Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1988-12-07303 Regular Meeting PRESENT: Mayor Gutenberger `(wool Alderpersons (10) 1 COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK 7:00 P.M. December 7,1988 - Booth, Cummings, Johnson, Nichols, Hoffman, Killeen, Lytel, Peterson, Romanowski, Schlather OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Nash City Clerk - Paolangeli Deputy City Controller - Cafferillo City Controller - Spano Planning and Development Director - Van Cort LO Youth Bureau Director - Cohen I- Acting Personnel Administrator - Walker LO Acting Building Commissioner - Dieterich Fire Chief - Olmstead Police Chief - McEwen M Planning and Development Deputy Director - Mazzarella Q Superintendent of Public Works - Dougherty PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Gutenberger led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of November 2 1988 Common Council Meeting By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That the Minutes of the November 2, 1988 Common Council meeting be approved as published. Carried Unanimously ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: New Business Alderperson Nichols requested under New Business an item for discussion proposes regarding the provision for the Council comments on Route 96. No Council member objected. Executive Session Alderperson Cummings requested that at the end of the meeting there be an Executive Session to discuss sale of property. No Council member objected. DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: Budget and Administration Committee Alderperson Cummings requested that Item 14.16, Developer Impact Fee Program, be deleted from the agenda as this item has already been included in the 1989 budget. No Council member objected. COMMUNICATIONS: New Fire Stations' Committee Memorandum Alderperson Killeen requested that the following memorandum be included in the Council Minutes: 304 December 7, 1988 2 TO : New Fire Stations' Committee FROM: Sean Killeen, Chairman DATE: December 5, 1988 RE Status Report "I believe it is appropriate at this time to provide you with for the an updated report on the status of the bidding process construction of two new fire stations and the renovation of three existing stations, (Central, #7, #'9)• In a recent report I had indicated that the scheduling for the bid process should approximately coincide with Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Valentine's Day. This schedule has slipped a little bit and most recent reports from City Engineer Bill Gray, and Architect Tony Egner, indicate that we should be receiving the bid specifications hopefully before Christmas or at least in early January. I believe we should be prepared to meet, since it may be essential, in order to develop and be aware of the schedule of our involvement in reaction to the bid specifications, their presentation to the public, the response by interested parties, and then the formal award of bids. I do remain confident that ground will be broken in the Spring and the new fire facilities will be underway with the start of the warm weather and the normal construction season in April 1989. One important consideration that we should prepare for is the need to review and perhaps adjust funding support. Because the development of the bid specifications has been going on for many months since our respective legislative bodies in the City and Town obligated a specific level of financing, the bids may be in minor variance with the amount of monies that have been earmarked. This may necessitate, of course, some fiscal augmentation but it is my sense that our respective legislative bodies remain solidly supportive of fire station construction and renovation. Equally, if not more importantly, and certainly centrally related, is the matter of the Ithaca Fire Department personnel levels. Assuming as we can that Ithaca Fire Department equipment (vehicles) and buildings (new and renovated fire houses) are planned both physically and financially, we should deal now with the people needed to make these work and work well. Within the context of our intermunicipal agreement and the spirit of mutual commitment, I believe we can expedite the process of committing ourselves (City and Town) to the costs of new and more personnel. In terms of Ithaca Fire Department staffing, I mean career and volunteer, including bunkers. The issues of total number of fire fighters which can be supported, the balance between career and volunteer, the indirect costs of training, leading, and equipping Ithaca Fire Department personnel, and the fine - tuning of vehicles and facilities essential to the ultimate performance reality of Ithaca Fire Department staffing, are all elements upon which we have dwelled. We should offer our views which could help hasten the process of determining personnel levels critical to community security and Ithaca Fire Department well- being. Other matters spotlighted in part by the recent and beneficial public consciousness - raising of the fire fighters' union, is the need to get more of the community more directly supporting the new Ithaca Fire Department. Everyone through their taxes, of course, supports the Ithaca Fire Department but more specific resources need to be brought in to play if we are to fully safeguard our overall community. December 7, 19305 3 Let me offer some considerations for you to ponder. I base these reflections upon my involvement over these past number of years during the reinvigoration of the fire department and the expansion of its service capacity. The first order of business and objective towards which efforts must be applied, is to induce our major institutions- - Cornell, Ithaca College, Tompkins Community Hospital- into willingly giving more to the community for support of Ithaca Fire Department operations. The key words here are "induce" and "willingly" and "support ", since _these institutions are major service beneficiaries while being primary technological drivers goading the modernization of the fire department. In addition to that presently given, the kind of support these institutions can and should be called upon to provide is personnel and training (in general and EMS in particular) . In both types of civic - minded support - training and personnel, these institutions enjoy well- endowed capacities. Cornell EMS is a very popular volunteer activity which a LO hundred students vigorously participated in during this past autumn, without very much institutional encouragement. CO Throughout the community students, and not just in the Q traditional bunker mode, have proven themselves to be generous and willing to give of their time within the constraints of their academic and social requirements. Likewise, women, as a distinct category, are a tremendous pool of potential who must be vigorously invited to participate in meeting the needs of the Ithaca Fire Department, not withstanding the long- established traditional practice of the fire house being a men's social club. The Veteran Volunteer Association has vast accumulated public service experiences and in recognition is annually awarded a piece of every homeowner's fire insurance premium. The we resources of this organization are latent and untapped in terms of continuing civic contributions to aid in the support of community protection. The eight established volunteer companies should be challenged to reinvigorate themselves and re- dedicate themselves by redefining their missions of service. One area of mushrooming need is the emergency medical services (EMS) which this year accounts for one third of all Ithaca Fire Department calls. Before 1979 there were virtually no EMS calls; in 1988 there will be 1200. This is one more manifestation of "runaway health costs" which we hear so much of. Some volunteer companies could get into EMS service as many other nearby communities have encouraged their volunteer companies to do. All Ithaca Fire Department EMS work is now handled exclusively by career personnel. Volunteer companies could broaden their categories of membership to recruit Senior Citizen, RSVP type of individuals or teenage apprenticeship individuals. The successful efforts of the handicapped community in building the ramp at the Alternative Federal Credit Union at the corner of State and Albany is another manifestation of a local resource which could be invited to contribute to the Ithaca Fire Department. A last observation is that the nerve center for all this activity, needed to support the new Ithaca Fire Department, is the Board of Fire Commissioners. This panel has proven itself very effective in lobbying and supporting and arguing on behalf of an increased augmentation of Ithaca Fire Department personnel. Likewise, this nerve center, and legitimate recognition of it, must be also encouraged to continue to take the lead in greater steps. The Board of Fire Commissioners must be stimulated and tasked to identify and induce new and strengthened resources for the modernized Ithaca Fire Department operations. The Board must 3061 December 7, 1988 ►,i also plan to satisfy the future obligations which the Ithaca Fire Department is being called upon by the community to assume. Let us all be sufficiently reasonable to act accordingly and provide adequate effort to preclude future regret. Thank you." PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: 1989 Budget Mr. John Cook, 906 North Tioga Street, read the following statement to Council in regard to the Fire Department budget for 1989: "At a July 1st f ire in Hackensack, New Jersey this year, 5 f ire fighters were killed. Inadequate manpower was cited as a contributing factor. Hackensack has 98 fire fighters or 2.5 per thousand population. Ithaca has 44 fire fighters or less than 1 per thousand population. Al Whitehead, President of the International Association speaking of the Hackensack tragedy said 'we are asserting our public right to fight for increased safety. It is up to us to raise the costs of these fire fighter deaths by speaking the truth whenever and wherever necessary. Only then can we be assured that real value is attached to our lives, our lives will not be wasted.' Over the past several weeks the Ithaca Paid Fire Fighters Association has campaigned for safety through necessary increases in the fire department roster. This has been a unique endeavor since unions are usually pushing for more money, benefits and time off. Increasing the fire department roster may in fact necessitate some sacrifice in these areas. This is how important the safety issue is for our membership. Once again I would like to say that this is the City of Ithaca's f ire department and the city needs to take a leadership role in providing its fire fighters and residents the safety they deserve. We feel that only by a strong commitment from the City to increase manning and continued concern shown by the members of the fire department will we receive the support we are owed from the Town, Cornell and Ithaca College. We will be heard by the Town, Cornell and Ithaca College and we hope you will support us with the commitment to fund new fire fighter positions. We remain committed to the original fire department request for 23 new positions of which 12 fire fighters are the most critical. Get used to seeing our faces because we are not going to go away until you let us know by funding the manpower that we need that our lives will not be wasted. Thank you." Susan Cook, 204 East Yates Street, read the following statement to Council on the 1989 fire department budget: "The safety of our fire fighters are being comprised by the shortage of our fire fighters. The Ithaca fire department is currently operating with the same number of fire fighters it had 16 years ago yet the number of alarms have tripled in that time. Ithaca homes and businesses are not adequately protected anymore and the Ithaca fire department needs 22 additional fire fighters this year; the City is proposing to give us 4. The National Fire Protection Association recommends the minimum manning of 1.5 fire fighters per thousand people population in this municipality. Twenty two added fire fighters would still leave us far below the national safety standards. Our purpose tonight is to request that the City Council members give us a plan and a timeframe for bringing our fire department up to the national safety standards. Until such a plan is implemented, we will hold the city accountable if one of our husbands or wives is hurt or killed as a result of the lack of fire fighters. 307 December 7, 1988 5 The safety of the fire fighters should be a primary concern. Their lives are in danger as is every member of the public and their property. Four fire fighters this year is not going to change that. We respectfully are asking for a written response on our concerns. We would like a timeframe, some sort of plan as to how you plan on meeting the increase in manpower. Personally I would like to say that I understand what's being done as far as the money being put into contingency fund on 5 1/2 (two" new positions. I would like some sort of assurance now or in the future that whether the Town of Ithaca agrees to pay their share or whatever, we need those people." We need them whether the Town agrees or not. It is our fire department. Thank you." City of Ithaca residents were asked to vote on this in a referendum on the November 8th ballot. Newspaper ads paid for with our tax dollars implied that 5 other potential developers were waiting for the referendum to fail so that one of them could exploit the site for hydropower. In fact, 5 other potential developers did file applications for the federal license that the City of Ithaca now holds but that was back in 1983. Since then economic conditions are less favorable for hydropower development (46we' of this kind at this site. Unfavorable economic conditions whether foreseen or unforseen will surely affect the City's investment in hydropower at the site if it is allowed to proceed with this plan. The City's ads implied that the city's plan is environmentally benevolent but some members of the city appointed Hydropower Commission as well as concerned citizens were not satisfied that important environmental issues have been sufficiently studied in the City's plan. Common Council has none the less ended its review of the study documents and refuses to re -open environmental study. The proposed plans impact on the salmon fishery, for instance, is unknown. Furthermore, key components of the City plan to limit environmental impacts at the site have been adopted by the DEC and will be required of any hydro developer, be it the City or a private concern. Ads painted that if we don't do it someone else will, but earlier this year Common Council rejected an offer made by our district representative to seek legislative protection for the site. Rather than acting on Mayor Gutenberger's public statements in favor of protecting the site from any hydro development, the City's intention seems clear, to exploit Ithaca Falls for revenue. The hidden agenda in this issue was time. The City's provincial license to build the plant expires in October 1990 but it rushed to place the referendum on the November 8th ballot. The reason has to do with the pending changes in laws affecting small hydroelectric producers and the rate at which public utilities buy back the electricity they produce. The City needed a 'yes' vote on the referendum in order to sign a contract with NYSEG for guaranteed buy -back rate of about 8 cents per kilowatt hour before January 1, 1989. After that NYSEG's buy -back rate will be determined by competitive bidding amongst many, many hydroelectric producers and it is sure to be lower. There is some informed speculation that the number of bidders could even include producers in eastern Canada as well as the northeast U.S. because of the recent free trade agreements Hydropower Plant at Ithaca Falls Penny Baron, 417 East Lincoln Street, read the following statement to Council regarding the proposal for a Hydropower Plant at Ithaca Falls: LO r "The City of Ithaca ran a bias ad campaign to raise support for M its proposal to build and operate a hydro - electric plant on Fall Creek using water diverted from the above Ithaca Falls. Q City of Ithaca residents were asked to vote on this in a referendum on the November 8th ballot. Newspaper ads paid for with our tax dollars implied