Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-2010-12-01COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. December 1, 2010 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Alderpersons (10) Coles, Dotson, Rosario, Clairborne, McCollister, Zumoff, Rooker, Myrick, Cogan, Mohlenhoff OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk – Conley Holcomb City Attorney – Hoffman City Controller – Thayer Community Development Director – Bohn Superintendent of Public Works – Gray Human Resources Director – Michell-Nunn Human Resources Deputy Director - Saul GIAC Director – Fort Community Development Deputy Director – Kittel Economic Development Deputy Director - DeSarno PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Peterson led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: City Administration Committee: Alderperson Coles requested that Item 9.8 entitled “Adoption of Compensation Study for CSEA DPW Unit Employees” be renumbered as 9.8A, and that a new Resolution entitled “Adoption of Compensation Study for CSEA Administrative Unit Employees” be added to the agenda as Item number 9.8B. No Council Member objected. PROCLAMATIONS/AWARDS: Mayor Peterson noted that she signed a proclamation this week entitled “Local First Week” and encouraged everyone to buy and shop local to support our local businesses. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 4.1 Pride of Ownership Awards – Presentation by Scott Whitham Mr. Whitham presented Pride of Ownership Awards to the following recipients: A. Ports of New York – A Winery, 815 Taber Street B. 111 Cascadilla Avenue, Jim Mazza and Nancy Osborn C. Greater Ithaca Activities Center Renovation Project D. 201 Second Street, Diane Ferris E. Kitchen Theatre Renovation Project F. Hangar Theatre Renovation Project The GIAC Board of Directors expressed their appreciation to Project Manager/ Community Development Deputy Director Sue Kittel, for her dedication to the GIAC Renovation Project, as well as for her active support and advocacy on behalf of GIAC. Part of the letter of appreciation that was read during the meeting stated “Her ability to handle her enormous workload is a testament to her many strengths, talents, and her strong work ethic.” 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL: 5.1 Youth Council Update Jen Handy, Youth Council Coordinator, reported that eight new Youth Council members were sworn in on November 22nd to serve with two other Youth Council members whose terms continue, for a total of ten Youth Council members. She highlighted some of the activities that the Youth Council will be involved with during the upcoming year: December 1, 2010 2 ƒ Youth Leadership Training Workshops ƒ Anti-drug poster contest for elementary school kids ƒ Healthy Youth Focus ƒ Youth Violence Prevention ƒ Youth Voice (to encourage and help connect local youth with local boards and commissions) ƒ Sweet Tooth Soiree 2011 (planned for early February 2011) ƒ Seeking Ithaca Youth Council Alumni – to engage and involve alumni in current Youth Council activities 5.2 Board of Fire Commissioners – Update: Board of Fire Commissioner Tom Hoard, addressed Council to report on the following activities of the Board: Fire Department Budget a. No increase in salaries - contracts under negotiation b. No funding to replace 2 firefighters who are retiring c. Retiring lieutenant’s position will be filled by moving a lieutenant from Codes Enforcement back to shift assignment d. Fire Chief position budgeted for ½ year, starting in July 2011 (Acting Chief Dorman to retire in November 2011). Fire Chief Search Committee has not met as of yet. e. Alarm Superintendent position budgeted for 3/4 year; the position scheduled to be eliminated in 4th quarter of 2011 f. Currently 2 firefighters out on disability leave, and 1 firefighter on administrative leave. Acting Chief Dorman is trying to recruit two firefighters; one to cover for a leave of absence and one to have available if an opening comes up g. Assistant Chief Lee LeBuff is on medical leave after recent heart surgery. We do not know his return date. Personnel Changes h. Lieutenant Dave Burbank, the voice of the Fire Department, has retired after almost 25 years with the Department. i. Firefighters Carl Smith and Tom Whitmore are retiring in December. Tom started with the Department in 1986 and Carl in 1990. Fire Advisory Board (Tompkins County Fire, Disaster, and EMS Advisory Board). Lyle Neigh reported that this board has been inactive for years, and has requested that the Board of Fire Commissioners and Common Council request reactivation by the County. Wood and South Street Traffic Calming Devices. The Board of Fire Commissioners has written to the Board of Public Works to request removal or modification of traffic calming devices. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: Susan Titus, Town of Ithaca and owner of Titus Gallery, addressed Council to express her opposition to cutting down trees on The Commons as part of the Commons Repair Project. She presented a petition with over 1,000 signatures opposing the tree removal. Will Fudeman, City of Ithaca, addressed Council regarding the need to preserve the trees on the Commons, if possible. Fay Gougakis, City of Ithaca, addressed Council to request that they enact a ban on hydrofracking in the City. December 1, 2010 3 The following people addressed Council to encourage the adoption of a sweat free procurement policy by the City of Ithaca: Laurie Konwinski, City of Ithaca Darcey Laine, City of Ithaca David Huang, Cornell University Student Nick Lawrie, City of Ithaca Ana Zapata, Cornell University Student Melissa Lukasiewicz, Cornell University Student Colin Foley, Cornell University Student Casey Sweeney, Cornell University Student Gleb Drobkor, Cornell University Student Alex Booris, Cornell University Student Rachael Blumenthal, Cornell University Student Jenn Dean, Cornell University Student George Hornedo, Cornell University Student PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR: Alderperson Coles responded to comments made about hydrofracking noting that Common Council will be working on a Resolution on the topic. She further commented that the City Attorney has completed a lot of work on the development of a sweat free procurement policy. Alderperson Rooker responded to comments made about a sweat free procurement policy. Mayor Peterson noted that the Environmental Protection Agency is discussing hydrofracking. She further noted that the City Administration Committee would be considering a Resolution concerning the proposed New York State Property Tax Cap and relief from unfunded mandates at their next meeting. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: City Administration Committee: 8.1 Finance/Controller’s Office Request Authorization to Cover Red Accounts - Resolution By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff RESOLVED, That the City Controller be empowered to make transfers within the 2010 Budget Appropriations, as needed, for the remainder of the 2010 fiscal year. Carried Unanimously 8.2 Request to Amend 2010 Budget for Various Grants and Reimbursements - Resolution By Alderperson Cogan: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has received various Grants and Reimbursements that were unanticipated and need to be accounted for, and WHEREAS, the Grants and reimbursements total $19,144 as follows: Community Celebrations $9,350 Police Vehicle Repair 1,351 Commons Cleanup 310 Police Auction and Misc. Revenue 8,133 now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby amends the 2010 budget as follows to account for said receipt and expenditures of funds: December 1, 2010 4 Increase Revenue Accounts: A1012-2379 Community Celebrations $9,350 A3120-2665 Sale of Equipment 5,431 A3120-2680 Insurance Reimbursement 1,351 A3120-2770 Miscellaneous Revenue 2,702 A5411-2300 Public Works Services 310 $19,144 Increase Appropriations Accounts: A1012-5435 Community Celebrations Contracts $9,350 A3120-5205 Police Furniture 8,133 A3120-5476-5001 Police Equipment Maintenance 1,351 A5411-5475 Property Maintenance 310 $19,144 Carried Unanimously CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: 9.1 Schedule of Fees for the Licensing of Dogs in the City of Ithaca – Resolution By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets has delegated the entire responsibility of licensing dogs to municipal clerks, and WHEREAS, state-level restrictions on licensing fees have been largely eliminated , provided that the fee for an unaltered dog is at least five dollars more than the fee for an altered dog, and additional fees be collected to fund an animal population control program, and WHEREAS, new language in the New York State Law specifies that all licensing revenue will be the sole property of the municipality in which it was raised, and retains the existing provision that collected revenues be used solely for animal control related programs; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby establishes the following schedule of fees to become effective January 1, 2011: Dog licenses: Altered dog $15 Unaltered dog $25 Altered working dog $ 5 Unaltered working dog $10 Purebred license $100 Identification tags: Replacement tags (all) $ 1 Impoundment fees: $25 – 1st offense $50 – 2nd offense within a one year period $75 – 3rd and subsequent offenses within a one year period and, be it further RESOLVED, That said established fees shall remain in effect until otherwise amended by Common Council. Carried Unanimously 9.2 An Ordinance to Repeal and Re-enact Chapter 164 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Entitled “Dogs and Other Animals” By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff Ordinance # 2010-__ December 1, 2010 5 BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the City of Ithaca Common Council as follows: Section 1. Chapter 164 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Entitled “Dogs and Other Animals” is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. Chapter 164 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Entitled “Dogs and Other Animals” is hereby adopted to read as follows: ARTICLE I General Provisions § 164-1 Definitions. As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: DOMESTICATED PETS - Any animals, birds, reptiles or fish customarily kept in the home or place of residence which are not vicious, dangerous or otherwise obnoxious, objectionable or offensive. § 164-2 Keeping of animals restricted. A. Prohibition. No person shall keep, pasture, breed, raise, harbor, stable or maintain any bees, poultry, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese or any other fowl or reptiles