituencies in forums held both off campus and on campus, and at a website containing architectural drawings, video of design presentations, and other materials, with the opportunity for public comment to be submitted to the website; and (11) WHEREAS, the City accepted privilege of the floor comments at various public meetings and held public hearings of the Common Council and the City’s Board of Public Works on July 14, 2010, and June 28, 2011, concerning the potential use of means restriction on high gorge bridges; and (12) WHEREAS, the City and Cornell recognize and highly value the natural beauty and majesty of the deep gorges of Fall Creek and Cascadilla Creek on East Hill, and the scenic vistas of them from various points accessible to the public, and the special and positive effect these gorges and vistas have on the majority of the people who live, work, or visit in Ithaca and on the Cornell campus; and (13) WHEREAS, as a result of the discussions of the Working Group, feedback during Sketch Plan Review with the City Planning and Development Board (“Planning Board”), feedback from the Board of Public Works, comments at public forums, public meetings, public hearings, and the website, Cornell took into account the public’s opinions about December 7, 2011 6 the value of preserving the natural beauty and their aversion to blocking or unduly interfering with views of and from these high gorge bridges; and (14) WHEREAS, on May 31, 2011, Cornell did timely file with the Planning Board seven site plan review applications together with Full Environmental Assessments as required by City and State Environmental Review laws (“CEQRO” and “SEQRA”), for permanent means restriction net systems designed to be installed (in all but one case) below bridge decks such that the nets would have a minimal effect on the scenic views from said bridges; and (15) WHEREAS, the one bridge whose structural characteristics do not permit a below-deck net system, the Suspension Bridge, is a Cornell-owned bridge and a vertical net system is proposed for it; and (16) WHEREAS, the Planning Board commenced coordinated environmental review of the said seven site plan review applications and on July 26, 2011, declared itself Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQRO and SEQRA; and (17) WHEREAS, on November 22, 2011, the Planning Board as Lead Agency found that the seven projects described in the respective site plan review applications will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts, thereby allowing the involved City agencies, including the Common Council, the Board of Public Works, and the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, to undertake consideration of the projects without further environmental review; and (19) WHEREAS, pending consent by the City to do so, Cornell intends to pursue site plan review approval and any other necessary approvals for the proposed means restriction net systems for the three City bridges in addition to Cornell’s high gorge bridges, to construct and give to the City free of charge said means restriction net systems on the City’s three high gorge bridges, and to make their maintenance, repair and other obligations of operation and ownership wholly or substantially “cost-neutral” to the City during the term of the Agreement; and (20) WHEREAS, the City wishes to consent to means restriction net systems on the three City-owned bridges, for a period of ten years, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board, provided that the installation and maintenance of such nets are wholly or substantially “cost-neutral” to the City, and upon certain other terms and conditions; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby adopts as its own the findings of the Planning Board (made at the meeting on November 22, 2011) as to the environmental impact of the proposed nets, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Council hereby consents to the installation of means restriction net systems upon the three, City-owned, high gorge bridges specified above, generally in the form proposed by Cornell to the Planning Board, and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in a proposed agreement entitled “Agreement Between the City of Ithaca and Cornell University Concerning the Installation and Maintenance of Nets Under Certain City High Gorge Bridges,” bearing the draft date of November 22, 2011, and as corrected at the Common Council meeting on December 7, 2011; and be it further RESOLVED, That the Mayor, upon consultation with the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute the aforementioned agreement, on behalf of the City of Ithaca, either in the form referred to above, or in a form essentially and substantively the same. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ITHACA AND CORNELL UNIVERSITY CONCERNING INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NETS UNDER CERTAIN CITY HIGH GORGE BRIDGES (“AGREEMENT”) MADE the _____day of _________, 2011, by and between the CITY OF ITHACA, a New York municipal corporation, with offices at City Hall, attention City December 7, 2011 7 Clerk, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 (“City”) acting by and through its Common Council, and CORNELL UNIVERSITY, a New York education corporation, attention Vice President Facilities Services, 101 Humphreys Service Building, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 (“Cornell”); (1) WHEREAS, the City owns three high gorge bridges on East Hill adjacent to or connecting within the Cornell campus, namely, the Stewart Avenue Bridge over Cascadilla Creek, the Thurston Avenue Bridge over Fall Creek, and the Stewart Avenue Bridge over Fall Creek; and (2) WHEREAS, Cornell owns four high gorge bridges on East Hill adjacent to or connecting within the Cornell campus, namely, the Trolley Bridge over Cascadilla Creek, the College Avenue Bridge over Cascadilla Creek, the Beebe Dam Bridge over Fall Creek, and the Suspension Bridge over Fall Creek; and (3) WHEREAS, in the late winter of 2010 three young people enrolled at Cornell died by suicide in jumps from high gorge bridges or their abutments and edge approaches; and (4) WHEREAS, on March 26, 2010, at Cornell’s request, the Mayor of the City of Ithaca declared a public health emergency, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and permitted Cornell to erect and attach to City and Cornell bridges temporary galvanized chain-link fences as means restriction; and (5) WHEREAS, “means restriction” refers to a suicide prevention strategy whereby access is restricted to the means by which a person could die or attempt to die by suicide, such as locking up hazardous chemicals, dispensing medicines in small quantities, removing guns from premises, or installing barriers or nets at high places that could be used for fatal jumps; and (6) WHEREAS, Cornell thereafter requested of the City the opportunity to study and possibly propose plans for long-term means restriction at the seven high gorge bridges, during which study period Cornell offered to replace the temporary galvanized chain link fences with temporary and less visible black coated rectilinear fences on the bridges and abutments; and (7) WHEREAS, the City, acting by and through its Common Council, responded to Cornell’s request by resolution dated August 4, 2010 (a copy of which response is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”) by extending the public health emergency and allowing Cornell to erect the replacement temporary black coated rectilinear fences on the bridges on certain conditions, including the condition that Cornell file applications for site plan review of the long-term design solutions it proposed for means restriction not later than May 31, 2011; and (8) WHEREAS, thereafter in furtherance of said resolution of August 4, 2010, Cornell and the City signed a Memorandum of Understanding dated May 24, 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”; and (9) WHEREAS, the City appointed representatives to (a) consult with Cornell on the selection of an architectural firm to undertake the designs and (b) consult with Cornell representatives as the design process and interactions with the architects and City constituencies and campus constituencies developed, which consultation group, augmented by representatives drawn from the Cornell community, became known as the City-Cornell Means Restriction Working Group (“Working Group”); and (10) WHEREAS, as various designs were explored and developed by Cornell, they were presented and discussed with the Working Group, with campus and city constituencies in forums held both off campus and on campus, and at a website containing architectural drawings, video of design presentations, and other materials with the opportunity for public comment to be submitted to the website; and (11) WHEREAS, the City accepted privilege of the floor comments at various public meetings and held public hearings of the City Common Council and the City Board of December 7, 2011 8 Public Works (“BPW”) on July 14, 2010, and June 28, 2011, concerning the potential use of means restriction on high gorge bridges; and (12) WHEREAS, the City and Cornell recognize and highly value the natural beauty and majesty of the deep gorges of Fall Creek and Cascadilla Creek on East Hill, and the scenic vistas of them from various points accessible to the public, and the special and positive effect these gorges and vistas have on the majority of the people who live, work, or visit in Ithaca and on the Cornell campus; and (13) WHEREAS, as a result of the discussions of the Working Group, feedback during Sketch Plan Review with the City Planning and Development Board (“Planning Board”), feedback from the BPW, comments at public forums, public meetings, public hearings, and the website, Cornell took into account the public’s opinions about the value of preserving the natural beauty and their aversion to blocking or unduly interfering with views of and from these high gorge bridges; and (14) WHEREAS, Cornell did on May 31, 2011, file seven site plan review applications together with Full Environmental Assessments as required by City and State Environmental Review laws (“CEQRO” and SEQRA”), for permanent means restriction net systems designed to be installed (in all but one case) below bridge decks with minimal visibility and physical intrusion when looking from or to bridges, with the City’s Planning Department for review by the Planning Board; and (15) WHEREAS, the one bridge whose structural characteristics do not permit a below-deck net system, the Suspension Bridge, is a Cornell-owned bridge and a vertical net system is proposed for it; and (16) WHEREAS, the Planning Board commenced coordinated environmental review of the said seven site plan review applications and on July 26, 2011 declared itself Lead Agency for purposes of CEQRO and SEQRA; and (17) WHEREAS, on November 22, 2011, the Planning Board as Lead Agency found that the seven projects described in the seven site plan review applications will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, thereby allowing the involved agencies, the Common Council, the Board of Public Works, and the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City, to undertake consideration of the projects without further environmental review; and (18) WHEREAS, the City has approved in concept and subject to certain conditions, by resolution adopted on December 7, 2011, the installation of means restriction net systems on the three City-owned high gorge bridges, subject