Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1986-11-0551 COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 7:30 P.M. November S, 1986 PRESENT: Mayor Gutenberger Alderpersons (10) - Booth, Cummings, Dennis, Haine, Hoffman, Lytel, Killeen, Peterson, Romanowski, Schlather OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Nash City Controller - Spano Deputy City Controller - Cafferillo City Clerk - Paolangeli Building Commissioner - Hoard Fire Chief - Olmstead Director, Planning & Development - Van Cort Superintendent of Public Works - Dougherty Police Chief - Herson N-1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Iq Mayor Gutenberger led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance LO to the American flag. T- SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Resolution of Sympathy Q By Alderperson Romanowski: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen WHEREAS, this Common Council wishes to express its deep sorrow at the untimely death of August Macali, and WHEREAS, Augie served the City of Ithaca and the Common Council faithfully as an alderman from 1964 through 1967; as a Fire Department Commissioner from 1959 through 1962 and served on the Public Safety Committee during the construction of the new Central Fire Station, and WHEREAS, Augie served his community by membership in many civic and religious organizations; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That for his contribution to this community which earned him its respect and deep appreciation, this Common Council wishes to convey its sympathy to the members of his family, and be it further RESOLVED, That this resolution of sympathy be spread upon the minutes of this meeting and a copy thereof be transmitted to his family. Carried Unanimously MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of October 1, 1986 Meeting Alderperson Lytel requeste that on page 7, under Finance Department Computer System, in the final paragraph, the word "technology" be deleted so as to read "information systems." Resolution By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Lytel RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the October 1, 1986 meeting be approved as published with the correction as noted above. Carried Unanimously ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: New Business Alderperson Peterson requested a brief discussion on employee's health insurance. Alderperson Hoffman requested a discussion of enforcement of building codes. No Alderperson objected. 52 -2- November 5, 1986 Report of Special Committees Alderperson Killeen requested a brief discussion on the RSVP Organization regarding their efforts in trying to assistthe elderly in tax preparation. No Alderperson objected. Executive Session Mayor Guten erger requested an Executive Session regarding contract negotiations and personnel items. No Alderperson objected. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: Stewart Par Doria Higgins, 2 Hillcrest Drive, representing Citizens to Save Stewart Park ", read the following statement to Common Council: "First I would like to say that Professor Darryl Bem of Cornell University who has most generously acted as consultant for us in examining the data of the Trowbridge Opinion Survey of Stewart Park will speak to you on that matter later this evening. Dr. Bem is known both nationally and internationally for his work in the behaviorial sciences, more particularly in the area of attitudes and attitude change and has testifed frequently in Washington as well as elsewhere on these matters. On your desks are two items: one is a Compilation of Letters, Suggestions, Opinions and Articles by Citizens to Save Stewart Park and Others, and the second item is an analysis of the results of the Trowbridge survey coupled with a tabulation of that data, using actual numbers of people rather than the percentage figures used by Trowbridge -- an alternate presentation which we think permits a more accurate interpre- tation of the results. This data clearly show that the people of Ithaca like Stewart Park the way it is. They want some maintenance items renewed but there is no mandate whatsoever in the Trowbridge data for redesigning or relandscaping Stewart Park or any part of the park. So the results of this survey lead us back to the question we have asked this Council a number of times. Why is Stewart Park being redesigned? Who in the community is being served by this project? While we are encouraged by the Hoffman resolution and by the modifications of it by Planning and Development Committee which are to be discussed tonight, we are still concerned that Common Council chooses to pursue plans to change Stewart Park whether they be by Mr. Niederkorn or by Mr. Trowbridge. Historically the first reference we can find to the current changing of Stewart Park is a "Capital Improvement Program Project Request" submitted by "BPW � P&,D" titled "Stewart Park Improvement Plan" and received by you May 16, 1983. It reads: "Public Works has determined that extensive but: unspecified improvements are needed." So you can see that from the beginning the project has been confusing. If the improvements are unspecified, how does anyone know they'll be extensive? This early request also says that the Stewart Park Improvements would be "a component of the proposed Inlet Valley Park and Recreation Master Plan." We find this information disturbing, particularly when viewed with reference to the Master Plan brochure map where there is a large white area on the golf course mysteriously labeled "future shore development." We call this matter to your attention to urge you to give it 53 -3- November S, 1986 your most careful scrutiny when it comes before you. Those of you who have lived all your lives in Ithaca and think of the city surround as rural may not realize how precious inner city green space becomes as suburbia spreads -- as it is doing in cities the world over. While we were encouraged by that part of Trowbridge's third public presentation which dealt with maintenance and restoration, there were other items mentioned by him, notably changing the roadway and parking system and segmentizing the elegant simplicity of green lawn with walkways and promenades, which we find disturbing. Friends of ours who are handicapped and who find that the present roadways and parking at Stewart Park give them a freedom of movement they cannot find elsewhere are also worried about the proposed changes by Trowbridge. These changes cannot be defended legitimately on the grounds that they increase handicap accessibility. So we are left with the question why are you changing the Iq park? By now more than 7,000 people have signed our petition LO urging you to revoke plans to redesign the park and instead to maintain, preserve and restore existing buildings, roads, M landscaping and other facilities in the park. In the Citizens Q to save Stewart Park Compilation before you are an outpouring of concern by the people of our community -- people in wheel- chairs, Cornell professors of architecture, people who have lived long lives in Ithaca, the young, the old. Please listen to these people -- read the letters in our compilation. Let me close with two quotations (these are from the first two statements in our Compilation). The first is by John Shaw, Professor of Architecture at Cornell: "It is difficult to understand the imagined need to make drastic changes in (400'r, Stewart Park. Considering the inexhaustible demand for public money, it seems frivolous to propose unnecessary and insensitive alterations to one of Ithaca's great resources... The proposed development seems to assume that the park is now inefficient, boring