that 5 other potential developers were waiting for the referendum to fail so that one of them could exploit the site for hydropower. In fact, 5 other potential developers did file applications for the federal license that the City of Ithaca now holds but that was back in 1983. Since then economic conditions are less favorable for hydropower development (46we' of this kind at this site. Unfavorable economic conditions whether foreseen or unforseen will surely affect the City's investment in hydropower at the site if it is allowed to proceed with this plan. The City's ads implied that the city's plan is environmentally benevolent but some members of the city appointed Hydropower Commission as well as concerned citizens were not satisfied that important environmental issues have been sufficiently studied in the City's plan. Common Council has none the less ended its review of the study documents and refuses to re -open environmental study. The proposed plans impact on the salmon fishery, for instance, is unknown. Furthermore, key components of the City plan to limit environmental impacts at the site have been adopted by the DEC and will be required of any hydro developer, be it the City or a private concern. Ads painted that if we don't do it someone else will, but earlier this year Common Council rejected an offer made by our district representative to seek legislative protection for the site. Rather than acting on Mayor Gutenberger's public statements in favor of protecting the site from any hydro development, the City's intention seems clear, to exploit Ithaca Falls for revenue. The hidden agenda in this issue was time. The City's provincial license to build the plant expires in October 1990 but it rushed to place the referendum on the November 8th ballot. The reason has to do with the pending changes in laws affecting small hydroelectric producers and the rate at which public utilities buy back the electricity they produce. The City needed a 'yes' vote on the referendum in order to sign a contract with NYSEG for guaranteed buy -back rate of about 8 cents per kilowatt hour before January 1, 1989. After that NYSEG's buy -back rate will be determined by competitive bidding amongst many, many hydroelectric producers and it is sure to be lower. There is some informed speculation that the number of bidders could even include producers in eastern Canada as well as the northeast U.S. because of the recent free trade agreements 308 December 7, 1988 the U.S. has made with Canada. The City could not afford to waste time in re- opening environmental studies because it would jeopardize their rosy revenue projections. The estimated cost of constructing the plant is 5.4 million to be raised by floating a bond. Can the City guarantee that it will not resort to dipping into the general fund of my tax dollars to pay back should NYSEG find a way to avoid a contract with the City? The City's ads imply that my vote on the referendum represented actual power over the outcome of this issue when in fact the referendum was not legally binding. Its outcome would only influence Common Council's decision but the real deciding factor would be based on the City's ability to sign a contract with NYSEG before January 1, 1989. In fact the City had so little regard for the consensus of resident's opinions that the City's Attorney investigated whether the referendum was necessary at all. Proponents of the plan in City government are so eager for this project to become a reality that they are following every lead to win their way despite the rights and concerns of citizens. I feel this statement sums up many key issues not expounded on in the City's flyer sent out to the public prior to election day. The economic issue of developing the falls for hydropower seems even more unfeasible to me today having carefully considered the issue and discussed the economics of the project with individuals with a business background. These two photos show Ithaca Falls. In January, the waterfalls are white, majestic, powerful and quite a site to behold. They are also partially or totally frozen as this picture indicates. How much hydropower will the falls generate in this state? How much revenue? The photograph of the falls in the summer months shows the calm serenity of the gorge, the beauty of the rock structure beneath the falls and the gentle ripples of water. How much hydropower will a slow running or dry waterfall produce? How much revenue? Only for part of the Spring and Fall are the Ithaca Falls running full. The overall concept of a hydropower plant at the falls is surely a poor economic prospect at best for generating money and a boondoggle for the City at worst. I believe that if the City goes ahead with its plans to build a hydropower plant at Ithaca Falls we will find its profits literally frozen right up. Who will pay the cost of building the plant then? I hope not the Ithaca taxpayers who have already foot the bill for the $10,000 bias media campaign based on fear." Margaret Fabrizio, 213 King Street, read the following statement to Council in regard to hydropower: "Many residents of the Ithaca community believe that the City of Ithaca is rushing into hydropower development without a thorough and realistic analysis of the economics at stake. Serious questions that have so far produced discrepancies among experts need to be answered before the City compromises an irreplaceable and unique area like Ithaca Falls. We doubt that this plant will generate revenue for the City and in fact fear the City will lose money on this venture. It has even been suggested that because of the unpredictable flow rate of the creek NYSEG will not able to plan for and therefore use the energy that could be produced. The falls are frozen in the winter and dry in the summer, two periods of highest energy demand and the flow is unpredictable the rest of the year. The city could spend a large sum of money to build a plant, compromise one of the few natural places within the City limits, and ultimately produce a negligible amount of energy which NYSEG could find cheaper to ignore rather than tap. This is not thinking globally and acting locally. This is acting foolishly. A hydroelectric plant that produces no electricity at times of peak demand can make no contribution toward energy self - sufficiency or affect the total energy picture. We applaud the concept of energy self- sufficiency but we simply are not convinced that this particular site is a good choice for hydropower development. IF& 30,1 December 7, 1988 7 The November 8 vote is no mandate for the City to proceed with this project. A 'no' vote was only narrowly defeated after the City waged a one -sided campaign which misused public funds and did not provide the public with all the facts or accurate facts. It is an outrage that such a brochure was approved by the Mayor of the City. We urge all Common Council representatives to look at the real economic facts. The City has repeatedly stated that it proposed to build the plant to protect the falls from an outside developer. Why then are we rushing into a contract with NYSEG? If the buy -back rates become unattractive, would any developer still think it economically feasible to construct a facility at the site? Unreliable flow and unattractive rates combined with strict local legislation could be a real deterrent to development. We have two years and nine months before construction is required by the City's federal license. During this time permanent exemption status for the falls or other possible measures pursued through federal and state governments LO and conservation organizations should be wholeheartedly supported by the City government. Most people in the City do not want any Iq hydropower development at Ithaca Falls. Exemption status was only briefly explored and not until April of this year. We ask that Common Council suspend negotiations with NYSEG and pursue, CO with the intent to secure, permanent exemption status for the Q site. We taxpayers think that this will be a drain, not a boost to our budget. This plant will never have the capacity to produce large amounts of electricity and there will undoubtedly be drought years. How will the City meet the large amounts of money required to pay the bond in years of low energy production? Enactment of development taxes and tough negotiations with the Town and tax exempt parties could be more creative and productive to the problem of generating additional revenue without taxing the environment. Most importantly it is obvious to the citizens of Ithaca that Common Council and the Mayor have been unwilling to commit themselves to preservation of Ithaca Falls. There is now a group of citizens organized and determined to stop any hydropower development at Ithaca Falls. We believe there is a way to get permanent exemption status and intend to pursue it and we would very much appreciate Common Council's support. Thank you." The following persons also spoke to Common Council against the hydropower project proposal at Ithaca Falls: Alfredo Rossi - 409 Lake Street Roger Beck - 316 Auburn Street Proposed Sale of City Hall Annex Jason Fane, 133 North Quarry Street, spoke to Common Council in regard to the proposed sale of the City Hall Annex to Charles Schlough. He stated that he is against the sale of the annex to Mr. Schlough because the sale is not the best contract that the (400e City can get in that it is at least $100,000 less than other people are prepared to bid and it has many other provisions which are not in the City's interest and is not in the interest of .taxpayers, and he has been told by lawyers that some of the provisions are not even permitted by law. He urged Council members to vote 'no' on the proposed sale of the City Hall Annex. Atty. Michael Pichel, 320 North Aurora Street, asked each of the Council members to vote against the proposed sale of the City Hall Annex. He stated that it is really hard for anyone who would make a bid on city property to look at what has happened here and feel they could possibly make a bid if they didn't already have the bid locked up. He referred to the terms of the 310 December 7, 1988 N purchase offer that were put out to the public before the bid for this property went out last February. Atty. Pichel stated that one of the items on the purchase offer was that the proposed bidder would have until February 1 to inspect the property and decide whether they found it to their suiting structurally, asbestos wise, etc. The city made arrangements for everybody to inspect it. According to the offer from Charles Schlough, he wants thirty days to inspect the property after the Council accepts his bid. This is absolutely in violation of the terms of purchase. Atty. Pichel related that another term of purchase was the City will not participate in the financing of the property. Yet the offer from Charles Schlough asks that the City grant him a $30,000 loan in the form of an unsecured promissory note, not even a mortgage. He stated that Mr. Schlough wanted it without interest and apparently the city's negotiating committee increased that to 8 1/2% interest rate but it is never payable at all until or unless he gets a permanent certificate of occupancy. He stated that according to the New York State Constitution, Article VIII prohibits a City from loaning anyone any money, and yet the City of Ithaca Common Council is approving the sale to Charles Schlough and the City would loan him $30,000 at 8 1/2% interest. He asked Council how they think people feel when a person submits the highest bid and it is not accepted, then the Council goes to their favorite sponsor and negotiates a bid still not as high as the highest bid and the City breaks every rule that they put on the terms of purchase. He further stated that if this property is sold to Mr. Schlough he expects the City will be in litigation over the sale. 1989 Fire Department Budget Dan Rhoads, 201 West Lincoln Street, Captain of Volunteer Company #1, and Chairman of the Ithaca Volunteer Company Captains, spoke to the Council regarding the 1989 Fire Department Budget. He urged Council not to cut the equipment increases. He stated that the volunteers fully support the paid staff's request for personnel increases and he asked Council to please support the Fire Department's request for more manpower. Fire Chief Olmstead spoke to Council on the 1989 Fire Department Budget requests. He wanted to remind Council as they go into the discussions tonight and make plans for the future, that everyone is clear about the issue that was framed by the Board of Fire Commissioners. He stated that the issues of determination by the Board of Fire Commissioners in carrying out their Charter powers and responsibilities for the City of Ithaca is that there is an immediate need to add 22 people to the roster of the fire department. Fire Chief Olmstead said that discussion was first placed before Common Council and before the Town Board in April 1987; it has now been 18 months, we are on our second episode of money placed in restricted contingency for possible additions to the personnel roster of the fire department. He stated that the Board of Fire Commissioners is a Board that represents both the City and Town and it was a major issue in the settlement of the contract, that the Town would have a voice in deciding the management, the administration, and the future of the fire department. Fire Chief Olmstead went over the procedure that was used this year for the budget process. He stated that there were two meetings held with the Human Services Committee, and that committee spent a lot of time with the Fire Commissioners and himself. Chief Olmstead said that it was on the basis of those two meetings with the Human Services Committee, and a very clear message of support from the 5 members of Council on that committee that the Fire Department came back to the Budget and W, 311 December 7, 1988 0 Administration Committee with a request to add in about $120,000 to the budget for some immediate personnel requests, understanding that discussions had to go forward with the Town. He stated that the issue that is before Council and the Town Board is for 22 people. The issue that is before Council tonight is whether or not the Council can show their commitment to the people of the Fire Department and do something right away and not wait for the Town Board to do something. Chief Olmstead stated that since the City's relationship began with the Town Board the entire operation of the Fire Department has been held hostage to the negotiations and discussions that have to take place between two separate governments. He stated that the Fire Department wants to see some meaningful action on this matter. RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC: LO Proposed Sale of City Hall Annex Iq Alderperson Booth asked the City Attorney to be prepared under his report to respond to the issue of whether the provision of Lo dealing with the $30,000 note in the contract is in fact a loan F and if that is barred by the Constitution of the State of New M York. He stated that he feels the City has complied with the Q process it has set out and that it has reached a responsible agreement. Hydropower Alderperson Booth stated that he feels that unfortunately the information campaign was not balanced. However, the vote occurred and he thinks it is valid. He believes that hydro development by the City makes sense, even though he would prefer that site not be developed for hydropower because of the resources that are there. He stated in regard to the exemption of Ithaca Falls from hydro development that the only mechanism he knows of is to have that portion of that stream declared a federal wild and scenic river and he cannot imagine that such a designation would be proper given the rivers that are in that system on the federal level. He further stated he does not believe we will be entering into a contract by January 1st. Alderperson Nichols commented that the public's remarks regarding the flow of water over the falls for the different seasons is correct. There have been figures computed on the water flow for the falls for the past 30 years and have been taken into account in every computation. He stated that the energy figure to be negotiated is an average figure for the next fifteen years and is based upon NYSEGIs own computation. He said that any agreement that is made with NYSEG has to be