Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1990-03-0734 / COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. March 7, 1990 PRESENT: Mayor Nichols Alderpersons (10) - Booth, Hoffman, Peterson, Cummings, Daley, Schroeder, Johnson, Golder, Romanowski, Blanchard OTHERS PRESENT: City Clerk - Paolangeli City Controller - Cafferillo Deputy City Controller - Thayer Superintendent of Public Works - Thadani City Attorney - Guttman Planning and Development Director - Van Cort Planning and Development Deputy Director - Mazzarella Police Chief - McEwen Personnel Administrator - Walker Fire Chief - Olmstead Youth Bureau Director - Cohen Historic Preservation /Neighborhood Planner - Chatterton Board of Public Works Commissioners - Reeves, Berg, Cannon PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nichols led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of the February 7, 1990 Common Council (400", Meeting The approval of the Minutes of the February 7, 1990 Common Council meeting was deferred until the April 4th Common Council meeting. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: Budget and Administration Committee Alderperson Booth suggested that Item 20.1 under New Business, Request to Governor and State Legislature Regarding Restructuring of Local Taxing Authority be moved to the end of the Budget and Administration Committee agenda, Item 14.15. No Council member objected. MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS: Shade Tree Advisory Committee Mayor Nichols requested Council approval of the following appointments to the Shade Tree Advisory Comittee: Marvin Adleman 3 year term Nina Bassuk 1 year term Monika Crispin 3 year term Doris Ivey 1 year term Daniel Krall 2 year term Don Rakow 3 year term Mike Steigerwalt 2 year term Resolution By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointments to the Shade Tree Advisory Committee with the terms as listed. Carried Unanimously 348 6 Commons Advisory Board Mayor Nichols requested approval for the appointments of Sidney Green and Penelope Wickham to the Commons Advisory Board with terms to expire December 31, 1991. Resolution By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointments of Sidney Green and Penelope Wickham to the Commons Advisory Board with terms to expire December 31, 1991. Carried Unanimously Board of Appeals on Building Code Mayor Nichols requested approval of the appointment of Roger Beck to the Board of Appeals on Building Code, with a term to expire December 31, 1992. Resolution By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Golder RESOLVED, That this Council approves the appointment of Roger Beck to the Board of Appeals on Building Code with a term to expire December 31, 1992. Carried Unanimously Appointments Not Requiring Council Approval Mayor Nichols reported that he has appointed the following persons: Affirmative Action Advisory Committee - Alice Green, alternate for Sam Cohen from the Youth Bureau. Municipal Surgeon - re- appointment of Dr. John Costello Liaison Appointments Mayor Nichols reported that he has appointed the following liaisons to the Interim Parks Commission: Circle Greenway - Beth Mulholland Conservation Advisory Council - Betsy Darlington Shade Tree Advisory Committee - Nina Bassuk Ithaca Youth Bureau Board - Francis Shattuck Six Mile Creek Overseer Committee - Buzz Levine Consultants named to the Interim Parks Commission are as follows: Landscape Architecture - Joan Sears Kathrin Wolf Historic Horticulture - Brenda Bullion Horticulture - William Dress David Fernandez '91UNICATIONS Heritage Coalition, Inc. ;•or Nichols requested that the following letters in regard to !Le designation of certain Cornell campus buildings be made a part of the minutes: "Dear Mayor Nichols and Council Members: This letter is written in support of the designation of Cornell University's central campus as a local historic district. The buildings on the Arts Quad and the "informal brick group" comprised of Sage Chapel, Sage College and Barnes Hall, are an historically and architecturally important asset of the community. This collection of buildings represents some of the finest artistic talent of the day. Designed by Wilcox and Porter of Buffalo, Archimedes Russell of Syracuse, and Carrere & Hastings of New York [the same firm that was responsible for the New York Public Library], as well as by Ithaca's own architects, 349 March 7, 1990 the Rev. Charles Babcock, William H. Miller and Arthur N. Gibb, the central campus is well recognized in published books and articles for its cultural importance. Indeed, for many people, these buildings have already achieved landmark status. Now, they need only be officially recognized as such. Should there by any question about whether the city has the authority to take this action, let me respond "yes." Buildings on the campuses of several other major educational institutions, (400,� including Harvard University, have been so designated. On behalf of the Heritage Coalition, I ask that you recognize the significance of these structures and support the proposed designation. Sincerely, Ted Bartlett Vice- President, Chair, Issues Committee" "Dear Mayor Nichols and Members of the Common Council: I understand that at your meeting tomorrow evening, you will be -� reviewing the proposed designation of an historic district for ° the Cornell University Arts Quad as well as designation of four other buildings in the central campus as historic landmarks. Enclosed you will find a letter from University Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Trustees, Walter J. Relihan, to Lynn Cunningham of Historic Ithaca, which confirms Cornell's endorsement of these designations, with the exception of the foundry. Cornell's review, reinforced by that of Professor George Hascup, our historic preservation consultant, who has worked on our behalf with Historic Ithaca in the preparation of a joint proposal for state and federal designation of the Arts Quad district and the so- called red brick group -- Sage Hall, Barnes Hall and Sage Chapel -- is that the foundry is considerably less meritorious than any and all of the other buildings proposed for designation. As Mr. Relihan notes, although it no longer occupies that status, the foundry "was conceived and built as utility structure in a 'back of the house' location." Again, as Mr. Relihan notes, the building occupies a key site at a major entrance to the campus and "although we have no plans of any kind to build on that site, we may in the future wish to remove the building and make that area a more attractive and inviting entrance to the Arts Quad historic district and to the campus." That there is serious question as to the merits of the foundry's designation was clearly evident in the Landmark Preservation Commission's own debate and its members' 3 -2 vote on the amendment which added the foundry to the three buildings in the red brick group that the commission ultimately designated. The university has welcomed the opportunity to work with Historic Ithaca and Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission with regard to historic designations on the central campus. With the exception of the foundry, we are pleased to endorse the designation before you of the Arts Quad Historic District and the three red brick buildings for local landmark status. We look forward to continued cooperation with Historic Ithaca and the Landmarks Preservation Commission as we work with New York State to achieve state and federal designation. Finally, although it is not yet before you, we learned during our review of central campus as apparently did the Landmark Preservation Commission, that the A.D. White House does not have local landmark status. It, of course, has been awarded state and federal landmark status. We understand that a proposal to nominate the A.D. White House for local landmark status is being prepared and we look forward to working with the Ithaca Landmarks 3 '5 ( ) 4 March 7, 1990 Preservation Commission to secure local landmark designation for that historic campus building. Sincerely, John F. Burness Vice President Cornell University, University Relations" Ms. Lynn Cunningham Architectural Conservator Historic Ithaca & Tompkins County, New York "Dear Ms. Cunningham: Thank you for your note of March 1, 1990 and the map. As you know, the University welcomes the opportunity of working with Historic Ithaca in this endeavor. The bonds described accurately reflect our views, excepting the foundry. That building was conceived and built as a utility structure in a "back of a house" location. Today, it has lost its foundry function and, moreover, incongruously occupies an important site at the entrance to the heart of the campus. In our, view, it does not rank as an historical or aesthetic monument of the importance we attach to the other buildings in the district. Although we have no plans of any kind to build on that site, we may in the future wish to remove the building and make that area a more attractive and inviting entrance to the Arts Quad historic district and to the campus. Olin Library displaced Boardman Hall which had been designed by William Miller to fit harmoniously with McGraw Tower and Uris Library. Olin, alas, destroys that harmony. We understand, however, that Olin Library is viewed as "non- contributing" building within the Arts Quadrangle district, meaning that it lacks the required historical and /or architectural significance and merit. We concur in that judgment. Again, thanks for you help and cooperation. Sincerely, Walter J. Relihan, Jr. Office of the University Counsel and Secretary of the Corporation" "Dear Mayor Nichols and Council Members: At the meeting held on February 22, 1990, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to designate the Cornell University Arts Quadrangle as an historic district and to designate Sage Chapel, Sage Hall, Barnes Hall and the Foundry as individual landmarks. In response to questions raised regarding the merit of the Foundry designation I would like to state that this structure meets criteria in Chapter 32 of the Municipal Code used by the Commission to evaluate proposed designations. Specifically, the Foundry is one of few remaining examples of its type, is a place representative of the activity of a past era, and has special historical and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca. The purpose of local preservation law is not just the designation of high style buildings representative of the grandeur, wealth or elevated status of people or institutions, but also vernacular buildings reflective of the diversity that shaped the city's development. Such vernacular buildings include the Ithaca Calendar Clock Works, the Ithaca Gas Works, and the proposed 0 19 1151 5 March 7, 1990 designation of the Foundry now before you. I regret that I could not address the Council in person tonight and hope that these remarks may clarify the Commission's application of criteria in the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. Sincerely, Coert Bontheius 109 W. State Street Carl Feuer 310 First Street Leslie Finch P.O. Box 289, Cortland Mark Naess 113 Osmun Place Cathy Valentino 110 Eastern Heights Drive Shade Tree Advisory Committee Nina Bassuk, Chair of the Shade Tree Advisory Committee, gave the Council an update of the work that the Shade Tree Advisory Committee and the City Forester are doing. She described the locations of the planting of many new trees. Alderperson Schroeder asked Ms. Bassuk about re- planting at the City cemetery. Ms. Bassuk responded that there has been nothing planned for that site during this year but the committee will take a look at the area. Alderperson Cummings stated that she wished to make sure that the issue of trees on private property is not forgotten. Ms. Bassuk said that the committee has not forgotten the matter and will be looking at it in the near future. Local Income Tax Michael Cannon, 409 West Buffalo Street, stated he is opposed to the idea of a local income tax and he urged Council to reconsider the motion on the floor this evening and to strengthen the language of the resolution. Sciencenter Martha Oschrin Robertson, P.O. Box 6697, urged Council to support agenda item 14.6, under the Budget and Administration Committee, which is in regard to the Department of Public Works request for funds for the conceptual design for their new facility. Ms. Robertson invited Council members to the Annual Egg Drop that is sponsored by the Sciencenter on April 1 at Center Ithaca. Designation of Central Cornell Campus Historic District Barbara E. Ebert, Executive Director of Historic Ithaca, read the following statement to Council members: "The proposal you will be considering this evening - -the local landmark nomination of thirteen buildings, their related Susanne Lichtenstein Vice -Chair Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission" PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL: Issue of Octopus Vincent Fuchs, Willseyville, addressed Council on the issue of the Octopus and the need for an overpass in that area. Lansing Residential Center Sharon Merulla, 73 West Main Street, Dryden, addressed Council on Item 21.2, under New Business, Request to Governor Regarding (_) Budget Cuts for Division of Youth- MacCormick Residential Center. She urged Council's support for this resolution. ' Ramada Labor Relations The