or any swine, horses, cows, mules, sheep, goats or any other animals, except domesticated pets, within the City. B. Exception. This section shall not apply to any educational, scientific or research institution maintaining, with adequate safeguards as to public health, safety, comfort and convenience, any animals or other creatures for scientific, medical or other research purposes. § 164-3 Animals at large. No person shall allow any cattle, horses, goats, sheep, swine or poultry to be at large within the City. § 164-4 Penalties for offenses. Except as provided in the Agriculture and Markets Law, a violation of this Article constitutes a civil offense punishable in accordance with §1-1 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code. These penalties shall be in addition to any other penalties provided by law. ARTICLE II Dogs § 164-5 Application. This Article shall apply to all areas of the City of Ithaca. A. In the event that any dog owned by a non-resident of the City of Ithaca is harbored within the City for a period of 30 days or less, such dog shall be exempt from the identification and licensing provisions of this Article provided such dog is licensed pursuant to the provisions of law of the area of residence. § 164-6 Definitions. As used in this Article, the following words shall have the meanings indicated: ADOPTION - The delivery to any person 18 years of age or older, for the limited purpose of harboring a pet, of any dog, seized or surrendered. ALTERED - Refers to a dog that has been spayed or neutered. AT LARGE - A dog not under control of the owner and off the premises of the owner. DANGEROUS DOG - Any dog which a. without justification attacks a person or domestic animal, as defined in this chapter, and causes physical injury or death, or b. behaves in a manner which a reasonable person would believe poses a serious and unjustified imminent threat of serious physical injury or death to one or more persons or domestic animal, or without justification attacks a "Working Dog” and causes physical injury or death. December 1, 2010 6 The term "Dangerous dog" does not include a "Police Work Dog", while being used to assist one or more law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties. DOG - means any member of the species canis familiaris. DOG CONTROL OFFICER - any individual appointed by the City to assist in the enforcement of this Article or any authorized officer, agent or employee of an incorporated humane society or similar incorporated dog protective association under contract with the City to assist in the enforcement of this Article. HARBOR - to provide food or shelter to any dog. IDENTIFICATION TAG - a tag issued by the City of Ithaca which sets forth an identification number, together with the name of the municipality, the State of New York, contact information, including telephone number for the municipality, and such other information as the licensing municipality deems appropriate. OWNER – If the dog is licensed, the owner is considered the person who purchased the dog license or in whose name the dog was last licensed. If a dog is not licensed, the term “owner” shall designate and cover any person who has custody or control of, harbors, or is otherwise responsible for any animal which is kept, brought or comes within the City limits. Any person owning or harboring a dog for a period of one week prior to the filing of any complaint charging a violation of this Article shall be held and deemed to be the owner of such dog for the purpose of this Article. In the event any dog found to be in violation of this Article shall be owned by a minor (under 18 years of age), the head of the household in which said minor resides shall be deemed to have custody and control of said dog and shall be responsible for any acts of said dog and violation of this Article. PERSON - any individual, corporation, partnership, association or other organized group of persons, municipality, or other legal entity. UNALTERED - any dog that is not spayed or neutered. WORKING DOG - any dog that is trained as a Guide Dog, Hearing Dog, Police Work Dog, Service Dog, Therapy Dog, War Dog or Working Search Dog as defined by Article 7 of the New York State Agriculture & Markets Law. § 164-7 Prohibited Acts. A. Except as otherwise set forth in this section, any owner of a dog or any other person who harbors any dog in the City of Ithaca shall be in violation of this Article if such dog: (1) Is not restrained by an adequate collar and leash when not on the property of the owner or any other person harboring or having custody or control of the dog. (2) Engages in unreasonable howling and/or barking or other noise, audible beyond the property line of the property where the dog is harbored, that disturbs or annoys any person of reasonable sensitivities other than the person owning or harboring such dog. Unreasonable howling or barking or other noise shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Howling, barking or other noise made by a dog and continuing for more than three cumulative minutes in any sixty-minute period; or (b) Howling, barking or other noise made by a dog which is determined to be unreasonable, taking into account the following factors: [1] The proximity of the noise to residential property. [2] The time of the day or night when the noise occurs. [3] The time duration of the noise. December 1, 2010 7 [4] Whether the noise is repetitive. [5] The volume of the noise. [6] The existence of complaints concerning the noise from persons living or working in the vicinity of the noise and who are affected by it. (3) Malicious provocation resulting from such activity as trespass, vandalism or badgering. (4) Causes damage or destruction to public or private property or defecates (unless the solid waste is promptly picked up and removed by the owner or other person responsible for the dog) or otherwise commits a nuisance on public or private property other than on the property of the person owning or harboring such dog. This provision shall not apply for a service animal for people with disabilities in performance of its trained duties. (5) Chases or otherwise harasses any person in such manner as reasonably to cause intimidation or to put such person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm or injury when not on the property of the person owning or harboring such dog. (6) Chases, leaps on or otherwise harasses: (a) Any bicycle, motorcycle, automobile or any other vehicle or device used by persons for travel or as a conveyance or any riders or occupants thereof. (b) Any cat, dog, or domestic animal. (7) Is unlicensed when four months of age or older or unlicensed due to failure to renew a dog license. (8) Is not wearing a current and valid dog license identification tag while at large, whether or not restrained by an adequate collar and leash. (9) Is not redeemed within five days after the owner has been notified, either personally or by mail, that said dog has been seized and impounded pursuant to the Agriculture and Markets Law, § 118. (10) Harasses, attacks, annoys or otherwise interferes with a service animal for people with disabilities which provides assistance for mobility and other major life functions to people with disabilities. B. Exemption. Effective as of January 1, 2009, Subsection A(1) above shall not apply to owners whose dogs are off-leash in the fenced portion of the area owned by the City (and managed by New York State pursuant to an agreement between the City and the state) and known as the "Festival Lands," which lands are adjacent to Allan H. Treman State Marine Park and which are shown as Parcel B on a survey map of Cass Park dated August 15, 2001, by T.G. Miller, PC (which fenced area subject to this exemption may extend onto immediately adjacent state parklands), provided that such owners are in compliance with all rules and regulations duly established for such off-leash area. § 164-8 Enforcement. All peace officers in the City, the Tompkins County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and its employees, pursuant to contract with the City, and all employees of any Dog Control Officer appointed by the Common Council shall administer and enforce the provisions of this article and for such purpose shall have the authority to issue appearance tickets pursuant to Article 150 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Appearance tickets may require payment by mail of a designated fine or appearance in Ithaca City Court and shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Judge of the Ithaca City Court. In assessing penalty, the Judge of the Ithaca City Court may take into account the status, upon proper documentation or other supporting evidence, of an attacked animal as a service animal for people with disabilities which provides assistance in mobility, and other major life functions, to people with disabilities. December 1, 2010 8 § 164-9 Filing of complaints. Any person who observes a dog causing damage or destruction to property of a person other than its owner or committing a nuisance upon the premises of a person other than its owner may file a signed complaint, under oath, with the City Judge of the City of Ithaca, specifying the objectionable conduct of the dog, the date thereof, the damage caused, a description of the dog and the name and residence, if known, of the owner or other person harboring said dog. § 164-10 Appearance before City Judge. Upon receipt by the City Judge of any complaint against the conduct of any particular dog, the City Judge may summon the alleged owner or other person harboring said dog to appear in person before him/her. If the summons is disregarded, the City Judge may permit the filing of an information and issue a warrant for the arrest of such person. § 164-11 Minor owner; responsibility of head of household. In the event that any dog found to be in violation of this article is owned by a person under 18 years of age, the head of the household in which said person resides shall be deemed to be the owner or person harboring such dog and responsible for the acts of said dog for purposes of this article. § 164-12 Presumption. The fact that a dog is at large in the City of Ithaca elsewhere than on the premises of the owner or person harboring such dog or in the area described in § 164-7 (B) above, shall be presumptive evidence that the dog has been permitted to be at large with the knowledge of the owner or person harboring the dog. § 164-13 Licensing. All dogs being harbored in New York State are required to be licensed pursuant to Article 7 of the New York State Agriculture & Markets Law. A. Application for Original License. [1] The owner of any dog