approved by the Public Service Commission who is charged with the authority of protecting and making sure that this is not at the expense of the rate payers. Alderperson Nichols stated that he feels it is very unfair to assume that the City will go ahead with an actual project until all financial liability in terms of the rates that will be achieved, in terms of the actual bids for costs of construction, etc. are established. He stated that what the referendum did was give the authority to the City to go ahead if it so chooses. He also stated that if there are further environmental studies that need to be done they should be done. Alderperson Nichols further stated that he resents the fact that some people assume that if we are working on one project we are neglecting such issues as child care, drug problems, homelessness, etc. He is prepared to work with anyone and spend as much time as needed to try and solve these problems. Proposed Sale of City Hall Annex Alderperson Cummings responded to Mr. Pichel's and Mr. Fane's remarks that the City ought to be accepting the highest dollar bid on that building. She thinks it is incumbent upon her to say as second ward representative and downtown resident and taxpayer 312 December 7, 1988 10 that she objects very strenuously to what the highest dollar bid boys are doing to her downtown. She stated she resents seeing local merchants driven out of their shops by exorbitant rents and seeing those shops then subdivided into cubicles so small that local merchants can not make a go of it. Alderperson Cummings said that owner occupancy on the Commons is very important, and the City needs to make it possible for our downtown merchants to control the fate and shape of their downtown. Town /City Fire Meeting Alderperson Schlather noted that there is a joint meeting scheduled for the fire issue between the Town and City for January 18, 1989. He stated that assuming that there is a good result from that meeting, the matter of transferring the money from restricted contingency would then be discussed at the B &A Committee meeting on January 26th, and there would be action by Council at their February 1, 1989 meeting. Hydropower Alderperson Hoffman invited anyone who is concerned about this issue to the meeting of the Hydropower Commission which will be on December 13 at 7:30 in City Hall. He stated that he also was disappointed with some of the aspects of the City's informational campaign. He stated that his reaction to the City's brochure was that it did not tell the whole story; it was not what he would call even - handed and he feels that maybe there was not a completely informed or balanced presentation. 1989 Fire Department Budget Alderperson Peterson stated that as Chairperson of the Human Services Committee, she is committed to the additional fire fighter requests from the Fire Department. Hydropower Alderperson Peterson stated that she hopes that soon, through the Hydropower Commission and perhaps the Planning Committee, that there might be a clearer position and steps put forward as to what the City is going to do next regarding the hydropower plant. Proposed Sale of City Hall Annex Mayor Gutenberger responded to the question that was raised by Mr. Jason Fane regarding the refusal of Charles Francis to re- appraise the Annex building at his request. Mayor Gutenberger stated that remark was correct because Charles Francis was the one who did the appraisal for the City and if there is any litigation Mr. Francis would be called as the City's expert witness and it would certainly be a conflict of interest for the City's appraiser to also be appraising property for someone who might be challenging the City's decision. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR: Proposed Sale of City Hall Annex Mayor Gutenberger asked that the William Lower, which was received included in the record: "Dear Mayor Gutenberger: following letter from Mr. at 7:05 p.m. that evening be I am writing this letter because I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting tomorrow night, and I have just had an opportunity to review the revised Schlough 'purchase offer' for the City Hall Annex. Please read this letter into the Minutes during the public portion of your meeting. I have never withdrawn my $255,000 offer to purchase the annex. My offer was submitted prior to the February 1, 1988 deadline. My offer was non - contingent. I complied with the City's bid proposal and had the annex inspected prior to submitting my bid. The City stated that no financing was available. I did not �1,4- 110 1q, LO T- M 'Q 31 3 December 7, 1988 11 require the City loan me any money to purchase the annex (and I am advised that the New York State Constitution prohibits such a loan). I offered to renovate the annex exactly as the City required. I offered, and still offer, to pay the highest price (even if it is necessary to pay more than $255,000) . I made no requirement that the City remove the walkways connecting the annex to City Hall. I requested no guaranteed variance. I requested no time to obtain financing for the purchase or for the renovations. I believe that it is unfair to sell the annex for less than full value and with contingencies that dramatically reduce the true purchase price. The Schlough offer is still subject to 'further design and modification of the interior of the Premises by the Buyer', so Mr. Schlough would, in effect, obtain the annex at less than my offer, without really promising to do the project with the City seems to be paying for. I am one of the original bidders. My bid was the highest. I am still ready, willing and able to purchase the annex for the highest price (I would even increase my offer if necessary) and I am willing to give the City the exact same development that is offered by Mr. Schlough. I would develop the annex in conjunction with Mr. Schlough's McKinney building so that the City would get a higher price and everything else offered by Mr. Schlough. This project could be a model for downtown redevelopment, with cooperation between adjoining property owners encouraged by the City. There are very few Commons properties large enough for redevelopment on the upper floors, because elevators and requirement for 2nd means of egress make such redevelopment impractical without cooperation and sharing of elevators and fire stairs. Please don't vote in favor of this resolution. Yours truly, William L. Lower" Mayor Gutenberger also read into the record the following letter from Stephen Sunderland of Compu Draft Services, New York, New York, which was received at 4:35 p.m. that day: "Dear Sirs: I hereby raise my offer to purchase the City Hall Annex property on the northeast corner of Cayuga and Green Streets, Ithaca, New York as follows: 1. PRICE. The purchase price shall be three hundred thousand dollars ($305,000.00). *(one figure a typo on letter) 2. TERMS. The terms and other features of the offer shall be identical to that of Mr. Charles Schlough. I am willing to cooperate with him on a joint project if that is the desire of the City government. If Mr. Schlough does not wish to develop his property in conjunction with the annex, I am willing to induce another downtown landlord or landlords to develop as many apartments as Mr. Schlough would have developed in the McKinney building and be subject to the same enforcement as Mr. Schlough on this matter. 3. NOTICE. I understand that the Ithaca City Charter section 3.10(40) requires that City property be sold for the highest bid or if the City elects to negotiate a sale the property must be sold for full value. 314 12 Very truly yours, Stephen Sunderland" December 7, 1988 MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS: Personnel Administrator Mayor Gutenberger reported that he has appointed Valerie Walker as Acting Personnel Administrator, retroactive to December 5, 1988, at a 10% increase in salary to $25,918 and he asked the Council's concurrence. Resolution By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment of Valerie Walker as Acting Personnel Administrator, retroactive to December 5, 1988, at a salary of $25,918. Carried Unanimously Rental Housing Task Force Mayor Gutenberger reported that he has appointed Laura Lewis, 509 Willow Avenue, representing Civic Associations and Sui -Sing Shantur, 224 Bryant Avenue, representing mortgage officers, to the Rental Housing Task Force. Resolution By Alderperson Killeen: Seconded by Alderperson Lytel RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointments of Laura Lewis and Sui -Sing Shantur to the Rental Housing Task Force. Carried Unanimously Search Committee for Personnel Administrator Mayor Gutenberger explained the process for appointing a search committee for Personnel Administrator. Common Council has to appoint three Council members for the search committee of seven. He has asked Jean McPheeters to represent the Affirmative Action Committee and has asked the Civil Service Commission to appoint two of their three members. He offered for the Council's consideration the seventh member who is the person non- affiliated with City Hall who would have expertise in the area of the position being filled. He offered the name of James Markowitz, Assoc. Professor of Law and Labor Relations at Ithaca College, 110 Renwick Drive. Resolution By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment of James Markowitz to serve on the Search Committee for the Personnel Administrator. Carried Unanimously Resolution By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Lytel RESOLVED, That the three Council members to serve on the Search Committee for the Personnel Administrator are Alderpersons Killeen, Nichols, and Johnson. Carried Unanimously Ithaca Housing Authority Mayor Gutenberger offered the name of Frank Slattery, 960 East State Street, for appointment to the Ithaca Housing Authority, with a term to expire October 17, 1989, to fill a vacancy created by the resignation of Edward Conley and he asked the Council's concurrence. Resolution By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment of Frank Slattery to the Ithaca Housing Authority, with a term to expire October 17, 1989. Carried Unanimously M Ln S M Q December 7, 1988 13 Cable TV Commission Mayor Gutenberger offered the name of Thomas Terrizzi, 714 North Cayuga Street to be appointed to the Cable TV Commission with a term to expire July 30, 1991, to fill a vacancy created by the resignation of Curt Dunnam and he asked the Council's concurrence. Resolution By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment of Thomas Terrizzi to the Cable TV Commission with a term to expire July 30, 1991. Carried Unanimously CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: Proposed Sale of City Hall Annex Alderperson Booth asked the City that is in the contract with Mr. Attorney about the $30,000 note Schlough. City Attorney Nash responded that it states in the State Constitution, Article VIII, Section 1, that no City shall loan any money or property to a private individual. He stated that the question here seems to be, "Is the City making a loan in this case or is it taking part of the compensation for the sale of this property in a deferred payment ?" Attorney Nash said that he will investigate further with the Attorney General and the State Comptroller's Office for their opinion and report back to Council. City's Court Action Against Jason Fane Alderperson Killeen asked City Attorney Nash for an update on the City's court action against Jason Fane regarding the stacking of a single - family historic dwelling on East Hill with 24 students. City Attorney Nash answered that that proceeding is pending in City Court. He stated that the defendant's attorney has made several requests for discovery of information in connection with the prosecution. The City has filed a response and he is sure there will be some pre -trial proceedings on discovery of evidence before that will actually go to a hearing. He thinks the discovery stage will be done within 30 days. Status of Senior Citizen Discount for TV Cable Alderperson Killeen asked City Attorney Nash about the status of the senior citizen discount for the TV Cable in regard to the retroactive clause. Attorney Nash responded that he has sent the list of senior citizens who are entitled to that discount to Mr. Withiam and he has not yet had a response from him on this matter. Cable TV Franchise Alderperson Hoffman stated that he understands that the public access studios have been shut down somewhat indefinitely and he asked City Attorney Nash if he has heard anything about it. City Attorney Nash replied that he has not heard anything about that. Alderperson Lytel stated that it is true that the studios that are agreed to in the franchise do not exist right now; they have been de- constructed. This matter will be considered at the Cable Commission hearing on December 13th. BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: *14.12 Cass Park Ice Rink By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That Common Council does hereby request that the City Attorney prepare a Memorandum of Understanding and other documents necessary to implement the new ice rink construction project in Cass Park, as proposed by the Community Recreation Center, Inc. in its letter of November 23, 1988 and report back 315 316 December 7, 1988 14 to Common Council in due course, and be it further RESOLVED, That the issues of location, design, landscaping, roadway and parking relocation, and related Cass Park concerns, including environmental review be, and the same are hereby referred to the Board of Public Works, the Ithaca Youth Bureau and the Conservation Advisory Council for comment, review and report back to Common Council in due course. Alderperson Schlather gave background information on the resolution. He stated that what this resolution will do is give the Ithaca Youth Hockey people some sense that the Common Council is willing to go forward with this project. The Ithaca Youth Hockey Association's Attorney and the City Attorney will be meeting to work out the legal details and be coming back to Council with proposals and details. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (8) - Booth, Killeen, Schlather, Cummings, Peterson, Lytel, Romanowski, Johnson Nays (2) - Nichols, Hoffman Carried PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: *16.5 Sale of Fire Station #5 By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen WHEREAS, the Ithaca Common Council by resolution duly adopted at its regular meeting on October 7, 1987 declared Fire Station #5, Tax Map Number 70 -1 -14, 136 West State Street, with an appraised value of $76,000 to be surplus property and authorized the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and its Executive Director to solicit proposals for its sale, to evaluate purchase proposals according to the stated criteria of purchase price, proposed reuse and appropriateness of any planned alternations to the exterior of the structure, and recommend to the Common Council its selection f urchaser for Common Council review and action, and o p WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency solicited and evaluated proposals for the sale of Fire Station #5 and recommended to the Common Council the sale of the property to Harvey Ferdschneider and Anne Trovinger for the sum of $80,000, said recommendation being accepted by the Common Council at their April 6, 1988 regular meeting, and WHEREAS, at their September 7, 1988 regular meeting the Common Council declared Harvey Ferdschneider and Anne Trovinger to be the preferred buyers for the purchase of Fire Station #5 for the amount of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000), in accordance with the terms of the purchase proposal, and authorized and directed the Director of Planning and Development to publish the appropriate notification of the sale in accordance with the provisions of City Charter Section 3.10 (40) in order to facilitate the Common Council's consideration of the actual sale of Fire Station #5 to the persons and upon the conditions noted at its December 7, 1988 regular meeting; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby approves the sale of Fire Station #5 to Harvey Ferdschneider and Anne Trovinger in the amount of $80,000 in accordance with the Purchase Proposal, and hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney to prepare and the Mayor to sign all instruments necessary to effect the sale of the subject property. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call which resulted as follows: 31'7 December 7, 1988 15 Hoffman - Aye Nichols - Aye Peterson - Aye Schlather - Aye Lytel - Aye Cummings - Aye Booth - Aye Killeen - Aye Johnson - Aye Romanowski- Aye Ayes (10) Carried Unanimously *16.6 Sale of Annex By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca by resolution duly adopted at its regular meeting on October 7, 1987 did declare the City Hall Annex, Tax Map Number 70 -5 -24, 123 South Cayuga Street to be surplus property; and did authorize and direct the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and its Executive Director to solicit proposals for the sale of the Annex, to evaluate said proposals according to the stated criteria of purchase price, LO proposed reuse and appropriateness of any planned alterations to LO the exterior of the structure, and recommend to Common Council its selection of purchaser for Council's review and action, and LD WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency did duly solicit and M evaluate proposals for the sale of the Annex, and did recommend the sale of the subject property to Charles Schlough in accordance with the terms and conditions of his proposal dated February 1, 1988, said recommendation being accepted by the Common Council at their April 6, 1988 meeting, and WHEREAS, the Common Council at their August 3, 1988 meeting authorized and directed the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of Council to meet with Charles Schlough to negotiate a purchase offer for the Annex, and to report their findings to Council; and WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee recommended the sale of the City Hall Annex to Charles Schlough for the amount of $245,000, in accordance with the Purchase Proposal at the Common Council Meeting of November 2, 1988, at which meeting the Common Council accepted the Committee's recommendation and authorized and directed the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and its Executive Director to publish the appropriate notification of the sale of the Annex in compliance with City Charter Section 3.10(40) in order to facilitate the Common Council's consideration of the actual sale of the City Hall Annex to the person and upon the conditions noted at its December 7, 1988 regular meeting; now, therefore, be it Alderperson Cummings explained the change that has been made in item #8 of the Purchase Proposal. She stated that the change was made at the Council's request to make sure that there would not be a sale of the annex prior to completion of the entire project. In regard to the language in the Resolved paragraph in the Resolution, City Attorney Nash explained that Common Council wanted to forbid any transfer, except such transfer that it would RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby approves the sale of the City Hall Annex to Charles Schlough for the amount of $245,000, in accordance with the Purchase Proposal, and does also agree to allow the purchaser Charles Schlough to transfer his interest in said proposal and the property covered thereby to any entity in which he has a controlling interest and which agrees to be bound by all the terms and conditions of said proposal, and hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney to prepare and the Mayor to sign all instruments necessary to effect the sale of the subject property, and be it further RESOLVED, That this resolution is subject to the certification by the City Attorney that item #2C of the Purchase Proposal is consistent with the State Constitution and State law. Alderperson Cummings explained the change that has been made in item #8 of the Purchase Proposal. She stated that the change was made at the Council's request to make sure that there would not be a sale of the annex prior to completion of the entire project. In regard to the language in the Resolved paragraph in the Resolution, City Attorney Nash explained that Common Council wanted to forbid any transfer, except such transfer that it would 31_g December 7, 1988 16 specifically approve, so language was written into the contract so the ad could be published after the November Council meeting. In discussions with the developer Mr. Schlough, he indicated that he would like Council's approval for transfer to a partnership or other entity of which he would have a controlling interest for development purposes, so that was put in the resolution so Council could authorize that pursuant to the contract. Further discussion followed on the floor on the legality of the $30,000 provision. Alderperson Romanowski read the following statement into the record: "Mr. Schlough has proposed an innovative and far - reaching project to add much needed housing stock to the City of Ithaca. It hopefully will set an example for other developers and businessmen in the downtown area. For this I commend Mr. Schlough. His willingness to work within the system, and to take this economic gamble shows his commitment and faith in the life of this City. However, I will vote against this project not because of Charlie Schlough - but for these 3 reasons: 1. I believe that the appraisal price and selling price is not a true reflection of the value of this property. 2. More importantly - uncertainty of contract provision. 3. I am also not sure that it is in the best interests for the City to sell this property. In a few years the value of the present City Hall in conjunction with this corner property will enable the City to realize the funds to build a new and more efficient seat of government to better serve its people." Alderperson Schlather stated that he is voting against the resolution because the City is not getting enough money for this property and because the City really should not be selling City property, it should be leasing it; a 50 or 100 year lease is what the Council should be talking about. Alderperson Hoffman explained his reasons for not supporting this resolution. He cannot in his judgment support the purchase offer with the $30,000 provision in it. Resolution to Table By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman RESOLVED, That the matter of the proposed sale of the City Hall Annex be tabled. Ayes (9) - Cummings, Hoffman, Booth, Nichols, Peterson, Lytel, Schlather, Romanowski, Johnson Nay (1) - Killeen Carried Common Council recessed at 9:12 p.m. and reconvened in regular session at 9:25 p.m. DG ST TT *14.10 Building Department Administrative Secretary By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That Carol Shipe be provisionally appointed to the position of Administrative Secretary in the Building Department, with an annual salary of $19, 015, that being Step 6 of the 1988 Confidential Employees Not Covered by a Union Compensation Plan, effective December 12, 1988, as requested by the Acting Building Commissioner. Discussion followed on the floor. L0 NT L0 F M Q 17 A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: December 7, 1988 Carried Unanimously *14.11 Building Department Plan Review Officer By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That Richard Eckstrom be permanently appointed to the position of Plan Review Officer in the Building Department, with an annual salary of $26,352, that being Step 5 on the 1988 C.S.E.A. - Administrative Unit Compensation Plan, effective December 12, 19881 as requested by the Acting Building Commissioner. Carried Unanimously REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND COUNCIL LIAISONS: Conservation Overlay Zones Alderperson Johnson presented the following report to Common Council on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Council: The Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) recommends that Common Council adopt the following conservation overlay zoning in sensitive natural areas of the city. I. Purpose. The purpose of conservation overlay zoning (COZ) is to give added protection to environmentally sensitive areas without changing the overall zoning of the given areas. The CAC feels that our wetlands, waterways, and woodlands are Ithaca's most sensitive and valuable natural resources. The purpose of COZ would be: • to protect the water quality of the streams themselves and Cayuga Lake into which they flow; • to preserve plant and wildlife habitat; • to minimize excessive increases in water volume flowing through the creeks, and consequent erosion of the banks, siltation of the streams and lakes, loss of riparian (streambank) vegetation, and loss of habitat for fish and other wildlife; • to protect land from periodic excessive flooding due to removal of riparian vegetation, dredging, filling, damming, or channelization; • to prevent degradation or loss of wetlands; • to safeguard scenic views and vistas from and to the lakes, wetlands, creeks, and gorges; and • to enhance the recreational (including tourism) values of these important places. II. Background and rationale Ithaca's waterways have often been treated as nuisances rather than the tremendous natural assets that they are. Especially in downtown Ithaca, the result has been polluted water, channelization, disregard for plant and wildlife habitat, litter, and inappropriate development. Loss of fisheries, and possible contamination of remaining fish species, has been another result. Runoff from streets is a major cause of water pollution, and in addition, the replacement of permeable, vegetated surfaces with impervious ones leads to gullying on the slopes and greater volumes of water in the streams with resulting erosion, siltation, loss of plant life, loss of fisheries and other wildlife. Buildings close to waterways can degrade the aesthetic appeal of these resources. The CAC feels that it is important to preserve the features we have left and improve water quality, enhance aesthetic appeal and recreational value, and improve plant and wildlife habitats of our waterways. The COZ proposed 319 320 December 7, 1988 UN here would be a first step in that process. In addition, we hope that the city will give attention to rehabilitating areas along our waterways that have been degraded. While increasing the enjoyment of city residents in these important natural resources, tourism will also be enhanced, with consequent economic benefits to the city. In addition to the waterways, the city boasts several woodlands that deserve protection. Woodlands provide a number of benefits; for example: * enjoyment of the people who live near them, see them, or use them; * noise buffer; * visual buffer; * habitat for wildlife and plants; * protection of waterways from excessive runoff, pollution, erosion, and siltation; * protection from flooding; * protection of air quality by trapping or absorbing pollutants; * cooling through shading and evapotranspiration; * absorption of CO2 , one of the major greenhouse gases. Note: An alternative to including the woodlands in the COZ would be to designate them as Critical Environmental Areas under the local Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. III. Proposed provisions of the ordinance 1. In the overlay zones, no new construction except for certain accessory uses to existing structures, as specified below, may take place without a special permit and environmental review. Existing structures, roads, driveways, etc. may remain, but may not be replaced without a special permit and environmental review (with the same exceptions as for new construction). In the absence of a permit for replacement, demolition must return the site to a stable, vegetated condition. Replacement of existing structures may not result in an increase in density. 2a. Construction activities in an overlay zone must make provisions for protecting the zone from environmental damage: to avoid such problems as erosion and increased runoff, compaction of soil around trees, piling of soil around trees, trash and pollution, etc. The owner /contractor must spell out in advance what actions will be taken, and if problems arise during or after construction, must take corrective action. 2b. Construction activities outside of the overlay zones may not encroach on the areas inside the zones. Appropriate construction fencing must be installed to ensure that this provision is not violated. Any debris that gets into the overlay zone must be removed by the project's contractor or owner, and any accidental damage must be remedied by same. Water runoff from such nearby activities must be controlled by same. 3. No trees above 12" DBH, and no more than 10 trees above 2" DBH, may be cut in either zone without a special permit and environmental review. Criteria to consider before granting or denying a permit should include such things as species of trees and appropriateness of habitat, health of the trees, endangerment of nearby structures and utilities. 321 December 7, 1988 19 Note: Loss of tree cover is one of the major threats to our waterways. The CAC views this provision of the proposal as vital. 5. A no -build buffer zone should be established in especially critical areas such as along waterways, in which no new structures could be built - -that is, a permit could not be issued. Exemptions to such a provision - -along the flats but not the gorges - -could include boat launching sites, boathouses, poles, lean -tos, docks, fences, bridges (list taken from state guidelines -- Appendix R of the Stream Corridor Management Manual - -a DEC publication). (Replacement of existing structures might be exempted.) These same guidelines recommend buffer strips of varying widths, depending on slope of the land, in watersheds and other critical areas: 0% 4. Consideration in granting or denying permits shall 10% be given to such things as slope, existing vegetation, 20% views, size and appearance of project, and of course, 30% findings of the environmental review. The reviewing board 40% may place any conditions on the owner /developer that it etc. deems necessary to ensure the protection of the critical area. The board should have broad powers in terms of design and layout of structures, both of which should blend with their surroundings and be as unobtrusive as possible. If mitigating measures, spelled out in the permit, prove to be inadequate as a project proceeds, the review board may require additional protective measures before work may proceed. homes, and similar small -scale residential uses. Note: The CAC recognizes that there will be controversy LD concerning the degree of specificity that is needed in identifying the criteria. It would be very difficult in M Ithaca to come up very specific criteria because each situation is likely to be so different from every other; Q what might be entirely appropriate in one setting could be disastrous in another. The CAC feels that it would be best to leave each determination up to the good sense of the reviewing board (whatever body that may be), acting with advice from the CAC and possibly outside experts. 5. A no -build buffer zone should be established in especially critical areas such as along waterways, in which no new structures could be built - -that is, a permit could not be issued. Exemptions to such a provision - -along the flats but not the gorges - -could include boat launching sites, boathouses, poles, lean -tos, docks, fences, bridges (list taken from state guidelines -- Appendix R of the Stream Corridor Management Manual - -a DEC publication). (Replacement of existing structures might be exempted.) These same guidelines recommend buffer strips of varying widths, depending on slope of the land, in watersheds and other critical areas: 0% 50' (from high water mark) 10% 90' 20% 130' 30% 170' 40% 210' etc. (whichever is farther) (or use guidelines in #5): 6. Members of the CAC and the reviewing board may enter any site in an overlay zone in order to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposal and, after work has begun, to assess compliance with protective measures and the 8. Any dispute regarding the intent of this ordinance possible need for additional measures. 