following persons addressed Council in regard to Item 21.1, under New Business, Ramada Labor Relations and urged Council to support this resolution. Coert Bontheius 109 W. State Street Carl Feuer 310 First Street Leslie Finch P.O. Box 289, Cortland Mark Naess 113 Osmun Place Cathy Valentino 110 Eastern Heights Drive Shade Tree Advisory Committee Nina Bassuk, Chair of the Shade Tree Advisory Committee, gave the Council an update of the work that the Shade Tree Advisory Committee and the City Forester are doing. She described the locations of the planting of many new trees. Alderperson Schroeder asked Ms. Bassuk about re- planting at the City cemetery. Ms. Bassuk responded that there has been nothing planned for that site during this year but the committee will take a look at the area. Alderperson Cummings stated that she wished to make sure that the issue of trees on private property is not forgotten. Ms. Bassuk said that the committee has not forgotten the matter and will be looking at it in the near future. Local Income Tax Michael Cannon, 409 West Buffalo Street, stated he is opposed to the idea of a local income tax and he urged Council to reconsider the motion on the floor this evening and to strengthen the language of the resolution. Sciencenter Martha Oschrin Robertson, P.O. Box 6697, urged Council to support agenda item 14.6, under the Budget and Administration Committee, which is in regard to the Department of Public Works request for funds for the conceptual design for their new facility. Ms. Robertson invited Council members to the Annual Egg Drop that is sponsored by the Sciencenter on April 1 at Center Ithaca. Designation of Central Cornell Campus Historic District Barbara E. Ebert, Executive Director of Historic Ithaca, read the following statement to Council members: "The proposal you will be considering this evening - -the local landmark nomination of thirteen buildings, their related 352 R March 7, 1990 landscapes and three commemorative objects which are located on the central campus of Cornell University - -was initiated by the Board of Directors of Historic Ithaca in December 1989. Concurrently, our organization has been working with Cornell University on a nomination of campus buildings to the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Good progress has been made in this effort, and it is anticipated that the first in a series of designation requests will move forward during 1990. Consideration of local landmark designation for the Arts Quad- rangle Historic District and the Central Campus Multiple Resource nomination should begin with the clear understanding that the entire central campus of Cornell University is significant both architecturally and historically. The nominated buildings are the historic core of this university and represent the growth of Cornell from its inception to its status today as a world - renowned educational and research institution. More pertinent to your discussion this evening is the importance of these resources to the City of Ithaca. The development of Cornell University could well be described as having had the single most significant influence on the evolution of this City. The proposed nomination incorporated the earliest buildings of the land grant college - -an honor which Ithacans strove mightily to have for their village- - to the research facilities which put Cornell University, and thereby Ithaca, 'on the map'. The nomination proposes designation not only for the 'monuments' - -Stone Row, Uris Library, etc., -- but also for the working buildings in which technology, innovation and students' education were advanced. The Foundry is the only remaining example of the complex of structures built to support the Sibley College of Engineering. The Foundry is qualified for designation as "one of the few remaining examples of a past architectural style "(City of Ithaca Landmark Ordinance) , and it deserves your support. The Board and the membership of Historic Ithaca urge you to approve this entire nomination." The following persons spoke in favor of the Landmarks Designation for the Cornell University buildings: Mary Raddant Tomlan - 200 Delaware Avenue Prof. Jack Squire - 221 Berkshire Road George Hascup, 115 McIntyre Place, spoke in favor of the designation, but is against the Foundry being designated as a landmark. Film Commission for Ithaca Annie Ball Hayward, Meadowbrook Park, Newfield, spoke to Council about creating a film commission in the City of Ithaca. REPORT OF CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES Board of Public Works Commissioner Reeves reported on the following: Pedestrian Bridge across Cascadilla Creek - Commissioner Reeves introduced Paul Crovella from the American Society of Civil Engineers, Cornell Chapter. He gave a short presentation on the bikeway bridge that has been worked on by Cornell students and displayed a model of the project. He stated that Asst. Supt Fabbroni has been very helpful in terms of providing the students with the assistance they needed to undertake this project. He thanked the Planning Committee for being receptive to the concept. Discussion followed on the floor with Mr. Crovella answering questions from Council members. Transit Study - Commissioner Reeves reported that the Transit Study is in progress. It. is being done with the help of the Wt 7 March 7, 1990 School of Human Ecology at Cornell. Trash Tag Update - Commissioner Reeves reported that she received some figures from Asst. Supt. Fabbroni today and approximately 75% of the residents are in compliance. The remaining 23% took their trash bag(s) in off the street once they got the orange notices on their bags and about 2% were issued special pick up fees after the City went back a second time to remove the trash. It was also reported that a large number of tags were stolen off QW0" bags in the Collegetown area. Elm Street Reconstruction - Commissioner Reeves reported that there was a meeting today which Mayor Nichols chaired. Representatives from the West Hill Civic Association, neighbors, Alderperson Blanchard, members of staff, and Betsy Darlington for the Conservation Advisory Council attended. After hearing many of the concerns the Board discussed at its Committee of the Whole meeting this afternoon, the possibility of postponing the project for a year. There will be a resolution on the Board of Public Works agenda for the March 14, 1990 meeting asking that I0, the project be postponed until next year. �1'. Hudson Street - Commissioner Reeves stated that on February 28, I_Y A 1990 the Board of Public Works passed a resolution to delete the `1 sidewalk on the west side of Hudson Street. After further consideration by the neighbors, the PTA, and people from the school, they asked the Board not to put sidewalks at this location and the Board concurred. CITY CLERK'S REPORT: Appointment of Election Custodians for 1990 By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski (awoo, RESOLVED, That Michael Mosely and Claude Colleyacme be appointed as Election Custodians for the City of Ithaca, New York for the year 1990. Carried Unanimously CITY ATTORNEY'S_ REPORT: Lawsuit re Property at 615 -619 Hector street City Attorney Guttman reported that the City has been sued regarding property at 615, 617,and 619 Hector Street. This property was sold at a tax sale. Based on this lawsuit, the City is now going through review of what the City's position is with regard to tax sales of property belonging to people who may be mentally incompetent to understand the proceeding. American Red Cross City Attorney Guttman reported that the case with the American Red Cross /City Board of Zoning Appeals is now up to the Appellate Division. Briefs have been submitted and the case will be heard by the Appellate Division on March 19th. Arbitration - Fire Fighter City Attorney Guttman reported that in the arbitration of Juddson Leonard, fire fighter, the arbitrator agreed with the fire fighter that he should have been placed on light duty and the matter is now concluded. Jason Fane Lawsuit City Attorney Guttman reported the action which the City had brought against Jason Fane was successful and no appeal has been filed and Mr. Fane has paid the fine. Housing /Zoning Issues City Attorney Guttman stated that the City has filed several accusatory instruments regarding housing /zoning issues. Sale of City Hall Annex City Attorney Guttman reported that in January Council passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into an agreement with 354 8 March 7, 1990 Mr. Schlough extending the closing date with the provision that Mr. Schlough would agree that the liquidated damages clause of the original contract would be guaranteed. Attorney Guttman stated that Mr. Schlough has been unwilling and has refused to sign that agreement. The City Attorney and the Mayor have been informed that Mr. Schlough does not at this time have any financing to proceed with this project. Mr. Schlough is still hopeful that he will get financing and is looking for it but at this point he is unable to proceed with the project. City Attorney Guttman stated that at this point, Mr. Schlough is past the date to purchase the building. The Common Council needs to decide what they wish to do now with the City Hall Annex. Alderperson Cummings commented that the Council might want to discuss whether or not that building might be considered in terms of Court space needs. Discussion followed on the floor on the appropriate body to refer this question to in terms of future action and to bring back a report to the Council. Motion to Refer to Committee By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder RESOLVED, That the matter of sale of the City Hall Annex be referred to the Intergovernmental Relations Committee to make a recommendation on procedure, disposal methods and whether or not there are any possibilities in regards to the current offer on the building to proceed with a comprable project. This Committee will report back to the Common Council Committee of the Whole meeting in March. Carried Unanimously PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: * 16.4 Local Designation of Cornell Central Campus Buildings: a. Cornell University Arts Quadrangle By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on February 22, 1989 to consider local designation of the Cornell University Arts Quadrangle as an historic district, and WHEREAS, no objections to local designation were delivered at the public hearing, and WHEREAS, following the public hearing the Commission, as lead agency, determined that local designation of the Arts Quadrangle as an historic district will not have a significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, following the Commission's determination that resources in the proposed designation meet the definition of a Historic District as specified in Section 32.3 of Chapter 32 of the Municipal Code, (Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance), the Commission voted to designate the Arts Quadrangle as an historic district, and WHEREAS, following review of the designation by the Board of Planning and Development on February 27, 1990 it was determined that local designation of the Arts Quadrangle as an historic district will not conflict with the master plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and area involved, and WHEREAS, all designation of the Arts Quadrangle as an historic district provides an additional measure of protection for historic and architectural resources of importance to the local community; now, therefore, be it lr� k t" I 3J1 9 March 7, 1990 RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council, in accordance with provisions and procedures set forth in Section 32.6C of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, approves local designation of the Cornell University Arts Quadrangle as an historic district with boundaries shown on the map entitled Cornell University Central Campus Designations, dated 2/27/90, and as described in the verbal description, and be it further Alderperson Booth noted, for the record, that he works for Cornell as an employee of the College of Architecture, Art and Planning which is affected by this designation. He stated that he has voted against Cornell on so many issues that he cannot count them and he does not see any conflict of interest in him voting for this resolution and he will so vote. Alderperson Schroeder noted, for the record, that he is an architecture student on leave from Cornell University and he does not see any conflict either. Carried Unanimously * 16.4 Local Designation of Cornell Central Campus Building .T b The Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on February 22, 1989 to consider local designation of four Cornell University central campus buildings, the Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks, and WHEREAS, no objections to local designation were delivered at the public hearing, and WHEREAS, following the public hearing the Commission, as lead agency, determined that local designation of the Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks will not have a RESOLVED, That in accordance with provisions and procedures set Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, forth in Section 32.6C of the the designation will become effective March 8, 1990. VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTIONS FOR ARTS UAL D HISTORIC