and out -of -date. It is none of these. Contrived charm dates itself as old Stewart Park will never be dated." The second quotation is by Arch MacKenzie, Associate Professor of Architecture at Cornell, and reads, after he has described the qualities that "make Stewart Park work," "It would be easy to disturb these delicate features by even a few ill- considered improvements." Please do not let Stewart Park become a political football. Please let it be. Ms. Higgins presented the Mayor with SS4 more signatures to the group's petition, bringing the grand total to- 7,20S. Darryl Bem, 301 Wyckoff Avenue, consultant for "Citizens to Save Stewart Park," spoke to Common Council regarding the Analysis of Data from Trowbridge and Trowbridge Survey of Stewart Park. The overall conclusion that he drew from the survey was that people overwhelmingly use Stewart Park, there is no mandate for any major changes other than the restrooms, general maintenance and the possible addition of swimming. Kristen Schaffer, 411 Turner Place, spoke to Common Council regarding Stewart Park. She asked that Stewart Park be kept in its present form. -4- Wilcox Press The following persons spoke to Common Council regarding the emissions from the smoke stacks at Wilcox Press: Ashley Miller, 118 Cascadilla Avenue Richard Kinner, 112 Parker Street Mayor Gutenberger stated that the City has had NYS DEC and the County Department of Health here recently for a number of meetings and has set up monitoring forms which are available in the City Engineer's Office and the City Clerk's Office. Volunteer Firefighters Exempt Parking Daniel Rhodes, 201 W. Lincoln Street, volunteer firefighter, spoke to the Common Council regarding exempt parking for volunteer firefighters. He asked that the resolution that will be presented to the Council tonight regarding exempt parking for volunteer firefighters be passed. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR: Energy Commission - State Award Mayor Gutenberger announced that on November 6th, State Energy Office Commissioner Cotter will be in Ithaca to present an award to the Mayor and the Energy Commission for the weatherization ordinance that was passed by Common Council. He commended both Common Council and the City of Ithaca Energy Commission for a job well done. There will also be a national award given to the city later this month in Washington, D.C. Street Improvements in Collegetown Mayor Gutenberger read the following letter from Mr. Arthur Berkey, 128 Christopher Circle, regarding the street improvements in Collegetown: "Dear John, As a property owner and therefore a frequent traveler in Collegetown, I am writing to express my surprise and dismay about the new road /curb construction in this area. The new construction creates a serious safety hazard, and is ill advised from a maintenance and space reduction standpoint. In addition, the unmarked 2" deep channels across the street during construction were a hazard to tires, rims, and front end alignment - which was uncalled for. I am sure that the intent of the construction design in this high density vehicle /pedestrian area was laudable. However, good intentions do not excuse an unsafe and impractical design. Let me be specific: (1) The curved curbs protrude to narrow the street width of College Avenue. Now, if /when as frequently happens, someone suddenly opens a car door to exit on the street side, there is no room to avoid an accident. When students walk in the street as also frequently happens, they cannot stand next to a car and still have room for vehicles to pass. There was hardly room for two large trucks to pass before, now, as I observed last week, a truck will be forced up on the protruding curb or have an accident. Double parking for delivery vehicles is common - there is no other alternative. Narrowing the street makes going around vehicles even more hazardous. In the past, the parking lane could be used to maintain 2 lane traffic when one of the regular lanes was under repair. The protruding curbs preclude this option and traffic bottlenecks will be even worse. Thus, as described above, your design that narrows the street by the protruding curved curbs intensifies an already serious safety problem. Legal and insurance costs will rise. (2) The protruding curved curbs reduce the number of street parking spaces in an already critically short area. In addition, since lost spaces were metered, meter income and business from lack of parking spaces will be lost. -S- November S, 1986 (3) The enclaves formed by the protruding curbs will be difficult, if not impossible to plow in the winter. Accidents involving the edge of the plow on curbs can be anticipated. Thus, additional time and expense will be involved for snow removal during the winter months. Curb surface materials appear fragile since some are already broken from vehicles forced upon the surface from the narrowed street. This will be an additional expense. In summary, however well intentioned, the design of the protruding curbs in Collegetown is both unsafe and impractical. Neither the designer(s) nor the persons responsible to review /supervise the work of the designer(s) have done their job satisfactorily. I ask that this letter be copied to all members of the City Council. Further, that it be read into the minutes of the next Council meeting to provide a record of this unsafe and impractical design. T"I Please reply as to your intended action for remediation d' of the concerns raised in this letter. Sincerely, Arthur L. Berkey Q Dated November 1, 1986" MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS Civil Service Commission Mayor Gutenberger announced two appointments to the Civil Service Commission. Lionel Martin, 1S0 West Village Place, to complete the term of Louise Wilcox who resigned -from the Commission; term to expire May 31, 199;,','4 Ann Bantuvanis, 203 Ithaca Road, to replace Mary Slaght who resigned from the Commission; term to expire May 31, 1988. He asked for the Council's concurrence. Resolution BY Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment to the Civil Service Commission of Lionel Martin with a term to expire May 31, 1991 and Ann Bantuvanis with a term to expire May 31, 1988. Carried Unanimously Stewart Park Advisory Group Appointments Mayor Gutenberger announced that he will be making a few more appointments to the Stewart Park Advisory Group within the next few weeks. City Attorney Nash responded that NYS DEC has the primary jurisdiction over release of noxious fumes. He doubts that the city would have jurisdiction to enforce state law. Alderperson Cummings stated that if a certain level of public concern is documented DEC would hold a public hearing on the problem. She asked that careful documentation be kept by all concerned individuals. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Cornell Zoning Case City Attorney Nash stated that next week the Cornell Heights zoning case will be argued in the Court of Appeals in Albany and he still has not heard on request for leave to appeal the Stone Hall case. Wilcox Press Alderperson Hoffman asked City Attorney Nash if he could look into the files to bring the Council up to date on the Wilcox Press issue. City Attorney Nash responded that NYS DEC has the primary jurisdiction over release of noxious fumes. He doubts that the city would have jurisdiction to enforce state law. Alderperson Cummings stated that if a certain level of public concern is documented DEC would hold a public hearing on the problem. She asked that careful documentation be kept by all concerned individuals. -6- November S, 1986 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONINIITTEE Stewart Par By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman WHEREAS, Common Council on January 2, 1985 adopted the Stewart Park Master Plan as the "official concept plan for that area," and WHEREAS, Common Council on April 2, 1986 approved the expend- iture of $21,500 for preparation of "design development drawings for Stewart Park ", and the city subsequently hired Trowbridge and Trowbridge for this task, and WHEREAS, Trowbridge and Trowbridge expect to continue to work until February 1987 on this project and have scheduled a series of public meetings to present findings and to gather public opinion about the park, and WHEREAS, public involvement in the consideration of the Master Plan has dramatically increased and broadened in scope over the past five months, and many members of the public have expressed great dissatisfaction with numerous elements of the Master Plan; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That in order to take full advantage of the present availability of the city's consultant, and in recognition of the desire of the public to take an active and ongoing role in determining any future design of Stewart Park, that the Stewart Park Master Plan be set aside to allow continued public discussion and the formulation of alternative design development guidelines by Trowbridge and Trowbridge, and be it further RESOLVED, That the role of Trowbridge and Trowbridge be clarified as follows: 1) The Master Plan may serve as a resource but is not necessarily a guide to or a constraint upon further park planning; 2) The following elements of the Master Plan shall be specifically excluded from further consideration: a. the spine road system and its large bermed, aggregated parking lots b. the off -shore island C. the lighted promenade d. the removal of the duck pond e. the removal of the willow row 3. Any proposed design development should reflect as accurately as possible the expressed concern of the community to restore, preserve, and maintain the character of Stewart Park. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That continuation of implacement of the gabions is not to be considered ongoing maintenance and needs Common Council approval. Discussion followed on the floor. Supt. Dougherty stated that this project was being partially funded by a $15,000 grant. He would assume that the city would lose at least part of the money for the project on a pro -rated basis. The intent was to continue that section of the project. He now has a "hold" on the project and the work will not be started again until the Council gives the go ahead. Alderperson Peterson withdrew the amending resolution. O 5 -7- November S, 1986 Mayor Gutenberger stated that the resolution that the Council passed on October 1 referred this matter to the Stewart Park Advisory Group and the Planning and Development Committee. Because of vacancies on the Stewart Park Advisory Group they have not had a chance to meet. Therefore, the Council's directive of their own resolution hasn't been carried out. He suggested that this resolution be tabled so that the Council will follow its own resolution and allow the Stewart Park Advisory Group to meet as was requested and come back with their information. (awo�l Alderperson Booth stated that he does not think that is necessary. This is an issue that has received a great deal of airing and while he appreciates what that group could add he thinks this is an issue that is ripe for a decision. Mayor Gutenberger stated that the Stewart Park Advisory Group has been working since 1983 with new people on and off. It's a community group and he thinks that to ignore them would be a very poor display of asking for public participation. ii There has been a public group in place since 1983 and to I' make a decision tonight and ignore their input would be doing Lo a disservice to that group. Z A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: co Carried Unanimously Mayor Gutenberger stated that he will be giving this issue a lot of thought because he feels very strongly about the Common Council ignoring a group that had been established and been working for two and a half years. He reminded Council that the City Charter states that any resolution passed by Common Council does not go into effect for five days. The Mayor has five days to review and consider any resolution and he will be taking that five days to consider this very (Woo" seriously. Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service Funding Request Alderperson Cummings reporte that It aca Neig borhood Housing Services has lost Community Development funding. They have been able to receive State money to replace much of the Federal project money. They have been able to replace the projects they had on -line with State money. However, they have not been able to secure administrative money and they are $65,000 short of administrative funding. They came to the Planning and Development Committee for assistance. In light of the city's commitment this year to housing and neighborhoods we are going to have to address their concerns. She asked Council members to contact INHS and talk to the people there about their problem. Ithaca Farmers' Market /Franklin Street Site Alderperson Cummings reported that the Farmers' Market Board members have been meeting with the liaison from the Planning Board and Planning department staff and doing some preliminary inquiries into the suitability of the Franklin Street site. A recommendation will be made within a month. Housing, Supply, Demand, Affordability Al erperson Cummings passe out copies of Supply, Demand and Atiordability booklet to Council members and made comments on materials contained in the booklet. Discussion followed on the floor. Council recessed at 9:05 P.m. and reconvened in regular session at 9:15 P.M. -8- November 5, 1986 HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Community Recreational Planning /Facilities Al erperson Peterson reported that at last months meeting there were representatives from the City, the Fingerlakes Parks, and the Human Services Coalition for a discussion on whether there is a need for some kind of "overseeing body" for the recreational needs in the community. The question of long range planning for recreation facilities and space was also discussed. These issues will be followed up at the November meeting of Human Services. Discussion followed on the floor. Exempt Parking for Volunteer Firefighters By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman WHEREAS, the active volunteer firefighters perform an important emergency service to the community, and WHEREAS, increased recognition of this service would possibly attract more volunteers to the fire department program; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council approves the exemption of active volunteer firefighters whose vehicles display proper permits from parking fees. It is the intent of this legislation to provide free parking during emergencies and anytime fire- fighters are available to respond to alarms, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Fire Chief and Superintendent of Public Works are authorized and directed to establish a system for issuing annual parking permits with a limit of one permit per volunteer (except that 2 permts may be issued by the Chief under extenuating circumstances) to those volunteers who have met minimum response standards. Discussion followed on the floor. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Booth RESOLVED, That in the first Resolved, third line, after the words parking fees the following be added: "incurred during emergencies" and in the second Resolved, third line after the word issuing it read "such limited" annual parking permits for use during emergencies. A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Ayes (2) Schlather, Booth Nays (8) Romanowski, Cummings, Haine, Hoffman, Lytel, Peterson, Killeen, Dennis Motion Defeated Main Motion A vote on the main motion resulted as follows: Ayes (8) Romanowski, Cummings, Haine, Hoffman, Lytel Peterson, Killeen, Dennis Nays (2) Schlather, Booth Carried Department Head Evaluations By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Booth WHEREAS, the Human Services Committee was requested by the Common Council to devise a method for evaluating job perfor- mance of management personnel in the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, an evaluation system can be valuable in providing feedback to an employee, setting up goals and objectives, and providing accountability of adequate job performance, and It 19 y i -9- November 5, 1986 WHEREAS, information was gathered from other municipalities and input was sought from department heads and other management personnel; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the following document be adopted by the City of Ithaca as the Department Head Performance Evaluation System: (Copy of Document attached to Minute Book) Amending Resolution By Al erperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman RESOLVED, That on page 1 under paragraph entitled Evaluation Process, line 12 be changed from "the Mayor is encouraged to seek information and /or advice ...etc." to read: The Mayor shall seek information and /or advice ...etc. Page 2, item 6 reads "The Mayor is encouraged to request information. etc." should read : The Mayor shall seek information and /or advice ...etc. The following sentence on page 2, item 6 should be deleted: "The Mayor may seek formal or informal input from those boards, LO as the Mayor determines is needed." [n A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Q Ayes (6) - Cummings, Hoffman, Lytel, Haine, Peterson, Dennis Nays (4) - Booth, Killeen, Schlather, Romanowski Carried Mayor Gutenberger requested that the resolution be tabled for one month to give department heads and staff opportunity to look at the document more closely. Alderperson Booth stated that department heads have had substantial opportunity to look at the drafts of the document and there has been inpu'Z from several of them. Motion to Table By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather RESOLVED, That the Department Head Evaluations document be tabled for one month. Ayes (9) - Schlather, Romanowski, Cummings, Lytel, Dennis, Killeen, Haine, Hoffman, Peterson Nay (1) - Booth Carried BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Youth Bureau Application to New York State By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is about to submit an application for continuation of the Youth Bureau Project to the New York State Division for Youth for its approval, and if approved, to apply subsequently to the State of New York for partial reimbursement of funds expended on said Project, as provided by Chapter 556 of the Laws of 1945, as amended; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That such application is in all respects approved and John C. Gutenberger, Mayor, is hereby directed and authorized to duly execute and present said application to the New York State Division for Youth for its approval, and be it further RESOLVED, That this Resolution shall take effect January 1, 1987. Carried Unanimously -10- November 5, 1986 Deputy City Controller Salary By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather RESOLVED, That the 1986 salary of Dominick R. Cafferillo, Deputy City Controller, be established at $41,346, effective November 10, 1986. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (6) - Schlather, Dennis, Lytel, Haine, Booth, Killeen Nays (4) - Hoffman, Peterson, Romanowski, Cummings Carried Ithaca Housing Authority Comparability By Al erperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen WHEREAS, according to Article 3, Section 32 (1), of the New York State Public Housing Law, it is necessary for the local legislative body to approve the compensation of personnel in the Local Housing Authority, as fixed by the Local Housing Authority, and WHEREAS, this Common Council has received a Resolution from the Ithaca Housing Authority establishing positions, compara- bility, salary range and salaries for its personnel; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That this Common Council approves the following positions, comparability, salary ranges and salaries, as adopted by the Ithaca Housing Authority for its fiscal year October 1, 1986 to September 30, 1987. Pn c i t i nn Executive Secretary Assistant Director Principal Account Clerk Admin. Secretary Site Manager Account Clerk/ Typist Account Clerk/ Typist Stock Manager Supervisor of Maintenance Building .Main- tenance Mechanic Building Main- tenance Mechanic Building Main tenance•Mechanic Maintenance Worker Maintenance Worker Salary Comparability Range Director of Plan- *$33,565- $49,685 ping & Development, Controller Deputy Director Planning & Deve- lopment City of Ithaca C.S.E.A. City of Ithaca C.S.E.A. Planner III City of Ithaca C.S.E.A. City of Ithaca C.S.E.A. City of Ithaca C.S.E.A. Salary $39,984 $31,324 - $38,111 $28,557 $13,554 - $19,292 $19,441 $12,427- $17,687 $15,146 $15,582 - $22,178 $17,669 $ 9,485- $13,500 $10,400 $ 9,485- $13,500 $10,090 $15,654 - $22,280 $16,112 School District * $16,480- $23,748 $22,050 C.S.E.A. School District C.S.E.A. School District C.S.E.A. School District C.S.E.A. City of Ithaca C.S.E.A. City of Ithaca C.S.E.A. $13,692- $21,240 $21,073 $13,692 - $21,240 $20,066 $13,692- $21,240 $18,847 $5.11 - $5.97 Hr. $6.13 Hr. $5.11 - $5.97 Hr. $5.68 Hr. Iq LSD m Q Maintenance Worker Laborer Laborer 1 Summer Camp Director 1 Assistant Director 3 Counselors Section 8 Administrator Part -Time Tenant Relations Clerk Part -Time Account Clerk /Typist Modernization Coordinator - 11 - City of Ithaca C.S.E.A. City of Ithaca C.S.E.A. City of Ithaca C.S.E.A. City of Ithaca (seasonal) City of Ithaca (seasonal) City of Ithaca (seasonal) Planner III City of Ithaca C.S.E.A. City of Ithaca C.S.E.A. Planner II November 5, 1986 $5.11 -$5.96 Hr. $4.75 -$5.56 Hr. $4.75 -$5.56 Hr. $7.00 Hr. $5.00 Hr. $4.00 Hr. $15,582 - $22,178 $5.32 Hr. $5.32 Hr. $5.07 Hr. $2,450 $1,750 $4,200 $18,105 $ 8,379 - $11,926 $ 3,200 $ 8,379- $11,926 $ 1,200 $17,909 - $25,490 $24,500 * 1986 Salary Range (1987 Not Available) Carried Unanimously Bond Authorization By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen BOND RESOLUTION DATED NOVEMBER S. 1986 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $203,845 SERIAL BONDS OF THE CITY Or ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK, TO PAY THE COST OF THE PURCHASE AND INSTAL- LATION OF COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE FOR THE USE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF SAID CITY. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as follows: Section 1. For the specific object or purpose of paying the cost of the purchase and installation of computer hardware and software for the use of the Police Department and the Finance Department, in and for the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, there are hereby authorized to be issued $203,845 serial bonds of said City pursuant to the provisions of the Local Finance Law. Section 2. The maximum estimated cost of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is $203,845 and the plan for the financing thereof is by the issuance of the $203,845 serial bonds of said City hereby authorized to be issued. Section 3. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is five years, pursuant to subdivision 35 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law. 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 serial bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes, is hereby delegated to the City Comptroller, 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 Comptroller, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law. 1 -- -12- November 5, 1986 Section 5. 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 6. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested only if: 1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said City is not authorized to expend money, or 2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of such publication, or 3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Section 7. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published in full in the Ithaca Journal, the-official newspaper, together with a notice of the City Clerk in substan- tially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call, which resulted as follows: Schlather Aye Booth Aye Romanowski Aye Killeen Aye Cummings Aye Haine Aye Lytel Aye Hoffman Aye Dennis Aye Peterson Aye Carried Unanimously Audit By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That bills presented, as listed on Audit Abstract #20/1986, in the total amount of $30,869.67, be approved for payment. Carried Unanimously Revenue Sharing Public Hearing By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That the City Clerk be authorized and directed to advertise for a Public Hearing on the proposed use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds in the 1987 Budget, to be held by the Budget and Administration Committee, on November 20, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., in the Common Council Chambers, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York. Carried Unanimously Public Hearing on 1987 Budget By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather RESOLVED, That the City Clerk be authorized and directed to advertise for a Public Hearing on the 1987 City Budget, to be held by the Budget and Administration Committee, on November 25, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., in the Common Council Chambers, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York. Carried Unanimously D -13- November S, 1986 CHARTER AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: Resolution Calling fo r Public Hearing: Modification of Sections 30.3, 30.25 and 30.26 of the Municipal Code Rezoning an Family By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski RESOLVED, That Ordinance No. 86 - , entitled "An Ordinance To Amend Section 30.3, 'Definitions'; Section 30.25 'District Regulations' and Section 30.26 'Standards for Special Conditions and Special Permits' of the City of Ithaca Munucipal Code" be, and it hereby is, introduced before the Common Council (Wvo� of the City of Ithaca, New York, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Common Council shall hold a public hearing on the matter of adoption of the aforesaid ordinance, to be held at Common Council Chambers, City Hall, No. 108 East Green Street, in the City of Ithaca, New York, on Wednesday, the 3rd day of December, 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m., and be it further RESOLVED, That the City Clerk give notice of such public hearing by the,publication of a notice in the official newspaper, �- specifying the time when and the place where such public LO hearing will be held, and in general terms describing the proposed ordinance. Such notice shall be published once m at least fifteen days prior to the public hearing, and be it further Q RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall transmit forthwith to the Board of Planning and Development and to the Tompkins County Planning Board a true and exact copy of the proposed zoning ordinance for its report thereon. Carried Unanimously An Ordinance Amending Chapter 30, Sections 30.3, 30.25, and 30.26 o the City o It aca Municipal Code Rezoning and Family WHEREAS, the definition of "family" within the City of Ithaca Zoning O:�I:.c_. :•. has heretofore been limited to groups of persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, and WHEREAS, the New York State Court of Appeals has recognized that there are certain groups of persons living together in the same dwelling unit who are unrelated yet are the functional equivalent of a traditional "family" for the pur- poses of zoning restrictions, and WHEREAS, there are certain areas within the City of Ithaca which should be preserved as quiet, low density, single family or two family residential neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the presence of groups of persons which are the functional equivalent of a traditional "family" is not incon- sistent with the goals of low density residential zoning within the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca wishes to accomodate such functional equivalents of a traditional "family" while still preserving the characteristics of single and two family residential neighborhoods within the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, the various types of such functional equivalents of a family may present differing and unique impacts on single and two family residential neighborhoods for the purpose of zoning considerations; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, as follows: -14- November S, 1986 ORDINANCE NO. 86 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED "ZONING" OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, as follows: Section 1. That paragraph 28 of subdivision (B) entitled "Specific terms or words" of Section 30.3 entitled "Definitions" of Chapter 30 entitled "Zoning" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby renumbered as Section 30.3 (B) 28 -a. Section 1. That a new subparagraph of subdivision B of Section 30.3 entitled "Definitions" of Chapter 30 entitled "Zoning" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is Hereby added and shall read as follows: "28 -b. "Functional Family Unit" shall mean a group of individuals living together in a single dwelling unit and functioning as a family with respect to those characteristics that are consistent with the purposes of zoning restrictions in residential neignnornooas. a. In determining whether or not a group of unrelated individuals is a functional family unit under the definition set forth above, the following criteria must be present: 1. The occupants must share the entire dwelling unit. A unit in which the various occupants act as separate roomers cannot be deemed to be occupied by a single family. 2. The household must have stability with respect to the purpose of the zoning ordinance. Evidence of such stability may include the following: i. the presence of minor, dependent children regularly residing in the household; ii. proof of the sharing of expenses for food, rent or ownership costs, utilities and other household expenses and sharing in the preparation, storage and consumption of food. iii. whether or not different members of the household ave t o same address or t o purposes o: voter registration; driver's license; motor vehicle registration; summer or other residences; fling of taxes. iv. common ownership of furniture and appliances among the mem ers o t e household. V. enrollment of dependent children in local schools. vi. employment of householders in the local area. vii. a showing that the household has been living together as a unit or a year or more; whet er in the current dwelling unit or other welling units. viii. any other factor reasonably related to whether or not the group of ersons is the functional equivalent oi a family. 