7. Accessory uses that are permitted without a permit, PROVIDED these do not come closer than 50 feet to the edge of a creek's high water mark nor closer than 50 feet to slopes that are greater than 15% adjacent to a creek (whichever is farther) (or use guidelines in #5): a. Driveways larger than (360- 400 ? ?) square feet b. Parking lots for 4 or fewer vehicles C. New attached construction that would not increase the existing footprint by more than (10 % ?) nor density of use by more than (10 % ?). d. Small garden sheds, children's play apparatus, picnic tables, patios for single or double - family homes, and similar small -scale residential uses. 8. Any dispute regarding the intent of this ordinance 322 December 7, 1988 20 shall be resolved to give the maximum protection to the critical area. 9. Except for small projects as described under #7 above, granting of permits in an overlay zone may not be treated as ministerial acts. 10. Severability: If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance and the application thereof to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such holding and shall remain in full force and effect. IV. Areas to be covered A large map marked with the proposed overlay zones is available for examination in the Planning Department. In some municipalities with overlay zoning, 200 feet in each direction is the standard distance from critical areas. A. Waterways The CAC took a trip (with a 100' tape measure) to five different sites in the city to see what the implications of various distances would be. In most cases, the CAC is recommending a distance of 200 feet in each direction, measured horizontally from the center of a stream. Where the stream is unusually wide, such as along the Flood Control Channel and Cayuga Inlet, the measurement has been taken from the top of the bank next to the creek. A few other exceptions to the 200 -foot rule (in some spots leaving less than 200' and in other spots, more than 2001): a) From College Avenue, going east along the south side of Cascadilla Creek, follow the north side of Oak Avenue to rt. 366. b) From College Avenue, going east along the north side of Cascadilla, the distance shall be 250' from the center of the creek until reaching the east end of the Theory Center. From there, follow Campus Road east to the stairs (leading to the stadium) just before the bridge at rt. 366. The gorge is unusually wide in many areas of the stretch from College Avenue to the rt. 366 intersection. Furthermore, the north side has a number of building in close proximity to the gorge. Further infilling in that area would be harmful to the gorge and the water quality of the creek, as well as to aesthetic values. C) Along the connector between Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel, follow Taber Street on the south side. d) Along south side of Six -Mile Creek, east of Aurora Street Bridge, follow Hudson and Giles Streets; except note additional protective band along south side of road (under "other protected areas "). e) Along north side of Six -Mile Creek, east of Aurora Street, follow State Street to Ferris Place. From there go southeast along a line 250' below State Street to the city line; except note additional protective band ( "under other protected areas "). f) Going east along south side of Fall Creek, near Johnson Art Museum, starting at N -S intersecting rd. (Central Avenue) , follow north side of University Avenue and first part of Forest Home Drive. Thereafter follow a line 200' south of Forest Home Drive, to the city line (south side of Beebe Lake). (See map.) 323 December 7, 1988 21 g) Zone extending 200' to 300' - -as shown on map- - south from Giles Street between Columbia and Van Atta's Dam, to where the area abuts the City's Watershed holdings. (See map) This area consists of important protective forest. h) As much as possible of the remaining woodland (now about 100 acres ?) on West Hill, with help from the West Hill neighborhood in defining the boundary of the protected area. i) The Hog's Hole next to Cass Park, an area with valuable wetlands and a large stand of massive trees (boundaries to be determined). Important habitat for birds - -and birders! Valuable remnant of the once -vast wetland that used to border this end of the lake. Now owned by the state park system. (two" (j. Other possible areas.) Resolution By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That the Conservation Overlay Zones Report be referred first to the Planning and Development Committee and then to the Charter and Ordinance Committee for consideration and report back to Council. Carried Unanimously Park and Ride Facility Alderperson Johnson presented the following report to Common Council on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Council: g) Going northeast along the NW shore of Beebe Lake, follow the service road that leads to Newman Gym; from there follow a line 250' from the old north shore of Beebe Lake, east to the city line. B. Other protected zones: (see map) a) Linn Street woods (on EMC's unique areas list) and narrow band of woods north and east of Lake Street on the south side of Fall Creek (use treeline as the boundary in both instances). (Not precisely marked on map.) b) 200 feet from, and including, Fuertes Sanctuary. This is one of the best examples in the state of now -rare old- growth flood plain forest. C) 200 feet from, and including, Cornell's Biological Field Station (boundary needs to be LD more clearly delineated on map). d) 100 feet from, and including, rare remnant old - LD growth flood plain forest and other mature woods S at SE corner of SW Park and along the southern, eastern, and northern boundaries of SW Park. Use (Y] line of mature trees as boundary - -not accurately d marked on map. e) Wooded area of SW Park (not precisely marked on map). f) Zone extending from Ferris Place southeast to the city line, and from State Street south and southwest to the boundary of the creek overlay zone. This area has seen intensive development in close proximity to the gorge. Serious damage to the creek and the gorge could result from further increases in density. Furthermore, there would be severe loss of neighborhood and aesthetic values and of wildlife and plant diversity (with all that this entails). g) Zone extending 200' to 300' - -as shown on map- - south from Giles Street between Columbia and Van Atta's Dam, to where the area abuts the City's Watershed holdings. (See map) This area consists of important protective forest. h) As much as possible of the remaining woodland (now about 100 acres ?) on West Hill, with help from the West Hill neighborhood in defining the boundary of the protected area. i) The Hog's Hole next to Cass Park, an area with valuable wetlands and a large stand of massive trees (boundaries to be determined). Important habitat for birds - -and birders! Valuable remnant of the once -vast wetland that used to border this end of the lake. Now owned by the state park system. (two" (j. Other possible areas.) Resolution By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That the Conservation Overlay Zones Report be referred first to the Planning and Development Committee and then to the Charter and Ordinance Committee for consideration and report back to Council. Carried Unanimously Park and Ride Facility Alderperson Johnson presented the following report to Common Council on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Council: 324 December 7, 1988 22 We would like to recommend that the City, together with the Town and County, develop a park- and -ride facility in conjunction with planning for Rt. 96. We envision a parking lot near the hospital, with small buses taking people into the city, and especially to major centers of employment, at nominal or no cost. The optional Plan A alternative would cost about $12 million. The various Plan C's would cost about $40 million. The difference - -$28 million -- invested at 3 %* interest per year, would generate $840,000 per year, or about $3360 per work day (figured at 250 work days per year) - -an amount that would probably be sufficient to operate such a facility with no fares. This is not intended as an endorsement of Plan A, but merely to illustrate the extent to which the State is willing to subsidize the private automobile. Several problems would 1) Less traffic 2) Less traffic problem. be alleviated under through the Octopus; in downtown Ithaca, such a plan: and less of a parking 3) Less air pollution, and in particular less CO2 added to the atmosphere. (CO z is the most important of the greenhouse gases.) 4) Less dependence on foreign oil. We heavily subsidize private automobiles. It's time we subsidized public transportation as a way of dealing with congested street and global warming. *3% allows for inflation. Actual interest of course would be a lot higher. Resolution By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That the report on the Park and Ride Facility be referred to the Planning and Development Committee for action. Carried Unanimously Six Mile Creek Acquisition Alderperson Johnson presented the following report to Common Council on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Council: In view of the city's recent acquisition of land along Six -Mile Creek, and with the prospect of further acquisitions, the CAC recommends that Common Council state what its policy will be regarding these lands. Over the course of several meetings, we came up with the following recommendations for your consideration: 1. The overall objective for the lands below the rr bed, and for a buffer zone 200 - feet -wide above it, should be to protect the natural character of these areas. Recreation should be entirely of the passive sort -- walking, and bird - watching, for example. The CAC feels that the city must commit itself to not putting in active recreational facilities below the tracks. Perhaps, although at least some of the land would be officially designated as "park ", it could be called the Six -Mile Creek Natural Areas Park. The Adirondack Park sets a good precedent: the term "park" does not need to imply active uses of the land, and the state recognizes this. The city is fairly well endowed with developed parks and vast expanses of mowed grass. Unfortunately, it is not well supplied with areas of unspoiled natural beauty where one can go for quiet reflection and renewal. This type of recreation is just as important as ball fields and skating rinks; each type of facility meets different needs. As the city expands, we will continue to need both types of recreational areas; the need for natural areas �i 325 December 7, 1988 23 could well grow disproportionately, growth of the city and surrounding towns�nsidering the continual Open areas (abandoned fields) below the rr tracks should be left to continue their succession back to forest. 2. We understand that the two acres of frontage along Coddin ton Road on the Maylin /Brahm parcel were a g ($15,000 each). It would seem reasonable rtoSesellt Off30this portion, or perhaps one slightly larger, for housing. The remaining 14 acres of the upper per acre, pp parcel is appraised at only $700 p The city acquired it for even less than this. In other words, we got a terrific deal, and it would not make economic sense to sell it for the paltry returns that could be expected - -at most, $9800. The CAC feels that it would be prudent for the city to hold onto that above - the -rr land as protection for the watershed. Another reason to hold onto the above - the -rr property is that NYSEG currently sprays herbicides in certain areas below their power line. Last June or July, Darlington and others observed large bands of dead woody plants, and a letter to NYSEG confirmed that they spray in that area. NYSEG claims to stay 600 feet from any stream, but at least one recent spraying went much closer to the stream on the upper section of the Maylin /Brahm parcel -- Darlington estimates perhaps only fifty feet away. NYSEG does not spray on City watershed holdings. Unless the new property is already officially part of the "city watershed ", we request that the city look into so designating it. In any case the city would undoubtedly have more leverage in convincing NYSEG not to spray there than would a private owner. (There are, of course, good reasons to avoid spray.) 3. Without having explored the parcel a bit to the SE of the Maylin /Brahm piece (and adjoining it on the downhill side of the rr bed) , our tentative recommendation is that the city purchase only the portion below the rr bed and a buffer of at least 200 feet above the rr bed - -the quantity of land should be determined by the natural and recreational value of it. For example, if the upper part of the parcel includes the stream that is near its boundary, the city should retain a buffer of at least 200 feet in each direction along the stream. (This stream runs through the Maylin /Brahm parcel below the rr, and drains into the Reservoir.) Alternatively, the city could purchase the entire parcel and sell off whatever it decides is not needed. 4. The 7 1/2 -acre triangle just outside the city, below the switchback, goes down very close to the creek and is in one of the most beautiful, unusual, and unspoiled areas of the watershed. It is exactly this sort of area that we must pass on to future generations in an unspoiled state. This must be kept off limits (to city crews) for anything but the most minimal trail maintenance. Natural refuges such as this will be needed more than ever as the City grows and takes on more of the problems associated with large size. 5. The CAC recommends that any future acquisitions follow these guidelines: a. Hands -off policy on acquisitions below the rr bed and for a 200 - foot -wide buffer above it. For example, no facilities for active recreation, and no clearing of trees or other vegetation. b. On the north side of Six -Mile Creek there is no neat dividing line (such as a rr bed) . Distances to the water are generally shorter and steeper than on the Coddington side. Any acquisitions on the north side must be protected from overuse. 326 December 7, 1988 24 The Six -Mile Creek Committee has made recommendations for acquisitions in that area, and we recommend that the city follow their advice. C. We feel that the city must exercise great care regarding any lands that it decides to condemn and purchase, especially those on which the owners reside. The city must not find itself in the position of taking property for preservation or passive recreation purposes, and then of turning around and selling portions for possible development. There may be many instances in which the current owners are planning to give their properties long -term protection from development; the city must be able to assure such owners that the city's aim in acquiring the land is to protect it as a natural area and to protect the city's water supply, not to either develop it as a high -use recreation area nor to sell it for development. d. We propose that the city acquire conservation easements along any streams that flow between Coddington Road and the rr bed, even if the adjacent property is not one the city wishes to buy. We recommend a band extending at least 200 feet in each direction from the banks of such streams, in order to give the water the needed protection from pollution. Alternatively, the city could purchase these waterway bands, or negotiate restrictive deed covenants with the owners. e. Except for item (d) , we suggest that the city aim to acquire only lands below the rr bed and 200 feet above it (as a buffer). Exceptions could be made, however, for critical or unique areas above the rr bed. 6. Acquisition and protection of lands in the Six -Mile Creek corridor is of such overriding importance to the city that it must be seen on its own merits and not be contingent upon any other city projects. 