DISTRICT North: The inside curb edge of University Avenue, following the inside curb edge of the Rand Hall turn - around to its point of intersection with East Avenue. East: The inside curb edge of East Avenue, from its intersection with the Rand Hall turn - around to its point of intersection with Tower Road. - South: The inside curb edge of the Tower Road Extension, from =L its intersection with East Avenue to a point ten feet out from the wall of Uris Library and McGraw Tower. Continuing from that point around Uris Library and McGraw Tower on a line following the contours of the building, and being always ten feet out from the farthest projecting feature of the building, to include but not limited to facade walls, foundation walls and retaining walls. West: Continuing around Uris Library as described above to this boundary with the the point of intersection of curb of Central Avenue. From this point of intersection, along a line running due East -West, to the point of intersection of this line and the inside curb edge of Central Avenue, and continuing thence along this inside curb line to its point of intersection with the northern boundary at University Avenue. Alderperson Booth noted, for the record, that he works for Cornell as an employee of the College of Architecture, Art and Planning which is affected by this designation. He stated that he has voted against Cornell on so many issues that he cannot count them and he does not see any conflict of interest in him voting for this resolution and he will so vote. Alderperson Schroeder noted, for the record, that he is an architecture student on leave from Cornell University and he does not see any conflict either. Carried Unanimously * 16.4 Local Designation of Cornell Central Campus Building .T b The Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on February 22, 1989 to consider local designation of four Cornell University central campus buildings, the Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks, and WHEREAS, no objections to local designation were delivered at the public hearing, and WHEREAS, following the public hearing the Commission, as lead agency, determined that local designation of the Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks will not have a 35(), , 5 (), 10 March 7, 1990 significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, following the Commission's determination that resources in the proposed designation meet the definition of a "Landmark" as specified in Section 32.3 of Chapter 32 of the Municipal Code, (Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance), the Commission voted to designate the Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks, and WHEREAS, following review of the designation by the Board of Planning and Development on February 27, 1990 it was determined that local designation of these four buildings as landmarks will not conflict with the master plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and area involved, and WHEREAS, local designation of these buildings as landmarks provides an additional measure of protection for historic and architectural resources of importance to the local community, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council, in accordance with provisions and procedures set forth in Section 32.6C of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, approves local designation of the four Cornell University central campus buildings, the Foundry, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks with boundaries shown on the map entitled Cornell University Central Campus Historic District and Landmark Designations, dated 2/27/90, and as described in the verbal description, and be it further RESOLVED, That in accordance with provisions and procedures set forth in Section 32.6C of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the designation will become effective March 8, 1990. Discussion followed on the advantages and disadvantages of separating the Foundry Building from the rest of this resolution and voting on it as a separate resolution. Motion to Separate The Foundry from the Resolution By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard RESOLVED, That the matter of historic designation for The Foundry as a Local Landmark be dealt with as a separate resolution. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Ayes (6) - Booth, Hoffman, Daley, Romanowski, Blanchard Nays (5) - Schroeder, Johnson, Peterson, Cummings, Golder Mayor Nichols voted Aye, breaking the tie. Carried Motion to Vote on Each Building (Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall, Sage Hall) Separately By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That each of the buildings being considered for historic designation be voted upon separately. Discussion followed on the floor. After further discussion the motion was Withdrawn. Main Motion (without The Foundry) The Main Motion on the historic designation of Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall will read as follows: WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on February 22, 1989 to consider local designation of three Cornell University central campus buildings, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks, and WHEREAS, no objections to local designation were delivered at the public hearing, and 351 11 March 7, 1990 WHEREAS, following the public hearing the Commission, as lead agency, determined that local designation of Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks will not have a significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, following the Commission's determination that resources in the proposed designation meet the definition of a "Landmark" as specified in Section 32.3 of Chapter 32 of the Municipal Code, (Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance), the Commission voted to designate Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks, and WHEREAS, following review of the designation by the Board of Planning and Development on February 27, 1990 it was determined that local designation of these three buildings as landmarks will not conflict with the master plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and area involved, and WHEREAS, local designation of these buildings as landmarks �= provides an additional measure of protection for historic and architectural resources of importance to the local community, Ln now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council, in accordance with provisions and procedures set forth in Section 32.6C of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, approves local designation of the three Cornell University central campus buildings, Sage Chapel, Barnes Hall and Sage Hall as landmarks with boundaries shown on the map entitled Cornell University Central Campus Historic District and Landmark Designations,dated 2/27/90, and as described in the verbal description, and be it further RESOLVED, That in accordance with provisions and procedures set forth in Section 32.6C of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the designation will become effective March 8, 1990. Verbal Boundary Description for Sage Chapel North: The inside curb edge of the Tower Road Extension. West: The inside curb edge of the Central Avenue Extension. South: An East -West line, parallel to the line of the Tower Road Extension, being 30 feet out from the farthest projecting facade wall of the building, to enclose, but not be measured from, the porches and patio on this facade. East: A north -South line, being 10 feet out from the farthest projecting feature on this facade (the north wall of the Sage Memorial Apse as it is reflected on the building's exterior). Verbal Boundary Description for Barnes Hall South: A line drawn ten feet out from any wall, foundation, or retaining wall, or any other integral feature, being always measured from the farthest projecting surface of any such feature, and to follow the contours of the building. West: A line ten feet out as described above, with the exception of the northwest corner, where the boundary becomes a line drawn North - South, parallel to the facade, from the end -point of the North boundary to its intersection with the ten foot line following the contours of the building. North: The wall of Barnes Hall, being always the farthest projecting feature of the building, and to include, but not be limited to facade walls, retaining walls and 12 March 7, 1990 foundation walls. Specifically included is the farthest projecting northwest stone wall, curving out from the building, and creating the endpoint from which the western boundary shall begin. East: The inside curb edge of Sage Avenue. Verbal Boundary Description for Sage Hall North: The inside edge of the footpath which runs parallel and closest to the Sage Hall facade, and following this path as it curves around the northwest corner. West: The inside edge of the sidewalk which runs parallel to and in front of Sage Hall, to its intersection with Sage Avenue, and then becoming the inside curb edge of Sage Avenue to its intersection with Campus Road. South: The inside curb edge of Campus Road. East: The inside curb edge of East Avenue. Main Motion A vote on the Main Motion (without The Foundry) resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously Local Designation of Cornell University Central Campus Buildin The Foundry By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on February 22, 1989 to consider local designation of a Cornell University central campus building, the Foundry, as a landmark, and WHEREAS, no objections to local designation were delivered at the public hearing, and WHEREAS, following the public hearing the Commission, as lead agency, determined that local designation of the Foundry, as a landmark will not have a significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, following the Commission's determination that resources in the proposed designation meet the definition of a "Landmark" as specified in Section 32.3 of Chapter 32 of the Municipal Code, (Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance), the Commission voted to designate the Foundry as a landmark, and WHEREAS, following review of the designation by the Board of Planning and Development on February 27, 1990 it was determined that local designation of this building as a landmark will not conflict with the master plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and area involved, and WHEREAS, local designation of this building as a landmark provides an additional measure of protection for historic and architectural resources of importance to the local community, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council, in accordance with provisions and procedures set forth in Section 32.6C of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, approves local designation of the Foundry as a landmark with boundaries shown on the map entitled Cornell University Central Campus Historic District and Landmark Designations,dated 2/27/90, and as described in the verbal description, and be it further 13 March 7, 1990 RESOLVED, That in accordance with provisions and procedures set forth in Section 32.6C of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, the designation will become effective March 8, 1990. Verbal Boundary Description for The Foundry South: The inside curb edge of University Avenue. s. West: Ten feet out from the farthest projecting feature of the building, on a line following the contours of the building. North: Ten feet out from the farthest projecting feature of the building as above. East: Ten feet out from the farthest projecting feature of the building as above. ed Discussion followed on the floor with Alderpersons Johnson, (0 Cummings, Schroeder and Booth participating. If ) A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: ,:.:.g Ayes (7) - Johnson, Schroeder, Golder, Hoffman, Peterson, Daley, Cummings Nays (3) - Booth, Blanchard, Romanowski Carried NEW BUSINESS' * 21.1 Ramada Labor Relations By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Golder WHEREAS, amicable labor relations is an important community (Wooe objective, and vital to the economic and social health of Ithaca's workers and businesses, and WHEREAS, a liveable wage, allowing a worker freedom from the necessity of public assistance should be provided by any employer, and WHEREAS, Ramada /Divi service staff average under five dollars an hour, with only 15% of the staff earning above that amount, and WHEREAS, management of the Ramada /Divi refused a mediator's request to extend the now expired labor agreement with Local 2300, UAW; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council expresses its concerns for the deteriorating state of labor relations at the Ramada, and be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council strongly encourages both labor and management to bargain in good faith to reach a prompt and fair settlement that includes a liveable wage. Discussion followed on the floor with the Alderpersons stating their reasons for supporting or not supporting the resolution. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the 2nd and 3rd Whereas clauses of the resolution be deleted. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the elimination of the second and third whereas clauses. Motion to Refer to Committee By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the Ramada Labor Relations Resolution be referred to the Human Services Committee for review. 