reaching the age of four months shall immediately make application to the City Clerk for a dog license on a form provided by the City Clerk’s Office. No license shall be required for any dog which is under the age of four months and which is not at large, or any dog that is residing in a pound or shelter maintained by or under contract or agreement with the state or any county, city or village, duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, duly incorporated humane society or duly incorporated dog protective association. [2] In the case of a dog being redeemed or a dog being adopted from a shelter or pound, the City Clerk and the manager of the facility shall establish a licensing procedure that is agreeable and beneficial to both the City of Ithaca and the shelter or pound. B. Rabies Vaccination Required. All applications for a dog license shall be accompanied by a valid rabies certificate signed by a licensed veterinarian. Such certificate or affidavit shall not be required if the same is already on file with the clerk or, in lieu thereof, a statement certified by a licensed veterinarian stating that the dog is too young to be vaccinated or because of old age or another reason, or if the life of the dog would be endangered by the administration of vaccine. In the case of a dog being redeemed or adopted from a shelter, copies of all documentation shall be forwarded to the City Clerk. Such records shall be kept on file by the City Clerk and be made available upon request for rabies and other animal disease control efforts. C. Spay/Neuter Certificates. In the case of an altered dog, every application shall also be accompanied by a certificate signed by a licensed veterinarian or an affidavit signed by the owner, showing that the dog has been spayed or neutered. In lieu of the spay or neuter certificate an owner may present a December 1, 2010 9 statement certified by a licensed veterinarian stating that he has examined the dog and found that because of old age or other reason, the life of the dog would be endangered by spaying or neutering. In such case, the license fee for the dog shall be the same as for a spayed or neutered dog. D. License. Upon receiving a complete application, the required documents and the fee, the City Clerk shall issue a license and identification tag. E. Expiration of License. An original license shall be issued for a period of one year, and shall expire on the last day of the month of the period for which it was issued. F. License Renewal. [1] The City Clerk will mail the license renewal to the dog owner prior to the license’s month of expiration. [2] A new rabies certificate shall be required if the one on record has either expired or will expire within 30 days of the date of renewal. [3] A spay/neuter certificate shall not be required if one is already on file with the City Clerk. In a case where the dog has been altered during the preceding year, the certificate shall be presented to the City Clerk in order to receive the reduced fee for an altered dog. [4] Renewing licenses early or late will not change the renewal month. However, owners having more than one dog may request common renewal dates for their licenses which may be granted at the discretion of the City Clerk, provided that all other licensing and renewal requirements are met. Licensing fees will not be prorated, refunded, or waved when accommodating such a request. [5] Upon renewal, the City Clerk shall provide the owner with a validated license, which license is valid for a period of one year and which shall expire on the last day of the month of the period for which it was issued. G. License Fees. [1] All applications for original licenses or renewals shall be accompanied by a fee established by the City of Ithaca Common Council. The total fee for an unaltered dog shall be at least $5 more than the total fee for an altered dog. [2] All revenue derived from such fees shall be used for controlling dogs, enforcing this Article and Article 7 of New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, and to subsidize education programs and the spaying or neutering of dogs. [3] License fees are not refundable or partially refundable in the event that a dog is lost, stolen, sold, given away, surrendered or deceased before the expiration of the license. [4] An additional fee of $5 shall be charged for all dogs that are identified as unlicensed during an enumeration. Such additional fee shall be used to pay the expenses incurred while conducting the enumeration. [5] An assessment of $3 for each unaltered dog and $1 for each altered dog shall be collected for the purpose of carrying out population control efforts as mandated by Article 7 of New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. Money derived from such assessment may be used to subsidize the spaying and neutering of cats as well as dogs pursuant to Article 7 of New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. This assessment is included in the license fee determined by Common Council. H. Identification of dogs. [1] When a dog is originally licensed, a City of Ithaca identification number will be assigned and an identification tag shall be issued, which shall be worn by the dog at all times. [2] No identification tag shall be affixed to the collar of any dog other than the one to which it was assigned. December 1, 2010 10 [3] Working dogs shall be assigned a special tag for identifying the designation of such dog in addition to the City of Ithaca identification tag. Both tags shall be worn by the dog at all times. [4] Lost tags shall be replaced at the expense of the owner at a fee set by the City of Ithaca Common Council. I. Change of Address / Change of Ownership. [1] When there is a change of address for the owner of record, the owner shall notify the City Clerk’s Office of such change. [2] In the event of a change in the ownership of any dog licensed in the City of Ithaca, the new owner shall immediately make application for a license for such dog. Additionally, the original owner of record shall notify the City Clerk’s Office of the change of ownership. Such original owner of record shall be liable for any violation under this Article until such filing is made or until the dog is licensed in the name of the new owner. [3] If any dog which has been licensed in the City of Ithaca is lost, stolen or deceased, the owner of record shall notify the City Clerk’s Office within ten days of the discovery of such loss, theft or death. J. Purebred Licenses. [1] The owner of two or more purebred dogs registered by a nationally recognized registry association may make an application to the City Clerk for a purebred license in lieu of the individual licenses. [2] At the time of application, the City Clerk shall assign a Purebred License identification number. [3] Application for a purebred license shall be on a form provided by the City Clerk and shall include rabies vaccination certification for every dog listed on the license. Copies of registry papers for every dog or a comprehensive list of registry numbers and associations shall be required. All dogs over four months of age must be listed and included in the purebred license. [4] Purebred licenses shall be issued for one year and renewed annually. [5] All applications for and renewals of purebred licenses shall be accompanied by a fee as set by the City of Ithaca Common Council. An assessment of $3 for each unaltered dog and $1 for each altered dog, for the purpose of carrying out population control efforts as mandated by Article 7 of New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, is included in the license fee determined by Common Council. No fee or portion thereof shall be refundable once the license is issued. [6] No purebred license is transferable. Upon change of ownership of any dog licensed under a purebred license, the new owner shall immediately make application for a license, except when the new owner holds a valid purebred license and adds the dog to such purebred license. [7] Identification tags may be requested by a holder of a purebred license. All purebred tags shall include the identification number assigned to the purebred license and the cost shall be paid by the owner at a fee set by the City of Ithaca Common Council. § 164-13 Conditions for Keeping Dogs. All premises occupied by dogs shall be kept in a clean, sanitary condition. Adequate food, water, shelter and space must be provided for each dog owned. For the purpose of this Section, “adequate” shall mean sufficient for age, size and number of dogs on the premises. § 164-14 Liability of Owner. A. If a domestic or companion animal is injured or killed as a result of being attacked, chased or worried by any dog, the owner of said dog shall be liable for damage. The owner of such injured or killed animal may make a complaint to the Dog Control Officer or a police officer who shall proceed pursuant to the Dangerous Dog Section of Article 7 of New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. December 1, 2010 11 B. In no event shall the City of Ithaca be held liable for any damage done by any dog. § 164-15 Enforcement/Appearance Ticket. All police officers in the City, the Tompkins County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and its employees, pursuant to contract with the City, and all employees of any Dog Control Officer appointed by the Common Council shall administer and enforce the provisions of this article and for such purpose shall have the authority to issue appearance tickets. § 164-16 Seizure, Impoundment, Redemption and Adoption. A. Any dog belonging to a person found in violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance may be seized pursuant to the provisions of New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. B. Any dog believed to be dangerous and which poses an immediate threat to the public safety may be seized. C. Any dog may be seized, which has been judged to be a Dangerous Dog pursuant to New York State Agriculture and Markets Law and whose owner has failed to obey an Ithaca City Court order pertaining to said Dangerous Dog. D. Every impounded dog shall be properly cared for, sheltered, fed and watered. E. Each dog which is not identified, whether or not licensed, shall be held for a period of 5 days from the day seized during which period the dog may be redeemed by its owner. Said owner shall provide proof that the dog has been licensed pursuant to this Article and pay an impoundment fee established by the City of Ithaca Common Council. F. In the case of an identified dog, the owner of record shall be promptly notified by the Dog Control Officer of the seizure and the procedure for redemption either personally or by certified, return receipt requested mail. If notification is personally given, the dog shall be held for a period of 7 days after the day of notice, during which period the dog may be redeemed by the owner. If such notification is made by mail, the dog shall be held for a period of 9 days from the date of mailing, during which period the dog may be redeemed by the owner. Said owner shall provide proof that the dog has been licensed pursuant to this Article and pay an impoundment fee established by resolution of the City of Ithaca Common Council. G. Any dog unredeemed at the expiration of the appropriate redemption period shall be made available for adoption or euthanized pursuant to the provision of New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. H. If the owner of any unredeemed dog is known, such owner shall be required to pay the impoundment fees. I. The seizure of any dog shall not relieve any person from any violation of this Article or New York State Agriculture and Markets Law. § 164-17 Complaint. 