7. The CAC recommends that the City set up a special fund for acquisition of Six -Mile Creek land. We also recommend that any income from sale of road - frontage land on Coddington Road or Slaterville Roads be put into this fund. EQBA funds should also be sought -- matching funds in particular may be relatively easy to get. 8. We also passed the following resolution: Be it resolved that the City of Ithaca create, maintain, and support by budget allocation a small (5 person maximum) Committee for Land Acquisition Within the Six -Mile Creek Watershed that is empowered to publicize City policy in this area, make and receive offers for the purchase of land (subject to Common Council approval), prepare and administer a budget, seek outside funding, and develop creative procedures in an aggressive program of land acquisition and watershed protection. Resolution By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That the report on Six Mile Creek Acquisition be referred to the Planning and Development Committee for review and report back to Common Council. Carried Unanimously BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: *14.1 Adoption of 1989 Budget By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen WHEREAS, this Common Council has reviewed the Executive Budget as proposed by Mayor John C. Gutenberger, and the Budget and Administration Committee recommendations, and 0 m Q December '1, 198127 25 WHEREAS, it is the consensus of this Common Council that the total appropriations and estimated revenues are adequate for the operation of the City for 1989; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Budget for 1989, in the total amount of $25,175,110, be approved, and be it further RESOLVED, That the following sections of the 1989 Budget be approved: (A) General Fund Appropriations (B) Water Fund Appropriations- (C) Sewer Fund Appropriations (D) Joint Activity Fund Appropriations (E) General Fund Revenues (F) Water Fund Revenues (G) Sewer Fund Revenues (H) Joint Activity Fund Revenues (I) Debt Retirement Schedule (J) Capital Projects (K) Schedule of Salaries and Positions - General (L) Schedule of Salaries and Positions - Water Fund (M) Schedule of Salaries and Positions - Joint Fund (N) Authorized Equipment - General Fund (0) Authorized Equipment - Water Fund (P) Authorized Equipment - Sewer Fund (Q) Authorized Equipment - Joint Activity Fund Fund and Sewer Activity Amending Resolution By Alderperson Nichols: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson RESOLVED, That the appropriation of $130,000 now in Restricted Contingency for Fire Department personnel shall be made available to the Fire Department no later than March 1, 1989. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Ayes (3) - Booth, Peterson, Nichols Nays (7) - Schlather, Killeen, Johnson, Cummings, Hoffman, Lytel, Romanowski Motion Defeated Amending Resolution By Alderperson Lytel: Seconded by Alderperson Booth RESOLVED, That $30,000 be added to Restricted Contingency for the 1989 Fire Department Budget with the understanding that this money was set aside and not spent in the 1988 budget. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Ayes (2) - Lytel, Booth Nays (8) - Schlather, Killeen, Romanowski, Peterson, Hoffman, Cummings, Johnson, Nichols Motion Defeated Amending Resolution By Alderperson Lytel: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That this Council restores full funding to the Tompkins County Area Development Corp. by adding $3,900.00 to A1010 -435, Legislative, which brings the total funding to $7,800.00. Discussion followed on the floor. 328 December 7, 1988 26 A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Ayes (5) - Lytel, Cummings, Johnson, Killeen, Peterson Booth, Schlather, Romanowski Nays (5) - Nichols, Hoffman, Mayor Gutenberger voted Aye, breaking the tie. Carried Amending Resolution By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That $2,500.00 be added to the request of the Tompkins full request of County Art Council to bring the amount to the $10,000.00. Ayes (4) - Lytel, Cummings, - Booth, Schlather, Johnson, Killeen Romanowski, Peterson, Hoffman, Nays (6) Nichols Motion Defeated Amending Resolution By Alderperson Killeen: Seconded by Alderperson Booth RESOLVED, That $10,000.00 be added to A1990, Restricted Contingency, for an organizational, managerial study of the Department of Public Works prior to selection of new leadership. Alderperson Killeen gave background information on this request. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Ayes (6) - Hoffman, Lytel, Cummings, Johnson, Booth, Killeen Nays (4) - Schlather, Peterson, Nichols, Booth Carried Amending Resolution By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That $13,000 be added to A1990, Restricted Contingency, to provide acoustical tiles for the Youth Bureau Building. Alderperson Booth gave background information on this request. He explained that the building is not being used to capacity because of the noise level. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Ayes (7) - Lytel, Hoffman, Johnson, Booth, Killeen, Peterson, Cummings Nays (3) - Nichols, Schlather, Romanowski Carried Amending Resolution By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson RESOLVED, That $28,000 be added to the budget to hire a half -time City Attorney for Codes enforcement. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Ayes (3) Nays (7) - Johnson, Booth, Hoffman - Killeen, Schlather, Romanowski, Peterson, Lytel, Nichols Motion Defeated Cummings, Amending Resolution By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That $26,000 be added to A1990, Restricted Contingency, 32,) December 7, 1988 27 to reach an agreement with BOLES on drug education, which would be able to put a full -time person in the City who would work through G.I.A.C. and Southside. Discussion followed on the floor. Motion to Amend Amendment By Alderperson Killeen: Seconded by Alderperson Nichols (Soo., RESOLVED, That the figure to be added to A1990 Restricted Contingency, for drug education, be changed to $20,000. Discussion followed on the floor. Ayes (7) - Lytel, Johnson, Nichols, Booth, Killeen, Hoffman, Peterson Nays (3) Cummings, Romanowski, Schlather Amendment Carried Main Motion As Amended LO A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: MZ Ayes (5) - Lytel, Nichols, Johnson, Booth, Killeen Nays (5) - Cummings, Peterson, Hoffman, Romanowski, Q Schlather Mayor Gutenberger voted Nay, breaking the tie. Motion Defeated Amending Resolution By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson RESOLVED, That $22,000 be added to Reserve Contingency to hire a Building Inspector. Ayes (4) - Lytel, Johnson, Killeen, Booth Nays (6) - Hoffman, Peterson, Schlather, Romanowski, Nichols, Cummings Motion Defeated WSKG Radio Station Request Mayor Gutenberger asked City Attorney Nash for his opinion on the legality of the request from WSKG for city money to help build a new pubic radio station in Ithaca. City Attorney Nash responded that it appears to him to violate Article VIII of the New York State Constitution because it is a contribution. Discussion followed on the floor. Mr. John Schier spoke to Common Council representing WSKG radio station. He stated that they do not consider this to be a donation; it is a grant. It will be used to get a matching grant from Albany and Washington. Discussion followed on the floor. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Nichols RESOLVED, That until the issue of the legality of the request from WSKG is settled, the $3,000.00 be put in to A1990, Restricted Contingency. City Attorney Nash will investigate the legality of the request. Ayes (9) - Schlather, Booth, Killeen, Lytel, Romanowski, Cummings, Nichols, Johnson, Hoffman Nay (1) - Peterson Carried 330 December 7, 1988 W1 Amending Resolution By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather RESOLVED, That $100,000.00 be added to F9951, Transfer to Capital Reserve, to create Capital Reserve Account for purchase of lands for watershed purposes. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Ayes (8) - Schlather, Booth, Romanowski, Peterson, Hoffman, Johnson, Nichols, Lytel Nays (2) - Cummings, Killeen Carried Discussion followed on the floor on the budget process and on the tax rate. City Controller Spano answered questions from Council members. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution, on the adoption of the 1989 budget, as amended, was duly put to a vote on roll call, which resulted as follows: Hoffman - Aye Romanowski - Aye Peterson - Aye Schlather - Aye Killeen - Aye Cummings - Aye Booth - Nay Nichols - Aye Lytel - Aye Johnson - Aye Ayes (9) Nays (1) Carried *14.2 Adoption of 1989 Tax Rate By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen WHEREAS, the 1989 City of Ithaca Budget was approved, adopted and confirmed in the total amount of $25,175,110, on December 7, 1988, in accordance with a detailed Budget on file in the Office of the City Controller, and WHEREAS, available and estimated revenues total $19,463,083, leaving $5,712,027, as the amount to be raised by taxation, and WHEREAS, the Assessment Roll for 1989, certified and filed by the Assessment Department of Tompkins County, has been footed and approved and shows the total net taxable valuation as $316,455,804, and WHEREAS, under Charter provisions, the tax limit for City purposes amounts to $8,636,026 for 1989; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Tax Rate for general purposes, for the fiscal year 1989, be, and the same hereby is, established and fixed at $18.05 per $1,000 of taxable valuation as shown, certified and extended against the respective properties on the 1989 Tax Roll, thereby making a total tax levy, as near as may be, of $5,712,027, and be it further RESOLVED! That the amount of said tax levy be spread, and the same hereby is levied upon and against the respective properties shown on said City Tax Roll, in accordance with their respective net taxable valuation, at the rate of $18.05 per $1,000 of such taxable valuation, and be it further RESOLVED, That the City Chamberlain be, and hereby is, directed to extend and apportion the City Tax as above, and that upon the completion of the extension of said Roll, the City Clerk shall prepare a warrant on the City Chamberlain for the collection of said levy; and the Mayor and the City Clerk hereby are authorized and directed to sign and affix the corporate seal to such warrant Iq LO T. M Q 331 December 7, 1988 29 and forthwith to file the same with said Tax Roll with the City Chamberlain, and be it further RESOLVED, That upon the execution and filing of said warrant and Tax Roll with the City Chamberlain, the amounts of the City Tax set opposite each and every property shall hereby become liens, due and payable and collectible in accordance with provisions of the City Charter and other laws applicable thereto, and be it further RESOLVED, That the total sum of $25,175,110 be appropriated in accordance with the Budget adopted, to the respective Boards, Offices and Departments of the City, for the purposes respectively set forth therein. The 1989 Assessment Roll has been completed and approved by the Assessment Department of Tompkins County and resulted in the following valuation: Value of Land Value of Buildings Total Value of Real Property Less: Value of Exempt Property Plus: Value of Special Franchises $ 84,393,950 529,778,460 $614,172,410 311,975,851 (50.80 %) $302,196,559 14,259,245 Net Value of Taxable Property $316,455,804 Discussion followed on the floor. Alderperson Schlather thanked City Controller Joseph Spano for (aw" his work during the budget season. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call which resulted as follows: Romanowski - Aye Schlather - Aye Cummings - Aye Lytel - Aye Killeen - Aye Peterson - Aye Hoffman - Aye Nichols - Aye Johnson - Aye Booth - Aye Ayes (10) Nays ( 0 ) Carried Unanimously *14.3 Youth Bureau Application to New York State By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen 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 (600e John C. Gutenberger, Mayor, is hereby directed and authorized to duly execute and submit 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, 1989. Carried Unanimously *14.4 Final Audit for 1988 By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That the Budget and Administration Committee and City Controller be empowered to approve and audit for payment any bills for 1988 as may require such action. Carried Unanimously 332 December 7, 1988 30 *14.5 New York State Office of the Aging Application By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is about to submit an application for continuation of the Recreation for the Elderly, and if approved, apply subsequently to the State of New York for partial reimbursement of funds expended on said project, as provided by Sections 541 -546 of Article 19 -1 of the Executive Law of New York, entitled "Recreation Programs for the Elderly "; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That said application is in all respects approved and John C. Gutenberger, Mayor, is hereby directed and authorized to duly execute and submit said application to the New York State Office for the Aging, for its approval. Carried Unanimously *14.6 Audit By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson RESOLVED, That the bills presented as listed on Audit Abstract #22/1988, in the total amount of $24,022.64, be approved for payment. Carried Unanimously *14.7 D.P.W. Authorized Equipment List By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That the 1988 Authorized Equipment List of the Department of Public Works be amended to include the purchase of a car for the Transit Division to replace a vehicle, damaged beyond repair, which was involved in an authorized use accident, at a cost not to exceed $7,000, as requested by the Board of Public Works, and be it further RESOLVED, That an amount not to exceed $7,000 be provided from Capital Reserve #22 - Bus Replacement. Carried Unanimously *14.8 D.P.W. Authorized Personnel Roster By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Nichols RESOLVED, That the 1988 Authorized Personnel Roster of the Department of Public Works be amended, as requested by the Board of Public Works, as follows: Delete - 1 Senior Engineering Aide Position Add - 1 Junior Engineer Position Carried Unanimously *14.9 Stewart Park Repairs By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Nichols RESOLVED, That an amount not to exceed $8,586 be transferred from Account A1990, Restricted Contingency, and an amount not to exceed $4,000 be transferred from Youth Bureau Building Account A1623 -483, Construction Materials and Supplies, to Stewart Park Account A7112 -435, Contractual Services, to complete the ongoing roof projects and to prepare specifications for removal of asbestos in the boathouse, as requested by the Board of Public Works. Carried Unanimously *14.13 Police Dispatcher By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That the 1988 salary of Claudia Hutchinson, Dispatcher for the Police Department, be set at $16,148, retroactive to August 21, 1988, that being Step 5 on the C.S.E.A.- Administrative Unit Compensation Plan, as requested by the Police Chief. Ayes (7) - Booth, Nichols, Schlather, Peterson, Hoffman, Romanowski, Johnson Nays (3) - Killeen, Lytel, Cummings Carried 33:3 December 7, 1988 31 *14.14 Employee Health Plan Booklet By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Labor /Management Health Insurance Committee has reviewed and amended the Employee Health Plan Booklet, and WHEREAS, the Labor /Management Health Insurance Committee has approved the revised booklet; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That said Booklet is adopted effective with the passage of this resolution, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Personnel Department be authorized to coordinate the printing and distribution of the Employee Health Plan Booklet to all employees and retirees covered by the Health Plan. Ln Carried Unanimously q. *14.15 Employee Dental Plan �.� By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman RESOLVED, That the Agreement between the City of Ithaca and Blue Cross /Blue Shield of Central New York, for dental services to be m provided to employees covered by the C.S.E.A. - Administrative and Q C.S.E.A. - D.P.W. Units be approved, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign such Agreement on behalf of the City, subject to review by the City Attorney as to form and content. Carried Unanimously HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: *15.1 Human Services Coalition Work Plan By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That the following items be the 1989 City work plan for the Human Services Coalition: 1. Review and make recommendations per City criteria for 1990 funding requests from human service agencies. 2. Perform staff work for Tompkins County FOCUS, especially noting data on youth -at -risk population. 3. Continue to assess and assist in homelessness and related issues (i.e. hunger) with a consideration as to how the City fits into the whole plan for dealing with a community wide issue. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously Affirmative Action Statistics - Report Alderperson Peterson reported that representatives from the City Personnel Office and the Affirmative Action Advisory Committee came to the Human Services meeting in November. She stated that there was discussion of the need for a more interactive relationship between the City Council and the Affirmative Action Advisory Committee and the statistics that are received through that office and committee. Common Council will be receiving quarterly reports of our hiring statistics in the City as compared with County -wide job statistics through the general population in the county. The first report will be due in March 1989. Handicapped Accessibility - Report Alderperson Peterson reported that the Human Services Committee had asked for an update on handicapped accessibility. She stated that every item except one in the report that Carol Chock did as consultant has been completed. Eric Datz, Building Systems 334 December 7, 1988 32 Supervisor, will be presenting by the end of the month, the complete report on handicapped accessibility. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: Sale of City Hall Annex Alderperson Cummings stated that Mr. Schlough and his attorney had just returned to the meeting and indicated that they are willing to change the purchase offer so that under II Price, Item B, would be amended to read 11$240,000.0011, and to delete Item C, which is in reference to the $30,000.00 in the form of a note. Alderperson Schlather objected to this matter coming back before the Council after it was tabled earlier. City Attorney Nash ruled that the matter can be lifted from the table on the vote of a simple majority. Resolution to Lift From Table By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson RESOLVED, That the matter of the sale of the City Hall An be lifted from the table. Ayes (8) - Booth, Cummings, Killeen, Johnson, Peterson, Hoffman, Nichols, Lytel Nays (2) - Schlather, Romanowski Carried Resolution WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca by resolution duly adopted at its regular meeting on October 7, 1987 did declare the City Hall Annex, Tax Map Number 70 -5 -24, 123 South Cayuga Street to be surplus property; and did authorize and direct the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and its Executive Director to solicit proposals for the sale of the Annex, to evaluate said proposals according to the state criteria of purchase price, proposed reuse and appropriateness of any planned alterations to the exterior of the structure, and recommend to Common Council its selection of purchase for Council's review and action, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency did duly solicit and evaluate proposals for the sale of the Annex, and did recommend the sale of the subject property to Charles Schlough in accordance with the terms and conditions of his proposal dated February 1, 1988, said recommendation being accepted by the Common Council at their April 6, 1988 meeting, and WHEREAS, the Common Council at their August 3, 1988 meeting authorized and directed the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of Council to meet with Charles Schlough to negotiate a purchase offer for the Annex, and to report their findings to Council; and WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee recommended the sale of the City Hall Annex to Charles Schlough for the amount of $245,000, in accordance with the Purchase Proposal at the Common Council Meeting of November 2, 1988, at which meeting the Common Council accepted the Committee's recommendation and authorized and directed the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and its Executive Director to publish the appropriate notification of the sale of the Annex in compliance with City Charter Section 3.10(40) in order to facilitate the Common Council's consideration of the actual sale of the City Hall Annex to the person and upon the conditions noted at its December 7, 1988 regular meeting; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby approves the sale of the City Hall Annex to Charles Schlough for the amount of $245,000, in accordance with the Purchase Proposal, and does also agree to allow the purchaser Charles Schlough to 335 December 7, 1988 33 transfer his interest in said proposal and the property covered thereby to any entity in which he has a controlling interest and which agrees to be bound by all the terms and conditions of said proposal, and hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney to prepare and the Mayor to sign all instruments necessary to effect the sale of the subject property, and be it further RESOLVED, That this resolution is subject to the certification by the City Attorney that item #2C of the purchase offer is consistent with the State Constitution and State Law. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson RESOLVED, That Item 2B of the purchase offer be amended to read $240,000.00, and that Item 2C be stricken, and the language in the resolution be changed to correspond to the purchase offer. Mayor Gutenberger stated for the record that at the request of the maker of the purchase offer the amendment is being put forth and Mr. Schlough is present at the Council meeting. Lo Alderperson Schlather stated that he does not think this matter should be brought back to the Council in the manner that has been M done. He said that there were a number of persons at the meeting d earlier and members of the press that are no longer present, and now the maker of the purchase offer returns at the end of the meeting with his attorney and another member of the City staff and is approaching Council with an amendment to his offer. He remarked that it could be construed by the public and press that this is a further irregularity, that having once acted and tabled this matter, people have left satisfied that this action will be discussed a month from now and now they will hear by the media or the grapevine that Council had acted again tonight at the request of the developer. Alderperson Schlather stated that his concern is that there were legitimate questions raised before and there are other questions that ought to be explored before the Council votes on this matter again. He said there is no reason why the City could not lease this building on a 99 year lease and there is no reason why it shouldn't be done. He feels that the Council is shirking its responsibility by proceeding. For $245,000.00 you can hardly buy housing in this City. Discussion followed on the floor regarding leasing vs. selling of this property. Alderperson Booth commented that if the City was going to have discussions about leasing vs. selling, it should have been done months ago and the City could have gone in that direction. He stated that he thinks that now the City is committed to this course of action. The question of the adoption of the foregoing amending resolution of the purchase offer was duly put to a vote on roll call which resulted as follows: Killeen - Aye Nichols - Aye Cummings - Aye Johnson - Aye Schlather - Nay Peterson - Aye Romanowski- Nay Booth - Aye Lytel - Aye Hoffman - Aye Ayes (8) Nays (2) Carried 33() December 7, 1988 34 *16.1 Central Business District Parkin Consultant Contract By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen WHEREAS, the City issued a request for proposals for a parking consultant to study the Central Business District, and WHEREAS, eight proposals were received, and WHEREAS, an ad hoc group has reviewed these proposals; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, Upon the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee of Council that the Mayor be and hereby is authorized and directed to execute upon advice from the City Attorney and the Planning and Development Director a contract for services with Rich and Associates, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $40,000. Carried Unanimously R -2c and R -3 Zoning - Report Alderperson Cummings reported that the Planning and Development Committee is discussing the location of the R -2c zoning which is town house zoning and the creation of R -3 zoning. There is a large map of the proposed R -2c zoning in the Planning Office. *16.3 Ithaca Farmers' Market - Lead Agency Selection By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is the agency charged with primary responsibility for implementation of the city's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, as provided under Section 36.6D1 of the ordinance, and WHEREAS, it is the nature of certain matters brought before Council for consideration that it is most appropriate for environmental review to be performed under the direct guidance of Council, with Council acting as Lead Agency, and WHEREAS, this Common Council finds that the selection of a permanent location for the Ithaca Farmers' Market is a matter which requires environmental review, and that it would be appropriate for Common Council to act as Lead Agency therefor; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council act as Lead Agency for environmental review of the permanent location for the Ithaca Farmers' Market, in accordance with the procedures established by Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca. Carried Unanimously *16.4 West Hill Master Plan - Lead Agency Selection By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is the agency charged with primary responsibility for implementation of the city's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, as provided under Section 36.6D1 of the ordinance, and WHEREAS, it is the nature of certain matters brought before Council for consideration that it is most appropriate for environmental review to be performed under the direct guidance of Council, with Council acting as Lead Agency, and WHEREAS, this Common Council finds that the preparation of a Master Plan for West Hill is a matter which requires environmental review, and that it would be'appropriate for Common Council to act as Lead Agency therefor; now, therefore, be it December 7, 198;37 35 RESOLVED, That Common Council act as Lead Agency for environmental review of the preparation of the West Hill Master Plan, in accordance with the procedures established by Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca. Ayes (7) - Booth, Schlather, Johnson, Lytel, Peterson, Hoffman, Romanowski Nays (3) - Killeen, Nichols, Cummings Carried *16.7 Central Processing Facility Negotiating Sub - Committee By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather RESOLVED, That a Negotiating Committee be established by the City of Ithaca to negotiate with Tompkins County regarding a site for the County's solid waste central processing facility, and be it further RESOLVED, That the committee be the City's Intergovernmental Relations Committee and that the Director of Planning and Development and the City Attorney serve as staff to the d committee, and be it further LO RESOLVED, That Common Council does hereby reaffirm the conditions m it enunciated in its Resolution of August 3 regarding the City's Industrial Park land formerly owned by NYSEG (hereinafter referred to as the "Ithaca Industrial Park ") and does further set forth such other conditions as are outlined below, namely: 1) that the City receive compensation from the County for the above described Ithaca Industrial Park site which shall include fair market value of the land, cost of replacement land for the activities now programmed for the Ithaca Industrial Park site (i.e., Industrial Park and Community Gardens) , replacement of grant monies committed for improvement of the Ithaca Industrial Park if such funds cannot be used elsewhere, reimbursement of any grant funds which might be recaptured by the federal or state governments as a consequence of sale of the Ithaca Industrial Park site to the County, and reimbursement to the City for funds (from the General Fund or other sources) already expended for improvement of the Community Gardens and the Ithaca Industrial Park if such expenditures are not otherwise compensated; 2) that the County purchase and guarantee a site for the Community Gardens upon terms acceptable to the City; 3) that the City be compensated for the negative environmental impact of the location of the Central Processing Facility on a highly visible site near residential and commercial neighborhoods. Discussion followed on the floor on the make -up of the committee and on the resolution itself. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Nichols: Seconded by Alderperson Booth RESOLVED, That item #3 in the resolved paragraph be stricken. Discussion followed on the floor on the amendment. A vote on Ayes Nays Main Motii A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: (4) - Booth, Johnson, Nichols, Peterson (6) - Hoffman, Romanowski, Schlather, Cummings, Lytel, Killeen Motion Defeated m the Main Motion resulted as follows: Ayes (7) - Schlather, Romanowski, Lytel, Cummings, Johnson, Killeen, Hoffman Nays (3) - Peterson, Booth, Nichols Carried 338 December 7, 1988 36 *16.8 Street Tree Survey Recommendations Approval By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen WHEREAS, the Ithaca Shade Tree Advisory Committee has compiled and edited a street tree survey for the City of Ithaca dated 1987, and WHEREAS, this report has been submitted to the city with certain recommendations regarding management of the city's street trees; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the city accept the Ithaca Street Tree Survey and does hereby adopt the recommendations incorporated therein, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Common Council does hereby thank the Shade Tree Advisory Committee, and more particularly, Commission Chairperson Nina L. Bassuk for her contribution to this valuable report, and be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council urges the Advisory Committee to continue its work toward improvement of the city's street trees and environment. Alderperson Cummings explained the resolution. Discussion followed on the floor. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Nichols: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski RESOLVED, That the first Resolved paragraph be changed to read: "RESOLVED, That the City accept the Ithaca Street Tree Survey and agrees to move expeditiously to adopt the recommendations incorporated." Ayes (8) - Booth, Nichols, Schlather, Romanowski, Lytel, Peterson, Cummings, Johnson Nays (2) - Killeen, Hoffman Carried Main Motion as Amended A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously CHARTER AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: An Ordinance Amending Article I of Section 30.3 and Article II of Chapter 30 Entitled 'Zoning' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code (Cluster Housing) - Call for Public Hearing By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That Ordinance Number 88 - entitled "An Ordinance Amending Article I, Section 30.3 and Article II of Chapter 30 Entitled 'Zoning' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code" be and it hereby is introduced before the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Common Council shall hold a public hearing in the matter of the adoption of the aforesaid ordinance be held at the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York on Wednesday, January 4, 1989 at 7:00 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 hearing will be held, and in general terms describing the proposed ordinance. Such notice shall be published once at least fifteen days prior to the public hearing, and be it further RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall transmit forthwith to the Board of Planning and Development and the Tompkins County Planning Board a true and exact copy of the proposed ordinance for its report thereon. 33.) December 7, 1988 37 ORDINANCE NO. 88 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I, SECTION 30.3 AND ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED 'ZONING' OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City (WW", of Ithaca, New York as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDING ARTICLE I, SECTION 30.3 OF CHAPTER 30. That Article I, Section 30.3 is hereby amended to add the following new definition: "104. 