1160 14 March 7, 1990 Discussion followed with Kathy Valentino answering questions from the Council members. A vote on the motion to refer to committee resulted as follows: Ayes (2) - Booth, Cummings Nays (8) - Johnson, Golder, Schroeder, Peterson, Hoffman, Romanowski, Blanchard, Daley Motion Fails Amendment to the Amending Resolution By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the 4th Whereas clause be added to the motion to delete the 2nd and 3rd Whereas clauses. Ayes (6) - Peterson, Booth, Blanchard Nays (4) - Johnson, Hoffman, Cummings, Daley, Romanowski, Schroeder, Golder Carried Amending Resolution A vote on the Amending Resolution to delete the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Whereas clauses from the main motion resulted as follows: Ayes (8) - Booth, Romanowski, Blanchard, Peterson, Daley, Cummings, Schroeder, Hoffman Nays (2) - Johnson, Golder Carried Amending Resolution By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson RESOLVED, That a final resolved be added to the resolution to read as follows: "The Common Council offers to provide both labor and management an opportunity to discuss their concerns about this issue with Common Council". After discussion, the amending resolution above was withdrawn. Main Motion as Amended WHEREAS, amicable labor relations is an important community objective, and vital to the economic and social health of Ithaca's workers and businesses; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Common Council expresses its concerns for the deteriorating state of labor relations at the Ramada, and be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council strongly encourages both labor and management to bargain in good faith to reach a prompt and fair settlement that includes a liveable wage. A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously * 21.2 Request to Governor Regarding Budget Cuts for Division of Youth- MacCormick Residential Center By Alderperson Johnson: Seconded by Alderperson Golder WHEREAS, the New York State Division of the Budget and the New York State Division for Youth have changed the facility classroom teacher - student ratio in the recommended 190 -191 budget to the Legislature, and WHEREAS, the resultant reduction means the combined loss of six teaching positions at the MacCormick and Lansing Residential Centers and the financial loss of six jobs to the City of Ithaca area, and 15 March 7, 1990 WHEREAS, the ratio change means the elimination of some of the most critical services to troubled youth, in that students show a three to five year increase in skills in less than one year, and WHEREAS, these employees work at the MacCormick and Lansing Residential Centers just outside the City of Ithaca and the teachers effected reside in the Ithaca area; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council strongly opposes such action by the Division for Youth and the Division of the Budget and urges that the Governor reverse this unjust action and that our elected State Representatives formally and officially reinstate the original teacher - student ratio to the New York State Budget, thereby opposing this action and restoring essential personnel. ird Motion to Refer to Committee By Alderperson Schroeder: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the matter of budget cuts for the Division of --- Youth- MacCormick Residential Center be referred to the Human Services Committee for review. 4 Ayes (9) - Blanchard, Romanowski, Cummings, Daley, Booth, Golder, Schroeder, Hoffman, Peterson Nay (1) - Johnson Carried Recess Common Council recessed at 9:40 and reconvened in regular session at 9:50 p.m. BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE: * 14.2 Mayor's Office - Amend Authorized Equipment List By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson RESOLVED, That the Authorized Equipment list for the Mayor's office be amended to include the following: 1. Macintosh plus computer $999. 2. A 20 Meg DataFrame Hard Disk 495. 3. Word 4.0 Software 299. 4. DeskWriter Printer 990. $2,783. and be it further RESOLVED, That $2,783 be transferred from Account A1990 Restricted Contingency to Account A1210 -210, Office Equipment, to fund such acquisition. Carried * 14.3 Building Department - Amend Authorized Equipment List By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Daley RESOLVED, That the Authorized Equipment list for the Building Department be amended to include the following: 1. 1 Everex 1A61386/25 MHZ Computer $4,590.00 2. 1 Hewlett Packard Laserjet Series 1,892.00 II Printer 3. A Logical Connection with 256K for 607.00 Printer Sharing and be it further RESOLVED, That $7,089 be transferred from Account A690 -7 New York State Building and Fire Code Aid for such purpose. W. March 7, 1990 * 14.4 Fire Department - Amend Authorized Equipment List By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Golder RESOLVED, That the Fire Department Authorized Equipment List be amended as follows: 1. 1 Apple Micro - computer $3,775. 2. 1 Apple Printer 970. 3. 1 Gasoline Powered Fan (no additional funds required) and be it further RESOLVED, That $4,745 be transferred from Account A3410 -460, Program Supplies for Hazardous Materials Control Programming, to Account A3410 -225 Other Equipment, to finance the procurement of items one and two above, with item three to be purchased from available funds. Carried * 14.5 Request for Consulting Firm Services for City Court Facility Plan By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard WHEREAS, the Ithaca City Court has been mandated by the New York State Unified Court System to expand and restore the existing City Court and Facilities. The Superintendent of Public Works has met with the City Court Judge and Court Clerk to discuss how to achieve this, and has arrived at a variety of possible options for renovations that would satisfy the decision of the New York State Unified Court System, and WHEREAS, the options which meet the State requirements include: the expansion of the existing Court facilities building by either adding an extra floor or the addition of a 6,000+ square foot two -story facility behind the existing building; building a new facility in the Police Department parking lot across East Clinton Street from the Hall of Justice; relocating to another existing building (to be identified) ; or building a brand new facility elsewhere in the City, and WHEREAS, the finalization of these options cannot be done by staff in the time frame required because the professional expertise of the Department is already tied up in various on- going projects, and WHEREAS, the State has mandated that this analysis must be completed no later than March 31, 1990 and, therefore, the results of the in -house analysis must be done by the middle of March to provide time for review by City staff and the Board of Public Works; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Superintendent is requested and authorized to negotiate and execute a contract for the services of a consulting firm to provide this analysis at a sum not to exceed $5,000, to be taken out of Capital Reserve Account #25, for design of new capital projects, and be it further RESOLVED, That the firm undertaking this analysis be instructed by the Superintendent to give sensitive consideration to the historic importance and architectural significance of the existing Hall of Justice building (identified as a monument in the South Hill Historic and Architectural Resources Survey of 1987), and be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council's final acceptance or approval of any of the listed building alternatives shall require a further decision by Council. Carried D 17 March 7, 1990 * 14 .6 DPW Request for Conceptual Design By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Daley WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has endorsed the concept for a consolidated Department of Public Works operations; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the architectural firm of Trowbridge and Trowbridge be engaged for an amount not to exceed $4,100., to prepare a conceptual design relative to the proposed relocation and consolidation of the Water, Sewer, and Streets and Facilities Divisions of the Department of Public Works, and be it further RESOLVED, That an amount not to exceed $4,100. be transferred from the Design Capital Reserve #25 for such purpose. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: l.S.a Ayes (8) - Booth, Peterson, Daley, Romanowski, Blanchard, Johnson, Schroeder, Golder Nay (1) - Hoffman f'),J Alderperson Cummings out of room at the time of the vote. Carried * 14.7 Joint Transit Maintenance and Administration Facility Study Design and Location of Said Project By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard WHEREAS, staff from Cornell University, the City of Ithaca, and Tompkins County have been exploring the possibility of constructing a Joint Transit Maintenance and Administration Facility, and WHEREAS, staff has met with representatives of the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDot) and the Federal Urban Mass Transit Administration (UPTA) relative to the design and location of such facility, and WHEREAS, funding for the construction of a Joint Facility, if approved, would be financed by Federal Section 18 Aid of 2.1 %, Federal Section 3 Aid of 67.2 %, New York State Aid of 9.6 %, and a local share of 21.1 %, and WHEREAS, NYSDoT has expressed a willingness to allocate a small amount of available matching funds for the Design Phase of such project, and WHEREAS, the local cost of the entire project would be shared as follows: 1. Cornell University 50% 2. Tompkins County 25% 3. City of Ithaca 25% now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Capital Project #229 for the construction of a Joint Transit Facility, be and is hereby established to finance the City's share of the design and construction of said facility, and be it further RESOLVED, That $45,000 be advanced from Capital Reserve #22 for Bus Acquisition, to Capital Project #229 to fund the City's initial share of the design phase (total cost for design is projected to be $294,000), and be it further RESOLVED, That the Mayor be authorized, subject to review by the City Attorney, to execute the appropriate agreements to facilitate the City's participation in the design of a Joint 18 March 7, 1990 Transit Facility. Discussion followed on the floor with City Controller Cafferillo answering questions from Council members. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously * 14.1 Request Funding for Rental Housing Commission, Cornell /City Relations Study Commission and Opportunities for Youth Commission from Mavor's Office By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder WHEREAS, the 1990 adopted budget included $10,000 in Account A1990 Restricted Contingency for use by the Mayor's office to provide Staff Support to various Boards and Commissions, and WHEREAS, Mayor Nichols has requested that $5,000 of such fund be allocated as follows: $2,000 for the Rental Housing Commission $1,500 for the Cornell -City Relations Study Commission $1,500 for the Opportunities for Youth Commission now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That $5,000 be transferred from Account A1990 Restricted Contingency to the Mayor's Contractual Services line, A1210 -435, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Mayor be authorized to enter into the required personal services contracts where applicable, or hire such Staff on a part -time temporary basis, for the purposes described herein. Alderperson Blanchard asked that the three items being requested be voted on separately. Alderperson Booth, as maker of the motion, had no objection to her request. $2,000 for Rental Housing Commission By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Daley RESOLVED, That $2,000 be allocated to the Mayor for staff support to the Rental Housing Commission. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (8) - Romanowski, Booth, Johnson, Cummings, Peterson, Schroeder, Hoffman, Golder Nays (2) - Daley, Blanchard Carried $1,500 for Cornell -City Relations Study Commission By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Daley RESOLVED, That $1,500 be allocated to the Mayor for staff support for the Cornell -City Relations Study Commission. J_ Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (6) - Booth, Johnson, Peterson Nays (4) - Cummings, Daley, Golder, Schroeder, Hoffman, Romanowski, Blanchard $1,500 for the Opportunities for Youth Commission By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Daley RESOLVED, That $1,500 be allocated to the Mayor for staff support ,) , r 40a 19 March 7, 1990 for the Opportunities for Youth Commission. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (6) - Booth, Golder, Schroeder, Hoffman, Peterson Nays (5) - Johnson, Cummings, Daley, Romanowski, Blanchard Mayor Nichols voted Aye breaking the tie. Carried (400., * 14 8 Youth Bureau - Request to Amend_ 1990 Budget By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the 1990 Budget be amended as follows: 1. Increase General Fund Revenue A2070 Contribution for Youth by $5,000, to reflect a grant to be received from the Cornell Exploring Careers in Informational Technologies (CIT) Program. 