to the terms and conditions contained herein; and (19) WHEREAS, Cornell intends to pursue site plan review approval and any other necessary approvals for the means restriction net systems for all seven high gorge bridges, to construct and give to the City free of charge the means restriction net systems on the City’s three high gorge bridges and by this Agreement to make their maintenance, repair and other obligations of operation and ownership substantially cost- neutral to the City during the term of the Agreement; and (20) WHEREAS, the City wishes to consent to means restriction net systems on the three City-owned bridges on the terms and conditions set forth herein; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Installation: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth at length in this Agreement and to be associated with site plan approval, the City grants Cornell permission to install or cause to be installed, at Cornell’s sole expense, the said means restriction net systems designed for the three City-owned bridges respectively, substantially as presented to the Committee of the Whole of the City’s Common Council on November 30, 2011, being also substantially the same as currently proposed to the Planning Board. Means restriction net systems shall refer to nets, supports, hardware for attachment, any signage, heat sensing or other security, electronic and telephonic equipment (“means restriction net system(s)”). Unless specifically indicated December 7, 2011 9 to the contrary, the provisions of this Agreement shall apply only to the means restriction net systems for the three City-owned high gorge bridges on East Hill. The permission granted herein is subject to: A. Final Site Plan Approval and a Recreational River Permit (where applicable), granted by the Planning Board, for means restriction net system(s) in substantially the same form as presented to the Committee of the Whole of Common Council on November 30, 2011. If such approval or permit calls for systems or a system of a substantially different appearance or function with respect to the three City- owned bridges, further consent of Common Council shall be required, unless waived by Common Council, as provided in Paragraph 1. G. below. B. If required, a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee with respect to the portion of the project area of the Stewart Avenue Bridge over Fall Creek located within the Cornell Heights Historic District. C. Cornell’s prompt removal of the temporary black rectilinear wire fence from each bridge where it is currently installed when the long-term means restriction net system on such bridge has been installed by Cornell and then accepted, by the City and Cornell in the case of the City-owned bridges, or by Cornell in the case of the Cornell- owned bridges. The City confirms that Cornell may continue to maintain the temporary black rectilinear wire fence at each of the seven bridges where it is currently installed until such time as the long-term means restriction net system on such bridge has been installed and accepted, however, notwithstanding the above, Cornell agrees to remove the temporary black rectilinear wire fence at each bridge which does not have an installed, inspected and accepted long-term means restriction net system installed on it by November 30, 2013. Such date is subject to the provisions of Paragraph 9 concerning extension and tolling. D. Approval of the general contractor and major subcontractors selected by Cornell to work on City-owned bridges by the Superintendent of Public Works or his or her designee, in writing and subject to Paragraph 10. E. Approval of the designs’ engineering details and specifications (including but not necessarily limited to method of attachment to city property, size of openings in net mesh, and caliber of net mesh), and substantial changes to them, if any, by the Superintendent of Public Works and the Chief of the Ithaca Fire Department or his or her designee, in writing subject to Paragraph 10. F. Review and comment on Cornell’s contract documents prepared for letting the contract out for bid for such installation on City property by the Superintendent of Public Works and City Attorney, subject to Paragraph 10. Cornell agrees that the contract documents with respect to the three City bridges shall contain the requirement that the contractor and subcontractors shall meet the prevailing wage and any related benefit requirement to which a public work and the City’s contractors would be subject if the City were letting the contract. The Superintendent of Public Works or his or her designee shall also have the opportunity to participate in all City bridge-related job progress meetings, to review and comment upon change orders (except substantive changes to engineering details and specifications shall require his or her approval), coordination of access and traffic control, and other reviews and consultations ordinarily discussed with an owner’s project construction representative. i. Cornell shall reimburse the City for the reasonable cost and time of staff and any City consultants hired by the City to perform the foregoing approvals, participations, consultations and reviews, subject to Paragraph 12. ii. Cornell shall require contractor liability insurance in the amount of not less than $10 Million and the City shall have the opportunity to review the terms and conditions of the contractor liability insurance to be carried by the construction contractor and any major subcontractor, which insurance shall name the City as additional insured and provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City and Cornell. December 7, 2011 10 G. Cornell shall keep the City apprised of any design refinements and changes made (and whether or not at the suggestion of the Planning Board or pursuant to a condition of the site plan approval by the Planning Board) but only if they or any one of them substantially affect the overall appearance or functioning of a means restriction net system designed for one or more of the three City-owned bridges respectively (“substantive change”). i. If there is any such substantive change, the Common Council may, by resolution passed within 35 days of the notice of the substantive change, elect to re-examine its December 7, 2011, approval in concept, in light of the substantive change, and may thereafter modify or withdraw the approval granted but only with respect to the City bridge or bridge(s) affected by the substantive change, and only if such action to modify or withdraw approval is taken by resolution within a further 35 days from Common Council’s resolution to re-examine. Failure to act or to pass either the first or the second resolution within the time limits stated for each shall constitute a ratification of the substantive change. ii. If there is a dispute between the parties as to what constitutes a substantive change substantially affecting the overall appearance or functioning of a means restriction net system designed for one or more of the three City- owned bridges, then whichever party believes there is a dispute shall notify the other in writing as provided in Paragraph 11, below, and the same shall be resolved by streamlined binding arbitration by a panel of three persons, each of whom is either a licensed architect or licensed engineer. One person shall be appointed by the City, one by Cornell, and the third selected by the two appointees of the two parties. The parties shall appoint their respective panelists within 10 days of the delivery of the written notice that a dispute exists and the third shall be appointed within a further 10 days. The panel shall be convened and make its determination by decision of any two of them in writing within 10 days of appointment of the last of them. The parties agree to cooperate with the panel expeditiously, meet with it as necessary, answer its questions and provide any other information, including information reasonably requested by the panel. The expense of the arbitration shall be divided equally between the parties. If the either of the parties is unable or unwilling to comply with the above streamlined arbitration procedure, then the other party may refer the dispute to binding arbitration under the auspices and rules of the American Arbitration Association. 2. Responsibility for Rescue and Rescue Training Apparatus: The responsibility for any rescue or other life-safety response or incident and the training of first responders involving or occurring near to the means restriction net systems on any of the seven bridges shall remain the responsibility of the City and no protocols or responsibilities shall change expressly as the result of the addition of the means restriction net systems on either Cornell- or City-owned bridges. This provision is not intended to prohibit the ordinary refinements of procedures and protocols that typically and continuously evolve over time. It is agreed that because of the existing infrastructure associated with the Cornell Blue Light system on campus, any heat sensing or other security, electronic or communications equipment to be installed as part of the means restriction net systems shall be connected to the Cornell Police, such that any data therefrom is transmitted automatically to the Cornell Police. Upon receipt of any such data, or report from a witness, the Cornell Police shall immediately contact and relay such information to the Tompkins County 911 Center. The responsibility of any City agency to respond to an incident so detected shall commence only upon the successful, confirmed contact of the Tompkins County 911 Center by the Cornell Police. The process described in this paragraph shall be followed unless and until a different routing of systems and information is established by mutual agreement of the parties. The method of routing or subsequent change in routing shall not alter ownership where such equipment is located on City-owned property or right of way, nor the responsibility for maintenance and repair as provided in Paragraphs 4 and 5 below. December 7, 2011 11 A. Cornell shall cause to be designed and installed at its expense, a net system training apparatus to simulate the condition of means restriction nets for rescue at the City of Ithaca Fire Department’s training facility at no cost to the City. The plans and specifications shall be approved by the Chief of the Ithaca Fire Department and the Superintendent of Public Works or his or her designee, subject to Paragraph 10. B. Cornell agrees to pay the City for the cost of initial training of Ithaca Fire Department personnel and any other first responders potentially expected to be involved in rescues and recoveries with respect to all seven high gorge bridges. Such payment shall cover the cost of actual paid work time and any out of pocket cost for use of any equipment subject to Paragraph 12. Thereafter Cornell shall not be obligated to pay for the cost of on-going periodic training and training for new personnel. The City agrees that on-going, periodic training and training for new personnel will be worked into regular training programs without cost to Cornell. 