'Cluster Subdivision' shall mean a subdivision in which limited deviations from the regulations of a zoning district in which it is built are permitted in accordance with LO the provisions of Section 30.28 of the Municipal Code." Iq LO SECTION 2. AMENDING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 30. That Article II of Chapter 30 is hereby amended to add the m following new section: Q "Section 30.28 Cluster Subdivision Development A. Intent This section authorizes the Board of Planning and Development, during the process of subdivision plat approval pursuant to Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code, to make reasonable changes in the existing zoning regulations for the property affected so as to enable the development of a cluster subdivision. This authorization permits deviatons in the district regulations applicable to the affected property, subject to the limitations contained in this section. Cluster subdivisions may be approved in order to promote the following purposes: 1. The preservation and enhancement of open spaces, water courses, wetlands and areas designated as critical environmental areas. 2. The development of active and passive recreation areas. 3. The development of residential dwelling units in forms which are consistent with the public welfare and which provide reasonable safeguards to the appropriate use of adjoining land. 4. Efficient and cost - effective development of roads, sidewalks, utilities, water and sewer lines and other forms of public and private infrastructure. 5. The development of housing that is more affordable than that normally developed under conventional zoning regulations. B. Authorization and Minimum Requirements for Cluster Subdivisions. The Board of Planning and Development is authorized, upon petition by an applicant for subdivision approval, to approve a cluster subdivision that includes reasonable deviations from the existing regulations of the zoning district in which the subdivision is located, in accordance with the following limitations: 1. Cluster subdivisions may only be permitted in the R -1a, R -lb, R -2a, R -2b, R -3a and R -3b zoning districts. 340 December 7, 1988 38 2. Cluster subdivisions shall contain only those primary uses and accessory uses which are permitted in the zoning district in which the cluster subdivision is proposed, except as permitted by Paragraph B.3. 3. The following types of deviations from the zoning regulations of the district in which the cluster subdivision is proposed are permitted: a. Building type for residential uses; provided that in the R -la and R -lb districts, only one - family detached dwellings are permitted as primary uses; and in the R -2a and R -2b districts, no more than two dwelling units may be attached to form a single building, provided that each dwelling unit shall have a separate ground -level entrance. b. Lot area. C. Lot width at street line. d. Maximum percentage of land coverage by buildings on any individual lot within the cluster subdivision; provided that the total percentage of land coverage by all buildings in the cluster subdivision shall not exceed the following percentages for the zoning district in which the cluster subdivision is located: i, R -la 20% ii. R -lb 25% R -2a 30% iv. R -2b 35% V. R -3a 35% vi. R -3b 40% e. Front, side and rear yard dimensions, provided that all buildings in a cluster subdivision shall have a front yard of at least twenty -five (25) feet in the R -la, R -lb, and R -2a zones and ten (10) feet in the R -2b, R -3a and R -3b zones; and further provided that all buildings in a cluster subdivision shall be at least the following number of feet from the boundary of a cluster subdivision where it abuts land (other than a public right -of- way) that is not part of the cluster subdivision: in the R -1 districts, forty (40) feet; in the R -2 and R -3 districts, twenty (20) feet. 4. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a cluster subdivision shall not exceed the number of dwelling units that would be permitted on the site in a conventional subdivision under the conventional zoning regulations for the zoning district in which the cluster subdivision is proposed, subject to all applicable development regulations applying to the property in question, plus any other restriction which the Board of Planning and Development has the authority to impose pursuant to Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code. 5. Any reduction in the lot area for buildings in a cluster subdivision beyond the minimum allowed in the zoning district in which the subdivision is located shall require the reservation of an equivalent amount of land as open space, passive recreation area or active recreation area. Wetlands, flood plains, steep slopes or other areas not normally appropriate for building construction shall not account for more than fifty (50) percent of the land area reserved. December 7, 1988 341 W 6. All open space or recreation areas reserved in accordance with Paragraph 5 of this subdivision shall be dedicated as common land for the benefit of the members of the subdivision. The development, operation and maintenance of this property shall be in accordance with the approved site development plan and in a manner that is consistent with the public welfare. b. A site development plan showing the location, size, use and physical features of all proposed buildings and accessory uses; the location and design of vehicular and pedestrian access and the location of proposed parking areas. C. A landscaping plan showing the type and location of all existing trees, vegetation and natural features on the site; the identification of all existing vegetation to be preserved; the identification of all new vegetation to be added; and the location and type of fences, berms or buffer areas. d. A plan showing the boundaries of common areas to be reserved, and the proposed (wwl use, development and maintenance of those spaces. e. Elevations of typical dwelling units to be constructed in the cluster subdivision. f. Environmental review of the project at a level deemed appropriate by the Board of Planning and Development. C. Approval of Cluster Subdivisions 1. The Board of Planning and Development may consider a developer's request for approval of a cluster subdivision or may require that a developer prepare and submit plans for a cluster subdivision that contains no greater number of dwelling units than that proposed by the developer. The Board shall adopt rules and regulations setting forth the criteria pursuant to which such an application may be required. The approval of a cluster 'Cf subdivision shall follow the rules and procedures LO contained in Chapter 31 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Subdivision Regulation. M 2. Developers submitting a cluster subdivision plan Q shall submit two subdivision plans, one showing the land developed under the conventional zoning regulations and the other showing development under the cluster option. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code, the developer shall submit the following information on or with the cluster subdivision plan. a. An area plan showing the proposed cluster subdivision and all existing land use and major natural features of the land within five hundred (500) feet of the project site. b. A site development plan showing the location, size, use and physical features of all proposed buildings and accessory uses; the location and design of vehicular and pedestrian access and the location of proposed parking areas. C. A landscaping plan showing the type and location of all existing trees, vegetation and natural features on the site; the identification of all existing vegetation to be preserved; the identification of all new vegetation to be added; and the location and type of fences, berms or buffer areas. d. A plan showing the boundaries of common areas to be reserved, and the proposed (wwl use, development and maintenance of those spaces. e. Elevations of typical dwelling units to be constructed in the cluster subdivision. f. Environmental review of the project at a level deemed appropriate by the Board of Planning and Development. 342 December 7, 1988 40 9. Any other information that the Board of Planning and Development may reasonably require. 3. The approval of a cluster subdivision shall constitute the approval of a site development plan for the affected area. No development shall occur on the site that is not in strict conformance with the elements of the approved site development plan, nor shall the plan be modified without the approval of the Board of Planning and Development. 4. A cluster subdivision shall not be approved unless the Board of Planning and Development makes the following affirmative findings, and states in writing the facts that support those findings: a. That the development is found to be compatible in terms of appearance, character and overall density with both the existing and potential development in the surrounding area. b. That the development will not place an unreasonable burden on the public roads or utilities that will service the project. C. That the development will promote the preservation of open space and natural resources within the neighborhood to a greater degree than would conventional development. d. That the development is consistent with the public welfare and that the appropriate use of adjoining land is reasonably safeguarded. e. That the development will not have an undue adverse impact on any critical area listed in Section 36.5(B)(1)(1) of the Municipal Code. f. That the development complies with the approved street plan and master plan, if any, for the area." SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 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. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski RESOLVED, That C.1 (Approval of Cluster Subdivision), should read as follows: The Board of Planning and Development may consider a developer's request for approval of a cluster subdivision. For conventional subdivision requests involving five (5) or more dwelling units, the Board may require that a developer prepare and submit plans for a cluster subdivision that contains no greater number dwelling units than that proposed by the developer; the Board shall adopt" ........ etc. Discussion followed on the floor on the amendment. December 7, 198,3 343 41 A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Ayes (3) - Schlather, Romanowski, Booth Nays (7) - Nichols, Peterson, Hoffman, Lytel, Cummings, Johnson, Killeen Motion Defeated Amending Resolution By Alderperson Romanowski: Seconded by Alderperson Schlather (iwj� RESOLVED, That in Section 2 (Effective Date), it be changed to read that the ordinance will take effect on March 1, 1989. Discussion followed on the floor on the amendment. A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: Ayes (4) - Schlather, Romanowski, Booth, Peterson Nays (6) - Hoffman, Johnson, Killeen, Cummings, Lytel, LO Nichols d- Motion Defeated Li Amending Resolution F By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman RESOLVED, That the following sentence be added to the end of paragraph 4: "Wet lands, flood plains, steep slopes or other areas not normally appropriate for building construction shall not be included in calculating this maximum number of dwelling units." Discussion followed on the floor on the amendment. Ayes (7) - Booth, Nichols, Lytel, Hoffman, Johnson, Cummings, Killeen Nays (3) - Peterson, Romanowski, Schlather Carried RESOLUTION TO EXTEND CLOSING TIME OF COMMON COUNCIL MEETING By Alderperson Nichols: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson RESOLVED, That the closing time for this Common Council meeting be extended for 10 minutes. Carried Unanimously *17.2 An Ordinance Amending Article I of Chapter 31 Entitled 'Subdivision Regulations' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That ordinance Number 88 - entitled "An Ordinance Amending Article I of Chapter 31 entitled 'Subdivision Regulations' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code" be and it (,aloe hereby is introduced before the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York. ORDINANCE NO. 88 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 31 ENTITLED 'SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS' 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. AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 31. A vote on the amendment resulted as follows: (6mool Ayes (4) - Schlather, Romanowski, Hoffman, Peterson Nays (6) - Booth, Killeen, Lytel, Johnson, Nichols, Cummings Motion Defeated Main Motion A vote on the Main Motion resulted as follows: Ayes (7) - Booth, Nichols, Lytel, Hoffman, Johnson, Cummings, Killeen Nays (3) - Peterson, Romanowski, Schlather Carried RESOLUTION TO EXTEND CLOSING TIME OF COMMON COUNCIL MEETING By Alderperson Nichols: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson RESOLVED, That the closing time for this Common Council meeting be extended for 10 minutes. Carried Unanimously *17.2 An Ordinance Amending Article I of Chapter 31 Entitled 'Subdivision Regulations' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Killeen RESOLVED, That ordinance Number 88 - entitled "An Ordinance Amending Article I of Chapter 31 entitled 'Subdivision Regulations' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code" be and it (,aloe hereby is introduced before the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York. ORDINANCE NO. 88 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 31 ENTITLED 'SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS' 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. AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 31. 344 December 7, 1988 42 That Article I of Chapter 31 is hereby amended to add the following new Section. "Section 31.7 Authorization The Board of Planning and Development shall have the authority to implement the provisions of this Chapter and Section 30.28 of Chapter 30 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code." SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 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. Ayes (8) - Killeen, Lytel, Booth, Cummings, Nichols, Hoffman, Peterson, Johnson Nays (2) - Romanowski, Schlather Carried *17.3 An Ordinance Amending chapter 60 Entitled 'Traffic and Vehicles' by Adding a New Section to Be Known As Section 60.60 Entitled 'Civil Penalty For Delinquent Violations of Article' of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Nichols ORDINANCE NO. 88 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 60 ENTITLED "TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES" 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 60 entitled "Traffic and Vehicles" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is amended as follows: That a new section to be known and designated as Section 60.60 entitled "Civil penalty for delinquent violations of Article" to follow Section 60.59 is hereby added to said Chapter to read as follows: Section 60.60 Civil penalty for delinquent violations of Article That in addition to the penalties provided in Section 60.59 additional civil penalties shall be payable upon any violation for parking for a longer period of time than is permitted in accordance with the following schedule: A. Penalty to be added after fifteen days $ 5.00 B. Penalty to be added after thirty days - an additional $10.00 C. Penalty to be added after sixty days - an additional $15.00 D. Upon submission of uncollectible fines to a collection agency or other entity for enforcement, an amount not to exceed 35 percent of the total delinquent fine and penalties will be added to cover collection fees. Section 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 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. Carried Unanimously LO LO I- M 345 December 7, 1988 43 NEW BUSINESS• Route 96 Public Hearing Alderperson Nichols stated that there will be public hearings on Route 96 on December 14 and 15 and following those public hearings there will be 30 days for written public comments. He suggested that sometime before the end of January, the Council should meet to come up with their written comments to the State. Discussion followed on how this process should be handled. It was decided that the Planning and Development Committee be involved in setting up this process. ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. i Callista F. Paolangeli 0 hn C. Gutenberger City Clerk Mayor