2. Increase General Fund Appropriation for the Youth Bureau, Account A7310 -120 Part -time Seasonal Salaries °- by $5,000, for the implementation of such program within the Youth Employment Service Division of the Youth Bureau, and be it further RESOLVED, That the operation of this Program remain budget neutral, with said authorization being granted on a temporary basis, subject to the availability and receipt of specific outside funding. Carried Unanimously *14.9 Finance Department - Employee Salary Adjustment By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings WHEREAS, the City Clerk has recommended he nterms Holcomb of he o CSEA mployee Incentive Awar d pursuant Administrative Unit Contract, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has provided the Budget and Administration Committee with substantial justification for granting the Employee Incentive Award, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk's recommendation complies with the procedure and guidelines outlined in the CSEA Administrative Unit Contract; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That Connie Holcomb's salary be increased by eight (8 %) percent to an annual salary of $20,570, retroactive to January 30, 1990. Discussion followed on the floor. Ayes (9) - Booth, Cummings, Peterson, Hoffman, Daley, Blanchard, Romanowski, Johnson, Schroeder Nay (1) - Golder Carried * 14.10 Youth Bureau - Appointment of Administrative Secretary By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson RESOLVED, That Marilyn Hall be provisionally appointed to the position of Administrative Secretary in the Youth Bureau at an annual salary of $19,043, that being Step 7 on the 1990 Compensation Plan for Confidential Employees, effective March 12, 1990. Ayes (9) - Booth, Cummings, Peterson, Hoffman, Daley, Blanchard, Romanowski, Johnson, Schroeder Abstention (1) - Golder 20 March 7, 1990 Carried * 14.11 Youth Bureau - Request to Amend 1990 Budget By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson RESOLVED, That the 1990 Budget be amended as follows: 1. Increase General Fund Revenue Account A2001 Recreational Program Fees by $26,000., to reflect increased Program Fees recommended by the City Youth Bureau Advisory Board. 2. Increase General Fund Appropriation Account: A. A7310 -120, by $7,875. to fund salary increases for part -time seasonal staff at Cass Park and Stewart Park, and by $5,500. to fund salaries for extended hours of services at Cass Park Pool. B. A7310 -105 Staff Salaries by $3,000., to fund additional salary requirements relative to the appointment of Marilyn Hall to the position of Administrative Secretary. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard RESOLVED, That in Item 2A, there be a period (.) placed after the words Stewart Park and the rest of that sentence be deleted from the resolution. Discussion followed on the floor on the amending resolution regarding cutting the hours at the Cass Park pool. Youth Bureau Director answered questions from Council members. A vote on the amending resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (2) - Booth, Blanchard Nays (8) - Johnson, Romanowski, Daley, Cummings, Peterson, Hoffman, Schroeder, Golder Motion Fails Main Motion A vote on the Main Motion resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously * 14.12 Youth Bureau - Request to Accommodate a Maternity Leave Request By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson RESOLVED, That the Personnel Roster of the Youth Bureau be temporarily amended from May 24, 1990 to May 24, 1991, to accommodate a maternity leave request, as follows: Delete: 1 Youth Program Coordinator (full -time) Add 1 Youth Program Coordinator (17 hours /week) Carried Unanimously * 14.13 Various Bond Resolutions By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That a resolution authorizing the issuance of $2,926,250. Serial Bonds of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, to pay for the following projects be hereby approved: Hudson Street Reconstruction $1,425,000 Elm Street Reconstruction 475,000 City Hall Phone System 45,000 Cass Park Improvements 88,500 Ithaca Industrial Park 400,000 Asbestos Removal Project 140,000 Thurston Avenue Bridge Reconstruction 251,750 Addition to existing Resolution: Computer Acquisition 1011000 3 6 21 March 7, 1990 Amending Resolution By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski RESOLVED, That the first two items (Hudson Street Reconstruction and Elm tionStreet truct The obher � terns d should e tr remainthe Construe $1,900,000-" same. Alderperson Booth explained that there is concern about the Elm Street project. He stated that the City Controller believes it would be wise to authorize this amount, then it would leave us some flexibility. If he does not have to issue all that amount, he would oardoofoPublic Worksrmeetingnto wait least the next Board B formally decide. City Controller Cafferillo stated that after the Budget the Administration Committee addressed the original resolution, Superintendent of Public Works requested that Elm Street be withdrawn. In discussions with Assistant Superintendent Fabbroni, he wants to propose additional work to keep his construction program going, but possibly on an alternative site. J Mr. Cafferillo stated that he has worked out the mechanism with [41 our bonding attorneys to generalize the total amount to be issued as street construction. Then we can distribute it between Hudson Street and some area of the City or several areas of the City and authorize it at a subsequent point in time. Further discussion followed on the floor regarding the Elm Street Reconstruction project. Alderperson Romanowski stated for the record that he wants to make sure that the Elm Street reconstruction will still take place. Further discussion followed with Alderpersons Hoffman, Daley, Cummings and Johnson participating. As no Councilperson objected to the Amending Resolution it was duly adopted. BOND RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 7, 1990. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $2,926,250 SERIAL BOND AND THE APPROPRIATION AND EXPENDITURE OF $319,750 MONEYS OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK, TO PAY COSTS OF VARIOUS CAPITAL PROJECTS. WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to the financing of the capital projects hereinafter described, including compliance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, have been performed, and WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize the financing of such capital projects; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as follows: Section 1. For the purpose of paying the cost or additional costs of the specific objects or purposes or classes of objects or purposes of the capital projects specified in Section 2 hereof, there are hereby authorized to be issued $2,926,250 serial bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, and there are hereby authorized to be expended $319,750 moneys of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York which moneys are hereby appropriated therefor. Section 2. The capital projects in and for the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, for which such serial bonds, 368 22 March 7, 1990 bond anticipation notes and moneys shall be expended, the maximum estimated cost of each such capital project and whether a capital project is a specific object or purpose or a class of objects or purposes as follows: a) The reconstruction of various streets located throughout and in and for said City, a class of objects or purposes, at a maximum estimated cost of $2,000,000; b) The purchase and installation of a telephone communication system in City Hall, a specific object or purpose, at a maximum estimated cost of $50,000; c) The original improvement and embellishment of Cass Park, a specific object or purpose, at a maximum estimated cost of $100,000; d) The construction of a new road at Route 13 to be an extension to Third Street, a specific object or purpose, at a maximum estimated cost of $470,000; e) The purchase and installation of sanitary sewers to serve the area along the Third Street Extension described in paragraph d hereof, a specific object or purpose, at a maximum estimated cost of $55,000; f) The purchase and installation of water mains to serve the area along the Third Street Extension described in paragraph d hereof, a specific object or purpose, at a maximum estimated cost of $55,000; g) The reconstruction of various City buildings, for the purpose of removing asbestos therein, a class of objects or purposes, at a maximum estimated cost of $150,000; h) The reconstruction of the Thurston Avenue Bridge, a specific object or purpose, at a maximum estimated cost of $265,000; and i) The payment of additional costs of the purchase of a computer system for said City, a specific object or purposes, at a maximum estimated cost of $101,000. Section 3. The plan for the financing of each of the specific objects or purposes or classes of objects or purposes set forth in Section 2 hereof shall consist of the issuance of the serial bonds and the bond anticipation notes and the expenditure of the moneys of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to this bond resolution, which serial bonds and moneys shall be allocated as follows: a. $1,900,000 serial bonds and $100,000 moneys, being provided from the Consolidated Highway Improvement Program, shall be allocated to the payment of the reconstruction of streets described in subdivision a of Section 2 hereof; b. $45,000 serial bonds and $5,000 moneys to the payment of the purchase and installation of the telephone system at City Hall described in subdivision b of Section 2 hereof; C. $88,500 serial bonds and $11,500 moneys to the payment of the original improvement and embellishment of Cass Park described in subdivision c of Section 2 hereof; d. $320,000 serial bonds and $150,000 moneys, being provided from the Appalachian Regional Commission, to the payment of the construction of the Third Street Extension described in subdivision d of Section 2 hereof; O 23 March 7, 1990 e. $40,000 serial bonds and $15,000 moneys, being provided from the Sewer Fund, to the payment of the purchase and installation of sanitary sewers, described in subdivision e of Section 2 hereof; f. $40,000 serial bonds and from the Water Fund, to the installation of water mains, Section 2 hereof; $15,000 moneys, being provided payment of the purchase and described in subdivision f of g. $140,000 serial bonds and $10,000 moneys to the payment of the cost of the reconstruction of buildings described in subdivision g of Section 2 hereof; h. $251,750 serial bonds and $13,250 moneys, being provided from Capital Reserve Fund No. 4, to the payment of the reconstruction of the Thurston Avenue Bridge described in subdivision h of Section 2 hereof; and i. $101,000 serial bonds to the payment of additional costs of the purchase and installation of the computer system described in subdivision i of Section 2 hereof. Section 4. The periods of probable usefulness of the capital projects described in Section 2 hereof shall be, respectively, fifteen years, ten years, fifteen years, fifteen years, forty years, forty years, twenty years, twenty years, and five years, pursuant to subdivisions 20 (c), 25, 19 (c), 20 (c), 4, 1, 12 (a)(1), 10 and 32, respectively, of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law. Section 5. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested only if: 1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said City is not authorized to expend money, or 2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of such publication, or 3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Section 6. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published in full in the Ithaca Journal, the official newspaper, together with a notice of the City Clerk in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law. The foregoing resolution was duly voted on by a roll call vote which resulted as follows: Romanowski - Abstention (possible conflict of interest) Peterson - Schroeder - Daley - Golder - Ayes - 7 Nays - 1 Abstentions Aye Aye Aye Abstention - 2 (not sufficient information to make an informed vote) Booth - Aye Blanchard - Aye Johnson - Aye Hoffman - Nay Cummings - Aye Carried 370 24 March 7, 1990 * 14.14* Audit By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson RESOLVED, That the bills presented, as listed on Audit Abstract #4/1990, in the total amount of $21,580.94, be approved for payment. Carried Unanimously * 14.15 Request to Governor and State Legislature Regarding Restructuring of Local Taxing Authority By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman WHEREAS, tax cuts at federal and state levels, and the lack of federal and state aid to municipalities have resulted in placing increasingly serious burdens on local taxes, and WHEREAS, the cuts in federal and state income taxes have resulted in a shift from progressive to regressive taxes with benefits to the affluent and increases to lower and middle income New Yorkers, and WHEREAS, the level of local property taxes represents an excessive burden on both property owners and renters; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca call on the Governor and the State Legislature to restructure local taxing authority throughout the state in order to reduce significantly the burdens placed on the local property tax, and be it further RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca does not have authority to impose a local income tax, and the Common Council is not attempting to impose a local income tax. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Romanowski: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard RESOLVED, That the first three Whereas clauses and the first Resolved clause be deleted from the Resolution. Ayes (4) - Romanowski, Blanchard, Cummings, Booth Nays (6) - Johnson, Schroeder, Peterson, Hoffman, Daley, Golder Motion Fails Amending Resolution By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the last Resolved in the resolution be amended to read as follows: "RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is not considering and has no plans to consider implementing an income tax limited to the City of Ithaca as a means of shifting the local tax burden." Discussion followed on Alderperson Daley's Amending Resolution. A vote on the Amending Resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (6) - Peterson, Schroeder, Daley, Cummings, Johnson Nays (5) - Romanowski, Booth, Golder, Hoffman, Blanchard Mayor Nichols voted Aye, breaking the tie. Carried Substitute Resolution By Alderperson Blanchard: Seconded by Alderperson Romanowski WHEREAS, a great deal of public anxiety has been created as a result of discussion relating to a local income tax; now, therefore, be it 371 25 March 7, 1990 RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca is not considering the imposition of a local income tax. Ayes (2) - Blanchard, Romanowski Nays (8) - Peterson, Schroeder, Hoffman, Golder, Daley, Cummings, Johnson, Booth Motion Fails Ayes (9) - Cummings, Romanowski, Peterson, Daley, Johnson, Blanchard, Hoffman, Golder, Schroeder (� Nay (1) - Booth Carried ._3 Amending Resolution ;A By Alderperson Golder: Seconded by Alderperson Daley ((.1 RESOLVED, That the a third Resolved be added to the Resolution to read as follows: "RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca will explore all avenues of addressing the problem of unfair tax burdens on the citizens of Ithaca." Aye (1) - Golder Nays (9) - Blanchard, Romanowski, Johnson, Booth, Daley, Schroeder, Peterson, Hoffman, Cummings Motion Fails Main Motion as Amended The Main Motion as Amended reads as follows: WHEREAS, tax cuts at federal and state levels, and the lack of federal and state aid to municipalities have resulted in placing increasingly serious burdens on local taxes, and WHEREAS, the cuts in federal and state income taxes have resulted in a shift from progressive to regressive taxes with benefits to the affluent and increases to lower and middle income New Yorkers, and WHEREAS, the level of local property taxes represents an excessive burden on both property owners and renters; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca call on the Governor and the State Legislature to restructure local taxing authority throughout the state in order to reduce significantly the burdens placed on the local property tax, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca call on Representative Matthew H. McHugh to initiate legislation designed to re- institute federal revenue sharing with localities, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is not considering and has no plans to consider implementing an income tax limited to the City of Ithaca as a means of shifting the local tax burden. Amending Resolution Golder: Seconded by Alderperson Daley By Alderperson insert a Resolved to read: "RESOLVED, After the First Resolved, Council of the City of Ithaca on That the Common Representative Matthew H. McHugh to initiate 'call legislation designed to re- institute federal revenue sharing with localities. Ayes (9) - Cummings, Romanowski, Peterson, Daley, Johnson, Blanchard, Hoffman, Golder, Schroeder (� Nay (1) - Booth Carried ._3 Amending Resolution ;A By Alderperson Golder: Seconded by Alderperson Daley ((.1 RESOLVED, That the a third Resolved be added to the Resolution to read as follows: "RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca will explore all avenues of addressing the problem of unfair tax burdens on the citizens of Ithaca." Aye (1) - Golder Nays (9) - Blanchard, Romanowski, Johnson, Booth, Daley, Schroeder, Peterson, Hoffman, Cummings Motion Fails Main Motion as Amended The Main Motion as Amended reads as follows: WHEREAS, tax cuts at federal and state levels, and the lack of federal and state aid to municipalities have resulted in placing increasingly serious burdens on local taxes, and WHEREAS, the cuts in federal and state income taxes have resulted in a shift from progressive to regressive taxes with benefits to the affluent and increases to lower and middle income New Yorkers, and WHEREAS, the level of local property taxes represents an excessive burden on both property owners and renters; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca call on the Governor and the State Legislature to restructure local taxing authority throughout the state in order to reduce significantly the burdens placed on the local property tax, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca call on Representative Matthew H. McHugh to initiate legislation designed to re- institute federal revenue sharing with localities, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is not considering and has no plans to consider implementing an income tax limited to the City of Ithaca as a means of shifting the local tax burden. 72 26 March 7, 1990 A vote on the Main Motion as Amended resulted as follows: Ayes (7) - Daley, Cummings, Johnson, Peterson, Hoffman, Schroeder, Golder Nays (3) - Booth, Romanowski, Blanchard Carried CHARTER AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE: * 15.1 Penalties on Miscellaneous Bills By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works in a meeting held on January 17,1990 resolved to amend Sections 244.53, 245.8, 272.2 and 272.9 of the Regulations of the Board of Public Works, to authorize a late penalty of 12 percent per annum or $3.00 a month, whichever is greater, on unpaid balances of miscellaneous bills after a 30- day due date, and WHEREAS, the City Chamberlain has determined that such charges are reasonably related to the expenses the City incurs in collecting such late miscellaneous bills; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council endorses a decision by the Board of Public Works to amend its regulations as follows: Section 244.53 Duty to keep sidewalks clear of snow, ice and other obstructions It shall be the duty of all persons owning property on a public street to keep the sidewalks in front of such property clear of snow and ice and any other obstruction including free flowing water from drains, ditches or downspouts. In case of failure or neglect to clean any such walk within a reasonable time following its deposit, such time to be determined by the Superintendent, the sidewalk may be cleaned by employees of the Board of Public Works at the expense of the property owner. The charge to the owner for cleaning any such walk will be the actual cost, plus 50% for overhead and administration for such charges and shall be due 30 days from the date ordered rendered by the Board of Public Works. Bills remaining unpaid after 30 days shall accrue a late penalty at the rate of twelve percent per annum from the date of the bill or $3.00 per month, whichever is greater. Section 245.8 Board of Public Works Regulations Owner of Property Liable for Charges All water rents, sewer rental fees, accounts or other charges relating to water and sewer service, shall be a charge against the owner or agent of the premises connected with the City water and /or sewer mains and such owner or agent shall be held responsible for all such accounts and charges. Bills for work done b' expense shall be due 30 da, the Board of Public Works. shall accrue a late penalt, annum from the date of the b ctreater. . Y City forces at a property owner's 7s from the date ordered rendered by Bills remaining unpaid after 30 days at the rate of twelve percent per ill, or $3.00 per month, whichever is In default of payment of any such charges within sixty days after becoming due, the water and /or sewer service may be cut off such premises without further notice. Any service and consumption charge shall be a lien upon the premises served and shall be collectible as provided by Section 5.19 and Section 5.20 of the Ithaca City Charter. Section 272.2 Payment for Service Bills rendered for mowing grass and similar services shall be due thirty (30) days from the date of such bills. Bills 1 27 March 7, 1990 remaining unpaid after 30 days shall accrue a late_ penalty at the rate of twelve Percent per annum from the date of the bill or $3.30 per month, whichever is greater. The owner of the premises shall be held responsible and liable for all charges for such service. In case of default of payment, these charges will be collected in the manner provided for by the provisions of the City Charter relating thereto. (aw." Section 272.9 Collection Regulations D. Service Charges b. Such charges levied shall be due 30 days after the bill is ordered rendered by the Board of Public Works. Bills remaining unpaid after 30 days shall accrue a late penalty at the rate of twelve percent per annum from the date of the bill or $3.00 per month, whichever is greater, and shall be collectible in accordance with the City of Ithaca Charter, Section 5.33. (rj And be it further y RESOLVED, That these amendments become effective immediately. Carried Unanimously 15.2 Handicapped Accessibility By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder RESOLVED, That the following guidelines are to be employed by the City of Ithaca Building Department in their decisions regarding access for handicapped individuals to buildings and facilities: It is the intent of the City of Ithaca, when handicapped access is required by the State Building Code, that the exterior accessible route to a building or a facility either be the same one that the general population uses or be located at a principal entrance to the building or facility. A principal entrance is one by which a substantial number of users enter or leave a building. If the building is a multi -use building, consideration must be given to more than one entrance so that if a handicapped person wants to gain access to one use of a building, he or she does not have to get there through circuitous or demeaning circumstances. To determine whether an access point is appropriate, factors such as safety, the number of "users, location and humaneness are to be considered. Examples of conditions that are generally deemed unacceptable for meeting handicapped access are an access that is poorly lit, is a shared use with an entrance that is primarily for delivery purposes, is not off a main public way, or demeans or singles out the handicapped user. Recognizing that every building situation is unique, the Building Commissioner shall make every effort to incorporate these guidelines into decisions on appropriate handicapped access. Carried Unanimously _* 15.3 Amendments to Smoking Regulations By Alderperson Peterson: Seconded by Alderperson Johnson 1990 Amendmen of Smoking" 67, entitled " Regulatio of Ithaca Municipal Cod Section 1. Chapter 67, entitled "Regulation of Smoking ", of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, as amended, is hereby repealed. Section 2. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, that a new Chapter 67, entitled "Regulation of Smoking ", be added to the City of Ithaca Municipal Code to read as follows: 28 March 7, 1990 Chapter 67 Regulation of Smoking Section 67.1 Purpose A. It is the purpose of this ordinance to protect and enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare by limiting the exposure of all persons to second -hand smoke. B. It is the further purpose of this ordinance to regulate smoking in Ithaca in a manner consistent with Article 13 -E of the New York State Public Health Law, as adopted into law on July 5, 1989. To this end this ordinance incorporates the smoking regulations established by that law and supplements those regulations with additional smoking regulations as is permitted by Section 1399 -r (3) of that law. Section 67.2 Declaration of Findings and Intent A. The City government of Ithaca has an obligation to try to protect persons from involuntary exposure to public health hazards and public nuisances. B. Reliable studies have shown that breathing second -hand smoke is a significant health hazard for several population groups, including children, fetuses, elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease. These health hazards include lung cancer, respiratory infection, decreased exercise tolerance, decreased respiratory function, bronchoconstriction and bronchospasm. C. Exposure to second -hand smoke precipitates and /or aggravates allergic attacks in persons with respiratory allergies, and accelerates such allergic symptoms as eye irritation, nasal symptoms, headaches, coughing, wheezing, sore throats and hoarseness. D. The preponderance of available evidence and the trends reflected in that evidence all indicate that exposure to second- hand smoke is a significant health hazard which exposes members of the public to increased risk for developing disease and adversely affects the public health. This exposure has caused, continues to cause and will continue to cause, needless pain, suffering, and death. E. The health hazards caused by second -hand smoke are of variable degree, depending upon such factors as length of exposure and the age and physical condition of those exposed. F. In addition to the public health problems it causes and the public health threats it poses, second -hand smoke constitutes a public nuisance for many people. G. In some cases, there is a voluntary assumption of the health hazards and public nuisance impacts caused by second -hand smoke. In many other cases, however, there is an involuntary or coerced exposure to these hazards and impacts, and persons are exposed to second -hand smoke against their will in a wide variety of places and circumstances. H. It is understood that regulations addressing the hazards and undesirable impacts of second -hand smoke will cause certain economic dislocations and governmental intrusions into private activities that must be justified by the nature and extent of the public health hazards and public nuisance impacts presented by second -hand smoke. Therefore, a balance must be struck between safeguarding citizens from involuntary exposure to second -hand `7 ,i 29 March 7, 1990 smoke on the one hand, and minimizing governmental intrusion into the affairs of its citizens on the other. I. It is recognized that certain voluntary efforts have been carried out independent of governmental intervention seeking to address the problem of second -hand smoke and that it is in the public interest to enact smoking regulations which harmonize with such efforts so long as they do not compromise the public health, (*mowel safety, and general welfare. J. The widely varying range of conditions under which persons are exposed to second -hand smoke necessitates tailoring the regulation of smoking to match various circumstances. K. Because the State of New York has adopted comprehensive legislation regulating smoking throughout the state, it is in the best interests of the residents of the City of Ithaca that smoking be regulated by the City in a manner consistent with that state law (Article 13 -E of the New York State Public Health Law, (. as signed into law on July 5, 1989). It is, therefore, the intent of this ordinance that the smoking regulations established by that state law be incorporated into this local ordinance and that those smoking regulations be supplemented by additional ELI smoking regulations as permitted by Section 1399 -r (3) of that ` state law. Section 67.3 Definitions Except for the definitions stated in this section, this ordinance incorporates the definitions set forth in Article 13 -E of the Public Health Law, as signed into law on July 5, 1989; and those definitions shall be utilized in interpreting and applying this ordinance unless the context requires otherwise. Except where the context requires otherwise, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings when used in this ordinance. A. "Food service establishment" means any indoor area open to the public or portion thereof in which the business is the sale of food for on- premises consumption, including but not limited to restaurants, cafeterias, coffee shops, diners, sandwich shops, short order cafes, ice cream and soda shops, and lunch counters. " Food service establishment" does not include a "bar" as defined in Article 13 -E of the Public Health Law. B. "Public" includes all of those persons who visit, do business at, attend, congregate or otherwise typically utilize an indoor area open to the public. Provided, "public" does not include persons who normally live at the particular place in question, or their private guests or invitees, or persons who are regularly employed at that place. C. "Separate enclosed room" means a room set aside for use as a smoking room by the owner, operator, manager, sponsor, or person in charge of a particular facility, which room shall have solid walls that reach from ceiling to floor and separate that room from other parts of the building in question and a (400", ventilation system that removes air, smoke and associated gases from that room to the ambient air outside the building in which the room is located. All of the doors to such a room must be capable of being shut. Section 67.4 General Smoking Restrictions; Incorporation of State Law Governing Smoking; Additional Regulations Governing Smoking A. Subject to the provisions of subdivision B of this section, the City of Ithaca hereby adopts and establishes regulations on smoking, including definitions pertaining thereto, that are the same as those established by sections 1399 -n through 37Fi 30 March 7, 1990 1399 -r of Article 13 -E of the New York State Public Health Law (as signed into law on July 5, 1989) . It is the intent of this subdivision that smoking shall be governed by the City of Ithaca in the same way as the State of New York governs smoking under the Public Health Law, except as provided in subdivision B of this section. Accordingly, Article 13 -E of the Public Health Law (as signed into law on July 5, 1989) is set forth in Appendix A of this ordinance, and sections 1399 -o through 1399 -r of that law are adopted and incorporated in this ordinance. (Sections 1399 -s through 1399 -x of that state law deal with violations, enforcement, waivers, penalties, limitation of causes of action, and rules and regulations under state law; and those sections are not incorporated in this ordinance). B. Section 1399 -r(3) of Article 13 -E of the New York State Public Health Law explicitly permits county, city, town, and village governments to enforce additional regulations on smoking that go beyond the minimum standards on smoking established by the state pursuant to Article 13 -E of the Public Health Law. Accordingly sections 67.5 through 67.9 of this ordinance establish regulations on smoking that supplement those established by subdivision A of this section, and unless the context requires otherwise, the provisions of sections 67.5 through 67.9 of this ordinance shall be interpreted as providing stricter regulation of smoking than is provided by Article 13 -E of the Public Health Law. Sections 67.10 through 67.14 of this ordinance establish the mechanisms necessary to administer and implement this local system of smoking regulation. C. Nothing stated in this ordinance shall be deemed to prevent or limit the applicability or enforcement of Article 13 -E of the Public Health Law within the City of Ithaca. Section 67.5 Indoor Areas Open To The Public In Which Smoking Shall Not Be Permitted A. Smoking shall not be permitted, and no person shall smoke in any of the areas listed in section 1399 -o (1) of Article 13 -E of the Public Health Law or in any of the following indoor areas open to the public: 1. Indoor arenas, enclosed stadiums, and all other enclosed athletic facilities, except bowling establishments; 2. All indoor areas open to the public in food stores; 3. Police vehicles while being used to transport members of the public; 4. Bus shelters. B. Except as permitted by subdivisions (3), (4), and (5) of section 1399 -o of the Public Health Law or section 1399 -q of that law and subject to the further provisions of Section 67.6 of this ordinance, smoking shall not be permitted, and no person shall smoke in any indoor area open to the public, including but not limited to any of the places specifically listed in section 1399 -o (2) of the Public Health Law and any of the following places that constitute, or are part of, indoor areas open to the public: 1. Food service establishments, bingo establishments; bowling establishments; and bars; 2. Any indoor area primarily used for or primarily designed for the purpose of exhibiting any motion picture, stage drama, musical recital, dance, lecture, or other performance; 19 13'x'7 31 March 7, 1990 3. Clubhouses and service clubs; spas and health clubs; 4. Lobbies, stairways, hallways, and atria in indoor places; 5. Laundromats; 6. Meeting rooms, offices and other facilities where the public routinely conducts business; 7. Places of worship; 8. Hotels, motels, and all other places of public accommodation; and 9. Jails. Section 67.6 Exceptions to General Smoking Restrictions in Indoor Public Places (t.S Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 67.5 of this �d..i ordinance, smoking may be permitted in those places and circumstances covered by this section. The provisions of this section shall be interpreted narrowly so that the general prohibitions of Section 67.5 shall have the broadest possible applicability. A. Subject to the other subdivisions of this section, the owner, operator or manager of an indoor area that is open to the public and that is subject to Section 67.5(B) of this ordinance may designate a separate enclosed room or rooms in such area where smoking may be permitted, provided the primary use of such room or rooms is to provide an area where smoking may occur separate from the other public areas of that facility. No such smoking room or rooms shall be designated in any area covered by Section 67.5(A) of this ordinance. B. Smoking may be permitted in a food service establish- ment in accord with Subdivision (A) of this section or with the provisions of this subdivision. (1) Smoking may be permitted in a separate enclosed room or rooms in a food service establishment. Provided any such room, or any such rooms taken collectively, that the owner, operator, manager, sponsor or person in charge of that facility provides for smoking purposes shall not exceed fifty percent of the seating capacity of that establishment or of the area occupied by customers in that establishment, whichever calculation results in the larger area being maintained as a smoke -free area; and further provided that the provision of such a separate enclosed room or rooms shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this ordinance pertaining to separate enclosed rooms. The satisfaction of the requirements of this ordinance does not eliminate the obligation of the owner, operator or manager of a food service establishment to comply with Section 1399 -o (5) (a) of the Public Health Law, (the "Seventy Percent rule ") . Where such a room or rooms is provided for smoking, notice thereof shall be prominently posted at each entrance to the facility. In such establishments in which one or more separate enclosed rooms are provided for smoking, each patron shall be given an opportunity to state his /her preference regarding where the patron wishes to be seated. (2) Notwithstanding the language of the preceding paragraph of this subdivision, smoking may be permitted in a food service establishment that has a seating capacity of 50 or fewer persons, as certified annually by the owner of such establishment to the City Attorney, provided such establishment complies with the following requirements and complies otherwise with the provisions of this ordinance: 1178 32 March 7, 1990 (a) The owner, operator, manager, sponsor, or person in charge of such facility provides a non - smoking area in such establishment sufficient to meet customer demand, which non - smoking area shall be a contiguous section comprising in any event not less than thirty percent of the seating in such establishment; and (b) The owner, operator, manager, sponsor or person in charge of such facility provides, operates, and maintains in proper working order a ventilation system or electronic air cleansing system with odor removing filters that removes at least 50% of the smoke and associated gases from that place on a continuing basis and provides 4 -5 changes of air in that place per hour. (c) Such food service establishment shall be separately enclosed from any other indoor area open to the public. C. (1) Smoking may be permitted in a bar that does not contain or adjoin a food service establishment. (2) Smoking may be permitted in a bar that contains or adjoins a food service establishment only if the bar is in a separate enclosed room or rooms vis -a -vis that food service establishment; provided, any such bar may be part of a separate enclosed room or rooms that are part of that food service establishment. (3) Notice shall be prominently posted at the main entrance(s) to each bar stating the smoking policy established for that facility. D.(1) Smoking may be permitted in not more than 70 percent of the individual rooms rented to guests at hotels, motels, and all other places of public accommodation that can accommodate ten or more persons. The owner, operator, manager, or person in charge of any such establishment where smoking is permitted in certain individual rooms shall maintain at least thirty percent of the rooms in that facility as smoke -free areas. Notices advising guests of the availability of smoke -free rooms shall be prominently posted in each hotel, motel or other public accommodation covered by this provision. (2) Smoking may be permitted in any room rented to guests at any place of public accommodation that is not covered by clause (1) of this paragraph because that facility can accommodate fewer than ten persons. E. Smoking may be permitted in a jail cell, provided that each occupant of that cell consents thereto. Section 67.7 Regulation of Smoking In Places of Employment In addition to the provisions of Article 13 -E of the Public Health Law governing smoking in places of employment, the following provisions shall apply: A. In those areas that constitute both work places and indoor areas open to the public, the provisions of Section 67.5 of this ordinance shall govern. B. No employee shall be penalized or discriminated against in any way for stating his or her preference for working in a smoke -free area or for working in an area where smoking is allowed, and no employee shall be penalized or discriminated against in any way for seeking full compliance with this ordinance in that employee's work place. 