1. Any person who observes a dog in violation of this Article may file a complaint, under oath, with a City-designated Dog Control Officer or Agency specifying the nature of the violation, the date thereof, a description of the dog, the location of the violation and the name and residence, if known, of the owner of such dog. Such complaint may serve as the basis for enforcing the provisions of this Article. 2. Upon receipt by the City-designated Dog Control Officer or Agency of any such complaint, that Officer or Agency shall issue an appearance ticket to the alleged owner of the dog to appear before the Ithaca City Court at a date and time specified. December 1, 2010 12 § 164-18 Penalties for offenses Except as provided in the Agriculture and Markets Law, a violation of this Article constitutes a civil offense punishable in accordance with §1-1 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code. These penalties shall be in addition to any other penalties provided by law. § 164-19 Disposition of fines Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all moneys collected as fines or penalties by any municipality as a result of any prosecution for violations of the provisions of this Article or Article 7 of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law and all bail forfeitures by persons charged with such violations shall be the property of the municipality and shall be paid to the financial officer of such municipality. Such moneys shall be used only for controlling dogs and enforcing this Article. Said revenue may also be used to subsidize the spaying or neutering of dogs, any facility as authorized under Article 7 of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, and subsidizing public humane education programs in responsible dog ownership. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, Article or part of this ordinance, now or through supplementation or amendment in the future, shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section, Article or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2011, and upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Amending Resolution: By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson RESOLVED, That the formatting be corrected in §164-7 (A) so that item (3) becomes item [7] under section (b) and the rest of the section be renumbered accordingly. Carried Unanimously (9-0) (Alderperson Myrick absent from vote) Main Motion As Amended: A Vote on the Main Motion As Amended resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously (9-0) (Alderperson Myrick absent from vote) Alderperson Cogan highlighted the prohibited acts of the ordinance and requested that the City Clerk’s office create a dog brochure with this information to include with dog licenses and for the Tompkins County SPCA. 9.3 DPW – IAWWTF – Approval of Johnson Controls Energy Performance Project - Resolution By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Dotson WHEREAS, the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility’s Special Joint Committee (hereinafter SJC) entered into an agreement with Johnson Controls, Inc. (hereinafter JCI) to develop a performance contract for the Special Joint Committee’s municipal owners consideration on June 12, 2009, based on capital improvements which produce energy savings from lighting system modifications, installation or upgrades to energy management systems, energy efficiency improvements to building envelope, HVAC Systems, and replacement of the digester mixing equipment, cogeneration facility, heat exchanging equipment, boilers and aeration blowers and dissolved oxygen control systems, and WHEREAS, a Request for Proposals entitled “Energy Savings Performance Contract for Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility” was issued on September 2, 2010, and WHEREAS, JCI responded and met all stipulated requirements of the aforementioned RFP, and December 1, 2010 13 WHEREAS, the identified facility improvement measures to be included in the performance contract are projected to reduce energy consumption at the facility by 69% and reduce the facility’s green house gas emissions by 961 tons of carbon dioxide per year, and WHEREAS, JCI has submitted a proposed program of improvement and draft performance contract for review consisting of approximately $8.03 million in improvements or modifications under a contract that guarantees a specified level of energy savings over the period of the contract (15 years), and WHEREAS, Approximately $6.9 million of the identified improvements are improvements that would need to be made within the next five years to replace aging digester gas storage, cogeneration, aeration blowers, dissolved oxygen controls and boiler equipment and infrastructure at the facility, and WHEREAS, the facility improvements associated with the building envelope and HVAC systems and the purchase of a 5 kW photovoltaic solar panel are being funded by a $406,179 NYSERDA grant, and WHEREAS, that as a qualified responder recommended by IAWWTF Chief Operator, JCI was approved by the SJC on October 13, 2010, for development of the performance contract, and be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Energy Improvements in the amount not to exceed $8,030,000, and be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council authorizes the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Chief Operator to negotiate a contract based on the proposal submitted by JCI, and be it further, RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby approves said contract and hereby authorizes the Mayor to sign said contract, and be it further RESOLVED, That said agreement shall be contingent on the approval of the contract by the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden, and be it further RESOLVED, That in accordance with the performance contract to be negotiated between the IAWWTF Chief Operator and JCI, funding for said project minus the $406,179 NYSERDA grant award will be made by the owners based on the following schedule, Owners Percentage Project Cost City of Ithaca 57.14 $ 4,354,193.14 Town of Ithaca 40.88 $ 3,115,145.52 Town of Dryden 1.98 $ 150,880.34 $ 7,620,219.00 either through a municipal lease negotiated by the City Controller’s Office, the issuance of Serial Bonds which are to include interest rates as stipulated by the City of Ithaca Controller, or by the individual owner’s own funding mechanism, based on the above schedule, and be it further RESOLVED, That the performance contract to be negotiated between the IAWWTF Chief Operator and JCI will guarantee energy savings to offset the project funding costs as follows, Owners Percentage Energy Savings City of Ithaca 57.14 $ 5,593,037.48 Town of Ithaca 40.88 $ 4,001,459.08 Town of Dryden 1.98 $ 193,808.44 $ 9,788,305.00 December 1, 2010 14 Amending Resolution: By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff RESOLVED, That the third, fourth, and fifth Resolved clauses be amended to read as follows: “RESOLVED, That Common Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to sign said contract, upon consultation with the Attorney for the SJC, and be it further RESOLVED, That said contract shall be contingent on its approval of the contract by the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden, and be it further RESOLVED, That in accordance with the performance contract to be negotiated by the IAWWTF Chief Operator and JCI, funding for said project minus the $406,179 NYSERDA grant award will be provided by the owners based on the following schedule,“ Carried Unanimously Main Motion As Amended: A Vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously 9.4 Findings and Recommendations on the Apprenticeship Policy Background In 2001 the New York State Legislature adopted a new law (Labor Law, Section 816-b) that gives municipalities the option of requiring contractors and subcontractors for a construction contract (to which the municipality is a direct or indirect party) to have apprenticeship agreements (providing for the approved training and placement of apprentices). In January 2005 Common Council exercised its authority under said statute, and adopted a resolution that required that all City construction contracts for more than $500,000 “must include contractors that participate in New York State certified apprenticeship programs,” that this requirement is to be imposed upon “all bidders and all subcontractors under the bidder,” and is to apply to “each apprenticeable trade or occupation represented in their workforce,” and that all bidders and their subcontractors “must abide by the apprentice-to-journeyman ratio for each trade prescribed therein,” but that 25% of the monetary value of the general contract may be exempted from the apprenticeship requirement “to permit the use of small or specialty subcontractors who would otherwise be excluded”. By 2009 the Mayor and the Council had become aware of certain problems and concerns associated with the implementation of the City’s Apprenticeship Policy. As a result of these concerns, Common Council decided in December 2009 to suspend the Apprenticeship Policy until August 5, 2010, and to ask for a “working group” (including staff and Council members) appointed to research the matter to make a recommendation on the subject to Common Council before August 5, 2010. The working group, which consisted of Mayor Carolyn Peterson; Alderpersons J.R. Clairborne (Chair), Dan Cogan, and Eddie Rooker; and Staff members City Attorney Daniel Hoffman, Building Commissioner Phyllis Radke, City Controller Steve Thayer, Assistant City Attorney Khandikile Sokoni, Assistant City Engineer Tom West, and Community Development Deputy Director Sue Kittel, met regularly over the past year and heard directly from union representatives, affected contractors and others. Included among the various issues aired were difficulty in navigating the intricacies of the policy, how the policy’s implementation affected competition, gauging and monitoring success via hires of local and diverse labor, and what other vehicle(s) could deliver the intended benefits per Common Council’s resolution of 2005 absent an apprenticeship policy. Note: The working group viewed “local” as residents of Tompkins County. December 1, 2010 15 The working group sought an extension until November 10, 2010 (Common Council Resolution of August 4, 2010), to allow the group additional time to complete its examination of, and deliberation about, the issue of the Apprenticeship Policy or possible alternative approaches to the goal of enhancing employment readiness and opportunities for City residents, particularly those who are young and/or disadvantaged, and to provide a recommendation to the Mayor and the Chair of the City Administration Committee. Findings The working group made the following findings: 1. The Apprenticeship Policy costs the City a significant amount of money (e.g. 2% extra for the Columbia Street bridge project, and 21% extra for the Cayuga Waterfront Trail Project) because, where applicable, the City is compelled, by this policy to award the contract not to the lowest qualified bidder but to one that also has a qualifying Apprenticeship Program. 