3. Ownership: Following completion of means restriction net systems on the three City-owned bridges and the training apparatus on the Ithaca Fire Department training facility and pre-acceptance inspection, any testing, and acceptance from the contractor by Cornell, Cornell shall turn over ownership to the City, together with all warranties and representations of the designers, manufacturers, and construction contractors that are assignable to the City. Turning over ownership of the net systems on the three City-owned bridges may occur individually or all together, however it is anticipated that the training apparatus will be turned over by mutual agreement of the parties on a date before construction of the net systems on any one or more of the bridges commences. Acceptance by the City of any heat-sensing or other security, electronic or communications components of the net system(s) may, at the City’s request, be handled separately from the remainder of the system(s) and be contingent upon reasonable demonstration of that component’s functionality. Upon turning over to the City the ownership of such net systems and training apparatus respectively, they shall each thereafter be and remain City property and components of the three City bridges and the training structure, together with all portions of the systems providing heat sensing or other security, electronic or communications equipment or portions protecting access to abutments and bridge sub-structure that are located on or attached to City property or within City road and bridge rights-of-way as part of the installations of the means restriction net systems. Wherever proposed heat sensing or other security, electronic or communications equipment is located on or attached to Cornell property it shall remain Cornell property. Thereafter the City agrees to keep the improvements that were turned over to it in a good state of repair and maintenance and to a standard at least equivalent to that provided by Cornell for the means restriction systems on Cornell-owned bridges. 4. Maintenance and Repair (“M&R”) Cost: Cornell agrees to reimburse the City for the reasonable costs of the City’s M&R of the net systems that are located on City-owned bridges, property or rights of way, and of the training apparatus at the training facility. Costs shall include but are not necessarily limited to the cost of inspection, repair or replacement of damaged net, net supports and hardware, painting and touch-up, new net or other systems at below-bridge deck areas restricting access to bridge abutments and sub-structure, and all auxiliary systems such as thermal sensing system, and retrieval and disposal of any objects found in the nets whether natural or human-made and whether deliberately or accidentally thrown or falling into the nets (collectively “Maintenance and Repair,” “M&R”). All such costs associated with the means restriction net systems shall be reimbursed, subject to Paragraph 12 below, to the City by Cornell except that the City agrees to provide routine or other washing of the net systems on City-owned bridges at the same time that it performs bridge washing at no expense to Cornell. However, to the extent that any highway maintenance and repair assistance from the state or federal governments covers or may cover the M&R of the means restriction net systems on the three City-owned bridges, the City agrees to apply for the same and if granted, to credit the amounts received for M&R for the net systems in reduction of the M&R costs Cornell is obligated to reimburse to the City. December 7, 2011 12 5. Coordination of M&R Activities: The parties recognize that reasonably prompt M&R may be desirable to maintain the nets’ function, prevent unsightliness, and deter any future deterioration or instances of throwing items into the nets. The parties also recognize that a reasonably consistent standard of care across the means restriction net systems on the bridges owned by both parties sends a message to the public and bridge users about the respect for the systems and seriousness of their purpose. The parties also recognize that opportunities for mutually beneficial cost savings may exist if they coordinate the tasks of M&R at their respective means restriction net systems to the extent practicable. To further such goals: A. The parties agree to make members of their respective professional staffs available as soon as mutually convenient after the execution of this agreement and for them to develop in concert with each other, a mutually satisfactory written summary process and guidelines (hereafter “Process and Guidelines” or “P&G”) for coordinating M&R, the draft P&G to be prepared before the completion of the first of the net systems to be installed on a City-owned bridge. The purpose of the P&G is to develop efficiencies and keep M&R costs as low as reasonably possible for both the City-owned and Cornell-owned net systems, while meeting the parties’ shared goals for safe, functional net systems that are reasonably free from visible wear and tear and unsightly objects. The P&G are not intended to be contractual or need the parties’ formal ratification. They may be in the form of a letter memorandum and may further evolve over time as the respective staffs of the parties gain technical and practical experience with the net systems. The P&G should describe how to: i. identify reasonably needed M&R including object retrieval and disposal, approximate frequency needed, and guidelines for what constitutes an emergency need; ii. identify best practices and methods of M&R; iii. coordinate the scheduling of both planned and, where feasible, unplanned M&R to conserve resources and realize cost savings; iv. coordinate the use of contractors and other resources such as rented equipment to reduce overall costs; v. outline generally how the value of a City employee’s time spent on work that is reimbursable by Cornell under this Agreement shall be determined; and vi. handle any related matter that serves the purposes of M&R. B. Thereafter, each party shall designate one to two members of its professional staff to serve as its coordinator(s) (“Coordinator”) for the purpose of administering any M&R of that party’s net system in accordance with the P&G and coordinating with the other party’s Coordinator. Coordination is meant to be informal and expeditious, such as by telephone call or e-mail, and conducted in the spirit of professional courtesy and neighborly cooperation. C. Except in the case of emergency, it is expected that M&R will be first discussed and not performed without a reasonable time for coordination of tasks, contractors, equipment rental, and the like, by the party’s Coordinators. Neither party is obligated to obtain the consent of the other party for M&R; rather each party is ultimately responsible to determine when and if M&R are needed, after observing the P&G. D. Subject to Paragraph 12 below, Cornell agrees to reimburse the City for the actual time of the City staff devoted to the preparation of the P&G and actual time of the City staff employee(s) spent serving as Coordinator. Cornell shall also reimburse the City for the actual cost of a M&R job, whether executed by City employees or a contractor employed by the City (including any advertising and other costs associated with letting a contract out for bid and staff time to supervise or administer the job or contract). December 7, 2011 13 E. Prior to seeking reimbursement from Cornell for any M&R due to damage or vandalism or other condition or occurrence to the net system, the City shall first seek coverage under its property damage insurance policy, the proceeds of which shall be applied first to the cost of such M&R and Cornell agrees to pay the City’s deductible (or the portion of the deductible attributable to the nets’ damage in the event insured damage to City property is greater than to the net system alone). The City agrees to provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of Cornell in connection with any such property damage claims. If damage is covered by such property damage insurance but the damage is not such that it requires repair for functional, safety, or aesthetic reasons, then the proceeds shall be applied on behalf of Cornell to the next expense of M&R for which Cornell would be obligated to reimburse the City. 6. Insurance Generally: The parties acknowledge that the maintenance of comprehensive premises liability insurance and property damage insurance are the prudent and appropriate methods to protect municipalities and educational institutions from the risks of owning and operating their extensive facilities. A. Cornell agrees to reimburse the City for any future increases to premiums of premises liability and property damage insurances levied expressly and solely due to the inclusion of the means restriction net systems among the City’s premises and property and not due to generalized premium increase, to increased coverage and/or reduced deductible, or to claims history involving other premises and property of the City overall and not specifically the City-owned means restriction net systems. B. The City agrees not to substantially change or alter its property damage or premises liability insurance or their coverages or deductibles or self insured retention or named insureds or waivers of subrogation relating to or affecting this Agreement and the means restriction net systems on City-owned bridges (collectively “Coverage”) without first notifying Cornell and providing Cornell with the opportunity (but not the obligation) to take steps to keep such Coverage the same as or similar to before the proposed change or alteration, at Cornell’s expense, with regard to the Coverage available to apply to M&R or to a judgment arising from, and property or personal injury or death connected with, the means restriction net systems on City-owned bridges and the defense thereof. The City agrees to provide annually to Cornell a copy of the declarations page of, or certificate of insurance for, each relevant insurance policy. 7. Premises Liability for Means Restriction Net Systems: Based on the available information, Cornell does not expect that claims for injury or death caused by or related to the means restriction nets on City-owned bridges are likely, or if brought, are likely to be successful. The existence of nets may be likely to reduce risk of injury or death off bridges. The City’s current insurer has acknowledged that as City property the means restriction net systems beneath City-owned bridges are covered by its premises liability insurance policy. The City represents that its current premises liability policy provides first dollar coverage (no deductible). The City agrees to name Cornell as an additional insured and provide a waiver of subrogation in Cornell’s favor. In the event that the City’s premises liability insurance coverage has a deductible or self- insured retention in the future, then Cornell agrees to pay the deductible or self-insured retention in connection with a judgment arising from, and property or personal injury or death connected with, the means restriction net system on City-owned bridges (or the portion of the deductible or self insured retention attributable to the net system in the event the cause of the injury or death is determined to be due to more than to the net system alone), provided: A. the deductible is the same deductible that applies to any judgment arising from, and property or personal injury or death connected with any other premises and property owned by the City; and B. the City has complied with Paragraph 6. B. above with respect to any increase in the policy’s deductible or self insured retention; December 7, 2011 14 C. the City agrees not to settle or agree to a settlement on the City’s behalf by any of its insurers, claims adjusters, or legal representatives without Cornell’s written consent, which consent shall be determined as quickly as is practical, and subject to Paragraph 10, below. This provision shall not affect Cornell’s obligation to pay the deductible following final judgment, provided, however, that the City shall have notified Cornell of all substantive settlement discussions and settlement demands and offers, and shall have considered any input Cornell may provide in connection with such settlement discussions. 