66- -is- November 5, 1986 b. A group of individuals living in the same dwelling unit shall be presumed not to be a Functional Family Unit as defined in this section if such welling unit contains four or more college students over the age of 16 years. C. A group of individuals living together in the same welling unit shall be presumed not to be a Functional Family Unit as defined in this section it it is occupied by four or more adults over tfie age of 18 years an N-i is not occupied by minor, dependent c it ren. Iq d. The presumptions set forth in sections (b) and _(c) Ln above may be rebutted by sufficient evidence of the = characteristics set forth in section (a above." M Q Section 3. Section numbered 30.26 (C) entitled "Special Permits" shall be amended to add a new section numbered Section 30.26 (C) i (n) which shall read as follows: "n. Residential occupancy by a Functional Family Unit in all districts to the same extent as residential occupancy by a "family" in all districts." Section 4. Column 2 of the District Regulations Chart, as made part of Chapter 30 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code by section numbered 30.25 entitled "District Regulations," is hereby amended as follows: a. Column 2, row R -1 containing a list of permitted primary uses for an R -1 district is hereby amended to add a new item numbered "10" which shall read as follows: 1110. Functional Family Units (see definition Section 30.3 and special permit Section 30.26." b. Item 5 in Column 2, row R -1 containing a list of permitted primary uses for an R -2 district is hereby amended to delete the words "7 -9" and replace them with the words "7 -10" to read as follows: "5. Uses [7 -9] 7 -10 under R -1." C. Item 12 in column 2, row R -1 containing a list of permitted primary uses for an R -3 district is hereby amended to delete the words "7 and 8" and replace them with the words "7 -10" to read as follows: "12. Uses [7 and 8] 7 -10 under R -1." d. Item 10 in Column 2, row R -1. containing a list of permitted primary uses for an R -U district is hereby amended to delete the words "7 -9" and replace them with the words "7 -10" to read a follows: 1110. Uses [7 -91 7 -10 under R -l." Section S. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as provided in Section 3.11 (B) of the Ithaca City Charter. i. A college student is a person who attends at least half time any college, university or other institution authorized to confer degrees by t e State of New York. ii. For the purpose of this presumption, minor dependent children of any other member of the household shall be excluded in calculating the number of college stu ents in the household. C. A group of individuals living together in the same welling unit shall be presumed not to be a Functional Family Unit as defined in this section it it is occupied by four or more adults over tfie age of 18 years an N-i is not occupied by minor, dependent c it ren. Iq d. The presumptions set forth in sections (b) and _(c) Ln above may be rebutted by sufficient evidence of the = characteristics set forth in section (a above." M Q Section 3. Section numbered 30.26 (C) entitled "Special Permits" shall be amended to add a new section numbered Section 30.26 (C) i (n) which shall read as follows: "n. Residential occupancy by a Functional Family Unit in all districts to the same extent as residential occupancy by a "family" in all districts." Section 4. Column 2 of the District Regulations Chart, as made part of Chapter 30 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code by section numbered 30.25 entitled "District Regulations," is hereby amended as follows: a. Column 2, row R -1 containing a list of permitted primary uses for an R -1 district is hereby amended to add a new item numbered "10" which shall read as follows: 1110. Functional Family Units (see definition Section 30.3 and special permit Section 30.26." b. Item 5 in Column 2, row R -1 containing a list of permitted primary uses for an R -2 district is hereby amended to delete the words "7 -9" and replace them with the words "7 -10" to read as follows: "5. Uses [7 -9] 7 -10 under R -1." C. Item 12 in column 2, row R -1 containing a list of permitted primary uses for an R -3 district is hereby amended to delete the words "7 and 8" and replace them with the words "7 -10" to read as follows: "12. Uses [7 and 8] 7 -10 under R -1." d. Item 10 in Column 2, row R -1. containing a list of permitted primary uses for an R -U district is hereby amended to delete the words "7 -9" and replace them with the words "7 -10" to read a follows: 1110. Uses [7 -91 7 -10 under R -l." Section S. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as provided in Section 3.11 (B) of the Ithaca City Charter. -16- November 5, 1986 Discussion followed on the floor. Mayor Gutenberger asked that the ordinance be sent to the NYS Conference of Mayors for their input and comments and also so that they would have a copy to share with other communities. An Ordinance Amending Section 54.38 entitled "License Fees" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code By Al erperson Scilat er: Seconded by Alderperson Haine ORDINANCE NO. 86 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 54.38 ENTITLED "LICENSE FEES" OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, as follows: Section 1. That Chapter 54 entitled "Animals" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is amended as follows: 1. That Section 54.38 of Article III entitled "Dogs" is hereby amended to read as follows: "§ 54.38 License Fees The annual fee for each dog license issued in the City of Ithaca pursuant to Section 109 of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law for dog licenses issued for 1987 and subsequent years shall be: A. Seven and one -half dollars ($7.50) for each neutered male dog or spayed female dog. B. Twelve and one -half dollars ($12.50) for each unneutered male dog or unspayed female dog." Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as provided in §3.11 (B) of the Ithaca City Charter. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (9) - Schlather, Cummings, Lytel, Dennis, Booth, Killeen, Haine, Hoffman, Peterson Nav (1) - Romanowski Carried Alderperson Schlather stated that the Charter and Ordinance Committee recommended that the Budget and Administration Committee consider the question of an enumeration which is a method whereby the City hires someone to count all the dogs residing in the City of Ithaca. Once there is an enumeration the SPCA, by law, has an obligation to ensure that all dog owners license their dogs. An Ordinance Adding Section 54.39 to Article III of Chapter 54 Entitled "Animals" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code By Al erperson Schlather: Seconded y Al erperson Dennis ORDINANCE NO. 86 - AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 54.39 TO ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 54 ENTITLED "ANIMALS" OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, as follows: 19 Iq LO Z m Q 0 -17- November S, 1986 Section 1. That a new Section to be known and designated ,as Section 54.39 entitled "Impoundment Fees" to follow Section 54.38 of Article III entitled "Dogs" is hereby added to said Chapter to read as follows: "§ 54.39 Impoundment Fees The impoundment fees for any dog impounded pursuant to Section 118 of the New York State Agriculture and Marketing Laws shall be paid by the owner of the dog in the following amounts: A. Fifteen dollars ($15.00) for the first impoundment of any dog owned by that person within a one -year period; B. Forty dollars ($40.00) for the second impoundment of any dog owned by that person within a one -year period; or C. Sixty dollars ($60.00) for the third and subsequent impoundments of any dog owned by that person within a one -year period." Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as provided in § 3.11 (B) of the Ithaca City Charter. Carried Unanimously SPECIAL COMMITTEES: R.S.V.P. Alderperson Killeen, Liaison to the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, spoke to Council about R.S.V.P. setting up a table in the annex to City Hall to assist people in preparing their income t2:Ces . Questions arose regarding the City's right to allow a group to occupy public space without paying rent or going through the bidding process. The matter was referred to the Charter and Ordinance Committee. NEW BUSINESS: Employee Health Insurance Alderperson Peterson asked about a recent Health Insurance meeting and if there is a Labor /Management Health Insurance meeting being scheduled. Deputy Controller Cafferillo responded that he thought the meeting went quite well. It was an informational meeting and he feels that we are hearing some of the questions and providing a better understanding of some of the more complicated areas relating to the health insurance program. There will be a meeting set up as soon as the draft of the new plan booklet and an updated draft of the plan document is received. This material should be received by the week of November 17. Enforcement of Building Code Alderperson Schlat er referred to his memo of November S regarding several articles in the Cornell Daily Sun on building code violations. He suggested that the Council conduct an investigation by setting up a hearing mechanism to see whether there are some changes that need to be made in the City's law or what other types of remedies would be appropriate to insure that there is compliance with the law and that there is full enforcement. Building Commissioner Hoard responded to Alderperson Schlather and commented on the problems that were referred to in the Cornell Daily Sun. -18- November 5, 1986 The Mayor stated he has asked Building Commissioner Board to get together with Cornell University to discuss building construction on the campus. Executive Session By Al erperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Booth RESOLVED, That the Council adjourn into Executive Session to discuss a contract and a personnel matter. Carried Unanimously ADJOURNMENT: Council a journed into Executive Session at 11:20 P.M. Callista F. Paolangeli City Clerk 19 November 5, 1986 CITY OF ITHACA DEPARTMENT HEAD PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM PURPOSE OF EVALUATION SYSTEM The government of the City of Ithaca believes it is vitally important to evaluate on a regular basis the work performance of its department heads. A continual and thorough process of evaluating the city's department heads aids those employees in the performance of their duties, improves the overall quality of work by the city government, and makes the city government more clearly accountable to the citizens of Ithaca and better able to serve their needs. EVALUATION PROCESS Under this evaluation process the Mayor has responsibility for preparing a written evaluation of each department head during each calendar year. These written evaluations are based on two sets of criteria: a set of general criteria that apply to all department heads and a set of individually established job objectives drafted initially by each department head for his or her job, and agreed to by the Mayor, followed by submission of those job objectives for comment and approval by the appropriate committee of Common Council- The Mayor prepares these written evaluations near the end of each calendar year. In preparing these evaluations the Mayor shall seek information and/or advice from the citizen boards that work with various department heads and from other appropriate sources. The Mayor discusses the written evaluation with the department head, and that employee has an opportunity to comment on the Mayor's evaluation' The Mayor then places a copy of the completed evaluation in the department head's personnel file and sends a copy of it to Common Council. More specifically, the City's department head evaluation system involves the following: 1' By October 15 of each year each department head prepares and submits to the Mayor and the appropriate committee of Common Council a draft statement of Individual Duties/ Responsibilities and Corresponding Objectives (hereafter referred to as Duties/Responsibilities - Objectives). This statement of Duties/Responsibilities - Objectives should state those specific, job-related factors that the department head believes should be utilized in evaluating his or her work performance during the following year. The department head, the Mayor, and the appropriate committee of Common Council discuss this draft and by the end of the year agree on a final statement of Duties/ Responsibilities - Objectives that the Mayor will use in evaluating that department head's work during the next calendar year' The final, mutually agreed on statement of Duties/Responsibilities- the meeting between the Objectives for each department head should address those factors that the department bead are critical to the acceptable work performance by that particular of comments as stated department head over the next twelve rlionths. Each identified Duty/ above, the Mayor Responsibility - Objective should be as specific as possible in of the completed evaluation identifying a particular duty or responsibility of the department the Common Council head and the performance objective that is expected. The total copy of that form in the number of identified :items typically shiould not exceed ten. head's personnel `. By June 1 of each Year the Mayor meets individually with each department head and discusses that employee's work, performance '.00) up t� � that date in light of the criteria stated in the department- head's work evaluation form. Normally the Mayor does not prepare a formal written evaluation of the department head's work at this point. 3. At any time during the year the individual department head, the Mayor, and the appropriate_ committee of Common Council May agree on any changes in the stated Duties/Responsibilities Objectives. 4. By November 15 of each year the Mayor completes a written evaluation of each department Mead using the form provided in this document. By December 15 of each year the Mayor meets with each department head and discusses the smitten evaluation with that employee. Following that discussion the Mayor adds any comments meets t� i the written evaluation the Mayor decides are appro- priate, and the department Dead makes any written comments about the evaluation he or she desires to make. 5. Following the meeting between the Mayor and the department bead and the addition of comments as stated in item 4 above, the Mayor sends a copy of the completed evaluation form to the Common Council and places a copy of that form in the department head's personnel file. '.00) S. The Mayor shall request information and /or advice regarding the performance of a particular department head from the citizen board that works most closely with that employee. The Mayor is also encouraged to seek input from other appropriate sources. 