33 March 7, 1990 Section 67.8 Smoking Restriction Inapplicable Except as otherwise specified in this ordinance, the smoking restrictions in this ordinance shall not apply to any area listed in section 1399 -q of the Public Health Law. Section 67.9 General Provisions A. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to deny the (00", owner, operator, manager, or person in charge of any indoor place the right to designate the entire place, or any part thereof, as a smoke -free area. B. Any question concerning the construction of this ordinance shall be resolved in a manner that will provide the greatest protection to all persons from second -hand smoke. C. This ordinance does not permit, and shall not be .� construed in any way to permit smoking in any place where it is � otherwise prohibited by any law, rule, or regulation. d -� D. The owner, operator, manager, or person in charge of a W71 place covered by this ordinance shall request compliance with this ordinance by all persons in such place and shall ask persons who do not comply with this ordinance to leave those premises. E. The owner, operator or manager of a food service establishment shall prominently post notices at each entrance advising that a non - smoking section is available, and each patron shall be given an opportunity to state his /her preference. Section 67.10 Violations A. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or other entity that owns, manages, operates or otherwise controls the use of an indoor area open to the public in which smoking is prohibited or restricted pursuant to this ordinance to fail to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. For violations of this subdivision, it shall be an affirmative defense that during the relevant time period actual control of the indoor area open to the public was not exercised by the respondent, but rather by a lessee, the sublessee, or any other person. To establish an affirmative defense, the respondent shall submit an affidavit and may submit any other relevant proof indicating that the respondent did not exercise actual control of said area during the relevant time period. Such affidavit and other proof shall be mailed by certified mail to the City Attorney within thirty days of receipt of such notice of violation. B. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or other entity that owns, manages or operates a food service establishment in which smoking is restricted to fail to comply with this ordinance or to fail to make good faith efforts to ensure that employees responsible for seating arrangements substantially comply with the requirements of this ordinance. In actions brought for violations of Section 67.5(B) (1) or Section 67.6(B) of this ordinance, it shall be an affirmative defense that notice of a violation was provided to a customer. C. It shall be unlawful for an employer whose place of employment is subject to this ordinance to fail to comply with its provisions. For violations of this ordinance by an employer, it shall be an affirmative defense that the employer has made good faith efforts to ensure that employees comply with the provisions of any policy adopted pursuant to this ordinance for places of employment. D. It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any area where smoking is prohibited or restricted under this ordinance. 380 34 March 7, 1990 Section 67.11 Penalties and Enforcement A. Any person who smokes in any place where this ordinance prohibits smoking shall be guilty of a violation and subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50.00. Each separate act of smoking in a place where this ordinance prohibits smoking shall constitute a separate offense. B. Any owner, operator, manager, or person in charge of any place in which this ordinance prohibits or otherwise regulates smoking who fails to comply with its provisions in the operation and management of such place (including but not limited to creating smoke -free areas, requesting that persons who come to that place comply with the provisions of this ordinance or leave the premises, and posting no- smoking signs) shall be guilty of 'a violation and subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200.00. Each day that any such owner, operator, manager, or person in charge fails to comply with this ordinance shall constitute a separate offense. C. The City Attorney and the City Prosecutor shall have authority to prosecute persons who violate this ordinance through proceedings filed in City Court. D. In order to enforce this ordinance, the City may seek appropriate injunctive relief in a court of competent jurisdiction. E. As part of other inspections which their departments routinely conduct, the Building Commissioner and the Fire Chief shall make provision for inspecting smoke -free areas and no- smoking signs required pursuant to this ordinance. In addition, the Building Commissioner and the Fire Chief shall include standard language in permits or other approvals their respective departments issue requiring the persons who hold those permits or approvals to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. F. The Superintendent of Public Works shall make provision for inspecting on a regular basis all smoke -free areas and no- smoking signs required by this ordinance in all buildings and other structures owned by the City. In addition, the Superintendent of Public Works shall include standard language in permits or other approvals issued by the Department of Public Works for use of City property requiring the persons who hold those permits or approvals to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. G. Where the Mayor determines that any inspection in addition to those covered by subdivision E or F of this section is necessary to enforce this ordinance, the Mayor shall have authority to designate the appropriate City official to carry out such inspection. H. Any person who observes what he or she believes to be a violation of this ordinance may file with the City Attorney a written complaint concerning the alleged violation. Section 67.12 Waivers A. The Mayor or a person specifically designated by the Mayor pursuant to this section may grant a waiver from the application of a specific provision of this ordinance, provided that prior to the granting of any such waiver the applicant for a waiver shall establish in writing that compliance with a specific provision of this ordinance would cause the applicant undue financial hardship or that other factors, including but not limited to physical layout, exist which would render strict compliance unreasonable. I V& I rn 0 ;s cy 1 35 March 7, 1990 It is the purpose of this section to provide an opportunity for waivers to be granted in truly exceptional cases. It is not the purpose of this section to provide a means for avoiding the spirit and letter of this ordinance in the usual cases where compliance with this ordinance will impose some level of burden on those who must take specific actions in order to comply with it. B. Every waiver granted pursuant to this section shall be stated in writing, shall state the basis for granting the waiver, (Wwwl and shall be subject to such conditions or restrictions as may be necessary to minimize the adverse effects of the waiver upon persons subject to an involuntary exposure to second -hand smoke and to ensure that the waiver is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance. c. Waivers granted pursuant to this section shall be valid for a period of not more than twelve months and may be renewed upon application. Applications for renewal shall be reviewed in the same manner as provided for applications for waivers. IJ -�, D. The Mayor or the Mayor's designee may adopt any procedures appropriate for consideration of waivers and waiver renewals under this section. E. Waivers granted pursuant to this section shall not be transferred to any other party without prior written approval by the Mayor or the Mayor's designee. F. Notwithstanding subdivision A of this section, the Mayor shall grant a waiver from the application of this ordinance to any applicant who as the owner, operator or manager of a factory or warehouse demonstrates that the effects of smoking on (4moo'l employees in work areas have been reduced to a minimal degree by factors, including but not limited to, the physical layout or size of such factory or warehouse. This subdivision F of this section shall not apply to work areas in separate enclosed offices, employee cafeterias, lunchrooms or lounges in a factory or warehouse. G. A waiver may be granted pursuant to this section with respect to the separate enclosed room requirement established for food service establishments by Section 67.6(B) of this ordinance if the owner, operator, manager, sponsor or person in charge of a food service establishment demonstrates that a ventilation or electronic air cleansing system with odor removing filters installed at that location will remove at least 90% of the smoke and associated gases from that place on a continuing basis. (Industry standards are: 100 -299 cubic feet per person- 8 - 10 changes per hour; 300 -499 cubic feet per person- 6 - 8 changes per hour; 500 or more cubic feet per person - 6 changes per hour; Metal Lab Environmental Systems.) Any waiver granted pursuant to this subdivision shall contain a condition that the waiver shall be revoked should the ventilation and /or electronic cleansing note be fail adequately the above performance specifications o maintained - (i.e. filter changes per manufacturer specifications_) In addition, any waiver granted pursuant to this subdivision shall specifically state that the waiver applies only to the separate enclosed room requirement of Section 67.6(B) of this ordinance and does not in any way waive the requirements of Article 13 -E of the Public Health Law as they apply to that food service establishment. `1 ;_ 36 March 7, 1990 Section 67.13 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. Section 3 Effective Date lk This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance 11J with law upon publication of a notice as provided in Section 3.11 (B) of the Ithaca City Charter. Carried Unanimously Noise Ordinance - Report Alderperson Peterson reported that the Committee is still working on amendments to the Noise Ordinance. Motion to Extend Meetinq Deadline By Alderperson Romanowski: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder RESOLVED, That this Common Council meeting be extended until 11:45 p.m. Carried Unanimously * 16.1 NYSCA Grant Application WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is committed to the improvement of conditions in the Central Business District, and WHEREAS, one element of the proposed activities to be undertaken in the CBD involves an evaluation of the physical form of the area and the development of alternate design schemes for the future, and WHEREAS, the New York State Council on the Arts ( NYSCA) may make grant money available to fund such activities, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council does hereby authorize the submission of a grant application to NYSCA to fund an urban design study for the Central Business District of the City of Ithaca, and be it further RESOLVED, That the budget for the project shall be structured as follows: NYSCA Grant City of Ithaca Total Project Budget $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 30,000 and, be it further (maximum share) RESOLVED, That the grant application shall request funding over a two -year period, beginning in 1990, with one -half of the total project costs to be expended in each year, and be it further RESOLVED, That the $10,000 share by the City of Ithaca shall be taken from unexpended salary for the currently vacant Planner II position. _J Ayes (8) - Blanchard, Romanowski, Peterson, Schroeder, Daley, Johnson, Golder, Cummings Nays (2) - Booth, Hoffman Carried * 16.2 Planning Department 1990 Work Program By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Administrative Code requires that both the Common Council and the Board of Planning and Development approve an annual work program for the Department of Planning and Development, and 37 March 7, 1990 WHEREAS, the Board of Planning and Development and the Planning and Development Committee have jointly reviewed the proposed draft of the 1990 Work Program; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Common Council does hereby approve the 1990 Work Program for the Department of Planning and Development. Discussion followed on the floor. (No vote taken). Due to a fire emergency in Council Chambers, Fire Chief Olmstead ordered Council to evacuate the Chambers. (Remaining items on the agenda will be handled at a later date). Callista F. Paolangel' City Clerk r Benja in Nichols Mayor cl:7r)