8. Other Matters: The parties acknowledge that there are related topics which do not require definitive resolution at this time and/or are administrative or legislative functions, but which the parties will meet to discuss and fully address as soon as expeditiously as possible hereafter. The parties agree, each at its own expense, to name up to three individuals to a committee to study and, within 60 days of execution of this Agreement, to report recommendations to the parties, concerning: A. Public education about the nets and their purpose to be planned and delivered sensitively and carefully to help insure that the nets are understood and respected by those on and off campus and especially by newcomers to the community. B. Reasonably consistent provisions in City Code and Campus Code regarding tampering with or misusing the net systems owned by both parties and the gravity of penalties and other consequences of doing so. C. Consistent and effective strategies to enforce prohibitions against vandalism, pranks, and other misuse of the net systems and apprehend those who are alleged to violate the prohibitions. Thereafter, the parties agree to jointly implement the recommendations addressing “A” and Cornell agrees to pay the out of pocket cost for the agreed upon public education materials and media. Also, each party agrees to adopt and implement, at its own cost, such measures as it, in its sole discretion and in good faith, finds reasonable, appropriate, and lawful to address the recommendations for “B” and “C” above. The parties acknowledge that the success of the means restriction net systems and their ease of integration into the landscape and culture of the City and the Cornell campus are dependent on their good faith efforts and diligence singly and jointly as appropriate to implement changes with respect to all three topics. 9. Term of Agreement: This Agreement, and each of the respective parties’ undertakings herein, shall be for a term to commence upon execution of this agreement, and cease on the earlier of (a) the elapse of ten (10) years, measured from the day that ownership of the first means restriction net system on a City-owned bridge is turned over to the City; or (b) November 30, 2013 (or later date if extended or tolled as provided below), which specified date shall apply only if Cornell has not, by November 30, 2013 (or later date if extended or tolled), constructed and turned over to the City (or is not in the process of constructing with deliberate speed and in good faith) all the means restriction net systems so proposed for City-owned bridges (during which time of construction the date shall be extended accordingly). The parties agree to execute a Memorandum of Commencement of the date that the first means restriction net system installed on a City-owned bridge is turned over to the City and attach it to this Agreement. Furthermore, the alternative date of November 30, 2013, shall be tolled to the extent that and during the period that (a) any court proceeding or action challenging a permit, approval, or consent or an environmental review procedure granted to or pertaining to one or more of the seven means restriction net systems is pending (and whether or not stayed or enjoined by the court or operation of law) together with the period allowed for appeal or (b) any strike, act of war or rebellion, act of nature, extreme weather or other force majeure prevents Cornell from performing or makes it impractical or unreasonably expensive for Cornell or a contractor or supplier to perform in a timely manner. If at least one, but not all of the means restriction nets systems on the three City-owned bridges has been installed and turned over to the City by November 30, December 7, 2011 15 2013 (or later date if extended or tolled as provided above), then this agreement shall remain in effect with respect to those which have been turned over to the City but shall cease with respect to any that were not installed and turned over to the City by November 30, 2013 (or later date if extended or tolled). The term of this Agreement shall not be deemed extended by reason of any failure or neglect to extend or renew it; it may only be extended by a new agreement, duly signed by the authorized representatives of each party. If at any time within six months prior to, or three years after, the end of this Agreement, the City so requests in writing in accordance with Paragraph 11, Cornell shall, at Cornell’s expense, cause the means restriction net systems on the three City-owned bridges to be dismantled and removed and any damage at points of attachment or otherwise to be repaired, within six months of any such request (preparation of plans, getting contractor under contract, mobilization, weather and other conditions permitting). With respect to dismantling and removal, Cornell agrees to provide the Superintendent of Public Works or his or her designee with the same opportunities for approval or review and comment and to provide the same cost reimbursement and contractor liability insurance as are provided for in Paragraph 1.D., 1.E., 1.F. (including 1.F. i. and ii.) above, with respect to installation. Cornell may leave in place any auxiliary security and communications systems where the equipment is located on property owned or controlled by Cornell and that was not turned over to the City previously. If the City wishes to have the salvageable material and equipment that are to be removed from City property, it may so notify Cornell at the time it requests removal, provided however, that the City shall pay Cornell for the difference between the contract price for a straight removal with minimal salvage capability and a removal undertaken specifically to retain the maximum reasonable salvage. 10. Reviews and Approvals: Whenever one party is required to review and comment, or to approve a matter as provided or implied in this Agreement, it shall act reasonably, in good faith and in timely manner, and not unreasonably or arbitrarily disapprove or delay matters that require approval. It shall communicate any reservations or objections in writing (by letter or e-mail) to the other party without delay, and work with the other party to the Agreement to attempt to work out differences, reservations and compromises in a reasonable and expeditious manner. 11. Notices: If either party needs to, or believes it needs to, formally notify the other of a matter relating to or concerning this Agreement or the means restriction net systems on either party’s bridges, such as a communications breakdown, an alleged failure to abide by or controversy over the meaning or applicability of a term or condition of this Agreement, such party shall notify the other in writing and deliver the same by hand or by certified and return receipt mail or by national overnight delivery service to the address listed below, or to any different address subsequently provided in writing by the other party: If to the City, to City Clerk Ithaca City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 If to Cornell, to Vice President Facilities 101 Humphreys Service Building Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 12. Payments: Whenever one party is required to pay or reimburse money to the other (hereafter the “Payment”), the party requesting the Payment shall do so in writing and supply supporting documentation describing the purpose and work performed or expense incurred, and if applicable, by whom, the hourly or daily rate as appropriate, and how the Payment requested was calculated. The party requesting December 7, 2011 16 shall answer any questions or supply additional documentation that is reasonably required and promptly requested by the party paying. The party paying shall remit the Payment by check or direct deposit within 25 days of receiving the request and the complete supporting documentation. Requests for payment shall be made not more than 4 months following the close of the financial year in which the requesting party incurred the expense. 13. Completeness, Headings, Reformation: This document represents the complete Agreement by and between the parties with respect to the means restriction net systems on the three City-owned bridges described herein. The paragraph headings are for convenience only and are not part of the Agreement. If it should later be determined that any portion of the Agreement is unlawful as determined by the final and un-appealable judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction or by mutual agreement of the parties, then the unlawful portion shall be excised and not have any effect on the validity of the balance of the Agreement or on its overall purpose and intent. The parties agree either that the said court shall reform the Agreement on their behalf or that they may mutually agree to reform the Agreement by a reformation amendment duly executed by each of them, such that by either method the overall purpose and intent is preserved and the Agreement is remade whole and functional without such unlawful provision, providing however, that no such reformation may increase the liability or obligation (monetary or otherwise) of either party without its express consent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have here unto set their hands and seals, the day and year indicated next to each signature. City of Ithaca, by: _____________________________________ Date:______________________________ Name Title Cornell University, by: _____________________________________ Date:______________________________ Name Title City Attorney Hoffman reviewed the minor corrections needed in the agreement. He also explained that a “model” net was installed at the Ithaca Fire Department training center and some issues were discovered that are being mitigated. Discussion followed on the floor with various Council members explaining their positions on the issue. Concerns were raised regarding the need to address the issue of alcohol abuse by students and the impact that has on decisions they may make. Further discussion occurred on the unknown future costs to the city. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (7) McGonigal, Clairborne, Rosario, Myrick, Rooker, Mohlenhoff, Cogan Nays (2) McCollister, Zumoff Abstentions (0) Carried 9.2 Planning and Development/IURA – Loan Subordination and Restructuring to Facilitate Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) Acquisition of Mutual Housing Association of Tompkins County (MHATC) Housing – Resolution By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff WHEREAS, on October 20, 2011, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) executed a Transfer Agreement with Mutual Housing Association of Tompkins County, Inc. (MHATC) to acquire the MHATC housing project in the Northside neighborhood as part of a plan for dissolution of MHATC, which plan must additionally be approved by December 7, 2011 17 the New York State Attorney General and the Supreme Court of the State of New York as required by Not-for-Profit Corporations Law, and WHEREAS, MHATC owns and manages 28 units of affordable housing located within the block bounded by Adams Street, First Street, Franklin Street and Alice Miller Way, and WHEREAS, INHS has developed a plan to assume and refinance MHATC debt on the project, pay outstanding property tax obligations, commit to fund over $200,000 of immediate property upgrades and repairs, and operate the property as affordable housing without dislocation of any tenants in good standing, and WHEREAS, MHATC acquired title to the Phase 1 MHATC First Street Property (tax map #25.