2. The policy does not result in the placement of significant numbers of apprentices. For instance, for the South Aurora Street Bridge over Six-Mile Creek and Green Street project, which cost the City $2 million, approximately 11 hours out of a total of 8,512 hours were documented as hours worked by apprentices. 3. Apprenticeships are not widely available. For instance, at one time in the electricians’ apprenticeship program there were 250 applications for only 10 available slots. 4. A majority of the unions that are most likely to have apprenticeship programs cover multi-county areas. For instance, the painters’ union covers the Binghamton, Rochester, Buffalo, and Erie, Pa, area. Other unions cover similarly large areas and do not necessarily provide job opportunities locally. Recommendations The working group, having identified several flaws with the Apprenticeship Policy (including the substantial expense incurred by the City in selecting only those contractors with an accredited apprenticeship policy without a showing that this extra expense results in the local job creation that was originally intended; internal administrative problems associated with the selection process for qualified bidders whose apprenticeship programs qualify for consideration, etc), concluded that the existing Apprenticeship Policy had not yielded the intended results as outlined in the original resolution establishing the policy and that, as such, its continued implementation was not justified. The working group supports a separate initiative to explore alternative ways of creating local job opportunities (possibly in conjunction with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency). Alderpersons J.R. Clairborne and Eddie Rooker undertook to continue exploring, in conjunction with the relevant City and IURA staff, other ways of generating the local job opportunities that were envisioned by the original apprenticeship policy. More specifically the working group would like Common Council to recommend that the IURA view the implementation of a job-training/skills-development program as a priority in accordance with the 2009-2013 City of Ithaca Consolidated Plan. For the reasons and based on the findings outlined above, the working group recommends that the “Apprenticeship Policy” that was established by resolution of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, on January 5, 2005, be repealed. Discussion followed on the floor with Alderperson McCollister asking how the Findings were determined, particularly the cost differential. Alderperson Cogan explained that staff had researched the certified payrolls of the identified projects. 9.5 Repeal of the of the City of Ithaca’s Apprenticeship Policy - Resolution By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Rooker WHEREAS, in 2001 the New York State Legislature adopted a new law (Labor Law, Section 816-b) that gives municipalities the option of requiring contractors and subcontractors for a construction contract (to which the municipality is a direct or indirect party) to have apprenticeship agreements (providing for the approved training and placement of apprentices); and December 1, 2010 16 WHEREAS, in January 2005 Common Council exercised its authority under said statute and adopted a resolution that required that all City construction contracts for more than $500,000 “must include contractors that participate in New York State certified apprenticeship programs,” that this requirement is to be imposed upon “all bidders and all subcontractors under the bidder," is to apply to “each apprenticeable trade or occupation represented in their workforce,” and that all bidders and their subcontractors “must abide by the apprentice-to-journeyman ratio for each trade prescribed therein,” but that 25% of the monetary value of the general contract may be exempted from the apprenticeship requirement “to permit the use of small or specialty subcontractors who would otherwise be excluded;” and WHEREAS, by 2009 the Mayor and the Council were made aware by staff of certain problems and concerns associated with the implementation of the City’s Apprenticeship Policy; and WHEREAS, as a result of these concerns, Common Council decided in December 2009 to suspend the Apprenticeship Policy until August 5, 2010, and to ask for a “working group” (including staff and Council members) appointed to research the matter to make a recommendation on the subject to Common Council before August 5, 2010; and WHEREAS, this working group, chaired by Alderperson J.R. Clairborne, met regularly over the past year and heard directly from union representatives, affected contractors and others; and WHEREAS, the working group sought an extension until December 2, 2010 (Common Council Resolution of August 4, 2010), to allow the group additional time to complete its examination of, and deliberation about, the issue of the Apprenticeship Policy or possible alternative approaches to the goal of enhancing employment readiness and opportunities for City residents - particularly those who are young and/or disadvantaged - and to provide a recommendation to the Mayor and the Chair of the City Administration Committee; and WHEREAS, the working group, having identified several flaws with the Apprenticeship Policy (including the substantial expense incurred by the City in selecting only those contractors with an accredited apprenticeship policy without a showing that this extra expense results in the local job creation that was originally intended; internal administrative problems associated with the selection process for qualified bidders whose apprenticeship programs qualify for consideration, etc), concluded that the existing Apprenticeship Policy had not yielded the intended results as outlined in the original Resolution establishing the policy, and that as such its continued implementation was not justified, and WHEREAS, the 2009-2013 City of Ithaca Consolidated Plan, which sets priorities for spending of HUD Entitlement Funds in Ithaca, establishes a goal of Job Training and Placement in the City and job-training programs and/or job-creating activities have been funded yearly since 2004 under this program, and WHEREAS, the working group supports these activities and the exploration of additional job-creating opportunities, possibly in conjunction with the IURA, and WHEREAS, the working group has submitted a report to the Mayor and the Common Council with its findings and recommendations, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the “Apprenticeship Policy” that was established by resolution of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, on January 5, 2005, be and hereby is repealed. Carried Unanimously 9.6 HUD Entitlement Program – Reaffirm Job Training as a Priority Community Development Need - Resolution By Alderperson Clairborne: Seconded by Alderperson Rooker WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is making considerable efforts to increase the number of jobs in the city and is consistently advocating for quality employment opportunities for city residents, in particular young people in the city, and December 1, 2010 17 WHEREAS, maintaining a qualified and skilled labor force is essential to a healthy and dynamic local economy, and WHEREAS, it is desirable to establish employment principles to guide future decisions of the City, and WHEREAS, in January 2005 Common Council exercised its authority under New York State Labor Law, Section 816-b, and adopted a resolution that implemented what became the City’s Apprenticeship Policy, and WHEREAS, although the City’s Apprenticeship Policy was intended to increase the number of training and job opportunities for local residents, it has been determined that in its implementation this intent was not fully realized although Apprenticeship Programs are still available through local unions and continue to provide valuable job skill development and services, and WHEREAS although the Common Council for the City of Ithaca is repealing the Apprenticeship Policy in December 2010, the Common Council wishes to implement in its place a program that will more fully accomplish the job-training and job-creation goals that were envisioned by the same, and WHEREAS, the City receives an annual formula allocation of funds to address community development needs through the HUD Entitlement Program from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and WHEREAS, the Common Council has designated the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) as the lead agency to develop and administer the HUD Entitlement Program on behalf of the City, and WHEREAS, the Common Council adopted the 2009-2013 City of Ithaca Consolidated Plan (Consolidated Plan) that identifies goals, objectives and strategies for use of HUD Entitlement Program funding to address community development needs, and WHEREAS, the Consolidated Plan establishes 15 locally identified priority community development needs, of which one is “job training and placement opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons,” and WHEREAS, the Consolidated Plan further identifies “children, teens, young adults and people of color” as focus populations targeted for assistance in public service programming, and WHEREAS, since 2004 the IURA has recommended HUD Entitlement funding for several job training and placement programs including the commercial driver’s license program, the pre-construction preparedness program, and the Significant Elements job- training project; now, therefore, be it, RESOLVED, That the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby reaffirms its finding in the 2009-2013 City of Ithaca Consolidated Plan that job training and employment placement is a top priority community development need, particularly for young adults and persons of color, and be it further, RESOLVED, That the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, in its role as lead agency to develop the City’s HUD Entitlement Program, is strongly encouraged to seek out and develop effective job training and placement projects, especially for teens, young adults and people of color, for funding through the HUD Entitlement Program through 2013. Alderperson Clairborne thanked committee members for all of their work on this issue. He noted that it is important that youth have these opportunities for local jobs and training. December 1, 2010 18 Alderperson Rooker stated that the committee discussed making this industry specific, but decided to let the IURA use its discretion in offering training in a variety of fields. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously 9.7 Human Resources - Standard Work Day and Reporting - Resolution By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Mohlenhoff BE IT RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca hereby establishes the following as standard work days for elected and appointed officials and will report the following days worked to the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System based on the record of activities maintained and submitted by these officials to the clerk of this body: Title Name Social Security Number (Last 4 digits) Registration Number Standard Work Day (Hrs/day) Term Begins/Ends Participates in Employer’s Time Keeping System (Y/N) Days/Month (based on Record of Activities) Elected Officials Council Daniel Cogan 6 1/1/10- 12/31/11 N 10.75 Appointed Officials Carried Unanimously 9.8A. Human Resources - Adoption of Compensation Study for CSEA DPW Unit Employees - Resolution By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca wishes to implement a compensation structure that is based on an objective job evaluation system and that achieves both internal and external equity for employees represented by the CSEA DPW Unit, and WHEREAS, the NYS Department of Civil Service and the Human Resources Department have recommended the adoption of a point factor evaluation system and corresponding compensation structure for CSEA DPW Unit employees, and WHEREAS, the CSEA DPW Unit voted in favor of adopting and implementing the recommended compensation structure, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the recommended 2011 CSEA DPW Unit Compensation Plan and the recommended point factor evaluation system be adopted and implemented in accordance with the procedure and schedule recommended by the Human Resources Department, beginning February 6, 2011, and be it further RESOLVED, That effective February 6, 2011, CSEA DPW Unit employees shall contribute 20% of the appropriate health insurance premium; provided, however, that if this increased health insurance contribution would result in a net salary decrease for an employee, that employee’s health insurance contribution shall be modified or frozen as recommended by the Human Resources Department, and be it further RESOLVED, That effective February 6, 2011, the option to cash-in leave time will be eliminated for any CSEA DPW Unit employee whose salary increases by $3000 or more as a direct result of the implementation of the compensation study. Mayor Peterson thanked Human Resources Deputy Director Saul for all of her work throughout the past twenty years to complete the study and implement the findings, and acknowledged Human Resources Director Michell-Nunn for her work on this issue as well.. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously December 1, 2010 19 9.8B Adoption of Compensation Study for CSEA Administrative Unit Employees - Resolution By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca wishes to implement a compensation structure that is based on an objective job evaluation system and that achieves both internal and external equity for employees represented by the CSEA Administrative Unit, and WHEREAS, the NYS Department of Civil Service and the Human Resources Department have recommended the adoption of a point factor evaluation system and corresponding compensation structure for CSEA Administrative Unit employees, and WHEREAS, the CSEA Administrative Unit voted in favor of adopting and implementing the recommended compensation structure, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the recommended 2010 CSEA Administrative Unit Compensation Plan and the recommended point factor evaluation system be adopted and implemented in accordance with the procedure and schedule recommended by the Human Resources Department, beginning February 6, 2011, and be it further RESOLVED, That effective February 6, 2011, CSEA Administrative Unit employees shall contribute 20% of the appropriate health insurance premium; provided, however, that if this increased health insurance contribution would result in a net salary decrease for an employee, that employee’s health insurance contribution shall be modified or frozen as recommended by the Human Resources Department, and be it further RESOLVED, That effective February 6, 2011, the option to cash-in leave time will be eliminated for any CSEA Administrative Unit employee whose salary increases by $3000 or more as a direct result of the implementation of the compensation study. Carried Unanimously 9.9 Finance/Controller’s Office – A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $5,638,645 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 Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Myrick 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 $5,638,645 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) Improvements to the Cayuga Waterfront Trail (Phases II/III: 2011), in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $857,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $857,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that to the extent that any Federal or State grants-in-aid are received for such specific object or purpose, the amount of bonds to be issued pursuant to this resolution shall be reduced dollar for dollar. It is December 1, 2010 20 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; b) Reconstruction of Stewart Park Small Pavilion, in and for said City, including incidental improvement and expenses in connection thereto, at a maximum estimated cost of $105,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $105,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 19(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; c) 2011 planning and design costs for reconstruction of The Commons Pedestrian Mall, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $800,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $800,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 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; d) Reconstruction of roads, including materials acquisition, resurfacing, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, drainage, landscaping, grading, and incidental equipment and expenses in connection therewith, throughout and in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $125,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $125,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 20(c) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; e) 2011 planning and design costs of the Cass Park Ice Rink Renovation Project, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $77,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $77,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 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; f) Roof replacement and other reconstruction of the Cass Park Pool Filter building, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection thereto, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $31,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $31,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 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; g) 2011 planning and design costs for the Collegetown area, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $50,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $50,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 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; h) Replacement of sewer mains on the 300 block of East Seneca Street, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $65,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $65,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 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 1, 2010 21 aforesaid specific object or purpose is 40 years, pursuant to subdivision 4 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; i) 1) Design costs in connection with reconstruction of the Brindley Street Bridge, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $205,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $205,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that to the extent that any Federal or State grants-in-aid are received for such specific object or purpose, the amount of bonds to be issued pursuant to this resolution shall be reduced dollar for dollar. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 62(2nd) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; 2) Replacement of the water main at said bridge including incidental improvements and expenses in connection there with, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $25,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $25,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 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 40 years, pursuant to subdivision 1 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; j) The purchase of various items of equipment and vehicles, at an aggregate maximum estimated cost of $776,000, allocated as follows: 1) Mowing tractor for use at the golf course, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $30,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $30,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 10 years, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; 2) Asphalt paver for use by the DPW/Highway Departments, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $281,250. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $281,250 bonds of the $5,638,645 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; 3) Dump truck for use by the DPW/Highway Departments, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $156,250. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $156,250 bonds of the $5,638,645 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; 4) Street sweeper for use by the DPW/Highway Departments, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $18,250. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $18,250 bonds of the $5,638,645 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is 10 years, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; 5) Platform lift truck for use by the DPW/Electrician Departments in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $99,250. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $99,250 bonds of the $5,638,645 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 1, 2010 22 aforesaid specific of object or purpose is 15 years, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; 6) Passenger vans for use by the GIAC, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $61,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $61,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 bonds of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid class of objects or purposes is 5 years, pursuant to subdivision 29 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and 7) Police vehicles, to replace those in service for at least one year, including incidental equipment, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $130,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $130,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 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. k) City's share of the cost of reconstruction of the City Court pedestrian bridge, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $50,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $50,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 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 10 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; l) Replacement of traffic signal hardware at various locations, including incidental expenses in connection therewith (Phase II), in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $174,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $174,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 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 purpose is 20 years, pursuant to subdivision 72(a) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; m) Acquisition of a parcel of land on Inlet Island for public waterfront access, including incidental expenses in connection therewith, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $180,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $180,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 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 30 years, pursuant to subdivision 21(a) of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; n) Purchase and installation of sewer main on Third Street Extension, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $254,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $254,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 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 purpose is 40 years, pursuant to subdivision 4 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; o) Water mains replacement on University Avenue, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith, in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $210,000. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such specific object or purpose shall consist of the issuance of $210,000 bonds of the $5,638,645 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 purpose is 40 years, pursuant to subdivision 1 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law; and December 1, 2010 23 p) Reconstruction of water storage tanks at various sites, including incidental improvements and expenses in connection therewith (2011), in and for said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $1,654,645. It is hereby determined that the plan for the financing of such class of objects or purposes shall consist of the issuance of $1,654,645 bonds of the $5,638,645 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 purpose is 40 years, pursuant to subdivision 1 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law;) Section 2. The aggregate maximum estimated cost of the aforesaid objects or purposes is $5,638,645, and the plan for the financing thereof is by the issuance of the $5,638,645 serial bonds authorized by Section 1 hereof, allocated to each of the objects or purposes in accordance Section 1 hereof. Section 3. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on such obligations as the same respectively become due and payable. An annual appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations becoming due and payable in such year. There shall annually be levied on all the taxable real property of said City, a tax sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations as the same become due and payable. Section 4. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and 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 December 1, 2010 24 2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of such publication, or 3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Section 8. This resolution shall constitute a statement of official intent for purposes of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. Other than as specified in this resolution, no monies are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside with respect to the permanent funding of the object or purpose described herein. Section 9. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published in summary form in the Ithaca Journal, the official newspaper, together with a notice of the City Clerk in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law. Alderperson Coles VOTED AYE Alderperson Dotson VOTED AYE Alderperson Clairborne VOTED AYE Alderperson Rosario VOTED AYE Alderperson McCollister VOTED AYE Alderperson Zumoff VOTED AYE Alderperson Rooker VOTED AYE Alderperson Myrick VOTED AYE Alderperson Mohlenhoff VOTED AYE Alderperson Cogan VOTED AYE Carried Unanimously 9.10 City Controller’s Report City Controller Thayer reported to Council on the following: • Sales tax revenue is slightly above budget • Parking revenue is running $185,000 to $200,000 under budget. The Board of Public Works did not agree on new rates or the removal of the one hour free parking in the garages for 2010. • Fine revenues are on pace to be slightly over budget • The City is waiting to see if the State will make changes to its AIM payment which is due to the City in mid- December • Building Department revenues are expected to be above budget • Overtime expenses continue and are over budget • NYS Sales Tax changes – Tompkins County is not opting for exemption, and he recommends that the City not opt for the exemption as well. 10. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: 10.1 Restore NY Round III Grant – Downtown Commons Upper Story Housing – Modification to Project at Petrune Building, 126-128 E. State/MLK Street - Resolution By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca submitted a $2.5 million Restore NY III application to the Empire State Development Corporation for funding assistance to rehabilitate three downtown buildings, and WHEREAS, the City was awarded $1.15 million through Restore NY III for rehabilitation of the following buildings: $900,000 Plantations, 130-132 E. State/MLK Street Sponsors: Lex Chutintaranond & Flaminia Cervesi, managing members $250,000 Petrune, 126-128 E. State/MLK Street Sponsors: Domenica Brockman & Justin Hjortshoj December 1, 2010 25 WHEREAS, the City authorized the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to administer and implement the Restore NY III grant, and WHEREAS, Justin Hjorshoj and Domenica Brockman dba Petrune, have been unable to secure bank financing for their project to renovate upper floors for two market-rate apartments and one affordable apartment, and WHEREAS, Petrune proposes to modify their project to renovate the vacant upper floors of the their building for textile production and craft studio use in lieu of housing, thereby reducing the overall project cost and eliminating the need for a large bank loan, and WHEREAS, the revised project will position Petrune for continued growth and is projected to create at least 2 full-time equivalent jobs and significantly localize Petrune’s supply chain thereby reducing the amount of inventory purchased from international sources, and WHEREAS, at their October 28, 2010 meeting, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) reviewed this matter and recommended that the Common Council approve the requested project modification; and WHEREAS, the Empire State Development Corporation has authorized the requested project modification subject to Common Council approval; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby approves the sponsor’s request to modify their Restore NY III project to renovate the third and fourth floors of the Petrune Building at 126-128 E. State/MLK Street for textile production and commercial use. Alderperson Dotson noted that housing is desirable in the downtown core, but she applauds the reconfiguration of this project as it will bring a product local that is currently being imported (high quality fabrics for interior design) from other countries. She further added that this would re-purpose the building back to its original use. Alderperson Clairborne expressed concern over the loss of affordable housing units with the proposed project changes, noting his frustration that many developers have changed their original project intentions due to the various financing markets. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously 10.2 Jane A. Delano Home – Local Landmark Designation - Resolution By Alderperson Dotson: Seconded by Alderperson Rosario WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may designate landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance, and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2010, the Commission conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering a proposal to designate as a local landmark the Jane A. Delano Home at 113 – 115 Valentine Place, and WHEREAS, the proposal is a Type II Action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, therefore not requiring environmental review, and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the proposal meets criteria under the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance and, on September 14, 2010, voted unanimously to designate the Jane A. Delano Home as a local landmark, and WHEREAS, Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code states that the Council shall within ninety days of said designation, approve or disapprove the same, or refer it back to the Commission for modification, and December 1, 2010 26 WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the City of Ithaca Board of Planning and Development shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the master plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved, and WHEREAS, in 2009, the Planning Board received an application for approval of the proposed site plan of a project (known as Collegetown Terrace) for development of rental housing units which together with retained units is proposed to have up to a total of 1,260 bedrooms, on a 16.4-acre site off East State/Martin Luther King Street, which project would involve the demolition of 29 existing buildings, including the Jane A. Delano Home, and WHEREAS, in the course of its review of said application (the environmental review of which has been completed), the Planning Board has considered the impact of the proposed demolition of the Jane A. Delano Home (and other architectural resources) and has weighed that against what the developer contends it could do (as of right) to replace the 240 proposed “beds” that would be “lost” if the Delano Home could not be demolished - namely, to relocate said facilities (or parking now proposed to be beneath the new buildings) to what is now proposed to be “open space” and/or gorge buffer area within the project site, which redesign of the project would involve other impacts, such as on community character, aesthetics, public health and safety, and/or the adjacent Six Mile Creek Natural Area, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board, having balanced relevant considerations, acknowledged the historic significance of the Jane A. Delano Home and that its demolition will result in a significant, large adverse impact to historic resources, but concluded that in the context of the proposed Collegetown Terrace project, this impact is preferable to the other, significant impacts that the Board believed could result from a redesign of the project (assuming that the developer can have up to 1,260 bedrooms on the site, as of right) that would retain the Delano Home, and WHEREAS, the loss of the Delano Home resulting from its non-designation will be mitigated by certain conditions including the rehabilitation of the architecturally significant 901 East State/MLK St, (the George C. Williams House, notable for its prominent octagonal tower) in its current location at the intersection with Mitchell Street, and adaptive reuse of the structure within the proposed project program, which the Planning Board has identified and included in its findings statement, and intends to apply during the site plan review process, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board's report and recommendation, adopted at its meeting on October 26, 2010, has been reviewed by the Common Council, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City Ithaca concurs with the recommendation of the Planning and Development Board that the designation of the Jane A. Delano Home as a local historic landmark is not appropriate in the context of the proposed Collegetown Terrace project, and be it further RESOLVED, That, pursuant to Section 228-4.C of the City Code, the Common Council hereby disapproves the designation of the Jane A. Delano Home as a local historic landmark. Alderperson Dotson stated that the Planning and Economic Development Committee received a lot of information about this project and adopted this resolution unanimously. Alderperson Coles stated that she will oppose the Resolution. She explained that near her home in Italy a pile of rubble was restored to its original architectural structure. She further noted that Americans don’t value old buildings like other older countries do. She stated that this is a beautiful house with architectural meaning, including its past use as a nursing dormitory and Jane Delano’s role in that field. Alderperson McCollister stated that she feels that the Planning Board did its due diligence in reviewing this proposal. She agrees with many of the sentiments expressed by Alderperson Coles; however, she will support the Resolution. December 1, 2010 27 A vote on the Resolution Resulted as follows: Ayes (9) Dotson, Clairborne, Rosario, McCollister, Zumoff, Rooker, Myrick, Mohlenhoff, Cogan Nays (1) Coles Abstentions (0) Carried MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS: 14.1 Cable Access Oversight Committee: By Alderperson Myrick: Seconded by Alderperson Clairborne RESOLVED, That Michael Brutvan be reappointed to the Cable Access Oversight Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further RESOLVED, That Wayles Brown be reappointed to the Cable Access Oversight Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further 14.2 Commons Advisory Board: RESOLVED, That Kris Lewis be reappointed to the Commons Advisory Board with a term to expire December 31, 2012, and be it further RESOLVED, That Nancy Brooks be reappointed to the Commons Advisory Board with a term to expire December 31, 2012, and be it further RESOLVED, That Christopher Kusznir be reappointed to the Commons Advisory Board with a term to expire December 31, 2012, and be it further RESOLVED, That Joseph Wetmore be reappointed to the Commons Advisory Board with a term to expire December 31, 2012, and be it further RESOLVED, That Ethan Ash be reappointed to the Commons Advisory Board with a term to expire December 31, 2012, and be it further 14.3 Design Review Board: RESOLVED, That John Snyder be reappointed to the Design Review Board with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further 14.4 Disability Advisory Council: RESOLVED, That Otis Jackson be reappointed to the Disability Advisory Council with a term to expire June 30, 2013, and be it further 14.5 Examining Board of Electricians: RESOLVED, That Robert Sparks be reappointed to the Examining Board of Electricians with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further 14.6 Examining Board of Plumbers: RESOLVED, That David Warden be reappointed to the Examining Board of Plumbers with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further 14.7 Housing Board of Review: RESOLVED, That John Barradas be reappointed to the Housing Board of Review with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further 14.8 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission: RESOLVED, That David Kramer be reappointed to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further 14.9 Natural Areas Commission: RESOLVED, That Anna Stalter to reappointed to the Natural Areas Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further RESOLVED, That F. Robert Wesley be reappointed to the Natural Areas Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further December 1, 2010 28 14.10 Parks Commission: RESOLVED, That Daniel Krall be reappointed to the Parks Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further 14.11 Public Art Commission: RESOLVED, That Terry Plater be reappointed to the Public Art Commission with a term to expire June 30, 2013, and be it further RESOLVED, That Svetla Borovska be reappointed to the Public Art Commission with a term to expire June 30, 2013, and it further 14.12 Shade Tree Advisory Committee: RESOLVED, That Dan Klein be reappointed to the Shade Tree Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further RESOLVED, That Pamela Markham be reappointed to the Shade Tree Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further RESOLVED, That Keith Vanderhye be reappointed to the Shade Tree Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further RESOLVED, That Monika Roth be reappointed to the Shade Tree Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further 14.13 Workforce Diversity Advisory Committee: RESOLVED, That Lynette Chappell-Williams be reappointed to the Workforce Diversity Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further RESOLVED, That Audrey Cooper be reappointed to the Workforce Diversity Advisory Committee with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further 14.14 Youth Bureau Advisory Board: RESOLVED, That William Murphy be reappointed to the Youth Bureau Advisory Board with a term to expire December 31, 2013, and be it further RESOLVED, That Joan Spielholz be reappointed to the Youth Bureau Advisory Board with a term to expire December 31, 2013. 14.15 Youth Council: RESOLVED, That Lawrence Brown-Cohen be appointed to replace Dana Malcom with a term to expire August 31, 2011. Mayor Peterson expressed her appreciation for the service of these volunteers to the City’s boards and committees. A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously REPORTS OF COMMON COUNCIL LIAISONS: Board of Public Works Alderperson Zumoff updated Common Council on discussions that the Board of Public Works has been having regarding parking rates, permits, and parking in the West End, downtown, and Collegetown. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY: City Attorney Hoffman reported to Common Council regarding the following activities: • Three new lawsuits have been filed against the City (two Article 78 proceedings and one personal injury lawsuit). • First Energy Corporation lawsuit has been settled, the first payment has been made. December 1, 2010 29 • Crown Castle has decided to build a cell tower on the State DOT site next to the Farmers’ Market and Verizon is considering co-locating there. The City may not have any jurisdiction over State property, but the City Attorney’s Office will be researching whether Site Plan Review would apply or not. Crown Castle will be scheduling a public meeting on the proposal soon. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS: 18.1 Approval of the November 3, 2010 Regular Common Council Meeting Minutes – Resolution By Alderperson Myrick: Seconded by Alderperson Zumoff RESOLVED, That the minutes of the November 3, 2010 Regular Common Council Meeting be approved with noted corrections. Carried Unanimously ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. ______________________________ _______________________________ Julie Conley Holcomb, CMC Carolyn K. Peterson, City Clerk Mayor