7. The Mayor's written evaluation of each department head - consists of three basic parts: General Criteria ( see Part I i_ � r- the evaluation form), DLit ies /Resp! �nsibi 1 it ies "- Objectives (see Fart II of the evaluation form) , and an overall evaluation (see? Fart III of the evaluation form). . Each part of the Mayor's evaluation is based on a six level rating scale. The meaning of these rating levels is as follows: 91 0 Rating 1 J 4 C el Notes regarding Rating Scale Explanation of Rating Work performance is often unacceptable in terms of meeting the requirements or expectations of the position; much improvement is necessary. Work performance is sometimes unacceptable in terms of meeting the requirements or expectations of the position; some improvement is necessary. Work performance is almost always acceptable in terms of meeting the requirements and expectations of the position; gin; slight improvement is needed. Work performance is always acceptable in terms of meeting the requirements and expectations of the position. Work performance is always acceptable and sometimes exceptional anal in terms of meeting the requirements and expectations of the position. Work performance is often exceptional anal in terms of meeting the requirements and expectations of the position. A rating of 1 � �r c on an individual criterion (see parts I and II of the evaluation form) means that remedial action in that particular aspect of the department head's performance is necessary to bring that performance to a satisfactory level. Remedial action may occur through training, increased experience, or, other means. In some cases a rating of 1 or 2 on an individual criterion means that disciplinary action should be considered, regardless of whether the department head could improve his or her work performance in the future. Any disciplinary action that might be undertaken must comply with applicable law. A rating of 1 or 2 in terms � �1- the overall evaluation (see Part 111 of the evaluation form) means that remedial action is critically needed and that disciplinary action in accord with applicable law is a very likely co=urse of action. An overall 1 evaluation rating of 1 or 2 raises serious questions as to whether the department head should continue to occupy his or her', position in City government. 8. At this time neither the Mayor nor Common Council uses the department head performance evaluation system in making salary adjustments for its department heads. At some time in the future, Common Council may decide to use this system to make salary adjustments. 9. For the purposes of this document the term "department head" means the following employees of the City: City Controller, Personnel Administrator, Director of planning and Development, Building Commissioner, Purchasing Agent, Director of Youth Bureau Superintendent of Public Works, police Chief, and Fire Chief. 10. For the purposes of this document the "appropriate committee of Common mon Lo unci l " means the following: A. For the City Controller, Personnel Administrator, and Purchasing Agent:, the "appropriate committee" t;ee" means the Budget and Administration Committee. B. For the Director of Planning and Development, the Building Commissioner, and the Superintendent of Public Works, the "appropriate committee" means the Planning and Development Committee. C. For the Director of the Youth Bureau, the Police Chief, and the Fire Chief, the "appropriate committee" means the Human cervices Committee. R, CITY OF ITHACA DEPARTMENT HEAD PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM Department Head's Name Department Position/Title Evaluation Period From to Instructions for using evaluation form 1. Complete Parts I, II, and III. Provide a numerical rating and explanation for each item in those three parts. For explanation of the rating system, refer to the text that describes (low Ithaca's Department Head Performance Evaluation System. 2. Have a personal discussion of this written evaluation with the department head. 3. Complete Part IV as appropriate. 4. Have the department head complete Part V as he or she deems appropriate. 5. Reach agreement with the department head regarding a statement of Individual Duties/Responsibilities and Corresponding Objectives for the next year, as required by Part VI. E. Sign and date and have the department head sign and date the evaluation form' 7' Send a copy of the completed form to the Budget and Adminis- tration Committee of Common Council, and place a copy of the completed form in the department head's personnel file. I. General Criteria The following criteria apply to all management personnel in the Ithaca City government. A. Department head gathers and provides information necessary for sound decision-making by the department head and other elements of the City government. Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (poor) (excellent) Explanation. B. Department head exercises sound professional judgment in making decisions he or she is responsible for making ("sound professional judgment" to mean gathering and analyzing information at a level equal to that generally expected of a competent professional in the same field). Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (poor) (excellent) Explanation: C. Department head organizes, and oversees department work so it is effective, efficient, and timely. Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (poor) (excellent) Explanation: D. Department head oversees training of department personnel so their work is effective, efficient, and timely. Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (poor) (excellent) Explanation: E. Department head works effectively to maintain and improve morale of department personnel. Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (poor) (excellent) Explanation: M, F. Department head takes initiative in meeting department responsibilities. Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (poor) (excellent) Explanation: G. Department head exhibits adaptability and creativity in meeting department responsibilities. Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (poor) (excellent) Explanation: H. Department head communicates and cooperates effectively with other elements of City government. Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (poor) (excellent) Explanation: I. Department head communicates effectively with the public regarding department matters. Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (poor) (excellent) Explanation: I I. Individual Duties/Responsibilities and Corresponding Objectives As agreed upon by this department Mead, the Mayer, and the Budget and Administration Committee of Common Council, the Mayor evaluates this employee on the basis of each of the following items. Note: Each item in this Part should state a duty /responsibility of this department head and an objective corresponding to that duty/ responsibility. The Mayor should evaluate each item according to the same six part rating scale used in Part I and provide a written explanation for each item. Each item should utilize the following form. Duty /Responsibility Objective (text as agreed) (text as agreed) Rating: 1 E C 4 5 6 (poor) (excellent) Explanation: III. Overall Evaluation On the basis of I and II above, the overall evaluation of this department head is as follows: Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (poor) (excellent) Explanation: IV. Mayor's Comments Following Discussion of Evaluation with department head. 9 V. Department head's Comments s n Evaluation Following Discussion with Mayor. VI. Statement of Individual Duties/Responsibilities and Corre- sponding Objectives for thr following year. (Name of department head) and the Mayor have agreed on a statement of Individual Duties/Responsibilities and Corre- sponding Objectives for the Mayor to use in evaluating this department head during the next _year. This agreement is subject to comment and approval by the appropriate committee of Common Council. VII. The undersigned parties have read and discussed all of this document:. Department Head Signature Dat e May,_.r Signature D at e