-3-1.1) from the City of Ithaca on April 30, 1992 for a purchase price of $90,000, payable over 24 years and secured by a mortgage lien on the parcel, and WHEREAS, MHATC is delinquent on property taxes and has an outstanding balance due of $45,582.28 to the City of Ithaca as of December 1, 2011, and WHEREAS, INHS seeks to secure refinancing debt for the acquisition project with first- mortgage liens on the project property and requests the City to subordinate its mortgage lien to a new mortgage lien, and WHEREAS, INHS proposes to assume MHATC’s loan obligation with respect to the City provided the loan is restructured, and WHEREAS, the City-to-MHATC loan established a 12-year period of 3% interest-only payments ($225/mo.) followed by a 12-year period beginning in 2004 of principal plus interest payments at 7% interest ($920/mo.) to fully amortize the debt in 2016, and WHEREAS, MHATC remained current on the loan through 2004 but never made a principal plus interest payment and still owes the full $90,000 principal balance, and WHEREAS, INHS proposes to assume a restructured MHATC loan to fully repay the City the outstanding principal balance of $90,000 over 20 years at 2% ($455/mo.), and WHEREAS, upon acquisition of MHATC property INHS commits to pay delinquent property taxes due to the City, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency reviewed this matter at their October 27, 2011 meeting and recommends that the Common Council approve restructuring the City to MHATC debt as requested by INHS to allow INHS to invest over $200,000 in immediate facility upgrades and repairs while maintaining rents at rates affordable to low- and moderate-income families, and WHEREAS, the City Administration Committee considered this matter at their November 30, 2011 meeting and recommended the following; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That in order to induce INHS to acquire MHATC real estate as part of an MHATC dissolution plan and operate the existing 28 housing units located on First Street and Alice Miller Way as affordable housing without dislocating any tenants in good standing, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby agrees to subordinate its mortgage lien on the Phase 1 MHATC First Street Parcel (tax map parcel #25.-2-1.1) to a mortgage lien and/or other security securing lender/bond purchaser for the INHS acquisition project, on such terms and conditions as required by any lender or bond purchaser financing the acquisition project and approved by the City Attorney, and be it further RESOLVED, That the City agrees to: 1. Authorize assignment of the $90,000 MHATC loan to INHS; 2. Forgive all delinquent payments of principal and interest on the loan; 3. Modify the loan terms to repay the full $90,000 outstanding principal balance over 20 years at a 2% interest rate ($455/mo.), and be it further December 7, 2011 18 RESOLVED, That the Mayor, upon the advice of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute all necessary and appropriate documents to implement this resolution, including, but not limited to, a subordination agreement and a loan-modification agreement. Alderperson Clairborne disclosed that he has a relative who lives in housing owned by Mutual Housing Association of Tompkins County; however, he will not personally benefit from this action. Alderperson Rosario questioned what happened with the payments before, and how would the City prevent it from happening again. Community Development Director Bohn responded that the City did not have an accounts receivable software program so tracking payments was an issue. This was the only loan the City had out. It knew there were financial problems but action was not taken when the loan went into default. City Attorney Hoffman stated that the City didn’t want to lose this level of affordable housing, and the problem was not evident until now. Alderperson McGonigal stated that he does quite a bit of work for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services so he will recuse himself from a vote. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (8) Clairborne, Rosario, McCollister, Zumoff, Myrick, Rooker Mohlenhoff, Cogan Nays (0) Abstentions (1) McGonigal Carried 9.3 Planning and Development/IURA – Waive and Subordinate City’s Right- of-First-Refusal on Mutual Housing Association of Tompkins County (MHATC) First Street Property to Facilitate Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Acquisition of MHATC – Resolution By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff WHEREAS, on October 20, 2011, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) executed a Transfer Agreement with Mutual Housing Association of Tompkins County, Inc. (MHATC) to acquire the MHATC housing project in the Northside neighborhood as part of a plan for dissolution of MHATC, which plan must additionally be approved by the New York State Attorney General and the Supreme Court of the State of New York as required by the Not-for-profit Corporations Law and WHEREAS, MHATC owns and manages 28 units of affordable housing located within the block bounded by Adams Street, First Street, Franklin Street and Alice Miller Way, and WHEREAS, MHATC acquired title to the Phase 1 MHATC First Street Property (tax map #25.-3-1.1) from the City of Ithaca on April 30, 1992 for a purchase price of $90,000, payable over 24 years; and WHEREAS, in conveying said property to MHATC, the City retained a right-of-first- refusal – i.e., the right to reacquire the property in the event of a future sale or conveyance by MHATC, by matching a bona fide offer received by MHATC, within 60 days of notification of such offer, and WHEREAS, MHATC proposes to convey the property to INHS under terms whereby INHS agrees to assume project debt, outstanding property tax obligations, commit to fund over $200,000 of immediate property upgrades and repairs, and operate the property as affordable housing without dislocation of any tenants in good standing, and WHEREAS, MHATC is delinquent on property taxes and has an outstanding balance due of $45,582.28 to the City of Ithaca as of December 1, 2011, and WHEREAS, the MHATC Board plans to dissolve the MHATC organization upon transfer of its assets, and December 7, 2011 19 WHEREAS, transfer of MHATC real property to INHS will ensure retention of a 28-unit affordable housing resource, and WHEREAS, upon acquisition, INHS will pay delinquent property taxes due to the City, and WHEREAS, the City Administration Committee considered this matter at their November 30, 2011 meeting and recommended the following; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That in order to induce INHS to acquire MHATC real estate as part of an MHATC dissolution plan and operate the existing 28 housing units located on First Street and Alice Miller Way as affordable housing without dislocating any tenants in good standing, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby agrees to waive its right of first refusal over the Phase 1 MHATC First Street Parcel (tax map parcel #25.-2- 1.1), and be it further RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby agrees to subordinate its right-of-first-refusal over the Phase 1 MHATC First Street Parcel (tax map parcel #25.-2-1.1) to a mortgage lien and/or other security securing INHS’ lender/bond purchase for the project, on such terms and conditions as required by any lender or bond purchaser financing the acquisition project and approved by the City Attorney, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Mayor, upon the advice of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute all necessary and appropriate documents to implement this resolution, including, but not limited to, a subordination agreement. Ayes (8) Clairborne, Rosario, McCollister, Zumoff, Myrick, Rooker Mohlenhoff, Cogan Nays (0) Abstentions (1) McGonigal Carried 9.4 Human Resources – Approval of Retiree Health Insurance Co-Payment – Resolution By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson McGonigal WHEREAS, the City currently, for 2011, charges a majority of City retirees and those employees on leave of absence $221.84 per month for individual health insurance coverage and $507.98 per month for family coverage, which equates to 33.50% of the 2011 premium equivalent rate, and WHEREAS, these retiree rates have been adjusted annually per the consumer price index (CPI) small cities percentage since 2005, and WHEREAS, the premium equivalent rate has been increasing greater than the CPI for several years, therefore reducing the annual retiree contribution, and WHEREAS, in light of the significant increase in past years in the City health insurance rates and the related hardship these increases would have caused City retirees and persons on leaves of absence had the City charged full rates, the City has adopted a policy of not charging the full rate increases to those individuals, and WHEREAS, the City’s financial status is being heavily pressured by increasing health insurance costs, and WHEREAS, the City is now recommending that the retirees co-payment for health insurance increase or decrease at the same percentage change of the premium equivalent rate on an annual basis, for 2012 the increase is 9.5%; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby establishes the 2012 monthly rate of health insurance coverage for retirees and those employees on leaves of absence at $242.91 for individual coverage and $556.24 for family coverage, which represents a 9.5% increase over the current retiree health insurance rate charged, and be it further December 7, 2011 20 RESOLVED, That the 2012 rate shall be effective January 1, 2012, and be it further RESOLVED, That the future retiree health insurance rates shall be reviewed annually by the City Controller’s Office and adjusted by the percentage increase/decrease to the City’s premium equivalent rate with appropriate notification by the Human Resources Department to retirees regarding future rate changes, and be it further RESOLVED, That said increase in retiree health insurance rates do not apply to those retirees that currently have a fixed rate of health insurance premium. City Controller Thayer reported that the cost for the premium on family health insurance is approximately $20,000 per year. He further noted that Tompkins County retirees pay 50% of the cost. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously 9.5 Finance/Controller’s Office – A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $4,566,000 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 Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Rooker 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 $4,566,000 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 serial 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 and/or expenses in connection therewith, is as follows: a) Citywide retaining wall evaluation, in and for said City, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $150,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $150,000 bonds of the $4,566,000 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; b) Youth Bureau Building roof replacement, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $197,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $197,000 bonds of the $4,566,000 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; c) Purchase of a fire rescue vehicle, for said City, including incidental equipment and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $870,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $870,000 bonds of the December 7, 2011 21 $4,566,000 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 20 years, pursuant to subdivision 27 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and d) Reconstruction of and construction of improvements to the Seneca Street parking garage, in and for said City, including original furnishings, equipment, apparatus, appurtenances, and incidental expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $1,000,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $1,000,000 bonds of the $4,566,000 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) Data network replacement, in and for said City, including hardware, software and incidental expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $195,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $195,000 bonds of the $4,566,000 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; f) Reconstruction of and construction of improvements to East State Street, Martin Luther King Jr. Street and Mitchell Street intersection, in and for said City, including resurfacing, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, drainage, landscaping, grading, and incidental equipment and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $450,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $450,000 bonds of the $4,566,000 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 20(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; g) Traffic signal upgrades at multiple city locations (Phase II), in and for said City, including incidental equipment and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $764,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $764,000 bonds of the $4,566,000 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 20 years, pursuant to subdivision 72 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; h) Purchase of police vehicles to replace those in service for at least one year, in and for said City, including incidental equipment and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $155,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $155,000 bonds of the $4,566,000 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; i) Purchase and installation of parking pay stations, in and for said City, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $50,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $50,000 bonds of the $4,566,000 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 December 7, 2011 22 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; j) Reconstruction of and improvements to various water mains and pumps, in and for said City, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $60,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $60,000 bonds of the $4,566,000 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; k) Reconstruction of and improvements to various sewer mains and pumps, in and for said City, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $120,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $120,000 bonds of the $4,566,000 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; l) To pay the additional costs of the construction of a multi-use trail between Floral Avenue and the Flood Control Channel in said City, in and for said City, at a revised maximum estimated cost of $416,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $324,000 bonds of the $4,566,000 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution in addition to the $92,000 previously authorized by a bond resolution dated and duly adopted on July 6, 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 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 19(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law and that the period of probable usefulness for the planning and design costs specified in said bond resolution dated and duly adopted on July 6, 2011 is now determined to be 15 years, calculated from August 5, 2011, the date of the first obligations issued for said specific object or purpose; and m) 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 said City, in and for said City, at a revised maximum estimated cost of $267,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $231,000 bonds of the $4,566,000 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution in addition to the $36,000 previously authorized by a bond resolution dated and duly adopted on July 6, 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 and that the period of probable usefulness for the planning and design costs specified in said bond resolution dated and duly adopted July 6, 2011 is now determined to be 10 years, calculated from August 5, 2011, the date of the first obligations issued for said specific object or purpose. Section 2. The aggregate maximum estimated cost of the aforesaid objects or purposes is $4,566,000, and the plan for the financing thereof is by the issuance of the $4,566,000 serial bonds authorized by Section 1 hereof, allocated to each of the objects or purposes in accordance Section 1 hereof. December 7, 2011 23 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 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 20 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. December 7, 2011 24 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. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call, which resulted as follows: Alderperson McGonigal VOTING Nay Alderperson Clairborne VOTING Aye Alderperson Rosario VOTING Aye Alderperson McCollister VOTING Aye Alderperson Zumoff VOTING Aye Alderperson Myrick VOTING Aye Alderperson Rooker VOTING Aye Alderperson Mohlenhoff VOTING Aye Alderperson Cogan VOTING Aye Carried (8-1) The resolution was thereupon declared duly adopted. 9.6 City Controller’s Report City Controller Thayer reported to Common Council on the following items: • The bond interest rate is .75%, so it is a good time to borrow; however, it is a bad time to invest. • Year end activities are underway with 87% of sales tax revenue collected. • Sales tax revenue is up 3.3% over 2010 collections and 2011 projections. • Fine Revenues are over budget • Golf Course revenues are off by $104,000 due to the wet Spring; however, there has been a savings in the salary line for the golf course due to the vacancy in the golf-pro position. • Parking revenues are currently $75,000 under budget • Building permit revenue is short by $200,000; however the City still hopes to make the budgeted projections • The overtime budget is $900,000 over what was budgeted and growing; there are several open positions at the Ithaca Police Department • Health Insurance claims are high and over budget; however, costs should stabilize over time with the city’s membership in the health care consortium • The pension cost payment is due December 15, 2011 and the City may not be able to make the $4.3 million payment which is an increase of $1.2 million. The New York State AIM payment is due, and it that comes in by 12/15/11, the city will be able to make the pension payment • The auditors have been reviewing records and will be recommending cost savings and revenue enhancements. 10. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: 10.1 Cayuga Green Project, Approval of 3rd Amendment to Purchase and Sale Contract for Parcel ‘D’ - Resolution This item was withdrawn from the agenda. 10.2 Ordinances to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code to Add Chapter 160, entitled “Design Review,” and to Amend Chapter 272 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Signs” and Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Zoning” to Update Related Code References – A. Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental Review - Resolution By Alderperson Rosario: 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 December 7, 2011 25 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 adoption of the “City of Ithaca Design Review Ordinance” and the proposed adoption of two related ordinances to update code references in Chapter 272 and Chapter 325 are “Unlisted” Actions 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 adoption of an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code to adopt a new chapter, Chapter 160, “Design Review,” and to amend Chapter 272 and Chapter 325 to update related code references. Carried Unanimously B. Determination of Environmental Significance - Resolution By Alderperson Rosario: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to the Municipal Code in order to add a new chapter, Chapter 160, “Design Review,” and amendments to Chapter 272 and Chapter 325 to update code references, and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated October 20, 2011, 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 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 actions are “Unlisted” Actions 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 20, 2011, 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 C. An Ordinance to Add Chapter 160 entitled “Design Review” to the City of Ithaca Municipal Code By Alderperson Rosario: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister WHEREAS, the City’s existing design review legislation is part of Chapter 325, Zoning, of the Municipal Code and provides for an advisory, non-binding review process, and WHEREAS, the proposed City of Ithaca Design Review Ordinance would repeal the existing design review legislation and establish an advisory, non-binding review process in a new chapter of the Municipal Code, and December 7, 2011 26 WHEREAS, the proposed Design Review Ordinance would improve the efficiency of the review process for applicants and staff, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Design Review Ordinance was held on November 16, 2011, and appropriate environmental review of the proposed zoning has been completed; now, therefore, ORDINANCE NO. 2011- BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, as follows: Section 1. Section 41 of Chapter 325, Zoning, of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby repealed and will appear within the Municipal Code as “Reserved.” Section 2. A new chapter (Chapter 160) entitled “Design Review”, is hereby added to the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, to read as follows: § 160-1. Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “City of Ithaca Design Review Ordinance.” § 160-2. Purpose and Intent. A. This section is intended to promote the general public welfare by: 1. Promoting desirable urban growth and development; 2. Promoting excellence of architectural and urban design; 3. Preserving and enhancing community resources such as historic architecture and neighborhood character; 4. Achieving compatibility with adjacent properties. B. The intent of this chapter is to provide for the review of plans for construction, exterior alterations, additions, or demolition of structures in certain zones of the City or under certain conditions, which zones and conditions are hereby deemed special in nature in terms of architectural character, intensity of existing use and development, sensitivity to the effect of change in use, or other reason. § 160-3. Definitions. A. Definitions of specific terms or words as used in this chapter shall conform to the definitions of the same terms in the Site Plan Review Ordinance, Chapter 276, §276-2, and the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 325, §325-3. B. In addition to the definitions in Chapter 276 and Chapter 325, the following terms shall be used in this chapter as they are defined in this section: MANDATORY DESIGN REVIEW The required review of plans for construction, exterior alterations, additions, or demolition of structures § 160-4. Applicability. Mandatory design review shall apply to all proposals for: A. New construction, exterior alterations, addition or removal of exterior signs, or additions to any structure within the zones designated B-1b; B-2c; B-2d; all CBD zones, including CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, and CBD- 120; C-SU; WF-1; WF-2; and on any parcel within the December 7, 2011 27 2009 Collegetown Planning Area as designated on the map entitled “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines Planning Area,” dated November 2011, a copy of which is on file in the Ithaca City Clerk’s Office. B. New construction, exterior alterations, or additions to any structure 60 feet in height or greater in any zone. C. Demolition of any primary structure within any zone, and demolition of any portion of any structures within the zones designated B-1b; B-2c; B-2d; all CBD zones, including CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, and CBD-120; C-SU; WF-1; WF-2; and on any parcel within the 2009 Collegetown Planning Area. D. New construction of a primary structure on a parcel within any zone within two years following a demolition of a primary structure on that parcel. E. Changes to the site, such as the addition of new or alterations to existing hardscape elements, including but not limited to paving, retaining walls, or fences on any parcel within the 2009 Collegetown Planning Area. § 160-5. Mandatory Non-Binding Design Review. Design review recommendations shall not be binding, unless such recommendation shall also be incorporated into a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals or as a condition of site plan approval by the Planning and Development Board. § 160-6. Exemptions. A. Any action pertaining to any structure locally designated as a landmark or within a locally designated historic district shall be reviewed by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, and is therefore exempt from the requirement for design review. All decisions of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission are binding. B. Any action pertaining to any parcel within the 2009 Collegetown Study Area on which a single-family home is and will remain the primary use shall be exempt from the requirement for design review. § 160-7. Limited Design Review Procedure. A. The Building Commissioner or his or her designee shall determine whether design review is required when an application for a building permit or demolition permit is submitted. If the determination is made that design review is required, the Building Commissioner shall transmit the application to the Director of Planning and Development. B. Upon receipt of the application, the Director of Planning and Development or his or her designee shall determine whether the proposal shall be subject to a limited or full design review. C. The Director of Planning and Development or his or her designee shall have the authority to conduct a limited review of proposals of Type II actions. All proposal for Type I or Unlisted actions must go to the Planning and Development Board for full review. D. If a proposal may cause public controversy, the Director of Planning and Development may refer the proposal to the Planning and Development Board for full review. December 7, 2011 28 § 160-8. Full Design Review Procedure A. The Building Commissioner or his or her designee shall determine whether design review is required when an application for a building permit or demolition permit is submitted. If the determination is made that design review is required, the Building Commissioner shall transmit the application to the Director of Planning and Development. B. Upon receipt of the application, the Director of Planning and Development or his or her designee shall determine whether the proposal shall be subject to a limited or full design review. C. Any individual or group proposing new construction or development anywhere within the City of Ithaca may request an informal design review and advisory recommendation. D. When the proposal is determined to be subject to full design review, the individual or group making the proposal shall submit an application to the Department of Planning and Development with the following information (as appropriate): 1. Name and contact information of the applicant; 2. Location and photographs of the property; 3. Building permit application number; 4. Architectural plans, site plans and drawings of building facades; 5. Lists and/or samples of materials to be used; 6. Where the proposal includes signs or lettering, a scale drawing showing the type of lettering to be used, dimensions, colors, method of illumination, and a plan showing the sign’s location on the property; 7. Any other information necessary to visualize the proposed work. E. The Planning and Development Board shall review the proposal within 65 days from receipt of the completed application or, if the project is subject to environmental review, from the date of completion of environmental review. The failure of the Planning and Development Board to act within 65 days of the filing of an application, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Board, shall be deemed to constitute approval. F. All design review recommendations shall be communicated in writing no later than 10 business days after the meeting at which the recommendations are made. A copy shall be sent to the applicant by mail and a copy filed with the Building Commissioner. Section 3. The City Planning and Development Board and the City Clerk shall update the District Regulations Chart, as referred to in §325-8, in accordance with the amendments made herewith. Section 4. Severability. 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 portion. 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. December 7, 2011 29 Amending Resolution: By Alderperson Rosario: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff RESOLVED, That §160-8(E) be amended to read as follows: E. Planning and Development Board shall review the proposal within 65 days from receipt of the completed application or, if the project is subject to environmental review, from the date of completion of environmental review. The failure of the Planning and Development Board to act within 65 days as described above, unless an extension is mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Board, shall be deemed to constitute approval. Carried Unanimously Main Motion as Amended: A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously D. An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 272 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Signs” to amend Section 6 entitled “Signs Permitted in All Districts” By Alderperson Rosario: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick ORDINANCE NO. 2011- BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, as follows: Section 1. Section 272-6 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, entitled “Signs Permitted in All Districts”, is hereby amended to read as follows (strikethrough indicates deletion, underline and bold indicates new language): § 272-6(A) Signs Permitted in All Districts. The following signs are permitted in any use district without a permit as noted: (6) Murals. b. Upon receipt of a proposal for a mural for any property subject to the provisions of Chapter 325, Zoning, § 325-42, Design review, or Article VIII, Courthouse Special Use Zone, or Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, of this Code or facing such property, the Building Commissioner shall notify the Design Review Board, the Public Art Commission and/or the Landmarks Commission, as applicable, for their information and any appropriate action and shall so inform the applicant. (b) Upon receipt of a proposal for a mural for any property subject to the provisions of Chapter 160, Design Review, or Chapter 325, Zoning, Article VIII Courthouse Special Use Zone, or Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, of this Code or facing such property, the Building Commissioner shall notify the Planning and Development Board, the Public Art Commission, and/or the Landmarks Commission, as applicable, for their information and any appropriate action and shall so inform the applicant. Section 2. 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 3. 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 December 7, 2011 30 E. An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 325 entitled “Zoning” Section 10 entitled “Accessory Apartments”, and Section 325-44 entitled “Review of Construction, Demolition, and Alteration” By Alderperson Rosario: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister ORDINANCE 2011- BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, as follows: Section 1. Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Zoning”, Section 10D(6), entitled “Accessory Apartments - Requirements”, is hereby amended to read as follows (strikethrough indicates deletion, underline and bold indicates new language): § 325-10 – Accessory Apartments. In order to be granted a temporary permit, the following criteria and requirements must be met: (6) Exterior appearance. If an accessory apartment is located in the main building, the entry to the building and its design shall be such that the appearance of the building shall remain as a single-family residence. New or additional front entrances or windows are discouraged but in any event must be in keeping with the architectural style of the rest of the structure. Exterior stairways may only be constructed in the rear, except where an alternate location would be less publicly visible. Any exterior design changes may be referred by the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Design Review Board for its technical advice. New or additional front entrances must have the approval of the Design Review Board. (6) Exterior appearance. If an accessory apartment is located in the main building, the entry to the building and its design shall be such that the appearance of the building shall remain as a single family residence. New or additional front entrances or windows are discouraged but in any event must be in keeping with the architectural style of the rest of the structure. Exterior stairways may only be constructed in the rear, except where an alternate location would be less publicly visible. Any exterior design changes may be referred by the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Planning and Development Board for its technical advice. Section 2. Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code entitled “Zoning”, Article IX, entitled “Courthouse Special Use Zone”, Section 46(A)(B) entitled “Review of Construction, Demolition, and Alteration” is hereby amended to read as follows( strikethrough indicates deletion, underline and bold indicates new language): § 325-44. Review of Construction, Demolition, and Alteration. A. Demolition, exterior alterations or additions to existing structures and parking areas and construction of new buildings or parking areas within the C-SU Zone shall be subject to strict review and approval by the Design Review Board and the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission within their respective areas of responsibility. (See Subsection B below and § 325-41, Design review.) Proposals for demolition of structures within the C-SU Zone but outside designated City landmark districts shall nonetheless be referred to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which shall make its recommendation to the Design Review Board before the latter takes final action. December 7, 2011 31 B. Demolition, exterior alteration or enlargement of structures or parking areas or construction of new buildings or parking areas in C-SU Zones shall be subject to design review as provided in § 325-41 of this chapter. In performing such review and recommending any modifications to proposed exterior work, the Design Review Board shall pay particular attention to the visual effect of such work on the character of the area and adjacent residential zones. In no case shall the Design Review Board take final action on a proposal for demolition within any part of the C-SU Zone which is not within a locally designated landmark district before receiving the recommendation of the Landmarks Preservation Commission on such proposal. Approval of proposed demolitions, alterations or new construction within the C-SU Zone by the Design Review Board or the Landmarks Preservation Commission, as applicable, shall be a prerequisite of approval of such proposals by the Building Commissioner and the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. A. Demolition, exterior alterations or additions to existing structures and parking areas and construction of new buildings or parking areas within the C-SU Zone shall be subject to strict review and approval by the Planning and Development Board and the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission within their respective areas of responsibility. (See Subsection B below and Chapter 160, Design Review.) Proposals for demolition of structures within the C-SU Zone but outside designated City landmark districts shall nonetheless be referred to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which shall make its recommendation to the Planning and Development Board before the latter takes final action. B. Demolition, exterior alteration or enlargement of structures or parking areas or construction of new buildings or parking areas in C- SU Zones shall be subject to design review as provided in Chapter 160. In performing such review and recommending any modifications to proposed exterior work, the Planning and Development Board shall pay particular attention to the visual effect of such work on the character of the area and adjacent residential zones. In no case shall the Planning and Development Board take final action on a proposal for demolition within any part of the C-SU Zone which is not within a locally designated landmark district before receiving the recommendation of the Landmarks Preservation Commission on such proposal. Approval of proposed demolitions, alterations or new construction within the C-SU Zone by the Planning and Development Board or the Landmarks Preservation Commission, as applicable, shall be a prerequisite of approval of such proposals by the Building Commissioner and the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Section 3. The City Planning and Development Board and the City Clerk shall update the District Regulations Chart, as referred to in §325-8, in accordance with the amendments made herewith. 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 December 7, 2011 32 REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES: 11.1 Motion to Enter Into Executive Session to Discuss Collective Bargaining – Resolution By Alderperson Myrick: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan RESOLVED, That Common Council enter Into Executive Session to discuss collective bargaining. Alderperson Mohlenhoff recused herself from the discussion as her spouse is a fire fighter. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously Reconvene: Common Council reconvened into Regular Session with no formal action taken. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion followed on the floor regarding possible dates for a Special Common Council meeting to consider the Resolution entitled “Cayuga Green Project, Approval of 3rd Amendment to Purchase and Sale Contract for Parcel ‘D’ – Resolution” that was removed from the agenda due to the lack of adequate time to advertise a public hearing before the meeting. A possible date of December 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. was proposed. It was also announced that the Inaugural Meeting of Common Council would be held on Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Common Council Chambers. 14. MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS: 14.1 Appointments – Reappointments to Various City Boards/Committees – Resolution Board of Public Works – Resolution By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick RESOLVED, That Claudia Jenkins be reappointed to the Board of Public Works with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further Board of Fire Commissioners – Resolution RESOLVED, That William D. Gilligan be reappointed to the Board of Fire Commissions with a term to expire June 30, 2014, and be it further Board of Zoning Appeals – Resolution RESOLVED, That Marilyn Tebor-Shaw be reappointed to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further RESOLVED, That James Marshall be reappointed to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further Commons Advisory Board – Resolution RESOLVED, That Tim Gray be reappointed to the Commons Advisory Board with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further RESOLVED, That Chris Georgaroudakis be reappointed to the Commons Advisory Board with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further RESOLVED, That Joseph Gaylord be reappointed to the Commons Advisory Board with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further Conservation Advisory Council – Resolution RESOLVED, That Michel Culotta be reappointed to the Conservation Advisory Council with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further December 7, 2011 33 RESOLVED, That Thomas Shelley be reappointed to the Conservation Advisory Council with a term to expire December 31, 2015, and be it further Disability Advisory Council – Resolution RESOLVED, That Jaime Freilich be appointed to the Disability Advisory Council to fill a vacancy with a term to expire June 30, 2014, and be it further RESOLVED, That Greg Gizewski be reappointed to the Disability Advisory Council with a term to expire June 30, 2014, and be it further Examining Board of Electricians – Resolution RESOLVED, That Joseph Kohm be reappointed to the Examining Board of Electricians with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further Housing Board of Review – Resolution RESOLVED, That Charette Wheelis be reappointed to the Housing Board of Review with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further Ithaca Housing Authority – Resolution RESOLVED, That Loretta Tomborelli Epthimiatos be appointed to the Ithaca Housing Authority Board to fill a vacancy with a term to expire October 17, 2015, and be it further RESOLVED, That Ann Bantuvanis be reappointed to the Ithaca Housing Authority Board with a term to expire October 17, 2015, and be it further Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission - Resolution RESOLVED, That Edward Finegan be reappointed to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further RESOLVED, That Stephen B. Gibian be appointed to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission to replace Lynn Truame with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further RESOLVED, That Christine O’Malley be appointed to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission to replace Nancy Brcak with a term to expire December 31, 2014. Natural Areas Commission – Resolution RESOLVED, That Sarah B. Steuteville be reappointed to the Natural Areas Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further Parks Commission – Resolution RESOLVED, That Roberta Moudry be reappointed to the Parks Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further Planning and Development Board – Resolution RESOLVED, That John Schroeder be reappointed to the Planning and Development Board with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further Public Art Commission – Resolution RESOLVED, That Caleb Thomas be reappointed to the Public Art Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further Shade Tree Advisory Committee – Resolution RESOLVED, That Judith P. Fogel be reappointed to the Shade Tree Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further RESOLVED, That Nina Bassuk be reappointed to the Shade Tree Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further RESOLVED, That Judith B. Maxwell be reappointed to the Shade Tree Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further December 7, 2011 34 Youth Bureau Advisory Board – Resolution RESOLVED, That Chris Milner be reappointed to the Youth Bureau Advisory Board with a term to expire December 31, 2014, and be it further RESOLVED, That September Johnson be appointed to the Youth Bureau Advisory Board to replace Annabel Fowler with a term to expire December 31, 2014. Carried Unanimously 14.2 Appointments to City of Ithaca Youth Council – Resolution By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson McGonigal RESOLVED, That Oseoba Airewele, Dominique Cooper, Leyla Dietrich, and Sam Wagner be appointed to the Youth Council as associate members, and be it further RESOLVED, That Patrick Hollister be appointed to the City of Ithaca Youth Council as a full voting member to replace Taylah Peacock with a term to expire August 31, 2013. Carried Unanimously 17. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY: 17.1 Motion to Enter Into Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation – Resolution By Alderperson Myrick: Seconded by Alderperson McCollister RESOLVED, That Common Council enter into Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation. Carried Unanimously Reconvene: Common Council reconvened into Regular Session with no formal action taken. City Attorney Hoffman reported that a lawsuit has been filed against the City by the Ginsberg family whose family member committed suicide by jumping from a bridge. An Article 78 proceeding was filed against the City by Jesse Palenberg regarding the Planning Board’s decision to approve the Collegetown Terrace Project. The city prevailed in the case. There has been no notice of appeal filed as of yet. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS: 18.1 Approval of the November 2, 2011 Regular Common Council Meeting Minutes and the November 16, 2011 Special Common Council Meeting– Resolution By Alderperson Myrick: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff RESOLVED, That the minutes of the November 2, 2011 Regular Common Council Meeting, and the November 16, 2011 Special Common Council Meeting be approved with noted corrections. Carried Unanimously ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. ______________________________ _______________________________ Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Carolyn K. Peterson, City Clerk Mayor